Loop prevention

MonkeynuttsMonkeynutts Posts: 566 Critical Contributor
Seriously can you guys look at ways of reducing this happening by changing cards or restricting sets, so cards don't interact.

In Trial of Ambition I have had LPS come up in 14 of 15 games......it's stupid. I quit most of them cos I don't play a game where I have to stare at it playing itself.

It's wrong that this happens and it should be reduced or eliminated. The intro of The two Tri colour planeswalkers with green have made this so bad.

Comments

  • AzerackAzerack Posts: 473 Mover and Shaker
    It really needs to be something that 1. Affects only the AI, since we're certainly capable of controlling our OWN loops and
    2. Can be modified manually, so that players can decide if they want the loop or not.

    The whole point of the Loop Prevention was to make the game more accessible to PLAYERS, correct? The AI doesn't care if it goes on forever... 
  • BlckadderBlckadder Posts: 3 Just Dropped In
    Been seeing a lot of Naru Meha and creature summon spells, there's no end and loop prevention mechanism does not trigger.
  • MonkeynuttsMonkeynutts Posts: 566 Critical Contributor
    Getting sick of this game now. Typical devs doing nothing
  • AzerackAzerack Posts: 473 Mover and Shaker
    @Tombstone@LakeStone - May I appeal to you from a player's perspective on this one?

    The strategies we develop are not based on loops, they are based on how to protect and/or attack the opponent with the colors, cards and abilities our Planeswalker has.

    If the AI is given a card set that results in a loop:
    1. If we can't protect ourselves from it, in the first place, after the initial loop prevention occurs, it's not going to matter, we're going to lose, anyway.
    2. If we CAN protect ourselves from it, then regardless of HOW BIG the creature(s) get(s) we're just going to remove it/them when it's our turn (or sooner in some cases with flash kill cards).

    Therefore, I do not see why the AI should have any choice regarding loop prevention when the AI is simply there to play the PW/cards that were given to it to play against the live opponent.

    From that standpoint, the main question is, why even give the AI the controls over loop prevention, at all?

    Please consider at least turning the loop prevention controls over to the player, entirely, based on this logic.
  • gillkonamgillkonam Posts: 44 Just Dropped In
    My biggest issue with LP is Stitch in Time. It shouldn't trigger the "additional turns". It can offer them, but the AI shouldn't just get them.

  • AzerackAzerack Posts: 473 Mover and Shaker
    gillkonam said:
    My biggest issue with LP is Stitch in Time. It shouldn't trigger the "additional turns". It can offer them, but the AI shouldn't just get them.

    Unfortunately, mi amigo, Stitch in Time isn't loop prevention, that's just a lot of extra turns, which is different than LP which means a single turn can go on "ad inifinitum" if the cards are right. In that case, well, that's just part of the strategy for the deck that someone else made.

    In our case, even us, as players, wouldn't need a 250+ Naru (which has now, potentially, been adjusted, but there will probably be more examples, later) to win the game and we would stop our own loop after we had enough power to take out the opponent (or at least after we thought we had enough overkill ;) ).
Sign In or Register to comment.