YourPalAtlas#50635
My feedback
16 results found
-
156 votesYourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesYourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesYourPalAtlas#50635
shared this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment YourPalAtlas#50635
commented
I think it would be simpler if there was just a generic wildcard currency. Spend 1 card for a common, 7 for an uncommon, 16 for a rare, and 40 for a mythic (or whatever reflects the odds of getting each card in a pack).
Either way, I agree that its far too common to have too many of one kind of wildcard and not enough of another.
-
1 voteYourPalAtlas#50635
shared this idea
·
-
6 votesYourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment YourPalAtlas#50635
commented
I am seeing this only on transformable (just double-faced, e.g. lands still seem to work) cards that are currently showing their card style.
Invasions that have the default style seem to work, and cards like Etali, Primal Conqueror or Fable of the Mirror-Breaker (or battles) that have a "transformed" state will not show their backside while the style is active. It also seems to think they are "not double faced" when looking at the styles, and the tooltip indicates as much.
Attached screenshots show the following:
- Battle of Fiora is showing its backside when hovered, and no style is applied.
- Battle of Fiora is NOT showing backside when hovered, and style is owned and applied.
- Etali, Primal Conqueror is NOT showing backside when hovered, and style is NOT owned, and is being previewed. -
9 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment YourPalAtlas#50635
commented
@Johnny Demonic, problem with asking users to search for similar bugs/feedback here is that they get buried because there are just too many unrelated entries coming up in the search due to all feedback of every kind being put into a single bucket.
I do try to search before posting suggestions, but I almost never find anything related because I get nothing but bugs in the search.
YourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment YourPalAtlas#50635
commented
Separating these categories will also reduce duplicates a bunch too, as we'll be able to find posts that already match our ideas more effectively.
YourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesYourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteYourPalAtlas#50635
shared this idea
·
-
203 votesYourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
-
11 votesYourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteYourPalAtlas#50635
shared this idea
·
-
8 votesYourPalAtlas#50635
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteYourPalAtlas#50635
shared this idea
·
Speaking as an aggressively F2P player, this wouldn't incentivize me to buy packs - though I would be happy about the added value that cards/packs would have.
Not sure about what people who already pay up for packs would think of this, but I'm imagining a situation where most players buy packs to pursue a specific deck(s). If every pack you ***** gives you a 50% refund on cards that you don't want in your deck, you'd end up having to buy less, not more packs to complete the decks you want.
I'd wager a vast majority of players are not hardcore brewers, and just build out whatever decks are meta, so they would fit into the above category - and brewers wouldn't really want to sell many cards in the first place, so its a feature they probably won't use.