Ultrakool
-
Posts
2177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ultrakool
-
-
It’s a feature Kubik the AH was coded to function that way
2 hours ago, Halis said:Does "2. Do you use option to search for all cards?" mean, that someone is using the filter options in generell or does it mean, that someone uses the empty filter options to show all cards?
If I select 2-colored cards like Fire/Shadow and then Orb Level 1, it displays all cards. If I select Neutral Color and Orb Level 1, it is empty. For "Neutral" "Ultra rare" "buildings" it shows again all cards. Very strange ?
There’s no neutral orb level 1 card, but yeah fire shadow and t1 should show either fire/shadow tier 1 units I think not all cards
-
1 hour ago, Deldrimor said:
No argumentation? No words
Why am i even giving you my attention.You are absolutely wrong in an balancing discussion. You're pvp rank is: 0.
You can balance your t4 though in an extra Threadh. I agree to that.
I’m not blaming any one person but it seems like you haven’t read my previous post. Let’s not make personal attacks here. This balancing thread is for pvp and pve alike, let’s try to argue constructively and sensibly
Pritstift likes this -
1 hour ago, Cocofang said:
I'd say that is straight up untrue. Sure, the environment gets more volatile the less people know what they are doing but there will still be prevailing approaches and metas.
Let's take that as a thought then. High level players consider Aggressor a bit too weak because it is 150 power bundled into a single unit that can be played around. Low level players consider Aggressor OP because it knocks their units around. Then lets say the high level players, which would be in charge of balancing in this example, say that Aggressor needs a bit of a buff, maybe reduce its cost a bit. Now it's more viable on the top end and sees occasional play. While suddenly it is completely out of control on the low end because all the new people are mesmerized by the constant CC for a lower cost.
This sort of thing can happen with any card or strategy. You have to take that into consideration unless you want to risk turning certain levels of competition into a serious cesspools. Top level players think about top level competition first and foremost. But a healthy game shouldn't be out of control on any skill level.
It’s just a matter of knowing the counters to certain strategies. It’s the concept of play and counterplay, if you are not using the correct counterplay concept you will lose a fight plain and simple. For example if your units are knocked around if the power of aggressor is 150,160 or 170 you will still lose the engagement because you are using the wrong strategy. One can also say that the person playing aggressor deserve to win that fight as he’s using the right counterplay to your units. As long as there exists a counterplay I don’t think it should be a point to try to balance according to If people play in a way that they are “playing into their counters”.
Put it this way, if you spam 5 small units and get countered by 2 windweavers squad + Hurricane does that make Hurricane op?
Kubik likes this -
Hey guys,
Its great that this thread is so active and so many of you guys put in your time and energy to create constructive posts, but I’m starting to get the sentiment that things are starting to get out of hand and into flaming territory. It would be a shame to have to potentially hand out repercussions and so forth.
So please refrain from posts that are starting to be in offensive category, and give factual reply to what people’s opinions are. You can disagree with their opinion but you don’t need to do it in a way that potentially attack their character or their person.
Thanks.
-
@calvin85Please don’t revive dead threads >30 days(especially when you don’t really add something of substance, and also that meme doesn’t really have any place here.
Locked
-
2912 new life
-
3 hours ago, Upoo said:
My fiancee, my 2 dogs, my 5 cats.
Games (they keep me healthy)Pizza, cheese bread (something only who lives in brasil can understand)
I just searched up Brazilian cheese bread and it looks so tasty! There’s something similar in Germany called käsebrötchen but it looks nowhere as good
-
-
55 minutes ago, Kiwi said:
What I said isn't about the graphic options it's about the game using dx11instead of dx9 if it is compatible on your OS, I asked Kubik..
I know it’s what he asked though xD
To expand I mean running direct x 11 doesn’t allow any extra graphics settings ingame.. it’s just you will use dx11 then
-
3 hours ago, Ross The Devil said:
So, Game runs fine under directx 9, just wondering if it will run in directx10 or 11? i know you can force directx 9 so i assume there must bea way of running it on one of the higher ones, which allows one of the graphics options ingame.
It’s not really about the graphics options ingame afaik
-
@Nymeriayou posted in “resolved” section xD
moved to bug report forum.
Also, please change your post to adhere to bug report template, it makes it easier for devs to understand your report.
-
1 hour ago, Upoo said:
I have a small sugestion.....
10 map difficulties.
Odd maps 1,3,5,7 drop cards in tiers T1 (difficulty 1), T2 (difficulty 3), T3 (difficulty 5), T4 (difficulty 7).
Peer maps, 2,4,6,8 would drop T1 upgrades (difficulty 2), T2 (difficulty 4), T3 (difficulty 6), T4 (difficulty 8).
Difficulties 9 and 10, would drop special types of loot, which would be decided by the staff.
What maps are you talking about. This thread is about community maps... were you talking about rpve maps?
-
There will be no BFP/Gold rewards upon reset for players who participated in alpha and beta tests. The only reward is that we will all enjoy a less buggy game :3
-
I think I can speak for the team when I say that we really appreciate you taking the time to make posts like this.
When times get tough this is our fuel to carry on
See you in the forge skylord
fiki574, You will win with me and Flrbb like this -
Every card has their niche use but there will always be a meta at the highest level of play.
It mostly depends on matchups of their relative decks
-
Hello,
We have been thinking about achievement system for quite some time now, and we have plans to add one in, our current quest system is very rudimentary and just a placeholder more than anything, just a few quests to test the implementation of that new system.
There’s still some internal discussions on how we are going to expand that. Your suggestion sounds solid, and you make a great point about how it would incentivize new players to complete a hard challenge by getting an achievement.[clearing expert map on first time(1p,2p, or 4p)] Something similar has a very good chance of being added
I think the clearing with another deck just stacks the reward abit too much so maybe there could be a sub-achievement that doesn’t actually contain bfp or gold reward?
There’s actually been another megathread made about quest/achievement suggestions: https://forum.skylords.eu/index.php?/topic/4166-quest-achievement-suggestions-megathread/ Maybe it’s worth a read if you’re interested.
Navarr likes this -
Moved to suggestions
-
2 hours ago, Saphyrael said:
So i'm not allowed to do the dayli quests for my girlfriend occasianally when she is away and doesn't have the time for them? She doesn't have an account yet, but i want to know this, because i often do the dayli quests for her in other games.
Nope you’re not allowed to @Saphyrael as that’s effectively you playing on 2 accounts for the duration she is away. (Therefore 1 person playing on 2 accounts = multi accounting)
-
Moved to tech support
-
Hello Lech and Michael,
To avoid suspicion of multi accounting you guys should
1) refrain from playing on each other’s account. Something like 1 person doing quests on 2 accounts while the other is away is absolutely not allowed.
2) trade more or less equally. Don’t trade all cards from one account to the other or something like ultra rares from one for commons only from the other would also be suspicious.
Thats pretty much it. Everyone always feels like hackerman when multi accounting or ban evading but one would be surprised at the tools we have to figure that it out and it’s easier to figure out than one would think
-
Did you disable your antivirus
-
3 hours ago, MrXLink said:
It has been months now, and I want to apologise for not having had the time to tackle and implement this feedback as extensively as I'd want to. I feel like I may be a little too rough on the abuse factor of rewards in a game mode that is not straightforwardly farm-able and requires a lot of setup. The point @RadicalX makes about the 50% winrate is admittedly a huge oversight that has significant impact on the actual GPM values that would come out of this, let alone the longer queue times. However, we can't factor in queue times that much due to the current server population holding back until the wipe, so I generally hope that through these measures we're going to get some more PvP popularity in general.
I was sceptical at first about Radical's idea for the higher losing values but I can understand where he's coming from, and I do believe that while this makes things easily more prone to abuse, I think it's only fair to give this system a chance as it's way fairer on your average user. Though I would personally consider this to be a bit high on the loss end for players as opposed to gaining absolutely zero for failing any rPvE, despite the fail frequency being way lower there, I think it may weigh out to make PvP more appealing, which is a general priority here. Therefore I would be willing to adopt the formula @RadicalX stated as it's pretty much in tone with the rest of the game modes (after running some calculations based on fairer, more comparable W/L rates and queue times). I do, however, still want to add to the reward for climbing the steep slope that is PvP to make it more appealing in a less bland way than to add flat rates.
I have an idea of rewarding consecutive Ranked wins and possibly an incentive to keep playing PvP without turning it into a farmfest (which is still my biggest concern and a threat to PvP enjoyability), along the lines of gaining a gold multiplier on Ranked after each win, that would help the PvP community to farm up a bit better without making it directly easier than rPvE, which we can agree on should be the main go-to for farming (or speedrunning Guns of Lyr, the likes of EA-era PtD and Conversion I suppose). Without establishing a ton of dominance for high-level PvP players and/or smurf potential, there could also be a slight gold bonus for having a comeback after X losses (thus making up for lost gold bonuses). This would be a different way of stimulating repeated PvP play without simply increasing the flat gold rates or formula. An example would be to gain +3% gold after each consecutive victory, but a comeback after min. 3 losses may net a +5% gold bonus per previous loss. There would of course me maximum values to this. This way winners and losers do gain a good amount of bonus gold if they do well or manage to come back from a tight spot without it being too prone to abuse. 50/50 players would not be penalised as opposed to comebacks or streaks all that much, rPvE would not siphon unwilling players to PvP and I think this system would be a good motivator. This also incorporates @Kubik's idea of supporting constantly winning players and helping hardcore PvP players to boost their decks ever so slightly more, all without making PvP too appealing for mindless grinding, but appealing enough for variety. Example data below:
I am currently aware of the possibility that Streak and Comeback bonuses could theoretically be abused by stalling a match, but I do believe stalling a PvP match would put the player at risk of being beaten in the process, and with the max time for earning gold being in place, this stalling would be a risky but not really abusive practice.
With these ideas up and going for implementation, the final changes would look as follows:- Increase base ranked PvP gold for victories by 20% (250 > 300)
-
Change the gold-over-time formula for PvP matches to bring win and loss values closer together
- Maximum time win gold increased to 3500 (up from 1350)
- Maximum time loss gold increased to 1800 (up from 500)
- This means loss and win scaling are now 88% apart as opposed to the original 175%
- Sparring Grounds will now grant 33% of the gold Ranked PvP would earn, after a set time has elapsed in a match (likely more than 2m)
-
Ranked PvP matches may benefit from a win streak and comeback system
- For every consecutive victory, gain a +3% gold bonus, stacking up to a max of 15%
- For every consecutive loss, gain a +5% gold bonus applying to your next victory, stacking up to a max of 25%
Hopefully, these changes will make PvP significantly more attractive. Please feel free to give further input on these proposed changes, sorry again for the delay, and thanks a lot to @RadicalX for bringing the ongoing issues to light, so that they are ironed out before implementation.
I like it, baby
-
-
2 hours ago, Reece23 said:
When is the reset?
Please avoid necroing threads >30 days, especially when you’re actually going off topic. To answer your question, we do not have any information when reset will be
AH filters
in Suggestions
Posted
I guess that could be a bug then. Imo, you could do fire shadow 1 orb to either
1) show no cards
2) show both fire and shadow t1 cards.
For me personally I think 2) is better but it should definitely not show all cards