Should 3.3 Be Delayed?

GrizzoMtGPQ

Given the extremely negative response to the release notes should Oktagon delay the release?

Tremayne

Yes

I had just decided to make a poll, but sadly you beat me to it. 😮

I would have added two response more choices. First extra option, I like the idea, but all of the ramifications are not clear to me. Second option extra option, It is a bad idea, but all of the ramifications are not clear to me.

Among the choices listed above I have to choose something that does not really comply, but I still choose Yes.

Update - I have reconsidered and would like to change my answer to No.

Second update - I would like to change my vote to “can someone turn on the light so I can figure out what is going on?”

Thuran

Yes

YES!!!!


This has the potential to do more damage to the game, to the player base and to oktagon than ANY previous patch in the history of this game.

Many players don't read the forums, they won't know a potential reverse is coming later, and many won't have the patience to wait for that.

This patch threatens to do permanent damage to the game as a whole. 

For the future of the game, it MUST be stopped!

Before the deleted games, cancelled accounts, 1-star reviews and broken coalitions happen....if oktagon won't do it for us, do it for your own bottom line

Unknown

This content has been removed.

[Deleted User]

Yes

Now i will stop wasting my time on the forums so i can waste time on useless animations and long load times. 

I did my part. Good luck all. 

Baraxis

No

I answered no.
As i said in other topic, the game needs the timer, mainly for legacy.
Loopy deck are funs the first time you played it, but now even my own loopy deck are boring me because they loop so much that i win less quickly than with other deck, and playing them is just reduced to wait a long time.
And deck that kill you in one turn are not fun to play against. (When ia manage to play them)

And the game really needs new cards for change the meta.

Bil

Yes

If releasing 3.3 now means pressing the little red button ... Then it must definitely be delayed ...

Froggy

No

I voted NO.

However, there should really be another option here. Either a neutral option, or an option to give a different opinion.

But I would say no, it should not be delayed.

Instead, the devs should change that 18 second counter to 180 seconds.

Problem solved.

Dropspot

No

I think they could still launch it as long as they make a hot fix raising the time limit to a level that it doesn't affect game play. Even if it takes 1 week after release, if they disclose they are working on it and the 18 seconds is short lived it's a good compromise

Shadowslayer

I don't want a delay any longer than it already has been. However, the new feature to eliminate loops doesnt seen to be the right fix. I'd rather tip my hat to the decks that greg can autopilot, and take my lose, than to have my decks forcably stopped. 

Laeuftbeidir

No

I'm against delaying it. What's the point? Without new coalition events, I couldn't care less what they do or don't publish or break. So yeah, give me the update so I can at least get rid of all the gold before I lose interest for good.

LordDorwin

Yes

I am in favour of a (short) delay, for several reasons:

First, the "loop-stop" timer concept was not proposed to the community of players before now, leaving people who are opposed (a significant number, if the commentary on these fora is indicative of the feelings of the player base) no option but to vote with their feet or wallets if opposed.  It is thus a financially stupid decision from the company's perspective.

They may be of the opinion that they have a chokehold on the online community of MTG enthusiasts.  This may have been true when the game was released.  It isn't any more.

Second, this is an inordinately stupid method of solving the problem of endless loops.  In fact, as the game software is so tardy to execute certain processes, it may well interact with itself to end the run in a completely non-loop play of cards(Explore is one that may trigger the "end" routine while doing nothing loopy).

A stop after a certain number of cards were played during a turn would make more sense as a loop-terminator, as would making changes or banning (deletion for orbs in this case) to notorious looping cards (As was successfully done with Divine Intervention a while ago).

Third (and this ties in with 1), is it necessary to stop looping decks?  With all respect, a boss with ±400 HP will encourage the use of such strategies, if only because the alternative is a low-damage(of necessity) control strategy, which take a long time to ablate the excessive number of HP.

Before this is sorted out, releasing the new update would be improvident.

PS: The argument that because there are no new coalition events (yet again, and yes, this annoys me no end) the new update may as well be released strikes me as a "well, we may as well go ahead and break it completely!" kind of approach, and doesn't address the problem.

An issue, considered important, has been identified by the player base preemptively.  Surely it would be meet to call a 2 week halt pending investigation thereof?

BATMAN1

I said no, everything looks fine. Just shove the 18 second thing. 

OmegaLolrus

No

I think the 18 second thing won't affect as much of the player base at large as we think it will, so I vote go ahead with it.

BUT, something definitely needs to be done about the 18-second thing. I'm not sure it's as horrible as it sounds, but I'm pretty sure it's bad, at the very least.

IM_CARLOS

Yes

Well a lot of my decks have 18+ sec. turns. So maybe a small problem is fixed but the whole game is broken.

mrixl2520

No

No

I do not think it needs to be delay. The game is pretty stale right now, and as restrictive as the new timer sounds, the community is very hungry for some new content. There's a lot of cool new stuff I want to play with, even if that means trial running the not-so-great portions.

The timer is a serious point of contention and I think D3 needs to be on its toes about making it work. They should be ready to adjust it or pull it completely if it hampers FUN gameplay. 

souki12

No

No.

Let's see it in action first. I hope that the devs are aware of loopy decks and combos like HUF and Deploy and tested those in the 25/18s environment. I hope they would not implement something that brakes a two card combo.

But the devs should be ready to roll out an update asap if the change is as disastrous as it seems to be now.

Mburn7

I Don’t Care

souki12 said:

No.

Let's see it in action first. I hope that the devs are aware of loopy decks and combos like HUF and Deploy and tested those in the 25/18s environment. I hope they would not implement something that brakes a two card combo.

But the devs should be ready to roll out an update asap if the change is as disastrous as it seems to be now.

Lol you must be new here.  Of course they didn't test it with combos like HUF and Day's Undoing/Behold the Beyond/Blue Sun's Zenith/Sunbird's Invocation/Path of Discovery/Whatever else.

Every change they make has severe and unintended consequences.  Lets see what the ones from this one are.

BigSwifty

Yes

YES.

A timer would literally ruin the game. Taking time to examine the board, survery your hand, consider your options and so on are 100% necessary for me to enjoy playing this game. There are other, better solutions to the loop issue.

wereotter

No

If the entire purpose of suggesting a delay is because of the auto end of turn timer, then there's no reason to delay literally everything else over this. The exact amount of time on that timer can be adjusted by making simple changes to the code. They can see how it goes, and if it doesn't work out right, like if it doesn't give enough time for certain effects to resolve, then they can extend the timer. Additionally it would seem that certain effects will pause the timer, so what we're seeing right now and timing might not translate as a 1-1 with the amount of time the game is counting. For example, casting March of the Multitudes, all the times spent animating the tokens coming into play, according to an earlier statement, will not count for the 25 seconds.

nerdstrap

Yes

Lol they can’t make simple changes without a 3 month vacation first