Mynoduesp
-
Posts
365 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mynoduesp
-
-
NAME: Ironclad (fire affinity) - Ability Infused Winterfall
DESCRIPTION: Buff description on casting unit is wrong. Instead of "[...] deal 50% more damage [...]" it displays "[...] deal 20% more damage [...]". However testing showed it does deal 50% more damage.
REPRODUCIBILITY: Yes.
SCREENSHOT:
Correct ability description on card:
https://imgur.com/hfl7gFmFaulty buff description on casting unit:
https://imgur.com/0SCgGhHCorrect buff description on reciving unit:
https://imgur.com/dbGdjXuLOG: No logs required.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Tested and screenshots taken on test server not live servers!
-
26 minutes ago, Zyna said:
SHITTONS OF DATA
Thank you very much, I'll enjoy looking through it all ❤️
-
13 hours ago, Kubik said:
where would you like to draw the additional cards to not be hidden or hide another elements?
Whenever it's time for bigger decksizes I'd suggest 24 card decks and place them in two layers of 12 cards. Second layer would be partially hidden behind the first (big enough to be accessible by mouse). The 12 card layers would perfectly correspond to the 12 f-keys which are the games default hotkeys.
I already wish there would be small gabs between card 4 and 5 as well as 8 and 9 for visual clarity.
DarcReaver, VolvoxGlobator and Cryswar like this -
3 hours ago, Belormoroth said:
Have You ever played Guns Of Lyr on 3 or 4 position? Search what cards You need for it. I won't name more maps because on most of them on expert i cant win with 5k deck worth.
Amii as reward for all maps done on expert is just dumb and i guarantee people will stop play because of this cause i will be one of them.
Rhetoricaly asking one of the most experienced speedrunners in this community if he ever did GoL P3/4... Now you're just asking to not be taken serious. :/
LEBOVIN likes this -
43 minutes ago, Eirias said:
i think castle wars is what i was thinking of, as I said not a fun map 1v1 but some neat concepts and maybe a good starting place
Checked it out for some scripting insights, but it wont be anything like it.
If it will be fun... I don't know, we'll see :>
-
1 hour ago, Eirias said:
I believe there is already beautiful map like this.
I tried playing it 1v1 and it wasn't that fun, but maybe it would be good startling place.
Do you know the name of the map?
Emme recommended the maps "Spellwars", "Castle wars" and "Twilight vs Bamdits" for me to check out. Although elements of all maps will be part of this creation, nothing gets close to what I have in mind. Tbh, I didn't like to play these two maps either, but they had interesting consepts, but IMO Spellwars lacked engaging gameplay, Castle Wars was too clustered and dawn out, and lastly Twilight vs Bandits has a severe balancing problem.
-
Introduction
I'd love to create new content for the game but frankly I am pretty terrible at PvE map design. When I saw this post from MephistoRoss my gears started running, ideas kept popping in and out of my head and motivation as well as time I've got plenty for the time being. I don’t like asymmetrical games/modes, this is one of the reasons I’m bad at PvE design. In the reply to the post I scribbled down a couple of ideas and here is a more fleshed out variant of my thoughts.
“My” community map idea: Champions of Nyn
A MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena).
We’re going back to 2003, the release date of Defense of the Ancients (DOTA), a community map for Warcraft 3. Back then MOBA as a game genre didn’t exist and a guy called Eul released this gem of a community map into the world. Today games like League of Legends are amongst the most played and popular games ever created. My vision for this map is not to replace any of the triple A titles out there, but to apply the concepts inside of Skylords reborn.
More concrete vision for this map/gamemode (if MOBA isn’t a familiar genre to you I’d recommend to read the wikipedia article first): A 3v3 map with team bases at the center left and right with 2 lanes splitting the map into top, middle and bottom jungle. Best comparable with the old 3v3 map “Twisted Treeline” from League of Legends. When entering the map all players can choose one of multiple playable characters to play this round. Comparable to how you had your hero Harvester in the community map “Rise of Demon” by Emmaerzeh/Lebovin, you will unlock specific skills for your chosen character by killing minions (uncontrollable units from a team which run towards the enemy base) and monsters (jungle camps/enemy units periodically spawning in the jungle). Skill usage can be restricted by either cooldown, energy or both combined. Boss monsters will be part of the jungle giving one team an advantage over the other by granting a buff, debuffing the enemy, enhancing power generation etc.
Currently I have no specific idea to make use of the deckbuilding aspect of the game. The only “reasonable” thing for me at the moment is to ban every single card to prevent major balance issues. I’m up for suggestions though.My humble skills
I’m new to coding but can do quite a lot of stuff in Skylords reborn inside of mapscripts. Everything mentioned in 'my idea' is doable with the skills I’ve acquired during the pandemic. But, I’m not all knowing and will need some help. Especially in map generation, as far as I know maps can be generated with pixelated images, I saw it on YouTube once. That’s pretty much all I know of map generation. Further I need to improve my knowledge of script groups which I didn’t come around playing with so far.
My future plans
Realising a project like this requires quite a time investment which I’m willing to do, but also proper planning. This community map won't be released (V1.0) before following milestones are achieved:
- V0.0.1 Proof of concept; playable 3v3 team game with objective and 1 playable hero (respawning)
- V0.1 Creatuon of map (balancing and redesign along the way)
- V0.2 Minions and experience; leveling up heroes granting more power and abilities
- V0.3 Monsters and neutral buffs
- V0.4 Increase number of playable heroes to 3, make them unique (max one of each per team)
- V0.5 Playtest 1 (closed beta) & balancing
- V0.6 Increase number of playable heroes to at least 6
- V0.7 Add eyecandy: Animations, cutscenes and character callouts to the map
- V0.8 Playtest 2 (open beta) & final balancing
But before I really start on V0.1 I need one thing: Community feedback if there’s even a wish for a mode like this. What do you think? Would you give it a shot? Do you even have ideas? And would you like to be part of a small dev crew?
Regards,
Myno--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 14.01.2021
- The proof of concept has been made in a 1v0 environment (simulated PvP)
- Much data has been gathered about how to influence the gamemodes balance
There's not much more to say, unfortunatly the influence I have to make this gamemode somewhat balanced are very limited without editing gamefiles - which is a bannable offense. So yeah... I'm not going to put much more hours into this project until mods/modpacks are implemented which would allow me to change specific character attributes which is in my opinion mandatory to continue. I hope to continue somewhen...
Regards,
MynoMetagross31, Emmaerzeh, wanky and 2 others like this -
Frist of all thanks for the review and thoughts on this matter.
14 hours ago, VolvoxGlobator said:The real question is how to "calibrate" or adjust the system. You have offered several proposals, but maybe it is up to devs to tell what can be done easily vs what is difficult to implement. I really like artificial ceilings for all cards by them being available on the market separately, but I suspect this is not an easy change?
Unfortunatly low effort adjustments will not solve a problem of inflation permanently. A.e. adjusting the price of boosters is the main lever the devs can pull and push to slow down or speed up the economy. This change would take minutes. Adjustments with similar effect would be tweaking the numbers for rewards, easily doable, but without solving the problem at hands.
Probably the least time consuming suggestion for a sink would be the promo store. I'd imagine extending auctions even further (above 48h) wouldn't take long either though it's not a real solution either.14 hours ago, VolvoxGlobator said:I would propose to focus on new player experience rather on endgame sinks (as such a long term players who own everything usually find some non-economy aspect of the game interesting, e.g. PvP ladder). I dont want to say that they are not relevant, but new players are more numerous and also - will be the much prevailing demographic after the reset for quite some time.
Your point is valid, the game should be fun to play while still progressing. I did not dig into progression very much other than saying that my experience "was slow on beta launch". With the newly implemented BFP reward system it should feel better. If you want to progress more, you'll have to play more. How fast/slow this progression is, is up to the devs ultimatly with tweaking some numbers like those mentioned above. If the game lauches with the current system I wouldn't be surprised that many regular players would complain (those with an average playtime of 30 to 60 minutes) for the game being to slow to progress. To be fair, ppl always complain.
The rewardsystem is and its balancing is a whole other topic, I need to think about it more deeply and maybe add another part to my original post.
14 hours ago, VolvoxGlobator said:The current adjustment of the reward system has slowed the progression of new players by two effects - less BFP awarded and the fact that people tend to not convert BFP to boosters, thus heading to market and inflating the prices and making the game even slower for them - probably opposite of what was the original intention?
I think so too.
14 hours ago, VolvoxGlobator said:Based on Discord there are some actions in preparation - maybe it might be interesting to get your opinion about those.
.Keeping track of discussions is a nightmare on discord. My hopes and dreams for an active skylords reborn subreddit I had to burry like 3 years ago. It's simply a superior discussion template than discord (or this forum to be frank).
14 hours ago, VolvoxGlobator said:- fully upgraded PvP decks - to me it this really feels quite unsystematic, it will increase the spread between the cheap and expensive cards even more. As it will render some portion of the booster drop not interesting (every player will have them fully charged), therefore people collecting the remaining cards, which will push the price more higher. So if you happen to like some another deck than you will have to spend much more time to build it
I remember to have replyed to this probosal somewhere else but didn't manage to dig it up.
PvP has a tiny playerbase compared to the rest of the game. I think @Kubik mentioned something along the line of 3% somewhen..? Creating an "even" playing field for PvP is essential in my opinion and preconstructed, fully upgreaded decks is the way to go. I think there will only be 4 preconstructed, pure and unperfect decks to chose from which PvP players incentivise to build their own decks for their own style.
Without a doubt it will feel kind of stupid playing fine decks to scrable up part for your own initialy worse deck. But it's way more fun to actualy compete in a match than watch your oponent with a more upgreaded deck crush you while you wait for charges or simply dont have a specific card requirement yet.
14 hours ago, VolvoxGlobator said:- Adjustment of card charges system (e.g. from 3-3-3-3 to 6-3-2-1 or whatever, I do not remember exact numbers). This is quite interesting, because this will reduce the demand for cards and will therefore push the price of all cards lower. Plus making the experience better for new players. What it might cause (for some) is weak feel of progression in (late)mid game. I personally have never liked the charges mechanic anyway, it really feels more like USD sink than anything else.
I've seen this one, I like it a lot. A slight correction on your understanding for this though:
This change will not reduce the demand of cards long term (which is good) and rather than lowering all card prices it will normalise prices: Booster packs will not change their value, when cards have lower price due to lower initial demand the purchasing power of BFP rises lowering the need of purchasing boosters and ultimatly lowering supply.
However this changed makes lower budget players more powerful and the aquirement of the fist card significantly more meaningful than before (excepion cards with 1 charge). It's in some way a boost in progression. But I do not expect card prices (Shaman as example) to drop from this change.
Regards
Myno -
@Ponni Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I'll be updating the part about rewardsystem whenever I have the time, you're right I didnt cover this very well.
About your suggestion rewards being weighted more towards boosters/cards directly instead of BFP (like right now): Yes, I do think this would keep the market "alive", especially with a rather small player base it would make sence forcing more cards into circulation than BFP.
7 hours ago, Ponni said:as you seem to have looked into the matter on other games and stuff?
My personal interests include topics like math, economy, games, coputer science and last but not least psychology. This topic is "a perfect storm" for my brain.
Ponni likes this -
2 hours ago, Buddelmuddel said:
Think we are still in the alpha phase of the game. But maybe this idea will be more inspiring when more people have reached the limits of the game.
No, skylords reborn is not in alpha phase where core gamemechanics get changed. This is a rerelease of a decade year old game. I don't know where you got that Idea from.
About "reaching the limits of the game"; what do you mean? What limits?
-
Introduction
The economy is a delicate and mind-bending thing which is undoubtedly hard to control, a job I don't envy our devs for. It takes little effort to complain about complex topics like this, much more to suggest possible solutions and unending efforts to resolve the issues for good.
Without further ado, here’s my take on the game, its progression system and economic stability.In this post I’d like to address following topics:
- The games dual currency economy gold & BFP
- Upgrade disenchanting / gold rewards
- Gold with no end
- Inflation of BFP
- The possibilities devs have to influence card prices
- Possible solutions for an arising problem
- Various booster packs and their pricing
The games economy
We have two currency systems in Skylords reborn: Gold and BFP. Both Gold and BFP are “earned” by simply playing the game. When I say “earned” I mean created by the server which has an infinite supply for both. At this point we need to look at those two currencies separately which is easily doable since they do not interact with each other in any way.
Gold
Gold is not tradable between players and used for upgrading cards, essentially fine-tuning and end game progression. There is nothing that stops the community to greed for gold. The more the players play, the more gold will be distributed. It’s a nice closed system which allows a steady progression for the players. For some it’s too slow, which is a point I will not discuss. However, how this gold is distributed I’d like to discuss. Without messing with the total value of upgrades too much I suggest to normalise the disenchant value. This would probably not prevent Guns of Lyr “goldruns” to be the most efficient way to farm gold but it would allow to players to play their favourite map to farm gold without feeling cheated when only common upgrades show up at the end of the map. Here are chart of the current disenchant values and another chart with my suggestion. Note: these values are not chosen at random, but with a more even distributed gold reward in mind. The target would be to not add or subtract a significant amount from the rewards over all maps combined.
These numbers are a significant gold contributor such as finishing maps, which are the main tools for devs to control “late game” progression of skylords reborn and ultimately pace the endgame grind. The system is quite beautiful since it allows a nonstop grind and constant progress to achive fully upgraded decks.
Inflation of Gold
“I’ve got every upgrade I can wish for, what do I do with the gold?”
For the 0.1% of players who have hundreds of thousands of gold and those who only play a certain deck, it’s a bit of a bummer there is no ultra-endgame usage for gold, but since this currency isn’t tradable, no one really minds.
Question for you, the reader: Should there be a currency sink (a way to delete significant amounts of currency for little effect) for gold?
One option would be additional booster packs which progressively get more expensive: first one would cost 100’000 gold, second 200’000, third 300’000 and so on. If you’re now asking yourself why anyone would ever buy 10 boosters for 5.5 million gold, then this problem does not affect you.Battleforge points / BFP
In contrast to gold are BFPs tradable between players and somewhat limited by the rewardsystem. Let’s focus first on the big picture:
Players “earn” or more accurately generate BFP daily by completing quests and since the last big patch also with playtime. These points are used to either buy cards from other players (with the auction house or direct trade) or to buy different booster packs from the server for X amount. You don’t need to have a degree in economics to see a difference between gold and BFP: With enough time, the market will be satisfied with most common and lesser used cards. Those will lose value until they’re basically worthless. On the other hand rarer and broadly used cards will significantly rise in prise. We can see this effect right now and could see it 10 years back with EA at the controls. Only difference being, BFP could always get generated with real life currency at a fixed rate and nowadays we have a timely limited supply due to quests.
Maintaining value of BFP / Expected booster value edited 19.08.20
By tying BFP to a fixed booster price our valuable BFP will never lose their value. In a perfect economy the expected value from opening a booster is near but always below its price. The difference in value comes from taking a risk: When opening a single booster you will lose value in the big majority of cases, in some you'll go even and in rare cases you'll profit. How this risk is valued depends on the individual. In general wealthy ppl are more likely to pay for risk and the poor rather play it save by selling boosers or not buying boosters (even on discount).
We could very well calculate the expected value of a booster to confirm this by pricing every card with the actual marketprice, weighting their value by multiplying with the chance to opening this specific card in a booster and add all of them up. Why didn't I already do it you ask? Because we're not in a perfect economy, prices are hard to track by hand and fluctuate immense as well as rapitly due to the small-ish active playerbase. And lastly because of diliberate marketmanipulation/pricefixing by players who rather play the economy than the game (nothing wrong with that, I loved to do this myself in various games too).Market liquidity edited 19.08.20
The economy will - to a certain extend - balance itself but the effects described above are getting more drastic over time. We can slow this effect down by rewarding players with booster packs directly instead of BFP. As @Ponni pointed out, a higher supply keeps the market liquid/speeds up the economy (many trades are being made because of players competing over prices and undercutting).
On the other hand we can also slow down the economy and therefore speed up the effect described before. By rewarding players with only BFP. Why that is, you ask? Well it’s a fair question to ask and a tricky one to explain. There are many additional human factors influencing this besides demand and supply. As I said, with BFP bound to booster packs they won’t ever lose value, but with more available BFP ppl tend to save their treasure. Thus slowing down the market by not spending it on cards or boosters which will lower the price of undemanded cards and raise the price of cards in high demand. Since the last patch this is what we are seeing. Note: I don’t have any data to back any of this up but would be very interested if there is some to monitor prices of certain cards to watch the effect.
I’m not sure what the reasons were behind the change to reward players with more BFP than cards directly, in my humble opinion: This is the wrong way to wander. There are different approaches to keep the economy liquid, forcing more cards instead of BFP is one of them by creating more supply and less currency in circulation. Another approach would be to trick the market: Instead of increasing the supply we can change the trade system to our wishes. By increasing the auction time significantly supply will increase due to less active players staying in the market for more than 48h (current limit for auctions). Increasing the limit from 24h to 48h was a step in the right direction. Note: I’ll talk about the prices of specific boosters later in this post, just keep reading.Inflation of BFP
Now we can discuss inflation. This system is inflating, that is a fact. You don’t need to understand economics to see in the picture above that there are more and more cards and BFP circulating the player base. What this system needs is a currency sink: A way for players to get rid of huge amounts of currency for little upsides. Like the suggestion in the gold section of this post, this is meant for players who got it all. By giving the 1% of players a reason to spend their treasure you also even out the playing field for the rest (side note: If you think forcing players to buy more boosters is a solution, you didn’t pay enough attention). So yeah, what do you – the reader – think? How would you get rid of BFP? What’s the thing you’d pay horrendous prices for even if there’s a way less expensive alternative?
Currency sinks
Promo cards. My suggestion will not make everyone happy, it removes the possibility for lucky players to get promo cards with boosters. Now hear me out before you burn me alive: Firstly, removing promos will rise the value of every other card in the game available through boosters since they’re still bound to the 450 BFP cost of the boosters – thus help normalise the market prises of cards. Secondly, promo cards would still be available for everyone in the store for a set amount of BFP and will be accountbound/non-tradeable. Further I suggest that the fist promo card purchased from the store (not a player, this is very important since player interactions are net 0 trades) could be somewhat reasonably priced with… let’s say 5’000 BFP. The second one will cost you significantly more: 10k BFP. The third 15k and so on. This would give even regular players the option to buy their favourite promo cards if they wish to. At the same time it would delete enormous amounts of BFP from player who already own what they want.
Additional – but way less effective – currency sinks would be significant auction house fees. Make them cost significant amounts of BFP (~5-15% of sold price a.e.). I’m completely fine with our current auction house. I think our community is a bit too small to make fees a significant contributor to deflation.Dev market manipulation
A similar system could be implemented for all non-promo cards too. A static card shop where all cards are available to a fixed price. Those cards would of course not be accountbound and would be tradable, but their prices will be horrendous at first glance. I’ll make another example with numbers which I have not put much thought into: The vendor would sell every common card for 375 BFP, uncommons for 750 BFP, rares for 1500 BFP and ultra rares for 3000 BFP. I know, you would never ever buy an Eliminator or Kobold Inc. for 750 BFP. But what about a Shaman? Seems like a quite reasonable price, right? The point is, by creating a fixed upper limit for cards you ensure the market isn’t inflating over a set limit.
Conclusion
Without implementation of a currency sink (does not have to be my suggestion) there is little to nothing the devs can do to fix this games economy. The only sink we have today, are people abandoning the game and never come back. I think we can come up with something better than that.
I need to point out, reducing the amount of BFP players get from the reward system is an option, but only slows down the inevitable. Furthermore reducing the amount of BFP rewards would slow down the “early game” progression of players. When I started this beta the progression seemed a bit slow to the point I considered multiaccounting (don’t tell the devs). I think slowing this progression down even further isn’t considered an option for the devs. I cross my fingers I’m not wrong about this…Lastly here’s how the possible economy could look like:
Various booster packs added 19.08.20
This topic is not as related to the economy as one might think, but has a couple of shared points, that's why I decided to include it here.
Since last patch more specific boosters were introduced which limit the cardpool to either a race or faction. Currently the basic booster (without any cardpool restricitons) is priced at 450 BFP, race boosters are set to 155% of the base price and faction boosters 220% respectivly. These values are open for discussion according to devs and here's my opinion to the matter.
Note: I will not discuss the set price of the basic booster nor include the booster discounts right away. The basic booster price is the backbone of this games market and not topic in this part of the post. However I will go into the upprices of the newly introduced booster packs.Why they exist and how they are priced added 19.08.20
Adding specific boosters is comparable to the suggestion I brought up earlier to have a specific card vendor. It's an attempt help the economy balance itself more consistan.
I recap: In a perfect economy the value of the basic booster is the average value of its content times a individual risk factor. Now I make deliberately a false assumtion to make my point clear: All 539 (correct me if I'm wrong) cards in Skylords reborn have the exact same value. This would mean even with a restricted cardpool in race boosters (approximately 240) and faction boosters (approximately 110) every booster should have the base price times a factor to compensate risk. The factor rises while risk diminish by limiting the cardpool further (making the outcome more predictable).
Let's make an example: When the prices of "Harvester" and "Infect" rise to oblivion, at some point it makes more sence mathematicly to buy "Shaddow" or "Lost Souls" booster packs even when they come with a high upprice.Conclusion added 19.08.20
Higher prices of specific boosters will push prices prices of specific cards up, while on the contrary lower prices of specific boosters pull prices of cards down.
My suggestion for risk factor and booster prices added 19.08.20
I will try to make some calculaions with an example to have an actual suggestion on how much these risk factors should be with reasonable market prices for specific cards. Unfortunatly I don't have the time right now to do so. Stay tuned.
I hope you enjoyed the read, I’m curious about your feedback.
Regards
MynoReferences
For folks interested in virtual economies, check this YouTube channel out:
MMO Economies - How to Manage Inflation in Virtual Economies - Extra Credits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39TtF14i8IMMO Economies - Hyperinflation, Reserve Currencies & You! - Extra Credits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sumZLwFXJqE -
I love the enthusiasm of comunity member like you @Buddelmuddel but as much as I appreciate you for bringing in fresh ideas, I cannot see any reason why Skylords reborn should implement one of your suggestions: (following I'll reply to your points 1 to 4)
1. There's a lot to lern here from experienced game designers such as the guys at wizards of the coast who are not flawless in designing Magic the gathering, but I'd say they're making a good job. I just recently linked to an article about "why do bad cards exist" and I cannot reccomend anyone who's interested to take a look at their design philosophy. Bad cards exist, this includes bad mythics (ultra rares in MtG), and does not exclude commons from beeing overpowered.
From a new players point of view your suggestions makes total sence: Rare equal pricy. But you actualy worsen the problem by additionaly limiting the supply of high demanded cards which will result in a fuckload of players abandoning the game immediately after checking the price of that sweet Shaman (a.e.). If you think im talking boogus here, there's a better example: Infect.2. This is - somewhat - reasonable. I'm not a perfect human either, I like free stuff as much as anyone else. I thinks someone mentioned it already but the devs are preparing preset, fully upgraded PvP decks to even out the playing field in PvP.
I'd love to see the same pricipal applied to PvE too, we're stuck with a pretty terrible Tutorial deck (which can be used to beat expert maps, but it's one hell of a struggle). But when thinking about it more carefully, why should anyone chase a selfmade deck for maybe a hundred hours if the only difference are 3 cards in the deck...? There's no point to it and almost noone is willing to pay such a high price for that little effect. I'd say its about the same amount of players who bought a promo card in this open beta, thats quite few compared to the playerbase.
Anyways, to be a bit more constructive, I'd like to see 2, 4 or even 6 preset PvE decks for players to try out PvE, but the decks wont have any upgrades, include only 15 cards and are deliberatly not perfectly drafted.3. Change is good, right? Yes, to a certain point.
This suggestion can be made in an alpha phase of a game, there is no point to discuss here. I feel like you're the Bradford 'CertainlyT' Wenban of Battleforge, and this is the wrong place for a guy like that.4. I'd like to see additional rPvE difficulties too, but nothing like what you discribed. Make them even more challenging, what am I talking... make it mindblowingly overtuned (I'm sure @Treim would love to see a challenge for once) dont worry about the reward, this will only be possible to compleate for the top 0.01%.
Hope my feedback helps
Kind regards,
Myno -
I really like the specific quest idea. I often find myself wondering what map I should play, nothing is good nothing is bad. If the quest tells me to smash x amount of twilight squads, i know i'll play GoL. If it tells me Jorne needs another beating, i head on to BH. I'm overreacting, but you get the point... It would feel like your quest actualy matters.
should have posted this in the right forum though... sry 'bout that.
-
I like some parts of the idea, see a couple of managable difficulties with other parts, but will make some metal notes to try some stuff out.
Specificly I like the 'only spell interation'-idea. One could very well make just one unit with some abilities/spells available for both players and periodicly generate non-controlable, but interactable squadwaves. But then again... that would be Skylords reborn, but a MOBA (multiplayer online battle arena), which is kinda lame but kinda pretty amazing to think about. The concept is easily doable, balancing would be a nightmare, but thats a story for another time.
What do you think about if I'd make a scuffed Skylords reborn MOBA?Also possible its exactly the opposite: letting both players spawn preset, uncontrolable squads and support them with spells. it would somewhat resemble "age of war", a super old browsergame.
I don't really like the mixing of the two jsut because of the headache I'd get when I'd try to balance it. It's way easiert to make a fun mode where both parties/players have the same starting point. Noone can really complain about having a disadvantage that way. ^^
FYI: About not letting a specific player play out some cards:
From a technical view it's absolutly possible to disallow players from spawning anything but spells in the mapscripts. -
Bad cards / options are not a bad thing this goes for all cardbased games such as Magic the Gathering. If you're interested in carddesign and balancing, I'd reccomend you and everyone else to read into it why the first solution of making everything "balanced" does not work.
Check this article out about MtG, Google will help if your interested in more topicrelated articles:
https://www.cbr.com/mtg-why-wizards-makes-bad-cards/
Cardvalues and rarity is a whole other topic which I wont even touch. The battleforge marketsystem is deeply flawed and we can see the results on the current (prelaunch) server. Without currencydumps inflation is a huge problem with no end in sight, since we're not getting new expansions like World of Warcraft a.e.
There's a Youtube channel called "Extra Credits" which talks about game economys a whole lot. It's mostly MMO, but its the same for many other gamegenres. Here's an interesting one to tune in:
Unfortunatly I have no insight how the dev team wants to fix the economy. I frankly dont think it can be fixed and needs a complete overhaul to function over an extended period of time. This (of course) includes the rewardsystem which is very nice and all, but a nightmare if you'd like to achive something else than inflation.
-
On 8/15/2020 at 9:09 PM, Zyna said:
It's definitely possible to add NPCs to the empty slots. What other maps would you need this feature for though? And for Guns of Lyr, could you not just start in Position 1 instead of Position 3? Would that not fix the issue in this case?
Adding NPCs to empty slots would help practice a single map of 12 player games too, I quite like the idea. And I wouldnt have to make practice maps (which takes little time in most but not all cases) :^)
I think its a quite simple but beatiful solution to a rather small problem which is nice.
PrincessKenny likes this -
Wouldnt hurt to add a clearer description, but im strictly against laying out solutions for a problem. Naming cards and mechanics to stop Viridya isnt the job of the game, its the job of the community to share learnt experiences. Beeing more specific in a singleplayer map makes way more sence (singleplayermaps should be doable without any additional knowledge and without frustrating trials and error) than in a 4 player map even though I have to agree it is frustrating to lose in a 12 player game bc of someone not knowing.
FYI:
CC that work on Viridyas spirit are:
- taunt
- freez
- sleep
- L knockbackCC that dont work on Viridyas spirit:
- transformation
- paralysation
- rooting
- M knockbackCC I'm unsure:
- slow (some deffinitly dont work, but I did not test every slow in the game)
- amok / random taunt (a.e. Chaos Knights ability, Amok spell, Frenetic Assault)Furthermore, there are other ways to interact with or divert Viridyas spirit from reaching her goal of reaching the edge of the map.
-
On 8/13/2020 at 1:15 AM, Pritstift said:
2) Ascension
4/12 to 9/12 like above. 4/12 because based on our current experiences it may be not possible to finish the map ascension with just 3 players or we were just unlucky until now ;-).
4/12 = "1/4" - on two single maps one player and two players on the other map
6/12 = "2/4" on a single map
9/12 = "3/4" on a single map
I do think having 3/12 PTD and 4/12 Ascension categories do make lots of sence and see the argument for 6/12 and 9/12 options, but I think those middle ground runs wont be very competative. PTD more than Ascention since the maps are very similar and for an optimal run you'll spread out your players equaly which most likely wont be the case for Ascension:
Map 1 doesnt contribute to any faster time - it is however quite hard to finish (and not fail). Map 2 is doable too but the timesaves are achived in map 3. I have no doubt a 6/12 player run would be run as 1/4, 1/4, 4/4 or 1/4, 2/4, 3/4 for map 1, 2 and 3 respectably. Same pricipal can be applied to 9/12 runs for Ascension: 1/4, 4/4, 4/4 or 2/4, 3/4, 4/4 will without any question be the "formation" to run these categories. Maybe this isn't a bummer though. It would create a "problem" which requires creative solutions.
I missunderstood Prits' categories (woups). There can be an argument made, that 9/12 runs can only be played with 3/4 players in one map maximum instead of 9 players allocated like you wish. Both ways have their benefits and I cant realy discide which one I'd prefere.
Lastly theres very little opportunity cost to include 6/12 and 9/12 as categories so any argument against it will be neglected anyways I think.
-
NAME: <Shadow Insect> typo
DESCRIPTION: <Shadow Insects> ability <Steadfast> misses a space or enter.
REPRODUCIBILITY: Yes, both live and test server.
SCREENSHOT: https://imgur.com/YTf3pZQ
LOG: No logs required.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: None.
Loriens likes this -
I'm very much interested in a keyword searchfunction as well as further improvements.
In addition to searchable <unitsize> and <bonus damage> (counter), I'd wish every effect/ability could be searched from the searchbar. I'd suggest following keywords to be added (with declining priority):
- Siege
- Swift / Slow
- Ultra Rapid Construction / Rapid Construction / Slow Construction (for buildings with 500 / 1000 / 3000 building speed, 2000 is default) (Slow Construction not mentioned at all atm)
- Steadfast / Stalwart
- Flying (not mentioned on cards at all atm)
- Linked Fire
- Life Stealer
- Adamant Skin / Adamant Alloy
- Transformation (only activated ability in this list)
- Stomp
- Charge
- Resilient
- Earth Dive
- Protector / Agility
- Fury
- Slam
- Looter
- Shared Pain / Pain Link
- MultishotI could go on close to forever. Making the searchbar looking at cards abilities/text would make searching for abilities a lot easier too.
Additionaly I'd suggest mearging the keywords <Steadfast> and <Stalwart> (Giant Slayer), since they mean exactly the same. And since this is kind of on topic adding <Crippling> as one wouldn't hurt. Especialy if there are future plans for new cards, I'd suggest propper abilitywordings and consistency.
Edit: If it's not doable in the current game, at least the CardBase-page (https://allcards.skylords.eu/) could implement those improvements.
-
19 minutes ago, Zyna said:
I already fixed this on the test server. Thanks for the report though.
Couldnt find a report of it on the forum, probably because its super clunky to find stuff in here. xD
Thanks for the fix
-
Guns of Lyr solo 6:34.3 in collaboration with wanky.
Loriens likes this -
NAME: Treefiend purple affinity
DESCRIPTION: The description gets faulty after appling U3 on the card; <Tainted Acid Bath (p)> gets mistakenly changed to <Linked Fire (p) ***>. Removing it (going back to U2) will restore the corretc descritpion. It's despalyed even in the "Card Upgrades" preview window. Green affinity seems to be displayed correctly.
REPRODUCIBILITY: Consistant.
SCREENSHOT: https://imgur.com/zuEXw2F https://imgur.com/w6BTGXy
LOG: No log required.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: None.
-
NAME: Shield Building - Ice Shield buff description incorrect
DESCRIPTION: The spell Shield Building grants an Ice Shield buff to a building. The buff description seems not to update the increased amounts of U1/U2/U3 and stays at 1300 on every upgrade. However, I tested the shield amount which is definitly 1650 on U3 and not 1300. Did not test U1/U2 on shieldamount, but the faulty text remains on all upgrades.
REPRODUCIBILITY: Consistant.
SCREENSHOT: https://imgur.com/YlbMpJ6https://imgur.com/YxBCyal
LOG: No logs required.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: None.
Bandit Sorceress - Blessed/Infused Installation
in Client-Sided
Posted · Edited by Mynoduesp
Added Construction Hut thread
DESCRIPTION: The ability states "[...] she will use her magical abilities in order to increase the sized buildings attack range by 12m. [...]" which is a lot of text to begin with, but functions well in most circumstances, exceptions I found are following (I tried to group them):
Jank:
- Stone of Torment - Malicious Joy:
installation disabels Malicious Joy(edited 29.10.2020: works properly faulty testing on my side)- Lost Banestone (both affinities) - Underworld Gate: increases range (correctly?), range indicator missing on ability while hovering over it (allways shows Glacial ability range)
Explosions:
- Fire Bomb - Explosive: range indicator extends from 20m to 32m but does not deal dmg in the extended range
- Morklay Trap - Detonation: range indicator extends from 20m to 32m but does not deal dmg in the extended range
- Portal Nexus - Explosive Death: Installation has correctly (?) no effect, range indicator
- Altar of Chaos - Mass Destruction: range of Mass Destruction doesnt change with Bandit Sorceress inside main building as well as inside the bomb itself
- Bandit Launcher - Tainted/Infused Firebug: explosion effect missing & explosion seems very slow can do another bugreport if so wished
Other animation related issues (I guess its animation related):
- Rocket Tower - Rocket Barrage: installation has no range increase effect
- Pyromaniac - Infused/Blessed Flamethrower: installation has no range increase effect
- Church of Negation - Mass Disintegration: installation has no range increase effect
- Worldbreaker Gun - Heavy Snowball: range is increased from 200m to 212m, as well as the displayed impact range from 25m to 37m, but only deals damage in 25m
- Comet Catcher - Fiery Comet: same as Worldbreaker Gun, range increased, but no damage dealt in extended range
- Oracle Mask (both affinities) - Ring of Fire: building attack range increased by 12m, but no dmg in extended range.
- Termite Hill - Termite Swarm: range indicator increases (curser only), but no dmg in extended range
Incorrect range increases: (There is an argument to be made that these are not bugs, but features.
)
- Necroblaster - Tainted/Gifted Voodoo: increases range incorrectly, range indicator missing
- Incubator - Infused/Tainted Morphing: increases range incorrectly, range indicator missing
- Mindweaver - Edict of Command: increases range incorrectly, range indicator missing
- Phase Tower - Relocation: increases range incorrectly (ability not attack), updates range indicator correctly
- Stone Launcher - Tainted/Blessed Gravity Surge: increases range incorrectly (ability not attack), range indicator missing
- Lifestealer - Sacrifice: increases range incorrectly (ability not attack), range indicator missing
- Ice Shild Tower - Ice Shield: increases range incorrectly (ability not attack), updates range indicator correctly
- Decomposer - Shred them! - increases range incorrectly, updates range indicator correctly
- Warden's Sigil - Blessed/Gifted Sigil: increases range incorrectly, updates range indicator correctly
- Voodoo Shack - Deathcounter: increases range incorrectly, updates range indicator correctly
- Soul Splicer (both affinities) - Soul Suction: increases range incorrectly (primary range/casting ability), range indicator remains correct. Secondary ability range not affected (AoE)
Honorable mentions:
- Mortar Tower: everything is fine, well done
Not tested during game:
- Recource Booster - Power Flow: range indicator missing
- Juice Tank - The Juice Must Flow: range indicator missing
- Breeding Grounds - Magic Link: range indicator correctly stays as 25m
- Construction Hut - Maintenance: range indicator correctly stays as 25m
Range indicators missing while hovering ability or having one passive ability (a.e. Construction Hut), but functioning correctly otherwise:
- Northern Keep - Infused/Blessed Trench
Function correctly (tested all buildings that might be affected in any way possible):
- Banner of Glory: AoE correctly unaffected
- Blaster Cannon - Tainted Magma: AoE correctly unaffected
- Makeshift Tower
- Rallying Banner: AoE correctly unaffected
- Volcano: AoE correctly unaffected
- Lost Convertor: AoE correctly unaffected
- Lost Launcher: AoE correctly unaffected
- Furnace of Flesh: AoE correctly unaffected
- Rioter's Retreat: AoE correctly unaffected
- Skydefender: AoE correctly unaffected
- Timevortex
- Waystation: AoE correctly unaffected
- Lost Disruptor
- Artillery
- Defense Tower
- Northstar
- Kobold Laboratory: AoE correctly unaffected
- Frost Crystal: AoE correctly unaffected
- Armored Tower: AoE correctly unaffected
- Stronghold: both attacks increase range
- Frontier Keep: AoE correctly unaffected
- Infernal Machine: AoE correctly unaffected
- Primal Defender: both attacks increase range
- Stranglehold
- Mark of the Keeper: check screenshots for more
- Root Nexus
- Healing Well
- Infected Tower
- Living Tower
- Healing Gardens
- Hammerfall
- Hatecaster
- Howling Shrine
- Deepgorge
- Tower of Flames: AoE correctly unaffected
REPRODUCIBILITY: Yes.
SCREENSHOT: Only one that relates to a bit different topic...
Mark of the Keeper 35m range wrong: https://imgur.com/undefined
LOG: No logs required.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Tested on test server, not live server. Sorry for the work generation devs