DumasAG said: Probably ok for there to be a highly competitive event every now and then, where only the top scores get a reward. Not every single event needs to have significant consolation prizes.
wickedwitch74 said: DumasAG said: Probably ok for there to be a highly competitive event every now and then, where only the top scores get a reward. Not every single event needs to have significant consolation prizes. .My complaint is that I would like to see more granularity at the top and, especially, at the bottom. There's no reason that anyone who puts the time in to play 30+ nodes (and wins all but two of them) should receive the lowest reward tier.
DumasAG said: Probably ok for there to be a highly competitive event every now and then, where only the top scores get a reward. Not every single event needs to have significant consolation prizes. .
Mburn7 said: 224 points is significantly more than 2 losses, unless you missed a large number of secondary objectives.I had 2 losses and scored 256, which got me 124th place, for reference.
FindingHeart8 said: meh, it required too much time for me to stay in the fight that long.In the end this game falls victim to the same issues that most app games do, that players who have other demanding priorities in life will never be able to keep up with the players who make mtgpq their top priority, unless you're willing to buy your way ahead.I love this game, but I don't have half a weekend to devote to mtgpq. I don't want to devote half a weekend to mtgpq.Mtgpq gets my undivided attention for several hours a weekend and nothing more, that's often enough to achieve progression in many events, but this one seems to take a bit longer.I'd much rather they start each node off with 5 charges, no re-charges, and whatever you get at the end is your final score and you can go about doing other things with your weekend, looking forward to what your final competitive score will be at the end of the weekend
Mark_Tedin said: FindingHeart8 said: meh, it required too much time for me to stay in the fight that long.In the end this game falls victim to the same issues that most app games do, that players who have other demanding priorities in life will never be able to keep up with the players who make mtgpq their top priority, unless you're willing to buy your way ahead.I love this game, but I don't have half a weekend to devote to mtgpq. I don't want to devote half a weekend to mtgpq.Mtgpq gets my undivided attention for several hours a weekend and nothing more, that's often enough to achieve progression in many events, but this one seems to take a bit longer.I'd much rather they start each node off with 5 charges, no re-charges, and whatever you get at the end is your final score and you can go about doing other things with your weekend, looking forward to what your final competitive score will be at the end of the weekend 5 charges is a little overdone. 3 charges by node would be better for a weekend.
Mburn7 said: wickedwitch74 said: DumasAG said: Probably ok for there to be a highly competitive event every now and then, where only the top scores get a reward. Not every single event needs to have significant consolation prizes. .My complaint is that I would like to see more granularity at the top and, especially, at the bottom. There's no reason that anyone who puts the time in to play 30+ nodes (and wins all but two of them) should receive the lowest reward tier. 224 points is significantly more than 2 losses, unless you missed a large number of secondary objectives.I had 2 losses and scored 256, which got me 124th place, for reference.
Gunmix25 said: Mburn7 said: wickedwitch74 said: DumasAG said: Probably ok for there to be a highly competitive event every now and then, where only the top scores get a reward. Not every single event needs to have significant consolation prizes. .My complaint is that I would like to see more granularity at the top and, especially, at the bottom. There's no reason that anyone who puts the time in to play 30+ nodes (and wins all but two of them) should receive the lowest reward tier. 224 points is significantly more than 2 losses, unless you missed a large number of secondary objectives.I had 2 losses and scored 256, which got me 124th place, for reference. I'm Inclined to agree with Nahi... uh, @Mburn7 . I had two losses and missed the lower left node objective 3 times and ended up at rank 67 and my score was about 245-ish for reference.
Bil said: The ranking for a determined score in a determined tier depends very much of the pool you are in. The fact that a player with more losses is able to get a better reward is weird and not really fair overall. Another problem is that the loss of points relies on luck in most cases. Deckbuilding allows to keep control on secundaries but you can't help loosing 10 life if the IA plays Hour of devastation on this precise node or when the IA cascades into an HUF or an Omniscience combo on his first turn. The actual ranking system (or at least some of the secundaries) do not seem accurate as long as cards like red hour, HUF or omniscience are still around. Those factors are already frustrating but they get worse because of the gap beetween top scores and mid scores in terms of rewards. A single cascade can cost you 250 pinks and 75 crystals. A single Hour of devastation can cost you 150 pinks and 25 crystals. To make it fair for any player that plays the whole nodes, the rewards should be determined considering players total score instead of their ranking. For example, set a great reward for perfect score, another for perfect -5 to perfect -1, and so on ... In this way any player would have a good reason to keep playing even after a few points dropped as he would still have a chance to get a decent reward.