Objective issue + solution

cmassive13

I got one-shot out of the “take 10 or less damage” objective three games in a row by a turn one Gaea’s Revenge. This objective is far too luck-based, especially in legacy events where a 16/X haste creature is lurking around every corner

PROPOSAL: pvp PAUPER event (typically common, but uncommon would work fine as well). The reduced power level of the C/U cards would allow for much more balanced gameplay and fewer moments like the one I encountered

Or, retire the objective altogether, at least in PVP events

hawkyh1

why is greg getting 23 mana on turn 1, 3 games in
a row?

HH

Tremayne

Because cascades are random! 
However, cascades are ridiculously annoying, no doubt about that.

I have lost 10 points so far 3 to GR and 7 point to a cascade lost. So I know the feeling. 

Machine

cmassive13 said:

I got one-shot out of the “take 10 or less damage” objective three games in a row by a turn one Gaea’s Revenge. This objective is far too luck-based, especially in legacy events where a 16/X haste creature is lurking around every corner

PROPOSAL: pvp PAUPER event (typically common, but uncommon would work fine as well). The reduced power level of the C/U cards would allow for much more balanced gameplay and fewer moments like the one I encountered

Or, retire the objective altogether, at least in PVP events

You think that is crazy? You only lost 3 points this way. Up until now,I'm at -7 because of one loss. Want to know how? I'll tell you...

Greg's turn 1. Startled Awake into another Startled Awake into a fully charged BSZ, into a third SA with Etali and Olivia. Two turn later, it turns out Etali stole my Angel of Invention. Even though I managed to balance the board with only a marginal amount of HP left, his second BSZ completely crippled me. Dead in 4 turns.

I would sign up for only -1. This is -7 because of Greg's god hand.

arNero

Machine said:

cmassive13 said:

I got one-shot out of the “take 10 or less damage” objective three games in a row by a turn one Gaea’s Revenge. This objective is far too luck-based, especially in legacy events where a 16/X haste creature is lurking around every corner

PROPOSAL: pvp PAUPER event (typically common, but uncommon would work fine as well). The reduced power level of the C/U cards would allow for much more balanced gameplay and fewer moments like the one I encountered

Or, retire the objective altogether, at least in PVP events

You think that is crazy? You only lost 3 points this way. Up until now,I'm at -7 because of one loss. Want to know how? I'll tell you...

Greg's turn 1. Startled Awake into another Startled Awake into a fully charged BSZ, into a third SA with Etali and Olivia. Two turn later, it turns out Etali stole my Angel of Invention. Even though I managed to balance the board with only a marginal amount of HP left, his second BSZ completely crippled me. Dead in 4 turns.

I would sign up for only -1. This is -7 because of Greg's god hand.

I hear ya.

My loss was also from a similar case: Bolas Ravager infinite Cascade on turn 1 or 2, 3rd ability one-shot my creature, then another infinite cascade so that he can activate his second ultimate once every two or three turns, meaning I have NO cards to play. For a dozen turns, I think.... starting from turn 3 or 4.

RNG is ****, that's all.

Anyway, back to OP.

Yes, there is a reason that some time back, I specifically mention that Resilient (take X or less damage) is DEFINITELY my most HATED objective. Especially in Nodes of Power and this Hour of Devastation where the limit is ridiculously low; with Gaea's Revenge, Samut, Pig, Olivia and even Inferno Jet running around, failing that objective is HORRENDOUSLY easy. I second the notion that this particular objective should be retired.

cmassive13

Machine said:

cmassive13 said:

I got one-shot out of the “take 10 or less damage” objective three games in a row by a turn one Gaea’s Revenge. This objective is far too luck-based, especially in legacy events where a 16/X haste creature is lurking around every corner

PROPOSAL: pvp PAUPER event (typically common, but uncommon would work fine as well). The reduced power level of the C/U cards would allow for much more balanced gameplay and fewer moments like the one I encountered

Or, retire the objective altogether, at least in PVP events

You think that is crazy? You only lost 3 points this way. Up until now,I'm at -7 because of one loss. Want to know how? I'll tell you...

Greg's turn 1. Startled Awake into another Startled Awake into a fully charged BSZ, into a third SA with Etali and Olivia. Two turn later, it turns out Etali stole my Angel of Invention. Even though I managed to balance the board with only a marginal amount of HP left, his second BSZ completely crippled me. Dead in 4 turns.

I would sign up for only -1. This is -7 because of Greg's god hand.

I mean, I lost a LOT more than those three points haha. The difference is, corrections can often be made over the course of a game

There’s just too much that’s outside of the player’s control for this objective to be reasonable, especially in legacy

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Mburn7

starfall said:

I agree that MTGPQ is too random to ever fully fix the problem of MTGPQ being random.

But I like the idea of a Pauper/Resilient objective pairing! That's something we haven't had before, isn't it?

The issue is that you face opponents from other nodes.  So being stuck in Pauper against a turbo legacy deck will definitely happen, and not be fun at all.

cmassive13

Mburn7 said:

starfall said:

I agree that MTGPQ is too random to ever fully fix the problem of MTGPQ being random.

But I like the idea of a Pauper/Resilient objective pairing! That's something we haven't had before, isn't it?

The issue is that you face opponents from other nodes.  So being stuck in Pauper against a turbo legacy deck will definitely happen, and not be fun at all.

Easy fix: pauper **EVENT**
dont make it an objective, make it an event rule. Nothing above uncommon rarity. If they can check rarity for objectives, and limit sets for certain events but not others, it shouldn’t be difficult

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Tremayne

cmassive13 said:

Mburn7 said:

starfall said:

I agree that MTGPQ is too random to ever fully fix the problem of MTGPQ being random.

But I like the idea of a Pauper/Resilient objective pairing! That's something we haven't had before, isn't it?

The issue is that you face opponents from other nodes.  So being stuck in Pauper against a turbo legacy deck will definitely happen, and not be fun at all.

Easy fix: pauper **EVENT**
dont make it an objective, make it an event rule. Nothing above uncommon rarity. If they can check rarity for objectives, and limit sets for certain events but not others, it shouldn’t be difficult

I like this idea, no doubt about it, however I also have a humongous library to choose from. Would love to be forced to play with some of the chaff which come with every set.

I imagine that some sort of compensation needs to be introduced to players with a small library of cards. Say every player get a pre-made deck that contains 10 common and uncommon cards so they can supplement their current library in every node colour in the event

Platinum players will most likely have the cards already, so it will just be a few orbs, but bronze and silver will get more cards to play with, so they have a chance to compete.

 I can’t see any drawback to this solution, since my experience is that everyone wants rare, mythic and MP to play with, if they have them.