Jump to content


Beta Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DuellLord

  1. Balancing changes would be good, but it has to be the right changes. 

    Its important that the change makes the game better/more balanced and its also required that the worst things are prioritized. 

    To take the right decision what has to be changed, its important to let the knowledge of the right players (highranked or skill of a highrank and experienced with more than just one fraction) decide. If this is not considered, there will be more decisions like the exaggerated buff of thugs or the senseless nerf of home soil (maybe 15 percent of pvp players played frost t1 before the nerf, even less after).

    Be sure that things like thugs, phase tower, timeless one and some others which reduce qualitiy of the game experience and diversity will be the first changes.

  2. Only deck which has really problems with this combo is pure nature. But pure nature has a lot of problems against really simple other things too...Only think about how to counter burrower spam with pure nature^^ Pure nature is just a very imbalanced deck with some really hards strengths but also really hard weaknesses.

    I think it never get "fixed" because it wasnt really judged as a bug (although some players had a different opinion)...i think its just the way this card works. 


    But all in all i dont really see the problem of this combo...pure shadow is not overly strong and i think before changes are considered to this card, there are a lot of bigger problems in balancing. If this card would be weaker, this combo wont be a real option against most other decks. Even now against most fractions this combo isnt really strong.

    For nature i think phase tower is the bigger problem, because every shadow splash plays it (ca 50 % of players) and if played correctly the nature player has nothigh to laugh in t1...


  3. If you take the right orbs/wells there are no really problems with cliffdancers on Yrmia. There are enough takeable spots. Cant remember a game where i get into really trouble against cliffdancer or something like that.

    Wazhai is a bit more tricky, because its not so good to take one of the mid spots, but you need to take sure that the fire player cant reach your start base...If the cliff in front of the start bases cannot used for attacking over it with any unit/tower this map would be fine.

    But all in all the most important is that generated maps will be back, because atm sometimes it feels like getting the same map again and again...because there are only 6 different.

    Wazhai/Yrmia feels worser than it is atm because you get them so often.

    Hirooo, MrDanilov and Silverdragon like this
  4. On 4/14/2019 at 8:37 PM, Toggy said:

    Hey everyone,

    Hmm we can have a tournament without T1 towers in the future. We already had some more Nature and Frost starters lately but i must admit we usually see Fire/Shadow.

    Can I get some more opinions on this? Who would like to see a T1-Tower ban in the future?




    Tower-ban for t1 seems to be a good idea for a special tournament, but not in general for all furhter tournaments. Especially against nature its imbalanced in the other way if you play fire/shadow t1.

  5. 1 hour ago, tbpeti said:

    I definitely agree with this point of yours, and in my opinion the best way would be to make it possible to log in invisible (similar to how it is done on skype or the battle.net account) and only login to the private messages chat + the groupchat with the matchmade chat. I know this makes the whole friendlist a lot more complicated and can arouse issues, but this could be a good way to improve the game after it's already done.

    Maybe one other possible solution to the anonimity would be having multiple characters, but then only 1 character should be allowed to play solo ranked, the others should be locked out of it.


    I still can't agree with the fact that you get to play with different decks in ranked without being punished for it on your main account - just as when you are trying to improve your deck with single card-changes (i. e. when you try out the Wrathblades instead of the Skeleton Warriors on t1 shadow and realize they may be similar, but their function is totally different and you will definitely lose some games by the time you get to know how to use them ideally).

    It may be true that the deck diversity won't reach the same level as if you would be allowed to use multiple accounts, but the number of the games wouldn't change dramatically. Thus the top accounts would just sit on the top with only playing the necesseary amount on their main characters to not decay. This means if you're multiaccounting the number of the players won't change, so the matchmaking won't be much healthier unfortunately, it will only be more colorful.

    I just wrote the disadvantage of it in my previous post, don't make me repeat myself.

    With 50-120 stats most likely noone would be in the toplist, since they would be low silver or bronze ranked players. It may seem that you start at 0 ELO when the season starts, but actually you start with 112000 ELO if I remember correctly which is around the lowest gold rank, but you need to play some games to get this rank (as if your rank had been decayed totally). This means only very few people should have negative stats in the toplist, and those also should be wins and losses against higher rank players.

    Actually there is a slight chance that you have 50-120 stats and still be in the top 100, but only if your opponents are always much higher ranked than you, such as the top 5 players because of the discrepency in the weight of the losses and wins. But as a gold ranked player you will get gold ranked opponents most of the times, not Emperor-Prime ranked players.


    With this the problem is that when we meet a smurf character we don't have anything knowledge about it, while if you are actually a top player you know everyone's deck at least up to 12-15 cards in the top 50. Even if that character beats us, or we come out victorious we'll have no way of telling who beat us and what rank he is on (except for those who know exactly how the ELO adds up after the game).

    This also means that you make the ranked into some child's play and mix with unranked, thus the wintrading between high rank friends wouldn't be trackable.

    Also, there is no way of guaranteeing and forcing the given player to stick to the 1-colortype rule on each of his characters, which leads to this being easily exploitable.



    I understand the fears of people losing their ranks on their main characters and the problem with the anonimity - as you all know, i was in the top 5 at a time as well-, but these problems don't justify the fact that if you try out new things in solo ranked you should be punished for it; be it single card changes or mastering different colors.

    Sorry, but I really dont understand why you are so hyped of punishing people :D:D:D

    The anonymity is in my opinion no really problem, it could be solved like you mentioned but all in all its nothing what really has an effect on the game experience.

    But that the game is colorful is definitely very important for the game experience and decides about the success of the project. Its not so nice everytime meet the same 3 decks. Btw im sure if this would happen, after some weeks everybody (nearly everybode) will complains about the evil 3 overpowered decks, because nobody can play something else....Looks nice for new players reading the forum and theres so much flame about the balancing ;) 

    And also sometimes you dont want to play the same deck than the last 3 days before. If you cant change in this case to another deck, some players just dont play for these days and wait till they are motivated again to play their usual deck. So activity goes down. And this is nothing the game can afford. Its right, that this is not a guarantee for playing everyone on another account another deck, but experience from years are absolutely positive about my theory that nearly everybody plays a different deck on an other account. But youre definetely right that a mixed pvp of someone who gets elo and someone who dont gets cant work.

    Btw changing one t1 card is definitely not comparable to changing from lost souls to pure nature for example. The whole mechanic of the deck in the second case is different.

    Lavos2018 likes this
  6. 17 hours ago, tbpeti said:

    Actually if you are not a ack of trades player (which let's admit, there are almost none in this game who can play on the same level with multiple decks) I totally understand your point of view, but if you want to try out new decks in ranked in my opinion you with your rank should be punished for it. You're actually saying that by trying out new decks on other accounts, you'll play with that deck on your main any time at all? Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you will not... And this only means that the top ranked players will just flood the rankings and it is unhealthy for the game IMO. So with this I want to point out the mistake in your argument: the players on the top of the rankings will play with their main deck only regardless of having multi accounts or not.

    Let me introduce you to a small example: if I am the top 50th ranked player in the game how is it fair for me to be only at the 85th place in the rankings? Because the top 20 players don't dare play other things on their main accounts and thus have 2nd and even 3rd accounts and can beat me with different decks anytime because their knowledge of the game is broader.

    I think trying out new decks and mastering them is a good thing, but if you do want to take it to ranked you should be punished for experimenting and should not take the place of other players.


    About the decaying, i definitely remember how it worked, and i didn't like it's way, because as a high-elo player you actually did not lose any elo, only your activity-multiplier decayed. Thus even if you were top1, later afk for 2 years and came back you would get back your prime rank real fast. But that is a totally different thing, plus probably it would happen even more times if the multi-accounting would be permitted.

    Oh, and I personally know at least 2 people who left multiple games because they got crushed by others. Nobody said that in this project only those will play who once had the Battleforge as their favourite game. There will be new players as well, and they will not be so devoted to the game if they do not get a sense of achievement at all.


    I do not remember to the bug clearly, but it had something to do with the bfp for sure and one of the auction house or mailing system.

    Actually i played on all my smurf just the colour it was made for (maybe a second, for example fire-nature on my fire account) but never shadow or lost souls on others. In think otherwise its not the sense of smurf anymore: One reason for smurf is I want to know how good I am really with pure frost for example. And nearly all other players i know with muliple accounts made it this way too. In this context i want to mention, that i started using smurfs even before being a higher gold player. So its not only a thing for bored highrank players.

    A example for the diversity: There was not much, but some pure nature players in the game. But only ones (and they was never really active the last time) was dekka and beijingguy, who wasnt smurfs. So without multi accounting some decks would not be representated in lets say top hundred the most time. This cant be the way anyone wishes. The same applies to bandits and some others.

    Beeing punished for playing a deck that is hard to play but increases the diversity (so acting in the interest of the game) is not the best idea in my opinion.

    Even the fact that in the ranking are more accounts than players in the ranking so that it is harder to be top 100, 50... i dont see as a disandvantage. What would new players (we all want to have them) think if they see that the 200. best player of the whole game has stats like 50 - 120. He would think that the game is nearly dead.

    Lavos2018 and nofearek9 like this
  7. On 1.4.2018 at 2:27 AM, tbpeti said:

    While on one hand I agree with @ImperatorSK and the fact that it will probably affect the pvp-playerbase after a while on the very high end, but i think it is much more important what @MrXLink wrote in order to keep the newcomers we shouldn't be able to have other accounts. Just think about it, if you were a platinum colored pvp ranker and you tried out other decks, you still would beat the sh*t out of everyone who were even on the low-gold ranks as well, not to mention the lower ranked players. What do you think they would feel after they're facing and getting crushed by an acc that has bronze ranks?! Most likely they ragequit, and maybe they stop playing forever - yeah, this would be a huge overreaction, but it can definitely happen.

    And to @DuellLord and every other players who think about it: ffs, if once you could get to a high rank with one type of deck, you can climb with that back anytime, this way you have the opportunity to try the new decks on higher level. Does it take time? Yes. Does it take away some of your rating? Yes. But on the other hand if you are a high-level player your microing and macroing will be much crisper than those who are not on the same level, regardless of what type of deck you're using. You can outmicro anyone who's lower level with pure nature even if you played lost souls on your main account, doesn't matter, your knowledge of the game is so much higher compared to your opponents that you can beat them easily.

    And why am I saying these things? I myself tested everything on my main account - true, had a small acc while i could have 2 accs on 1 profile, only used that for trading. First I played fire-nature, then tried pure nature, after that tried pure shadow, in the end settled down with shadow-nature, inside it first did the Embalmer-FoF-Soul Splicer combo and then refined my deck to my taste with trying out at least 10 different cards in it - even tried out the snapjaws in ranked games, so don't blame me, but I cannot understand your nonsense.

    Just think about this part as in any moba: what happens when they ban your main champion, or you do not get the role you prefer? Will you just leave the ranked, or deal with it and play with another one even if you know your skills are not on the same level with the different characters?


    Other thing, what @RadicalX and @Eirias mentioned: wait a minute, don't tell me you were annoyed during the battleforge was live because of messages. While you're only a high ranked player you can always put those who bothers you to your ignore-list. As a moderator IMO you have the right to tell them to not bother you. Also, as far as I know only those can see if you are online who added you as friends, and those who actually check the list on the top right, which shows who are standing in the same chat-server as you are.


    Also, there are other parts of using multi accounts - mainly because of the daily quest system is the only way to get bfp, and this could make too big of a discrepancy. While on the same profile having multiple accounts can solve these bfp-problems, but it generates even more bugs that came out while the game was in it's prime time, and that was one of the reasons the EA shut it down previously.


    All in all: I totally agree with the decision that was made to disable the multi-accounting, because it disrupts the game.

    Nobody stops playing a game he likes just because of getting crushed in one or two games by a low rank...And like I mentioned the same happens if highranks have low activity after not playing some weeks. I would say this happens more often than lowranks beeing crushed from smurfs. I mentioned also that in the matchmaking system of bf you get opponents with a totally different skill level just after a minute or two beeing in queue,  what happened often if your not playing in the early evening in old bf.

    Your reasoning is a possible point of view for someone you doesnt care for ranking or elo and sees the sence of this just as a tool for getting balanced opponents. I think there is no right or wrong.  But on my experience much players care for ranking place and elo. Because of this the diversity of played decks will definitely go lower. There will be definitely a big frustration, if 90 % of blueranks play lost souls, pure fire and fire/nature. In gold ranks it will be not that worse but not much better either. Most important thing for the survival of the game is keeping the players who are still playing. We all hope for a lot of more players, but we all have to watch how potentially new players react to a 9 years old game.

    Which bugs on multiple characters in old bf do you mean? I had three much used characters on one account and cant remember only one bug because of this...

    nofearek9 likes this
  8. 5 hours ago, RainZy said:

    To resolve the ELO issue dropping I think rank seasons should be added similar to how overwatch system works. You lose score for losing matches but stay at your rank even if you're not playing. I think battleforge would benefit from this system. Smurfing however would be an issue as people could just play against themselves to increase ELO.

    Another suggestion would be matchmaking could be randomised that way people cant party (I forgot how Ranked works in battleforge so sorry if this is already in the game and i am just unaware).

    If you have all your characters on one account there is no problem with elo-boosting against yourself, because you cant logg in with two computers on the same time in one account.

    Anyway in old bf there was never a real problem with people who trade elo between their accounts. Because of the small community it would be noticed from other players, if someone wins for example 5000 elo in one night so people know that other players would laugh about them because of this ;) 

    ImperatorSK likes this
  9. I know I wrote most of the following some times before in earlier threads. But I think this is a very important question for the game.

    First, like @RadicalX mentioned, multiple characters/accounts are necessary for the diversity of played fractions. Especially the smaller community (@MrXLink) would mean, that in higher levels (from about earlier blue rank) you meet everytime the same 20 players (just a arbitrarily number) with the same 20 decks (maybe 5 of them will alternate between 2 or maybe even 3). Not very motivating about some month...Same effect will be in the middle ranks (gold) in a weaker expression.

    Just the fact that you as a lower player will meet with higher probabillity a much better player isnt really a convincingly point: Because of the matchmaking-system you meet every rank after a minute or two anyway. This was in old BF depending on the time of the day on average every third match (valued). Because of your mentioned maybe smaller community this will be not really better. But even I think this point can be adjusted: Give the multiple characters on their start an aditionally basic elo not to far away from the "main character" of this account.

    The Sparring ground is NO alternative to ranked for testing because of some reasons. ( @MephistoRoss; @MrXLink )
    First you need a lot of more games than 10 or 20 for reaching a comparable level with a new fraction to your main fraction -> less diversity in ranked.
    Secondly in the ranking queue it will be even more difficult to find a good/fitting opponent because of the splitting -> more fights highrank against beginners -> more frustrating for both. @NedDeppat Do you really think I have fun to follow fleeing werebeasts over the whole map to waste 5 minutes for getting 10 elo???

    Even the problem with "unfair" elo-lose isnt really a valid point. In the first weeks of ranked the elo will not say really much about the skill anyway because of the different number of games different players made. After a while, if the elo nearly says something about the skill my mentioned above suggestion with the adapted basic elo would work. A bit imbalance in elo system is existing too, if I play different decks on the same account and character, because if I play my elo down with a new deck somebody can earn easier elo, if I play it up with my usual fraction I will take away more elo of my opponents than they deserve.

    The problem of daily rewards can solved if you only can get it on one account (and not on each different character) only one time per day.

    Last thing is that I remember someone of the staff explained, that its technically just not possible to find out who is smurfing and not. I know some people playing from the same house than an other player (family, friend ....). So its doubtful to make a rule which observance can not be checked exactly.

    All in all i can understand there here are some concerns about smurfing, but if you think about the whole topic in details, there are some reasons pro smurfing and no indisputatable reasons against. All in all the game would profit on allowing smurfs clearly in the purpose of a higher activity of the players. So please rethink about your current decision against smurfs/multicharacters.

  10. 23 hours ago, xHighTech said:

    interesting discussion.

    I dont think that it is profitable to play nightguards instead of nox's vs frost t1.

    • Not enough HP (die very fast)
    • You would over extend all the time.
    • Motivate has more effect on nox spam because they are cheeper = more nox.
    • Nox Rush M Counter -> Ice Guardian, Dreadcharger -> Ma's

    Theory is 1 thing, practice another one.


    @Hirooo @RadicalX @Anonymos @DuellLord @tbpeti Have you already tried Nightguard instead of nox against frost t1?





    Never tried this. I think spam of Nox or Dreadcharger works okay both if you choose it in the right situations.
    But i was in general never a big fan of nightguard...

    But btw i wouldnt agree to all classifications from @indubitablement. Shadow without Motivate and Fire without Thugs for example isnt really a good choice.

  11. the only thing i woul complain about is the ng / nasty interaction(bug)

    Is it really a bug? Because it depends on the animation time (time from activating/"clicking" until the real overtaking/explosion), so i think this effect is logic.

    And it needs some skill/reaction to time this in a way that it works every time, if not it can mean a huge disadvantage for this one who nastied. So i think the nasty-ng effect is no balance problem at all, because there are other ways to counter a reaver efficiently especially with pure shadow (i played pure shadow without ng and had never any problems). And to nasty  mounty is not clever in most cases because it costs too much energy.

  12. FarRock as one of teh Best Fire/Nature palyers is a joke no? Nothing against farRock, but even I could beat him with fire/nature, and it wasn't even my main deck... Eirias you i don't know as well.. i just remember when playing in 2013 from time to time there were no rals strong Matchups anymore.. ( i mean maran was first in the rankingings.... and by the way i would say TheSi(c)kaleon were at least equaly strong with Stonekin as maran was... (Nothing against MaranV, he had lots of Experience, but he always just played the same shit over and over again for 3 years or something..).

    I Played the game from Decembre 2009 till end 2012 on a daily base (with half a yar of break in between) and from time to time casualy in 2013, and i would say that the 2013 Rankings are in no way representative ...

    As far as i remember ranked was only dead after the announcement that battleforge will be shut down. So the first half of the year there was still some good players in 1vs1 ranked.

    Only in 2vs2 it was really hard to find good opponents a few of month before this announcement, especially some which had some elo^^

  13. All in all the game was quite balanced.

    Sure, there was some elements that has a disadvantage against another special element, but all in all everything was playable and everything was beatable.

    Further i confirm, that some people with lower ranks (lets say them who was lower than blueranked) sometimes had strange opinions about balancing, especially this one who only played one deck. So i think its better for incoming balancing changes to hear mostly to a "council of highrankes"  or something like that, as to balance the way the majority of all players is thinking.

    Edit: I think the best/worst example of a bad change after hearing to the majority of all players was this nerf to frost t1 (miliz), although there was nearly nobody playing succesfull frost t1.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use