Big Fan of ENRAGED Events

Skidoo

Wow, this branch of the forums is overflowing with negativity. I mostly surf the Strategy forum, aside from complaining last month about the abysmal drop rate (which has dramatically improved for me since Eldritch Moon dropped), so I hadn't realized everything got so ugly here. Here's a positive a little slice of positivity.

I LOVE the Enraged events! I have my 3 favorite decks I play in most events. But when the Enraged rolls around, I trot out my old CHANDRA deck. Enraged makes her third ability hit for double damage. 50 points of damage in one pop is massive, and often a game finisher. I've even tweaked the deck to make it as cheap and fast as possible, which isn't usually a recipe for success in other events or QBs. With only 5 turns til double damage, it behooves you to get as much out as quickly as possible to start pouring on the damage before they drop their heavy hitters.

The deck has a bunch of cards I rarely play with otherwise. I have my favorite rares & Mythics that see a lot of use in other decks. But my Chandra Enraged deck is mostly cheap Goblins and buffs. Zada is my key rare, but otherwise it's Goblin Piledriver and other cheap Gobs and Murderer's Axe and the like.

There's a lot in this forum about how Emrakul sucked and poo-pooing other events. This is my attempt at a different approach - sharing one thing I like.

bk1234

I'm DYING for NOP Enraged. Let us put our best decks forward and fight it out this way.

EDHdad

I love, love, love enraged. HOWEVER, if an enraged event is to have secondary objectives, please make them something sane which can reasonably be accomplished in a 5-turn match.

The overwhelming negativity you see is due to the fact that chasing the secondary objectives in Emrakul's Corruption means that you have to **** your deck, destroy your own creatures, and that a game which would last 3 minutes if the only objective is "win", ends up taking 30 minutes to cast 6 Werewolves / Vampires AND 8 Eldrazi.

The highly competitive coalitions will require their players to get most of the secondary objectives, regardless of how ridiculous those objectives are.

Volrak

For all its flaws, the EC event does seem to address one problem: that of a big group of players tied for first place. As an exercise in constructivity, all are welcome to raise specific, concrete suggestions of alternative ways that this problem could be solved.

EDHdad

For all its flaws, the EC event does seem to address one problem: that of a big group of players tied for first place. As an exercise in constructivity, all are welcome to raise specific, concrete suggestions of alternative ways that this problem could be solved.

The simplest would be to give everyone the same prize in the case of a tie. If 50 people are tied for first place, give them all the first place prize.

Another solution would be to give everyone the same prize for achieving the same number of points - like the way the Progression awards work. If your coalition gets 3,000 points (or whatever), everyone gets a Mythic, and then everyone can get on with their lives.

Another solution would be to see how many creatures / supports / spells or whatnot are cast in a typical Quick Battle game, and base the benchmarks on that. In what percentage of Quick Battle Games does a player cast 8 Vampires AND 8 Eldrazi? 0%? Lower?

Why not have goals which people already are trying to achieve? Have a creature with 10 or more power, or deal 20 or more damage to the opponent in a single turn - stuff like that. This could be based on the actual results of actual quick battle games. Like goal #1 could be something which is already achieved in 50% of Quick Battle games, and goal #2 could be something which is already achieved in 25% of Quick Battle games.

Ohboy

EDHdad wrote:

For all its flaws, the EC event does seem to address one problem: that of a big group of players tied for first place. As an exercise in constructivity, all are welcome to raise specific, concrete suggestions of alternative ways that this problem could be solved.

The simplest would be to give everyone the same prize in the case of a tie. If 50 people are tied for first place, give them all the first place prize.

Another solution would be to give everyone the same prize for achieving the same number of points - like the way the Progression awards work. If your coalition gets 3,000 points (or whatever), everyone gets a Mythic, and then everyone can get on with their lives.

Another solution would be to see how many creatures / supports / spells or whatnot are cast in a typical Quick Battle game, and base the benchmarks on that. In what percentage of Quick Battle Games does a player cast 8 Vampires AND 8 Eldrazi? 0%? Lower?

Why not have goals which people already are trying to achieve? Have a creature with 10 or more power, or deal 20 or more damage to the opponent in a single turn - stuff like that. This could be based on the actual results of actual quick battle games. Like goal #1 could be something which is already achieved in 50% of Quick Battle games, and goal #2 could be something which is already achieved in 25% of Quick Battle games.

That's a great idea. End the game in x turns. But then the complaints would flood in about bad draws making people lose objectives.

I prefer to see more ways to compete rather than a 50 way tie getting top prizes. Casting 8 Eldrazi is out there, but it does do the job.

The problem isn't that it's boring. The problem is that people feel like they deserve to get all bonus points. That's why only boring objectives can be tried to break ties.

Like I said great idea on stuff like deal x damage in single turn, or use only x creatures, or end game in x turns. The problem with these is that people feel entitled to a perfect score, and will complain even worse than the current event, where they at least know they can do full score.

majincob

I like the idea of multi-game stretch goals, like kill 200 enemy creatures in the event or cast 100 spells in one game or something. Then your prizes are determined by the number of stretch goals met (not specific prizes tied to specific goals) So if you complete 1/12 goals you get but if you complete 12/12 stretch goals you get max prize like a BB, mythic card, . This could encourage switching up decks mid-event and would also allow people to not HAVE to grind out perfect games every time.

Skidoo

majincob wrote:

I like the idea of multi-game stretch goals, like kill 200 enemy creatures in the event or cast 100 spells in one game or something. Then your prizes are determined by the number of stretch goals met (not specific prizes tied to specific goals) So if you complete 1/12 goals you get but if you complete 12/12 stretch goals you get max prize like a BB, mythic card, . This could encourage switching up decks mid-event and would also allow people to not HAVE to grind out perfect games every time.

I think you're really on to something here. This is a great idea. On the one hand it's fun and motivating to the players, on the other it's not just a hand out from D3 to quiet player discontent.

I'd be happy for starters if they'd let us know the secondary objectives before we pick our PWs. I'd make different choices going in if I knew the goal was Werewolves vs Eldrazi vs supports.

majincob

Skidoo wrote:

I'd be happy for starters if they'd let us know the secondary objectives before we pick our PWs. I'd make different choices going in if I knew the goal was Werewolves vs Eldrazi vs supports.

They do post that information on the forums when they do update announcements, but it would be more accessible if it was in-app. Also there's a large community in slack chat where we share information like that. Anyone can message me their email address to get an invite.