Jump to content


Faction Designer
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ImaginaryNumb3r

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4813 profile views
  1. As a matter of fact, this is not possible. We are constrained by the technical limitations of the unit-logic that is provided by the game. There is a module called "TrampleRevengeDamage" that can be attached to units which then gain this passive ability. This module can then be modifies by several parameters, such as damage but we cannot limit it to certain types of size. Naturally, having more control over the logic would give us more powerful and fine-grained solution but in the end, the things we can change about gameplay essentially boils down to "modding" existing logic. Everything b
  2. Obviously, Frost benefits much more from smaller maps because they are the only T1 which lacks a swift unit. Larger maps means that other players can get a more advantageous position and prevent Frost from building up momentum. Nerfs of Mortar and Phase Tower already resulted in Frost (and Nature) being noticeably more viable. This was best observed in the tournaments so far. In fact, Master Archer spam coupled with Wintertide repeatedly and reliably killed Dreadchargers in the Shadow matchup. For the Shadow player it is exceedingly difficult to avoid taking damage from MA + Wintertide to
  3. Thanks for letting us know. This doesn't have a high priority but it should be fixed regardless. Unfortunately, the latter isn't possible. Of course this card would deserve a bug, but I see problems arising in pvp if we improve this card. If we buff the card too much, it hard-counters Giantslayers in T3 and if we buff it too little, I'm afraid it will remain weak.
  4. Indeed, it is a common complaint that the building protection of frost splahes are too powerful. However, our focus in pvp lies at stabilizing all the T1 matchups at th emoment. Nature and Frost have some severe disadvantages that can be exploited. However, Frost and Nature also scale very well as the game goes on, so we really need to focus on the T1 before we should move on with substantial T2 changes.
  5. If I recall correctly, the dropped units of Corsair used to be able to capture orbs and monuments but this caused problems in pvp. Corsair is definitely lacking and should absolutely get a buff in the future. But it's not really a high priority to be fair.
  6. I'm excited in working together with the great team behind Skylords. I'm astonished at how far the game has made it so far and I hope it will get even better from now going forward. I welcome the challenges that await us and want to forge the game into the best shape it can be. Balancing is delicate and there are many conflicting visions about the game, but I want to have an ear for every voice among us Skylords. - Imaginary
  7. I think this sums up the current situation quite well. Absolutely, adjusting the difficulty would be a dream. However, to me this seems like a considerable effort and I don't think this would be a realistic change. Further, I agree on the notion of having a "rpve 9.5" as well as purely elemental maps. But I'm afraid making new factions is even more of a substantial effort.
  8. You are completely right. It was in the heat of the moment and I got carried away... I sincerely apologize to the people who are still doing all the maintenance, bugfixing and all other aspects that we don't notice from the outside. And it seems like there is actually some progress in making balancing changes for the better. Thank you @Devs
  9. I feel you. In pvp Fire/Shadow had the exact same problem with decks slots and it always felt like you were playing with only haf a deck. You miss out on powerful cards of pure faction and end up with a compromise, that forces you to patch your holes with additional cards. If I understand you correctly you want a mechanic that essentially gives you T3 monster cards for free. Given the slot pressure, that's not unreasonable. However, I don't think this is a "be-all end-all" change. With this ability, we first must have valid Twilight units to begin with. Realistically, the only T2 Twi
  10. I absolutely believe you. But how many people like you are there? Certainly not all of the current players. And for most people, this will be the third time they need to start over from zero. Can't say that sounds like a recipe for fun. And ultimately, there is no new experience to be had. By now, most people already had their fair share of nostalgia, there is little more to be gained from now on. And all of this only takes the veteran players into account. If the game wants to be a success, it needs to attract more players. Really, you need to keep new players as much as possible.
  11. Fair enough, it was made clear earlier that this decision was made by MrXLink. I am really concerned for the game and got passionate near the end. Yes, I'm sorry for that statement. Clearly not everybody shares this same opinion in the team. The huge problem is that balancing is an incremental and iterative process. Many cards have a straight forward fix. Balancing some cards causes a ripple effect that ends up taking extra time. And some factions such as Nature T1 need a full blown rework. Changing the numbers is fast but Balancing involves playtesting and testing out a new
  12. On top of this I don't think anybody who hasn't been playing in recent years doesn't even know the card stats anymore. And what is worse, we are losing valuable players. I have seen this with so many other games... the moment a game becomes public its lifecycle begins. And the game in its current state is not sustainable. The playable cards are the game's greatest assets but 80% of the cards are utterly useless because of bad internal and external balancing. I mean, do the devs seriously think that people feel "nostalgic" when they run into the same bugs that persisted since the game
  13. I see no valid reason why this shouldn't be done. From what I can tell, virtually nobody could tell a difference. This is a quality of life improvement that should have been there to begin with the launch of the game.
  14. I'm not sure how I can phrase myself more accurately without writing 3 times as much text. I don't think we are even disagreeing on many parts, but it comes down to understanding. However, given that nothing I say has any relevance in the grand scheme of things this is getting a bit too pointless for me. I think I just leave my points as they are. It's not like arguing changes anything. ... no offense, but I don't think you understand the concept of balancing and the difference between viable and optimal builds. I can't continue, this is pointless.
  15. I appreciate the time you have put into the reply. Now, I don't question the economics behind it I never claimed anything differently. I'm sure this has been well thought out and tested and I know from firsthand experience that the final parameters always require some fine-tuning. Likely, the parameters will still be adjusted after launch. So the power of the system actually comes from its maintainability. ... but can't you just make Boosters untradable? It's fair to critizie that this is a clunky system and it can be improved in a myriad of ways. But a reward system that is st
  • 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