Perfect scores should be less possible perhaps?

I think this could be good for the game. Though, should they decide to do something similar in PvE, the score that triggers it should absolutely be at or above personal progression. Actually, that might be interesting in the one player PvE, get a perfect score to unlock the nuts OP greg version. I'd take on that challenge from time to time.

Players seem to forget the cascades that they get themselves.

I definitely cascade. I don't really think it's by design, but it seems fairly rare that Greg ever gets just one match in a round, though. I have also noticed a difference in behavior when I destroy gems vs when Greg does. Koth is a good example. In the koth mirror, Greg using his first turns into cascade city . I couldn't tell you how many times I've popped it and had nothing happen. Same story with the ever ubiquitous volcanic rambler. This is manageable with the derpy ai . When the ai was super cascades hurt a lot ,and they were constant. I did adapt, and I'd rather the game be too hard than too easy . I ,personally, feel like the ai difficulty should scale up with your mastery . There's really no reason that bronze and platinum should be playing the same Greg. 

More than anything, I suspect the exsistence of Cycling contributes in no small part to the problem of too many perfect scores. Therefore, we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt, and wait to see if the trend continues after next week, when cycling and other very potent linear strategies go the way of smugglers copter. 

That said, the problem is also largely inherent to the nature of secondary objectives:

- Either you make them too luck based, such as HoD with "take 10 or less" which you straight up lose if koth fires a turn 1 inferno jet or something like that. 

This has the huge problem of making the game incredibly frustrating, as your placement becomes too luck-based and you can play flawlessly with a perfect deck, and yet lose purely due to an initial cascade. Or you get caught up in impossible objectives, simply because you have to take damage from a deck unable to do damage (met a cycling DB whose ONLY SOURCE OF DAMAGE was drake haven, so i was unable to take damage at all from him), or the classic example of meeting a creatureless deck when you need enemy creatures to kill. k

- Otherwise, you make the objectives manageable, which however leaves the door open for anyone to achieve those objectives consistently if they play well and build a good deck for them.

This has the advantage of being a way better play experience, as luck is less of a factor, and if you and your decks are good enough, you will get the kind of reward you deserve. However, this also means that anyone not good enough to get flawless, is pushed almost out of any significant prices, even if they miss a single objective, because the competition is as tight as it is. 

That said, i feel like RTO has hit a solid balance, with objectives that you should aim to achieve, but are also forgiving enough to not become frustrating. Some objectives are dangerous, and the "win with X or less life" is really horrible, but overall the event feels fairly enjoyable and fair.

The real solution, is probably to rethink the objectives and objective system itself, as well as improve the skill level of greg.

Let's face it, getting a 95%+ winrate is incredibly easy, and it is rare for the AI to provide any sort of real challenge, meaning that the base challenge of simply winning the game is almost trivial, even if the decks should in theory be of comparable strength.

So, rather than change objectives, which seems almost impossible to get perfect, we need the base game to become a lot harder at platinum/Diamond.

Frankly, they should probably just straight up give greg something like +1 to all mana gains, or some other advantage, to offset it's inherent disadvantage and try to make winning outright hard.


If you go almost flawless at platinum, it should be an achievement, not the norm.

By comparison, the top professional magic players typically have a winrate of about 60-65%.

If the game is providing an apropriate challenge, you should expect to only achieve a winrate of about 50%, 95% is just too darned high! 

So here's the issue:

Not everyone wants a super hard AI. Some people want to play for fun and relaxation and don't want to have to fight for every win. Others want a challenge and want to feel like they've accomplished something by beating a super intelligent AI.

sjechua said:

wereotter said:

One solution is to allow each player to set the difficulty they would like to face, but that comes with its own set of issues, namely that you couldn't ever do another ranked event as those who chose a lower AI difficulty would have an inherent advantage over those who didn't, and you couldn't divide by what difficulty you chose for tiers as new players might be paired off against established players who just want a more chill experience.

AI difficulty setting of smart / smarter / smartest could allow for a point bonus / multiplier. The smarter the AI difficulty setting, the greater the bonus ...

If by multiplying you mean give the current rewards to the smartest ai matches and a multiplier of -50% and -75% to the lower difficulties, sure!!! Let's not give them any more ideas to chip away the already selective and skewed rewards... 

Not necessarily... When you enter an event you choose your difficulty and based on that you get your rewards adjusted... AI isn't everything.
Sure it would skew things unless each difficulty got its brackets but my point was this is an extra opportunity to further handicap rewards or up difficulty for no gain...