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... ×

RadicalX

Beta Tester
  • Content count

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RadicalX

  • Rank
    Slayer
  • Birthday January 10

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

8185 profile views
  1. RadicalX

    Cannot find Ranked PvP Games

    Alot of PvP players just stopped playing for multiple reasons. The reset didn't happen so far (alot of people don't want to farm for all cards and upgrades twice), potential balancing changes got postponed, unbalanced matchmaking because of large skill differences, very longs searching times etc. Right now there is 1 player with full activity when there used to be roughly 150. I think the best chance of rebuilding a solid PvP playerbase is proper promotion and work around it after the reset.
  2. RadicalX

    Let's Talk Shrine of Greed

    SoM used to work for all players in the team, but it got nerfed as it was overpowered in 2v2.
  3. RadicalX

    New BFP Earning System: Playtime and Reserves

    I think removing the daily boosters is good for the economy. It completely removed the reason of buying boosters in the game to regulate the total bfp amount, which is kind of important with no existing regulation at the market. I think I didn't buy a single booster during the entire CBT phase even with some people selling them for sub 400bfp. I also do like the general idea of removing the hard cap as some people seemed a little dissatisfied, when they did their daily quests and there was nothing left to do. The reserve system is a good solution to add some extra bfp for being dedicated without creating a massive income gap, but as Vovano already stated, it highly rewards people, that are able to play multiple times on each day and therefore shouldn't reward people too heavily. From my first impression the bfp/min numbers are looking a little bit too low, especially for players that don't play the game as frequently. The biggest gap in bfp income will occur through abusing the instable market prices and not the actual reward system. Removing the daily boosters is a good step into the right direction here, but doesn't remove the issue. People who don't use that income source for various reasons like lack of interest or experience will be much more affected by a lower daily bfp gain. Without knowing the actual data, I assume, that the percentage of players with a daily 90min+ playtime is really really low. I agree with Halis that this number looks really really high. And there are alot of people, that can't play the game every day leading to a high loss of potential bfp income without a method available to compensate. This leads me to the following proposal: -> Limiting daily boost time from 90mins to a lower number (45mins with 5bfp/min gains sound alot better for me, exact values might be discussed) -> Slightly lower the reserve refill rate to put less pressure onto players to play multiple times per day -> Let daily boosts stack up once or even twice, so people can compensate with high playing time at a single day for being unable to play on a daily base.
  4. RadicalX

    Change MS can balance?

    I don't see how this would help the PvP balance to be fully honest. As long as I didn't miss anything, there are 9 non swift melee creatures with (I exclude Sunderer here as it is faster than T1 ranged units already and not an essential part of the counter system as a siege unit). -> Thugs -> Wrecker -> Northguards -> Ice Guardian -> Imperials -> Spearmen -> Executor -> Wrathblades -> Skeleton Warriors Imperials are supposed to contest Scav & Dreadcharger, who also are melee creatures, a MS change would have no effect here. So 8 cards affected by the change are left here. Out of these 8 cards I'd argue that 4 cards are in an acceptable balancing state already (IG, Wrecker, Spearmen, Wrathblades), 2 cards too strong (Thugs, Skeleton Warriors) & 2 cards too weak (Northguards, Executor). I don't see a necessity for a global melee buff here tbh. I think it is possible to buff some of these cards to create a better matchup balance in general. Wrecker buffs can compensate for a Mortar nerf, IG buffs could help Frost to survive dazed fights and make a late compensation for the 2013 homesoil nerf, Wrathblade hp buffs could help Shadow to contest Thugs at high number fights etc. I would clearly prefer balancing changes aimed directly at critical cards rather than global changes.
  5. RadicalX

    How to make PvP more attractive (Discussion)

    Thanks for the comments! I edited the main post. I included the aspect of creating a larger playerbase for better matchmaking. @LagOps I agree with the Nature & Frost part, we probably need a larger set of changes with compensation nerfs to reach an acceptable balancing state for T1. The ideas I initially posted were aimed to support T1 vs T2 scenarios. I removed this part from the main post, because I think it will be better to discuss specific ideas within the actual balancing threads/discord. I don't think, that T1 is too ranged heavy though as ranged units mostly are more micro demanding and I feel a decent amount of melee units are in a decent state. The only thing that might need to be adressed at some point is the opressive single unit spam in some matchups (Frostmagespam, Fireswornspam, Dryadspam). @Kubik Thanks for your input here! If we get to apply changes to just one server at some point though, is there a chance of just testing balancing changes before the wipe? Even if nothing goes to the main server pre reset, testing several proposals can help alot to improve them. As this is quite time consuming, it would be great to start as early as possible. And do you know anything regarding the possibility of changing activity requirements?
  6. I am fully convinced, that PvP in Battleforge is a fantastic gamemode, but has certain flaws, that we might need to adress in order to make the game mode more attractive, especially for newer people. I want to make a longer post to get a discussion going about what we can do to get a more attractive gamemode and a larger playerbase, especially post reset. I'm following the current thread, where new player experience got discussed, which mainly focussed onto reward system, so I will move away from that in this thread, trying to adress some other problems and possible solutions. If you are looking for the discussion it is linked below. Balancing While there was alot of dicussion in the seperate balancing discord, we haven't seen any progress for a while, because access to the testserver has benn denied. In terms of PvP balancing we somewhat got to a consensus about what needs to be adressed, but it was hard to find a solution that really fixes the problem. We really need access to the testserver in order to make a progression, so we can implement changes, that make the majority of players happy What I'd like to talk about the most is the T1 diversity. With Nature and Frost being very underwhelming, alot of deck variety gets shut downed, especially for 1v1s. With only Shadow and Fire T1 being consistently viable at a high level, the amount of T1 matchups we can watch, consists of: Fire vs Fire - Shadow vs Fire - Shadow vs Shadow This is only a small part of what would be possible. If all T1's would achieve a "viable state" we could see 7 additional T1 matchups: Nature vs Nature -Nature vs Shadow -Nature vs Fire - Frost vs Frost - Frost vs Nature - Frost vs Shadow - Frost vs Fire In order to win with Frost or Nature you either have to play much better than your opponent or abuse the enemies inexperience with the matchup, which just is not a consistent win condition, especially if you want these factions to be played more frequently. With a static gamestate alot of people get frustrated about the current balancing situation. In addition to that, there are 3 T2s (pure Nature, stonekin, pure Frost), that completely get shut downed by this deficit. Their T2 strength is actually decent, but you just don't want to play that frost or nature T1. Back then I really advocated nerfs to mortar and Phasetower and I'm still fully supporting this idea. It is not possible to make healthy balancing changes around these two cards with their current stat cost efficiency and an almost nonexisting building counter system in the early stages of the game. That said, in order to fix the entire T1 issues, we need to adress more than just these two cards (but that would make a good first step). Nature is too weak at defending a +1 well situation. Even after taking a lead in initial fights, you won't be able to well up as split attacks are just destroying the faction, that can't fight on low unit number with these units being super expensive. Similar issues occur once you get into a T1 vs T2 situation with more bound power than your opponent. The dps/power against M and L units is just way to low in order to allow healthy defences. Frost got gutted through Homesoil getting nerfed and the faction can't fight on open ground effectively. You always need a power well close to your unit in order to contest. Against Mortar and Phasetower you can't even win these close well situations making things alot worse. Current proposals from the skylords balancing discord: Phasetower: Nerf idea 1: Decrease the damage by roughly 20% Nerf idea 2: Increase the cost per Tower by 10 Mortar: Nerf idea 1: Increased costs by roughly 15 power Nerf idea 2: Cooldown increase Nerf idea 3: Adding an initial cooldown to weaken the card against high tempo. These are different single nerf ideas and NOT a single combined proposal! Maps I've seen many players (especially newer ones) complaining about the map pool and also some people seem to dislike map X for various reasons. Just to give some examples. -> Lajesh has Walls close to the main base. Once you make a mistake and give one up to the opponent, he might win the game of that, especially in lower elos. -> Some people seem to dislke Yrmia for making some matchups very difficult to play -> Alot of people dislike Whazai as you can cliff onto the main base. While there is the issues of generated maps not being included to the ranked pool for some reason, I think it might be a good thing to just widen the map pool rather than reworking the existing PvP maps. I think we could work out some more balanced, fun and interactive maps to get less repetitive games. High ranked players could work around some balanced maps and we've got really good map creators, who could easily create those maps if they're willing to work with us here. After some testing you could consider which new maps might be introduced into the new ranked pool, which would give us some fresh, new content. What does a good map need? I think we need some different maps, that adress different kind of win conditions to give different decks and playstyles small advantages or disadvantages. Battleforge has very low RNG based components in the game, so games might feel repetitive on the same map, if you play the same matchup or player many times in a row. 1) The amount of Monuments I think having a range from 7-8 is the best number for orbs on 1v1 maps. 2) Orb placement I think T2 should be easily achiveable for both parties. Maps like Uro do have this poor condition, where Frost doesn't get to T2 without contesting it, which is really bad. T2 should be uncontestable, for T3 the case can be different. Lajesh for example has good orb placements in my opinion. If the map is played without offensive wall action, it can provide strategically interesting gameplay. 3) Well distance Needs to be carefully selected as there are alot of components, that make matchups either toxic or snowbally 4) Center of the map Can grant a strategic advantage due to shorter attack paths, but shouldn't be a win condition itself as some colors simply can't contest in these early fights. The center on Simai is a good example for a healthy center positioning. 5) Terrain/Cliffing Choke points are very important to increase the value of cc and AoE, while open space allows more micro management based fighting. In addition to that, important well & orb positions shouldn't be accessable by cliffs to avoid long range Sieges without proper counterplay. There are more important aspects, but this could be discussed internally with the people, that are willing to work on these kind of map creations. In the end there could be community votings, if a finished map should be included into the ranked PvP pool. Maybe there could be specific tournaments to promote and test these maps beforehand. Activity requirements I think they are straight up too high. 1 match per day is way too much for a game like Battleforge in order to stay relevant in the leaderboards. Right now alot of players are inactive and aren't motivated to play 30 ranked games with long que times, lower game quility compared to current sparring matches & the low comparability based off your current rank. There are probably about Suggestion: Lower the acitivy requirements to about 10 games per month. This makes the leaderboards alot more interesting and meaningful, because you can compare yourself to a much larger playerbase as base elo is the much more relevant stat. Since we are a rather small community I feel like this is important to keep people motivated after dropping inactive. Player Base We need a higher amount of players to enable fairer matchmaking. There are large skill gaps in and they lead to very snowball based games. Top 5 base elo beats Top 20 base elo with 90%+ wr, Top 20 base elo beats Top 50 base elo with 90%+ wr etc. leading to very frustrating game experiences between stomping and getting stomped. Games are very fast and you don't really get to enjoy the game, especially when you haven't experienced the great games of PvP, that happen upon facing an enemy on a similar skill level. Ideas for improvements: -> Increased game promotion to attract newer players -> Support the current Tournaments like the Stress Test Open Overall it would be nice to collect some ideas on what we could do, to give people a better experience while playing PvP, especially post reset. So let me know your ideas, so I can implement them into this thread. TL DR; -> Balancing changes are important: Getting a testserver to evaluate proposals would be huge to make progress -> Adding more maps would be nice, maybe someone of the community map creators could work with PvP players on this -> Activity requirements are too high, especially when there is a rather low ranked participation -> We need to build up a solid player base after the reset (attract new players, keep the current ones) Best regards, RadicalX
  7. RadicalX

    PvP Balance

    To give you a short answer: Yes there is an ongoing discussion about balancing. There is a separate discord server for that, where community representitives can work together to get proposals done (finished ones are already in the forums). That said, we don't have the permission to get proposed changes onto a test server yet. As critical cards like Phasetower or Mortar for instance might need iteration based balancing, we have to wait up until we can test certain changes to get to a consensus about what is good for the game, so these changes can be useful in the end.
  8. The players at the top of bfp incomes do not reflect the efficiency of the quest system at all, because they do not generate their main income through quests. They abuse the inconsistent trading values at the market. I would clearly agree, that the current quest system needs improvement. A higher questdiversity (I guess we get this after reset) and a removal of the hard cap should be really beneficial.
  9. Great map! Looking forward to the competition. Do you have any plans on how to make the replays public in the end? If you are interested I could record and upload the winner replays to youtube either on my or the skylords community channel. I've got just one question regarding the rules. Why aren't 2 replays per player allowed for the competition (1speedrun + 1style run)?
  10. I agree, that you want to avoid having very experienced players going up against the new ones. They are way to good at snowballing games, especically after gathering so much experience over the years. These kind of stomps are really frustrating. I think a good idea to bring more players into PvP are beginner friendly events. Toggys Rookie Tournaments are a nice example with a solid amount of participants and there were a good amount of games, where the outcome was alot less predictable. If these kind of Events get promoted via ingame newsfeed, it might grant the opportunity to lower the entrance barrier.
  11. RadicalX

    Balance Proposal: Emberstrike

    This was discussed in the discord channel too. I think it is a reasonable idea, but impossible to implement for now.
  12. Winterwitch • Card Changes Hp: 1350 -> 1700 Shield value: 1500 -> 2000 Ability power costs: 100 -> 65 Winterwitch lacks power that makes her worthy for a T4 card that demands 3 Frost orbs. The biggest current issues we see with this card are the low survivability in a T4 environment & the nonexistent synergy with AoE damage reductions. Cards like Ward of the North or Revenge have no effect onto iceshields. Therefore we want to increase her supportive strengh. Chosen card changes: The hp buff mainly is supposed to increase her survivability to get a proper positioning and good shield area placement. Regarding her ability a shield increase of 500 seems to be a low amount, but as Winterwitch provides up to 15 shields therefore it stacks up. An ability cost reduction is supposed to help players that have no access to voidmanipulation, which isn't guaranteed in a triple Frost deck.
  13. Emberstrike • Card Changes Ability dmg 1100(1650max) -> 1300 (3250max) Passive dmg: 500(750max) -> 900 (2700max) There is a general issue with current L units in T4. They have several downsides to XL units such as scaling limitations through unit & charge limit, L knockback, higher vulnerability vs burst, lower movement speed, damage loss as only a limited amount of creatures are able to attack one target (melee problem only) or the inability to attack air units (melee only). There is almost nothing that makes up for these downsides leaving L T4 units mostly behid. The AOE increase for Emberstrike is supposed to open up a somewhat unique playstyle by using their ability more frequently in order to clear big camps alot quicker than before. In addition to that you should be able to spawn them alot more aggressively into fights with a massively increased passive. I might extend this thread and add some more information in about 2 weeks (I'm short on time for now). Best regards RadicalX
  14. RadicalX

    Shadow Mage spam + Green Nether Warp counterplay?

    To give you an answer to some of your questions and some general information: -> The buff gets applied to all units near the entrance zone, the exit zone does not affect units at all -> There are 2 effects applied by nether warp: Port immunity & the specific healing or slow effect dependend on affinity -> There is an instant healing tic once the buff gets applied which is the main reason for this interaction -> The buff refreshes every second always applying this instant tic which doubles the healing speed -> The max healing per target gets increased from 200 to 960. Intended healing: Instant starting tick + 4 ticks per 2 seconds (+200 hp over 8 seconds) Maximum healing: 20 starting ticks (1 per second) + 4 ticks per 2s (+960 hp over 28 seconds) The speed is twice as fast, but due to the constant refreshes the duration also gets extended by 20 seconds making the healing even more valuable. -> Cards like Incredible Mo or Green dryad suppress the port immunity, but healing is not affected by this -> Card descriptions are bad in general. There are so many missing information like damage caps for Shadow spells (even Nether Warp has an unmentioned healing cap). I could probably name more than 100 "Features" in this game that do have an effect onto the overall gameplay. About the balancing question: In in the current high elo environment a change is not necessary. Lyrish Nasty, Amii Phantom spam, War Eagle scream, Lavafield, Razorshard/Stonetempest are sufficient answers to this specific combo. Pure Nature ends up getting destroyed, but that is more due to the awful T1 conditions. You always lose on tempo unless the enemy makes a mistake early on and Magespam is just really good at snowballing leads. The stategy is easy to use, very oppressive and unfun to play against though, so from a mid to low elo standpoint a change could be reasonable.
  15. RadicalX

    Balance changes Balance changes to game

    I think a set of balancing changes would be able to influence both PvP and PvE in a positive way. PvE casual: From my perspective the casual player benefits from changes because it would open up more variety and playable decks. Splash decks are able to do everything (and even more) compared to pure and faction based decks making them underwhelming to play. Also by having all core advantages that factions provide (Crowd Control, Void Manipulation, Charge Manipulation, damage reductions and healing combined with a mobile high dps unit composition) you don't have to play as a team in order to suceed. I think every faction should get more unique strengths. In addition to that some dead abilities could be fixed by small changes to make them more useful and units more interactive. Right now you usually lose tempo and dps in most fights as abilities are expensive with a high cast time and low to medium effects. PvE Speedrunning: I think the only negative aspect regarding balaning would be within the PvE speedrun setting. They want to have a fair competition and with constant changes around cards this aspect is not given anymore for cPvE alltime records. Certain nerfs may weaken current strategies and certain buffs may open up new superior ones. By looking at the games history I think nerfs regarding PvE were justified and made the game a little bit healthier overall. Lost Spirit Ship, Second Chance, FoF+ embalmer + Splicer void manipulation fixes were good first steps. Overall I think some changes do make speedrunning more interesting as it forces people to create new strategies and not play current ones to perfection to get extra seconds. I'd clearly like to see the new T4 strategies without Batariel & LSS being super dominant. That may just be my opinion though. In the case where changes are applied they should be brought up in a way that allows speedrunners to have a fair competition: -> If changes are applied please do it at the start of the month to allow a fair competition. If there is some big nerf applied in the middle of a month records aren't comparable anymore. PvP I think there is a crystal clear consenous, that PvP players want changes. But we need to be very cautious about who is in charge of those changes. I don't think being at the top of the ladder directly qualifies a person to work on healthy balancing ideas. I've seen very questionable balancing ideas from people, that are reasonably high in the ladder. Majority votes also lead to some terrible decisions by EA back then. Alot of things need to be discussed in order to find the correct cards that need to be changed and also find healthy changes. I think the forum is the best place to discuss changes to have an open discussion due to better visibility of older posts.
×

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.