Hibernum_JC wrote: Believe it or not, we do test these objectives. It's not unwinnable. Very difficult, yes. Maybe a bit too difficult, yes. Unwinnable? No. I have done it myself. It's important to note that not all objectives and encounters will be beatable by all players. A lot depends on your available cards, deck building, planeswalker, etc.
Irgy wrote: The problem with this is not that it isn't winnable. The problem is that it shouldn't be winnable. If there's combos which are capable of achieving this objective, especially if reliably, then it's simply a very poor reflection on card balance. It's something to be ashamed of not something to rub in everyone's faces with this objective.
bken1234 wrote: Still waiting on a video and decklist.
buscemi wrote: At first, many players, including myself, railed at the randomness of these objectives. 'How are we supposed to get perfect scores!?' we cried. 'These are next to impossible!'. Players on the other side of the argument pointed out that perhaps even players at the top of the game were not *supposed* to get perfect scores all the time. And dyou know what? With hindsight, I think they're right. Make no mistake, I consider these objectives to involve a far, far higher degree of randomness than skill. But perhaps the RatC event is a good place for objectives like this. There is no individual leaderboard; only a progression ladder which is achievable to a certain % of the player base even without getting these extra 5 point bonuses; and a coalition leaderboard, consisting of teams of 20 players... team scores will be less affected by randomness as some players within a team will get lucky and others won't. In fact, it makes team chat kinda fun, doesn't it? 'I got the 3 turns kill!!! ' 'Curse you, I missed it by one!! '
AettThorn wrote: I'm fine if they are going to create more and more challenging events, but then they risk alienating more and more players who can't compete. If this was meant to be a "hardcore player only" type of event even for basic progression, then they need to be upfront about it.
Steeme wrote: It's gotten to the point where I don't even care about the objectives anymore. I simply don't have the time to optimize multiple decks for multiple concurrent events with seemingly random objectives, nor do I particularly enjoy intentionally gimping my deck to make objectives when it increases my chance of just losing the match outright.
Nitymp wrote: Why can't we just do away with needing tiebreakers to sort rankings out and just award the joint X players the prize of the highest joint ranking? This does away with stupid time based tie breakers and the need to implement stupid RNG based secondaries!