What Objectives Do We Want?

Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest MtGPQ General Discussion
1

Ok, so, we’ve been asking for harder objectives for a while now. And we got them! Yay! Or so you’d think. we got tougher objectives in Emergency Ordinances, Fate is Rarely Fair and Revolt Against the Consulate. That was something that the higher tier community has been asking for for a while,and yet we seemed to hate the 2 pvp events and the tough objectives on RatC were generally disliked as well. So we wanted harder objectives, got them, and now we dislike them? What do we want? Hard objectives? Easy objectives? no objectives (pleassssseeee)? what sort of objectives would you like? there have been many suggestions and complaint threads about objectives, so lets pile it all together and tell the devs what we REALLY want. Post your suggestions and upvote the ones you like so that the devs can get an accurate idea of what we want objective wise.

also, thank you devs for listening to us and giving us harder objectives, even though they were disliked.

2

I’d like to see secondary objective points awarded on a scale. So one node could be for speed and the faster you finish the more points you earn. Another the fewer hit points you lose the more points you get. Could also have fewer cards played more points, more ending health more points or lower ending health more points, fewer kills more points, fewer creature losses more points etc. Just not more kills, cards, spells, supports etc as that would make games go on forever and we’d all get bored. This would make scores more varied as well.

3

THIS

seriously the best idea I’ve heard in ages, hire this guy Hibernum! that is actually an amazing idea, I really really hope the developers see that and put it into the game.

4

Come back the first week it’s implemented to see complaints about how unfair this is flood the board. It’ll be identical to the ones we have now. “too random. Why am I punished for my draws/gem placements?”

Yes, it’s an awesome idea, but this ties back to your original post. The problem isn’t objectives not tailored to what we want. Like you said, more challenging objectives is exactly what we’ve been saying we want. And we’ll want this as well, till we start playing it. People want things that will challenge and separate them from the plebs. They hate it when they realize they’re also plebs.

5

I’m definitely one of those plebs icon_razz.gif
. Since I went platinum I can’t seem to break the top 100 regularly. Everybody was down on the Fate is Rarely Fair event but somehow I managed to place 28th. Maybe because most people stopped playing due to the objectives, I don’t know. I also had no trouble with the latest boss event. I just set my sight on the main objectives and got through without even losing. Now it’s Inventors Fair and I’m back in the bottom after losing to many non event decks.

I’m all for tough objectives. I think it randomizes the winners and hopefully calls out the cheaters. I don’t think the energize objectives are good at the moment as long as non event decks are possible match ups. The cards with energize are too weak to compete with cascades of Olivia/pig/ Gisela etc

I think objectives should force us to use cards that we wouldn’t normally use. There are so many that just sit there in our binders. A lot of Origin cards that i don’t ever remember seeing against me. Given some of them are rubbish, but still

6

There are generally three reasons I don’t like certain secondary objectives; they’re too tedious, too limiting for deckbuilding, or too random.

1) Objectives which are too tedious

These are generally the worst, and most obvious to me; indeed they were the first candidate for attention back when I made this thread. IMO, these objectives should be avoided at all costs.

2) Objectives which are too limiting for deckbuilding

I think we’d all agree that some objectives which limit the cards you can play with and force you to find creative solutions during deck building can be fun, challenging, and keep the game fresh. However, some objectives limit your scope for deckbuilding waaay too much. Examples would include ‘Play X Eldrazi’ or ‘Play X Vehicles’. The problem here tends to lie in the fact that they rely on a very small subset of cards which are often underpowered, save for a couple of Mythics which few players have access to, particularly around the time of a new set release. The objectives are not limited to set specific creature types and mechanics, tho; try building a black deck for a ‘Finish with >100 life’ objective, and you’re either playing with Olivia, or with something much, much less powerful. Objectives like this often show up where there is a deficit of good card choices in the game e.g. life gain cards, or hexproof creatures.

3) Objectives which are too random

I prefer games with an element of randomness in them. Paper MTG of course contains a healthy dollop of both skill and luck, but these are not absolutes; the amount of skill and luck in a game are sliding scales. Puerto Rico is a good example of a game with a huge skill element and a very small luck element… but the luck elemtent is important to prevent the game from stagnating and becoming solvable. Some of the secondary objectives recently have included a little too much luck for my liking recently: in opening the right cards in boosters (see pt 2 above); getting the right cards and cascades at the right times during gameplay; and not facing an opponent who’s deck can interrupt what you’re doing. I’ve addressed a lot of my concerns about random objectives in this thread… they can be fun, and I don’t think they should be expunged outright from the game, but they can also limit deckbuilding, and they should not IMO be used as tiebreakers, especially if special prizes are being given away to the top players.

So what do I like? My favorite objectives are those that limit the number of creatures, or supports, or spells, you can play. An objective like ‘Cast 0 supports’ cuts down the cards available to you by 1/3, but crucially allows you to build the rest of your deck with the remaining 2/3 unhindered. ‘Cast <2 spells’ is equally as interesting, since you must rely on 2/3 of your collection, but you get the extra choice of deciding just how many spells you can get away with adding to your deck to make it better, and then you get additional choices to make during gameplay.

Let’s see some innovation in objectives like these! ‘Cast 0 cards that cost more than 10 mana’ maybe? Or ‘Cast <2 cards from Shadows Over Innistrad’? Or ‘Cast <2 colorless cards’?

7

I’ve mentioned this elsewhere a long time ago, but I’d like to see events with event achievements, like “win in 4 turns or less at least once this event” and “cast 1000 spells this event” and “win in 30 turns or more once this event” and “win with less than 5 HP once this event”. Each achievement would be worth some number of ribbons as a one time bonus. That way you could play normal games with normal decks and decide in-game if you want to go for an achievement or not without being penalized or even swap which achievement you are aiming for or complete multiple in the same game. Make a whole slew of acheivements and make us figure out the best way to meet them all given limited number of games. You could even make the event like QB where you can choose whichever PW you want to play each game.

8

I like majincob’s global event objective idea. That’d be very fun.

As I’ve stated elsewhere, the best objectives are those that reward player creativity by opening up options for them, rather than restricting said options.

“Cast 10 or more spells” is an open objective. It allows you to choose from the vast array of your collection, giving you nearly unlimited options as to what cards you want to include.

Likewise, “cast 2 or fewer supports” (sorry, “2 or less”) is a limited, but open, objective, because the number of spells and creatures available provide you with myriad deckbuilding options. You can even include a couple of supports if you want, and judiciously decide when to utilize them.

“Summon 5 vehicles” is a closed objective. It effectively limits you to playing with a specific subset of 15 creatures, many of which are underpowered and unexciting. It removes card choice. Instead of choosing 8-10 cards from literally hundreds of options, you’re choosing cards from 15 of them. Yawn.

“Energize 5 gems” is likewise a closed objective, but it has some flexibility because there are planeswalker abilities that generate energy. While suboptimal, it at least gives you a bit more breadth than vehicles.

The problem with the creature subtype objective is that there really are very few playable creatures of that type. The rarity tax is often ridiculous in this game. Out of 15-18 creatures there are usually 5-6 that are actually usable, and not simply making your deck have a lower chance to win. Take werewolves. It’s very possible to design cheap,effective werewolves. Village Messenger, Breakneck Rider, Kessig Prowler? Those are great. Solitary Hunter? Hermit of the Natterknolls? Hinterland Logger? All of those are absolutely terrible, but if you’re a lower tier player with a small collection, that’s often what you’re stuck with.

9

As has been mentioned my preference is for objectives that aren’t as random as what we see right now. Cast x or more supports and you or less spells are examples but I would like to take that further and add events that really force deck creativity, that’s when events are fun for me.

For instance, cast x or more common creatures. Cast y or less mythic spells/supports. Get us away from some of the crutches we see event in event out.

I don’t think this would move us away from tie breaks tbh but people would likely have more enjoyment getting there because they can’t just go back to their standard unchanged decks.

10

I would like to see objectives related to card rarity, like “Use no mythics” or “At least X common cards”. It would allow the chance to level the playing field and give a good excuse to play decent but overshadowed cards.

11

I might be in the minority here, but the events I have the most fun with are when there are NO secondary objectives like old NoP, Holiday Showdown, Angel’s Embrace…

And I might also be in the minority that I like PvE events over PvP (maybe Bken does too?)

With that said here are my least favorite objectives, in order from least favorite to most tolerable: “win with less than x life” objectives, win in x-or-less turns (unless it’s 7 rounds), cast x or more creatures.

I should maybe mention the ones I like. I like the “cast x or less (card type)” because they encourage creativity within their restrictions. With creatures, you can choose to go with Ob, or now that tokens don’t count, you can build a token-heavy deck. With supports, there are clever ways to get your supports on the board without casting them. With spells, there are many supports that can do what spells do.

“Lose x-or-less creatures” and “take x-or-less damage” objectives are fine, too. “Summon no creatures with x” are ok, but we don’t see those very often, and maybe too easy to get around.

12

I’m going to play a bit of counterpoint to all this, but also to add my own suggestions.

For me, the “open = more creative” and “closed = less creative” argument doesn’t hold true, and is in fact the opposite. In many circumstances, restriction breeds creativity. When you have constraints, you are forced to come up with creative solutions. Even Head Designer of paper magic, Mark Rosewater himself, states that “Restrictions breed creativity”.

For the “vehicles” example, I had to force myself to come up with creative solutions to be able to get 5 fairly crappy cards on the board, without killing the opponent. I wracked my brain to think of something, and that was an interesting exercise (my decks are nothing like they normally would be).

For the “cast no/few supports”, it’s too open. As long as my deck isn’t contingent on the supports (or whatever type), I’ll just substitute something similar. I’m still using mostly the same deck.

And, everyone will find different objectives “worse” than others. A lot of people don’t like “win with less than X life”. For me, I don’t mind them at all, especially with Ob Nix. For the non-Ob Nix (like the recent Red one), I really had to calculate my play to make it work.

(For the record, I hate the “win with more than X life”. Not all my PWs even HAVE that much life! Should be “win within X points of your max life”, so that life gain works, and still be in a similar spirit).

I see a couple of key problems (and solutions!) to the current objectives:

  • some of them are very tedious. Reading back, some of them used to be “cast 8” things. 8!!! That’s too many! 5 is on the higher end, but for me, still in the realm of doable/not crazy annoying

  • The problem with the objectives that want you to play with “crappy cards” forces some players to either forego the objective altogether (ie. I’d rather just play a normal deck and ensure the win), and the thing is that it sucks to face those “non-event” decks when you’re trying to get those extra points. If everyone was on an even playing field, I don’t think players would have as much of an issue with it. This weighing of risk (of losing altogether) vs. benefit (of the extra points) is mostly NOT fun for players. (then again, many people still score perfect, so they’ve found a way to do it).

I see potential solutions to be:

  • minimize the extremely tedious numbers (ie. no more than 5. Perhaps even 4 max). Terror in the Shadows with 2 (werewolves/vampires/Eldrazi) are pretty reasonable (perhaps on the easy side, even). This is just to make things less annoying. But in order to even the playing field against “non-event” decks, you will need to…

  • incentivize those objectives. People respond to incentives. Make them worth more, or have different ways to count the points.

    Here are some ideas to do so:

    • If the “cast 5 vehicles” are worth 4 points or even 5 points, yea, everyone will want to play them over just getting a guaranteed/fast win, and we’ll face decks that use them.

    • or, 2 different sets of points for personal rewards vs. ranking. Objectives will give “objective” points, and wins give “win” points: in order to get the all the personal rewards, you’ll need X points, and Y objective points. The combined total is used for rankings (but again, you’ll need to have the objective points be high enough for people to try to do them over a “sure-win” deck that’s not focused on objectives.)

      The 2nd option gives more knobs to turn to adjust the difficulty. For “less experienced” tiers (ie. bronze, or whatever they end up doing to separate tiers), the need fewer points in “wins” and “objectives” to get the max rewards. They can focus on just a couple of objectives, and score them repeatedly (ie. they only do the “win with more XP than…”).

      For the higher experience/tiers, you damn well need to score most of the objectives repeatedly to get full rewards (which will make more people build decks that fall under those restrictions).

Finally, have some more events like Angel’s Embrace interspersed, with no restrictions and no objectives, just to give us a breather!

Thoughts?

13

Hey, you remember how some of the Heroic Encounters in Story Mode start the game with some creatures and supports already in play?

Wouldn’t that be fun for some PvE event levels?

14

This is an excellent suggestion. It will also break up those dreaded ties cluttering up the tops of the leaderboards.