Kalazan said: Anyone got same situation with me that lost some point just because of careless moves?.. 😂
critman said: greenmeanie said: Kalazan said: Anyone got same situation with me that lost some point just because of careless moves?.. 😂 I lost out on top spot in seize the day the other day because I forgot to cast another creature. Finished with 178/180 and finished 71st. It's so much worse when this happens because of a bug or a freeze though...
greenmeanie said: Kalazan said: Anyone got same situation with me that lost some point just because of careless moves?.. 😂 I lost out on top spot in seize the day the other day because I forgot to cast another creature. Finished with 178/180 and finished 71st.
FindingHeart8 said: Some great points here!!I'm definitely on board with better rewards for near perfect players. Sometimes it isn't even their fault, the opportunity never presented itself to complete the objective.Maybe greater rewards for progression and less for rank?
Mburn7 said: Stormcrow said: So, here's an idea I've been pondering, I can see some benefits but also some potential downsides so I was curious how people would feel about it: what about open-ended objectives? What I mean is, right now, all the objectives are completely binary, On/Off, either you did it, or you didn't do it. What if, instead of say "Cast 4 creatures", it was just "+1 point: Cast 2 creatures" and the more creatures you cast, the more points you got, totally open-ended. Cast 200 creatures in a single fight, get +100 points for that secondary objective. Just for an example, numbers totally made up.On the upside, it would dramatically reduce (if not completely eliminate) ties, and encourage some much more creative deckbuilding, instead of just adding a couple of cards to hit the objectives into your usual boring deck. On the downside, it might make individual games drag on a lot longer and encourage a lot of infinite-combo-type shenanigans. Like I said, I'm not even sure how I feel about the idea myself, so I'm curious to see what other folks think. Hmm, that is an interesting idea.The issue I can see with this is it greatly limits the types of objectives that can be used.Only ones I can think of are:Cast/Summon somethingDeal damage in 1 turnGet cards in graveyard/exileMaybe a couple others that aren't quite as open ended? (deal damage to creatures, draw cards, gain life?)Also I think that would really reduce deck diversity instead of increase it, since everyone would be running the same token loop deck for a summon creature objective, for example. Only so many ways to maximize it.
Stormcrow said: So, here's an idea I've been pondering, I can see some benefits but also some potential downsides so I was curious how people would feel about it: what about open-ended objectives? What I mean is, right now, all the objectives are completely binary, On/Off, either you did it, or you didn't do it. What if, instead of say "Cast 4 creatures", it was just "+1 point: Cast 2 creatures" and the more creatures you cast, the more points you got, totally open-ended. Cast 200 creatures in a single fight, get +100 points for that secondary objective. Just for an example, numbers totally made up.On the upside, it would dramatically reduce (if not completely eliminate) ties, and encourage some much more creative deckbuilding, instead of just adding a couple of cards to hit the objectives into your usual boring deck. On the downside, it might make individual games drag on a lot longer and encourage a lot of infinite-combo-type shenanigans. Like I said, I'm not even sure how I feel about the idea myself, so I'm curious to see what other folks think.