Hibernum_JC wrote: We will look at the stats and re-evaluate the balancing for this speed objective specifically. I understand that it is most likely overtuned and while it is possible it is very difficult to achieve. As for my other comment, I think I should rephrase it to make it a bit clearer. Events like this are made to be fun for all levels of players, from beginners to end-game players who have a high understanding of the game. As such, the encounters vary in difficulty. We purposefully balanced this event so the first encounters are easier than they were before so they are more accessible, while the last encounters are harder than before so that the end-game players also are challenged and do not steamroll the entire event. The difficulty being higher contributes to that and makes you rethink your decks and how you approach combat. Unlike PvP where you are always on equal ground in terms of mana gains, hp and abilities, in PvE we can design encounters that have a very different challenge to them. If I can say one thing a bit more personally, it's this. The usual philosophy I have when designing and balancing events is usually to try and make them harder than what I usually think. The logic behind that is that there obviously are better players than me, who find card combinations we haven't thought of and who are extremely good at exploiting certain aspects of the game. This is 100% to be expected, and I want some of these encounters to be challenging for even our strongest players. Beating everything easily is really the opposite of fun. I hope this clears things up, but I will seriously look into the speed objective. Like I said, I achieved it, but it was pretty hard, and I most likely went at it a bit too harsh this time around. The beauty of the game is that we are able to fix our mistakes in the upcoming times this event will run.
Hibernum_JC wrote: I hope this clears things up, but I will seriously look into the speed objective. Like I said, I achieved it, but it was pretty hard, and I most likely went at it a bit too harsh this time around. The beauty of the game is that we are able to fix our mistakes in the upcoming times this event will run.
Hibernum_JC wrote: We purposefully balanced this event so the first encounters are easier than they were before so they are more accessible, while the last encounters are harder than before so that the end-game players also are challenged and do not steamroll the entire event.
Monkeynutts wrote: Beating Tezzeret is stupid as well. So many interactions that you cannot beat him unless you're lucky.
wereotter wrote: Hibernum_JC wrote: We purposefully balanced this event so the first encounters are easier than they were before so they are more accessible, while the last encounters are harder than before so that the end-game players also are challenged and do not steamroll the entire event. What part of win in three rounds while also energizing 5 gems from the 1.1 node is easy for new players?
Hibernum_JC wrote: If I can say one thing a bit more personally, it's this. The usual philosophy I have when designing and balancing events is usually to try and make them harder than what I usually think. The logic behind that is that there obviously are better players than me, who find card combinations we haven't thought of and who are extremely good at exploiting certain aspects of the game. This is 100% to be expected, and I want some of these encounters to be challenging for even our strongest players. Beating everything easily is really the opposite of fun.
bken1234 wrote: Hibernum_JC wrote: If I can say one thing a bit more personally, it's this. The usual philosophy I have when designing and balancing events is usually to try and make them harder than what I usually think. The logic behind that is that there obviously are better players than me, who find card combinations we haven't thought of and who are extremely good at exploiting certain aspects of the game. This is 100% to be expected, and I want some of these encounters to be challenging for even our strongest players. Beating everything easily is really the opposite of fun. It's nice that your perceived philosophy goes into this, but have you ever considered talking to people who actually play the game -- at all levels?? I spend a lot of time talking to players at every level from 'just started a week ago' to 'downloaded the first week it came out'-- and one thing is clear -- no one is loving this event (usually you have at least a few -- can't find anyone who wants to do this again next week -- in fact I know of at least 3 top 15 players who are quitting the game over it and several more other players) We, as a community, have been asking over and over and over and over for more communication -- what we get are graphics, features and events that are almost always contrary to what we say is fun, engaging and interesting -- but it's nice to know that YOUR opinion matters when making these things. I played another game, much like this one for 3 years -- it folded several months ago -- because they just couldn't get a handle on cheaters -- but they did communication right. They did focus groups, they posted dev ideas on their forums and on Facebook. It wasn't a huge game, but the community valued it and stuck with it through a lot of issues because the developers valued us. Your community doesn't value you -- we value each other and Brigby -- but not Hibernum -- more and more the engagement and desire to invest time or money into this game is slipping. I have asked probably 5+ times on several different threads to see a video and decklist of you completing 3.1 in 4 or less turns. Not because I don't believe it's not possible, but because this is educational and interesting. You haven't even once replied to this request -- even to say no -- but it was cool to gloat that it's doable, and it's cool to gloat that you designed the whole thing based on what YOU think is best -- without any feedback from actual players. Whatever.
madwren wrote: A lot of people seem to think JC was gloating--I've seen it referenced many times. Bken's is the latest post, but this isn't picking on her, it's addressed to everyone. I didn't read his post that way at all. He gave a clear response to things that had been previously said, and immediately recognized it might be too difficult, and later followed up with an admittance it might be overtuned, and that he'd be looking at it. That's great. Do I have many complaints about the game? Yes. Do I agree that the event isn't a direction I like the game to take? Yes, I've said exactly that. Do I agree more communication is necessary throughout the forums? Yes. But using emotionally-charged words like "defensive" and "gloating" doesn't contribute anything positive to the process. Maybe it's because I work in customer service--I'm a librarian--and put up with a lot of unwarranted anger on a daily (if not hourly) basis; however, just because someone is upset about a perceived slight doesn't mean that they're right in hurling accusations my way. It just detracts from whatever they're trying to express. If they keep it up, then I absolutely will walk away and tell them I will not help them. When Brigby first showed up, it wasn't all smiles and rainbows. People jumped on him for everything. I'm glad the community finally calmed down and gave him a chance, but if every time the devs come in here they meet with hostile attacks for every explanation they give, then I don't blame them for writing us off as not worth the tinykitty effort. You don't have to agree. I sure don't, and I've said as much. But it certainly doesn't need to escalate to the point it has.
Hibernum_JC wrote: ... We purposefully balanced this event so the first encounters are easier than they were before so they are more accessible, while the last encounters are harder than before so that the end-game players also are challenged and do not steamroll the entire event. The difficulty being higher contributes to that and makes you rethink your decks and how you approach combat. Unlike PvP where you are always on equal ground in terms of mana gains, hp and abilities, in PvE we can design encounters that have a very different challenge to them. ...
Monkeynutts wrote: Have a pass button that skips the node opponent to the next. Have it consume one of the games so there is a penalty.
Irgy wrote: The problem with this is not that it isn't winnable. The problem is that it shouldn't be winnable. If there's combos which are capable of achieving this objective, especially if reliably, then it's simply a very poor reflection on card balance. It's something to be ashamed of not something to rub in everyone's faces with this objective.