2.7.1 Release Notes *Updated (7/10/18)

Brakkis said:

show previous quotes

FindingHeart8 said:

Gunmix25 said:

any idea as to when this push will occur? today? tomorrow? next Tuesday?

August, September, October, November...  

Two weeks ago. We missed it.

darn, well there's always next year

babar3355 said:

show previous quotes

span_argoman said:

Gameplay not so much, but if F2P players can consistently complete their collections, the question is who will spend money on this game and on what.

The difference for paper MTG, as has been pointed out in previous discussions on this matter, is that Wizards has already earned their money selling the big boxes to the distributors and players.

People who are fixated on the fact that paper allows players to trade singles secondhand refuse to see that if there are say 10,000 Deploy the Gatewatch cards in circulation,its because Wizards printed and already sold enough boxes of MTG cards for there to be 10,000 Deploys.

What equivalent is there in MtGPQ? What do they earn when one of us opens a new Mythic? Nothing. Where is their revenue going to come from now?

For all our sakes, like you I hope that Oktagon and D3 figure out enough ways to earn revenue to keep this game running.

I know that we disagree philosophically on the collectibility of the game, but this feels like a really strange statement.   If memory serves, you and Ohboy always gave credit to the developers for understanding how to drive profits and the way to do it was to restrict card access.  Yet, eventually they gave us a generous booster crafting and are now implementing dupe free elite packs.  Perhaps they realized that the pervasive fear that people would easily collect everything for free and thus, refrain from spending on the game, was more than simply rebuffed but thoroughly reversed.

Regardless, you can't think they "knew" what was best for profits when they were restricting the cards but have now lost their way and are just stumbling around blindly.

I praise these changes and think the game will be better when more players have access to most/all of the cards.

As an aside, are we really that concerned with players collecting all of the Elite cards?  I can't name a single one form the Dominaria set that I even care to own.  Living Death is nothing to Primeval's Rebirth, Hanna is interesting but not amazing.  I guess Akroma's Vengence and Conflux seem pretty cool, although not top tier.

@babar3355
Hmm, I'm not sure you got the right idea why I was in favour of the developers not being too generous with in-game rewards. I assume Ohboy argued his points for similar reasons, but I'll explain mine. I'll also preface this by saying that I am not a digital marketing expert, so my read on things could be off due to myself only having a layman's understanding of things. Anyone who knows better is welcome to weigh in on this.

So I understand that there are games which charge you a certain price when you purchase them, and (nowadays) try to continue earning money from their players by selling DLC and other additional game content. Then there are subscription-based games which seem to have fallen out of favour in recent times. I only know of World of Warcraft as the last major subscription-based game.

There are also freemium games where the base game itself is free but people are charged for certain additional items in-game. One category would be in-game resources which help a player advance in the game more quickly or be more competitive. Another category would be cosmetic items, some of which may be limited edition stuff to increase their appeal.

My line of reasoning was this: MtGPQ only sells items which fall under the category of resources which help players to advance more quickly or be more competitive. There are zero cosmetic items sold in MtGPQ. So if they are making it easier for players to progress, I would assume that it will in part cannibalise their sales of Crystals and bundles. Which would hence affect their revenues.

But maybe as some have pointed out, the counteracting effect of people feeling like their purchases will not be in vain will be a greater motivation for people to spend on the game. I can't say I know what the future holds, but it looks to be like they are betting on the goodwill of the player base to continue spending money on the game.

So it's not that I assumed the developers knew exactly how to maximise their profits. It's just that based on the ways in which they chose to monetise the game, I didn't see how making the game more generous helps them to earn more money.

As to why I would even consider making such a statement, I've been following the game's statistics on Searchman (the link has to be accessed on a computer or via desktop site view if viewing on mobile). They only show you the rankings for the past 12 months (presumably you have to be a paid subscriber to access historical data beyond that) but it doesn't look like the game is growing.

The peak of the game's rankings in top grossing (the green and orange lines) seemed about the same but the drops look steeper under Oktagon than under Hibernum. So despite Oktagon giving more and giving in to the player base, this doesn't seemed to have helped them that much. That's my concern.

Regardless, I hope things do work out despite my doubts. I would love to be proven wrong on this for obvious reasons.

*edit*
I found a post where Ohboy explained his thoughts on whether the developers really knew how to maximise their profits. It looks like he didn't think the developers were that good at it either. It's pretty long itself so I won't quote it but those interested can check out the link.

GrizzoMtGPQ said:

Android 2.7.1 is available!

Updating ,thank you. 

Brigby said:

*Updated to Final Release Notes. Added the following change:

• Support destruction will only target treasures if there are no more valid targets.

Awesome change!!  Will this also apply to Clues and Servos (and any future token supports)?

Are supports generated by Planeswalker abilities considered token supports?  
If so, it would be good to know if the targeting order was only changed for Treasures or all token supports.  
Not being able to focus on those could make them even more dangerous.  Same with Verix and Darigaaz token supports.

Brigby said:

show previous quotes

Mburn7 said:

Brigby said:

*Updated to Final Release Notes. Added the following change:

• Support destruction will only target treasures if there are no more valid targets.

Awesome change!!  Will this also apply to Clues and Servos (and any future token supports)?

Good question! I personally don't know how those are prioritized by the game, however I'll pass that inquiry along to the team.

Just to make sure, you're asking if Support destruction will also only target Clues and Servos, if there are no more valid targets?

Yes!

wickedwitch74 said:

When can iOS users join in the fun?

NOW!

boopers said:

show previous quotes

Brigby said:

Mburn7 said:

Brigby said:

*Updated to Final Release Notes. Added the following change:

• Support destruction will only target treasures if there are no more valid targets.

Awesome change!!  Will this also apply to Clues and Servos (and any future token supports)?

Good question! I personally don't know how those are prioritized by the game, however I'll pass that inquiry along to the team.

Just to make sure, you're asking if Support destruction will also only target Clues and Servos, if there are no more valid targets?

The question is: Will all forms of support destruction target any non-token support first?  This means that cards like haphazard bombardment and Vraska A1 ability would behave identically, and that all token supports no matter the source are de-prioritized.

Vraska's first specifically targets the support with the highest shield count.  That isn't the same as targeting a non-token support, since it is much less random (you can still hit a 2 shield Gideon's Defeat instead of a 4 shield Starfield with a normal support killer or Haphazard Bombardment, but Vraska's first will always target the Starfield).

Brigby said he will get clarification from the devs, so hopefully we'll get a definitive answer soon.