Cocofang

It depends on what you consider the bigger issue. PvP being virtually locked for you until you have upgraded cards (especially true if you join later down the line) and can even begin to compete on a raw power level? Or the economical impact of providing a set of cards for free and undermining of the collection aspect? You also have to consider that originally all these things were baked into the monetization model. Want more charges? Easiest way was to pay up. That means that wanting to be more competitive in PvP was an incentive to spend money. That's not the case anymore, you can't just buy progress. So they have to somehow try to dissect these methods out of the game design. This is the official statement regarding these decks. In short, they think long-term the free decks will keep the PvP community healthier. The opportunity cost is effectively eliminating the need to chase after a lot of cards for PvP players and making the use of 120 decks mandatory if you want to be competitive power-wise. Maybe they could've waited a month to release the 120 decks to give everyone the chaotic start-up times, while still offering latecomers a faster start. Making the cards U2 would've been an option as well. Or having a fee to rent the decks. Personally, I think the collectible part is essential to the game, it's what it was entirely built around. So that's a pretty big intrusion. Also very unfortunate that not all opinions could be considered because a lot of people didn't involve themselves in conversations like this before release as they waited. Maybe if enough people speak up against the 120 decks they change something? The original thread was mostly positive about it. I have my doubts that they would remove it entirely though.

Glasses? If you want the solution to be a bit more high-tech then you could search for a screen magnifier.

Yo, fuck Cyberpunk, THIS is what I am waiting for.

His artworks gave this project its own unique flair, distinct from the original. Hope they will continue to see good use in the launcher, in-game and everywhere else.

There is no contract. It's just a verbal "go ahead" with some boundaries. They can retract that for any reason at any time. It doesn't even have to do anything with EA specifically, this wouldn't be the first fan project about some IP that got verbal permission first but then ends up getting Cease and Desist-ed anyway.

Yes, and among many reasons I think the most important one is: The dev team said so. Fostering trust and showing consistency is very important for the long term health of the project. Many people waited for the rested to get into the game again. @shroomion Dude, EA could change its mind on a whim and Cease and Desist nuke this entire project tomorrow for absolutely no reason other than somebody over there woke up and felt like it. Would be a good idea to not give them any cue at all to rear their heads. This is built on sand as it is, better to not get smart with them, dancing around boundaries.

Well, like I said it will also depend heavily on what these specific quests will be. At least it seems you can justify the dev time but the tricky part will be the balance because if one pool is significantly worse or better than the others people will get dissatisfied for the reasons I stated.

Are quest rewards final or what's the plan there? In regards to the "specific PvE" quests, I can see some people using it because they like getting arbitrary challenges. But overall I see it as a small niche. Guess it's up to you if you think the additional development workload for a feature that will be used by very few people is justifiable. If it's easy to build, I don't see a reason why not. But keep in mind people will optimize their quests. So if you offer more options (different pools), some people will go for the optimal one. If it turns out some specific PvE quests are notably faster than generic PvE quests, people will feel penalized for picking generic PvE. Similarly if it's the other way around. Same goes for PvP quests, by the way. If it turns out you can churn through your quest log much faster in one quest-mode over the other, people will be incentivized to pick it even if they don't necessarily enjoy it. The crux of game design is trying to make the most optimal approach also the most enjoyable one. Because otherwise you will end up in a situation where people that optimize their gameplay end up hating it while people that don't end up feeling left behind.

I'd assume it wasn't CEO Andrew Wilson himself that gave the green light but someone us lowly plebeians can actually get a response from and as such it could easily be revoked. I doubt it went way up the ladder. This wouldn't be the first fan project that gets shut down even after explicit permission. The wrong person getting wind of this and it's gone. Or not even that, someone changing their minds does the trick as well. You can't stop people entirely from calling it "Battle Forge" since that's what it is but at least from content creators a total rebrand to "Skylords" would be a little bit safer, I'd say.

Well, it most certainly spearheaded the lootbox as a central piece to design a game around. The first and last game where my younger, more inexperienced and naive self would fall victim to the exploitative monetization model. Especially after it got shut down and all the money I spent was gone with nothing to show for. It was a good teacher. As to this iteration, Skylords, I am a bit worried that the wrong people catch wind of this project. Meaning someone at EA that has the power to shut it down and all of a sudden we will be greeted with a "EA issued a Cease and Desist, it was a good run!" banner at the top of this forum. So at the very least I would be mindful of referring to this game as Skylords, never Battle Forge. And always stress that it is strictly non-profit, all free.

Are you suggesting the people that disagree with you are new accounts paid off with virtual gaming cards? What are you even talking about? How does that ... what? It doesn't make any sense, I can't. >I will tell you later why. Please don't. >Donuld This has to be a troll account, please. For my sanity, please be a troll account.

Those are the most incoherently rambling posts that I have ever read, no joke. So many completely irrelevant if not downright cringe remarks. Actually this song in written form. Okay, so let's take this seriously for a moment. No doubt some people that were previously banned for multi accounting would actually embrace a new chance after release and never do it again. But for others it would just be an additional incentive because now any progress they make by farming BFP on multiple accounts would be permanent. People squeezing the most amount of BFP they can out of one account is one thing. But imagine what it would do to the crucial early days after release if you invited people back in again that massively inflate BFP amounts on the server by grinding multiple accounts, even if only for a few days. There will definitely be a surge of multi accounting after release, why give chances to previous multi accounters too? It's just more workload for the moderation to ban most of them again. If anything, somewhere down the line, a few months after release after the economy got more stable, the team could lift pre-1.0 multi account bans to give them that chance. But they are busy enough at launch as it is. No need to also invite known offenders back in, a lot of them will try either way.

I mean, the amount of players is certainly a factor that we can think about but it's pretty speculative, we don't know how the playerbase will develop. At least I think it's pretty safe to say the playerbase will be noticeably bigger than it is now. However we are talking about a weekly fee. Over the course of a week you should be able to play enough to get a taste, no? I would at least assume. If you are only ever online during the absolute off-hours (if you are shift working for example or something) then it wouldn't matter anyway how you get decks, you'll always have less people to play against. But I get what you are saying, a commitment without payout (in this case the fee and then not being able to play the games) does feel bad and could drive people away. But I think that's an issue to consider after launch. Necessary adjustments that entirely depend on the size of the playerbase. For now I think we could assume a healthy but small playerbase. Randomly getting one deck and then being able to rent additional decks is another possibility but I wonder if it wouldn't be too volatile. It would certainly mix things up but there are a whole lot of additional factors at play then. PvP decks bricking because you got assigned another deck, then having to pay the fee to play them again. People possibly skipping PvP for a week because they dislike the deck they were assigned and with a free deck being the expectation, the condition that you have to pay a fee not being the established norm, they might just sit it out until they get another one they like.

Can't wait to finally start collecting again! Thank you so much for doing this. Quite a few people waiting around here to sink their teeth in again. Hoping for a smooth launch.

You are right, it would be a small barrier that could make some new players consider if they really want to dump 100BFP (or whatever the fee would be) to take the chance. It would be a bit of a commitment but that could also be a positive as well. Like a player thinking to themselves that if they already paid the fee, they might as well get the most out of it and play more PvP, possibly getting hooked, as if the commitment is non-existent with the cards being free. It would be additional legwork from a development standpoint but everyone could get a one-time voucher for their first unlock being free to circumvent this entirely. When it comes to the amount of BFP, I think most people would agree that a weekly fee of 100BFP is incredibly low for the amount of value you get out of it. The conversation just seems a bit skewed because it started from the point of this crazy value being free. Not only are there some powerful and valuable cards in these decks, they are also fully upgraded. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that a weekly 100BFP for that would be expensive at all.

@WindHunter A fee of 100BFP is so low compared to your potential earnings even in a single day that it's almost a symbolic payment. Yet is still carries with it all the benefits I listed so I don't know where your assumption of "no real gain" is coming from. What does "the deck isn't yours this is already true because you need your own cards in order to change it" even mean? Having to purchase additional cards doesn't make the free 120PvP cards less part of your available card pool. If you just repeatedly pick the same 120deck for free they are effectively your PvP cards and you no longer have to pursue actually collecting these cards. Which crosses them off your want-list at no opportunity cost, undermining the collectible part, which exceeds the extent of merely having to get the cards you want to add. Like, take your own example: You are a PvP pure shadow player. You get U3 Harvester for free and if you pick one of the other shadow decks you get Shadow Phoenix for free too. There goes your need to EVER actually own these cards because you will just perma-select these two decks. You will engage with the essential collectible-aspect of the game and all things tied to it less now because you already have some of your bases covered in these departments at no cost. @DukeDublin I don't know what you mean, you get points just for playing, no need to win. I even typed out how it would play out with a 100BFP weekly fee and the current BFP-generation rates.

That entirely depends on the amount. Currently you earn 250BFP for 45 mins of playing, that's about 5BPF/min. And I guess it depends on the quests they eventually implement but also 150BFP from those. They will probably consider PvE/PvP-only players. But let's just say you can only get 50 points a day by being PvP-only. And let's say you only play 30 minutes every 2 days. Over a week that's 600BFP. Say the fee to rent 2 decks is 100BFP. Then you easily earn 6 times the amount necessary until you have to pay up again. Then let's say after that you only play 30 minutes a week and do one 50BFP quest. That's still 200BFP a week, twice as much as you need to sustain. Literally all you have to do is keep 100BFP on your account as a reserve because one day of short play is enough to stock up again. Now you might ask "Well, if it's so easy then what is the point of having a fee in the first place?" It creates an additional incentive to collect your own cards because it strengthens the feeling that the 120deck cards aren't truly "yours" and paying a fee makes it look more like something you want to grow out of eventually. It makes people participate more in the economy, both in the AH and by opening boosters because it nudges them towards building their own collection. It makes a scenario less likely where too many cards are just permanently taken off a players "want"-list because they just keep getting them for free. It can make people play a bit more because you either want a bigger cushion for future rents or go independent. And it is a small BFP sink which slows down inflation. What is more, 40 U3 cards is INSANE value, there should at least be some opportunity cost attached. Also, growing your collection is an integral part of the game, even if these cards can still only be used for PvP, it undermines that aspect pretty heavily. A fee would alleviate that a bit.

Sure, but they can safely cross off quite a few cards from their want-list if they just repeatedly pick them for free.

Well, now. This statement is pretty disingenuous. It's the gun-to-head deflection. Like big publishers use for their """optional""" monetization in their cashgrab games. While naturally utilizing every psychological manipulation they can get away with to sucker people into buying. Anyway, going on a tangent here. Obviously you aren't forced to do it, as in nobody is holding a gun to your head, but not doing so will put you at such a massive disadvantage that you have almost no choice if you want to be competitive right out of the gate. This feature intends to level the playing field, by evening the power-floor, which it should succeed in. But the new initial power-floor is WAY higher than it was before. Like @MrBao said, the original power-floor was really low with ragtag trash decks. Chaotic and unpredictable. You had to improvise and be inventive. Use the cards you had to the best of your abilities and win with your OWN cards. Which to these type of players felt very satisfying. That's no longer an option now, so unfortunately these peoples needs fall by the wayside. It is no longer a feasible strategy because you will consistently face Lv100+ decks right out of the gate. Strategy and skill only do so much when the other units simply have bigger numbers. Also, there will be less variety in the beginning because everyone will work with templates now. So while I can agree with the argument that it's potentially better for the health and sustainability of the PvP scene, which should be a high priority for a niche project like this. With most choices having pros and cons, these players sadly get sacrificed here. But I don't like this type of argument at all, it doesn't line up with reality. When I think about it, I would say that is another argument FOR making these 120 decks have a fee. Because people will eventually just consistently pick the two decks of which they always want the cards of. Which effectively takes these cards off their "want"-list permanently. Which is a negative impact on their drive to build up their own collection and on their participation in the economy. A reoccurring, weekly fee would nudge them towards going independent.

I like the idea of having to rent 120PvP decks for BFP! It creates and incentive to still invest into your own collection and a modest fee would make sure at least some opportunity cost is associated with using the premade sets. Even a small, reasonable cost of like 100 BFP would nudge people some more towards making their own decks long term, partaking in the economy. PvP players still generate enough BFP to sustain a small fee and save up for their own cards on the side. The premade decks aren't meant as a long-term solution to play PvP anyway. They're supposed to even the playing field when starting out.

I think they are trying to soften that blow by making you pick 2 decks at a time for one week. So you don't have *everything* at once, always only one part. I guess it depends on what you consider the bigger issue. PvP being virtually locked for you until you have upgraded cards and can even begin to compete on a raw power level? Or the economical impact of providing a set of cards for free and undermining of the collection aspect? You also have to consider that originally all these things were baked into the monetization model. Want more charges? Pay up. That means that being more competitive in PvP was an incentive to spend money. That's not the case anymore, you can't just buy progress. So they have to somehow try to dissect these methods out of the game design.

Is there another premade deck that can work without T3? Only one deck focusing entirely on T2 kind of sticks out. Is there a deck that isn't nature/frost that can work without T3 to serve as another example of that strategy?

I know that MrXLink is aware of the horrendous state of incoherent and inconsistent card descriptions and would like to address that issue eventually. Most likely not the highest priority right now, though.

I really dislike the major suggestions. 1. Sure, getting a garbage UR is a bummer but rarity should NOT be tied to desirability. It's good that there are strong and desirable common/uncommon cards. It makes boosters more exciting and it makes good decks more accessible. You are basically asking for a community ranking of all cards and then make the ones that are the most popular for one reason or another rare. No thanks. 2. Building your collection from the ground up is essential part of the game. Giving away like one fifth of the ENTIRE roster is crazy. You are actively trying to undermine the "collectible" part of the "collectible card game" by simply giving everyone the cards they want the most from the get go. Also, you didn't consider new players at all. What if a new player picks a color because they look cool or something and then it turns out they don't enjoy them? Then they wasted their free gift on garbage they don't want. Would they get the option to switch? That undermines the entire point of the collecting part even more. Horrible. 3. Pure T4 cards are great for flavor in your deck and make interesting choices for Enlighten. The only problem I see with them is that they don't justify the opportunity cost of going pure, they aren't strong enough. But there should absolutely be pure decks where all four orbs end up the same color by design. And even if they aren't the best T4 choices, they are still fun if you just want to enjoy a pure deck. You can argue that you can still do that if they were 3fix1flex but they would lose their identity. Not a fan. If anything there should be one or two MORE pure cards to make it more attractive. The card ideas mostly already exist in some form. 5. Might as well delete them from the game. Flexible and powerful cards enable loads of interesting options and approaches. And while they can make alternatives seem weaker in comparison, they don't remove them. Your preamble is just sheesh, yikes, dude, come on. Don't know what makes you so confident about your suggestions but some are really flawed ideas. Also so weird to imagine LoL took your idea as if the honor system is so unbelievably revolutionary. It's just a "thumbs up" for positive players and they get tossed a bone once in a while, that super basic. Do you really think you are the only and first person to come up with that? You can't actually be serious about that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Anyways, potential profits, no matter if real or only in colorful pixels, will lead to people trying to exploit. Self reported prices won't work. Without objective input like through an API I wouldn't trust these numbers. Because I know people try to manipulate prices (and sometimes successfully do so) EVEN IF there is access to an objective graph as a resource.