Kudos devs

Options
Morphis
Morphis Posts: 975 Critical Contributor
edited December 2016 in MtGPQ General Discussion
For new objectives

Enemy does summon creatures then clears whole board: you lose the "kill 2 or less creatures"

You play 2 werewolves, opponent imprison in the moon(or turn to frog) one: you lose summon 2 or less creatures.

:thumb up:

Comments

  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    This was on my list of posts today.

    I dont have as much of a complaint with this objective as it's written-- more that it's broken with the frog and moon thing.
  • wereotter
    wereotter Posts: 2,064 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Yep, same problem for me. I tried to not kill creatures, and just let them go, then my opponent casts Voldaren Pariah, and Altar's Reap, and after all that, it counted as three enemy creatures killed, and I lost the objective. If this is going to be an objective, then they need to differentiate between opponent's creatures I kill, and opponent's creature they kill themselves.
  • buscemi
    buscemi Posts: 673 Critical Contributor
    Options
    I'm all for breaking up the ties for first place, but 'hoping you dont get drawn against a deck which is designed to shut down your chances of getting an objective' doesn't seem like the best system.

    Maybe FIXING the matchmaking system, rather than giving those few players who every seems to play against enormous power to reduce the points scored by everyone facing them, might be better.

    It's already unfair (although 'fair', in the strictest mathematical sense, which, it should be noted, is a sense that no-one cares about) that some players will have to play a large proportion of their event games against people who know how to optimize their decks to shut you down, or draw games out inteminably by including no win conditions, whilst others will play against decks that are hopelessly outclassed against them.
  • ShadyGrady
    ShadyGrady Posts: 15
    Options
    It is very frustrating to a see a whole list of perfect scores imply because none of them ran into Turn to Frog or Imprison in the Moon.
  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    buscemi wrote:
    I'm all for breaking up the ties for first place, but 'hoping you dont get drawn against a deck which is designed to shut down your chances of getting an objective' doesn't seem like the best system.

    Maybe FIXING the matchmaking system, rather than giving those few players who every seems to play against enormous power to reduce the points scored by everyone facing them, might be better.

    It's already unfair (although 'fair', in the strictest mathematical sense, which, it should be noted, is a sense that no-one cares about) that some players will have to play a large proportion of their event games against people who know how to optimize their decks to shut you down, or draw games out inteminably by including no win conditions, whilst others will play against decks that are hopelessly outclassed against them.

    Yes, those things are all good, but right now I'd like to get my bonuses based on skill not on whether I get mooned or frogged and the dumb bugged system counts that as me summoning a creature.

    I did not ask for that.
  • mouser
    mouser Posts: 529 Critical Contributor
    Options
    I'm torn between whether to laugh or cry.
  • BayTamago
    BayTamago Posts: 50 Match Maker
    Options
    The objectives should not be going counter to the deck colours' playstyles.

    Restricting RG to 2 creatures for 1 ribbon is ridiculous. Same with Blue and 2 spells. WB isn't any better.
  • hueyTW
    hueyTW Posts: 31 Just Dropped In
    Options
    BayTamago wrote:
    The objectives should not be going counter to the deck colours' playstyles.

    Restricting RG to 2 creatures for 1 ribbon is ridiculous. Same with Blue and 2 spells. WB isn't any better.

    Red is also the color which good at damage spell. You can build a deck base on good damage spell plus 1 or 2 RG werewolf.

    Blue is also good at support (artifacts in paper MTG). You can build a support deck and some good blue creatures.
  • alextfish
    alextfish Posts: 192
    Options
    BayTamago wrote:
    The objectives should not be going counter to the deck colours' playstyles.

    Restricting RG to 2 creatures for 1 ribbon is ridiculous. Same with Blue and 2 spells. WB isn't any better.
    What? No, that's ridiculous. These objectives are interesting precisely *because* they're hard. The old Emrakul blue node I could just throw my pre-existing Jace 2 deck in, and be pretty sure I'd generate 8 supports (more like 20) and play Drowner twice and get the objectives without trying. This time I need to be very careful what I use my Moon / Frog on. It's good.

    It's just that your efforts can be completely undermined by the AI's actions, because if the AI uses Moon / Frog on you, that counts as *you* summoning another creature.
  • Steeme
    Steeme Posts: 784 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Agreed. The new objectives are great, but this just "brings to light" some of the underlying implementation details like what is considered a summon, and what is considered to have been killed by the player vs. anything that just "dies".

    Honestly, I don't really care anymore. As long as I can hit the regular progression that's enough for me. The amount of effort required to actually place in the events far outweighs the benefits given that you are not guaranteed to win anything of value.
  • Morphis
    Morphis Posts: 975 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Steeme wrote:
    Agreed. The new objectives are great, but this just "brings to light" some of the underlying implementation details like what is considered a summon, and what is considered to have been killed by the player vs. anything that just "dies".

    Honestly, I don't really care anymore. As long as I can hit the regular progression that's enough for me. The amount of effort required to actually place in the events far outweighs the benefits given that you are not guaranteed to win anything of value.
    You know, i asked if they are considering rebuilding their game rule engine.

    I was too late in the development thread cause it already fulfilled its goal: calm us down making us believe something is going to change.

Categories