Duel Decks - Open To All! (10/9/18)

13

Comments

  • Szamsziel
    Szamsziel Posts: 463 Mover and Shaker
    I'd suggest recharge as in b1 but limit max runes you can gain to 90k (just for mono pw)
  • ArielSira
    ArielSira Posts: 520 Critical Contributor
    If you want 250 runes you're better off doing heroics. 1200 is a lot yes, so why not make it 500 but for every match, any event? That's a good way to do something about the influx of walkers.
  • Theros
    Theros Posts: 490 Mover and Shaker

    1200 runes a win is not exagerated at all considering the leveling cost and amount of PWs. I personally won't settle for 300runes/win which is still grindy. My time is much more valuable than that.

    I'm more in favor of eliminating runes altogether for leveling purposes. The community has already given some valuable feedbacks that do not use runes.

  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    edited October 2018
      From a comercial point of view, giving a lot of runes has no impact at all ... On the contrary the lack of runes is one of the reasons players do not invest in walker bundles (is there any player actually buying bundles for the runes ... Seriously?)
     
       The jewels/crystals amount is another story. Of course it is a big deal to give lot of them if the event is scheduled very often, because it would mean lots of free stuff. But if we are to see this event twice in 3 months as for TDW or BOFT under their respective sets, then the impact remains minor anyway. 
       Of course, the first run was excesively generous but there must be a reasonable compromise beetween too much and almost peanuts.

      The sure thing is that the current version is poor in term of progression rewards AND playing content ... Which is coherent ... But doesn't fit to the weekend events who are supposed to be more substantial than week ones.

       The current version, 3 days with the slow pace would be perfect as a week event ( like oath1 and 2 or ajth).
      If it has to be a main weekend event i think it should be more appealing in terms of content and rewards to deserve replacing a coalition event.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Just Dropped In
    edited October 2018
    My thoughts/recommendations:

    1. There aren't enough games to play for the 2nd and 3rd phases. There should NOT be 5 hour timers for both phases. I would recommend that Phase 2 be five hour refresh timers and phase 3 should be unlimited plays (10 mins timers). 

    This way you have Phase 1 - a sealed/preconstructed deck format (everyone with equal chances), Phase 2 - format with a limited number of playable games through 5 hour timers (allows one side to get ahead/edge but not too much), and Phase 3 - a Quick Battle style unlimited play format to allow the two sides to race one another OR the losing side to recover by grinding.

    2. The entire event duration was good; however, the duration for the 2nd and 3rd phase is rather short; thus, I do not believe it would accommodate all time zones.

    3. Phase 1 rewards are really bad now - it went from 100 mana gems (total 200) to 10 mana gems (total 20). Considering you would play minimum of 6 games (8-9 games if you count replaying the eldrazi side due to the objectives being harder  and the deck/PW being worse), the reward should be minimum 25 for each side (total 50). However since it is a big event and phase 2 doesnt give any rewards, I believe 35-40 from each side (total 70-80) is adequate.
  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,259 Chairperson of the Boards
    I don't understand why 1200 runes a match is a problem at all. Y'all act like people wanting to both acquire and level their planeswalkers is a bad thing, or that it should be an arduous chore accomplished over months of gameplay.

    Quick Battle is not an accurate comparison. The reason QB was a "problem" was because it was all day, every day, with mythics and rares thrown in to boot. 

    But Duel Decks? Once or twice a month? Fantastic.  I'm thrilled that someone can grind enough runes to level a planeswalker. Maybe two if they push it.  Good for them!  Anything to reduce the godawful grind in this game to accomplish anything should be celebrated, not condemned.


  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Just Dropped In
    edited October 2018
    Brigby said:
    Objectives - Playing as The Eldrazi (PvE)
    • Call to Arms: Create 16 or more Creature Tokens... -> Create 20 or more Creature Tokens...
    • Striker -> Mightstone: Cast 3 or more creatures with power 6 or more.

    The Call to Arms Eldrazi objective should be: create 16 (NOT 20) or more creature tokens

    I can give my reasoning but i dont want to spoil the contents of the eldrazi deck for others just yet.. 

    I had great concerns for the eldrazi preconstructed deck and objectives. There is too big of a gap between the two PWs. Nissa4s deck is by far stronger in terms of consistency compared to the eldrazi. 

    Whereas the PvP objectives are fine, as I believe it was to close the gap between new players and long time players card pools perhaps. Also it may be to discourage certain loop-ish decks. 
  • Brigby
    Brigby ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 7,757 Site Admin
    Hi Everyone. Thank you for providing all of this feedback. I have gone ahead and relayed it to the team, and they will be sure to review it further.
  • Buizel
    Buizel Posts: 50 Match Maker
    How can anyone argue 1,200 runes is too much? That's still over 125 wins to level a single dual-colored walker. We already had to pay for them in the first place. I seriously cannot see the argument of how 1,200 for a win is too much.
  • Thuran
    Thuran Posts: 456 Mover and Shaker
    Brigby said:
    Hi Everyone. Thank you for providing all of this feedback. I have gone ahead and relayed it to the team, and they will be sure to review it further.
    You are quite cheeky to leave a message like this, in a thread that clearly shows oktagon IGNORED the feedback they were already given!

    Too. Tiny kitty. Late! They should have read all the feedback WE ALREADY GAVE!

    I doubt Anyone is going to find comfort in you relaying what we already told them.....the entire point is they already have this feedback, and knowingly chose to ignore it
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
      To be fair, i don't think @Brigby has anything to do with this lack of reactivity towards players feedback and he is just trying to do his job.
      However, i get your point and i definitely agree with the fact that the beta purpose was precisely to avoid this kind of situation ...
  • rafalele
    rafalele Posts: 876 Critical Contributor
    edited October 2018
    Bil said:
      To be fair, i don't think @Brigby has anything to do with this lack of reactivity towards players feedback and he is just trying to do his job.
      However, i get your point and i definitely agree with the fact that the beta purpose was precisely to avoid this kind of situation ...
    Agree with that Brigby has nothing to do with players feedback reactivity, but I think that the purpose for developers were related more with technical issues than other things.

    As seen, they have been able to change rewards, objectives and recharge timers in a week without making a new release.



  • rafalele
    rafalele Posts: 876 Critical Contributor
    edited October 2018
    So we have it here and rewards are the same as in the second beta.

    Hope refreshing timer for second and third phases will not be 5:30.
  • Theros
    Theros Posts: 490 Mover and Shaker
    Rewards are bad and refreshing timer will more than likely be like the  second phase.
  • IM_CARLOS
    IM_CARLOS Posts: 640 Critical Contributor
    The point are not the runes the point is the lousy recharge.

    A recharge of 10min is not far from good old quick battle but 5.30h on weekend and no other events running? 

    But I forgot: feedback is futile. 
  • Azerack
    Azerack Posts: 501 Critical Contributor
    So glad they had a "beta"... Or should I say, two playtest runs to see how much the players were getting so they could tone it down to where they thought we weren't gaining too much.... Or did they just not care to change anything because changing things was too much effort?... 
    Or did they really just give Brigby the wrong info...  :pensive:

  • khurram
    khurram Posts: 1,090 Chairperson of the Boards
    I suspect that they had already planned the beta runs with those varying degrees of rewards, regardless of the players feedback. We got 2 beta runs instead of the planned 3. Im only hoping that the third iteration was some kind of middle ground version in terms of those rewards and objectives and that's what we will get as the actual event.
  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    khurram said:
    I suspect that they had already planned the beta runs with those varying degrees of rewards, regardless of the players feedback. We got 2 beta runs instead of the planned 3. Im only hoping that the third iteration was some kind of middle ground version in terms of those rewards and objectives and that's what we will get as the actual event.
    This was my thought process as well. We have made our voices heard. Now we wait. 
  • Houdin
    Houdin Posts: 182 Tile Toppler
    In my humble opinion there is really no excuse for any of this.

    To say there were x number of players in the second beta run and perhaps the bulk of them really liked it and by some crazy twist of fate, not a single one of them is on a top team who posts on this forum is just a slap in the face to any of us.

    Even if players in the second beta who were not in the first beta gave good feedback for the run, their opinions would he invalidated by not having played the first run with different structure.

    The only players the dev team should have looked at for feedback would be players who had played both runs. To say this isn't obvious would just be a bold faced lie.

    So really this leaves us with two possible options.

    One. They dont Cae at all about their player base. The desicion tp choose austerity was based on giving as little as possible to the people who help to put food on their table in once again some insane idea that by starving us we will respond with spending money on the game.

    two. They were incapable of making alterations to the event before it was released and/or hadnt bothered to actually read the feedback yet. Either of which options is just indicative of once again poor management. Instead of admitting this the decision was made to lay blame for this now horribly awful, boring event on the unsocial player base who of course can't make comment to that.

    Once again it seems I must join the not another dime movement. Which really does make me sad. I have never once had an issue spending money on this game I love. except at those times when it is obvious that the management has no respect for my hard earned contributions.
  • EDHdad
    EDHdad Posts: 609 Critical Contributor
    There's probably some weird Catch-22, where, the less popular the game is, the fewer demands are put on the servers, and the less likely it is to crash.  Whereas, if it's too popular, the servers might get overloaded and the game is more likely to have bugs and crashes.

    It might also be that the vast majority of the player base are more casual players, who probably aren't members of a large coalition, and who are unaware that these boards even exist.  Many of them might be under the impression that Pauper is more "fair" because they won't have to see all those broken Mythics.  Also, they might have a tendency to be Timmies who value the splashy big mana spells over consistency and mana efficiency.  Kessig Dire Swine is a 6/6, so it must be way better than that paltry 1/1 Lone Rider

Categories