Jump to content

Kaliber84

Alpha & Beta Tester
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    565

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Kaliber84

    Daily Card Discussion

    in Cards

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Mental Omega said:

    And regarding her ability, couldn't it find use on Mortar Tower, perhaps?

    Why would you? Usually MT is too far away from the main battlefield for the red affinity to be useful. And the blue affinity isn't worth it as you're binding an additional 50 power to a building that costs 60.
    It would probably be better to just build a second MT.

    BTT:
    Never played Bandits so I can't speak from experience, but on paper she looks pretty useless. Even in a Frost or Nature deck where you got a great range of useful buildings the buff isn't worth it. Most of the time a building is used for ranged support and something else will tank, so a defensive buff isn't that good to begin with. If the power refund for the Sorceress is sent back to void (and the Sorceress dies) it might be ok to play on some maps. rPvE is completely out of the question for this card I think and as the others already said it needs tweaking for PvP.

    My suggestion would be for the affinity buffs to be exchanged. The red affinity should give an atk buff to a building (20% more dmg for example) and the blue affinity should buff the defense of units
    (or buildings?) close to it. That might be the first option for a defensive card in a Bandit deck then. :P
    I'm not really satisfied with my suggestion for the blue affinity but can't think of anything better for now. Maybe a bonus to Lifesteal would be better suited.

    Daily Card Discussion

    in Cards

    Posted

    Just did some testing.

    1. The dmg vs trampling of the red affinity might not be needed that often, but it absolutely DESTROYS any mounted unit. For example Lyrish U3 is dead before making it through a squad.
    2. Dmg reduction applies multiplically (see below)

    Testing with Mountain Rowdy (U0, 860HP) for damage reduction. I let a Mounty (U0) attack 3 times and then looked at the damage taken.

    • No dmg reduction: 860 - 350 = 510 dmg taken
    • Only Wintertide (U3): 860 - 554 = 306 dmg taken
      • => 306/510 * 100 = 60% of the dmg without reduction
    • Wintertide and Ability: 860 - 753 = 107 dmg taken
      • => 107/306 * 100 = 35% of the dmg with only Wintertide
      • => 107/510 * 100 = 21% of the dmg without reduction

    So now we know that the dmg reduction is applied multiplically. This could lead to good combos with other dmg reducing abilities (e.g. Dryad, Defenders, Icefang Raptor) but I think Wintertide also has good synergy with cards that deal good dmg over time vs buildings but are vulnerable while attacking (e.g. Mounty, Burrowers).

    Wintertide has great synergy with Rageclaws (and I guess any other rage unit too). I let one squad attack a wall and let Scythe fiends attack them.
    Without Wintertide they dealt 273 dmg. With WT they dealt 825dmg.
    The biggest problem is probably that it isn't power efficient anymore if the Rageclaws get CC'ed.

    All in all the card seems useful but there is too much counterplay making it lack efficiency.

    Daily Card Discussion

    in Cards

    Posted

    I think it isn't useful for defending at all. I mean come on, you can't move anymore and in a free fight it's the same.

    So as SilenceKill99 said it would only be really good to focus a well/orb. The damage reduction allows the units to focus the well longer and helps vs Eruption, Nasty or the like. If the card also included flying units it would probably really good (maybe even OP). The card is better for melee units (who don't need to move once at a well) I think but still good with ranged units.
    What I really like is that the card is useful at any tier. When I look at it I wonder why Grigori players don't use it in their decks.

    IMO the blue one looks better. The dmg vs trampling on the red one is nice (especially in T1) but there aren't many units doing that in T1 (Only Dreadcharger & Sunderer afaik). In T2 one tends to use more units that are M+ and they won't get trampled (except for Harvy?). So the blue one is a Shadow counter for Frost T1 and slightly better vs Fire but that's it.
    The additional dmg reduction from the blue one will be useful regardless of being tier and might be even better at T1 depending on the match.

    I think the red one is inferior to the blue one atm and needs to be buffed or reworked. A possibility would be to change it so it applies to enemies and lengthen the duration. That would make it the Frost equivalent of Ensnaring Roots that is a better CC but not as good for killing the target (and more expensive).

    Daily Card Discussion

    in Cards

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Mental Omega said:

    Could you test if you can use it on Harvester? The card does not state that it cannot, but I imagine that would be a brutal hard counter.

    In either case I think the purple affinity is the more interesting one (as I can't imagine of a scenario where it is worth using), but it just costs too much and a normal CC has a much greater AoE.
     

    Tested and it doesn't work. Power cost is too high. I think it's ridiculous as Harvester is the only T2 card that costs more than 150 power (Mounty can be cursed) but I guess it could shut down pure shadow pretty hard in some cases.

    Daily Card Discussion

    in Cards

    Posted

    Allcards got a wrong cover for the card. It is not a T3 card but T2. I checked that ingame.

    Additional info for the card: It transforms any card up to T2 into a Twilight Bug (1000M/900M) which makes it a little bit superior to a Nightcrawler (815M/745M). The power cost is reduced to 110->100 at U2. U1 reduces cooldown to 30s->20s and U3 to 20s->15s.

    IMO if used on a friendly unit the Twilight Bug (red) is inferior to Scythe Fiend after the buff wears off (100 power + unit cost for the spell) as it will only deal slightly more dmg vs M units (1500 compared to 1400 by U3 SF) and lacks the S counter. In theory one could save a unit (the Twilight Bug spawns with full life) but that just makes it an inferior heal. The red Twilight Curse definitely needs to be buffed in some way.

    The purple Twilight Curse might be a little underpowered but it can be useful at T2 I guess.

    Daily Card Discussion

    in Cards

    Posted

    Maybe it could be made viable by a single change to the move speed. I don't suggest making it as fast as a swift unit, but just slightly above average units. It would be an option as a starter unit then and more useful in fights.

    Daily Card Discussion

    in Cards

    Posted

    Picking up on @LagOps criticism. Changing them to M counters and adding a passive ability that always lets them spawn undazed (but nerfing the overall stats) would make them very interesting.
    They would be M counters that are the complete opposite of Ice Guardians (who are best when defending). I think they could then be balanced to make them a viable alternative but not OP.

    PvE & PvP Tutors & Apprentices

    in New Player Help and Guides

    Posted · Edited by Kaliber84

    I'd like to join in as an apprentice. Never played PvP before except for 2 really nooby games. I dominated someone far noobier than me in the first one then got crushed in the second one by somebody who apparently knew the basics. :P

    For now my plan is to play Fire-Frost and probably Nature-Frost (Also starter cards for the tournament and certainly some weird deck combinations later on :D ). Eirias already helped me a great deal with deck building and after I watched all of FarRock's videos in a month I'd say that I got a general idea how the PvP basics work. I'll need to play around a dozen games first to get to know what I'm doing but then I'd like some experienced players to spar with me or review my replays so I get to know what mistakes I made and where I could improve upon.

    Edit: I'm in Germany so you can add ENG+GER. Probably need sparring teachers from Europe because of the time zones.

    Poll: Future Loot Lists

    in Suggestions

    Posted

     

    Right now I also think this would be the best case, but even if it is possible to do, i'm pretty sure messing with it and implementing will give a headache to the programmers. ^_^ My only concerns are that this would make the 12p maps less popular 'cause of the higher droprate...

    Why the hell would a map be less often played because of a higher droprate? If you mean that because people will get the upgrades they want with fewer runs, then that is a solution to one of the problems they currently have. And I don't think it will do much good to force people to play the map a dozen times for one specific upgrade. They'd just use gold to upgrade instead and we'd have even fewer players on the 12p maps.

    Poll: Future Loot Lists

    in Suggestions

    Posted

    This would remove the reason for people to play certain PvE maps and just allow them to wait for their upgrades to drop for a specific map they can easily complete. Would also encourage grinding one specific map for a specific upgrade with a high disenchant value for grinding, which is not necessarily what we want. Upgrade placement was a good way to get people to play more parts of the campaigns, which is something I'd like to keep.

    I'm also not a fan of the rotation idea for the same reasons already brought up. But on the other hand it was pretty annoying to have to play one map over and over again, just because you didn't receive the upgrade you needed. I propose alternative solutions for that problem.

    1. If a player gets an upgrade on a specific map, he won't be able to get the same upgrade again for a fixed amount of time (maybe for a day, maybe the whole week).
      That way one would still need to play a map several times but now with each time it gets more likely to drop the upgrade needed.
    2. Make the rotation times really long and except the first few maps from the rotation (see Ultrakools comment on why). If the loot list randomly changes every month or so a player wouldn't wait for an upgrade he wants or needs but can also postpone it if he really hates the map. Disadvantage would be that by randomizing the loot list every now and then will probably lead to varying, uneven distributions of player-to-map-ratios.

    I prefer my first suggestion.

    On the other hand I also would like to see a reward-system where the harder maps are rewarded better, and here I mean i.e. the Behind Enemy Lines was one of the hardest (if not the hardest) 1p map. Giving out better rewards for these maps would fit the concept of rewarding the better players (and here i don't mean that the ones that are deeper in the tree should give better upgrades, but the ones that really makes people sweat while they're doing it).

    Also about the loot on the 12p maps, well, they were quite the mess... If the leader took them all (or didn't make a dice-roll for them) or simply used the random distribution and the one who got it by random did not turn them into tokens the rest of the players were totally screwed and nobody could do anything about it... Simply getting 4 card-upgrades for 12 players is just cruel. My advice would be to move the card-upgrades from the Ascension and the PtD and replace these upgrades with a high, but reasonable amount of tokens (with a higher rate compared to the rPvE for rewarding the players to be able to come together and beat the 3 maps). This probably would make people to still want to play these maps, but the distribution wouldn't be random.

    I don't know what you mean by having "better" rewards for beating harder maps. If you mean by "better", upgrades for frequently used cards (e.g. Shaman, Dreadnaught, etc.) then I think it is a nice idea. But this shouldn't be the top priority IMO. Just a nice little extra. :)

    The idea of giving tokens (or gold) instead of upgrades for 12-player-maps would really devalue playing them for me. If I wanted an upgrade on a 12-player-map during the old BF I would only grind tokens if I didn't get it after 3-4 unlucky runs or so. Now that would force me to either play a different map or to grind gold/tokens again but on the 12-player-map. Not much of an improvement for me.

    @tbpeti I definitely see your point here. Point remains that preferably rPvE should have that purpose to make that game mode unique in that regard. Your idea can be compromised though, by slightly increasing gold rewards for said maps and making the upgrades in 12p maps also available in other maps. This would mean we are dragging attention away from 12p maps, but not as much as to change them completely into a map with the only rewards being those you can obtain through farming rPvE as well. What would you think of that solution?

    I don't see a reason to play 12-player-maps upgradewise then anymore. If the amount of upgrades dropped there would be significantly decreased to something like 6-8 upgrades (so one has a 4/6 or 4/8 chance for the right one to drop) then it might still be worthwile. I'd prefer the possibility to give more upgrades away though as this doesn't solve the problem of not getting the upgrade needed even if it drops because somebody else takes it.

    Considering the UI only has up to 4 slots for loot distribution I consider that to be quite a tough aspect to improve on.

    I agree completely.

    @MrXLink Do you think it might be possible for the loot list to drop each of the 4 upgrades 3 times? Maybe by randomizing it from the beginning it would also be possible to give away 12 upgrades. Like skipping the loot distribution screen (or leaving only the individual upgrade there) and just adding the upgrade directly.

    Proposal: Rewards

    in Suggestions

    Posted

    @Bratzmeister Of course PvP players need upgrades too. But as many pure PvP players complained that they had to play PvE for upgrades even though they didn't enjoy it they introduced a system for BFR where they don't need to anymore. Upgrades will be purchasable (and upgradable) with gold (instead of tokens) now. I guess PvP will also give more gold over time than PvE. Now what you suggested would be once a week but I still don't think it should be PvE only. Of course the main reason behind the whole suggestion is to promote rarely played maps. But to make it fair for pure PvP players there could be something like "X% more gold for playing 1v1/2v2 on map Y". That way they would also have a once-a-week-special that rewards them with almost one upgrade. I don't suggest this because I don't like the promotion idea but just to make it fair.

    Proposal: Rewards

    in Suggestions

    Posted

    Again, I stand by the statement that most players engage in a fair amount of multiplayer. Look up Ziph's law, it answers your argument about "proof" of the larger portion of the userbase being solely solo players based on forum posts. My proof is just as valid as yours. All of my friends and most of the players I interact with on a daily basis used to engage in party-play enough that a quest of the sort that I suggested would be feasible

    About the "Beat a map with X players in your party" being easier than the latter; yes is it easier. That's the point. Encouraging multiplayer interaction is something that works great in a lot of games (LoL, WoT, DotA 2, did something like that IIRC, WoW, MMOs in general). It's not as punishing as you're making it out to be. The re-roll would be available in addition to your regular re-roll, and would only be usable on MP quests (to be honest, I find the free re-roll to be redundant because it's not really that punishing in the first place).

    My quest example was just that, an example. It wasn't an absolute statement on how the generic quests would look. There's very possibly a better way to phrase it.

    I didn't find Ziph's Law but only Zipf's Law which doesn't proof anything what either of us said. It states that the position of a word is inversely proportional to it's frequency of use.
    This doesn't even apply here because we are not speaking about words but whole comments in different threads. There is even more to that but I'll keep it short.

    And please don't twist the meaning of the words I said. I never said that the "larger portion of the userbase" was solo players but that "There are quite many players who don't like to play PvE". And I also haven't made a proof but I mentioned one. If you look into some of the larger PvP threads you'll see what I mean.

    I don't know why you think I make it out to be punishing but yes it can be interpreted as punishment if you give one part of the users an advantage over the others. It is irrelevant if that is the majority or not.

    I never doubted that the majority of players engages in multiplayer and I am also not against trying to improve on that. But I simply don't think your solution as it is, is good or in any way an improvement.

    @Bratzmeister I really like your idea of promoting maps that are rarely played. It both enables game content to be played more frequently that wouldn't be otherwise and at the same time gives an incentive to play more multiplayer. The rewards you suggested are too big though. IMO it should be 50-100BFP depending on the difficulty and time needed. Everything with 200BFP and more is already half a booster for playing one or two maps which is too much. Also if there is a reward it should be only achievable once per week preventing grinding on a map.
    But I see a big problem with the suggestion though. It is strictly PvE and everyone who doesn't like that is being treated unfair because he doesn't get those juicy BFP. If this is implemented it should be to complete either "win x difficulty on 12-player map y" or "play x PvP matches on map y"(or something similar). So both PvE players and PvP players are able to do the challenge and receive the reward but you don't get more if you do both.

    Proposal: Rewards

    in Suggestions

    Posted

    First off, the amount of people who play solely solo PvP is so small it's niche. You can't account for them in this case as they account for such a small part of the userbase. With that said, there's a clear distinction to be made between a MP daily and a normal daily. The way you put it makes it sound like all PvE dailies say "Beat 1 map". From what I've understood, there will be quests in the style of "Beat map X". This is where having a generic multiplayer quest such as "Beat a map with X players in you party"  is a good thing. If everyone has different dailies, then they can't play together in a feasible amount of time. This way you can even do dailies by way of rPvE. For solo players (who I firmly believe are in the minority)m rerolling would then yield you with a generic solo quest ("Beat solo map X" or just simply "Beat map X").

    Rerolling is not as redundant as you make it out to be.

    Why do you think it's only a small part of the userbase? There are quite many players who don't like to play PvE at all and quite a few threads that proof that. And I don't think that every PvP player feels the need for 2v2 all the time (or the other way around 1v1). You make assumptions without anything to back them up. We can't make suggestions using something we can't proof.

    You also to have to consider if you give alternatives like "Beat a map with X players in your party" instead of "Beat map X" the first one is much easier to complete because you can take any multiplayer map, while the second restricts you to one (be it multiplayer or solo). The generic quests are completable without restrictions to game mode so I doubt they are specific about the amount of players.
    I think you got a wrong idea how many possibilities the single reroll per day has. With that one you can have 2 generic quests that are completable in any mode you like and one gamemode specific one that might restrict your party size. But I think one per day is tolerable. If you tend to not play every day and gather 6 or 9 dailies then you probably won't even be able to complete them in a session anyway and you can just choose the ones that fit you.

    Proposal: Rewards

    in Suggestions

    Posted

    I disagree. Letting a multiplayer-oriented person keep the quest while letting a solo player re-roll it is a good thing. It keeps the LFG spam away and it gives an incentive for people to play multiplayer. Otherwise you may have the good ole "I'll play with you later I need to finish my dailies!1!1!". No one likes that.

    Why do you think that the daily quests can only be completed solo? The PvE ones might require a single-player-map but other than that I don't know why they should be. And as long as one is able to complete them both solo or in a group there is no problem like that.

    What I thought you wanted was a new, separate incentive for people to play multiplayer or in groups. You won't get that with what you suggested though as it is not different from the already proposed quests except for the fact that you could then reroll or not for either a solo or coop-specific quest. But there is no need for that if the quest wasn't specific to begin with. And if a daily quest happens to be specific then you are already able to reroll that anyway.
    The only problem I could see is for players who play for example only solo and no PvE. That way they would have to reroll the PvE quest as well as a group quest if they happen to get one.

    PS: The game is already quite good in regards of socializing. Everyone who plays PvE needs to play coop with other people on the 2-player and 4-player maps. And once you try to beat them on expert you need a decent team you can trust. The PvP might fall a bit short in the multiplayer aspect because one never needs to play 2v2. But seeing how complex PvP is those people would need to chat with others to gain new experience and insight again leading to socializing.
    All in all this game already got a great multiplayer design and while I do support every attempt to improve it, I don't think your idea is the way to go.

    Proposal: Rewards

    in Suggestions

    Posted

    You should read my other posts. I address the issue you're bringing up there. Punishing people who play solo is a bad idea, yes. The way to go about this is to make group quests "re-rollable".

    But that way you just add another daily quest which I honestly doubt the devs will consider. Also it isn't an incentive if you can reroll it anyway.

    I stand with my opinion. It shouldn't be implemented with an economics-driven incentive as it would be as a daily quest.

    Proposal: Rewards

    in Suggestions

    Posted

    It could work by giving a bonus increasing in increments for every member of the current game that you're in a party with. Alternatively, there could be quests similar to "Play map X with 3 other players in your party" or similar. I personally prefer the former way of implementation

    Although I see mostly upsides with this idea, there are some downsides as well. These mostly involve punishing players who play solo. To combat this I think quests such as these would offer a slightly higher reward in exchange for being free to re-roll.

    I don't think implementing group quests that way is a good idea. If a player prefers playing solo that should be accepted and he shouldn't be punished for that. Those who already prefer to play in a group will do so even without any incentive.

    I like the idea of helping people to socialize ingame by using the mechanics but it shouldn't be economics-driven. IMO a better idea is to give people challenges to fulfil. And if you need a reward that could be in the form of XP, lore or ingame/forum avatars, etc... My point is that by making the reward a cosmetic one, nobody gets any advantage/disadvantage ingame.

×
×
  • 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