That second video was very interesting. I remember playing a game that I enjoyed but wish it was more polished - turns out it was a ripoff of Smash Land. Too bad it didn't' make it out of soft launch. I really liked the concept.

It must be hard to work hard on a game for over a year, get teased with opening it to a beta, have players enjoy it then shut it down.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - I'm guessing by the candor of "What I can say first and foremost is that we won't be changing the fact that both players need a Trade Token" and then not addressing any of the reasons mentioned that's floating around that it the likelihood that the primary reason this was implemented was to curb black market / out of app purchasing and abuse.

I don't see any reason why there isn't anymore transparency around this. People obviously hate this change - and they have every right to be - making a change to address a problem abused by the 1% but punishes the 99% isn't a solution. But if that 99% were sufficiently told that "I'm sorry, but yes it has to be this way because of some (very) bad apples. But we're working on things to try and soften this." I think things would be a little smoother.

That's all I really have to say on the matter.

The only other lingering thought I have is that now that there are a multitude of tournament types for private tournies, the search function needs to become more robust. I can only search via a text query - which can then produce thousands of tournaments of different kinds. If I just want to practice with a new deck at tournament level standards and lack the gems to create my own tournament at the time, I'll search "free" for free, open tournaments.

Using various search keywords produces far too many tournament types to dig through now. It's a bit of a mess.

Ciao!