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

      Donations are back   01/17/17

      If you want more information, you can go check this topic : http://forum.skylords.eu/index.php?/topic/2790-donations-are-back/
    • MrXLink

      Future of Skylords Reborn and intro to Ardent Peak   02/10/17

      Dear Skylords, Skyladies, Skythings We have received the awesome news that we have been allowed by EA themselves to continue our project and open up many future possibilities! For all information and stream VODs, please refer to this topic:   
    • MrXLink

      NOTE: Stricter (chat) Rule Enforcement   04/11/17

      Greetings Skylords, Skyladies and Skythings. There has been a lot of commotion going on lately regarding moderation and people calling us out for favouritism and improper judgement. @Kiwi, myself and the rest of the team have had enough of this and we are changing our approach and leniency towards the community drastically, and eliminate this pseudo-favouritism factor. Not that we ever had favourites to begin with, nor in our eyes treated regulars in any way advantageous over others, but we have received several complaints regarding this issue, as well as there have been quite some clashes in chatbox recently. Aside from that, we have decided to act much more strictly about members in the foreseeable future as well.  Considering people have deemed our judgement to be unfair, this will result in us warning the community even for minor infringements, and possibly introducing more temp bans. We feel this is sadly necessary in the current community's state and we're better off having an ordered community in which people see us treat everyone the same way, although in my opinion harshly, and in which members treat staff with respect. As long as the safety and trustworthiness of moderation on the website and discord server is at risk, we will have to make it well-known that we do exert judgement on everyone equally. So from now on, we will be warning people more frequently. This can be for minor insults, misbehaviour, memberating or what we consider as staff disrespect. We're done with the leniency we have once shown here. I'm sad it has to happen this way and of course we will do everything in our power to keep the chatbox a nice, welcoming place. Perhaps this means people will start thinking that we are being sensitive, especially when it comes down to staff disrespect and failure to abide by warnings, but we consider that to be the lesser evil compared to giving members the illusion that we don't consider every member as equal. Equality, understanding, respect and involvement in the community are the cornerstones of community management and moderation, as they also should be within the staff area. So from now on, we are going to monitor this more closely than before. I hope we can treat everyone with understanding and respect here, members and staff alike. We are confident that this approach won't damage the community as much as our currently projected moderation image, valid or not, drags our reliability down. We are all human, and we strive for excellence within community management, moderation and involvement with the community, and aim to execute measures to achieve these goals with respect, passion, and dedication as we did before. We are saddened to have our strictness come to this point. As much as the (chatbox) community has made sure that this became the way it is, we do encourage to take the liberty to speak freely and have a good time here on the forums, as long as said behaviour is in accordance to the forum rules.  Remember, you can find the forum rules over here:  It saddens us to head in this direction, but we feel it will be for the best. We sincerely hope you can all respect this decision, keep the hype up, and have a nice time enjoying the chatbox and its features within a reasonable and orderly manner. Sincerely, and on behalf of @Kiwi and the Skylords Reborn Staff,
      MrXLink, Community Manager


Alpha & Beta Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eirias

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Battleforge, Chess, Trivia, Fire Emblem, Materials Science, Creative Writing

Recent Profile Visitors

10497 profile views
  1. Yeah. Tome decks are always U2, and they can be added to any other deck. After the time period (2 weeks) it's removed any you get another random set of cards.
  2. As I see it: the pros of your system are the you can customize your deck, with the con of sometimes not being able to play at all. In my system: con of not being able to customize (which I think is a good thing, because it makes you get your own cards) with the pro of always being 100% competitive. I have no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that players with tome decks will play those with normal decks? There's not a faster way to kill tome (well, if it wasn't dead anyway). I don't think tome was ever competitive, or ever CAN be competitive, but it's a nice game mode to mess around in, and you can use the tome decks to supplement your normal cards.
  3. Well, no . . . this thread is about removing the upgrade system and why/why not to do so/alternate ideas. I'm pretty sure there was a thread about improving the PvP playerbase. As I recall we mostly decided that we needed to keep new players. That means a lower barrier to entry (which inspired this thread, iirc), a better tutorial system (there's probably a thread about that somewhere) and continue the interaction between good players and new players (which inspired my thread about renting cards).
  4. Ah, I see where I wasn't clear. No the deck would be random. So everyone will have a different faction and a different iteration of that faction at any given time. There will be equal odds of getting every faction (although maybe it might be a good idea to tweak those ratios . . . maybe to have smaller odds of getting the popular 3 and bandits?). You might get the same faction twice in a row, you might go 3 months without ever getting pure frost, etc. Perhaps we can make it so you get a single free, locked deck, and if you don't like it you can pay bfp to randomly get another one? That might be a good compromise.
  5. Again, nothing is being removed. This is just an additional option that new players can use if they don't have the cards to play their own deck. Also, I think the current leaning is that the cards will be slightly randomized, so people don't know what exactly is in the deck--just like normal. For instance, if I see a stonekin player, then I don't know if he's going to play t3 or not. Some composed decks will be the MaranV style of no t3, others will have varying t3. And again, if you don't like this deck, build your own. But it's at least an option for when you CAN"T build your own. Well, same as in the normal game. "Better" or "worse" are pretty subjective, because factions themselves are better and worse at certain things. Obviously every bandit deck will be worse than every lost souls deck (otherwise we're not trying to be 100% competitive with the lost souls deck) but bandits are still playable at a much higher level than a beginner will get to, before that beginner can afford to buy his own cards and upgrade them. I actually think these decks will broaden the metagame. BF has historically been dominated by lost souls, pure fire, and fire nature--those decks are both strong, and relatively easy to play. So most players play one of those 3 decks, and then they probably won't play something like pure nature, because it's a "waste" of bfp and upgrades that could be spent on a more "competitive" deck. BY giving players a random deck, each player now has something that's probably not one of those 3 decks, and thus broadens the metagame. Again, the composed decks will not all be the same (in my vision). For instance, every Pure Fire deck has very few options if it wants to be competitive. However, there are a few t1 and t3 cards that can be interchanged, and so there should be several versions of the pure fire deck--one with wrecker, one with scorched earth, etc. But I think it's impossible to make top 20 without maybe 15 of the "standard" pure fire cards--and if someone does it, then we can add his deck to the composed decks. Yes, it definitely lowers the barrier to PvP--at least as much as the ideas of removing upgrades/charges from cards. Battleforge is not RPS, and even the worst matchup (if I remember @RadicalX saying this) is pure fire vs pure frost, which is still only 40:60. Especially at lower ELO levels, deck levels hardly matter, as long as you have tools to deal with stuff. For instance, common noob-stomping strategies were to spam nomads and frost mages, because the P4F deck had no M units. I want to totally eliminate strategies such as that, because even if you just start for the first time, you'll have a complete and balanced t1 that at least has the tools to deal with those shenanigans. And assuming I get my way, at no point would I "know" what's in someone's composed deck any more than I would if they made one themselves. Obviously a pure fire player has fire dancers. Obviously stonekin has stone shards. But does the stonekin deck have crystal fiend, like MaranV, or does it have a larger t3? These are questions I would ask against composed decks and organic decks. In fact, I'm less likely to know what's in a particular opponent's composed deck, because he doesn't get to choose. For instance, anyone who's watched me play knows that I love my mortars. But maybe I want to play some pure fire, and can't afford the cards, but my random deck for the week is pure fire and it doesn't have mortar. I'll still play it because that's my only option to play pure fire (until I can afford my own cards), but my opponent would have no idea if mortar is in my deck. Hopefully I've clearly stated why I don't believe this system will infringe on either, and will actually help both of those. Well, the goal is NOT to have a static player base, but one which is constantly bringing in new players. Lowering the PvP entry barrier will go a long way toward keeping new players, imo. Not only do they get to compete with a fully competitive deck from the start, there's also the thrill of gambling (I wonder what deck I'll get this week!) and an easy way to coax players into trying multiple play styles before investing in the one they want. If we do get a static player base, players will still continue to use these locked decks because they can try out new factions. As opposed to just not having the cards, and trying to beat a lvl 120 deck with a lvl 40 deck with no essential rares or charges, and a t1 that gets stomped instantly by someone with U3? I exaggerate, because there's more to it than that, but I fear that new players might see it that way. The composed deck is just another option, which has no cost. I'm not sure you understand what I mean by "multiple iterations of the same faction." Otherwise I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up. If you'd like me to provide some examples, I'd be more than happy to do so (running low on time atm though). Yeah I read that. Still thinking about how I feel about it. I'm leaning toward that being a bad idea, because it makes diversifying much harder. Most players just have their single PvP deck, because they are best with that deck and PvE is a huge upgrade sink. I think anything that encourages players to play more diverse decks, especially non-meta ones, is a good thing. PvE requires a lot of different cards (if you want to speedrun at least) and I think an increasing upgrade system would really hurt that area of the game. Not a PvE player though, so I don't really know. In regard to your 60 card U3 "pool," I still feel like it's both too much and not enough at the same time. For instance, it's really impossible to play a deck at a competitive level without the proper t1. So if your 60 card pool is fire and frost, and you're missing scavenger and war eagle, then it's basically useless unless you already have those cards, in which case the pool is probably not helping you a ton anyway. But it's also really strong for PvE. But if you want to prove the viability of your rotation card pool, just run a simulation. Plug in all the viable PvP fire cards and randomly draw 30. See what percentage of the time you get eruption, scavenger, sunstrider, firesworn, and sunderer? IMO mortar is also needed, and thugs are pretty standard as well, but I think we can go with a 5 card absolute minimum. If you're missing any of those 5 cards (and we have the assumption that you don't have this deck already, so you can't replace them with your own cards), tell me what percentage of the time are you missing one of those? That's what percentage of the time the pool is useless for fully competitive play.
  6. First, I'm not talking about a tome deck. It bears some similarities, but this is completely different (and I believe there is a separate place for tome decks, and IMO nothing about the old tome system needs to change). 1. This is also NOT intended to be the the deck that most players use. The idea is that this deck gives you a nice option to try something that you don't otherwise have resources to play, and it allows new players to be immediately competitive until they can make their own deck (which should take <1 month to do, after which they have enough bfp and upgrades to build their own deck however they want). The locked aspect (hotkeys, and missing your "pet" card) combined with unreliability of getting the faction you're best at should be enough that most players will still build a main deck with their own cards, and just use this as a refresher. By no means does this diminish the deck building aspect of the game, except to give new players an idea of what a "standard" deck of a particular faction looks like. And I've never met anyone who likes to exactly copy something else without at least a minor modification. 2. I'm not sure what you mean by "meta-game." You seem to have the impression that players are forced to use these decks, or at least that they would rather use these decks than something they've made themselves. I hope players will instead view these decks as an optional crutch, but something that must be outgrown and used for novelty. While there are definitely "alternative" strategies that go against the meta, if players want to play those, they should build their own decks. Those decks usually have high downsides, which is why they aren't meta, and shouldn't be given as part of the "locked deck" system. 3. Yep, I agree with you on this one. As you see in the proposal, I made some efforts to try to mitigate this. But I think at the end of the day, multiaccounting won't be seriously exacerbated by this: To reliably get the deck a player wants to play would take a LOT of accounts--probably 10 or so, which is a lot of maintenance. If you have 10 accounts, most of them will probably have a lower PvP level than your actual skill. Who wants to consistently play worse players? The effort of creating all these accounts and getting them to a decent PvP level is much more work than simply staying on one account until you get enough to permanently buy the cards you need. Especially since you can't trade across your multiaccounts (or @fiki574 and @Lord NullPointer will catch you ), you'll basically be dividing your rewards by 10 and seriously hindering your progress toward creating the deck you actually want to play. Remember, even if all the cards in the meta deck (that you happened to get only this week) are exactly what you want in your deck, an organic deck at least has the advantage of choosing hotkeys. If you can afford to make an organic deck, there's no reason to use a composed deck of the same faction. 4. Removing charges....I recall a conversation we had a year or so ago. Basically, the idea was that the longer we delayed a player from 100%ing the game, the longer they would continue to play. Once someone has fulfilled all their goals (assuming they don't stay for PvP), the theory was that the player would leave. I think there's some weight to that, but that's another discussion. The point is simply that having charges allows players to play the game at a certain level (low charges) such that it tempts them to want to full charges, thus increasing the time it takes to collect everything. The compromises would be to have the cards be so that 4 copies of the card are essentially "automatically" given for less than the current price of 4 copies, which theoretically decreases the average time players will spend on BF, or the now "single, full" charge cost the same as the current 4 copies of the card, which makes the barrier to entry high, because it's all or nothing. Additionally, having uses for multiple versions of the same card means that players won't be disappointed when they get 2 of a kind, and it creates a greater demand for those cards, increasing trades. In regards do your version of tome: I'm not sure what niche that fills. Personally I'm happy with the tome system as it is: it's weird, not really competitive, and fun. And you can use those cards in other decks if you feel like it.
  7. @RadicalX if you want, we can do some challenge matches (I'm sure you'll win all of them, but maybe we can do some interesting things).
  8. Do you want to be added to the community channel?
  9. idk...I feel like that's still too easy to kill for 7 mana, and it doesn't do something super scary...
  10. For wrathgazer, what if it was just Battlecry: freeze and corrupt an enemy minion and Deathrattle: silence that minion? and maybe make it like a 6 mana 5/5? Harvester seems fine to me. For avatar of frost, I'd like to see something like a 6 mana 8/2 that renews divine shield every turn (yours and your opponents) I agree with thugs. 3 mana 2/2 isn't very good, imo. I think it might be more interesting (and truer to the game) to make it like an inverted version of wrathguard. So however much damage the thugs take, heals your hero (i.e. you can run them into a minion with 10 damage and heal your hero for 10 damage). Strikers also seem fine, although again I feel like the looter ability should more directly correspond to healing your hero (or maybe make it a druid card and make it add an empty mana crystal each time you kill an enemy?)
  11. @anonyme0273 cool! I haven't looked at all the cards yet, but some seem a bit underpowered (like, would anyone use eruption? There are plenty of 1 mana 2 damage spells, and 1 damage to the hero is not worth 1 mana)
  12. @ImperatorSK ah, okay. It's the overall power difference. That makes sense. Let's imagine I take well A and you come to contest B. But my troops are there, so I block the chokepoints (basically like I just took B anyway). So you grab a well, maybe at Y or maybe one of the side ones (not labeled). When is it safe for me to take a 2nd well? With/without mortar?
  13. @ImperatorSK Okay, I labeled them The close wells are A and X (close to main base) and the middle wells are B and Y. 1. If I take A and you try to rush me [I have well presence at A, you have +100 power] it is easy for me to defend your rush because of the chokepoint. 2. If I take B and you try to rush me [I have well presence at B, you have +100 power] you say this is easy to defend. Why? 3. If I take A and B, and you take Y and try to rush me [I have well presence at B, you have well presence at Y and +100 power], can you rush me? You say yes, but situation (2) and (3) seem mostly the same to me. 4. If I take A and B, and you take X and try to rush me [I have well presence at B, you have +100 power], can you rush me? Again, it seems like (2), (3), and (4) are the same. What is the difference?
  14. Why does it matter if he takes the close well or middle well? I think he can split just as well if you have 1 well (in the middle) and he has 1 wells, as if you have 2 wells and he has 1... What am I missing? If it is as you say, and having the middle well makes a large difference, is it safe to take the close well and middle well if he starts with the close well also?
  15. +1 Also earthshaker, because it's hilarious to watch my opponents' consternation as I go t4 and suddenly their base disappears