Cocofang

SEVERITY: 3 LOCATION: Forge REPRODUCIBILITY: Always DESCRIPTION: Spawn a Batariel in the Forge (i use purple). Let it sit in front of the shadow NPC spawn. Summon skeleton warriors until batariels passive burn triggers. Summoning any more skeleton warriors at this point will crash the game. Same for Forsaken.

Thanks for the reply. That sounds very odd. Especially since you get completion XP and upgrades. So I guess there is a different criteria for that for some reason. Here is hoping for a fast fix.

NAME: No map completion gold bonus SEVERITY: 3 LOCATION: After game lobby REPRODUCIBILITY: Always DESCRIPTION: Normally you should get a chunk of extra gold for simply winning a map. I played Soultree Expert a couple of times, sometimes I opened chests, sometimes I didn't. But every time I only got the upgrades and the gold from converted ones. No gold reward for winning itself. Tested with Sunbridge Expert as well. Only gold from chests. SCREENSHOT/VIDEO: Soultree: https://imgur.com/a/WVeQ6sC Soultree: https://imgur.com/a/nByFzeG Sunbridge: https://imgur.com/a/923qBGn

Achievements and challenges (where you don't get a tangible reward) can pretty much be as crazy and precise as one can mange. But I am AGAINST all quests (that are bound to rewards) that are too specific. Quests should be general and flexible to not favor certain kinds of players or styles too heavily. As a simple example there should be NO "Play a PvP map" and no "Play a PvE map" quests. Instead there should be "Play a PvP OR a PvE map". This kind of quest does not force someone that dislikes PvE to play it or someone that dislikes PvP to play it. Quests that require the use of specific cards are also too narrow. For it's completion you are forced to use it even if you don't enjoy it. These kind of things are fit to be "achievements" or "challenges" but not "quests" for rewards. Quests should only be things that are doable under the majority of situations, don't require specific strategies or depend on other players. A "Play a X player PvE map" quest would inevitably lead to frustration, even if everyone had that on a given day. Even in the original BF, it was often hard to get a full map and people instead started developing strategies to solo 2 or 3 positions. Keep quests that offer rewards as broad as possible. "Win a game" or "Play for 30 minutes" are suitable. "Summon at least one XL unit OR two L units in a game" would also be fine as pretty much every deck has those. Same goes for something like "Deal 10.000 damage in a single game". Other examples for very general quests that require you to play the game but not bend your own game would be "Use a spell, a unit and a building of at least T2 in a single game", "Use 1000 energy in a single game" or "Use a card that requires at least two different colors OR at least two identical colors". Basically, quests that give rewards should almost complete themselves if you simply play the game the way you like. They should not impose or dictate. Achievements/Challenges that are merely for bragging rights or a little check-list can do that.

Oh, my. Months later I come back to see how everything is going and find a freshly created topic proving my post back from april right. Or at least it's still an ongoing problem, unsurprisingly. in the update? Can you be more polarizing? I understand that there is passion behind the project but it just goes off the far end. People take this whole thing way too personal. And inflammatory swipes like this aren't helping anyone. Neither do I think the heartfelt apologies are having the intended effect. I would mainly just aim for a lower profile, keep it interactive and transparent but don't go overboard either way. What kind of community do you want to foster? I see it steering towards "Us VS Them". Just a hostile environment with angry mobs that attack anyone that dares voice doubts. Do not get your ego involved. Technical issues can be resolves easier than a broken community. And let's not forget that a BIG focus should be on a welcoming and friendly community as it will most likely be relatively small and needs every active member it can get. On a related note, the up- and down-vote system does not help it either. It discourages voicing controversial statements because of the possible retribution of red pixels and encourages just preaching with the choir creating an echo-chamber and generally a more volatile environment for discussion. Especially since it is not anonymous. It also just brands people that may have had one post that others didn't like among other neutral ones to the point where creating a new account is easier than trying to get positive standing again. Again, at this point I am less worried about the state of the game than the state of the community from top to bottom and where it could be headed. Especially the part about the voting system. Maybe it's time to revisit that. There isn't anything good coming from people throwing up and downvotes around. It just snowballs both ways, if you have a lot of +, you will get more + more easily. If you have -, you will be branded and gather more - more easily. And it is discouraging if one of your first posts gets downvoted and your account is suddenly perceived as in bad standing. And as I said it is very hard climbing back out of a deficit, might as well make a new account or leave altogether. A voting system like that does not make for a very welcoming community. It only reinforces crowd and mob mentality. If you really want one then I would suggest these adjustments: Make it anonymous in any case. Nobody needs to know who agreed or disagreed with them by default. And make it so nobody can get lower than 0 points, even if he gathered mostly negative votes. You could make it so negative votes are only counted invisibly in the background. Or just make them not count at all. Which would lead to an inflation of positive points but then again, who the hell cares? But it could also lead to people with no or little points not being taken seriously. Or just get rid of the counter that keeps track of the overall standing so that people can still react to individual posts but that's as far as it goes. Personally, I think the best approach would be making it anonymous and getting rid of the overall vote-counter so accounts don't get publicly branded. I don't see this voting system helping anyone right now. If it can't be easily adjusted then maybe just ditch it. It's not like negative votes get rid of people that actually only want to insult. This has to be handled by moderators with notices like "You are free to voice your opinions, even if they are not favorable towards us or this project. You are free to criticize and present why you are unhappy or frustrated. But within reason. Personal insults and attempting to foster hostility are not helping. Stay polite. We realize this is a polarizing situation for a lot of people but name-calling or trying to stir things up with an angry mob of sorts (both ways) is not something we want to see and repeated offenses will result in a ban." Of course people that support this whole thing but go too far and try to drive out anyone who is critical have to be handled the exact same way. This is a forum FOR the project, not AGAINST it, sure. But those that are hostile towards any form of open dissatisfaction are just as much part of the problem. Also, don't forget that the people complaining and venting their frustration are probably just people that were once hyped but are now disappointed. That's what hype-culture does to people. It is polarizing and lets people lash out in extremes both ways.

I am fine with no dates and I know that delays happen. Whatever happens happens, the only stake I have in this is that I would like the opportunity to play BattleForge again. But honestly, I am getting more worried about the general atmosphere and by the fact that some devs themselves can't keep their hype in check. What's with the in the update? Can you be more polarizing? I understand that there is passion behind the project but it just goes off the far end. People take this whole thing way too personal. And inflammatory swipes like this aren't helping anyone. Neither do I think the heartfelt apologies are having the intended effect. I would mainly just aim for a lower profile, keep it interactive and transparent but don't go overboard either way. What kind of community do you want to foster? I see it steering towards "Us VS Them". Just a hostile environment with angry mobs that attack anyone that dares voice doubts. Do not get your ego involved. Technical issues can be resolves easier than a broken community. And let's not forget that a BIG focus should be on a welcoming and friendly community as it will most likely be relatively small and needs every active member it can get. On a related note, the up- and down-vote system does not help it either. It discourages voicing controversial statements because of the possible retribution of red pixels and encourages just preaching with the choir creating an echo-chamber and generally a more volatile environment for discussion. Especially since it is not anonymous. It also just brands people that may have had one post that others didn't like among other neutral ones to the point where creating a new account is easier than trying to get positive standing again. Again, at this point I am less worried about the state of the game than the state of the community from top to bottom and where it could be headed.

Has anyone here actually ever considered that is the actual reason people are really bummed out? People as a whole can't manage expectations already, so if you foster an environment where everyone is even more pumped up and then something happens to bring things back down to reality, the backlash will be all the bigger. Everyone who constantly explodes in excitement and is getting all fired up over something that doesn't even exist yet doesn't really have a right to criticize people that are disappointing when expectations are not met because they collectively created those unreasonable prospects in the first place. The devs aren't innocent in that regard either. Of course they need people to get invested because they also want it to be a success and earn some money but it blew up into their faces recently. In a situation like this the divide in the community between the disappointed people and the ones still riding the wave will get apparent. I just sit back here and whatever happens happens. I would love to play BattleForge again but if this entire project bombs, I'd still go "Oh, well. Would've been nice. Moving on." People (both the "SO FKING DISAPPOINTED IN THE DEVS!" and the "SO FRIGGIN HYPED ABOUT THIS, GO DEVS!" ones) get emotionally and personally invested way too easily. Don't forget, a lot of the people now complaining were once just like the ones still celebrating.

Just wanted to zip in with a quick: Take your time, if you can't hit the deadline you set yourself for open beta release, just take more time. The kids will manage. They will cry. They will lament their broken dreams and hopes. They will temporarily feel betrayed, dirty and used. But they will manage. They are strong souls. Godspeed.

Does that count as a birthday? It's more like a two year pregnancy anniversary.

Composed decks are a not a good idea because it completely removes an entire aspect of the game: Customizing your own deck to suite your playstyle and strategy. Especially if the cards in these decks are not randomized but predetermined by a bunch of "pro PvP players", then you get a scenario where these guys already have the deck figured out, because they built it, while the rest still has to adapt. Horrible if you want to have some sort of integrity in your PvP scene. Having active competitors decide the terms for the entire field is a nightmare to justify. Worst case scenario is if one (or a few) composed deck turns out to be way stronger than others. So not only do you have the balance of single cards and their interactions, you are just begging for another balance issue. It also opens up the option to build specific counters to composed decks, if you have the cards available yourself. PvP strives on a naturally developing and vivid meta game. Where one strategy turns out to be dominant, so people search for counters and eventually overwhelm the previously dominant strategy, so this counter now becomes the dominant strategy, so people search for counters to that once again. Strategies can come back, be niche or vanish entirely if the scene develops far enough. Different strategies can be viable for different levels of skill. It is just a giant, organic mess and cracking the ever changing code is what a lot of competitors strive for. This is the meta-game. It all happens naturally, provided something isn't completely, overwhelmingly overpowered. It survives on the premise of "If there are enough options, people will figure problems out themselves". If you introduce known quantities in composed decks, you hamper this development and instead force your own vision of how PvP should look like. It makes it feel stale and artificial. Does this truly lower the entrance barrier to PvP? People starting out would most likely pick a composed deck and because they get matched against other beginners, would fight against other composed decks. There might develop a predictable Rock, Paper, Scissors scenario, where you see "Ah, he has that other composed deck which is strong against my composed deck, so the odds are in his favor already". They also learn a different skill altogether: Adapting to the known decks you and your opponent are given instead of creating your own. Once they start playing against people that make their own decks, this won't help them. Giving beginners something to kickstart their PvP experience is good, but it shouldn't be at the cost of so many different aspects. Most importantly deck building and the meta game. No matter the solution, it should never take away from these two aspects.

Yes, there are models that allow to trade money in order to safe time. Those commonly involve unnecessary, forced grinds in order to manipulate people into spending. Either way you don't think the other way around, that there are people that spend time AND money and these pull ahead by a fucking landslide, which can be especially problematic in a game that involves an economy.

Enlighten. It was the most powerful spell at one point and a standard in almost any hight tier deck. It dropped in value after some expansions and it got nerfed too if I remember correctly. But it was an absolute chase-card.

If they actively lock content/functionality behind a paywall or want reoccurring payments, I would be fucking out. Forcing grinds onto people to manipulate them into coughing up money was basically what the original BF did and it was tedious as hell. If they absolutely want to have microtransactions in this reboot, the most ethical way to go about it would be cosmetics that you can ALSO unlock by playing (albeit associated with a lot of playtime because they are in no way essential). For example the Harvester had a promo version that was fully upgraded and had a different skin. You could sell these different skins (without the upgraded part) that you could attach to the respective card. The problem is that BF was built from the ground up to support a payment model that is based on collectible trading cards. Get randomized stuff from boosters (mostly just trash) or buy it directly from the AH. Either way, you needed BFP. What I would love to see is that you start with a basic set of cards, maybe even the ones you got from the original BF. Then, after you finish a certain map you have the choice between one predetermined card of your choosing or a randomized (maybe map-specific) booster. That would retain the "collectible trading cards" feeling without contaminating it with a sleazy crash grab. Or something like that. Basically, what would maybe even incentivize me to pay a couple bucks is, if I could see that they don't actively impede people in order to get them to pay money. No forced grinds or restrictions. A 100% leveled playing field between paying and non-paying players. But without something that inspires my honest support, I really don't feel like paying for something again that I already had.

The craziest news about this whole thing is EA is fine with it with some obvious restrictions. Normally big publishers just sit on their IPs and let the rot, even if they don't even want them anymore. In the past people wanted to buy IPs from various publishers to revive some of them, yet were denied. So this is pretty huge actually. However: THIS made me instantly wary. Back then BF was pretty much the game that taught me to monitor my spending habits when it comes to endless money dump-games. I didn't break the bank but definitely spent more than I want to know. Now, with that in mind, and also the general fact that a lot of people already paid for this exact thing in the past, I really can't see myself spending money once again. There was this thing going around that it would be completely free and only fueled by donations and that would have been fine by me. But now with the prospect that there might be things coming that you have to pay for? The old BF wasn't P2W either and the grind for new cards was still tedious as hell. I paid my share for BF back in the day and I won't do it again. For me, as the consumer, it doesn't matter if the people behind it are different. It's still the same thing (or supposed to be). I also know that servers and maintenance can't be paid with by love and passion. But with this I am kinda on the fence again. If mechanics get designed for the sake of pushing some sales onto people (like grinds for points to unlock content instead of using the shortcut and spend money), it would be a huge bummer.