Should secondary goals in events award more ribbons?

TIMEWARP

babar3355

I am not really sure what you are asking.  Are you asking if they should award more ribbons than they current do?  Or are you asking if we should even have secondary goals?

Tilwin90

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

I am not going to vote, but I would differentiate between tiers to be honest with this approach (not against it, just depends on implementation... we are on dangerous ground right now). It's much more difficult to build a feasible 5 vehicles tier as a bronze deck for instance than as a gold or platinum player and I would really like to know new players are encouraged to play events... and with the few cards they have, the main incentive for them is to try and win. I don't think those "deviating" decks are unseen or unfair in bronze for instance.
I am also assuming here that tiers will be soon differentiated per format (Standard vs. Legacy).

TheDragonHermit

Yes, it creates incentives to play non-optimal cards

Yes, meeting the objectives is obviously how the devs want us to play, and so players should be rewarded for taking a chance with their deckbuilding 

Gilesclone

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

I think secondary objectives are great.  But no more "Lose 60 hit points" or "Cast 7 Unicorns".  Losing hit points and creatures is just annoying.  Three seems like a good number for summoning creature types.  Also, "Win in 5 turns" means play a cycling deck - boring.

Thuran

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

I agree with Giles, objectives need to be adjusted if they are to have a greater impact on standings. Stuff like "win with 10 HP" or "cycle 130 damage in 5 rounds" or the classic "kill your own creatures", don't actively contribute to fun or interesting games, but instead encourages moments that feel bad for no fun-reward from succeeding.

Stuff like " no supports", "no spells" or even certain creature types are more interesting and doesn't force you to play not to win, but they are very basic objectives.

Encouraging people to play embalm isn't bad, but punishing them for facing an opponent with removal spells in their deck is just a pain. (BTW, before you comment, the objective can be sorta cheesed by just killing them with spells, stacking embalm creatures and never summoning more than the minimum required, but is it fun?)

Hmm, idea out of the blue; what if ONLY bonus objectives contributed to personal progression, then increase those rewards?

TheDragonHermit

Yes, it creates incentives to play non-optimal cards

I kinda like the thought, winning nets you runes but objectives are how you move forward in the rankings. That along with objectives that alter what cards you play rather than how you play the would make the game more about creative deckbuilding, which in turn would make the event decks and training grounds make a lot more sence to use.

Dsagent

No, winning no matter the sub goal should always be the focus

Wow the vote is split perfectly 33% at the time of this comment.

Brigby

Dsagent said:

Wow the vote is split perfectly 33% at the time of this comment.

I've been watching this thread, and I was surprised by that too. Curious which one will pull away from the rest of the pack first!

Laeuftbeidir

Maybe, but no more than winning

Seems to be I wasn't able to break the tie. I have the feeling the possible choices don't really contradict each other - making the decision complicated.
More points ? Yes, why not, but at max the same amount of points as winning (I have only pvp on my mind here). Fewer "I don't care" decks would be great, 5 pts win 3/2 pts secondary would be enough IMO.
I only dislike secondarys when they're contradicting each other (not necessarily by word, for example : Summon 572 zombies /lose no creatures - > z's are made for dying! ; cast 36 vehicles / win in 2 turns) or if they're totally mad (win with 10/20 HP in red /enraged/against an enemy that deals 85 dmg with his ability).

madwren

No, winning no matter the sub goal should always be the focus

While skill is certainly often a factor, I dislike punishing people for missing objectives due to luck. 

watman

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

For the hardcore themed events (Vehicles, Energize), the secondaries should give more ribbons than winning OR at least, should count even if you don't win - so that the event decks are actually event decks, and not 'screw the theme, I'm here just to get the progression rewards quickly'
As I think of it, secondaries should always count even if you don't win, the 4/2/1 split we have now should be enough in that case.
Also - where do i sign under the request to ditch the stupid/unbalanced secondaries?

ElimGarak

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

I am on board with watman :-D, secondaries should count even if you lose

Thuran

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

Watman, I completely agree! Sometimes it is better to ignore objectives entirely, because achieving them is pointless if you don't win. So better to take the points than risk losing everything to chase 1 single point extra. 

Not like it would give a huge advantage either for those aiming for the top, but it is a better incentive to at least try them.

Combine with a raise to 3/2 and you can actually do better if you hit both objectives and lose, than hitting no objectives and winning. This would shift focus to objectives , as it should be, and mean that non-event decks get punished HARD for not even trying objectives.

Also seems like a fairly simple change to implemented if the devs want to try it out for one event.

Sirchombli

Secondaries are all over the board, so this is difficult to answer. Some are doable without doing a back bend. Cast 3 zombies. Cast 3 werewolves. Some, like vehicles really restrict building to a point I don't like to go. I don't necessarily think they need to be worth more, but I do think that they could be better. 

Dodecapod

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

Without going into too much off-topic detail, in the long term, objectives seem like a potentially limited system for creating leaderboard differentiation and maintaining novelty in events, and I'm hoping the devs will eventually decide to revisit the core concept and try to find a more intuitive, less arbitrary way of accomplishing both goals.

In the short- to medium-term however, we're stuck with this structure for the foreseeable future, so I'd like to see the ribbon balances tweaked a bit and some or all objectives count even in losses, since more opportunities for partial credit would help offset the demoralizing experience of losing a very close, drawn-out game after just barely overextending in an attempt to satisfy the secondary objectives (this is especially true with "win with X or less hp" objectives in Enraged events).

As far as the quality of objectives, it would probably be tough to agree on the ideal difficulty level, so that might be a topic for another thread, but at the least, the majority of events would be more interesting if the devs were move away from counterintuitive pairings which intrinsically hamstring the very PWs and/or cards a given event is supposed to highlight (prime examples of this would be Sorin's PW Arena objective of "win with 20 or less life", which contradicts the thrust of all of his abilities and his most synergistic cards, and the ToA white node which effectively reads "play Embalm creatures, but never trigger their Embalm abilities").  If the purpose of objectives is in part to promote a specific PW or a new set, then goals which encourage using the relevant abilities several times per game make much more sense than goals which encourage purposefully ignoring those abilities even when they're available.

mournfen

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

I voted on choice provided and I do think secondary OBJ are important. I think weight of objective is a problem. Winning is the point and it should always reward 5 ribbons not 4. Why would one objective carry more weight than another? In some cases both are a grind so all secondary should be 1 ribbon. In an enraged event no way is casting 1 or less support more difficult than summoning 5 creatures. Really any time we have to do 5 of anything it's so annoying and is the auto remove fun button.

Emanon2000

Maybe, but no more than winning

This is such a hard subject.  On one hand... Winning as the primary objective means that we face decks that could pummel us if we chase the secondary points.  Secondary as primary goal is kind of against the whole premise of 'the game.'   I suggested a 15 point system that still has focus on the win but some more attainable goals that make it worth at least 'trying' to get the 'extra' points.   5 points for the win, 4 points for most difficult, 3, 2, then 1 for easiest objective totaling 15 points possible.   This also helps to minimize/eliminate the grumbling of people that have trouble getting out 5 of some type of creature before the match goes into double damage hyperdrive!

You still have to win to get the extra points (or any for that matter)... but

Vehicles for instance.  4 points for getting 5 out.  3 points for getting 4 out, 2 points for getting 3 out, 1 point for getting 2 out.

Win with x number of points remaining.  4 points for 10 or less, 3 points for 20 or less, 2 points for 30 or less, 1 point for 40 or less.

Players have an incentive to at least TRY!  This also satisfies another issue where there is a greater point gap between those that MAKE it and those that DON'T.

... and those that TRY don't feel left out they lost everything trying to get the extra 1 or 2 points in the current system.

From my own experience...  I have a pretty good set of cards but I still have reason to ignore the secondary points on some nodes because it means that I will likely get nothing if I chase the one or two points.  To be competitive in the event I have to focus on the win which means building decks that are against the reason for having the event in the first place.  I don't build the decks to RUIN other people... I build the decks because I have no other choice to win.

hawkyh1

secondary goals differentiates events and thus
gives each event it's own character. if they get
the objectives right then there is room for
manoeuvre in assigning ribbons to each
objective. changing the reward associated with
each objective is unlikely to fix one that is a
pain to deck build for.

HH

naphomci

Yes, bit only if the secondary goals are more fun or feasible.

Overall, I like the secondary objectives. But, there are some that are just annoying or poorly thought out. Lose 4 or more of your own often means killing my own creatures 2-4 times. The Win in X rounds has the oddity that if you face a lower level opponent, your chances of succeeding increase greatly, whereas level 60 you either need the cards to have a cheese deck or be super lucky. 

I think if the objectives were better tuned, with themselves and with the other nodes (why is green 4 or less spells, but white is 0 supports?), it could be a much more fun system. I also greatly prefer the events where the nodes have different objectives. When all the nodes have "Energize 5", it just isn't as fun.

Firinmahlazer

I hate these polls because they put words in your mouth. I think some of the objectives need to be tweaked but no I don't think they should award more ribbons. Increasing ribbon counts would just lead to more complaints about people maxing progression rewards and not getting anything for it. On the flip side adding more rewards I feel would need to be on the top end and that means it would probably be 2 rewards of runes before you start getting crystals or packs.