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... ×

indubitablement

Member
  • Content count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Kybo liked a post in a topic by indubitablement in Balance proposal: Amii Monument   
    I like amii getting nerf, but I wish you did more. Look how superior amii is on nightmare's end for example.

    You're player 1 and just finished taking over the bottom base to secure t3 which you now have to defend along with your t1. After that fight, your t2 army is in pretty bad shape. You have two options to get t4:
    1: Make a t3 army and take over the top base. Build your t4 monument and defend it. T3 army cost 500-800 power with spells (90% refunded) and 2-3 deck slots. Monument is 300 power. Defence is 300-500 binded power. Totaling about 800 lost power, 2 deck slots and a whole lot of time.
    2: Put down amii monument. Totaling 325 binded power, 1 deck slot and 30 seconds.
    Now I know there are many way to do this map better. You could take your teammate's t2 and go straight to t4, you could defend your monument and the power shrine with one defence, etc. The example above is what an average joe would do.
    I don't think amii should cost 800 power. Maybe it should do something else entirely. An idea I saw on discord was to make amii t4 and cheaper, so it could be used as a 5th orb and orb swapping, opening many new possibilities.
  2. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by RadicalX in Skylords Reborn Championship (11.07)   
    Hello Skylords and Skyladies! Today I want to announce the next big Battleforge PvP Tournament!
    Who is going to be the new Master of the Forge to show the world, that he mastered his decks and strategies to beat them all for fame, glory and obviously tons of bfp? Time to find out! 
     
     
    Who can participate?
    Everyone! I will be thankful for every single participant! Even if you're not that confident at reaching grand finals to get a shot for winning the whole thing, there will be lots of opportunities to win prices and I would like to stream and review as many games as possiblle through all skillbrackets! It would be great to see a large variety of decks and playstyles! 
    SIGN UP TO THE TOURNAMENT: https://challonge.com/tournaments/signup/aUNkP0atnG#/signup/205xjl4u7pp
    If you end up having problems with the registration talk to me! 
     
    Format
    It will be a 1vs1 Double Elimination best of 3 tournament, the grand final will be best of 5 (one match, no reset). Winner and losers finals will be all played on stream (the basic Toggy-format).
     
    Prize Pool 
    1st place: 5000 Bfp + Promo Construct
    2nd place: 3000 Bfp + Wheel of Gifts
    3rd place: 2000 Bfp + Juggernaut
    4th place: 1500 Bfp
    Every other participant, that shows up and plays his matches gets 1 Booster!! You don't have to reach top 4 to win something in this tournament!
     
    Awards
    There will be special awards for special and entertaining plays during the tournament. Everyone, who sends me the replays at the end of the tournament gets a shot at winning!! 
     
    -> Best match of the Tournament: By that I mean the closest and most instense games! Perfect mechanical execution isn't necessary to win this award, it just has to be super exciting! The 3 best games will be rewarded with 500bfp for each player who took place in one of the matches. 
    -> Creative Player Award: Make a creative deck or non meta strategy work in this tournament! The 3 most impressive strategies will be rewarded with 500bfp each. 
    -> There will be even more hidden awards like the Toggy Award, so stay tuned! In total I will use up more than 5.000 bfp (I might even increase that number) to reward special plays and matches regardless on how high you placed in the tournament. UPDATE: We got another 10.000bfp donation for awards!
     
    To be considered for the award ceremony you have to send me your replays! You can upload them in this forum thread or send them to me via discord (RadicalX#0952)! Please consider, that I had to change my discord account, so don't send your replays to the old one! I want to upload as many tournament replays on my youtube channel as possible!
     
    When?
    On 11.07.20 starting at 2pm CEST (Berlin time), the stream will start about 30 minutes in advance! 
     
    How to watch?
    There will be a livestream during the tournament: https://www.twitch.tv/radicalx5 
    I also want to cast alot of replays on my youtube channel and also announce the award winners: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3rZG7pzo3GYO0wR3Jx9F7w
    Will be thankful for every viewer! 
     
    Rules 
    Disconnection during a game results in a default loss. If both sides agree it is possible to have a remake!
    Not showing up to your match within 15 minutes results in a default loss. The plan is to play a round of matches every ~30 mins.
    After your match go to Challonge and insert the result. That is done by clicking on your match and selecting the winner/stats. The brackets will be updated automatically.
    The Map Pool is: Haladur, Simai, Wazhai, Elyon, Lajesh, Yrmia and Uro (same pool as in ranked duel). The first match of the round will be played on Haladur, then it is losers choice. Second round will start with Simai, third one... you get the drill.
    The brackets for the tournament will be shuffled before the tournament starts.
    Please save your replays by renaming them after you game or selecting the safe all replays option and send them to me unless your game were played on stream! 
    Internal rules like "no wall agreements" have to be agreed on in text form to be an official ruling and if any of those internal agreements are violated it counts as a default loss
    No insulting! 
    BANNED CARDS: CURSE WELL; MORTAR TOWER; PHASETOWER - using one of these cards results in a default loss. If both sides agree it is possible to have a remake! 
     
     
     
     
    Reply in this thread, if you have any questions! Big shoutouts to Yuah & MephistoRoss for donating huge amounts of bfp to make this large price pool possible! 
    Quick reminder, that we have a discord tutoring server. If anyone wants to prepare for the tourney, feel free to join here: https://discord.gg/dZzKexQ
    All I can do at this point is quoting Toggy: "I would love to see this community grow again and the competitive scene develop aswell. Because BF is fun!" 
    Looking forward to a great tournament!  
     
    Best regards,
    RadicalX 
  3. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by AskForName1 in Offensive Names   
    Very offensive name with swear words in it. The admins are well aware of this sky lord but are refusing to address the situation....

  4. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by AskForName1 in My Name   
    So my name used to be BigTits but it got changed because its going against community guidelines, But "TITS" isn't even a real word. BUT you got Dj_BlyatMan over here who didn't get his name changed. BLYAT is a Russian SWEAR WORD. AND HE DIDNT GET HIS NAME CHANGED AND ITS A SWEAR WORD. BUT MY NAME GETS CHANGED AND ITS NOT EVEN A REAL WORD?!?!?!?
  5. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by Treim in nerf amii monument   
    That comes down to people not understanding HOW to break maps with that card.
    There is a reason why Amii Monument is used for basically every single speedrun record except 2 and 4 player rPvE 10 and Siege of Hope
    There is literally ways to abuse the card to allow for some insane strategy that speeds up the game by so much. The card is not only broken in solo play but allows you to play around a massive shortcut on all of those maps. And sure some are more obvious and insane than others - Soultree <-> Encounters with Twilight. On most of those maps Amii Monument is the card that even allows you to play that strategy: Convoy, Slavemaster, PtD, Nightmares Shard, Nightmares End, King of the Giants, Bad Harvest, Soultree, Oracle, Ocean, Insane God, Dwarven Riddle, Mo, Crusade Treasure Fleet, Behind Enemy Lines. Probably missed a couple as well.
    In Nightmares Shard one player even gives up his last monument just so the other guy can use Amii Monument. Now tell me that doesn't change the way you play the game. Amii Monument is the single most used card across all speedrun strategies with maybe the exception of regrowth and that is because it is so often a massive shortcut if you know how to abuse it. Just because most players don't know how to abuse it, doesn't mean its not worth fixing. If there is a bug in your game but 99% of players dont know how to abuse it, doesn't mean you just leave it be. And Amii Monument basically is just that.
    Otherwise we probably just leave all PvE cards as is and only balance PvP relevant cards.

    it's not like we even argue Amii Monument is the only stupid card there is - because there is a couple more - just none to the insane level, that they literally change how you can play most maps.
    LSS; Shadow Phoenix, Shrine of War, Furnace of Flesh + CM -the list goes on. This thread however was about Amii Monument.
  6. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by Toggy in The Stress Test Open#12! 20.10.19   
    Hello fellow Skylords!
    After a long Summbreak it is time to step into the arena again and prove your battle prowess to all the fellow skylords! Who will win the Stress Test Open#12?
     
    Format?
    It will be a 1vs1 Double Elimination best of 3 tournament, the grand final will be best of 5 (one match, no reset). Winner and losers finals will be all played on stream.
     
    Prize Pool! (The more people participate, the bigger it will get)
    1st place  - 1000 BFP + Netherwarp (g)
    2nd place - 750 BFP + Colossus
    3rd place - 500 BFP + Lost Spirit Ship
    4th place - 300 BFP + Juggernaut
    5th-last place - 100 BFP
     
     
    When?
    On 20.10.19  starting on 4pm CEST(Berlin time), the stream will start about 30 minutes in advance.
     
    Where?
    In the Sparring grounds, get the community observer maps to enable observers/streaming.
    =>LINK<=
    Extract the folder to Documents/Battleforge/
    Important: Due to problems with other observer versions of these maps please clear you mapfolder before extracting the observermaps.
     
    Organisation?
    The tournament brackets will be on Challonge, so register and join the tournament there. Please use your in game account name to make communication and finding your enemy easier.
    =>LINK TO CHALLONGE<=
    The streaming channel that will be covering the tournament is DasToggy on twitch.tv .
    In case of problems contact me or one of my mods via Discord or Battleforge.
    A list of tournament mods and organizers: DasToggy, Karlmann
     
    Rules!
    -No bugabuse, cheating or insulting the other players. Penalties may vary from a warning to default loss.
    -Disconnection during a game results in a default loss. If both sides agree it is possible to have a remake.
    -Not showing up to your match with after 15 minutes results in a default loss. The plan is to play a round of matches every ~30 mins.
    -After your match go to Challonge and insert the result. That is done by clicking on your match and selecting the winner/stats . The brackets will be updated automatically.
    -The Map Pool is: Haladur, Simai, Wazhai, Elyon, Lajesh and Uro (same pool as in ranked duel). The first match of the round will be played on Haladur, then it is losers choice. Second round will start with Simai, third one... you get the drill.
    -The brackets for the tournament will be shuffled before the tournament starts.
    -As an experiment, no T1 Towers will be allowed in this tournament (Mortar, Phase, Ice shield, Primal Defender). Other supportive stuctures (like Ice barrier) are free to use.
     
     
    Reply in this thread if you have questions, I will check it out later.
    I would love to see this community grow again and the competitive scene develop aswell.
     
    Best regards,
    DasToggy
  7. BurningWorld liked a post in a topic by indubitablement in I baked a pizza. :D   
    nice
  8. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by Dion in Balance proposal: Amii Monument   
    Majority of the speed run uses amii, Not once have i not seen amii not being used in the majority of the video of speed run. If all the above you said was valid the player would reconsidered a bit on it.
    for pvp this is not an issue, i never saw it yet, still looking.
    for pve there are alot of things.. one the speedrunner needs it.. almost everysingle one of them needs it. [take for example soultree,which with it you can jsut skip last camp and win the game]
    for regular pve, it depends on what the player find fun. im sure the one using it is having a blast. but there are other technicalities, 
    1. it makes the game extremely easy but i guess that what people want.
    2. i have gotten in a run in dwarf riddle with 2 style.  
         - one the player uses amii and doesnt help the other get the orb, even though the player who doesnt get the orb helped him get his.. thus he sits waiting forever defending in base while he finish the game
       - two the player who got the amii pushes the game to fast even for the other side to prepare a defense since they are slower than the amii guy...
     
    both occasion always depends on the player....
     
    sadly as i said above the only nerf they can possibly hit is the cost.. if not for that,than i guess just leave it alone and let the game run it's course. 
     
    EDIT
    I RETRACT MY COMMENT , could careless now for the sake of anything, im done defending it, bunch of matches of people forcing amii in
     
    https://ibb.co/Gt57Z5L
    https://ibb.co/cJdmY2s
    not even enough time to prepare a defense, Nerf it, couldnt care the how high the cost, couldn't care if you take it out of the game, sorry but dont care anymore. nerf it
  9. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by Eirias in The New Player Experience (Observations & Suggestions)   
    Howdy!
     
    As some of you may or may not know, I have recently gotten my wife to play BattleForge with me. So far she's sticking to rPvE and she's having a lot of fun refining and mastering decks.
     
    Since I'm observing the NPE first-hand, I thought I could offer a few suggestions and points.
    1. She was not interested in the game until she started getting boosters. Specifically, when she got soulshatter in like her 7th booster. Until then, I had to convince her to play.
    SUGGESTION: implement rewards earlier-on. I know we're trying to prevent multi-accounting, but imo we could take a slower approach. For example, we can keep the 2.5 hour requirement to get boosters, but allow bfp daily quests to start at hour 0 and provide specific cards earlier-on via achievements. We could give an extra copy of MA, SS, forsaken, and WW for the first time a player tries campaign, pvp, rpve, and upgrades something. If possible, I'd like an achievement for players to choose a rare card (or some good uncommons with similar price) to add to their deck. These cards should be powerful and feel good to play: I'd recommend soulshatter, mind control, inferno/earthshaker, ice tornado. Players should get to choose which 1 of the 4 cards they get after they do something like buy a card on the AH.
    I really want to emphasize this feeling of uniqueness. I think I was lucky that my wife became interested in the game and it was because she got a nice "feel good" card early on and decided to start building her deck around it. 
     
    2. She has not been interested in trying new game modes like campaign and pvp.
    SUGGESTION: First, more achievements. For instance, that "feel good" free card could happen when you clear 5 campaign maps for the first time. I think there should be a general increase in achievements to boost players trying different aspects of the game at least once.
    Second, seasons. I don't have a better term for this. Basically a week/monthy quest for all players to play a certain map/game mode. New players are not encouraged to play pvp because basically everyone who plays regularly is an expert. When there's 4 people in the queue and they're all in the top 20, a new player is not encouraged to join. I think there should be "seasons" (either 1 day per week or 1 week per month) where a particular 4 player map or pvp is given emphasis. So for instance, on Saturdays  (maybe even a 2-hour block on Saturday) there will be a standing PvP quest where players get an extra large bonus (maybe a full booster) for playing PvP. This would encourage all the new players to enter the queue at once, and most would play another new player.
     
    TL;DR
    Create more specific achievements with useful cards as rewards (probably a choice of 4 cards so one doesn't get its price reduced) and have time blocks where specific game modes are promoted, especially pvp as a way for new players to feel like they are playing other new players instead of a pro.
     
  10. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by synthc in Synthc's Balance Proposal   
    I've always been a strong proponent for rebalancing the game before release, and now that Kubik seems to be behind the idea and there is community support for it I've decided to start working on my balance proposal.
    First a little bit about me and whether you can trust me with regard to game balance: 
    I was very active in Battleforge from 2009 to 2011, and I played on and off from 2012 until the shutdown.  I've played on all of the (non-beta) balance patches and have watched the game's balance change and improve over the years. I've played over 3000 PvP matches in total. In 2011 I was ranked #1 for several weeks in 1v1 with my shadow/frost deck and a couple months later I held the #1 rank for a couple of weeks with my pure nature deck.  This was during a time when Obesity, DeChris, MaranV, and Freemka were active. I achieved a #1 2v2 rank with two partners (IdleAltruism and Tyderianek) using nature/frost, pure nature, and pure fire decks. I owned every card with the exception of a few PvE cards and played every deck extensively except pure frost.  My main decks were pure nature, shadow/frost, nature/frost, pure shadow, and pure fire. I've played my share of PvE, as you had to back in the days before battle tokens since that was the only way to upgrade cards.  I could consistently beat rPvE level 10. I make strategy games as a hobby and have studied and deconstructed the balance design of Battleforge (as well as with other card games and RTS) to help me balance my own games. Some thoughts on the rebalancing process:
    Focus on what's being said, not on who's saying it - analyze and criticize ideas, not people.  Let's not make this a popularity contest. Being good at the game doesn't necessarily mean you really understand the game.  I've seen really good players make some really silly balance suggestions over the years.  That said, high level players tend to have a much better understanding of the game's nuances. Being bad at the game doesn't mean your input isn't be valuable.  It's possible to have a good understanding of game balance and the math behind it without having the skill or time to play at a high level (case in point, most game developers). This balance proposal will consist of two stages: 
    Stage 1 involves solving major problems that currently exist in the game's balance; specifically bad matchups, overpowered cards, and bandits being weak overall.  This stage doesn't involve that many changes, but a lot of reworks are necessary in order to fix these problems which unfortunately means that these changes are more complicated to implement.
    Stage 2 involves buffing and reworking weak/useless cards in order to increase the pool of useful cards and thereby increase choice and card diversity.  This involves a large list of (mostly) simple changes.
    Note:
    Orbs will be denoted by color:
    P = Purple (shadow) R = Red (fire) G = Green (nature) B = Blue (frost) N = Neutral (any element) All changes are relative to a card's U3 stats.
    Stage 1:  Solving Problems
    Note to the devs: I realize that many of these changes are more involved than just changing a few numbers, but more complicated changes really are necessary to fix the few egregious problems that still remain in the game.  With the exception of Amii Monument (which I know is a longshot), I've used only mechanics and abilities that currently exist in the game.  My hope is that you can find ways to use certain cards as templates (or perhaps copy/paste data) with which to implement these changes.  Please let me know what currently is and isn't possible so that we can find alternative or compromises.
    Phase Tower
    The Problem:  Phase tower is simply too versatile.  It functions very well as a defensive tower, however its ability to be used for offense or to be moved to defend another location removes most of the counterplay against towers, which involves attacking another location while your opponent binds power in the towers.
    The Solution:  There are perhaps some more elegant ways to rework this card, but I think a simple solution will work just fine here.  We can simply increase the card's cost in order to increase the amount of power it binds and reduce its overall cost effectiveness.  Reducing the range by 5m also eliminates a design oversight that allows it to outrange things like Mark of the Keeper.
    Decrease attack range by 5m. Increase cost by 10. Treespirit (Green)
    The Problem:  Treespirit is really the last remaining blatantly OP card in PvP.  It's stats are simply too high for its cost and the fact that it's an M counter creates massive problems for most T1 colors due to hurricane limiting the usage of S units.
    The Solution:  By reworking the card, we can both bring down its overall power level while also re-purposing it to fill some roles that nature T1 really needs filled.  By changing the green affinity to red and giving it siege, we give nature a good counter to towers (especially phase tower) and a way to rush down instant T2 (currently many decks can rush T2 with impunity vs nature).  A reduction to the unit's HP brings its stats down to be more in line with its cost.
    Change affinity to red. Change damage type from M to special. Change ability “Gifted Thorns” to “Infused Thorns”: Every 10 seconds, unit fires thorns in all directions that deal 120 damage to enemies within a 35m radius around it, up to 180 in total. Add ability “Siege”: Deals 100% more damage against structures. Reduce HP from 880 to 670. Increase (melee) damage from 400 to 500. Treespirit (Purple)
    By increasing the shadow affinity's max AoE damage while decreasing its single target damage (something that would normally be a nerf since it makes it only effective vs spam) and giving it a damage bonus vs humans, we can mitigate its weakness to ice barriers and give nature a good tool to help them deal with frost mage spam.  The total damage the unit can deal is reduced, however the amount of damage that will end up hitting frost mages instead of ice barriers is significantly increased (unless the frost player spams ice barriers, in which case the nature player can just retreat and re-engage in another location).  The fact that the poison damage doesn't stack also deincentivizes spamming just treespirits.
    Change damage type from M to special. Change ability “Tainted Thorns”: Every 10 seconds, unit fires thorns in all directions that deal 20 damage to enemies within a 35m radius around it, up to 120 in total (damage, including poison, hits up to 6 targets). The thorns are extremely toxic poisoning every enemy they come in touch with. The affected entity will then take 10 damage every second for 5 seconds. Add ability “Tainted Fury”: Deals 50% more damage against humans. Reduce HP from 880 to 670. Increase (melee) damage from 400 to 500. Nox Trooper
    The Problem:  Nox Trooper is fine as it is, but making purple treespirit do 50% more damage to humans breaks the otherwise good shadow vs nature balance.
    The Solution:  The solution is to change the Nox Trooper's type.
    Change type from human to undead. Firedancer
    The Problem:  The ability to shoot over cliffs and walls makes Firedancer far too difficult to deal with and gives pure fire an unfair advantage on certain maps.
    The Solution:  While the ideal solution would involve checking whether the firedancer is shooting over a cliff or a wall, I'm pretty sure there's no easy way to implement this check (correct me if I'm wrong).  So alternatively, we can use a mechanic that already exists with Mortar Tower and make it so that the firedancer can only do full damage if there is a friendly unit or building near the target. 
    A normal pure fire attack usually has enforcers, scythe fiends, or a rallying banner near the base that's being assaulted, so this change won't affect normal pure fire play very much.  Cheesing with cliffs and walls, on the other hand, will become much harder to pull off and can be countered by killing any units near the building that's being attacked.
    This change makes firedancer about as effective as firestalker when using its regular attack.  When using it's new ability, it does a little more damage than the old firedancer.  Unit cost has been reduced slightly to compensate for the extra micro that will be needed to use it effectively and the fact that its ability can be interrupted once any nearby enemy forces have been destroyed.  Changing the damage type to S and removing the (mostly detrimental) buggy knockback gives pure fire a semi-decent alternative S counter.
    Reduce cost to 60. Reduce attack damage from 100 to 70. Increase attack speed from once every 4 seconds to once every 3 seconds. Remove siege. Change damage type from special to S. Remove S knockback. Add ability “Bombard”: Activate to target an enemy structure. While attacking the targeted structure, this unit attacks three times as quickly (every second). Lasts until interrupted. Can only be used if there is a friendly unit or building near the target. (No cooldown). Magma Hurler
    The Problem:  Pure fire has no good way to deal with the War Eagle + Skyelf Templar combo and also struggles against other L threats.
    The Solution:  Make Magma Hurler a tier 2 pure fire unit.  This gives pure fire a reliable L counter that can also hit air units.  Magma Hurler at tier 3 doesn't fulfill its role very well since archers are generally not very useful at tier 3 (siege units and units that can quickly deal with threats are much preferred).
    Change orb requirements from NNR to RR. Increase cost to 150. Remove M knockback. Bandit Sorceress (Blue)
    The Problem:  Bandits have little to no defensive capabilities, which makes them helpless against most attacks.
    The Solution:  Repurpose Bandit Sorceress to make her a purely defensive unit that can protect or repair power wells and monuments.
    Increase cost to 80. Increase attack damage from 48 to 60. Increase HP from 520 to 660. Can now enter any friendly building, including power wells and monuments. Change “Blessed Installation”: Activate to send the unit into a friendly building. While inside the building, the unit will reduce all damage done to the building by 75%. Lasts for 30 seconds, after which the unit will exit the building with her life points restored and all buffs and debuffs removed. Costs 15. Bandit Sorceress (Red)
    Change affinity to green. Increase cost to 80. Increase attack damage from 48 to 60. Increase HP from 520 to 660. Can now enter any friendly building, including power wells and monuments. Change “Infused Installation” to “Gifted Installation”: Activate to send the unit into a friendly building. While inside the building, the unit will cause the building to regenerate 40 life points every second. Lasts for 30 seconds, after which the unit will exit the building with her life points restored and all buffs and debuffs removed. Costs 15. Rioter's Retreat (Blue)
    The Problem:  Same as above, bandits lack defensive options.
    The Solution:  Make Rioter's Retreat a better defensive tower by giving it S and M knockback and allowing it to protect or repair buildings.
    Reduce attack speed to once every 5 seconds. Add small and medium knockback. Change “Blessed Retreat”: Friendly units and buildings within a 25m radius around the tower take 20% less damage. Rioter's Retreat (Green)
    Reduce attack speed to once every 5 seconds. Add small and medium knockback. Change “Gifted Retreat”: Friendly units and buildings within a 25m radius around the tower regenerate 15 life points every second. Windhunter (both affinities)
    The Problem:  Windhunter's ability makes it eruption fodder.
    The Solution:  Reduce self-damage.
    Reduce Gifted/Tainted Sobering self damage from 300 to 250. Icefang Raptor (both affinities)
    The Problem:  While frost's lack of swift units is a deliberate design choice, it can be unfair on certain maps where frost sometimes can't even reach their first power well before the opponent blocks it.
    The Solution:  Give frost a semi-swift unit by making Icefang Raptor tier 1.  This should help frost to secure their first power wells and should also help them deal with mortar tower.
    Change orb requirements from NB to B. Reduce damage from 820 to 650. Reduce HP from 895 to 715. Timeless One
    The Problem:  Timeless One is cheap enough to be very spammable, allowing players to easily lock down any number of locations.
    The Solution:  Increasing the cost of the unit and removing the ability cost forces players to both spend more power immediately for the first freeze (80, up from 65) and also forces them to bind more power into combat-weak units, making spamming Timeless Ones hurt a lot more.  This change will reward making fewer Timeless Ones and keeping them alive so that they can use their now free ability many times.
    Increase cost to 80. Decrease ability cost to 0. Increase damage from 55 to 70. Stormsinger (both affinities)
    The Problem:  Stormsinger's stats are simply too high for a tier 2 splashable ranged M unit.
    The Solution:  Reduce Stormsinger's HP to put it more in line with other T2 ranged M units.
    Reduce HP from 750 to 690. Spikeroot
    The Problem:  Pure nature lacks good ways to deal with M units - especially Burrower.
    The Solution:  Increase Spikeroot's damage to allow nature to kill M threats more quickly and to increase Spikeroot's usage as an M counter where Deep One is often used instead.
    Increase spike damage from 100 to 110. Increase (melee) damage from 1200 to 1320. Creeping Paralysis
    The Problem:  Pure nature lacks defensive capabilities and needs ways to extend their CC.
    The Solution:  Decrease the cost of Creeping Paralysis so that it can be more effectively used to lock down attacking units in early T2 where pure nature struggles the most to stay alive.
    Reduce cost from 60 to 50. Increase charges from 2 to 4. Deep One (both affinities)
    The Problem:  Deep One's stats are too high for its cost, even for a pure unit.  This causes Deep One to often be used in place of proper counters (like Spikeroot and Ghostspears) because of its exceptionally high overall power level.
    The Solution:  Reduce Deep One's HP.  Damage should be left intact because pure nature needs Deep One's damage to deal with threats quickly enough.
    Reduce HP from 1650 to 1450. Enlightenment
    The Problem:  Enlightenment was one of the most heavily nerfed cards in the history of the game, having its power cost increased by 90.  For PvE, the card is still very useful, and actually single-handedly makes pure decks inferior in PvE, since you can just go double nature and play any cards you want with enlightenment.  For PvP, on the other hand, the card is too expensive to be realistically used in most high level matches (even in 2v2).
    The Solution:  Make enlightenment a pure nature card and reduce its cost back down to 150.  This means that you actually have to make sacrifices in PvE to use this (extremely powerful) card and this creates a good reason to play pure nature in PvE.  For PvP, the card is made viable again and pure nature T3 becomes a serious contender in 2v2.
    Change orb requirements from NGG to GGG. Reduce cost to 150. Earthshaker
    The Problem:  A single Earthshaker can destroy three monuments.  In combination with the above Enlightenment change, that means that pure nature can use this two card combo to destroy an entire base for 250 power, and this can be done every 30 seconds.  This can only be countered by frost spells, and the only way all losses can be prevented is through the use of either Ward of the North, or the combination of Shield Building, Glacier Shell, and Kobold trick.  Enlightenment + Earthshaker is thus almost twice as efficient as Curse Well and it has the ability to kill orbs.  This makes earthshaker unhealthy for the meta because a frost orb is always required to counter it (similar to the old wildfire, though much less egregious as a T3 two card pure combo).
    The Solution:  Reduce earthshaker's damage so that it can no longer kill wells on its own and decrease the card's cost.
    Reduce quake damage from 605 to 330. Reduce cost from 100 to 40. Increase charges from 2 to 5. Amii Monument
    The Problem:  Amii Monument is basically cheating in PvE.  It allows players to outright skip boss fights and other parts of PvE maps that really shouldn't be skippable (at least not via OP cards).
    The Solution:  Change Amii Monument so that it is a tier 1 card that no longer advances the player to the next tier, but still provides access to the selected orb's element.  For example, fire T1 could build Amii Monument to give them access to roots and hurricane, which could be combo'd with Mine and other things.  Similarly, pure shadow could build this in tier 2 to allow them to play disenchant on their harvester.  This opens up a lot of interesting possibilities and combos in both PvE and PvP, but the 100 bound power still represents a significant sacrifice that has to be made in order to build it.  A lower activation cost allows players to switch between different orbs without too much cost.  If this is not currently feasible to implement, the only other alternative I see is to make Amii Monument tier 4 and reduce its cost.
    No longer functions as a regular orb, but rather provides access to the selected orb's element without advancing tier. Change orb requirements from NNN to N. Reduce cost to 100. Reduce ability cost to 50. Reduce HP to 800. Stage 2:  Buffing Weak Cards
    WIP
  11. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by synthc in Balance Proposal: Twilight Hag   
    I think that the card will still be useless after receiving a buff like this.  If we look at other T3 units with CC abilities, those abilities are always very aggressively costed when compared to spells, due to their more restrictive nature (in terms of positioning and bound power).  Examples being Fathom Lord, which has excellent stats, and a cheap paralyze (the strongest kind of CC); Swamp Drake, which has solid stats for a flying unit and what is essentially Oink for 30 power (with 2 fewer seconds to hit the affected unit without reverting CC); and Timeless One which is cheap and has a dirt cheap ability.
    Twilight Hag, on the other hand, has abysmal combat stats, and even at 50 power, the ability is still worse than Oink in most cases.  A few things to consider:
    You have to bind 75 power in order to use Twilight Hag's ability. The unit is occupied for the full duration of the ability, meaning that she doesn't do damage or knockback while using it. The ability only takes effect around the unit, unlike Swamp Drake and Timeless One where you have a decent bit of range to place the CC optimally.  Combined with her low HP, this makes getting her into position very difficult. If the Hag is CC'ed or teleported the ability is cancelled.  This means that the ability is completely countered by several spells that don't cost that much more (even after your proposed change) and are very likely to get more value by hitting other enemies. As a non-squad M unit, she can be completely locked down by knockback. The ability radius is actually much smaller than the aura would suggest (small enough for ranged units to hit her, charge units to charge at her, and Grigori to disintegrate her), so there is room to increase the AoE. The ability doesn't affect female enemies, as well as many beasts and some other units (mostly anything that doesn't have a male voice).  This may not be very significant right now, but as weak cards are buffed, many of those unused cards will be used and this downside will become more apparent. As far as the unit's combat abilities go, it's not even cost effective against units it should counter (e.g. Fathom Lord, Virtuoso, or even Fallen Skyelf). And the upsides:
    She can't be knocked back while using her ability. Her damage buff/healing is nice, but only really does much if you have a lot of units around her (which makes her even more vulnerable to CC). Her knockback radius is pretty big, making her good for locking down M and S units. I can understand wanting to be conservative with buffs in order to not break things, but I think that if we're going to make much progress we can't be afraid to be more aggressive with our buffs.  We should be putting units into a state that puts them on par with other good units; then if they end up being too strong, we can always dial them back after testing them on the test server.  A common and effective methodology for pre-release balance (which this is) is to push the unit to what you see as the reasonable limit (some designers would argue even beyond that limit) in order to find the unit's strengths and to get a good feel for its interactions, and then dial it back if necessary.
    My proposal:
    I think that buffing the ability and increasing the unit's HP for more survivability is the right approach, it just needs a LOT more:
    Increase HP from 785 to 1350. Decrease ability cost to 15. Increase ability radius by 5m. If CC hits more than 1 unit, it's still generally a cost effective way to counter the Hag's ability.  Pure fire has Wildfire, which easily kills her even at 1350 HP unless you cancel the ability and move her (and pure fire doesn't need any help in T3 anyway).  This is a huge HP buff, but it still doesn't put her in a normal stat per cost range for a T3 unit (Silverwinds have nearly double her current stats).
    A better alternative would be to give her damage resistance and CC immunity while using her ability, along with a moderate HP boost and ability cost reduction; but that would probably be a lot harder to implement - the above solution should suffice.
  12. Kubik liked a post in a topic by indubitablement in Balance proposal: Amii Monument   
    I have this proposal:
    + Amii now grant 4 of every orb, instead of a single orb.
    + Amii can be played on t1, instead of t3.
    Make amii give 4 of every orbs on t1 for the ultimate enriched experience. It will create loads of options for possible decks and strategies that would straight up not exist without this change. It can be argued that it overshadows alternatives, but it does not remove a single one. Strictly speaking it would be a purely enriching change as far as possibilities go.
    What are we waiting for?
    Edit: The flaw in this reasoning is that overshadowing alternatives (even if it doesn't remove them) does matter. We can't balance anything without reference.
  13. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by vindicator in 1 - Updater Fail Under Wine   
    NAME: Updater Fail Under Wine
    SEVERITY: 1
    LOCATION: SkylordsRebornUpdater.exe
    REPRODUCIBILITY: ALWAYS
    DESCRIPTION: When I run 'SkylordsRebornUpdater.exe' in Wine on Linux, the application crashes.
    After clicking "OK", the application remains hung and I have to manually break out of it.
    SCREENSHOT: No screenshot needed. Error message output included below.
    Linux Kernel 4.18
    Wine 3.15
    Dotnet 4.0
        ^netfx_Core_x64.msi
          netfx_Extended_x64.msi
          RGB9RAST_x64.msi
    Dotnet 4.7.2
        ^netfx_Full_x64.msi
    netfx_setupverifier.exe verifies both dotnet installations work.
    $ sudo -u <username> env HOME=/home/<username> USER=<username> USERNAME=<username> LOGNAME=<username> WINEDEBUG=fixme-sys
    tem,fixme-hlsl_parser,-d3dcompiler,fixme-dbghelp,fixme-msacm,fixme-msvcp wine '/home/<username>/.wine/drive_c/Program Files (x86)/BattleForge/SkylordsRebornUpdater.exe'
     
    You can submit a simple test .NET program for me test in Wine if you aren't sure to the exact cause of the rendering error in the launcher.
    I will understand it if this must be put on the back-burner while the server side of things is in dire need of fixing.
     
    EDIT0:
    SkylordsRebornUpdater.exe md5 58bfd81eadfc9cf8772463a06133f789 (just in case someone gets the "bright idea" that I should "redownload" like the error message suggests)
  14. Kybo liked a post in a topic by indubitablement in Balance proposal: Amii Monument   
    I like amii getting nerf, but I wish you did more. Look how superior amii is on nightmare's end for example.

    You're player 1 and just finished taking over the bottom base to secure t3 which you now have to defend along with your t1. After that fight, your t2 army is in pretty bad shape. You have two options to get t4:
    1: Make a t3 army and take over the top base. Build your t4 monument and defend it. T3 army cost 500-800 power with spells (90% refunded) and 2-3 deck slots. Monument is 300 power. Defence is 300-500 binded power. Totaling about 800 lost power, 2 deck slots and a whole lot of time.
    2: Put down amii monument. Totaling 325 binded power, 1 deck slot and 30 seconds.
    Now I know there are many way to do this map better. You could take your teammate's t2 and go straight to t4, you could defend your monument and the power shrine with one defence, etc. The example above is what an average joe would do.
    I don't think amii should cost 800 power. Maybe it should do something else entirely. An idea I saw on discord was to make amii t4 and cheaper, so it could be used as a 5th orb and orb swapping, opening many new possibilities.
  15. Kubik liked a post in a topic by indubitablement in What kind of DAILY quests would you prefer as main BFP source?   
    I would love if everyone got the same quest everyday. For example: win Blight expert (100 bfp). That way it incentivise playing different map and we can find people to play these maps even with our smallish community.
  16. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by SunWu II. in Balance changes to game   
    That's not exactly the case with aggressor. It's not conseidered too weak in higher rankings, it's more of a unit with a special task wich can also be done by other units (countering L units). It is used as L counter wich is costly but therefor perma CCs things that could otherwise get annoying for stonekin like skyfire drakes, war eagles, mounties...
    Anyway imo the main reason why balancing is impossible for lowranks is that there is no meta. A pure fire deck in higher rankings is mostly the same except 2 or 3 cards. That's just the deckcomposition endless players found out to be the strongest in endless games. Now pure fire in low ranks might be something totally crazy and unefficent, maybe it has T4, maybe it has no spells at all, just 20 units...how are you gonna balance THAT? Players in these ranks don't know about hte countersystem, voidpower, how losing a well or an orb makes you lose power permanently. Once they learn those things they normally move to higher ranks.
  17. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by RadicalX in 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. 
  18. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by SunWu II. in Balance changes to game   
    Relatively. in 2013 it was better than 2009, but only because it was made better step by step.
    Sometimes the Greeks are 95 % of players, then we should consider making 5% a little less happy for the greater good. This is how it was always done in the history of Battleforge balancing.
    Me, too. But not necessarily topplayer by rank, but moreso by rank and the ability to explain things and have a balance discussion. Some topplayers views on balance are straight simpleminded.
    So if we nerf cursewell for example every tactic for speedruns is useless? You're dramatising. Some tactics would become useless, some would be created. But the overlap between speedrun - and pvp cards isn't as big as you want ot make it seem.
    Historically balancing in BF was always done regarding toplevel play, wich makes sense cause this is where games are decided mostly by deckstrength and not bad decisions, micro mistakes and missing knowledge. It would also be impossible to balance cards for all skilllevels. It's literally easier to learn how to build the right deck, watch replays of topplayers and train then to have every card balanced to your skillevel.
  19. Kubik liked a post in a topic by indubitablement in What kind of DAILY quests would you prefer as main BFP source?   
    I would love if everyone got the same quest everyday. For example: win Blight expert (100 bfp). That way it incentivise playing different map and we can find people to play these maps even with our smallish community.
  20. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by RadicalX in Balance Changes   
    I'd argue there are a good amount of cards, that don't even have a niche use due to really poor design. 
    EA didn't really understand alot of game concepts. An example would be the importance of bound power which led to very poor balancing choices between buildings, spells and units. Like Amii Monument wouldn't be as overpowered by costing 390 bound power with 0 abiliy cost compared to the current 250 bound +140 toggle, which even returns the full amount of the ability power into the void (which means it's completely free in any void manipulation deck anyways). 
    This is the thread I once made to talk about some cards, that could be buffed without touching the balancing by alot (I improved the list by now, so the thread isn't fully up to date though). Also there were alot of dead abilities that could be statbuffed or even reworked (Colossus has probably the worst ability design, because some people simply expected PvP would go to T4 back in 2009). 
    In terms of PvP the major problem lies within some cards being overpowered, especially T1 towers like Mortar and Phasetower. Frost T1 got a hard hit by a questionable homesoil nerf, that was aimed to shut down Frostsplashes in higher tiers without getting a healthy compensation buff for the weakened T1 in return. I made a threat, that revolves around that topic, aswell. 
    To add something for the nature T1 part, I do think that the faction gets shut downed, because you lose early fights and split engagements without the proper ability to trade in return as base trade threats get shut downed by turrets. I also do believe, that Thugs do have an unhealthy ability especially for extended trading in Fire mirrors, but that is something else. 
    In T2 there are also factions that are overperforming (like pure Fire for instance) or underperforming (like Bandits for instance).
     
    PvE:
    Splash decks just overperform here and pure decks are completely dead in a competitive environment. Only a few cards are really worth to play and usually end up being used in splash decks with Enlighment. This eliminates the need of synergy between teamplayers to play the most powerful combos like having one pure fire player for Batariel and a Shadow Nature player to support it. Right now everyone can do everything on his own. Almost every speedrun strategy nowadays revolves around Enlightment -> Batariel -> Buffs or oneshotting specific bosses with something like selfstacked Mutating Frenzy. Voidmanipulation and power funneling are additional problems in that regard. 
     
    If anyone likes to discuss balancing in any way, feel free to hit me up on discord, the forums or ingame. I'm looking to find overall balancing issues and work on potential solutions. Having many opinions about certain cards may help me to get a bigger picture as I would like to see how different type of players do experience the game. I'd like to present a full set of ideas once we get to a stage where balancing changes may be a possibility. Any help would be great here!
  21. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by xHighTech in [PvP] Delete/Change Yrmia/Wazhai from the mappool !? + Random Maps   
    Hello Skylords,
    we all know that Yrmia & Wazhai are not the best balanced map and EA didnt put it out without a reason. (Pure Fire, scorched earth overall mapcontroll, cliff orb -> orb)
    So instead of asking me -> start voting for a yrmia or wazhai & ranked random generated maps.
    If there are "enough" votes, yrmia or wazhai will delete from the ranked pool or random generated maps can be added to the pool.
     
    Hope we see generated maps again very soon !
     
    Best regards,
    xHighTech
     
    #AddQuestion
    #AddMultipleChoice
     
  22. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by WatcherOfSky in (New Card Suggestions) Frost/Fire don't go well together? I say nay!   
    So this will be my first real post in quite a while, so I do wonder if anyone remembers me.
    Anyways, I always remember everyone trying to come up with ideas on how to properly mix Fire and Frost as a dual faction, but with no real resolution or agreements. I just recently realized last week that I could actually play the limited beta of BF and I have been playing religiously since then. I then remembered about the dilemna that concerned this debate for years, and decided that I might give it more thought. And give it more thought I did! I'm very confident in my idea mostly because it just sounds fun to me.
    There has never been a "spell slinging" strategy in this game yet compared to many other TCG games, and when I realized this, inspiration hit me like a brick. What if we made Frost and Fire a spells matter faction? So my logic begins from here, everyone who has thought of the idea of making this Fire/Frost faction has always battled with the fact that offense and defense do not combine very well in a way that doesn't make it a little more on the broken side, so I said, what does the heat and cold create? Storms and even tornados if the conditions are right. So from there, I came up with a theme. So I combined the storm idea with spells, and obviously enough, their main mechanic could be "Spellstorm".
    Before I go through what Spellstorm is, I also thought about the lore of this Fire/Frost faction. I deemed them the "Apostles of the Storm". They just want to see the world churn (in a storm). They attack as fast as lightning and can ride the oncoming winds to victory. This faction could easily set up for another part of the campaign where you have to save the world again again from these guys. 
    So what is this new mechanic called Spellstorm. Well, my idea is that it activates whenever you cast a spell (be it a normal or arcane), to add buffs or create additional effects. Here's an example card I came up with (Keep in mind these are first drafts, so numbers might be a little scewed to powerful or weak):

    So here, Spellstorm would read in the sense, "Whenever you play a spell, Storm Raptor gains 15% damage for 10 seconds; this effect and stack up to three times". That means if you were to play a Homesoil or Eruption with this guy on the field, he would basically gain 67.5 damage not including homesoil, and if you add other spells, it will buff up to three times which makes its attack a wopping 652.5 for a couple seconds, which is pretty decent.
    Spellstorm needn't only apply stat buffs, it could even do other things like this guys:
    --> He should probably be a rare yeah?
    So his Spellstorm would read, "Whenever you play a spell, this unit gains an Ice Shield that absorbs up to 120 damage for 10 seconds; this effect can stack up to 3 times". I would compare him to a mini Avatar of Frost, only now you have access to cards like ravage and disenchant (ooh scary). I don't think there is much more to say about this guy. But how do we play so many spells when the more important ones have large costs and cooldowns. Well I've thought about that too, and here are some neat enablers:

    Refresh reads, "Reduces the cooldown of all other spells in your deck by 20 seconds. Additionally, all spells you play for the next 10 seconds require 15% less of the usual power cost". Now that's a spell enabler if I ever saw one. Here would be a great way to be able to spam more spells to get those Spellstorm procs off. Though what if you just want to play a spell for cheap?

    Invigorate reads, "Invigorates targeted friendly unit with a newfound strength: it gains swift speed for 20 seconds and takes 15% less damage for 10 seconds". Something cheap and simple. Can be useful as a way to let a unit get past some obstacles, or just let's you get in a very cheap Spellstorm proc. Though I don't want to think of a Construct with swift .
    So we've gone past some of the basic synergies for the faction, but what do the big spells do? Where's the "wow" factor? I've even thought of some cool cards for that too, so let's start of with an interesting shrine that could be:

    Storm the World reads, ""Activate (costs 50 power) to cause all of your spells played in the next 10 seconds to immediately refund 50% of their power cost and then they are immediately reusable ". I'll let you guys think about that one. So many possibilities. >:D
    Now we go on the Magnum Opus of the Apostles of the Storm, the big spell to end all other spells:

    So let's go through what the ability does, shall we? "Casts a massive spell storm that deals 150 damage per second to enemy units and buildings in a 30m radius, up to 600 in total, for 10 seconds. If another spell is played within this radius, the duration is extended by 5 seconds, and the damage dealt is increased by 50, up to 200 in total. This can only be extended a total of 10 times. Additionally, enemy units can only move at walk speed inside the radius". Here is what will be able to kill everything, especially when there are more players . I'm sure the spectacle will be more than worth the cost.
     
    So that's what my idea for the Fire/Frost faction would be. You can definately point out whats overwhelmingly op, but I'd like to think I made things decently fair. What do you guys think about the name "Apostles of the Storm"? What about the Spellstorm mechanic? I do eagerly await your thoughts on the faction, have a good day!
     
    Edit: Before we go on, there is still a lot of things to consider about Spellstorm. I was thinking of it being a spellspam deck, but perhaps it can be left to only 1 instance of the proc at a time, but with more powerful buffs added, then casting another spell after the first would just refresh the timer on the proc. Which sounds better? Also, should it also count buildings played? (Ice Barrier?)
    Edit 2: it just occurred to me that it might be possible for Spellstorm to count your opponents' spells too. How would that sound?
    Edit 3: I think I might need to clarify, but this thread is more to showcase what might be possible with this mechanic and cards that can synergize with it. The specific cards don't matter too much.
  23. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by LagOps in [PvP] Delete/Change Yrmia/Wazhai from the mappool !? + Random Maps   
    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.
  24. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by RadicalX in Current Proposal: PvP Rewards (AOT rPvE)   
    Hello MrXLink,
    First of all thanks for making this thread. I'm really convinced that a remarkable part of the PvP community would benefit from higher gold incomes and it can clearly enhance the overall game environment. Sorry for the upcoming wall of text, but I really need to talk about this topic!
     
    Current PvP Values 
    I would like to start with some basics about the current reward system and potential problems. So let's get into the current formulas to check current rewards (They should be accurate as I double checked my calculations with gold incomes in some of my own games).  
     
    1. Winning player
    During the interval [0;2] the gold reward is at flat 250. 
    During the interval [2;20] the amount of gold f(t) get's calculated as a function of time (t=minutes) -> f(t) = 250+((t-2)/18 * 1100) 
    After 20 minutes the gold cap of 1350 got reached and it won't get higher regardless of gametime. I assume this is done to prevent abuse of 2 people agreeing on completely afk'ing in the game. 
     
    2. Losing Player
    During the interval [0;2] the gold reward is a flat 100.
    During the interval [2;20] the amount of gold f(t) get's calculated as a function of time (t=minutes) again -> f(t) = 100+((t-2)/18*400)
    After 20 minutes the gold cap of flat 500 got reached. 
     
    What does this exactly mean? I'll show some rounded GPM values at 5 relevant game spots throughout the game for some clarity. 2, 5, 10 and 20, 30 minutes marks will be used here.
    time -> Winning player (Losing player) [50% wr player]
    2min -> 125 GPM (50 GPM) [88GPM]
    5min -> 87 GPM (33 GPM) [60GPM]
    10min -> 74 GPM (28 GPM) [51 GPM]
    20min -> 68 GPM (25 GPM) [47 GPM]
    30min -> 45 GPM (17 GPM) [31 GPM]
    Comparison: I'll take your rPvE 9 value from one of your previous posts for that (145GPM). This implies that our average rPvE player aproximatly needs 29 minutes on average to win one map. Given that I think the average game time is faster, but there is no 100% winrate for all of these players that may be a quite accurate value. The average player in PvP has a 50% winrate in a normally distributed PvP environment. I'm pretty sure it isn't given (players with avg. skill should sit at sub 50% winrates), but I hope some gold changes may motivate more players to step into action again to fix that matchmaking problem. Anyways, these numbers lead to some problems I see with the current system and make me think that just raw stat increases won't be the solution to the issue. 
     
    The big problems I see right now
    -> GPM constantly decreases with increased game time. 
    -> Winning PvP (highly skilled) is getting compared to average rPvE times (moderately skilled)
    -> Losing income is really low, which is very counterintuitive for new players
     
    The constant decrease of GPM over time is a problem for balancing. If you straight up increase GPM values on by putting in a multiplicator onto the formula you end up promoting the easiest way of abusing the game which is straight AFK'ing & wintrading. An AFK player will always be finished off after 2-4 minutes. If GPM are at their peak during this time this is a problem for potenial buffs to gold rewards. The question about rewarding 30min games over 20min games is another discussion (maybe you could check the percentage of 30min PvP games, if that is possible for you). From my perspective I would set a soft cap for these last 10 minutes rather than stopping at 20min. If equally skilled players face off against each other in certain matchups games tend to last much longer than average PvP games once the players reach higher tech stages. 
    Another problem I see with most arguments is that the PvP Winner gets compared to the average rPvE player. I would consider myself pretty experienced in rPvE, but not top tier. I still get to finish 4 rPvE 9's in an hour. This puts me at a GPM of 280, which is completely out of the range of what I would achieve with my current 92% PvP winrate even in the proposed improved system. This is something that really should be put into consideration when talking about these calculations. 
     
    Matchmaking issues
    So let's talk a little about this problem beforehand. Right now GPM are vastly decreased by high que times and a very high participation of Top 10/20 players in ranked games resulting in que times. I really hope that after the upcoming reset and potential improvements to the PvP environment it may be possible to overcome some of these issues. With more motivated PvP players there would be a higher gold outcome for everyone as it minimizes the loss through que times. When talking about values it should always be considered, that the gold loss during waiting times has a clear implication onto the true outcome. That said I don't want to include this inconsistent variable too much into my arguments.  
     
    Abuse of strong gold incomes 
    Let's talk about it as you emphasized potential abuse as an issue. I don't think it is possible to abuse the system in a way, where it ruins game experience for serious players. If a change manages to make PvP interesting enough to attract abusers it will attract more serious players aswell, which has a much greater positive impact onto the PvP scene. There are 2 ways of abusing a high gold outcome for PvP:
     
    1. Que up and stay AFK
    2. Try to delay the game as much as possible
     
    For the first case, this may be a delay of 2 minutes. Finishing off an AFK is an easy task, should be done in less than 2 minutes and grants some valuable gold. I don't think anyone will be too sad about a free win. Since there is a report system nowadays you could also just threaten to ban people that are doing such things. The second case I mentioned is doable aswell. People that try to delay by turteling or running away will run out of gas pretty quickly. Mass towers allow early free wells that result in a fast T3 finish while running away without ressource generation will also be a death sentence, since ressource generation just works through immobile buildings, that can get targeted directly.  
    Sure there may be different ways to abuse the system to get gold with a friend, but that doesn't ruin the game experience for anyone as you won't participate in these matches. Even with an increased gold income for PvP it will never get close to certain abuse strategies. You could also team up with a friend in dwarfen riddle expert to let him solo the map. You can make some food during this time and get a 500 (?) GPM value for that. Soultree is also an option to boost gold incomes into different levels in case you are a solo player. Unless PvP rewards for losing players start being competive to 
     
    What are my goals?
    Before I start talking about real numbers, I want to talk about long term goals. Overall I want to see an attractive game with enjoyable gameplay for the majority of players in all gamemodes. I think the PvP community right now is quite small, but this wasn't always the case. During early 2013 times we had a very strong community and a strong PvP environment. 
     
    1. Better new player experience (increased rewards for losing players that tried their best)
    2. The possibility for veterans to grind without spamming PvE 
     
    I'm convinced, that the amount of people that would try out PvP within a much more begginerfriendly environment gets a little underestimated in general. A more consistent income would increase the ability to get decks and cards, that you see in your first games, where you surely end up getting crushed. But with a quicker removal of competitive discrepance through ressources you can start learning the game much faster and enjoy its beauty when the real PvP gameplay starts. Under equal conditions it is much easier to identify mistakes and improve. At that point the wins start to come in which brings in more motivation to go on.  
     
    So the next thing I'm talking about is also about the veterans, that used to play PvP during 2013. I think the majority of people in the PvP community do want to achieve their first playable PvP deck within one month of active gameplay. To get the big picture that means 170.000-260.000 gold depending on the faction you want to play. Sure you somewhat can start playing seriously with some cards being on U2, but I made the estimation, this value may probably the difference, that my final modell doesn't catch due to the loss of gold through que times. With a GPM of 125 this would range from 22-35 hours. Looks bearable for the cheaper decks, but keep in mind only the best players do have winrates above 80% over many games and I used the winner values here. Average values of 125 for winning and 35 for losing imply a 80GPM for 50% winrate players. Back to 35-54 hours of raw gameplay for the first deck again. But without a competive deck the winrate will most likely be lower than 50% at the start even as a veteran. A state where grinding for a deck still isn't worth it.
     
    Sparring grounds
    Not much I can add here. The potential for abuse is very high, but no rewards at all aren't satisfying especially for people who are afraid of ranked and the ones who want to get practice beforehand. Setting up a low percentage based on ranked income seems like a good solution for me. 
     
     
    What changes I would like to see
    The gold value I would like to see for a reasonable grind would be the possibility for people to get an upgraded PvP deck in about one month of gameplay. If we say Mr. XYZ plays 1 hour on average each day, this means we "ideally" do have 30 hours of gameplay. A full deck roughly costs 200.000 gold on average. In order to achieve that, we would need 111 GPM. An average player shouldn't earn less than that if PvP should end up in a reasonable state in terms of gold gains. 
    The second value that I use to adjust my final proposal is the rPvE average value of 145 GPM. If an average PvP player ends up earning more than that, PvP might get vulnerable to that. So I would like to see an average GPM between 111 and 145. This would push PvP into a position where it still gets outshined by rPvE and especially cPvE, but may be able to bring some satisfaction to the people, that simply don't enjoy playing PvE. 
    So let's try to get to the final formula. AFK players shouldn't be rewarded here, so flat loss income for the first 2 minutes should stay the same, while the flat bonus for the winning party could get increased by a little bit. It's less vulnerable to abuse and brings more excitement to very dominant games and decreases potential frustration upon facing an afk player. 
    I decided to keep the income between 20 and 30 minutes for now in my modell. It could see a slight change in the future, but for now it should affect the lowest percentage of games.
    My model also brings rewards for the losing player, that ended up putting a long fight. Unless the enemy manipulates the game aswell no abuser will last long in these games and I really think PvP needs to be much more beginnerfriendly than it is right now. 
     
    Final formula and comparison to initial values and other game modes 
    Winning player:
    [0;2] -> f(t) = 300
    [2;20] -> f(t) = 300+((t-2)/18*3200)
    [20;30] -> f(t) = 3500
     
    Losing player: 
    [0;2] -> f(t) = 100
    [2;20] -> f(t) = 100 + ((t-2)/18*1700)
    [20;30] -> f(t) = 1800
     
    Gold income comparison by using the marks of 2, 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes
    time -> Winning player (losing player) [50% wr player]
    2min -> 150 GPM (50GPM) [100 GPM]
    5min -> 167 GPM (77GPM) [122 GPM]
    10min -> 172 GPM (86 GPM) [129 GPM]
    20min -> 175 GPM (90 GPM) [133 GPM]
    30min -> 117 GPM (60 GPM) [88,5 GPM]
     
    These GPM values are what I would look for. It would be possible to farm upgrades for an entire deck within a month and a decent PvP player still gains below avg rPvE values while high lvl PvP player are still out of contention with PvE speedrunners.  
     
    TL DR;
    -> Increased scaling for losing players by 240% 
    -> Increased flat winner bonus for winning games during the first 2 minutes (150% -> 200%)
    -> Decreased gold over time multiplicator for winners (175% -> 88%)
    -> GPM for an average PvP player will roughly stay 15% lower than the average rPvE player
    -> GPM for a high ranked PvP player will roughly stay 70% lower than a top rPvE player
     
    Thanks alot for reading and I really hope, that the PvP community can come back strong again! If there is anything you want to talk about, I'll be around for discussion 
    Best regards,
    RadicalX
  25. indubitablement liked a post in a topic by Irysunna in Power BI for PvP & PvE Speedrun, Loot list...   
    Hi, i'm starting a Dashboard for BattleForge. Tell me what do you think so far, i'll improve it over time.
     
    Link there -> Irysunna's Dashboard
     
    Big up to @Hirooo & @RadicalX who post those PvP decks in the first place.
     Thanks @MephistoRoss for all those data on PvE maps, time, replays...
     
    18/02/2019 : Updated time and Ranking - I've finished and updated every PvE deck (Except Blight)
    13/03/2019 : Added Replays of my runs (.pmv files)
    31/03/2019 : Replays updated from my run of March
    Convoy        06:59.1   ->   06:52.0
    Empire        27:49.7   ->   19:04.6
    Sunbridge    13:11.5   ->   12:33.1
    Crusade        09:45.3   ->   09:43.6
    The Gun of Lyr    08:47.2   ->   08:43.6
    Defending Hope    20:37.6   ->   20:36.7
    Blight        22:57.7   ->   18:24.1
    The Insane God    10:55.1   ->   06:07.3
×

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.