"Lay Claim" acting different, or is it just me? [As Designed]

2»

Comments

  • Tengu316
    Tengu316 Posts: 37 Just Dropped In
    @Tombstone

    Any word on why a stolen creature cannot replace an existing creature on the battlefield? That's the biggest problem I've got with this "change", above and beyond destruction and lack of information. Thanks!
  • Tengu316
    Tengu316 Posts: 37 Just Dropped In
    When a player controls three creatures on the board, then neither "In Bolas' Clutches" or "Lay Claim" will no longer prompt to replace one of those creatures when those cards are cast. "In Bolas' Clutches" just puts the support on the board or reinforces the existing support and "Lay Claim" doesn't cast.

    The expected behavior is that either of these card should trigger the "Replace Creature" dialogue and all the player the option to destroy one of his existing creatures in order to play the opponent's creature in its place.

    I've verified this is happening consistently now with both cards.

    Note that this is not about the "creature destruction" effect which apparently has been taken away. This is solely a problem with not being able to replace creatures in play with "stolen" creatures.

    Thanks!
  • Brigby
    Brigby ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 7,757 Site Admin
    I like the change. But the total ignorance of changing a complete mechanic and not telling anyone is highly irritating. How are we supposed to understand how anything works i?
    It would appear that the prior behavior players experienced with these kind of cards was actually a bug (hence why its behavior had sometimes been the cause of soft-locks players have reported), and this change was considered a bug fix rather than a mechanic change.

    Having said that though, we apologize for this fix unfortunately flying under our radar, and we'll take efforts to avoid such an oversight in the future.
  • Mburn7
    Mburn7 Posts: 3,427 Chairperson of the Boards
    Brigby said:
    I like the change. But the total ignorance of changing a complete mechanic and not telling anyone is highly irritating. How are we supposed to understand how anything works i?
    It would appear that the prior behavior players experienced with these kind of cards was actually a bug (hence why its behavior had sometimes been the cause of soft-locks players have reported), and this change was considered a bug fix rather than a mechanic change.

    Having said that though, we apologize for this fix unfortunately flying under our radar, and we'll take efforts to avoid such an oversight in the future.
    Uhh, this is definitely not right.

    It was previously announced that the killing was intended.

    Its hard to find the original, but this is what I could find with a 5 minute search:

    Here's 1 thread referencing Lay Claim and Beckett destroying stuff

    Here's a thread on In Bolas' Clutches that was renamed to "working as intended"


    Considering both of these were under Oktagon (even if it was originally created by Hibernium), I find it hard to believe that they didn't realize it was a mechanic change.
    Also, even if it was a bug fix, shouldn't that still be mentioned somewhere in the patch notes?
    The lack of communication has always been pretty bad, but this is getting ridiculous.
  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,673 Chairperson of the Boards
    Sigh!



     If only we had a set of rules to guide us in these situations.



    Sigh!
  • This content has been removed.
  • Tengu316
    Tengu316 Posts: 37 Just Dropped In
    edited March 2019
    @Brigby,

    Okay, so you're saying that NO PROMPT TO REPLACE when Lay Claim/IBC is cast is as designed, correct? To me, that sounds like a bug and not design so I'd like confirmation, please.

    I tried to start a separate thread about THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE because THIS thread seems to have been all about destruction but it got merged with this one. lol 

    Personally, I just wanna know if this is the way control magic works going forward so I can adjust my thief-deck accordingly. 

    Thanks!
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Just Dropped In
    While i understand the change and how it is for the better due to blues overpoweredness.. i feel this change was a little mis-directed? Here are my thoughts. 

    The difference in casting cost with lay claim vs other limited but lower casting cost steal cards bugs me as well (As someone else mentioned)

    Also, i thought perma "stealing" killing the creature wasnt necessarily such a bad feature, as stealing a creature removes an opponents creature as a whole and puts it on my side. Thus a pseudo destroy effect. Of course only for permanent steal effects; temporary steal shouldnt kill. 

    I doubt they will change it back anyways but wouldn't this make more sense? Of course, if perma steal reverts back, the better target for change would have to be aimed at bounce (though it pains me to utter such words). It would be better balancing, in my opinion. 
  • Brigby
    Brigby ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 7,757 Site Admin
    Mburn7 said:
    Brigby said:
    I like the change. But the total ignorance of changing a complete mechanic and not telling anyone is highly irritating. How are we supposed to understand how anything works i?
    It would appear that the prior behavior players experienced with these kind of cards was actually a bug (hence why its behavior had sometimes been the cause of soft-locks players have reported), and this change was considered a bug fix rather than a mechanic change.

    Having said that though, we apologize for this fix unfortunately flying under our radar, and we'll take efforts to avoid such an oversight in the future.
    Uhh, this is definitely not right.

    It was previously announced that the killing was intended.

    Its hard to find the original, but this is what I could find with a 5 minute search:

    Here's 1 thread referencing Lay Claim and Beckett destroying stuff

    Here's a thread on In Bolas' Clutches that was renamed to "working as intended"


    Considering both of these were under Oktagon (even if it was originally created by Hibernium), I find it hard to believe that they didn't realize it was a mechanic change.
    Also, even if it was a bug fix, shouldn't that still be mentioned somewhere in the patch notes?

    The lack of communication has always been pretty bad, but this is getting ridiculous.
    The first thread states that Lay Claim and Admiral Beckett are intended to behave in the same way as each other, however I don't believe there was any mention that they both should destroy Creatures. Having said that though, there was also no specification as to the intended card behavior, so I apologize for the confusion there.

    As for the second thread, it would appear one of our moderators had marked that thread, as opposed to an official D3 Go! or Oktagon employee. I have corrected that.

    As for whether this should've been communicated in the Release Notes, yes you're right that it should've been, and apologies for the oversight. We will be sure to take efforts to avoid this in the future.
    Tengu316 said:
    Brigby,

    Okay, so you're saying that NO PROMPT TO REPLACE when Lay Claim/IBC is cast is as designed, correct? To me, that sounds like a bug and not design so I'd like confirmation, please.

    -snip-
    Are you talking about the specific scenario where the player that cast the card already has 3 Creatures on the battlefield, or are you talking about 2 or less? I presume the former, but I just wanted to double check.
  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    Brigby said:


    As for the second thread, it would appear one of our moderators had marked that thread, as opposed to an official D3 Go! or Oktagon employee. I have corrected that.

    As for whether this should've been communicated in the Release Notes, yes you're right that it should've been, and apologies for the oversight. We will be sure to take efforts to avoid this in the future.

    I
     vaguely remember getting into a heated discussion with such a mod for exactly that matter. And I thought I wasn't able to fully comprehend what I read when I was shut up.


    You could still add this to the last release notes and comment shortly on them, this should at least prevent some of the next bug reports.
    I specifically like this change because of the new mythic board wipe steal card which now became just a good and useful card to use instead of.. What it could've been
  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,673 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited March 2019
    @Brigby - I laughed out so loud that I had to explain the reason to my wife. It was grotesque trying to explain this error to her, that during the last year or more this “feature” has persisted to the great bafflement of the players.

    We, the players, have sought information and tried to verify that this was the correct functionality. After being confirmed, we were mystified by such a large change in the game which were also not communicated in the app.

     @Brigby you have now confirmed what the players knew from the beginning, that this was wrong. Thank you for that.

     I hope you understand that this leaves quite a few unanswered questions, like:
    1. How was it possile for the developers to miss this fault for so long? (The players have shouted it out clearly enough).
    2. How are the players suppose to raise their concerns to the developers on issues like this, when the forum is obviously not working. (Please don’t dismiss this as a one time mistake, because you know it isn’t)
    3. Are the developers missing test cases to identify basic functionality issues? I’m sure some of the players would be happy to help in the testing of cards when new sets and major updates are about to be released.(because they have offered it before)
    4. Do the developers complain about a lack of clear rules? (If they do not, why not?!?)
    5. Does this problem not highlight very clearly that MTGPQ is lacking clear rules on a huge amount of gameplay issues?
    I sorely miss clear rules for the basic functionality, the first that comes to mind are steal, bounce and multi-coloured cards. I know there is more, but I’ll start with this.

    @Brigby - please explore this and get back with a serious answer, preferably in a blog post. (I think that this is the third or fourth time this week I or some else have highlighted a subject for the blog.) I really hope that you get more time to work on the blog, once you are back from jury duty.
  • Tengu316
    Tengu316 Posts: 37 Just Dropped In
    Brigby said:
    Mburn7 said:
    Brigby said:
    I like the change. But the total ignorance of changing a complete mechanic and not telling anyone is highly irritating. How are we supposed to understand how anything works i?
    It would appear that the prior behavior players experienced with these kind of cards was actually a bug (hence why its behavior had sometimes been the cause of soft-locks players have reported), and this change was considered a bug fix rather than a mechanic change.

    Having said that though, we apologize for this fix unfortunately flying under our radar, and we'll take efforts to avoid such an oversight in the future.
    Uhh, this is definitely not right.

    It was previously announced that the killing was intended.

    Its hard to find the original, but this is what I could find with a 5 minute search:

    Here's 1 thread referencing Lay Claim and Beckett destroying stuff

    Here's a thread on In Bolas' Clutches that was renamed to "working as intended"


    Considering both of these were under Oktagon (even if it was originally created by Hibernium), I find it hard to believe that they didn't realize it was a mechanic change.
    Also, even if it was a bug fix, shouldn't that still be mentioned somewhere in the patch notes?

    The lack of communication has always been pretty bad, but this is getting ridiculous.
    The first thread states that Lay Claim and Admiral Beckett are intended to behave in the same way as each other, however I don't believe there was any mention that they both should destroy Creatures. Having said that though, there was also no specification as to the intended card behavior, so I apologize for the confusion there.

    As for the second thread, it would appear one of our moderators had marked that thread, as opposed to an official D3 Go! or Oktagon employee. I have corrected that.

    As for whether this should've been communicated in the Release Notes, yes you're right that it should've been, and apologies for the oversight. We will be sure to take efforts to avoid this in the future.
    Tengu316 said:
    Brigby,

    Okay, so you're saying that NO PROMPT TO REPLACE when Lay Claim/IBC is cast is as designed, correct? To me, that sounds like a bug and not design so I'd like confirmation, please.

    -snip-
    Are you talking about the specific scenario where the player that cast the card already has 3 Creatures on the battlefield, or are you talking about 2 or less? I presume the former, but I just wanted to double check.
    @Brigby You're correct: It's the former. I've got three critters out and want to steal one of my opponents and it's a no-go. 

    Thanks for the clarification! 
  • This content has been removed.
  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,673 Chairperson of the Boards
    Back on March 30th I posed a series of questions to you @Brigby. Sadly, I never got a response, but I guess the next problem occurred for you to deal with. However I would still like to get an answer to them, so how about just one of the questions? (If you can’t remember the questions see the post 3 up)