A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

by JedTheRealFish
Reply

Original Post

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

★ Guide

 That sounds outrageous! You are funny.

Message 11 of 20 (564 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

★★★ Guide

Reviving this topic seems particularly appropriate given today's challenge...

 

(Seriously, not only do we start the plant player off with two incredibly powerful plants, but we're also going to give you an utterly useless zombie in front of one of them, guaranteeing that it will be several turns before you can even do anything about it?)

Message 12 of 20 (551 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

★ Apprentice
Galacatus(to counter my symbology teacher) on t1 made them into torchwood and bellsprput lol.
Message 13 of 20 (534 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

★ Pro

I tried it like 20 times until I got bored, It's the first time I have not been able to complete a challenge.

I always got '' Goat '' in the supertrick, and a lots of useless Eggs. 

 

Message 14 of 20 (526 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

Champion (Retired)

I know the developers have this idea about putting the player up a against a deck which directly counters the one they receive, but this is another level. Giving the player a deck that benefits the opponent's, in addition to a huge head start, is too much. I honestly think it would be a easier if the Valkyrie wasn't there, but still not easy enough.

Message 15 of 20 (514 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

★ Apprentice
I had my share of op plants on t2/3
I had:
1 cornucopia
2 dandelion king
1 soul patch
1 shooting starfruit
And 3 f***ing pecanolith...i hate that plant...

Should cost 5 imho
Message 16 of 20 (503 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

★★★ Guide

@UniVoidz wrote:

I know the developers have this idea about putting the player up a against a deck which directly counters the one they receive, but this is another level. Giving the player a deck that benefits the opponent's, in addition to a huge head start, is too much. I honestly think it would be a easier if the Valkyrie wasn't there, but still not easy enough.


Maybe PvZH is too successful, and the developers are trying to see if they can get the players to rage quit the game entirely until they bring the numbers down?

 

The main problem is that the challenges simply aren't fun (apart from the puzzles, generally).  The decks usually have some gimmick that they're trying to show off.  However, they're usually pretty weak, don't fit with together well ("Today you'll be playing Nightcap's 'High-Damage/Low-Health Swarms' deck, but with two Pecanoliths in your starting hand that you're not allowed to swap out!"), or are just flat-out countered by the opposing deck.  And then on top of that, they often add extra rules or starting cards that help the AI, when the deck match-up alone was already in the AI's favor ("Wall-Knight's nuts may seem tough to crack, but we're sure Rustbolt's "No Deadly Cards in this Entire" deck can pull it off!  You'll just need to break through the double Mirror-Nuts in every row, first!")

 

Here's a bit of advice for the EA developers:  if player skill is meaningless and the entire match can only be won if the AI randomly draws their worst cards on the same turn that the player randomly draws their best cards (four turns in a row), then it's a bad idea; don't use it.  Personally, I don't particularly care that you added in a single copy of an uninteresting card that will never show up (or won't be helpful if it does show up), I'd still rather play a game than perform a chore.  Sadly, the latter is what most of these daily challenges feel like.

 

P.S.  If you're really dead-set on sapping all the fun out of the daily challenges, the least you could do is up the rewards a little.  Doing a daily chore would be a little more bearable if I at least knew there was a Legendary or something at the end of it.  Similarly, lower rewards aren't too bad if you could just make the daily challenges fun (for the players, I mean.  The developers having fun laughing at how miserable the players are doesn't count).

Message 17 of 20 (484 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

Champion (Retired)

They should either limit the number of attempts, which at that point they give you credit for completing, or they should start giving "handicaps" after 5 attempts to make it easier.  Apply this to the matches, not the puzzles.  It's just not "fun" banging your head against a wall when some challenges have decks that put you at a serious disadvantage.  Better yet, let us choose the deck we get to use.

 

BPRD

Message 18 of 20 (465 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

★ Pro

@jj48car wrote:

@UniVoidz wrote:

I know the developers have this idea about putting the player up a against a deck which directly counters the one they receive, but this is another level. Giving the player a deck that benefits the opponent's, in addition to a huge head start, is too much. I honestly think it would be a easier if the Valkyrie wasn't there, but still not easy enough.


Maybe PvZH is too successful, and the developers are trying to see if they can get the players to rage quit the game entirely until they bring the numbers down?

 

 


LOL, no.

I thought it was obvious, but I see that it's not.

 

Ads = Money

More Ads per users = More money gain per user...  

The challenges are random and difficult to force users to try it many times and see more ads, i'm ok with that, but lately they are getting out of hand, and the challenges are already too annoying and boring.

(even worse, they don't pay attention to those who can't see ads)

it's interesting that I can see about 15 ads and get about 75 gems, and then the message '' No more ads available'' appears, but the button ''Play again'' in the Challenge menu don't disappears, and as I said, yesterday i got 90 gems and the message appears ''No more Ads available'', but, i played the challenge more than 18 times seeing ads ( Is not it supposed that there were not more? LOL ). 

 

I'm fine with some challenges that take me several times, but not ones that practically seem impossible and pure luck, boring! I prefer to stop trying

Message 19 of 20 (448 Views)

Re: A 6-cost plant played on turn 3

★★★ Guide

@BlazinsZ wrote:

@jj48car wrote:

@UniVoidz wrote:

I know the developers have this idea about putting the player up a against a deck which directly counters the one they receive, but this is another level. Giving the player a deck that benefits the opponent's, in addition to a huge head start, is too much. I honestly think it would be a easier if the Valkyrie wasn't there, but still not easy enough.


Maybe PvZH is too successful, and the developers are trying to see if they can get the players to rage quit the game entirely until they bring the numbers down?

 

 


LOL, no.

I thought it was obvious, but I see that it's not.

 

Ads = Money

More Ads per users = More money gain per user...  

The challenges are random and difficult to force users to try it many times and see more ads, i'm ok with that, but lately they are getting out of hand, and the challenges are already too annoying and boring.

(even worse, they don't pay attention to those who can't see ads)

it's interesting that I can see about 15 ads and get about 75 gems, and then the message '' No more ads available'' appears, but the button ''Play again'' in the Challenge menu don't disappears, and as I said, yesterday i got 90 gems and the message appears ''No more Ads available'', but, i played the challenge more than 18 times seeing ads ( Is not it supposed that there were not more? LOL ). 

 

I'm fine with some challenges that take me several times, but not ones that practically seem impossible and pure luck, boring! I prefer to stop trying


Your theory would sound a lot better if the ads actually worked as they're supposed to.  When half the people can't even view any ads, and only retry by waiting an hour, it's probably a bit less effective a strategy.

Message 20 of 20 (434 Views)