Thoughts on NoP

THEMAGICkMAN

Thoughts everyone?

Irgy

If tiebreakers are "everyone's a winner" the yes the version where a hundred people tie on max points would be great...

Otherwise I prefer the new version. Though some sort of event that's hard but doesn't have secondaries would be nice. It feels like you never actually just play the game to win. Even quickbattle feels like it has a secondary objective "win in two minutes" if you want to compete.

madwren

I like NoP, but having some objectives be so dependent on RNG is admittedly disheartening.

bk1234

The problem is the objectives are RNG dependent. I had two black losses where I played very long, well controlled matches. As soon as I got to the point where I would win on my next turn the wrath of RNGesus was reigned on me like the 40 day flood.

Match 1 vs Garruk -- 12/12 dragon and Sarkhan's ult loaded. AI at 36 health, I am at 19 -- AI has a full hand of empty cards. One cascade, AI launches pig, UC, UC, Pig. ONE CASCADE. Minimum 74 manna in one turn.

Match 2 vs Koth -- similar situation -- AI launches double Olivia with slayers plate minimum 49 manna in one turn.

Neither of these were a 5 match with an extra turn -- both were 1 turn matches. Koth did not hit his first.

AettThorn

Failed to get both bonus ribbons on my red node matches because of my opponents. Goal is to win the match in 5 rounds or less. Significantly easier to do when going against someone like Chandra1 or Nissa than it is against Sarkhan or Arlinn, who have a ton of HP. Those were my two opponents for my red matches. Tried to burn them down as quickly as I could, but generating that much damage that quickly is incredibly difficult. Against other opponents I would have won in 5 both times.

I really hate objectives that depend on getting the RNG to help you out three times. 1) Opponent choice, 2) Initial card selection (getting a starting hand of three kill spells doesn't help here) and 3) initial board setup (no reds, no luck). Can be extremely frustrating knowing that you're not going to hit the objective as soon as you start the fight.

madwren

bken1234 wrote:

The problem is the objectives are RNG dependent. I had two black losses where I played very long, well controlled matches. As soon as I got to the point where I would win on my next turn the wrath of RNGesus was reigned on me like the 40 day flood.

Match 1 vs Garruk -- 12/12 dragon and Sarkhan's ult loaded. AI at 36 health, I am at 19 -- AI has a full hand of empty cards. One cascade, AI launches pig, UC, UC, Pig. ONE CASCADE. Minimum 74 manna in one turn.

Match 2 vs Koth -- similar situation -- AI launches double Olivia with slayers plate minimum 49 manna in one turn.

Neither of these were a 5 match with an extra turn -- both were 1 turn matches. Koth did not hit his first.

Mine isn't as egregious, but just for fun.

My Saheeli had a 16/16 Octopus and 12/12 Colossus on the board, plus a Startled Awake (though that doesn't matter). I had a Moon in hand that needed 2 mana to fill.

AI had dropped a Warleader the turn before. Warleader was 3/3, AI has 4 cards in hand with zero mana.

He manages to summon a Resolute Blademaster, a SECOND Resolute Blademaster, a loyalty Hoplite, and two Smites to kill both blockers. Boom, swing for 26
Turn after that, another Hoplite, swing for 46 more, and suddenly I'm almost dead.

I rallied (hah) and won, but it's hard to beat a 50-mana turn, and I had what could be considered a near-ideal board state with two large blockers and a removal in hand.

Mersicidal

One thing that confuses me is the objective on the black node, am i supposed to win with 20 hp or less? or it has to be UNDER 20 hp.
If it is the 20 and under then i guess this game doesn't like me.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2Dkf ... DZfREdvU00

thats the link to the screen shot

hawkyh1

Mersicidal wrote:

One thing that confuses me is the objective on the black node, am i supposed to win with 20 hp or less? or it has to be UNDER 20 hp.
If it is the 20 and under then i guess this game doesn't like me.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2Dkf ... DZfREdvU00

thats the link to the screen shot

you can check that the objectives turn white before winning.
(the writing is sometimes subject to typos)

HH

James13

I'm biting my tongue on a couple of these because I don't want to sacrifice an advantage I'm apparently enjoying.

On the original poll question, I don't mind set specific or thematic objectives (missing option three).

wereotter

AettThorn wrote:

Failed to get both bonus ribbons on my red node matches because of my opponents. Goal is to win the match in 5 rounds or less. Significantly easier to do when going against someone like Chandra1 or Nissa than it is against Sarkhan or Arlinn, who have a ton of HP. Those were my two opponents for my red matches. Tried to burn them down as quickly as I could, but generating that much damage that quickly is incredibly difficult. Against other opponents I would have won in 5 both times.

I really hate objectives that depend on getting the RNG to help you out three times. 1) Opponent choice, 2) Initial card selection (getting a starting hand of three kill spells doesn't help here) and 3) initial board setup (no reds, no luck). Can be extremely frustrating knowing that you're not going to hit the objective as soon as you start the fight.

I never got the red objective due to being matched against shut down Jace decks literally every time. Though I think the matching system was just trolling me the entire event.

Put a bunch of reach creatures in Kiora for the lose 10 or less life? Deck is full of Wharf Infiltraitor and Forgotten Creation, but unblockable.

White node? How about an Oath of Liliana from my opponent every time I summon a creature. I didn't even attempt to get the black objective. It seemed too much of a liability. Maybe if I had a low-level black walker I'd have used it to already be down and facing a weaker deck.

madwren

Mersicidal wrote:

One thing that confuses me is the objective on the black node, am i supposed to win with 20 hp or less? or it has to be UNDER 20 hp.
If it is the 20 and under then i guess this game doesn't like me.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2Dkf ... DZfREdvU00

thats the link to the screen shot

I had 20 life exactly and received credit for the objective in this last set.

However, there's a known bug where if you use lifegain during the match, it will mess up the objective. Thus if you used, say, Olivia, or Shadows of the Past, etc., you run the risk of it not recognizing you being at 20 life for purposes of the objective.

Irgy

I just want to make a comparison among all these complaints.

Random tiebreaker is not the "what we're asking for" option but as far as non-greedy options go, well it's much better than time anyway.

Random AI cascades are frustrating, but they're still better than random tiebreakers, because it's at least within the game. Plus, even though some things you can't do anything about most things you can still minimise the chances of them happening.

The reality is fair objectives just means tiebreakers, and given the choice I'd rather lose playing the game than to the mostly external factors that affect time.

babar3355

I can complain until my fingers bleed about how unfair it is that I had a Olivia, Piggy, Valakut cascade ruin my chances for top 25 in a single blue turn node as well, but that's the game. Perhaps I could have set my deck differently, perhaps I left the board too open, or perhaps I just got unlucky. But that's what fun about the game. If you want a game that contains no randomness and no luck, I recommend chess.

That being said, the NoP is my favorite of the current events. The objectives are very challenging and even with perfect decks you can't guarantee them, especially the blue and red nodes. If you get a bad starting board or hand you will not kill the opponent within 5 rounds regardless of your deck. This led to only 2-3 perfect scores in platinum which is refreshing compared to the constant 20+ perfects in ****, EMN, old NoP, etc.

My problem with the event is that it is just too short. If you want to make it only 22 hours, that is fine, but let us start with 2-3 nodes. for a total of 20-25 games instead of just 15. It really helps reduce the impact of randomness and let the best players and decks shine though. Also, not thrilled about the nerfed awards for coalitions.

And finally, it would be nice to know that the players with perfect scores earned them rather than abusing the well documented back door cheats that are clearly impacting the game.

Crimmy

I want the option you didn't list - I like the set/archetype specific objectives. Like Terror in the Shadows, but more variety. Please mix them up and keep them fresh, keep me interested. Give me the challenge of making a deck based on Shamans and Overload, or Knights and Horrors.

madwren

babar3355 wrote:

If you want a game that contains no randomness and no luck, I recommend chess.

That's something of a straw man. Not wanting poorly-designed objectives that diminish player agency and remove strategy from the equation is far different from saying "I don't want any randomness or luck."

People aren't complaining solely because they have a few losses. It happens. People know that. However, when they're giving rewards away to a very small handful of people in 6000-person brackets while utilizing a highly flawed tiebreaker system, then yes, people are going to complain about buggy code, shortsighted objectives, and no-win scenarios that are costing them prizes.

Dismissing these valid complaints with a generic "well, that's just the game" is incredibly reductive.

Ohboy

madwren wrote:

babar3355 wrote:

If you want a game that contains no randomness and no luck, I recommend chess.

That's something of a straw man. Not wanting poorly-designed objectives that diminish player agency and remove strategy from the equation is far different from saying "I don't want any randomness or luck."

People aren't complaining solely because they have a few losses. It happens. People know that. However, when they're giving rewards away to a very small handful of people in 6000-person brackets while utilizing a highly flawed tiebreaker system, then yes, people are going to complain about buggy code, shortsighted objectives, and no-win scenarios that are costing them prizes.

Dismissing these valid complaints with a generic "well, that's just the game" is incredibly reductive.

This is the entire quote:

I can complain until my fingers bleed about how unfair it is that I had a Olivia, Piggy, Valakut cascade ruin my chances for top 25 in a single blue turn node as well, but that's the game. Perhaps I could have set my deck differently, perhaps I left the board too open, or perhaps I just got unlucky. But that's what fun about the game. If you want a game that contains no randomness and no luck, I recommend chess.

He was talking specifically about losing to chance. Someone's building a strawman, and it isn't him.

There are also no no-win objectives in nop. This complaint only holds water in ****.

madwren

Ohboy wrote:

madwren wrote:

babar3355 wrote:

If you want a game that contains no randomness and no luck, I recommend chess.

That's something of a straw man. Not wanting poorly-designed objectives that diminish player agency and remove strategy from the equation is far different from saying "I don't want any randomness or luck."

People aren't complaining solely because they have a few losses. It happens. People know that. However, when they're giving rewards away to a very small handful of people in 6000-person brackets while utilizing a highly flawed tiebreaker system, then yes, people are going to complain about buggy code, shortsighted objectives, and no-win scenarios that are costing them prizes.

Dismissing these valid complaints with a generic "well, that's just the game" is incredibly reductive.

This is the entire quote:

I can complain until my fingers bleed about how unfair it is that I had a Olivia, Piggy, Valakut cascade ruin my chances for top 25 in a single blue turn node as well, but that's the game. Perhaps I could have set my deck differently, perhaps I left the board too open, or perhaps I just got unlucky. But that's what fun about the game. If you want a game that contains no randomness and no luck, I recommend chess.

He was talking specifically about losing to chance. Someone's building a strawman, and it isn't him.

There are also no no-win objectives in nop. This complaint only holds water in ****.

After multiple posts in a thread about randomness, including complaints about said randomness and the vagaries of RNG, he specifically writes a paragraph addressing said randomness--concluding with a "if you want a game that contains no randomness...."

I'll certainly admit I could misconstrue his intent, but it's a pretty straight through-line. No one said they wanted a game with no randomness. Summarizing people's complaints with that response does a disservice to those complaints.

Also, if you think that complaints about objectives in NoP have absolutely no relation to frustration about objectives in other events, you have a very strange method of compartmentalization.

bk1234

babar3355 wrote:

My problem with the event is that it is just too short. If you want to make it only 22 hours, that is fine, but let us start with 2-3 nodes. for a total of 20-25 games instead of just 15. It really helps reduce the impact of randomness and let the best players and decks shine though.

I agree with this -- I also think shortening the event can lead to MORE ties as many people don't suffer losses until the event drags on a bit.

When RNGesus is smiling on you, it's quite easy to go 15 games without a loss or dropped bonuses -- in fact I noticed that the tie for 104 (1 dropped point) was much higher than normal.