What do you think of the new 18sec Timer rule?

Mburn7

Lets make life easy for @Brigby and the dev team.  Everyone, note your opinions here and lets show the devs what the community really wants (or doesn't want)

Baraxis

I love it as is, 18 seconds is perfect

My answer is : i like the concept (which is mandatory for me for legacy) but i don't know yet if 18s is enough or not.

I really need to test it for answer precisely to this question

Thuran

I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer

While actions would be better, its not a bad concept.

However, what is bad is a timer that sometimes only allow a single action to not even resolve!

The limit needs to be several minutes longer!

Mburn7

I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer

Baraxis said:

My answer is : i like the concept (which is mandatory for me for legacy) but i don't know yet if 18s is enough or not.

I really need to test it for answer precisely to this question

Hmm, you're right, there should have been a "wait and see" option.  My bad!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Bil

I hate the concept completely

   It will only bring permanent stress and frustration ... And won't solve anything relevant. 
  You wanna stop loops ... Change the 18 second to 20 cards ... Add a continue/stop prompt after 25 seconds without a swap.
  Anything ... But not time based ... Time depends on too much factors to be fair anyway ... The device you play with ... The quality of your signal ... Even the build you've choosen is susceptible to slow your play because the app itself struggles to deal with the diferent features.

Mburn7

I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer

Bil said:

   It will only bring permanent stress and frustration ... And won't solve anything relevant. 
  You wanna stop loops ... Change the 18 second to 20 cards ... Add a continue/stop prompt after 25 seconds without a swap.
  Anything ... But not time based ... Time depends on too much factors to be fair anyway ... The device you play with ... The quality of your signal ... Even the build you've choosen is susceptible to slow your play because the app itself struggles to deal with the diferent features.

The card limit has been proposed before, and is what probably should have been implemented instead of the time limit.  It is unfathomable that with all the input we've given them over the years on this topic they picked something that absolutely nobody asked for or wants.

Froggy

I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer

180 seconds. That's what we should start with.

If it does not work out (too short or too long), then it can be changed.

Originally they said it would be 25 seconds. Then 18 seconds. So my conclusion is that the second count is easily changeable.

Maybe if we all push for a 180 second counter, they might do it and we can take it from there...

Shall we begin?...

Mburn7

I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer

Froggy said:

180 seconds. That's what we should start with.

If it does not work out (too short or too long), then it can be changed.

Originally they said it would be 25 seconds. Then 18 seconds. So my conclusion is that the second count is easily changeable.

Maybe if we all push for a 180 second counter, they might do it and we can take it from there...

Shall we begin?...

180 might be a bit too long for them if they think 18 is ok.

How about 90?  That should allow most combos to work without anything infinite happening

Laeuftbeidir

I don't really care either way

Mburn7 said:

Baraxis said:

My answer is : i like the concept (which is mandatory for me for legacy) but i don't know yet if 18s is enough or not.

I really need to test it for answer precisely to this question

Hmm, you're right, there should have been a "wait and see" option.  My bad!

I
 do care, but used the option saying the opposite as wait and see

Froggy

I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer

Mburn7 said:

Froggy said:

180 seconds. That's what we should start with.

If it does not work out (too short or too long), then it can be changed.

Originally they said it would be 25 seconds. Then 18 seconds. So my conclusion is that the second count is easily changeable.

Maybe if we all push for a 180 second counter, they might do it and we can take it from there...

Shall we begin?...

180 might be a bit too long for them if they think 18 is ok.

How about 90?  That should allow most combos to work without anything infinite happening

90 sounds good to me.

Anything that will allow us players a reasonable amount of time for our combos to work, while we test it. 90 might be too long. Or it might be too short. We won't know till we try. But 18 is most definitely not enough time.

But if all us players decide and agree on a starting point, we may be able to influence/persuade the devs to start with that. We can run it for a week or so and then a new poll gets done.

The results can be viewed and I'm sure we'd be able to hit that sweet spot for this loop timer.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Mburn7

I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer

starfall said:

I worry that "I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer" is being used by people who want to shut down other people's combo decks but not their own.

How so?  A 2 hour combo is a 2 hour combo.  I don't see how mine would get off faster than yours (actually, it should be slower because the AI plays faster).

I just think that they need to increase the time limit so that regular combos have time to work, but infinite ones get stopped.  Nobody thinks resolving a Day's Undoing should end your turn, but a Waterveil loop absolutely should not be able to go on forever.

Shadowslayer

I completely hate it. 

Mark_Tedin

I hate the concept completely

One more step in the wrong direction. In the same way as the implementation of visual card art in the match. nobody asked for it, everyone was upset and until today the problem has not been solved.

The timer will be something very stressful.  

Unknown

This content has been removed.

WiLDRAGE

I hate the concept completely

You break an infinite loop by conceding but most people are so averse to losing in this game it's mind boggling.

Mburn7

I like the concept, but the time limit should be longer

WiLDRAGE said:

You break an infinite loop by conceding but most people are so averse to losing in this game it's mind boggling.

Well when 1 loss will drop you from 1st place to 100th place you tend to try and avoid losing as much as possible.

WiLDRAGE

I hate the concept completely

Mburn7 said:

WiLDRAGE said:

You break an infinite loop by conceding but most people are so averse to losing in this game it's mind boggling.

Well when 1 loss will drop you from 1st place to 100th place you tend to try and avoid losing as much as possible.

There's no reason to break gameplay to address a reward structure issue.

Unknown

This content has been removed.