Maxed Decks (objectives and formats)

ElfNeedsFood

speakupaskanswer said:

Making the AI better would be nice because you want to feel that it is a real challenge. But that only works with the right reward.

That's partially because beating the AI is so trivial that winning no longer feels like winning, rather it's expected. This has in and of itself made it so winning a match doesn't feel like a reward. 

AngelForge

If they change the progression reward system, so that you don't have to win to get other objectives, they could make the game harder AI wise.

Imagine you have like three objectives and they are all equal in points. Winning is one of them, but you don't have to to fulfill the other objectives.
With that, losing wouldn't be such a big deal, I guess.

ElfNeedsFood

I just legitimately lost in QB after a 170 game winning streak.  Yes, it really felt like a loss...  It also shows just how skewed the system is towards winning and giving everyone "ribbons"...

shteev

Ohboy said:

Why can't the pot at the end of the rainbow be your reward for doing exceptionally well enough to make progression in an event? Why must we be entitled to it?

'Entitled' is a bit of a weasel word in 2017, isn't it?

You're barking up the right tree, here, of course... A game should be fun to play in and of itself, without prizes at the end. I very much enjoyed playing The Witness and Sunless Sea for countless hours last year, and I got no rewards from them other than the pleasure of merely playing.

It does strike me, then, that perhaps an additional reason why so many people are not playing the Trials is because they *don't* find them fun to play? There are comments here on the forums from people describing the time they have to put into playing the Trials as work, or an investment.

EDHdad

It is the responsibility of the game designer to entertain the audience.  It is not the responsibility of the audience to be entertained.

Dsagent

OP keep in mind most players will never get to your level. I myself have not pulled a useful card in a long time. Mostly dupes. 

hawkyh1

optimal decks is the problem. variety is the spice of
life.

I'll use pokemon to illustrate my example. water is
weak against both grass and lightning. instead of
selling just grass or lightning types, shops close to
water gym leaders should sell both. there's currently
too much of 'if you want to fully win node 3.1 you
must have one of these 2 cards'. due to the match 3
nature of the game there should be more variety.
there should be more branches to suit each players
play style.

HH

speakupaskanswer

The problem with the AI works both ways too. Winning doesn't always feel rewarding, but losing can feel extremely frustrating because you know it's not based on good decisions but often dumb luck. It says a lot that it frustrates me when the AI makes dumb mistakes (imprisoning an Imprison token three times or always using the first PW ability, almost never using a 5-jewel-swap) instead of making me happy because it makes it easier for me to win.

EDHdad

Perhaps in the future, they could allow people to set the AI to higher levels of competence, in exchange for higher prizes in the event.

MTG_Mage

Secondary objectives are just that, secondary. The primary objective is always to win the match. If you dont get the primary, you get 0 points instead of an extra few. So the incentive to taking down a deck from a super tight well oiled killing machine to reach those secondary objectives AND STLL WIN needs to be there. Unfortunately it is not worth it when the rewards for risking a loss is so little return. Thats why I would like to see multiple secondary objectives so some are worth going for.
They need to rethink the objectives so that they are not combined with enrage, which is counterproductive and makes people not even bother trying for them.
I also would like to see objectives that fall in line with the idea of other formats without outright restricting cards. 

madwren

As they stand now, there are no optional objectives in competitive play.

EDHdad

Secondary objectives aren't optional if you wish to remain a member in good standing of a Top 10 Coalition.  If you don't get at least 80-90% of every possible point in every single event, they'll find someone who will.

The solution to this was to Nerf the prize payout so that very few people give a rat's rump whether their coalition is top 10.  But there was a time when this sort of stuff was relevant.

Secondary objectives are still important for some of the individual events.  You absolutely cannot win the random rare in one event unless you get survive the Tyrant of Valakut level with 10 or less life.  This sometimes takes several tries and possibly more than an hour, even with a tuned deck filled with mythics.  Or at least, this has been my personal experience.

The reason I even bother is that I want an Insidious Will, and playing that Event for approximately 3 hours will give me approximately a 2.5% chance of pulling one.  Most likely, the card I pull will be a duplicate, but I still play that Event.

This should not be construed as me enjoying the event.  If I could just pay, say, $10 and get the dang card, that's what I would do.

Justyce

What would make losses less frustrating for me is to be able to replay a lost node by paying 100 crystals. but the cost doubles every time you want to get another chance to play the node. This makes losses or missed objectives irrelevant for people willing to pay 

Ohboy

A quick glance at leaderboards reveal that a lot of people are still doing secondaries. 

As people have pointed out before, the ai is dumb. Why not challenge yourself? I find myself still doing secondaries after I've lost enough points they no longer matter. 

Muche

EDHdad said:

Secondary objectives are still important for some of the individual events.  You absolutely cannot win the random rare in one event unless you get survive the Tyrant of Valakut level with 10 or less life.  This sometimes takes several tries and possibly more than an hour, even with a tuned deck filled with mythics.  Or at least, this has been my personal experience.

If I'm reading this correctly, one needs a deck full of mythics to fulfill an objective to get a rare. The perceived reward vs. effort would be similar to needing a deck full of rares to get an uncommon, right?

Ohboy

I am absolutely certain that when ogw event first came out I didn't have a deck of mythics. 

I'd opened a grand total of 2-3 big boxes by then. 

EDHdad

The event I'm referring to just ran last week.  You have to get 65 points for a rare, and there are only 66 total points available from every node.  So you have to do Tyrant of Valakut for 2 points:  Win the game with 10 points or less.  And the computer can deal 6 damage to you and each creature every time it spams its ability, and every card in its deck has the ability to hit you for damage whenever it comes into play.  And the AI starts the game with over 300 life.

Maybe there are other ways to do this, but the most consistent I've found is with a creatureless Ajani deck which makes uses Hixus Prison Warden to disable their creatures and direct damage spells to slowly ding their life total, or to ding mine if I need to get under 10 points.

The way I have it set up, it takes maybe 50 to 100 turns to play the game.

In my opinion, this is not fun.  It's not a challenge.  It is a grind.  Maybe it was fun and exciting the first time, and possibly the second.  But the event pops up again and again and again and again.   I endure it because I haven't been able to pull Insidious Will through other means.  Once I do, if I ever see this event again, I'm stopping after the relatively low-hanging fruit of 45 points (which nets a booster pack).

Playing this game should be more entertaining than filing your taxes or getting a root canal.  If I can provide feedback to the developers which saves future generations of Puzzle Quest players from hours of tedious agony, I am happy to do so.  Many times, the developers have listened to our feedback and adjusted the game accordingly.  If someone is developing a future event and wondering if "Win the game with 1 life point remaining" would be a fun, challenging, exciting goal, my vote is "no".  There are other secondary objectives which could be construed as fun, challenging and exciting.  Punching yourself in the face 100 times is not one of them, in my opinion.

gruntface

The tedium of hitting secondary objectives is magnified by the current repetition of events. If they drew on some historical events (pve and pvp) it would at least create some variety and possibly having to actually think again.

If they could mix up node colors, secondaries and events on a regular basis we likely wouldn't see much impact on scoring but playing would be a lot more enjoyable.

Speaking for myself of course.

madwren

gruntface said:

The tedium of hitting secondary objectives is magnified by the current repetition of events. If they drew on some historical events (pve and pvp) it would at least create some variety and possibly having to actually think again.

If they could mix up node colors, secondaries and events on a regular basis we likely wouldn't see much impact on scoring but playing would be a lot more enjoyable.

Speaking for myself of course.

You aren't alone.

The unchanging nature of the events, plus no hope of new cards, equals boredom.

Ohboy

They should definitely mix up secondaries. 

Especially with this bad habit of not announcing them before you pick your walker, why not go all the way and make it completely random and only announced when you play? Everyone gets to make unique wacky decks that pair with other wacky decks built for different objectives.