Jump to content

SunWu II.

Beta Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SunWu II.

  1. 7 hours ago, HalloBob said:

    I have not much interest in PvE [...]. So no need for trading, playing PvE

    That was the point, there were a lot of complaints from players who wanted to play pvp exclusively and dont want to play 20+ hours of PVE first. With this system you will hopefully get players that otherwise wouldn't have played at all.

    I don't see a point in paying for these temporary decks, won't make a significant difference economy wise and also takes away from the purpose of the system: PVP players not being forced to play PVE.

    Shoutout to Radical, Hirooo and TopS3cret for chosing blue netherwarp indstead of the lame green one :P

  2. Using bloodhealing isn't that hard, and remember it's only 50 power wich is a big advantage over the nature heals. Yes, regrowth is easier to use and a stronger heal but as far as i see it you will either displease a lot of casual players by nerfing it or buff bloodhealing endlessly and people still won't use it as long as you don't change its mechanic and make it a generic one click AOE heal.

    Treim likes this
  3. Why should popular/strong cards become rare and unpopular/weak cards become common? Makes it even harder to get a good deck at the start and everyone will accumulate even bigger piles of cards he doesnt use. The only reason i can think of to implement such a system would be generating more money wich isnt an option for SR. Getting new players on the other hand is an aim, wich this sytem wouldn't help at all.

    From the beginning the relation of card strength and card raritiy had been rather random, but i think that's just because the original developers had no idea wich cards are actually stronger than others. I wonder if the rarity system does any good at all these days where profit doesnt play a role. Maybe there's some psychology behind it wich lets the ,,collector'' type of player get more enjoyment out of the game this way, i don't know. For me it's an (in skylords reborn case) outdated money making mechanism wich confuses some new players cause they think rare = strong.

  4. 24 minutes ago, Laze said:

    but grinding for random cards you need 4 of, thats just never gonna work :/

    You can sell your boosters to to other players and use the bfp to buy the cards you need directly from the auction house. Compared to counting on random luck to get certain cards thats's of course a gamechanger.

  5. I love lost souls PVE decks with only lost (and not frost or shadow) spells and units. I think the colours and spell animations are the most beautiful of all factions but damn is it weak in comparison.

    You would expect a card with very constrictive orb restriction to be stronger than one that you can combine with other colours - but unfortunately thats so often not the case in Battleforge. This leads to a lot of cards that almost never see any play like the lost spells you mentioned. Frenetic and infect alone are so much better than anything pure lost has to offer in T3 and even T4. Any why is lost warlord a weaker overlord, should be the other way around!

    The only lost units or spells wich are regulary played in PvP are reaver and grigori. A free revenant would make them too efficent, the revenant ability is already somewhat useful against decks without good crowd control.

    I can't give too much advice on playing this deck in PVE, cause i do really rarely. If you put in some non lost spells like f.e. frenetic, infect, coldsnap, maelstrom, homesoil etc the deck instantly becomes a lot stronger but you probably already know. Bloodhealing on the lost evocation is an efficent way to heal cause the revenant got lots of hp. Ethereal storm with all the side bonuses seems strong in theory but i never really tested it in situations where i actually had multiple revenants around to get the desired effects. In T4 the lost dragons can negate a lot of damage.

    I think @Treim is someone who's able to keep revenants alive throughout a whole battlegrounds, maybe he can give some insight on his tactics.

  6. 21 hours ago, DrStrangelove said:


    But mortar? I don't consider myself as good player but, at least from my experience, it makes it very very hard to defend against t1 close-well aggression (especially from frost) doesen't it?


    Esepcially against the slow frost T1 you can and should always block a close well with swift units. Regarding the tournie's map pool a tower ban makes T1 relatively fair, i think. For example frost T1 might now have a certain advantage on Yrmia (short distances) while still being the underdog on Uro (looong distances).

    I personally like this towerban cause it means less turtling into T3 and more action: more fun to play and watch.

    Loriens likes this
  7. On 4/25/2020 at 9:23 PM, Treim said:

    That means that e.g. you can apply buffs when projectiles from ranged units are already midair and it still counts for those projectiles (This also applies for melee attacks) . That also means that if units die before the last projectiles land, those last projectiles will have no buffs to them applied. This is most prominent with Shadow Phoenix which can not be buffed as the game applies the damage after the unit is killed by its kamikaze attack.


    Another interesting thing i witnessed earlier: When a ranged unit fires a projectile and gets swapped by nightguard while the projectile is mid air, no damage is done. Probably also works that way with parasite swarm, mindweaver and mind control.

    Emmaerzeh likes this
  8. 3 hours ago, Loriens said:

    [...] T3 PvP fight is usually a question of fastest base nuke, so all fun belongs to T2 and T1 fights. 

    There can be fun T3 fights but timeless one / shield building / curse well are simply too prevelant to have fun regulary.

  9. Hey, this guide can give you an overview about wich PvP decks are rather strong/weak and wich are most suitable to begin with:

    When it comes to PVE you can generally say splash decks (different colours in one deck) are stronger than pure decks. For beginners nature and frost are a good combination because these factions have a lot of cards that make your armies and bases safe and stable. But in the end its a question of wich playstyle you prefer, because shadow and fire cards aren't weaker, they just need a little more knowledge and experience to succeed with.

  10. 21 minutes ago, macabi said:

    However, I would like to see a deck slot increase from 20 to 24.

    That may be a big change too.

    Am I correct?

    Yes, it would at least destroy PvP balance to a certain extent. I get goosebumps imagining a stonekin deck with 24 slots. (At the moment stonekin players have to distribute weak spots among T1, T2 and T3 wich makes the deck relatively balanced). You could also play a lost souls deck with ~ 9 T3 cards, not fun.

    @Flrbb : Maybe something wich comes close it possible with the map editor. I have no clue what's possible and what not, but some mapdesigners like Kaldra did crazy things with the existing mechanics of the game.

  11. Hi! Cards i don't find that strong in your deck: spirithunters, twilight creeper and frost crystal. Cards i would always consider in a fire/nature RPVE deck: hurricane, thunderstorm and cluster explosion (red). And because you have shrine of war and therefor the powercost of a spell doesnt really matter you could also consider playing armageddon.

  12. 41 minutes ago, LEBOVIN said:

    If the player doesn’t pay attention losing a well seems like an appropriate punishment

    Strategies being non fun is always subjective

    How about losing an orb? Or two wells? That happens, too, sometimes, especially for decks without hurricane or building protects. I agree with you to a certain extent: When the game has just started and you get walled you should really consider paying more attention to the oponent. But in T2 there might be action all over the map and paying attention to every f'in wall all the time is making it hard to play your optimal game. It's an annoying, possibly frustrating part of pvp wich is of course a subjective opinion, but one wich can be supported by a lot of arguments and is shared among most players (I've yet to hear a statement like ,,he walled me so he deserved to win'' while i heard ,,he only won becaue he walled me'' a hundred times). When you compare the amount of skill/attention/whatever needed to take down a well in this scenario to other situations the ratio is definetly not appropriate.

  13. 17 hours ago, gubaguy said:

    its a way to balance out the game

    Wich it doesn't. Like he already explained it often leads to games where a player loses because of a few seconds of not paying attention. It's also sad watching a lot of low- and midrank players who seem to see this as their primary strategy on ,,wallable'' maps like Layesh and Simai when there are much more fun ways to play the game. Already a lot of players make a ,,no walls?'' agreement before matches on certain maps.

  14. 10 hours ago, Crimsonite said:

    A game that is in dire need of new players and you want to nerf the very card that still adds a little variety to RPVE T4

    How exactly does amii monument add variety in T4? If you want to say it makes 5 orb decks possible, this maybe the case but nobody does that, haven't seen it in hundred of rPVEs.

    DarcReaver likes this
  15. On the topic of balancing one or several cards at a time:

    It has to be remembered that a lot of cards are essential to more than one faction. I have a fear of people only looking at the main matchups (lost, pure fire, fire/nature...) and making matchups worse by not thinking about every single matchup wich is affected by a change. Imo balancing the game without a ,,3 steps forward, 2 steps back'' pace can only be done with multiple changes at a time. How else do you want to balance cards that are in top tier and lowest tier decks at the same time?

    synthc likes this
  16. 6 minutes 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.

    That's not exactly the case with aggressor. It's not conseidered too weak in higher rankings, it's more of a unit with a special task wich can also be done by other units (countering L units). It is used as L counter wich is costly but therefor perma CCs things that could otherwise get annoying for stonekin like skyfire drakes, war eagles, mounties...

    Anyway imo the main reason why balancing is impossible for lowranks is that there is no meta. A pure fire deck in higher rankings is mostly the same except 2 or 3 cards. That's just the deckcomposition endless players found out to be the strongest in endless games. Now pure fire in low ranks might be something totally crazy and unefficent, maybe it has T4, maybe it has no spells at all, just 20 units...how are you gonna balance THAT? Players in these ranks don't know about hte countersystem, voidpower, how losing a well or an orb makes you lose power permanently. Once they learn those things they normally move to higher ranks.

    Halis, felkin and indubitablement like this
  17. 6 minutes ago, Cocofang said:

    Cards and strategies can be of VASTLY different effective power when used at low, average or expert level of PvP play. If you decide to only balance top heavy then the balancing in lower level play could get massively skewed. PvP would most likely end up being incredibly beginner unfriendly.

    There is no balance in low level PVP play. Players use the cards they know are strong in PVE. Then they see their 50 power units getting knocked back by an 150 power aggressor and then think aggressor is OP (wich of course is not). Balancing is impossible for this level of skill (if you want to balance it for the toplevel of skill at the same time)

    Halis and LEBOVIN like this
  18. Can this thread get a little less hostile?

    I also don't agree with Deldrimor when he equals a high pvp rank with an ability to handle balancing decissions.

    Here are some prime (pun not intended) examples of what i mean:

    ,,main tire was nature T1 cause its strongest''

    ,,if the player knows how to play and got the skills he can counter anything so pls cut it out... stop cry about cliffdancer''

    ,,bandits is absolut underrated''

    These are quotes from top 10 players from this forum. They aren't all great at theocrafting like some might think.

    (and i don't care for the bad spelling, it's only the content of theses quotes wich scares me)

    Kubik and Ultrakool like this
  19. 9 hours ago, pabi said:

    And card balance? Was was that bad in the original game?

    Relatively. in 2013 it was better than 2009, but only because it was made better step by step.

    8 hours ago, Upoo said:

    The problem with any kind of change is that it will always be impossible to please Greeks and Trojans.

    Sometimes the Greeks are 95 % of players, then we should consider making 5% a little less happy for the greater good. This is how it was always done in the history of Battleforge balancing.

    5 hours ago, WindHunter said:

    I'd prefer if they just deferred to the top players on issues

    Me, too. But not necessarily topplayer by rank, but moreso by rank and the ability to explain things and have a balance discussion. Some topplayers views on balance are straight simpleminded.

    3 hours ago, wanky said:

    Changing Cards would make every Tactic for speedrun useless.

    So if we nerf cursewell for example every tactic for speedruns is useless? You're dramatising. Some tactics would become useless, some would be created. But the overlap between speedrun - and pvp cards isn't as big as you want ot make it seem.

    3 hours ago, Narrokk said:

    But I think we should not forget that not every player is as skilled as a top player and such, some card might only be overpowered when they are used in a very skillful way, and this aspect must not be overlooked when doing balance changes.

    Historically balancing in BF was always done regarding toplevel play, wich makes sense cause this is where games are decided mostly by deckstrength and not bad decisions, micro mistakes and missing knowledge. It would also be impossible to balance cards for all skilllevels. It's literally easier to learn how to build the right deck, watch replays of topplayers and train then to have every card balanced to your skillevel.

    LagOps, felkin and indubitablement like this
  20. On 7/18/2019 at 8:29 AM, felkin said:

    Not sure what u really mean by twilight and lost souls units...

    He probably ment units like lost dancer, lost wanderer (wich has seen some play though), twilight minions etc - S/F relies on shadow and frost units while F/N relies on nature and fire units. But even stonekin and bandits can do fine without their respective faction units, wich just shows how much strong splashable cards there are.

    Concerning frost vs nature T1, i don't know if there's a better way to play this, but if the optimal play is frost mage spam, this macthup is outright stupid in terms of balance.

    If mountaineer gets a nerf, pure fire gets buffed and fire/frost nerfed, i don't think that's good. In situations like this combinations of changes are needed, otherwise some matchups will turn out worse then before if you only look at the ,,problematic'' matchups. (In this case mounty vs fire/nature or pure fire).

  21. I'd always go for a shadow start when playing 2 x shadow for early ressource boosters. Not a fan of netherwarp, it heals like nothing and if you warp your teammates it might mess up their spells and focus fire (i for example hate when i cast a spell like revenge on my units and then get ported somewhere else. Or i carefully micro my tanks in the front and low HP dragons in the back only to get thrown in the middle of the base by some netherwarp). You should think about incredible Mo cause otherwise lost dragons are a huge annoyance for your ships. Maybe a second affinity of frenetic wich i find to be more valuable then for example oink. Thunderstorm is also nice.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use