100 is fine by me, although making it 120 for the first set for a faction (to give new factions tools and options) might be nice. Gives new factions more of an identity on release (*cough*Ascension OS*cough*).
Just as a clarification, does it mean there's little to no point in putting in three, or that because each version sacrifices itself, it can't be used for multiple completions, but if you have 3 in deck, you can potentially get 3 missions completed?
As in, if you have Regrowth out, you can complete it. If you have multiple copies of Regrowth out, you can complete all of them. If you complete Regrowth, you can still complete other copies of it (or the same copy, if you recycle/gather thoughts). But if Regrowth hits 200% completion, it completes once, not twice, then it is sacrificed.
At least that's how I imagine it, although the only Mission that currently exists wins you the game on completion, which there's really no way to tell whether it happened once or twice.
Stacked Deck: At the start of the game, each player chooses the order in which their cards are placed in their deck. Ignore any effects that would cause you to shuffle your deck. Live the dream, every game.
Just like the topic title Thunderer was meant as a silly card you'd never actually have in game. And besides, even if it were in game, its so unbalanced you'd never want it take up space in your deck.
Oh, if it were in game, I'd find a way to make it work. XD Trust me. Even if I'd have to resort to an Enyah deck.
(Hehkeem/Unstoppable/Jetpack) + (Ferocity/Make It So/Word of Command) + Thunderer
With Hehkeem and Thunderer as your non-Enyah comanders, it's a 5-7 (6-7 outside Infinite) cost combo that requires you to draw one card. Basically OTK potential any turn from turn 7, unless your opponent runs Perils/Annihilate/Assassinate/Calamity/Oblivion to remove Thunderer from Command. Do it on a later turn with Deflect/Fiery Resolve if you're scared of removal. Do it with Zunshen/Inspire if your opponent has more defenders than he has any right having.
When a Beast enters the Deployed Zone under your control, Regrowth gains 7% completion. If that Beast was not deployed from your Hand, Regrowth gains an additional 3% completion. When Regrowth is complete, gain 2 maximum resources.
Note: Keep in mind that Missions, unlike War Machine, sacrifice themselves on completion and can't complete multiple times.
Wait so now the person NOT conceding and wasting peoples time is the selfish one? How? I really don't see how. We come here to play cards. The person who concedes is the one forcing their will on someone else and not only ruining their fun but tangibly taking something from them as well by damaging their 'farming'. If that sore loser wasn't in the queue conceding every time that the match up didn't favor them then the person trying to actually get a game could be playing someone else and getting some points and experience.
I see no reason not to penalise people who are apparently quite willing to penalise everyone elses IP for the sake of their own enjoyment. However the solution I proposed protects the average player rather that penalising the conceder.
That is not at all what I said, or at least not what I meant to say. Insta-conceding is selfish. Not conceding is not selfish. I assume we can both agree on those things. What I then tried to say was that trying to remove your opponent's option to not play a game they won't enjoy (not saying that's what you were doing, but several people have proposed such things in this thread) is prioritizing your enjoyment over that of your opponent and wasting your opponent's time - which I consider selfish.
As for your solution (assuming you refer to the one about having queue time count for IP/XP rewards), that's exactly the kind of solution that I believe would fit here - it solves the problems that insta-conceding causes, but doesn't needlessly punish anyone involved aside from those who'd abuse the system.
In the type of match where one of the players would auto-concede, it's because that player loses fun by playing out what to them is a boring match. Auto-conceding, on the other hand, robs the other player of their fun. No matter what happens, as soon as such a match is created, someone's going to lose out on fun. Trying to say "it should be the other player" is selfish, no matter which of the players you are. Yes, auto-conceding is selfish. Yes, trying to force people not to auto-concede is selfish. Now can we all stop with the "I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but everyone who doesn't is a selfish puffy because (insert reasons here)"? That statement is like "Puffy's an awesome goldfish" - it's not wrong, but it doesn't really add anything to this discussion and it's not going to make anyone change their mind as people on both sides can say it anyway.
On a less ranty note, from what I've seen, one of the main problems, both with auto-concedes and with games in general, appears to be queue times. So what if matchmaking treated you as having queued longer depending on how long your last game lasted? For example, if you queued for 15 minutes to find a game that ended in 3 minutes, the next time you queue up, the game treats you as having queued for 15 - 3 = 12 minutes already? Makes facing players who concede much less annoying (partially solving the main problem), while not punishing people for doing it.