Welcome to Skylords Reborn

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • InsaneHawk

      Join our Discord !   05/04/17

      We're starting to do Giveaways on our Discord, so be sure to follow it and join it
      Here's the link to access our Discord : https://discordapp.com/invite/0y3WGMGXhd5q2lXA


Alpha & Beta Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About LagOps

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2287 profile views
  1. Yes, the player has a huge impact but in high level pvp it becomes very obvious that some decks can just totally be absued. The main reason why you can do whatever you want in lower elos is because nobody knows how to abuse certain decks... to be honest, one of the main reasons why i win in high elo is because others just have no experience against bandits and if they knew the matchup better i would have a much harder time. So as long as you can take the skill out of the equation by playing an "autowin" tactic, player skill won't save you... however if you don't/can't do that you will not have much of an advantage. Aside from bandits, nature and some isolated matchups (fire vs frost), player skill is much more important than the deck, but the deck still matters (at least in high lvl pvp). i agree with radi here, his tier list is pretty legit.
  2. I personally do like haladur a lot, however i feel that the choke points in the center are a bit too thin, t1 often ends up as a mexican standoff since whoever moves into the chokepoint is quite at a disadvantage. On this map frost can also be bullied quite a bit, especially if phasetowers or mortar are involved. Despite these issues i think the map is propably the most fairly balanced and offers quite a bit of tactical choice and gameplay variety.
  3. ah yes... the Kevin syndrom. the stereotypical kevin is from a backwater place and uneducated. the main feature ppl usually associate with the syndrom is that Kevins usually waste their lives and amount to nothing. That's basically the internet meme if you will, but i really can't confirm any of that.
  4. a simple solution is to create a black and white texture on which power wells/orbs are marked in white and then use that as a mask for another texture ingame. everywhere you see that texture is where a power well is supposed to be. In terms of actual map symetry, i draw an inital rough hightmap in gimp and modify it a bit. the map will be roughly symetrical this way. you can also use that map later on as a mask such that you can get the playable area right.
  5. @FissMortune - t4 is not something you should play in pvp, you basically never get into to t4 and if you do, you could have easily ended the game in t3. For t3, bandit lancers and giant slayers are pretty much must have cards and you should play a siege unit (either gunner of ashbone; i am very much a fan of gunner due to the extra utility) and maybe, if you have the slots, soulhunter. 3 or 4 t3 cards is fine for the deck, i personally play 3. - are you aware of the counter system in the game? scavanger for instance is an s counter, it does 50% more damage vs. s units... - your t2 doesn't look good: Windhunter green is much better since it can disenchant itself, so play that one. assasins, nightcrawler, aura of corruption, skyfire drake, lava field and rallying banner are core cards, you will need them for sure. i personally prefer live weaving over unhowly power due to the lower power cost. unhowly power is still an option you can play instead. i would also highly suggest playing disenchant purple. banditos and comandos are not worth playing imo, especially banditos are kinda garbage. warrior's death is kinda lame and broken; it doesn't help you in any of the hard matchups anyways so better not play it.
  6. i actually planned on making some yt videos about some of my "controversial/unpopular" opinions about ceratain cards/combos or the general state of balance. maybe i should get my ass up and just do it... @topic: - defenders are a bit underrated, they are quite a strong card. i agree on this one. - thugs are not required in t1, but i think anyone with a micro not at the level of top players should have them since they help quite a bit vs. shadow t1 in some situations. - i think you can do fine without aggressor if you have defenders. i can see your point about t2 vs t3, however they don't exactly help against some cards stonekin struggles with; most notably giantslayers. aggressor is a "nice to have", but not required.
  7. @RadicalX -don't defenders work against wareagle? MaranV played them and i guess that's why he does not need the aggressor. -Againt pure frost i found it most effective to harass the enemy to make them spawn counters to windhunter, which bind power and do have little offensive value. I can then go t3 without losing to much in the knowledge that the enemy is unable to follow t3. If i wouldn't do the harassment and the game would just go t3, it would be harder. however, gunners do great against the standard silverwind+timeless combo and i think an even game is quite winnable in t3 with bandits. i actually would rate pure frost as one of the easiest matchups (read: it's a mostly even matchup) in case you play windhunter... tbh, there were not that many skilled pure forst players considering that slow units do not exactly highlight your micro skills and the high hp units+area ice shield/home soil even encourage clumping up units. frost is kinda braindead in that regard... @SunWu II. nobody likes the meta... it was really stale in high rank.
  8. @RadicalX -What about streetkings? he was pretty good with fire/frost as far as i am aware. -But yeah, i hardly ever met skilled nature players either. I guess putting it that way, you are not wrong. -Defenders really are a pain for bandits in general, but here i STILL would much prefer playing windhunter because then i could at the very least try to prevent the enemy from stancing them at my well. Once that happens they are as good as immortal with the area-iceshield and bandits can't exactly cc the enemy and repair the well... -I'm a bit surprised to see agressor mentioned here. I have mostly seen this card in lower elos exclusively as it is costly and stonekin should be able to stall out l units quite easily without it. I personally use windhunter quite a bit since it can counter spirithunter poison, allows you to kite stoneshards (to some extend), which otherwise destroy your units since you can't rely on assasins much and you at least have a chance to do something to prevent permaheal defenders. It's not great, but at least it gives you some semblance of a chance in this matchup.
  9. @RadicalX Windhunter ability makes it a near instawin against nature t2 (i don't even remember losing this matchup without being far behind in t1) and also very usefull against fire/frost and can also be used to counter coldsnap/stormsinger/nightguard ability (etc. the list is long). While it is not 100% needed to win these matchups, i think it is very worth playing and i wouldn't say it falls off at the higher levels of play if used correctly. On the topic of thugs, i agree that they are not 100% required, but they DO shine in choke points and have use in mid fights. if you feel like you need a guide, then i assume your micro is not so good that you can afford to not play thugs. my micro is not the best either, so i am playing them myself. i hope i git gud in terms of micro and can free the deckslot eventually...
  10. I don't see why we couldn't have a pre-loading period, that is once we have a proper installer and don't have to fiddle around until it works. After all, if you just have the client, you can't play. you still need an account...
  11. @Eirias is correct, the tool allows you to ignore that there was a patch. however if anything was patched, the game will desync at some point. the last patch changed some meta cards and nearly all replays before that patch are broken due to this.
  12. @RadicalX It is true that extra charges on certain cards do create issues in pvp. I espeically see the issue with magespamm/forsakenspamm for instance. However, that could also be fixed by modifying the amount of charges that card has in general: for instance if 25xforsaken (10+5+5+5) is just ways too much, we could go for (8+4+4+4=20) charges instead without affecting the U3 meta much/at all while other cards such as skyfire drake could really use 4+2+2+2=10 charges. The worst issues could be dealt with like this and i agree that this is not the optimal solution, but it would likely be far simpler than to implement a total rebalance to the charge distribution for all cards (this is why i listed it as an option in case the charge redistribution was not viable). I also agree that on some cards upgrades really do matter much more than on others and this is still an issue. If it would be possible, there might be adjustments to the upgrade curve for the worst offenders as well. Overall i agree with the rest of your opinions, the attempts on resolving the poor low level pvp experience at best lower the bar for viablility but don't overcome the actual issue (at least not without causing new issues). I have put much thought into this but couldn't really see a better approach. Maybe you have a suggestion we could try to build on?
  13. Well, in the old battleforge the starter cards WERE absolutely worthless because everyone had them. even without multiaccounting they would still be worthless because they were commons. even lord cyrian was worth absolutely nothing and players would grind out the quest to get via multiaccounting. Also, i highly doubt the devs don't have anything better to do than to prevent ppl from cheating themselves 1bfp common cards... It is MUCH better to make multiaccount pointless in the first place than to try banning everyone who tries doing it. About players not playing certain pve maps to grind out upgrades... i'm not sure about you guys but i just went and did rpve9 to grind the upgrade tokens, at least that gives me guaranteed upgrades with hardly any chance of faling the map. I got no idea about most pve maps on expert and i doubt most pvp players would rather learn to beat expert maps with a bunch of randoms instead of grinding rpve. And for anything other than expert, grinding rpve seems be easier as well. You say that we still need pvp players to play pve. Do you realise that pvp queues are often empty as well? Just how many players are quitting pvp because they just won't have a competetive deck unless they grind pve? How would you feel if pve players get somehow bullied into playing pvp as well? Would you be fine doing this? Of course not! But empty pvp queues do not affect you as a pve player, do they? The issue was that playing pve was mandatory in the old battleforge and not just somehow encouraged (daily missions for pvp and pve would encourage playing both but not force you) and you were required to bring a lvl 80+ deck before you could even consider doing proper pvp without being bullied because of low charges. While i agree that the "free upgrades/charges" solutions are detrimental to the progression in the game, i can still see why pvp players would want to be able to play proper pvp without having to grind themselves a decent deck AGAIN! You are saying that we do not know if this will be a problem? Please tell me what i can do if i am in pvp and the enemy can just erupt my counters until i can't spawn any usefull counters anymore. How is that NOT a problem? This is obviously a bullshit way to lose and downright unplayable. I would also like to ask you about the options you did not discuss: redistribute the amount of charges a card gets per level (ex. 8+4+4+4 instead of 5+5+5+5) or giving the card more base charges in general (base charge cards were useless in pvp AND pve!) (ex. 10+5+5+5 instead of 5+5+5+5). Please do tell me why such a change would be detrimental to the game in geneal.
  14. @nightrein@Demiron i don't think i can quite follow you guys... since when did "change the upgrade system" mean "pvp players get everything for free" or "there will be no progression at all" ??? @nightrein well i am quite certain that the starting cards will consist of a bunch of comons, so they do not hold any value anyways. in addition to that, it would prevent ppl from multiaccounting to get all the charges for the starting cards. even if there would not just be commons in the starter deck, they would still lose all value due to multiaccounting. I am not sure what the downside to having a playable starter deck is... @Demiron i totally agree with your sentiment here: progression is important to have! This is why several ways which tried to improve the use of unupgraded cards (charges so low it is often just a wasted slot), were made in such that they would provide a similar progression experience minus the annoying bits of pvp being unplayable and unupgraded cards being near unplayable.
  15. I am really wondering why most who took this poll do not want the upgrade system to be changed in any way. I mean, please give some arguments as to why none of the suggested options are any good. My suggestions in particular were made with pve-friendliness and a low/nonexistant impact on the economy in mind (you still would want to buy all charges and don't really get anything for free, except some commons with upgrades in my option 1). Can you please give me some feedback on why you disliked these suggestions in particular? Maybe i missed something that could easyly be fixed in order to improve the suggestion?