3.2 Content Details & Future Updates - Blog Post (1/30/19)

Tilwin said a lot of things I was trying to say in the other thread.  This seems like a lot of uproar over something that really shouldn't matter that much. 

Levels were introduced, which mean very little at the moment other than a new mastery system, but that lack of visibility is kind of the point as it's a transition.  They can't be fully transparent on something still in development.  

It seems clear that they had a goal in mind, which was to essentially force-rank players into the new level system.  It wasn't ever going to be a perfect one-to-one translation, because we will be entering a new system where the current ways of thinking about "mastery" won't matter as much.  It's not visible now because that's the point of development.  I don't pretend to know why they didn't just run everything in one patch, but regardless of when it happened this whole thing was going to happen at some point.  Tilwin laid out the options they had fairly well, and it seems like this was the least-bad option to get through this transition.

It's also hilariously ironic that there are two competing arguments happening in this thread alone:

1. Leveling up wasn't done one-to-one from the old system to the new, so people below could possibly jump ahead of people already at higher levels
2. Leveling up via card mastery is much slower with the new XP earn rates, so grinding out XP to get to the next levels is really hard

In other words, players ranked higher aren't getting compensated for their prior "dedication to the game".  But it's harder now for people to go from lower levels to higher - the grind for doing so would mean that you have to be incredibly "dedicated"?

There's a huge catch-22 with the forums: we demand transparency, which means answersnow!  If we don't like the answersnow! then we better know what's coming to give us those answers!  And if those don't happen as projected/fast enough, we demand more transparency as to why not!  (See: the numerous discussions of "why didn't X happen?" or "when will X get fixed?")

The whole discussion is being blown out of proportion because no one knows what levels mean in this new environment.  All we know is that it's going to mean something different than just card mastery as we've come to know it now.  Investing belief into the levels based purely prior card mastery simply isn't how it's going be moving forward, but none of us yet know what it will look like, so to jump to conclusions about the "importance" of how leveling works is all speculation at this point.

TheDude1 said:

Tilwin said a lot of things I was trying to say in the other thread.  This seems like a lot of uproar over something that really shouldn't matter that much. 

Levels were introduced, which mean very little at the moment other than a new mastery system, but that lack of visibility is kind of the point as it's a transition.  They can't be fully transparent on something still in development.  

It seems clear that they had a goal in mind, which was to essentially force-rank players into the new level system.  It wasn't ever going to be a perfect one-to-one translation, because we will be entering a new system where the current ways of thinking about "mastery" won't matter as much.  It's not visible now because that's the point of development.  I don't pretend to know why they didn't just run everything in one patch, but regardless of when it happened this whole thing was going to happen at some point.  Tilwin laid out the options they had fairly well, and it seems like this was the least-bad option to get through this transition.

It's also hilariously ironic that there are two competing arguments happening in this thread alone:

1. Leveling up wasn't done one-to-one from the old system to the new, so people below could possibly jump ahead of people already at higher levels
2. Leveling up via card mastery is much slower with the new XP earn rates, so grinding out XP to get to the next levels is really hard

In other words, players ranked higher aren't getting compensated for their prior "dedication to the game".  But it's harder now for people to go from lower levels to higher - the grind for doing so would mean that you have to be incredibly "dedicated"?

There's a huge catch-22 with the forums: we demand transparency, which means answersnow!  If we don't like the answersnow! then we better know what's coming to give us those answers!  And if those don't happen as projected/fast enough, we demand more transparency as to why not!  (See: the numerous discussions of "why didn't X happen?" or "when will X get fixed?")

The whole discussion is being blown out of proportion because no one knows what levels mean in this new environment.  All we know is that it's going to mean something different than just card mastery as we've come to know it now.  Investing belief into the levels based purely prior card mastery simply isn't how it's going be moving forward, but none of us yet know what it will look like, so to jump to conclusions about the "importance" of how leveling works is all speculation at this point.

To the first point of this, you and anyone defending the system are missing the point. Yes, there is a new level system with upcoming methods to increase your level without the need to master cards; however, card mastery also increases your level. Unfortunately, due to the method of implementation, those with a larger collection of mastered cards were given only a small portion of the experience they would have gained had they waited to master their cards. This relegates them to a lower level than warranted.

Now sure, once the new methods are put in place, these levels can than be earned. Unfortunately once again, they can be earned alongside the levels earned through mastering cards. Anyone with a smaller collection of mastered cards can simultaneously master cards and partake in the new methods to gain additional experience that the other players with the large library of mastered cards simply can't; it's an impossibility for them. This puts 'veteran' players at a distinct disadvantage in the new system. It's not about the rewards, it's about the principle and being locked out of progression in the system.

----

On to the second point, there is no irony in the two sentiments. The first does not preclude the second from being an issue. Many people don't have the dedication to do monotonous tasks unless there is a perceived reward system in place for doing them; trophies, achievements, loot, etc. The tasks are always there, but without a reward, many people will simply shrug an ask "Why bother?". However, once a reward system is put in place, even for past or previous content, these same people will jump all over it. They may all jump at a different pace but they'll certainly jump.

Look at World of Warcraft as an example. Prior to the addition of the achievement system, millions of players were content with reaching max level and then running dungeons, raiding, or hitting up battlegrounds. They didn't care about all those other zones with their low-level quests or grinding out random areas for random unique gear. All of that stuff was superfluous in their opinion. Then came the achievement system with it's 'rewards'. And man did it explode. People swarmed all of that content they had long ignored just for a shiny little banner that sometimes came with a title, or a mount, or a special item, etc. The same thing happens when an older game is remastered for the newer generation consoles or on Steam and this old game comes with new achievements for it. People will do things in those games that they once though to be pointless, because now there's a reward to show for it.

So yes, with the new system, people who once viewed mastering cards after reaching Platinum as a pointless grind now see it as a way to earn additional rewards. They will set about earning those rewards at one pace or another.

The question of why was the system slowed down to such a drastic degree is valid as well. No other system that adds in achievements and rewards after the fact went and increased the difficulty of earning those achievements while adding them (unless they were achievable through the use of a bug or glitch and that was fixed).

Questioning the reasoning behind one thing does not make the dissatisfaction of a connected thing ironic.

---

As far as asking for transparency and being unhappy with the answers given in that transparency; nowhere does it say that if you ask for answers, and you get answers, do you have to be okay with those answers. We're not all going to nod our heads at every response and sit quietly while yet more questions remain; be they questions that weren't answered or questions that arise because of the answers given. Some of us may respond more vehemently than others, but you can view that as passion for the product and a desire to see it be better because they feel it can be.

---

To be fair, some people are upset about the lack of rewards that were given to the 'veteran' players. That can't be denied. The reasoning of the "rich getting richer argument" has merit but the game has a hard cap on just how much stuff you can get. With that limit, anyone can inevitably catch up. I have 86.4% of the cards in the game along with 30 of the available Planeswalkers; 26 of whom are 60 (3 of the other 4 were purchased because they were required for an event and I never use them otherwise, the 4th is Jace 1) and I've been F2P since I first started which was the week prior to the Amonkhet release. I didn't whale my way to the top. I didn't save duplicates and have a cache of orbs when crafting was released. I simply played the game and naturally progressed to this point. I sit in Platinum and presume that anyone I face in Platinum has a collection that allows them to be similarly competitive. My collection doesn't effect the collection, ranking, or play of a new player in Bronze, or Silver, or even Gold so me 'getting richer' should have little bearing on them at all.

However, putting all of that aside, putting aside the entire rewards argument from the transition to this system with the patch, it largely comes down to this

Without a level cap in place - something that they can very much disclose if they have one as it will have little to no effect on how people plan their level progression - the decision to curve the experience given has had the effect of punishing the veteran players because they are locked out of gaining experience through one of the methods by which to gain experience while non-veteran players still have access to that same method in addition to whatever new ones are added.

There's no zero sum game, just wibbly wobbly muddling along together and all trying to survive.

Brigby said:

Hi Everyone. Thanks for all the feedback. Alain wanted to pass along some responses ...

Brigby's TL;DR: Avacyn's Madness should have given out 20 XP. This will be fixed in an upcoming build. The team plans to give veteran players more rewards over the long-term, due to their higher player level than newer players, once upcoming features are implemented.

It would be good to have regular (weekly/fortnightly) updates prior to and immediately following these types of releases/updates. As a veteran player who has ‘lost’ over 600,000 XP from the mass conversion of 3.2, I would have felt less slighted had Alain’s responses been stated before the update.

As XP levels are currently implemented, it makes no difference to me as to the immediate rewards gained/unobtainable, but I am concerned about future use of this new tier system.

Thanks again to @Brigby for sharing the developers’ responses. For reference, use this crowd-sourced document for XP levels: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MyGL2BjJzC9MVyoVhiLszyerbDm2Zk-qAB16_83iL8s