MrXLink
-
Posts
573 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MrXLink
-
-
That was on the original post. Then I asked @MrXLink what he thought of the idea of rerolling for a standard quest, and he seemed positively inclined toward it. But it's not mentioned in the update, so I was wondering if he decided against it or if it was one of the details they were still ironing out.
Ladadoos is correct, it is actually stated there.
-
Wow, I was wondering SO long to remember the names of these two!
You anwsered my long-term question that I didn't have to ask, thanx
And yes, I would also like to know that
I have a question regarding the The Element of Conversion and the Element of Creation will they cost the same amount of BFP as old BF or more/less due to them not giving tokens and just gold (and possible XP) ?
I'm intending on modifying most EA prices for things like that anyway to suit our reward system.
-
Greetings, Skylords!
Welcome to a brand new update on future game proposals! Many of you have already vaguely heard of this concept, since it has been leaked during the Skylords Reborn Livestream #1 (http://forum.skylords.eu/index.php?/topic/1196-past-broadcast-05092015/), but here will be some details on the matter to clarify what exactly has been going on regarding tokens, gold, and card upgrades. Mind that these are proposals, nothing is definite yet, and changes may still take place. This thread is meant to give you a rough idea of the direction future development will be heading in. Also note that no token or gold values have been set yet.
Something quite important is proposed to be changed in Skylords Reborn. As many of you know, BattleForge had a grand total of 5 currencies: BFP, Gold, Battle Tokens, Victory Tokens, and Honour Tokens. BFP was used to buy cards and boosters, gold to place auctions, send mails, and apply upgrades to cards, and all tokens were used to purchase card upgrades. Tokens have always been extremely confusing; there has never really been a clear explanation of when they are obtained exactly, and they proved to only be a bother as shortages of one specific token type prevented the upgrading of cards. This would force people to play (and win!) unnecessary amounts of matches in order to actually get what they want. Tokens were also monetised in countries such as Germany and the Czech Republic, in order to get more revenue out of the game.
In Skylords Reborn, this will no longer be an issue. Tokens will no longer be used in the game. That's right, we are attempting to get rid of the card upgrade currency. Since we will not be monetising any part of the game, and since BFP will now be obtainable in special ways through the daily quest system (like vanilla tokens), tokens are now considered to be excess baggage and more of a curse than a blessing. This is why it's been decided to no longer be used to upgrade your cards. Mind you: the level requirement for upgrading cards will still be a thing, as it is a good way to both prevent multi-accounting and increase the lifetime of the average user.
You may be wondering, that if players don't use tokens, what will be used to pay for card upgrades? The answer to this is simple: Gold. This will be the answer to another major problem BattleForge had: the massive excess of gold everywhere. Now, it will still be a challenge to siphon out some gold from the collective pool, but it will at least give gold a purpose. In conjunction with our proposed Reward System (http://forum.skylords.eu/index.php?/topic/1163-current-proposal-rewards/), we will be blowing new life into this currency. The plan is to make gold an untradeable, easily grindable currency, and BFP a limited, hardly grindable currency that can be obtained daily. This has to do with player lifetime and the enjoyability curve of the game. Gold will no longer be tradeable, and it will no longer be possible to add gold as a mail attachment, which will prevent hyperfarming as well as in-game mail gold scams. It will make the currency more valuable and appreciated, too. Just like Direct Trade, in-game mails will only support sending cards and BFP.
Both buying and applying upgrades will be done through gold, so you will still have to pay gold to apply that upgrade you got in your PvE campaign map. Also, the plan is to make changing your in-game avatar (if we get that system to work) cost gold rather than BFP. Gold will still be used as a price to place auctions and send in-game mails, which is a good way to reduce spambots.
It is important to know that we are currently unable to make UI modifications. We might in the future, but we will require to make it clear that upgrades will cost gold rather than tokens now. During the beta stage of BFReborn, there will most likely be a system in place that is either the final version of buying upgrades for gold (hopefully with UI changes, but as of now that seems like a dark area), or there will be a system in place to exchange gold for tokens using system commands. This will help you get used to the fact that upgrading will be completely gold-based.
To summarise, BFP will be obtained through the Daily Quest and Playtime Reward systems and is used for:
- Buying boosters
- Buying cards in the auction hall
- Direct Trade transactions
- In-game Mail attachments (along with cards)
- Changing your in-game avatar
Gold will be obtained through playing matches and opening chests and is used for:
- Buying card upgrades
- Placing auctions in the auction hall
- Sending an in-game mail (standard 1G fee)
- Applying card upgrades
Tokens will be unobtainable and gold will have to be used for its previous functions.
_____________________
Such is the current proposal for tokens and gold. It is also important to know that this system is very solid and the decision has been made after serious thought and consideration; it is unlikely that this system will get a complete overhaul or gets changed dramatically. Feel free to discuss these changes below and ask questions, but remember none of this is absolutely definite, but merely our current proposal.
FlexTerror and Logarius like this -
Updated the first post to reflect the current status of the proposal.
-
910
Peekaboo.
-
<German>
Please translate your post into English (so no German left), you're infringing rule 1.1
-
Anything about the form they will return in? Is it the original tomes from the early BF or the rented ones that were available later?
Since we're implementing all core features in the form of the latest client, most likely the rented ones. Hopefully we can get the 1 free tome per 2 weeks system in too.
-
It's a rather fair point, but this answer surprises me, because of the answer you gave to my previous question (about forcing people to explore more features of the game), since here you opted to leave the responsibility to each player, but on the daily quest system itself you force them to, instead of leaving the decision to them. In my opinion, giving players the ability to force themselves (Yes I know, sounds a bit weird) to do more challenging strategies and playstyles also "may help to have them stick around or at the very least enjoy battleforge more." Having a system like the one I suggested or the one MephistoRoss suggested (or something similar) can server as a reminder or perhaps encourage the player to challenge himself and "experience other parts of the game that they might find interesting after all". Just like the daily quests system, you force people to play other parts of the game, which they might find interesting after all.
I agree this may sound self-contradictory, but the key difference is that difficulty has a huge negative impact on enjoyability when exceeded. If you force difficulty to become harder and harder, you will make existing features more challenging, whereas forcing to explore other game modes will introduce the player to more features, of which the challenge rating is in their hands (even ranked PvP). It is more of a drawback to be forced to play a game that you can't win because it exceeds your capabilities, rather than being forced to play another game mode you might enjoy less, but at least have a chance of winning at. Especially for PvE this is greatly in the player's hands, as for ranked PvP one would have to rely on ELO which should be trustworthy enough (exceptions noted, of course).
In a nutshell: feature enforcement encourages variety within the player's capability, difficulty enforcement encourages challenge within the game's features, which might exceed the player's capability, which would end up being a more severe nuisance to the player.
-
Maybe the score would only apply in unranked PvP rewards? In ranked that won't be a problem; just assume every player is active because their ELO drop from being inactive will be sufficient punishment. I'm pretty sure the score is also kept in PvE. Perhaps there should be a ratio of time spent to score (tuned to each map--maybe a lot of work) that would flag for idling. For instance I could surely beat a lvl 1 BG in 5 minutes, but maybe I want to idle for the last 8 minutes while I wait for time to increase. Doing this would increase my time, but not my score. So the trick would be to make a minimum score per minute [probably an exponential function like y=Ce^(rt)] such that it wouldn't flag you if you're actively using power and void power (such as if you're just bad), because your score would increase with your time.
It seems fairly easy in scope (to a me, a non-programmer), but perhaps I'm just overcomplicating things....
Though I appreciate the thought, there are two main reasons why score-based rewards should not be a thing.
Firstly, although yes, it will encourage people to actually play rather than idle, the score system is more easily manipulated, i.e. sit in base and spam units, or hacks for that matter. The difference between PvP and PvE power-wise would be too big (even between separate maps, we'd need a ratio for every single PvE map), and in ranked as you said there won't be any inactive people. That leaves only unranked PvP.
Secondly, time-based rewards are a more universal and secure way of distributing. After every match they would have to requeue. If they idle in a PvP match they won't gain a lot from it. They would have to pay attention to requeue continuously because matches last shortly because of either steamrolling or giving up prematurely. If possible, we'd be able to monitor when low amounts of power would be spent and thereby find out who is idling, and it's generally easier to report as well.
In lol, the matchmaking system isn't random. Those who lose a lot of games play with those that have a similar win rate. If you have a ~50% win rate you will likely never see it.
I propose this system for the BFP reward. It's a more elaborate version of what I said earlier. "Earning BFP for completing a map."
(the numbers would preferably vary based on the average game time of a map(e.g. the BFP cap would be bigger in 2v2 than 1v1 as 2v2 tend to last longer.)):- A minimum amount of BFP earned. So that short pvp game and speed running isn't penalised.
- A linear increase in the BFP reward. So that longer games aren't penalised
- A BFP cap depending on the average game time of said map. That way, you can't afk indefinitely and cash in a huge reward after the game.
- A minimum time spent on the map to earn any BFP at all. That way, trading very quick win in pvp isn't possible.
- Twice the BFP for winning. So that you can't earn too much BFP by afking in a map then leaving at the optimal time.
- Maybe a small BFP boost that increase after each month(?) (example: twice the BFP for the first 10 win) for new player that start playing a few months after the game just re-launched so that they can keep up more easily with older player, but still get the same experience that older player had.
The pro would be:
Multi accounting isn't a viable way to earn BFP.
You aren't penalised for playing a lot during the weakend, but rarely during the week.
You can play whatever you want and still earn BFP!
You don't feel like you are "wasting time" when you are doing a map and know you won't earn BFP.
The con would be:
There will always be a fastest way to earn BFP.
BFP won't be a limited currency and will be grindable. (BFP would also be grindable with daylies only in a much less fun way.)edit: the algorithm for BFP reward would look something like this:
BFP=10+(2*time)
time>4min
BFP cap = 70
*2 if it's a winThere may only be two drawbacks to this system, but the one that concerns me most is the fact that there will always be a fastest way to earn BFP. This will in the end result in a certain (probably PvE) map being flooded with players who want to earn the most BFP, like what happens in Passage to Darkness for gold. Now BFP is way more significant than gold within the game, and this will always be the case, therefore I would rather see a small amount of people idle to abuse the system rather than having a ton of players focus on playing that one certain map, taking them away from the other maps BF offers. This system would disencourage gameplay variety which is honestly something I really don't want to happen. The thought is appreciated though, and we might actually consider your suggestions to have a minimum time to earn rewards.
In addition, I'm also putting a cap on the maximum amount of time spend on a map to earn rewards. Especially if we are going to implement a softcap system for timed rewards, we should limit the rewards to 2h per match (=4 rewards). Most maps are done under 2 hours, and if a map takes longer it is not a huge disappointment to not gain that final amount of BFP and you might just want to start a short other map in order to obtain your maximum unmodified amount of BFP through that.
Oh, @indubitablement brought up a good point. Do you think you could save up quests for up to a week? Or maybe you can hold 15 uncompleted quests, or something like that? This way people who are busy during the week can binge during the weekends without too much bfp sacrifice?
My suggestion would be to have a cap of 3 active quests at a time. As said many people would have no time to play BF at a day, something that can happen to anyone BUT with the 3 q. cap each day will have a worth enabling the player to ''catch up'' the next day. Of course if all 3 quests are filled there will be only 1 reroll for the day the player logged in. Yes that would encourage multyaccounting as someone will stack up 3 quests then log in and do them all at once, still as we dont know for final how actual time a single quest can take we cant say if it will actually be worth it. Plus as mentioned multiaccounting cant be fully countered so you must decide how much is a ''lost'' day at BF worth.
I'm thinking of storing up to 9 quests (so 3 days) and making quests removable to waste the opportunity to gain BFP but to acquire an extra slot. That should work out fine enough for both of you. Rerolls only apply once on the day you login.
hmm i actually have a suggestion regarding the possibility of multiple accounts cuz of the daily rewards.
1st things 1st i think all the possibilities to transfer or that kind of thing shall be 0 so that even if ppl use multiple acc they wont profit by transfering points to their main acc.
2nd thing i like the idea of daily quests but a 30min in-game reward would be good. that would also keep players ingame (afk or not).
As for your first point, it has already been pointed out that as a collectible card game, trading is of major importance. BFP is the main currency for trading and can't just be made account-bound. It would remove a huge and important aspect of the game.
Your second point is already planned and mentioned in the very first post. It's a combination of time-based rewards and quests.
Thank you MrXLink for the detailed description.
Have you thought about some sort of level system for the quests, so that the quests become harder while you progress in the game (while the rewards stay the same)? The reason I am asking is that the PvE quests will either be very easy for veteran players or very hard for new players. For example with the quest 'Complete Bad Harvest', new players will only be able to complete it at standard (maybe advanced), while for veterans players completing any map on standard is super easy. So for example with a level system with three levels for each PvE quest you could make the quest complete bad harvest on any difficulty for new players, advanced or expert for players who are around for a while and only on expert for veterans. The same could be done with 'complete Battlegrounds quests' (any level, level 7 or higher, level 9 or higher for example). The server could determine which kind of player you are based on PvE experience or based on how many quests you have completed in the past. And of course some quests could still be the same for all levels (like play a map with a friend).
For PvP this is not really a problem as new players will be matched against new players and veterans will be matched against veterans (at least if we have enough players looking for match).
Multi accounters could of course just make a new account so they can always do the new player PvE quests, but I dont really see a problem with that. If they want to be lame, it is their choice I guess and they wont earn anything extra than without the level system.
Now I dont know what other PvE quests you have in mind and maybe you also have thought of many quests which are not necesarily more easy for veteran players than new players, but I would still would like to hear your take on this.
This seems like it's more of a suggestion to make sure that players have the ability to ask for an extra difficult quest to insure for a more enjoyable gameplay for each player, since I think that there are quite a few players out there that like a bit of a challenge when playing the game. However, there are also people who take no risks, and prefer to be sure of their rewards. I like the suggestion in itself, but I don't know about the whole server determining what type of player someone is. How would you determine at what point a player should raise a level ? Generally speaking, completing x amount of quests or having x amount of XP would indeed make you a veteran, like you said, but not everyone is the same. There would for sure be players that would be ready before the server determines they should have harder quests and therefore forcing the player to do quests that have become too easy for them. On the other hand, there would also be players who might get harder level quests too early, meaning that they are not prepared for them. Basically just insuring that they have an even harder time to obtain BFP/rewards, since the learning curve was already so steep, and therefore just ruining the enjoyment they get from the game.
I have a suggestion, but I'm doubting myself about it on whether it's a good one or not, I will suggest it anyways. What if a player is able to choose what type of quests he wants everyday ? So basically, everyday he loggs in he is able to choose Easy, Medium or Hard quests that only are for that day - the next day he would have to choose what difficulty he would want again. I bet it could get a bit annoying to have to select what type of quests you want, so I would also suggest adding an option where the player is able to choose what difficulty quests they want, and from there, everyday the difficulty will be the same as selected. Of course, the player would be able to change the difficulty anytime, but the quest difficulty would only get updated the next day.
Players are able to determine what type of difficulty they want themselves instead of being forced to do certain difficulty quests by the server, which insures a more enjoyable gameplay. ( This is is more or less the case with the current proposal for daily quests, since the server might give you a quest that is too difficult - this is the reason for your suggestion I believe, MephistoRoss) Like you said, this probably (hopefully) won't be necessary in PvP as new players will be matched agaisnt new players and veterans agaisnt veterans - so this system would count for everything besides PvP. I would not suggest making it so that the higher the difficulty, the higher the rewards, since veterans would be able to earn BFP much faster. Perhaps increasing the rewards depending on difficulty could work, if the difference between rewards is very small. That being said, if this increasing rewards system depending on difficulty won't get implemented, then I would just suggest having all the rewards the same, like this everyone receives the same amount of rewards/chance to obtain certain rewards after completing a certain quest. That being said, I don't this reward system part matters too much, since there are already thought about adding a reward pool, in which the player receives a random reward from a reward pool after completing a quest ( The following has been said by @fiki574: random reward pool (everything has 10% chance): 25bfp, 250gold 1 rare card, 10bfp, 100gold, 1 uncommon card, 5bfp, 50 gold, 1 common card, nothing. Not that these rewards are still being discussed, nothing is final yet)
On the other hand, people could just keep doing Easy quests instead of Hard ones (since the rewards/reward pool/chance of getting a reward are the same) even though they are perfectly capable of doing Hard quests, but that would just ruin their own enjoyment and would just be a matter of time before they switched to higher difficulty to not get bored.
Again, my suggestion is based on the fact that people like challenges and would want quests that match their skill to make it more enjoyable. The "standard" quests would be on Easy mode, and they would be able to select higher level difficulties.
I hope this wasn't too much information and that I was clear with what I meant. Feel free to ask any questions, as I would like to hear you guys' opinion.
I dont think an option to choose what type of quest someone wants is needed as without a level system a player can actually already make that choice. For example if the quest is 'Complete Bad Harvest', the player can already choose on which difficulty he will play it. So the level system only makes sense if the Devs want to 'force' veterans to a higher difficulty (but I would understand if they would leave that freedom for the player to decide).
That's what I more or less thought when I read your suggestion, got confused a bit, since your suggestion also forces veterans to a higher difficulty. Perhaps the quests might change a bit in itself when a higher level is selected. For example standard: "Complete Bad harvest on any difficulty" = Easy and then Medium and Hard quests would have certain restrictions, to make it a bit more challenging to complete. Maybe something like " Complete Bad harvest without ever passing 60 unit limit" = Expert, just a random example. But then again, there wouldn't be that many reasons to play on a harder difficulty without receiving more rewards for doing so.
Let me first of all mention that fiki's reward proposal is off the table, and the current reward system will most likely consist of BFP only.
Additionally, you are right about it being hard to determine whether players want the difficulty to be harder or not. We can't just go and generalise the community for veterans to always want a challenging quest, some may just want to have a relaxing or easy time earning their BFP, some will need more of a challenge. Card upgrades already require higher difficulty matches, but also have purchasing alternatives for those who can't handle or don't feel like the challenge. There is no evidence to definitively say that making the curve steeper and the rewards more hardcore the higher level the player is, is the right way to go. Therefore it is better to just leave the quests to be completed broadly, so that the player has the freedom to make the quest as challenging or as easy as they want it to be. I'd rather have more liberal, broad quests than quests that are interesting, complicated, and possibly a nuisance to more casual players of the game.
There is no need to develop mechanics that make the game force players a bit more to make earning rewards harder, if the player can have the responsibility for themselves to make it as easy or hard as possible.
-
Why were they hosted by Steam and not by Origin, considering the game was on Origin? Anyway, nice manuals.
This is because Origin did not exist in that time. BattleForge was made several years before Origin was launched, and so they used Steam for extra advertising and distribution. They took it down from steam when it became free to play (most likely due to transaction taxes being too high for them on Steam or EA anticipating Origin). Then Origin was released around mid 2011, but BattleForge never really got into that, which is imaginable since it's a free-to-play game that wasn't going on too well, not exactly new Origin material.
-
If I may put my two cents in, people are going to trade win and multi-accounting to make the most out of their time. This remind me a bit of league of legends where the best way to farm IP (the equivalent to BFP) is to intentionally feed the opponent then afk in the jungle in hope that they end the game within 7-8 min. I expect those who do that to get burnout of league of legends pretty fast.
How about simply earning BFP for completing a pvp or pve map. That way multi-accounting or win trading isn't the best way to earn bf and you get to do whatever you enjoy the most at the same time, because, I think, the fastest way to progress in a game should also be the most enjoyable as it is the path most people are going to take.
As for keeping people playing the game for longer, implementing new contents (new cards, maps, game modes...) over artificially lengthening the game using a hard cap for BFP is, in my opinion, the way to go.
In addition to what @Treim said,
It's not just about multi-accounting. It's also about keeping your playerbase active at a decent rate. We also don't want players to get all they want through being able to farm day and night, not only due to the rich/poor gap but also due to game experience and flow. BFP is not a grinding currency and we don't want to make it one, so take what you can get for a day and come back next time. It is a limited currency you can save, and especially for new players this should give a clear overview and make them grow steadily. Additionally, we want players to last, and this is a really solid way of making sure people return.
Also a funny thing to point out is that people are starting to wonder whether they would see the fun or point in playing without earning BFP. Well... haven't you done so back in vanilla battleforge? There is also still gold to grind, upgrades to farm, experience to gain and ranks to increase without getting BFP.
Overall, i do like the proposal.
I also like that there is a chance that you get a mission in pvp if you are a pve player and there is still a chance that you get a pvp mission after reroll. I feel that there are many players sticking to pvp or pve only although they might enjoy other game modes every now and then as well. it might get some players into pvp or pve respectively.
IF there are standard missions, they should be completable with only minimal players online but they should also require a bit more time overall (otherwise you just multiaccount and speedrun a pve map solo with the standard cards for max bfp/playtime. with random quests such optimzed strategies are not so easy to make and i don't see a big issue there) or have a minimum time spent limit (play rpve 5 or higher for 30 minutes total etc.).
Personally. i do not like hard caps based on playtime. It just makes you feel like you get nothing if you keep playing after 3 hours. I personally would prefer a softcap system: 0-2 hours: 100% rewards 2-4 hours: 50% rewards >4 hours: 25% rewards. This way playing at least for some time is encouraged, active players do not get too far ahead (at least 8 hours spent to double the rewards for 2 hours spent seems fine to me) and active players at least still get something and not entirely nothing.
Overall i like the proposal, it seems far more resonable than what i usually see beeing proposed on the forums...
I'm glad you understand the main point of why there are PvP AND PvE missions, and why there are no choices. It is a good thing to encourage gameplay variety and those who do not feel like a certain quest can reroll to earn less and have a chance to roll a quest they may enjoy more. This is especially important for newer players and players that tend to stick to one mode.
I am indeed hoping we can get a minimum time spent limit integrated within "completion" quests, especially for PvP but also for random maps. Idling must not be a thing.
I am not a fan of a softcap system, especially with gold being a bit more important in BFReborn it will not truly feel like you're not gaining everything, just like I stated above. However, I will take it into consideration and see what influence it would have.
So we gonna get tome decks. Are they again limit in time and free?
Tomes are considered a core feature and will most likely return, yes.
I appreciate your time put into this.
Could you give me a bit more information as to why the ability to choose either a PvP or PvE based quest isn't the current proposal anymore ? I'm sure that this is something quite a lot of players won't like since they will be forced, to some degree, to play a part of the game they didn't like, since PvP players will need to play PvE and PvE players will need to play PvP, to some point.
Thanks.
I already mentioned something above, but a quest system is designed to encourage people to explore more features of the game in exchange for virtual currency. The same applies here. The quest system is being used to get people out of their PvP or PvE comfort zone and tempt them to try out the other mode in order to get more BFP. With the playtime reward system and there always being a mission of their preferred playtype they won't miss out on a huge lot of BFP (20%), and if they do want a chance at earning BFP in another way they can reroll and hope for a more suitable quest. If this is not the case then they will indeed have to play the other game mode to earn their BFP. If they don't want to, then they will have to miss out and try again the day after.
The quest system ensures that players who stick to what they normally do get to experience other parts of the game that they might find interesting after all (again, especially newcomers but also veterans!) and this will lengthen their gameplay experience and may help to have them stick around or at the very least enjoy battleforge more. Yes, this is at the cost of what people who normally play nothing but one game mode want but the quests should not be hard to complete and the other odds just weigh up so much more against it that it's deemed better for the game overall.
Hope that's a bit of an explanation.
How can you idle around by queuing? Even if you quickly start and stop, you're still being active (the point is to prevent people going afk, right?) It's just frustrating for me because I used to spend more time waiting for a match than actually playing. Hopefully that won't be that large a problem, but if it does happen, it would be quite annoying. It never mattered for the EA daily reward because that was 15 minutes . . . that means I only had to be on for about 40-60 minutes at a time to get it, and it was such a pittance that I didn't really care whether I got it or not.
Instead of a time reward, what about a score reward? Since that's based on power spent. That way you at least have to be active to get it.
If you add up queueing time, you can queue, then be idle for the game, and still gain your BFP through queueing time only. It might be frustrating to wait long for a match, but adding it to the reward time makes the system way more abusable. Mind that the rewards will be bigger (even scaled up through the F2P system) and hopefully the playerbase will be better than BF's dying days.
I am unsure whether there is score in PvE. If you want score to replace time we'll have a lot of issues with balancing the rewards per score, since some maps have more power wells than others, and PvP uses way less power than PvE. That'd be too much of a hassle compared to the fact that you can use time. Sure, the other system would require more action but at least with the time factor we are sure that it requires a player to spend a lot of time doing nothing, which is easier to report.
-
Instead of rerolling a random quest, what if you reroll to CHOOSE a standard one? I'd propose the "standard" quest options would be "win 1 ranked match," "win 2 Battlegrounds matches level 5 or higher," or "complete any map on intermediate." These quests obviously require a degree of skill so they may not be optimal for regular quests, but I think they have a good combination of difficulty and completabilty. I would hate be playing at US time when there are 5 active people online so I reroll my "play 3 2v2 matches" because there is LITERALLY no one who will play, and then I get "play a 12 player map" for even less bfp. So I'd like the reroll to be a quest I can complete FOR SURE, even if it's for less bfp. So instead of taking a bfp penalty from going from one quest I can't complete to another, I'd like to be able to choose "win 1 pvp match" if I'm feeling I can do that (and everyone, no matter how bad, can do that eventually), or "complete any map on intermediate" which maybe can't be done by total noobs, but it's still a guaranteed way to get 50%-75% of the bfp I would originally get. (Note that I said 50-75%, because 25% is really a pittance).
You raise a fair point, I might actually consider that option for that reason and that reason only.
Also, your words imply I mentioned 25% of the price being the reward, this is not the case. You exchange a reroll for 25% of the price, therefore the reward will be 75%.
Can we count time spent looking for a matchup as part of the play time?
I'm afraid that would be way too tempting to idle around with, so no. Just like the daily BFP reward from EA couldn't be earned by queueing.
Also, 3 2v2 matches is usually at least an hour . . . that may be a bit much...
Well, as thoroughly mentioned it's an example, as I said there are no definite numbers. I literally made that up with no further thought because the real values will be calculated/looked at later.
-
thanks for the nice summary first of all, its good to hear an official statement, especially about this highly discussed topic.
I got one question about that spending time with refered friends thing: Will those refered friends also get small bonuses or only the person who actually refered them?
Might as well make the rewards mutual, yes.
I do have a question about selling cards. After a while, most people will have a ton of excess commons, which are basically unsellable in auction house. WIll there be a method to sell the cards off at a steep discount for extra bfp? say if a booster would cost 100, a single common would yield 1 or 2 ? personally I disliked having stacks upon stacks of useless cards but that might just be me :P.
Set prices for selling cards for BFP integrated within the system is not something we have in mind for now. I'll elaborate later. Stick to the topic though!
-
We could very well do that. However, it might be conflicting with BF's avatar system (spend BFP/G on changing your avatar to a card image). It would result in players not being able to get their social media images back if they change it. But maybe the web application can work with that...
-
WARNING: THIS THREAD MIGHT CONTAIN OUTDATED INFORMATION
Greeting, Skylords!
It's been long since a solid update, and it has come to my attention that there are tonnes of threads that still imply confusion about how BFP is earned and for what people will be rewarded. After some internal discussion, I would like to introduce you to the current proposal for our reward systems. Mind that these are proposals, none of it is definite; changes may still take place. Also note that there are no set BFP values for anything yet.
In Skylords Reborn, on a daily basis, you will be able to earn BFP in 2 ways:
- Daily Quest System (3x per day)
- Playtime Rewards (BFP/30m, halves every 1.5h)
The currently proposed (not definite) BFP rates between those systems are that 60% of the maximum amount of BFP per day can be earned through quests, and 40% through playtime, resulting in an average BFP reward per player of 75% after completing all quests, or at least something in the liking of that.
You may have noticed that there is a hard cap on one of the systems. As I have already discussed in the past, this is to prevent overfarming and to make sure people stay within the game for a longer average time. Within BF Reborn, there are 2 main currencies; BFP and Gold. We don't want to make BFP a grindable currency such as gold, as it should be a valuable and unique, limited currency you can buy cards with. So we have decided that BFP will be our limited, easily trade-able currency used to buy cards/elements/etc, and gold to be our grindable currency used for upgrades, mails, etc. Do know that we are working on making gold a useful currency, of which you shall hear more in the future.
With thanks to your valuable suggestions, I've decided to throw in a soft-cap for playtime instead. This way playing for longer will make you earn less and less BFP, but won't leave you empty-handed after 3h. Hopefully this will result in people finding more use for extended playtime, while not getting excessively ahead of someone who plays for a regular 3h.
With regards to multi-accounting, we have come to the conclusion that yes, hard caps on reward systems may result in this, but it is more important to maintain player activity and a greater enjoyability curve, as well as lasting potential of the game by requesting players to come back another day and monitoring the rich/poor gap quite a bit, than to combat multi-accounting players who feel the need to spend yet another 3 hours and quests on the game. We can't and won't combat multi-accounting 100%, as it would result in sacrificing way too much of the game's features, enjoyability, and reward optimisation.
Daily Quests
In-depth, daily quests are, as the name implies, daily tasks a player may complete in exchange for BFP. To reach and encourage every player with this system, there will be 3 different quest types, of which the player will receive 1 each per day; a generic quest, a PvP quest and a PvE quest. Aside from tome-related quests, there will NOT be any deck-based quests, so that every player has a chance to complete the quests the way they like it.- Generic quests are quests that can be completed within any game mode, such as winning matches, playing matches, playing with friends, using tome decks, etc.
- PvP quests can only be completed within the PvP section, such as playing on certain maps, playing 1v1/2v2, playing x amount of PvP matches, etc. Note that winning ranked PvP matches will not be a quest, as it will be too demanding to fulfil.
- PvE quests can only be completed within the PvE section, such as playing on certain maps, completing certain levels of rPvE, playing maps with a set amount of players, playing at a certain difficulty, etc.
An example of a daily quest set would be:
- PvP: Play 2 2v2 PvP matches
- PvE: Play a 12-player campaign map
- Generic: Win a match using a tome deck
Up to 9 quests will be allowed to stack up, so you could leave the game for 3 days and not miss out on any Daily Quest rewards. If there are any quests stacking up that you are not interested in as a player or can't seem to complete, you can remove this quest from the board, gaining no BFP whatsoever, and make more room for new quests.
In order to give a little freedom in case a player doesn't like a quest, one quest can be re-rolled per day. This re-roll will result in the non-preferred quest to be exchanged for a random other quest from the Generic type, but will only net the player 75% of the BFP reward they would have been able to obtain by completing the original quest.
Refer-a-Friend
We are intending on making the friend referral system a thing. However, we will make sure all rewards obtained from this system will be mostly account-bound and will most likely not include cards anymore. Think of rewards such as elements, gold, and maybe some BFP rewards for spending time with referred friends. We are thinking of implementing a system that not only rewards players for referring friends, but also for playing with said referred player. Rewards will be mutual and mostly untradeable. There's not much more to say about this.Social Media
Additionally, our current idea is to also implement rewards for liking/following/subscribing/etc. On social media. Such actions may result in un-tradeable rewards or small amounts of BFP. The rewards themselves are uncertain, but we'd really like to encourage spreading the word and this would be a perfect solution. This would be a web-based process (accounts are likely going to be bound to a web database).________________________
So those are the currently proposed ways of earning rewards within the game. Feel free to discuss these systems below and ask questions, just do remember this is not definite, but merely our current system proposal.
-
Ok for us Yank's how much is a Euro going for these days compared to US Dollars?
According to the current stocks, €1 ≈ $1.15
-
Pinned for your convenience.
-
did i missed something in shoutbox?
coz i feel like i did so. and why am i not part of that
We still have a grandmother spot left, at the very least
-
You're missing Sykole, he should be on the top
I think you might be misunderstanding that family control lies within the roots below. Also possible slightly to the left-bottom corner
-
BEHOLD! The art exposition of the century! Nay! The millennium!
Gaze upon the sheer beauty of this majestic pleasure tree! It has community names in it!
This Majestic Pleasure TreeTM has been brought to you by DragonOfTime and MrXLink
-
Greetings, Skylords!
We would like to announce that in the nearby future, we will be reworking our website and forum software in order to make them a more safe, secure, accessible and overall a nicer place for you to visit, stay and gather for discussion and enjoyment.
This will mean that some things will change. You will be updated on these changes once the renovation has taken place. Whether all forum features are kept is unknown, but we try to keep as many in as we can. Note that all forums, posts, threads, user accounts and the shoutbox will definitely be carried over to the new system.
Due to all this, major alterations and suggestions to change our current forums will be postponed until te system has changed.
Any further information will follow as soon as the renovation has taken place. We hope the initial changes are not too much of a bother and that you will enjoy a more secure and more enjoyable BFReborn website and forums soon!
Regards on behalf of the team,
MrXLink -
@ladadoos @WotDeFack etc
And that is why I'll be discussing this internally when the time is right.
Also remember that you can always combat, but never fully prevent multi-accounting. It is a serious issue in free-to-play games but can not simply be stopped especially in quest and drop-related systems with diaily limits such as TF2 and quite many MMO and browser-based games. It's a delicate balance between the ability to gain loot, the length a developer wants the average playsession to be, the amount of gaming hours the game is based on having, the scale of fun and enjoyability and how long these factors will last on average under said circumstances. I am certain we can't please everyone nor make a 100% multi-account-proof tade and drop system that abides by these factors, but we (or at least I) will most certainly attempt to get close to that. -
/moved to guides section by request.
-
Wish granted, but he turns out to be Luiciano Pavarotti instead and you will get a sudden craving for frozen pizza
I wish for π
Wanted: Skylords Reborn Company Manager
in Announcements
Posted
Greetings, Skylords!
As you may know, in order for the project to operate effectively, we require to set up our own (LLC) company for Skylords Reborn. Sadly our time and expertise has not proven to be enough to do this yet, which is why we are in need of a so-called Company Manager: someone whom we can trust completely to set up and manage Skylords Reborn as a company and thereby greatly accelerate our progress and donation possibilities. What does it take for you to host our company? You'd have to know how to set up said company, and be able to keep it non-profit and work on tax, finance and VAT administration.
Do you have it in you to help the project and manage Skylords Reborn as a company? Then please make a proposal to be hired in the Recruitment - Development section of the forums. Remember that we are looking for someone we can greatly trust in doing this, as it is quite a serious and urgent matter. Feel free to leave an application, we'll gladly take a look at it and will hopefully soon be able to set up a company and extend our possibilities.