Not to kill Brigby's thunder, but the gallery's up on the website:
https://d3go.com/magic-puzzle-quest-ravnica-allegiance-set-gallery/
Momir and Kraj!!!!!111111oneoneoneoneoneeleveneleven
Well, I'm ready. Bring on the patch.
Volrak said: GrizzoMtGPQ said: Because our anger kept you up. Honied comments would not have done that. Brigby can speak for himself, but in his place, I'd be far more inclined to put more time into answering a large volume of comments that were respectful, than an equal volume which were vitriolic.
GrizzoMtGPQ said: Because our anger kept you up. Honied comments would not have done that.
Thuran said: Brigby You mentioned that its too late to stop the patch going live, but...Are you seriously willing to tell us that its impossible to implement a day 1 hotfix which adds in a single digit to change the number in the timer from 18 to 180???Would be a decent solution that hits loops, but ignores almost all normal turns.
Tilwin90 said:-lots of feedback-
@Brigby:
Can you please check this?
Nivix, Aerie of the Firemind: 0 Blue -> +2 Blue
Nivix already has +5 on Blue. I'm guessing this is supposed to be 0 Black to +2 Black?
Machine said: Brigby:Can you please check this? Nivix, Aerie of the Firemind: 0 Blue -> +2 BlueNivix already has +5 on Blue. I'm guessing this is supposed to be 0 Black to +2 Black?
Brigby:
Brigby said: Machine said: Brigby:Can you please check this? Nivix, Aerie of the Firemind: 0 Blue -> +2 BlueNivix already has +5 on Blue. I'm guessing this is supposed to be 0 Black to +2 Black? Woops! Silly me. I saw B and immediately thought Blue, even though Blue is denoted by U. Nice catch! I'll correct that right now
Brigby said:There's a LOT of comments here, and it might take some time, but I'm going to try and get back to as many of you as I can.
Laeuftbeidir said: Octal has spoken. You might want to fix the Raid/Riot mistake as well it's easy to spot since you highlighted it
Brigby said:What are the biggest priorities for the game right now?There's a lot still in development that should be ready and working as we expect soon. Although it takes a lot of work due to the system's own limitations, we want to keep building new modes and tools for players to enjoy. Our focus at the moment is to build a strong and engaging experience for players through their progression in the game with better first contact, newer and cheaper vault content, and some much-needed fixes for loop exploits.How is your team planning on addressing problem card(s), such as those that freeze the match or create infinite loops?We will be implementing a new system that prevents looping. It is fully operational, and it will be up and running in the next major update. Problematic cards are treated on a case-by-case basis, most of the time with specific fixes and many hours of testing.
Wafflesauce said: The only cards that I can recall being changed recently are those who caused the game to crash.Actually let me go look at the patch notes right now...
Matthew said: jimpark said: Matthew said: Brakkis said: Brigby said: Hi Everyone. Thanks for providing all of this in-depth perspective and feedback of the loop system. I'll be sure to pass that along to the team for review.While I can't guarantee that any changes can be made prior to the 3.3 update going live, as I believe the build has already been submitted to 1st party vendors, I will definitely talk to them about revisiting the system and seeing where things can be adjusted. This right here is why things like this should be brought up before the patch is submitted and it's too late to make any kind of changes. This was a solution to a relatively minor problem in the overall scheme of the game and it was extremely poorly thought out. There are far superior methods of fixing this, again - minor, problem that don't outright tank an entire playstyle. One thing I forgot to mention in my own earlier post is mentioned here by Brakkis. The overall impact of this problem, however annoying it is, is minimal at the absolute worst. Personally I can't even remember the last time I've been caught by Greg in a loop of any sort. That illustrates that they either don't occur with any serious degree of frequency, or that when they do occur, I can simply hit the "quit" button to end them, or most likely both of these things. This decision makes it look like you guys heard a vocal minority complaining about something and decided to implement a nuclear option to address it. Terrible decision, and I really, really, really hope it is reversed. i just want to add at lesser card collections / newer players get stuck in overpowered loops more frequently. Veterans, on the other hand, we have strong enough collections to counteract these loop decks by speed bashing the AI, usually through a loop. Therefore, i do believe it is a problem but the way they addressed it was terrible. I don't understand why this happened, other than:1) there is no strategist at this company or dev team2) nobody seems to really play MTGPQ at this company or the dev team (or at least not enough)3) they don't consider the possible consequences with each change4) things feel rushed to meet deadlines so they have terrible scheduling to ensure a quality update/product I have been in Platinum for about two years now, so it’s safe to say that I’m pretty out of touch with the state of things at the lower tiers. You are right to call me out for that. Thanks for making me realize it! The last thing I want is for newer players to have bad experiences and just stop playing because of them.However, this has also given me a thought that I think is worth considering. If the dev team is dead set on going this route AND what you say is true (that loops are a much bigger problem for players at lower levels) then why not ONLY apply this timer to those levels? Bronze could have a pretty short timer (18 seconds anyone?) and it could be longer for Silver, longer still for Gold, and just completely done away with for Platinum.This way, newer players with limited collections could get a softer introduction to the game and then gradually be weaned off of the training wheels as they progress. It would also allow Platinum to stay hyper competitive, which is how it freaking SHOULD be at the top tier of competition.
jimpark said: Matthew said: Brakkis said: Brigby said: Hi Everyone. Thanks for providing all of this in-depth perspective and feedback of the loop system. I'll be sure to pass that along to the team for review.While I can't guarantee that any changes can be made prior to the 3.3 update going live, as I believe the build has already been submitted to 1st party vendors, I will definitely talk to them about revisiting the system and seeing where things can be adjusted. This right here is why things like this should be brought up before the patch is submitted and it's too late to make any kind of changes. This was a solution to a relatively minor problem in the overall scheme of the game and it was extremely poorly thought out. There are far superior methods of fixing this, again - minor, problem that don't outright tank an entire playstyle. One thing I forgot to mention in my own earlier post is mentioned here by Brakkis. The overall impact of this problem, however annoying it is, is minimal at the absolute worst. Personally I can't even remember the last time I've been caught by Greg in a loop of any sort. That illustrates that they either don't occur with any serious degree of frequency, or that when they do occur, I can simply hit the "quit" button to end them, or most likely both of these things. This decision makes it look like you guys heard a vocal minority complaining about something and decided to implement a nuclear option to address it. Terrible decision, and I really, really, really hope it is reversed. i just want to add at lesser card collections / newer players get stuck in overpowered loops more frequently. Veterans, on the other hand, we have strong enough collections to counteract these loop decks by speed bashing the AI, usually through a loop. Therefore, i do believe it is a problem but the way they addressed it was terrible. I don't understand why this happened, other than:1) there is no strategist at this company or dev team2) nobody seems to really play MTGPQ at this company or the dev team (or at least not enough)3) they don't consider the possible consequences with each change4) things feel rushed to meet deadlines so they have terrible scheduling to ensure a quality update/product
Matthew said: Brakkis said: Brigby said: Hi Everyone. Thanks for providing all of this in-depth perspective and feedback of the loop system. I'll be sure to pass that along to the team for review.While I can't guarantee that any changes can be made prior to the 3.3 update going live, as I believe the build has already been submitted to 1st party vendors, I will definitely talk to them about revisiting the system and seeing where things can be adjusted. This right here is why things like this should be brought up before the patch is submitted and it's too late to make any kind of changes. This was a solution to a relatively minor problem in the overall scheme of the game and it was extremely poorly thought out. There are far superior methods of fixing this, again - minor, problem that don't outright tank an entire playstyle. One thing I forgot to mention in my own earlier post is mentioned here by Brakkis. The overall impact of this problem, however annoying it is, is minimal at the absolute worst. Personally I can't even remember the last time I've been caught by Greg in a loop of any sort. That illustrates that they either don't occur with any serious degree of frequency, or that when they do occur, I can simply hit the "quit" button to end them, or most likely both of these things. This decision makes it look like you guys heard a vocal minority complaining about something and decided to implement a nuclear option to address it. Terrible decision, and I really, really, really hope it is reversed.
Brakkis said: Brigby said: Hi Everyone. Thanks for providing all of this in-depth perspective and feedback of the loop system. I'll be sure to pass that along to the team for review.While I can't guarantee that any changes can be made prior to the 3.3 update going live, as I believe the build has already been submitted to 1st party vendors, I will definitely talk to them about revisiting the system and seeing where things can be adjusted. This right here is why things like this should be brought up before the patch is submitted and it's too late to make any kind of changes. This was a solution to a relatively minor problem in the overall scheme of the game and it was extremely poorly thought out. There are far superior methods of fixing this, again - minor, problem that don't outright tank an entire playstyle.
Brigby said: Hi Everyone. Thanks for providing all of this in-depth perspective and feedback of the loop system. I'll be sure to pass that along to the team for review.While I can't guarantee that any changes can be made prior to the 3.3 update going live, as I believe the build has already been submitted to 1st party vendors, I will definitely talk to them about revisiting the system and seeing where things can be adjusted.