WatcherOfSky

[quote='Shalade' pid='2017' dateline='1435241993'] [quote='WatcherOfSky' pid='2014' dateline='1435241857'] So you are ok with me adding this to the wiki? [/quote] It'd be okay if this thread would be stickied, but MrXLink won't be online when I want him to >:3 [/quote] So when are you actually going to answer my questions? :|

Granted. but now your computer crashed when loading too many CS:GO gifs. I wish I could see a Syzygy.

So you are ok with me adding this to the wiki?

I'm thinking that we could add this list to the wiki. also: BFR - Battleforge Reborn

Granted, but you then explode. I wish for a second something.

[quote='SunWu II.' pid='1956' dateline='1435188061'] Nice to get to know another point of view when it comes to balancing. When i made contributions to balance discussions in BF i was always one to also think of the effects they would have on PVE. But it seems i was thinking in a wrong direction because when there were nerfs i mostly thought: ,,Okay that wont hurt them because it wont mess up speedrun records, they might even like it because it's more challenging now...they're PVE-players - they like challenges !'' Never thought of the fact that PVE-only-players could lose cards completly. But that's also because of the fact that in my time the game was already fairly balanced. I think those harsh nerfs like the mortar tower example won't be needed anymore. Can't say i know exactly what to balance, but most of the PVP community agrees that there are only slight changes needed (like balancing nature T2 a little and making bandits a little more competitive, maybe also killing cursewell :) ) I would be surprised if there would be any more nerfs that would kill cards for PVE. about balancing democracy: Eventhough i would like for everyone to have a choice, i wouldn't want a PVP beginner's opinion to have the same weight as a PVP-vets one who spent nights sleeples because of balancing thoughts. Maybe there's a middleway. [/quote] Are you saying that mortar doesn't need to be the way it is currently? Mortar was a win condition that cost 50 power on some maps. :| But yeah, in the original post of this thread, I have stated that the pvp and pve balancing of cards need to be divided. I also think that some cards that are op in pvp are just fine in pve.

Is very clueless.

Granted, but you fail anyways. I wish there was something else.

Granted, but then sc2 shut down its servers. >=D I wish for infinite infinity.

Is correct. :D

Granted, now there are little gnomes living there. ps. Alendorf said he wanted to have a GREAT job... I wish for the thing to end all other things.

Also doesn't own the AH?

Definitely likes jacking off to that kind of stuff.

[quote='Mental Omega' pid='1822' dateline='1435106589'] You need to give people a direction. In such an open game like BF, there is no "one perfect solution" but issues can be fixed with a variety of approaches. And if I am honest, I think many card changes were planned beforehand and the watchlist threads were just opened to give the community at least something to discuss... there were a couple of cards where virtually everybody agreed on a small buff or nerf and we got the complete opposite (that's corsair for you). Imo, if you really care about what the community thinks, create a framework. A specific sequence consisting of several steps which is the same for every card. Quality requires time, and fortunately we have plenty of it. Step 1: Determine which cards are going to be balanced. This phase is crucial. It is important that this is not a selection of random cards, but content that will make a difference for the better. As already mentioned, we need tangible goals, otherwise we achieve not really anything. However, if there would be one or two extra cards without context which are not viable, I'm very fine with that too. Step 2: The authority then chooses a selection for watchlists. At this step, I trust that the devs/council/whoever knows what they are doing and they just choose cards they think are apropriate to accomplish mentioned goals. If general consensus turns out to be that the listed cards are a bad choice, no problem. Players are probably going offtopic anyway and tell what cards would be better suited. Either way, in the second step it should be discussed which good possibilities actually exist. This is an open discussion without a poll and just an exchange of ideas where the best are picked. And in the final step, there will be a vote for each possibility and now it would be the details that are the matter of discussion. Well, that's how I could imagine it at least. I'm not saying it's fool proof, but this was just supposed to be a fast concept and I think that is already better than what we had for the longest time. Anyway, I think we should first just see how it goes and then tweak and adapt the process whenever needed. I think everybody should be able to make his voice be heard. [/quote] I think this is a very good idea, and I do have it similarly explained in the opening post. I'm just waiting for an official voice to say what they are planning for this. I think the admins aren't saying anything at the moment because they still aren't sure about how things are going to end up. Oh well.

Also jacks off to that kind of stuff?

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBH4g_ua5es[/video] Likes jacking off to this stuff.

Knows too much about me. And I do regret not becoming the persona GladHeAteHer, as that name is so cool and yet so delicious. Meh, at least people call me WoS. :D edit: People, pls stop ninja'ing me

Granted, your anus has just been expanded to lyrish size. I wish for another thing.

Granted, you then proceed to fall alongside Sauron. I wish for something else.

Man't cock ^ ^ ^ ^

Should define old BF Forum crew.

Granted, but you didn't remember the entire number. I wish for something.

Doesn't understand the power that is incubator. Which also rhymes with master baiter, but that's just a coincidence...

Is a kool of the ultra kind.

Stutters.