Obviously not this year

[GrizzBear55_PSN]

No thx

[shuker23_PSN]

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:

I think it could do with a full rethink. At this point I don't touch conquest as I find it super time consuming and boring.
There must be other ways of presenting single player?

Somtimes when i want a new approach to the mode i will set my lineup to match BR parameters. Or if there is an event i will set parameters to event type lineup, since both modes are 3-6 inning games.

I would just end up using random players I would never use online. The issue is the time consuming phases of conquering the map and the lack of variety in the matches. I think it's just boring.

I'm curious? Do you play every game of every territory is that why it's time consuming?

Ni O only play the territories. It still takes ages to go through all of the territory 'battles' screens.

[GrizzBear55_PSN]

@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@shuker23_psn said in Obviously not this year:

I think it could do with a full rethink. At this point I don't touch conquest as I find it super time consuming and boring.
There must be other ways of presenting single player?

Somtimes when i want a new approach to the mode i will set my lineup to match BR parameters. Or if there is an event i will set parameters to event type lineup, since both modes are 3-6 inning games.

I would just end up using random players I would never use online. The issue is the time consuming phases of conquering the map and the lack of variety in the matches. I think it's just boring.

I'm curious? Do you play every game of every territory is that why it's time consuming?

Ni O only play the territories. It still takes ages to go through all of the territory 'battles' screens.

I gotcha. You referring to the turn base aspect of it.

Yeah there could be something they could possibly address there.

Maybe when it's CPU's turn all moves done by CPU are simultaneous instead of waiting for every team? Yeah i could see that being frustrating.

[The_Canuckler]

Trust me when I say it’s not worth responding to OP

[Ikasnu_PSN]

@the_canuckler said in Obviously not this year:

Trust me when I say it’s not worth responding to OP

Minersvillemafia 2.0

[formallyforearms]

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

[GrizzBear55_PSN]

@the_canuckler said in Obviously not this year:

Trust me when I say it’s not worth responding to OP

But it is ok for you and your crowd to go to every thread i create and try to sabotage conversation?

I made a thread welcoming xbox users and i am nothing but nice and that is who i am.

your little group is just pissed b/c i don't back down from your bs thread derailing posts. Just like the one i just quoted! Litearally had nothing to do with convo just personal bashing trying to influence new readers. You are pathetic

[GrizzBear55_PSN]

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?

[formallyforearms]

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?

You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.

[GrizzBear55_PSN]

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?

You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.

So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?

What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?

[formallyforearms]

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?

You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.

So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?

What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?

It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.

I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.

[agent512_PSN]

1. Repayable
2. Rewards based on difficulty selected.
3. BR / Events type restrictions to force you to use different cards.
4. CPU theme teams.
   think babe ruth grind from last year but entirely in conquest.
   it would be nice to have best of each team/ division/ league/ coast or area/ card type teams to play.
5. Wouldn't be opposed to some maps with 6 or 9 inning games occasionally.

[GrizzBear55_PSN]

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?

You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.

So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?

What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?

It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.

I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.

Sounds like something i would do as long as it doesn't replace conquest. And are you using whatever players you want? Or are there parameters?

[agent512_PSN]

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?

You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.

So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?

What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?

It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.

I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.

Sounds like something i would do as long as it doesn't replace conquest. And are you using whatever players you want? Or are there parameters?

Maybe a new "barn storming" mode or something along those lines would be really cool. I just really want them to not have any full games within moments. full games should be in conquest or another mode.

[GrizzBear55_PSN]

@agent512_psn said in Obviously not this year:

1. Repayable
2. Rewards based on difficulty selected.
3. BR / Events type restrictions to force you to use different cards.
4. CPU theme teams.
   think babe ruth grind from last year but entirely in conquest.
   it would be nice to have best of each team/ division/ league/ coast or area/ card type teams to play.
5. Wouldn't be opposed to some maps with 6 or 9 inning games occasionally.

So moments meet conquest interesting!

[formallyforearms]

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?

You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.

So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?

What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?

It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.

I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.

Sounds like something i would do as long as it doesn't replace conquest. And are you using whatever players you want? Or are there parameters?

You can use whatever you want. It's not events. If you want to use your best team, or a team to complete dailies or TA, that up to you.

[GrizzBear55_PSN]

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

@grizzbear55_psn said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

The way other games do it, you can choose the difficulty level you want to play on, and the reward points you receive coincide with your performance against that team, on that difficulty.

Probably 1 game per weekday, 2 on the weekends would be the sweet spot for amount of games.

Is it 1 time play through? For instance someone can't play it on rookie get rewards and then play on veteran? Essentially double dipping?

You play the battle once, on your chosen difficulty. That's all you get. Then you wait for the next battle to be active.

So this mode wouldn't replace conquest just be another avenue for offline rewards?

What kind of rewards would you suggest? Are we talking diamond players or just perhaps packs, stub, and xp?

It is just another avenue to play offline, except there would actually be a point in playing 9 inning games vs the CPU. No need to get rid of Conquest.

I would imagine the rewards would be packs and stubs. I suppose they can add choice packs, specific cards, XP, or whatever else as well. Usually the reward levels are tiered, with rewards being packs and stubs.

Sounds like something i would do as long as it doesn't replace conquest. And are you using whatever players you want? Or are there parameters?

You can use whatever you want. It's not events. If you want to use your best team, or a team to complete dailies or TA, that up to you.

Then i have a problem with it if that's the case. People who spend money on players (early game) would have advantage. Rewards would then have to be same for everyone along with difficulty.

[Red_Ted_is_back_PSN]

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

Im hearing ‘meaningful games vs CPU’, I’m thinking ‘Franchise mode’

Solution would be to allow DD cards to be used in Franchise mode. Everybody wins.

[foresticek_PSN]

I really miss Solo Battlees in DD. Because except of Conquest, there is nothing where you can use your team offline.
When you complete Conquest once, there is no point in playing it for second time. In Solo Battles you could get rewards weekly based on your skill and difficulty on what you played those games

[formallyforearms]

@red_ted_is_back said in Obviously not this year:

@formallyforearms said in Obviously not this year:

Solo/squad battles would be a nice addition for the strictly offline crowd. It gives users an opportunity to play meaningful 9 inning games against the CPU.

Im hearing ‘meaningful games vs CPU’, I’m thinking ‘Franchise mode’

Solution would be to allow DD cards to be used in Franchise mode. Everybody wins.

You are missing the point. The collection part of DD. Completionists are a major section of DD players.