Poll: Eliminate cascades?

Options
AngelForge
AngelForge Posts: 325 Mover and Shaker
edited February 2017 in MtGPQ General Discussion
Hi,

I was thinking about the mechanic that new gems fall in, right after they were destroyed on the board, giving you the chance of getting new ones combined.
I personally don't like that mechanic because I feel puzzle quest becomes more of a luck quest.
So, I'd like to know if you like the chance of (theoretically) endless cascades or if you like to see that mechanic vanish.

Regards!
Failed to load the poll.

Comments

  • Steeme
    Steeme Posts: 784 Critical Contributor
    Options
    I feel like the game would become too slow if you removed "cascades". It is a natural occurrence of puzzle quest, it should remain.
  • AngelForge
    AngelForge Posts: 325 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    Steeme wrote:
    I feel like the game would become too slow if you removed "cascades". It is a natural occurrence of puzzle quest, it should remain.

    I can't really copy that. A big cascade rather leads an easy win or a loss, in my experience. In fact, an cascade of your opponent can slow the game significantly.
    I'm not in general against cascades on the board that you see (the actual puzzle part that you do, to let gems fall on each other to get more than the 3 you combined in the first place).

    "In between" solutions are also possible like you have diminishing returns (like 3rd combination get -1, 4th gets -2, ....). You could still get loyalty from that but your additional mana gain approaches zero.
  • Muche
    Muche Posts: 57 Match Maker
    Options
    AngelForge wrote:
    "In between" solutions are also possible like you have diminishing returns (like 3rd combination get -1, 4th gets -2, ....). You could still get loyalty from that but your additional mana gain approaches zero.

    Yes, for an alternative implementation see e.g. https://d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=629519#p629519.
  • Sorin81
    Sorin81 Posts: 545 Critical Contributor
    Options
    I have no problem with cascades. While I sit back in awe when the AI strings together match after match I am equally (and pleasantly) surprised when it happens for me. I think cascades are a vital part of the game now and add more flair to a match.
    I don't feel like any solution is necessary.
  • babar3355
    babar3355 Posts: 1,128 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Its a game, there needs to be an element of luck or it wont be even remotely fun.
  • Astralwind
    Astralwind Posts: 98 Match Maker
    Options
    I think cascades are fine. But for abilities that try to wipe gem boards to trigger cascades randomly, perhaps those costs should be raised by a little more to prevent abuse.
  • AngelForge
    AngelForge Posts: 325 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    Oh well, this is quite clear to the favour of cascades! :-/
    But if I would have not asked, I would have never known... icon_e_wink.gif

    Thank you for voting! icon_e_smile.gif
  • andrewvanmarle
    andrewvanmarle Posts: 976 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Sorin81 wrote:
    I have no problem with cascades. While I sit back in awe when the AI strings together match after match I am equally (and pleasantly) surprised when it happens for me. I think cascades are a vital part of the game now and add more flair to a match.
    I don't feel like any solution is necessary.

    THIS!
  • hawkyh1
    hawkyh1 Posts: 780 Critical Contributor
    Options
    deck choice and gem matches on the players turn can
    help encourage/discourage future cascades happening.
    some players like cascades. I actively look for cascades,
    especially with some decks so as to get abilities out
    faster. I think there is enough control by the player for
    cascades to stay and have the game be fun.
    some planswalker ability price takes into account the
    likely chance of cascades better than others(nissa
    versus koth) but that is a balancing problem.

    HH

Categories