Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About PorousBoat

  • Rank
  • Birthday August 11

Contact Methods

  • Steam

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Games, Music, Guitar & Drums, Science, MtG

Recent Profile Visitors

1725 profile views
  1. I agree completely on the level restrictions for upgrades. They really are just a truly meaningless time-check that, like you said, forces you to play Bad Harvest X amount of times. While I do understand where you're coming from on the other points, I think my take on it is that if we're making the player grind, they should be equally rewarded no matter what they grind. 5 hours of playtime is still 5 hours of playtime, you know? Like you said, variety is really nice when grinding, and if we let the player pick that variety themselves, the problem solves itself. I guess the bottom lin
  2. I'm not quite sure why some of you seem so keen on forcing all game modes to have a "reason" to play them. Shouldn't it always be up to the player if they want to play a certain game mode or not? Making certain rewards exclusive to certain game modes doesn't really make sense to me - If they're so boring/uninteresting/whatever (I don't really think they are, but that's the assumption), why make players slog through them for no reason? A hardcore PvE player most likely has no interest in clearing the entire campaign. Same goes for a speedrunner who literally couldn't care less about PvP. I
  3. I'm not sure if you read my entire post. A time-proportional bfp reward lets you play rPvE while still being rewarded for it in a meaningful way. This solves the issue of both card availability and incentives. I feel like the main goal should be to provide the tools for each player to play the game the way they want, and offering a meaningful reward for every way of playing does that just fine. Having the reward be different for each activity just forces players to play game modes they might not like very much. Basically, I don't see the point of adding a bunch of arbitrary resources when
  4. Is there a point to even having upgrades as a mechanic in the first place? All you're doing by even having a system like that is grind-checking people no matter how you try to "fix" the system. No other card game that I know of has anything similar to an upgrade system, and for good reason. You already have progression in the game by way of acquiring cards, why make it even worse? One could even argue that upgrades actively detract from the feeling of progression because once you finally buy that Harvester, you realize that it's trash until you get it to U3, which even with your proposed syste
  5. I am really, really positive to the idea of adding incentives for collectors and "grinders" beyond collecting the cards you actually play with. Promos and achievements are undoubtedly the way to go imo. More promos (possibly died to long-term progression to keep up rarity) is a great way to give both AH-grinders and collectors something shiny to work toward - Whether that something is a blinged-out Dreadcharger or a prestigious badge on your profile. This approach allows for much more liberal distribution of packs, also resulting in a situation where no one really has any reason to be ups
  6. @Eirias I really like that idea. Only thing I'd want is for there to be more than one each week. It'd be really sad if someone got stuck playing something they hate just because it was the flavor of the week. If you have 2-3 to choose between with the restrictions you proposed I think that strikes a nice balance between maintaining a healthy competitive environment and retaining a sense of progression even in PvP. It might even serve as a way for for experienced players to play out of their comfort zone without having to invest in a whole new deck.
  7. As the one who sparked the discussion over in the discord, I think there's another important point to be made: There's a huge difference between "unfair" in PvP vs. "unfair" in PvE. When people play against other people, not feeling like you have the same means of winning as your opponent feels really bad. If you started a chess game with 3 fewer than your opponent because you completed fewer daily quests than them you're not going to feel very good about it. You'll feel like your loss was due to factors you couldn't control rather than skill (even if it was skill). When I try to bri
  8. I mean, I'll teach you the ropes if you feel up for it.
  9. @Lord NullPointer We should totally play some games over Xmage sometime though. It's actually decent.
  10. I mean, most of us here love card games to a certain extent, and it wouldn't hurt to have someone else to sling some spells with. I'd even teach you to play if you're interested. You'll have to PM me about that though.
  11. Abusing cliffdancing is perfectly fine in my books, as long as it's in the game. That doesn't mean I don't hate it, or that it's not frustrating to play against. It also doesn't mean that I don't think it should be fixes (it should). It just means that I won't berate someone for abusing it. It's unfair as hell, but that's what happens when you have a game like this. I will admit that I'm not completely unbiased though. I play tons of Magic: the Gathering, in which there are tons of completely broken cards and interactions, but that's just part of the game.
  12. First off, I apologize for the mix-up with "Ziph" and "Zipf". It was a silly mistake for me to make. The law is relevant because it doesn't prove, but supports the theory that a very small part of the community will speak the loudest, and in this case the solo players seem like they're more frequent than they are. In short, I'm saying that they're most likely over-represented. As for the actual topic, I don't believe I twisted your words. I interpreted your response as a way of saying "A non-insignificant (or even major) part of the userbase don't do party-play." If that wasn't what you meant
  13. Again, I stand by the statement that most players engage in a fair amount of multiplayer. Look up Ziph's law, it answers your argument about "proof" of the larger portion of the userbase being solely solo players based on forum posts. My proof is just as valid as yours. All of my friends and most of the players I interact with on a daily basis used to engage in party-play enough that a quest of the sort that I suggested would be feasible About the "Beat a map with X players in your party" being easier than the latter; yes is it easier. That's the point. Encouraging multiplayer interaction is s
  14. First off, the amount of people who play solely solo PvP is so small it's niche. You can't account for them in this case as they account for such a small part of the userbase. With that said, there's a clear distinction to be made between a MP daily and a normal daily. The way you put it makes it sound like all PvE dailies say "Beat 1 map". From what I've understood, there will be quests in the style of "Beat map X". This is where having a generic multiplayer quest such as "Beat a map with X players in you party" is a good thing. If everyone has different dailies, then they can't play togethe
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use