WindHunter

Hello everyone, I have a quick announcement about Reforging. We have been monitoring Reforging and its effects on the economy very closely since release and while we are in general happy with how it has performed we have determined that the system needs to be toned down. As such we have made it more difficult to roll Rare and Ultra-Rare cards. We have also increased the cost of the Mini-booster from 50 to 75 Forge Shards while increasing the general value of rerolling Ultra-Rare cards. Overall it will now be more worthwhile to reroll multiple Ultra-Rare cards. If you are one of the people negatively affected by the increase in the cost of mini-boosters due to having banked in excess of 33 Forge Shards before the change we will be reaching out to compensate you. This change has already gone live.

There are a large amount of new achievements and other such systems coming up meant to deal with the new player experience. But, I also do not think this is true. If prices are increased for commons and uncommons, which is one of our goals, then new players can sell an excess or unwanted cards of these rarities and buy others instead. This should encourage them to engage in the market earlier and more frequently. Or so we hope. It is really hard to judge how things pan out because of the absolute number of reforges that occurred in only a 24 hour period. Even if we had made reforging 50% less efficient, with 250k total reforges the economy still would have been sent in turmoil.

Hello Demiron, First, I'd like to thank you for your feedback on the Reforging issue which I think you have articulated well. As the person principally behind the system's design (with many others also helping) I am very anxious to see how things turn out. We have built-in the ability to apply changes quickly and are closely monitoring card price points to determine if we need to make changes. Our intended goals with Reforging were many and varied, but much major goal was to stabilize the economy long term. Prior to this, commons were mostly worthless, most uncommons were driving towards 3 bfp, and our major markers for rares had all dropped hundreds of bfp over only a few month period. This was while ultra-rares were on a steady increase as the only source of value left in an economy which was built with no inflation check. Right now Reforging has been used over 250,000 times, which is unsurprisingly bringing a lot of chaos to the market as many people who have never or very rarely interacted with trading have begun to pour cards into the Auction House. I understand things seem dire now, but I really want to wait a week or two after the initial frenzy dies down and everyone's excess supply is burnt up (and likely also everyone isn't dumping onto the market simultaneously) before making definite judgements. Previously very expensive Ultra-rares are not the only price point we follow but also average prices of all rarities. It is possible that despite carefully toning the system to be bfp negative that we still missed the mark, and I think initial impressions leads me to think we should have made the gap between uncommon and rare larger. We will be checking the data we have and if that continues to hold we will adjust quickly. Additionally, future updates plan to add minor and major bfp sinks which should help reinflate any prices we deinflated too substantially.

This is intended. Double Ravenheart is already a top tier deck and synergizes with Jorne's "Giant Shelter" ability. Making it synergize with Corsair this way might push it even higher. Also, Ravenheart is a legendary, not a Bandits units and it would be odd to make an exception like this.

Additional question, does this seem to happen on any target or only certain targets? For example, does it only happen as regards buildings, XL-units, squads, etc.? Again as Zyna said some visual evidence would be of help.

Hello RX8Toxic, What you are experiencing is actually not a bug. There are 2 types of knockback, center targeted and unit targeted. Windhunter has center targeted knockback meaning it targets the center of a squad. There are pros and cons to both, people just notice the Windhunter issues more because the unit has a small splash radius. Either way, we are intending to remove Windhunter's s-knockback in the future as part of a set of buffs to the card, so it will no longer be an issue then.

Just an FYI, if you submit replays of anything you test on the test server for us, once per iteration you can receive a free booster. The place to submit such test feedback is on the balancing discord, but we could also provide a place here to do it. I haven't been it "active" for awhile because we don't have anything on the test server unit-wise, but it is a good point that currently testing PvP maps can fall into that category.

I think pointing out the dragon in the picture can be moved slightly to make it fit with other dragons and potentially fill more of the space is fine feedback to air. As Majora said, the current orientation was put together for the community update and we can take everyone's feedback here into consideration and perhaps fit it in the card in the second way Majora just suggested above. In terms of the artwork itself, I personally love it and I am even more excited about when we get to reveal the other cards we have in store. In terms of card name: I think Wasteland Wing is an awesome name (not mine) and I like that many of the suggestions preserve the "wasteland" part. In terms of ability name: I came up with Cleanse which is informative but somewhat lackluster. When the ability used to be an AoE Amok it was named "Cry Havoc" in reference to the Shakespeare line "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" which seemed fitting for a chaos effect. I think, given the ability is freeing your own to cause chaos though it could still fit. So: Card name: Wasteland Wing Ability Name: Cry Havoc

If you look closely you will see that the Tainted Cleanse affects enemies and allies. So the Infused version affects 5 allies while the Tainted version affects unlimited allies and enemies. Now positively disenchanting enemies isn't too much of an issue for Pure Bandits (outside of Frenetic/Amok) but it does provide a downside when playing with CC-reliant allies. I think the fact that the Tainted version benefits allies makes Tainted the correct designation. At U3, Wasteland Wing will have 6000 dp20. That means with Life Stealer its effective life points over 20 seconds will be 3850. So 6000/2950 immediately, but effectively 6000/3850. Generally speaking, there really is one hell of a premium for having wings and in terms of raw stats Wasteland Wing has a stat efficiency on the upper end for single-target XL flying units. But on top of that, and this is a very important consideration, Wasteland Wing's stats are found primarily in its attack value. This is already powerful for a ranged unit, but becomes even more so for flying ranged units because of how many threats they are necessarily shielded from by being flying units in the backline. I have a feeling Wasteland's stats are very close to correct, especially with how powerful an AoE disenchant is for this deck, but testing will help us further hone in on the appropriate values and see if any changes are necessary in terms of attack, health, and power costs. As an aside: "Pure" hybrid cards are quite odd because they are simultaneously more and less restrictive than 3X/1N units like Fire Dragon. Generally speaking 2X orbs gives you more than 1X orb with perhaps the exception of 1 Nature vs. 2 Frost, and 2 Shadow orbs in T4 is probably the strongest combination in the game right now. Every affected ally will receive the 100% siege bonus, not just units with siege. Twilight Warfare has a similar effect.

Just to clarify, the Balance Developer position implements changes to new or existing cards. So for example, I would design a card, say Wasteland Wing, and the balance developer then uses the tool to create that unit within the game. Or we decide to allow Ravenheart to summon ships with X cost, and the balance developer makes those changes. Or the Map Makers need a new boss unit, so the balance developer creates the boss. We have an in-house tool that we use to do this and it is just a matter of spending enough time familiarizing yourself with it to help out in this way.

This is intended.

It might be cheating because Coat of Protection was already my name but here is another... Name: Panoply of Mist Ability: Tainted/Blessed Cloud's Raiment

Gameplay-wise: Shadow Worm. Earth Dive Shadow Worm is a really fun playstyle and I've always been a Shadow player at heart. Aesthetically: Harvester or Windhunter. Given I named myself after the later, this shouldn't be surprising. Design-wise: Dreadnought, Ravenheart, or Plague. I'm very happy with our recent balance changes and I think these are models for how to do intuitive complex designs. I was the one who originally suggested making Ravenheart spawn ships way back in 2019. To later be part of the team and get to make the change happen was very exciting.

That was included in one of the PTS patches but we specifically rolled it back and did not include it in the final changes on the live server.

We recently learned that out of nearly 10,000 games, only 82 Passage to Darkness games have ever been lost after the 4-minute mark, and the overall winrate is 98%. This makes PtD by far the easiest map in the entire game. I think a harder scaling Wrath of the Souls will slow players down but I doubt it would cause an actual loss. The reason is that the attack waves are too weak. Even around the 20 minute mark the attack waves are still full of T1 s-units, Bandit Skyrakes, and Bandit Lancers. If we want to make this map an actual challenge we will need to make it so 2 T2 towers cannot defend against all attack waves for the entire game duration.

This isn't a bug as such. It is working as intended. Windhunter, and other units like it, have a center-focused splash attack and the units all exist outside the splash radius so they don't get damaged. Other units which have a unit-focused splash attack run into separate issues.

I would say I only speak as a player, but given my position it is unlikely such a distinction can truly be made. I have been playing a lot of GoL recently and I have really come to love the map. The other day while playing I had the privilege of running multiple lobbies and helping several players through the map for the first time. We played the map in the standard method, not speedrun, and after the one lobby with 2 players completing it for the first time they told me it was one of the most fun experiences they have had playing the game and a really great defense map. That was the most consistent experience of the players I shepherded, the map was a fun map focused around defense. Combining previous discussion of this map with my own experience I have the following thoughts: The ability to destroy the Twilight Manifestation to trigger the final wave should be preserved, but it should not allow the player to avoid the other objectives on the map. Right now triggering the final wave allows the player to ignore the 6 twilight infestations on the map as well as avoid the periodically timed major spawn waves. It makes no sense that Lyr is "safe" when these infestations still exist, which can continue to spawn enemies, and when there are several waves of major enemies still in route. It also makes no sense that the Twilight invaders would suddenly decide to call off further attacks when they have such plentiful resources left to execute their invasion. We should consider moving the Twilight Slavers/Brutes next to the defender's T3 slightly closer to the wells and orb so the attacker can't get T2 in this way. As it stands, the player runs a swift unit down, builds a well, then immediately kills said unit so that the unit doesn't provide sufficient "light" for the defending Twilight units to spot the wells and orb. I think simply describing how this works sufficiently explains why it shouldn't exist. Consider tying the attack waves to something different than clearing the first cannon camp. Knowledgeable players don't ever clear the camp so then the spawns never occur, while inexperienced players clear it almost immediately and cause fairly strong waves to start attacking Pos. 3 and Pos. 4. I think it would be better to consider the prudence of tying the spawn trigger to something like player tier, or clearing of the infestations in accord with #1. In terms of #1 I think there are several different ways to implement an appropriate solution and we could get creative here. For example, we could make it that the Twilight Manifestation is shielded/immune from damage until after the Infestations are cleared, then if triggered early, spawn the remaining timed waves first at 20 second intervals until the final wave is also spawned while requiring all creatures spawned in this way to be killed for the map to finish. Another possible direction is that if there are any remaining twilight infestations when the final wave is triggered, these infestations send out a final waves to attack the player/stronghold. These spawn waves attached to the infestations would also need to be killed before the map is completed. In terms of #2, with this change the attacking player would be required to clear a camp to get T2. Can still get the defender's T2 pretty easily but given #1, this would make the defender weaker and he will actually have to defend now. In terms of #3, I don't like obscure but easily abusable triggers like this. I actually find things like spawn trapping far more legitimate than this because in the case of spawn trapping the player is engaging with a general game mechanic, while in the particular cases like these it feels like lazy implementation or bad design. Given I think our intention should be to fulfill what the original Devs could not, I think making changes like these would be appropriate.

In what way?

I spoke to Zyna about this and she thinks that minor changes can be accomplished relatively quickly compared to major map reworks which would likely not happen for a very long time.

From opening: As a warning, other map projects such as more RPvE presets and Defensive RPvE have a much higher priority for our team. As such, these, or any campaign map changes, may not happen for a very long time. Sadly, I cannot give you a more exact timeline. Right now these threads are primarily intended to gather feedback and further ideas for each map. While I wish I could say "it will happen in X time" the fact is that we don't have enough developers, map makers, etc. to finish projects quickly or give concrete estimates right now.

Don't have too much faith in us :^)

If you'd like that would be helpful. It can also be the basis for starting up the discussion on that map. In this thread it was kind of hard to have full discussions people were understandly attempting to respond to all proposed changes in one post.

All threads have been opened. They can be found in the Campaign Maps subforum and in the opening post of this thread which has been updated.

Responsible members of the Skylords Reborn team recently met to discuss possible changes to campaign maps. What is outlined here are the proposed changes to the map Titans. These changes are not final and are only proposed. As a warning, other map projects such as more RPvE presets and Defensive RPvE have a much higher priority for our team. As such, these, or any campaign map changes, may not happen for a very long time. Some changes here are firmer than others, all italicized proposals have accompanying explanations for why we are considering them, but they are the most tentative of all the proposals. Proposed Changes: 1. Change the Ritual with the Crystals to actually affect the fight with Brannoc, this should also give the Fire Shamans more of a purpose. 2. Make Jorne use his hammer ability to destroy player buildings in his path if he is intercepted for more than X seconds. 3. Allow Jorne to die like Moon claims he can. 4. Move gold chests away from spawn areas in end fight. 5. Give position 3 a job, such as destroying tunnels to help other allies. 6. Change Fathom Lords to Deep Ones.

Responsible members of the Skylords Reborn team recently met to discuss possible changes to campaign maps. What is outlined here are the proposed changes to the map The Treasure Fleet. These changes are not final and are only proposed. As a warning, other map projects such as more RPvE presets and Defensive RPvE have a much higher priority for our team. As such, these, or any campaign map changes, may not happen for a very long time. Some changes here are firmer than others, all italicized proposals have accompanying explanations for why we are considering them, but they are the most tentative of all the proposals. Proposed Changes: 1. Clearing the top left camp gives players additional gold and experience 2. Add a lever in the starting base to allow you to change the Treasure Wagon’s route to be faster but more dangerous. Treasure fleet, outside of exploits, is a map with a fixed time and a rather long fixed time at that. Because of this, it is rarely played through multiple times. We would like to increase the replayability of the map for experienced players by giving them the option to speed up the Treasure Wagon while directing it through a more dangerous path. This would also give many of the northern camps, with which the player never needs to directly interact, a larger purpose in the map. The Treasure Fleet 1: Red line is current route, blue line is proposed dangerous route