Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting Will Cause Permabans! Read more... ×

LagOps

Alpha & Beta Tester
  • Content count

    509
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LagOps

  • Rank
    Bane

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4154 profile views
  1. @Halis Yes, you need rank 10 to get the upgrades. The rank is not easy to reach without heavy investment of time and resources into grinding pve maps. I find it to be very boring having to grind the same few time-efficient maps over and over again...
  2. LagOps

    How to make PvP more attractive (Discussion)

    @RadicalX mele units in t1 are in a decent state and as you pointed out it's the spamm occuring in certain matchups... which typically involves spamming ranged units to the point where mele units often don't feel viable anymore. that was pretty much what i meant when i said ranged units are too dominant - the point of them becomming opressive is reached too early in my opinion. As for nature t1 struggling against t2, well that's not exactly suprising considering how scaling-heavy the faction is, which often results in mid-late t1 being avoided by the non-nature player. After adjustments to the faction to adjust the power-curve, i would expect the matchup vs. early t2 to be a lot less of an issue. I really would like to discuss this in more detail, but i feel such a discussion would be pretty pointless as it would start all over again once balance changes can be implemented on a test-server.
  3. I would be really happy to see rank requirements for upgrades be removed. You can build a viable pvp deck in a week or so, so that's really fine, but i STILL don't have the pve rank needed to upgrade ultra-rares after 1 month or so of playing semi-actively. Yes, getting pvp rank is easy if you find someone actually playing ranked pvp, but i mostly enjoy sparring and don't want to be forced into ranked like that. Esepcially for new players i could see this being a major annoyance of having to play ranked first, just to be allowed to upgrade your deck.
  4. LagOps

    How to make PvP more attractive (Discussion)

    That's great news @Kubik! Can't wait to see both community maps turned official pvp maps and card changes on the test-server become a reality!
  5. LagOps

    How to make PvP more attractive (Discussion)

    Your comments about t1 imbalance, i fully agree with. nature and frost t1 both are not up too par (for different reasons and it would be hard to find balanced fixes for this imo. damn, now i wrote an essay about it... again...). still, we should also examine fire and shadow t1 as well as they do contain some quite problematic elements. mostly it's the towers, but i feel that overall, ranged units seem too dominant in t1. in almost any matchup a ranged unit spam is par of the course (with some exceptions in the form of thugs spam, which needs a nerf), where as in t2 you can see much more variety in units being played. as there are 2 primary ranged units per faction, this often leads to a real lack of variety in what is being played and the ranged units matchup is a big part of why nature t1 and frost t1 fail as well. this is especially prominent in the nature t1 vs. shadow t1 matchup, where you can't even dare to start with a swift unit as the nature player on the vast majority of maps. you can forget about dryads as well for the most part and you usually start spearmen and hope your lack of swift does not get abused too hard when you so much as dare to take a well. your t1 basically got reduced to two s units, none of them swift (unless you play werebeast but i am not convinced of those yet). I don't see how your suggested changes would fix this. with the amazon buff, fire t1 would be in real trouble tho. I think the cost reduction on the swap is too much to ask for as it can already be quite usefull. I get that you want it to be better vs. split attacks, but this is going overboard. scavangers already need to avoid the unit due to the damage reduction, which helps quite a bit. Main problem with this is also that it doesn't help vs. shadow (pretty much nothing aside from -5 on werebeasts is), which means that we have a matchup specific solution only, which might get a problem if you want to further buff the faction to do better vs. shadow t1 as well. i'm not saying that counters should not exists, but in t1 it has gotten to a point where you can just entirely forget playing certain units in certain matchups. even in some very problematic t2 matchups, it is rarely this one-dimensional in terms of unit-viability. in t2 you see burrowers being played into pure fire decks and harvesters against frost-splashes. even if viable counters exist, those cards aren't just removed from the game like it is the case with t1 and can turn the game if used in the appropriate situation. T1 tho? Not so much. In some matchups you are basically playing half a deck and that just isn't going to work out. i feel this needs to be adressed if we want to have a properly balanced t1, but i don't think it would be possible to find the support needed to make this happen, so best can likely do is buff frost t1 and nature t1 into viability somehow, which comes with its own set of issues: nature t1 is amazing when there are 3-4+ units on the field and some power is avialable for spells. cc often gauarantees favorable trades and allows to kite back and heal units without much counterplay in open field. damage reduction, s unit counter spell, mele unit counterspell, units with heals, archers with multishot and a very good healing spell, not to forget shamans, all scale like crazy into mid and late t1. problem is, as you pointed out, that this advantage is gone when split attacks are used and the units are costly on top of it, so you can really abuse the faction hard. but what is the fix to that supposed to be like? Make the units cheaper and you will hit the power-spike sooner, making the faction really good in a mid-fight without wells and a terror in late t1. On the other hand, so much of nature t1's power comes from the synery with cc and heals, so you most likely can still chesse the faction as usual. Don't get me wrong, it's entirely ok that the faction has issues when dealing with split attacks or otherwise low power levels. It's just too extreme to properly balance that out considering just how well the faction scales. You often feel forced to just go t2 as otherwise you are pretty much guaranteed to get steamrolled if you don't play t1 towers. Personally i think some of the utility nature t1 has needs to adjusted while the units get a bit of a buff to be able to hold their own on low power levels. the t1 heal is really strong, especially considering cc and damage reduction can be used to juggle damage and keep units alive. root and hurricane destory the vast majority of staple units of other factions in late t1, which in my opinion is really out of line. the issues are not as prevalent in t2, where cc is ubiquitous and cost efficient aoe damage spells present some working counters. frost t1 is so map dependent and passive, it's not even funny. aside from the loss of map control and the voulnerability to swift unit rushes, the faction can barely fight in open field, has problems counterattacking (at large well distances. good luck grabbing a clost well tho, since the enemy would love to fight you in open field and you have no swift) and lacks any sort of meaningful engage to start a fight (if you do it right, you can just mass firesworn vs. frost t1 without giving much of a change for the enemy to go t2 and make them lose because they can't force a fight. it's just really dumb!). In short, 90% of the time you are forced to play reactively and hope the enemy messes up somehow (like walking into an obvious gylph of frost in a mid-fight). on the bright side, any non-cheese attacks likely don't get very far. home soil, glacier shell and ice guardians are so good at defending single wells, most player don't even try anymore. but how on earth do you buff frost? make the units good enough to reliably counter swift spamm cheese tactics? what about large maps? what about mid-fights? what if you want to engage without having your ig kitet around? let's say you managed to fix those issues somehow, but then what? how am i supposed to attack frost t1 then? standard attacks are not working out already it will only be worse if the faction is buffed. do i still get to try the swift unit cheese even if failure is much more likely? if that strat goes bad, it tends to go really, really bad. the matches would essentially be very volatile and still very map dependent. In short, frost t1 and nature t1 are problematic and fixing them without, making them op in situations those decks already excell at, will be much harder than excpected. As for pvp maps, i really think we should have a contest, preferably an official one where maps get added to the ranked pool. Making good maps takes quite a bit of effort and it sucks not seing them played at all and maybe just winning a few bfp in a contest. I agree that with some measure of care taken for cliffs, center of map balance, map size and t2 oppertunities, we can make some really good and interesting maps and it would be great to roll out new maps for when the game gets released. This should be really low effort for the devs, since the community is going to be in charge of making those maps and voting for them in the end. Since it was already possible to remove random maps from the ranked pool, i am hoping it should be rather easy to add maps as well.
  6. one more thing about the npe... since you get decent decks in a reasonable timeframe and get enough gold for upgrades, it is really annoying to be restricted by your pve rank. In particular ultra-rares have too high of a rank requirement to upgrade. getting to the required pve rank (gold 2) takes quite time some considering the exp you get for rpve and campaign maps. In addition, i feel the current reward system gives very little worthwhile rewards after doing your quests. I'm a bit worried about multi-accounting in that regard since you can reasonably do the quests in 30 mins.
  7. Honestly it would be best to have some handpicked and well designed community maps in ranked pvp instead of some of the EA maps. Especially layesh and wazahi are poorly thought out an ymria can be a problem (not nearly a bad tho and mostly due to cliffing only) as well. But you can take only so many maps away before ranked gets a little to repetetive and decks can be built to cheese certain maps if the pool is small enough. In terms of community-maps, well there would need to be some contest first to have properly designed maps to pick from. The focal point should be on playability and not on optics. If anything, it would be possible to have the optics to be improved when picks for new pvp ranked maps were made.
  8. i would rather avoid turning cards into gold, after all gold is used for account progression and such a conversion would make multiaccounting much more convenient. now rerolling a card for a card of the same rarity on the other hand...
  9. LagOps

    Suggestions, ideas for EndGame (mostly PvP)

    battleforge plays very differently from your average RTS. adding fog of war would make it very chaotic as armies can be spawned out of nowhere and scouting would have very limited effect. imagine playing any standard rts where both players are unable to scout. that doesn't play very well, does it?
  10. LagOps

    Netherwarp Green bug abuse

    It just encourages spam like in the replay, i am seeing that a lot in higher gold elo. Especially without damage spells, you are having issues. Stonekin has it the worst out of all factions actually and its just sad to watch... the only "real" counter is to get the shadow player to run out of charges. fixing it might actually encourage players to switch to blue nether warp in lower elos as well since shadow mages won't be an easy defense anymore (well, at least not THAT easy).
  11. Totally not going to lead to multiaccounting at all... with gold it would be fine i guess, but boosters?
  12. LagOps

    Global Warming in Pure Fire to counter Pure Frost?

    sure a large t1 is worth it, but fire can afford to get a large t1 and still somehow manage to have global warming in there. if you really don't have a slot then that's fine too, it's just my opinion that it's propably worth playing.
  13. LagOps

    Global Warming in Pure Fire to counter Pure Frost?

    I am one of the players who prefers to pick optional cards to alleviate weaknesses in my deck instead of making allready quite winnable matchups easier. pure frost and fire-frost are tough for pure fire, propably the hardest matchups for fire and so i would suggest playing global warming. pure fire usually doesn't have many issues with deckslots and i see large t1s in this deck quite a lot. should be possible to fit global warming in there somehow.
  14. LagOps

    Are core pvp cards too rare?

    personally i do have an issue with core cards being too costly/rare. in my opinion, the core cards a faction is designed around and are required to play the deck should be uncommon at most. optional cards that offer adapation to matchups or have effects simillar to other cards should be the ones with higher rarity. you should basically be able start out with a bare-bones viable deck for an affordable price and then once you get more into pvp and feel like you need to adapt to the meta/matchups or just want some optional (but not cruical) cards, you need to invest more bfp. it's just not fun to grind pve until you finally "unlock" pvp once you have a bare-bones deck.
  15. you released this before the beta-testers have leaked it? what are we even here for at this point? THEY TOOK ER JERBS!
×

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.