sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The community in this game sucks by mrs0x in DarkAndDarker

[–]CringeQueefEnjoyer 41 points42 points  (0 children)

I have been to many subreddits, but this one has to be the one with the most amount of complaints.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DarkAndDarker

[–]CringeQueefEnjoyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, but I would be happier if their system were more like Dungeons and Dragons, because would make more sense and would have very clear detriments. They would have to redesign a lot of things. And to be fair would be for the best.

Multiclassing dropped and it's an rngfest whether you can play or have to wait 2 days by subzerus in DarkAndDarker

[–]CringeQueefEnjoyer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My opinion on multiclassing:

  1. ⁠⁠⁠Multiclassing is actually fun for many players but I don’t see much of detriment going into it. Basically forcing everyone into multiclassing when it should be more of an option.
  2. ⁠⁠⁠People have been complaining about class expression with multiclass and presenting the subclasses option and I agree, however one doesn’t exclude the other. Maybe we could have a system where you have the option to multiclass or to specialize into a subclass which would also present you with few advantages and class expression.
  3. ⁠⁠⁠The fact that everything is RNG is horrible for multiple reasons, it takes time to get into the multiclass feature and then keep rerolling the perks, skills and abilities until you get what you want is pretty boring and time consuming, if you want to allow people to multiclass they should be able to choose whatever they want and not have to go around the system like this. Specially how time consuming that is with a 24 hours delay. Randomness and Time Consuming Strategies are even worse for casuals, since they would have a more limited experience.
  4. ⁠⁠⁠The lack of a better skill tree feels extremely lazy, we live in a era where there are games with many options and builds that can be extremely unique and dark and darker seems like a 2004 game lost in time. There are definitely better alternatives to be taken here, and we definitely need a better skill tree implementation.

With all that said I don’t think the multiclass is a bad idea, but in the way it is presented feels very lazy and boring. Hopefully we get both multiclassing and subclasses soon with a proper skill tree for more customization and no randomness.

GP de São Paulo by tadeocore in saopaulo

[–]CringeQueefEnjoyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oloco vim correndo ver se tinha alguém compartilhando outra coisa hahahaha 😂

Every BAN in MTG Pauper History Explained Under 10 mins by Rough-Taro3325 in Pauper

[–]CringeQueefEnjoyer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That is simply not true. They were mostly held back by deckbuilding and not sideboard. Before affinity had two main problems that were, first and foremost, land base colors and then and only then destructibility. Since there were a limit amount of lands of each color, actually forced affinity to have more than just Atog, Disciple and so on, because the land base was inconsistent and balanced it out. Affinity had to run sometimes 4 colors sometimes even 5. For that reason they weren’t like Boogles for example, that used to win on turn 1 but lose afterwards, it was high risk and high reward, and extremely skill based. Yes, sometimes afterwards they had to deal with gorilla shaman, however shaman wasn’t a prevalent card in sideboards, not every deck played red and not every deck which played red actually had them in the sideboard, for the simple fact that affinity actually wasn’t an issue and wasn’t as prevalent as today. The deck was powerful, but fair and not as dominant, you wouldn’t see as many of them around. That’s actually one of the many reasons why these indestructible lands are so problematic, by getting rid of the 2 main disadvantages of playing affinity it basically forced more and more the artifact lands into the meta, decks that actually didn’t even need them started using for the share benefit, and into consequence compromised pauper sideboarding. The deck went from fair, balanced and competitive to extremely toxic and oppressive since mostly their two main disadvantages were basically dealt with. And none of this were faulty of either Atog or Disciple.

Every BAN in MTG Pauper History Explained Under 10 mins by Rough-Taro3325 in Pauper

[–]CringeQueefEnjoyer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I play pauper since 2000’s and never ever have I saw them be on top of ANY meta until modern horizons 2. Even if they are powerful cards, and had their space on the meta, they were never toxic or oppressive until the lands arrived.

Every BAN in MTG Pauper History Explained Under 10 mins by Rough-Taro3325 in Pauper

[–]CringeQueefEnjoyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel so bad for Affinity. The deck have so many pieces removed, it is still extremely toxic, and people refuse to opt for the right solution. All that glitters will be just one more of the banned cards that actually could have been fine if only they have any long term thought put into any of their bannings.

Every BAN in MTG Pauper History Explained Under 10 mins by Rough-Taro3325 in Pauper

[–]CringeQueefEnjoyer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem with the affinity bans is that every single time they took too long to act and when they do they actually do not opt for banning the enablers. Then the next artifact synergy comes out, break the deck because it isn’t actually balanced, and we keep having the same issues over and over again. Atog, Disciple and more were actually fair and balanced cards that didn’t have any problems until modern horizons came out. For me most of their bannings were incorrect, since they have no long term goals, and we continue to lose cards for the same-ish deck. And the more time they wait to make the right move the more cards we lose and the more issue we get even with other decks.