What do you think of the new objectives?

2»

Comments

  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yes this is Great!
    ElfNeedsFood said:
    Kinesia said:
    ElfNeedsFood said:

    jtwood said:
    Where can I see these updates?
    Release notes. 

    That sounds like a terrorist threat "Release notes."  or what? And who is notes? Are they your bunny?
    Lol...  Here's the link....  :)

    https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/73770/2-7-1-pre-release-notes-7-2-18/p1


    Grin. I know, but I have a humour quota to reach before I'm allowed to get back to the serious stuff.
  • EDHdad
    EDHdad Posts: 609 Critical Contributor
    Meh
    I'm a little lost.  If you don't like spending time deckbuilding, then why do you play?  Like 80% of the fun of a CCG is funky deckbuilding.

    That's a bit like saying that if you enjoy racing cars, you also enjoy changing the oil and rotating the tires. 

    I enjoy PLAYING with decks which are effective, efficient and consistent.  I have zero desire to throw sub-optimal cards into my deck or slow down my game play simply to meet some arbitrary secondary objective which could just as easily have been pulled out of a random number generator.

    If I can win a game by casting 3 creatures, why do I need to cast 4?  If I can win a game without casting any supports, why do I need to cast 8?

    There are no secondary objectives in Training Grounds, and it plays just fine.  There are no secondary objectives in Trial of the Planes and it works just fine.  There are all sorts of stupid secondary objectives in Oath of the Gatewatch, and some of them are annoying as heck.

    I might tweak a deck if I get a new card.  For example, when I pulled an Unclaimed Territory, I swapped out a creature in one deck so that I would have 3 humans in the deck.  But if I have a deck which is effective, efficient and consistent, I'm good.  I can play that 1,000 times.  Unless I pull an Etali.  Then I'll swap out the humans for dinosaurs.
  • Brakkis
    Brakkis Posts: 777 Critical Contributor
    I like them, but want to play some events with them before making my opinion
    EDHdad said:
    Unless I pull an Etali.  Then I'll swap out the humans for dinosaurs.
    Or a Ghalta

    Anywho, I'm looking forward to trying out these new objectives but I can say with certainty, I don't want to see these sort of objectives in PvP Events. Certainly not Pauper; I'd build for it and some other clown would just run their heavy mythic deck like they do in Legacy events and just go in for the win to the exclusion of the secondaries.
  • Enygma6
    Enygma6 Posts: 266 Mover and Shaker
    I like them, but want to play some events with them before making my opinion
    Enygma6 said:
    “Enchantment” will need some clarification before implementation as an objective target.  Looking through my collection in-game, that term does not show as a keyword or subtype for any card.  Aura does, and I suspect that could be what is meant.  
    Or they could add “enchantment” to a reasonable number of cards with the 2.7.1 release.
    I found it:  
    Enchantment is a new keyword on some Supports, this was added in the 2.7.1 release.
  • HarryMason
    HarryMason Posts: 136 Tile Toppler
    Meh
    I'm indifferent about the actual objectives , but it's somewhat refreshing that they're legitimately new rather than rehashes of the same ol tinykitty
  • Elektrophorus
    Elektrophorus Posts: 150 Tile Toppler
    Meh
    Objectives are objectives. I'll try to complete them either way. However, some of the newer ones look like they could be problematic in PvP. I would never want to try to win after being pigeonholed into <11 cost or only commons and uncommons against other players.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Elektrophorus
    Elektrophorus Posts: 150 Tile Toppler
    Meh
    Rigsby said:
    Elektrophorus said:
    Objectives are objectives. I'll try to complete them either way. However, some of the newer ones look like they could be problematic in PvP. I would never want to try to win after being pigeonholed into <11 cost or only commons and uncommons against other players.
    Well, it wouldn't be so bad if your opponent had to use those cards as well.

    It's a tricky area to work out, tho, because, whilst you might want to face an opponent with the same limitations as you for a 'Cards with >X cost' objective, other objectives might interfere too much with gameplay; 'Take <X Damage', for example, might result in both players playing decks full of answers and no threats, so the games drag on interminably.
    But also consider that a lot of people don't go for the side objectives at all.
  • TomB
    TomB Posts: 269 Mover and Shaker
    Meh
    Elspeth sans supports just doesn't play like Elspeth... :/
  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    I like them, but want to play some events with them before making my opinion
    TomB said:
    Elspeth sans supports just doesn't play like Elspeth... :/

    That's not new? The secondaries in hod haven't been changed
  • TomB
    TomB Posts: 269 Mover and Shaker
    Meh
    Oh...lol

    Just saying, though...

Categories