[Type as fast as you can!!!]

Little rusty, but 120 is consistent for me. I could probably stretch it to 130 if I really practiced.

https://10fastfingers.com/share-badge/1_DQ

[Current Proposal: Tokens & Gold]

A one currency system is the best possible system to implement in my opinion. It is the most streamlined of all approaches, allows for a better economy to develop where we wont have massive influxes of one currency and declines in others. Perhaps someone get's a super rare card they don't need, but have a deck that's not upgraded at all. I don't know about you but I want the option to sell that card and upgrade my deck. People mention new player support as a pro for a 2 currency system but I think it's the opposite. As a "new player" (I played BF when I was a kid, and I barely remember anything), I'll tell you right now that most people will be familiar with a one currency system and anything different from that is confusing. As for forcing people to be frugal with how they spend their currency, I think that's ridiculous too. How people spend their currency and whether it's on upgrades, cards, or some variation in between should be the players prerogative.

On 1/14/2018 at 1:28 PM, SilenceKiller99 said:

First of all, why do you think 3 or 4 hours is good? For people who work 8 hours a day it is near impossible to play that long... I would boost the first hour (maybe go to 200%), than an hour of 100%, hour 3 for 75% and all hours after for 50%.

The question is a good point you mentioned, and as you said will depent on the difficulty. I wonder if it is gonna be a 'checklist' quest system, in which everything is doable by everyone, but you just have to do them. Or if it is gonna be an 'achievement' quest system, in which the quest are a lot harder, and completing one is a real achievement (including bigger rewards, i guess).

The whole deal of balancing the bfp gain is really complex, but I hope the devs think it through better then I do

I don't understand why we're so focused on keeping everyone's level of progression the same? If I put in more work then someone else, I should get more reward, it is as simple as that.

4 hours ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

I think you are wrong there. That statement is almost unhealthy xD

You also say you have very little experience, and so do I. I work a 8 to 5 job for a few months now as well, but living alone criples your freetime. I can maybe spend 2 or 3 hours on any of my freetime.  So if I would do battleforge 100% of my freetime 2 to 3 hours is max for a day. But I won't, cause I simply enjoy other things, like you said.

I go to school full time, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, and then I Wrestle from 3:00 to 6:30. I get home everyday at around 7, and by the time I finish eating, showering, and doing homework, it's literally almost 10:00. That's not even accounting the hours I spend running usually at around 10:00 to 1:00 AM just to keep my weight down. And on Saturdays I often have tournaments that take all day. The word free time doens't exist. Regardless of all those things, and as someone who would benefit the most from a capped rate of progression before slow down, it's completely unethical to penalize people who want to play the game. That's the literal purpose of a game. Something we also seem to forget is that those who are most willing to put in a bunch of hours into the game are often the most loyal supporters of it. If we want to encourage growth and keep people playing over long periods of time, we need to try and keep those people interested. I'd challenge you to think of a single logical reason as to why people should be penalized for playing more/why people should have the same or similar progression. It's a communist like idea and we all know how that works out in real life.

1 hour ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Iam in for no cap too. Because the days I can play a lot (a free time weekend day or vacation day or so), I will probably exceed 5 hours a day... 

The problem is contests... The fastest speedrunner, or best PvP player or that kinda stuff will be hugely influenced by the amount of upgrades you have. If there would be a solution for that problem, then you could completely remove the cap. 

(Also, PvP'ing is a problem, if the matchmaking system puts two persons of equel skill against eachother, but one with 100+lvl deck vs one with deck lvl 20-40... just results in unfair matches. This again could be fixed. Probably something like including upgrades into matchmaking, which on itself introduces yet another problem because it is splitting up the maybe already smaller PvP community)

Well of course these things are going to be influenced by the amount of upgrades you have, the question is, why is that a bad ting? As for PVP, while yes it might be frustrating to deal with people have higher level decks then you, we need to ask ourselves why. It's frustrating because it isn't fair, but PVP is never fair. The best move up the ladder and the worst move down. Is it fair that someone has way higher APM then you so they can micro way better? Is it way better that some people can strategize and react faster/better then you? No, but that's part of what makes it fun. The natural skill level of people will balance out the PVP until everyone can get the necessary upgrades for their decks. People with 100+ decks can lose to people with 40-50 or w/e decks if the guy playing the lower deck is good enough. That'