bken1234 wrote: 3. PW specific objectives -- and I'm not talking about energize or fabricate. Let's see what happens when we have to play a couple wolfies or gain a certain amount of life. I've never played Sorin in an event. This could be an opportunity to force me outside of my shell.
buscemi wrote: bken1234 wrote: 3. PW specific objectives -- and I'm not talking about energize or fabricate. Let's see what happens when we have to play a couple wolfies or gain a certain amount of life. I've never played Sorin in an event. This could be an opportunity to force me outside of my shell. This intrigues me. PW specific goals, like 'play X werewolves' or 'play X zombies' have so far often been too limiting as far as deckbuilding goes, but I could definitely get behind an objective like 'Be Liliana1', or 'Be a mono-colored PW', or even just color a node in an event, so that only PWs of that color may be selected for it.
Mainloop25 wrote: I like this idea, but I wish we had more nodes to play these different ideas. In a coalition event you are playing for your other team mates as much as yourself, so messing around and not getting extra objective points adds up. I like OGW events because after I get my prizes, I like to see if I can beat the bosses using unorthodox decks/planeswalkers. If they brought back Avacyn as Story Mode with unlimited nodes for crystals as rewards, like original story mode, that would make me very happy.
GoldenTalon wrote: A way to increase difficulty could be the use of a timer. "Beat the opponent in under 3 minutes" or some similar limit. It could then also be used in a tie breaker system as well as the point based ranking system. Any ties could be broken by those completing all battles in the least amount of time. Having a timer tick helps creates an urgency that can lead to mistakes and thus more separation in scores. And hopefully with the new battle log feature any cheating that has been occurring with fast matches will be found and eliminated as an issue. This could also lead to other event types where the objective isn't points based but speed and you can create decks without secondary objective limitations.
bken1234 wrote: Ok, we get it -- despite our MANY, MANY, MANY please for more story mode -- it isn't coming. What we get now are PVE events. For the most part, I like PVE events -- I'm a Story Mode player so this is a natural fit for me. The problem with PVE right now is that it's the same thing over and over and over for like MONTHS. It occurred to me today, as I'm still sulking from a PVE event I don't see myself enjoying ever, that there's definitely room to make PVE awesome. Here are a couple ideas: 1. Either / Or objectives -- same difficulty level, same number of points. It would allow us to play the event one way, and then play it a completely different way on subsequent turns through (as we are all aware we shuffle through it several times). 2. Rotating objectives (this was actually Alve's idea)-- ie they change each time the event is repeated. This would be super cool. When I gave up on 3.1 Sunday, I decided to make up my own objectives and had a lot of fun just playing different decks through it. 3. PW specific objectives -- and I'm not talking about energize or fabricate. Let's see what happens when we have to play a couple wolfies or gain a certain amount of life. I've never played Sorin in an event. This could be an opportunity to force me outside of my shell. Since being mad is a moot point because no one at Hibernum cares -- let's come up with some ways to make this event, which we are going to have to play at least 8-10 more times more fun. Whatcha got?
buscemi wrote: This intrigues me. PW specific goals, like 'play X werewolves' or 'play X zombies' have so far often been too limiting as far as deckbuilding goes, but I could definitely get behind an objective like 'Be Liliana1', or 'Be a mono-colored PW', or even just color a node in an event, so that only PWs of that color may be selected for it.
Hibernum_JC wrote: 2- Rotating objectives is a difficult thing because of production constraints. Let me explain - Every time we make an event, it needs to go through QA. If we change objectives, we absolutely 100% need to pass it through QA again, because it's a gameplay-related data change and things might break. Testing an event 5-6 times vs testing an event once is a huge undertaking. We have limited QA, and sometimes we have to make decisions based on the resources available to us. I will say, however, that I completely agree with the idea and it's something very interesting. I'll bring it up further to see if we can do something upstream to simplify this.
Hibernum_JC wrote: 1- Either/or objectives (I'm assuming you mean objective 2 being something and 3 being something opposite, so that both can't be completed at once) is something I always consciously never done because I felt that having 2 objectives which are completely unable to be done at the same time can feel bad for a lot of players. If it's something you guys like and want, then I can definitely do something like that in the future. I completely understand the logic behind your proposition, and I think it's interesting - I never explored that possibility but it's definitely very interesting.
Hibernum_JC wrote: 3- We did have more Planeswalker-specific objectives (Play X Vampires/Werewolves/etc) but the general reaction to this was bad because it forced deckbuilding into a situation that was much too narrow. We've loosened these objectives in Kaladesh (Energize can be done with Planeswalker abilities alone, for example, so it's easier to complete using specific Planeswalkers but not impossible if you're playing a different one provided you have some Kaladesh cards).
madwren wrote: Thanks for the response. I'm confused, though. Didn't Avacyn's Madness have exactly these kinds of objectives for 6 of its 9 levels? This is the list of mutually-exclusive objectives: Quilled Wolf: 10 or less damage, -or- 25 or more damage Stormrider Spirit: 3 or less spells, -or- 6 or more spells Hulking Devil: 3 or less supports -or-6 or more supports Twins of Maurer Estate: 40 or more hp remaining -or-15 or less hp remaining Heir to the Night: Lose 3 or less creatures -or- lose 6 or more creatures Flameblade Angel: kill less than 4 creatures -or- kill more than 8 creatures Personally, I LOVED these objectives. I loved that different people of different strengths and skills could pick which direction they wanted to take to tackle a difficult matchup.
madwren wrote: I much prefer "energize" to "summon X of a specific creature type." One of the biggest problems with the "summon X" is that before some late revamps, the sheer number of specific creatures was too high. Games are fast, especially in plat. Spending the entire matchup trying not to win, so that you can summon your 5th vehicle (for example), is a huge drag on player enjoyment. When the objectives were changed to "summon 2", everyone was a lot happier, because then including and casting those creature types happened much more organically as part of the play experience.
Hibernum_JC wrote: madwren wrote: Thanks for the response. I'm confused, though. Didn't Avacyn's Madness have exactly these kinds of objectives for 6 of its 9 levels? This is the list of mutually-exclusive objectives: Quilled Wolf: 10 or less damage, -or- 25 or more damage Stormrider Spirit: 3 or less spells, -or- 6 or more spells Hulking Devil: 3 or less supports -or-6 or more supports Twins of Maurer Estate: 40 or more hp remaining -or-15 or less hp remaining Heir to the Night: Lose 3 or less creatures -or- lose 6 or more creatures Flameblade Angel: kill less than 4 creatures -or- kill more than 8 creatures Personally, I LOVED these objectives. I loved that different people of different strengths and skills could pick which direction they wanted to take to tackle a difficult matchup. Those objectives were designed by a different designer (Sam, who no longer works on the project, who you maybe saw in a video. Incidentally, I've never appeared in a video!) and I wasn't involved in his decisions over the design of the event. Conflicting objectives, if you guys actually find them interesting, will most likely come back in the future.
Hibernum_JC wrote: Those objectives were designed by a different designer (Sam, who no longer works on the project, who you maybe saw in a video. Incidentally, I've never appeared in a video!) and I wasn't involved in his decisions over the design of the event. Conflicting objectives, if you guys actually find them interesting, will most likely come back in the future.
Hibernum_JC wrote: There was a reason why we picked exactly 5 vehicles - this sort of forces you to put 2 vehicles in your deck, although you can sort of game it through some mechanics. The problem with "Summon 2" is that while it does happen organically, it basically means "put a card of that type in your deck and put no effort towards it", which is kind of contrary to objectives. We want them to be deliberate, and that you have to put in a bit of work for them, play smartly and get them. I understand that in Platinum games go fast, but that's because you feel like you have to go fast (outside of Quick Battle, you don't have that much of an incentive to go that fast) and not because you're required to go fast. I prefer the design of the Energize X, because you have many more ways to approach it, rather than just summon x creature types.
Hibernum_JC wrote: I understand that in Platinum games go fast, but that's because you feel like you have to go fast (outside of Quick Battle, you don't have that much of an incentive to go that fast) and not because you're required to go fast.