No More RotGP!!

Chad739

Thank you Volrak.  

bk1234

I still really like RotGP - I don't like multiple events while it's running because I can't double grind it with my alt. However, I happily grind it twice every weekend when it's by itself. So many possibilities! 

Ohboy

I'm in the 100 event camp.

I like options and am puzzled by people who don't. 

blacklotus

i am in the 100 camp, but preferably evenly spread out over the week instead of clumped together in 1 weekend.

Currently i don't play all the events totally. i either skip or snipe non-coalition, low reward events like EC and NoP. Others may want to play them fully. Hence i still rather have more events over the week than less. 

Mainloop25

Ohboy said:

I'm in the 100 event camp.

I like options and am puzzled by people who don't. 

I just like being able to play everything offered to the best of my ability, and don't like feeling like I'm missing out when I can't.

Ohboy

Mainloop25 said:

Ohboy said:

I'm in the 100 event camp.

I like options and am puzzled by people who don't. 

I just like being able to play everything offered to the best of my ability, and don't like feeling like I'm missing out when I can't.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fomo

lol

Mainloop25

Hey man. FOMO is real! Can't blame me for being a human, lol.

Gunmix25

Volrak said:

Here's a thought experiment worth a go.

Imagine if instead of 2 simultaneous coalition events on the weekend, there were 100.  (Assume the servers can cope with 100 as well as they cope with 2.)  The most interesting question is not "how many would you play?".  It's certainly not something personal and judgemental like "how would I view someone who plays lots events and lowers their own quality of life as a result?".  The best question to ask is "is that the best for the game?".

But that question will invariably devolve into is "is that what *I* want for the game?".  So let's tackle that.  Some might truly prefer 100 events to 2 - the more the better.  This is pay-to-win with time (not money); think online games with unlimited daily quests, unlimited moves, and unlimited rewards.  It's not for everyone, but some people love it.  Explaining that would help others to understand why they also (presumably) prefer 2 events over than 1.

Others may think 100 events are worse than 2, but 2 are better than 1.  People in this category will find it valuable to clarify their own reasoning as to why that is.  (If it's because 2 fits better in the time you have available than 100, then eureka - you now understand the "1" camp perfectly.)

Good points but you leave out a facet that keeps popping up in the threads regarding this topic... the inherent need that some players feel that they must play every coalition event that comes their way thus the request that D3 stop running multiple coalition events. Because:

A. To maintain coalition rank position they feel that they must play all the events. While I get this, this is still self imposed.

B. They feel that they let their Coalition down because they cannot contribute to the whole of the coalition by attempting to complete all coalition events. Again this is self imposed to avoid guilt. [personally any group that shames other players via demotion or reallocation or whatnot is guilty of creating this environment]

C. They have a life outside of the digital realm of MTGPQ and its associated coalition chat groups and forums and have very little time as it is to dedicate to reasons A & B.

While understand the above, it still doesn't change the crux of the self-imposed problem.

Also I think the 2 vs 100 analogy doesn't work. If you had applied this logic.

100 projects assigned to be done for your boss vs 2 projects assigned to be done for your boss. In this instance, you have to complete these projects else you are fired. Then yes, I would completely get what others are saying because there is a risk involved and it compels me to do my projects and 100 projects is exhausting.

In the context of MTGPQ though  It has absolutely no bearing whatsoever because it is purely a voluntary basis and without risk. So if you said 100 events played at once, then bring it on! one might play 1 one day, maybe 5 in a set another day and maybe just 2 another...it is purely voluntary on how much one chooses to play, not "have to play.". Forgive me I don't have an ounce of sympathy, because I don't. If I can't play any matches that is on me. Not my Coalition, not other players, not how many or how little there is in events... It's purely based on what I decide I should do and how much I am willing to do.

Have fun, play, chat, compete... but for the love of [choose deity of choice] please don't push yourself so much competitively that it takes away the fun. There really is no point.

Kinesia

@Volrak Other games do have too much for me to do and I end up picking and choosing. Marvel Puzzle Quest I usually play 1 game a day to get the daily reward, but if there is a completely new event or character I play a bit more to get a look at them.

Another game I play has "daily quests" that refresh throughout the day every few hours, they are kindof like our objectives but you can play _anything_ you like to meet them including story mode. This is a _great_ thing that could possibly slot into magic. I could play that game a _heap_ more than I do, but I play the 3 quests that saved up over night in the morning and I don't go back and do the rest during the day, that's when I play MtGPQ.

At home I play World of Warcraft on my PC but I'm _often_ doing Auction House stuff and actually still playing Magic on my phone to finish nodes. This is an _Excellent_ game because the timing is flexible enough to let me do things like that.

Even here... I am at the point where I _should_ be doing the daily trials for pink crystals for personal progression, but they are the thing I leave out at the moment.

If they add more events I don't know what I'll do, whether I'll just do progression in everything or pick and choose and push for high results in 1 or 2.

At 100... Well, that's the thing, I'd probably play less... See, I could mine Story Mode an awful lot more than I have, but because there's no time pressure and there is _just_ enough stuff with time pressure I never quite get to the point where I start digging into in.
If there was too _much_ with time pressure I'd probably have to agree with my wife on 1 event to concentrate on and just dabble in other stuff.


I want more story though, if they are going to add more content it should be time-neutral story stuff.
(But while mentioning story I want to reiterate, the current tutorial _needs_ to open up the Training missions to beginners while they are still in Chapter 1, they NEED other options they can play when they get stuck to stop them giving up completely. The NEED to see the deck editting and the other options to encourage them that it's worth continuing. Not letting you reorder or discard cards is actually BAD for paper magic players because they think the game is too simplistic and on rails, they need to know _immediately_ that this is possible, even if the tutorial says "but we won't do that right now")

TomB

Personally, I just wanted a coalition event during the week, and lo! behold we got one this week!

Thanks D3/Octagon...

span_argoman

Personally, if they made it such that there were 100 events available each week (whether coalition or not), I think my decision whether to continue playing or not will depend on how far my intended participation in the game can get me.

What that means is say I only intend to play 5 events out of the 100 every weekend, I will see whether playing 5 events is sufficient for me to reach my intended position/percentile within the player base.

So obviously I shouldn't be unrealistic and expect to be a consistent top 5 ranker in 3,000-player brackets if I'm only playing 5% of weekend events.

I should be aware that there will be people gaining rewards at up to 2,000% of the rate which I am. And then I'll have to observe how big a difference in actual card and planeswalker collection this will be.

It is quite unlikely that the game's overall progression will be balanced around players who play only 5% of the events. You'll have the players playing say 25% and above of weekend events complaining about having nothing to do with all the resources they've amassed.

So say I want to be competitive but am only willing to play 5% of weekend events. It's quite obviously out of the question. Chances are I'm going to interpret this as a signal that I'm not the intended audience for the game since I'm not able to commit to whatever is required for me to climb the ranks in the game. That'll make me want to leave and find another game where I can achieve my goal with a more commensurate level of investment.

Of course, if my intention is to stay in the top 50% in performance, then maybe 5% participation is doable and if it is then I might continue playing the game till something comes along that changes the equation.

---
So my point is this: By nature of how things are in terms of time, effort, money, and pre-existing resources required there will be certain groups of players who are favoured.

If having lots of free time is important, the game will probably favour non-working adults or people without familial responsibilities. If having lots of spending power is important, the game will favour big spenders. If putting in a lot of effort is required, the game will probably favour more hardcore players.

In any case when people are asking the developers to change an aspect of the game, they are lobbying the developers to make the game more suitable to their tastes and their own gamer profile.

When people are saying that the first group should suck it up and play or accept that they can't always have what they want, they are defending the current game structure. It could be because they are closer in profile to the targeted group of the developers or have a larger tolerance for the kind of investment the game demands.

But they are in conflict with the first group at some level because they care enough to want to keep the status quo whereas the other group wants to change it.

That's my read on things and why we have had months of this back and forth between members of the community about suggestions to change the game followed by comments that people should learn to deal with the game as it is and quit whining, followed by outcries that the second group of players are being unsympathetic and trollish.

---
On the issue of overlapping coalition events, it doesn't really bother me because my coalition doesn't play to maximise its coalition ranking. We are casual so we play as much or as little as we want. Somehow that is enough to net us decent rewards and we are content with that.

Sometimes we try to rally to push into the next ranking tier if we see that we're close. And sometimes these rallies work, sometimes they don't. But it's nice for us that while the game does give better rewards to top coalitions, it doesn't punish us active but casual coalitions.

On the other hand, my own personal competitive streak is leading me to feel some fatigue from the increase in number of events since I feel compelled to participate in all MtGPQ events and to attain as high a ranking as I can.

MtGPQ competes with all the other things in my life for my available time and energy. Family, the other half, friends, work, other hobbies and pursuits. At some point something will have to give way. That's just a fact when something is in limited supply.

I guess some people are rather strongly attached to this game and are willing to fight to change the game so that they can continue to maintain their attachment and investment in the game. We all do that at some level and it's good to keep the feedback flowing to the developers.

At this point though, I'm content to sit back and see where Oktagon takes the game. So far they seem to be making pretty good decisions even if some of the decisions felt like they could have been made more quickly.

I'm just gonna be popping in from time to time to give unsolicited comments on how I see things when I see people talking past each other.

babar3355

:Point Up:

Mainloop25

Very well said, @span_argoman. 

blacklotus

@span_argoman an accurate, courteous and well-written contribution without the usual vitriol we have seen too common in this forum. well-done. an upvote from me. 

Chad739

Thank you @span_argoman.