Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Kiwi

      Open Beta Information!   12/29/17

      Open Beta will soon be upon us! Check out all you need to know here: https://goo.gl/nNr1qU


Alpha & Beta Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Treim

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/19/1995

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Dortmund, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

4234 profile views
  1. Current Proposal: Tokens & Gold

    Well i said it i think it is possible to do 3 hours a day semi consistantly( at least 3/5 days a week). So if you are really dedicated you can enjoy full payment for all your time. That is probably possible for a majority for people here (not sure about the actual people with kids or jobs that require more time, etc.) but considering average age is probably around early twenties here i think it is quite likely that my assumptions are correct or not too far off. The longer i think about this issue the more i wouldn't want any cap at all tbh. If you want to invest hours a day into playing this game then get your reward. And sure that massively favors students who got more time, but most people here probably had that advantage in other games. And if that causes that some people basically rush through the game and got all cards and upgrades within a few weeks or month, then so be it.
  2. Current Proposal: Tokens & Gold

    I am not denying that working people probably won't be able to play 3 or 4 hours. However why would you diminish peoples return who can play that long simply on the basis that others can't. Again I see the point of not letting people get to far ahead of others, but i think there is a reasonable amount of people who definetly can play 3 or 4 hours a day without a problem for whatever reason. You probably could even do it if you have a regular job 9-5 job at least semi consistantly. If you don't than you probably simply have other priorities like a girlfriend or going out with friends, watching some Netflix, doing sports, etc. . That is the case for me as well. However i'd consider 3-4 hours a timeframe that most people COULD achieve semi-consistantly. So if it is possible for most people i don't see why you would punish people who actually do it and diminish their return. After that timeframe it probably gets a little bit problematic and aside from students others can't do it anymore and if you want a cap you gotta do it somewhere. I definetly have other priorities as well and definetly won't play 3 or 4 hours a day but realistically i could definetly do it. Speaking of my limited experience with a 9-5 job living alone of about 2 month I'd say that i could have definetly done at least 3 hours a day if i dedicated a considerable amount of my free time playing games. That is obviously a measly amount of experience, but it really is all i can go on as i probably won't find time charts about that kind of stuff. TL;DR start the cap at a point which is achieveable for most people with a 9-5 job if they really set battleforge as a top priority for their free time. I really wish i could express this a little bit better, but i am unable to find the right words to wrap this up nicely, so this will have to do for now. I actually don't even think it has to be exclusively a checklist or an achievement system. You can probably do a mix as well, as long as you can guarantee a somewhat similar income rate no matter which quests you get. That might be a little bit harder to achieve than an exclusive system, but i am sure it is far from impossible once you figure out at what rate you want people to acquire BFP.
  3. Current Proposal: Tokens & Gold

    I am not anywhere knowledgeable enough to give a proposal that i can feel confident about to be right. If you ask me for my personal opinion, I'd prefer an unrestricted acquiring of BFP or a restriction that is as marginal as possible. I feel like that if someone puts in the time/effort he would be rewarded at the same rates as anyone else. If someone is unable to play much than that simply means that you prioritize things differently and that is fine, but shouldn't be accounted for by a game. If you want to have some sort of restriction I would need to do some research but on first glance don't cap it to more than 75% at any time. I feel like the first 3 or 4 hours should be penalty free in any case. After that timeframe go down somewhat periodically in whatever percent/hour you feel like. Closing the gap between players who play a lot and those who don't is an issue in this specific case because a lot of people already know what they want from the game so every BFP is probably even more worth than other (new) games as people know how to beat the content and can work much more effiiciently, so i understand that the devs don't want that, so i can live with capping it to minimize that, however by doing that you also create an even bigger disadvantage for players who only can play on very few days but play excessively on those days instead of spreading it out over the week. Edit: From here it is made up from the top of my head so you probably can see my thought patterns in my writing - hope it doesn't get to confusing. From my understanding there is going to be playtime rewards and daily quests so in order to go with the 75% proposal you have 2 base solutions which come to my head right away: 1. balance income symmetrical around both systems making up about 50% and cut in either of them 25% or in both for a combined 25% with whatever percentage over 1 hour after 3 or 4 hours(1.1) or up one of the income of one of the systems to 75% (1.2) 2. balance income asymmetrical around both systems, so 75% to 25% (as extreme) Advantage of 75% to 25% is that you can put the quest system at 25% income production and don't generate new quests for a day after the initial 3 or 4 hours of playtime is up. That way you can get away with less quests to minimize repetition of quests. On the other hand you swap main and secondary income systems. At least from my understanding the quest system is/was supposed to be the main system which you just turned on its head and works more as complimentary system to spice things up for a few hours. (2.1) For the other extreme you simply inverse that, so you need more quests to minimize repitition, but make sure that the quest systems is the main system in which case you probably don't need the playtime rewards at all and simply diminish quest rewards. (2.2) Major disadvantage of 1.1 is that you have to do both systems so you basically lose the advantage of shutting one system down and can't avoid the repitition problem of the quest system so why bother with having 2 systems in the first place? 1.2 addresses that so you can shut down the quest system but don't lose to much income production by simply upping the income of the playtime system. This is awfully similar to suggestion 2.2 but you at least let it be an equal part of the system for the first few hours. 3. Actually this brings another possibility to mind which is simply completely relying on the quest system for the first 3 or 4 hours before shutting it down after that time frame - matches that overlap should count to the quest - and after that playtime rewards get handed out. Obviously that kind of system has its flaws in that a quest system doesn't offer any guaranteed income as you have to hit objectives which different people take different amounts of time for and that different quests inherently will take different amounts of time to complete. So you would need to scale quest rewards depending on the quest difficulty, which are inherently subjective - so there's no way to nail that perfectly for everyone. So that is a bunch of work to approximate those - especially with probably no or little data the chance to miss the mark is very high. I am not sure how far the devs thought this through, but i am sure that they and a lot of other people made more thoughts on this than me, so please point out any flaws in my logic. I made these solutions up on the fly so please correct me or add stuff. Overall I'd say i prefer solution 3 the most as it is easiest to balance and you can be "lazy" and avoid creating massive amounts of quests or minimze repitive quests. Edit 2: Just realized that i went astray from the original question quite far. woops.
  4. Current Proposal: Tokens & Gold

    It doesn‘t really matter if you hard or softcap it. You disincentivize players from playing by diminishing returns over time. Imagine getting less money/hour of work the longer you work a day. At some point you‘d probably simply stop working because you think you‘re time is more worth. And yes obviously you are not working but playing to have fun, but it still doesn‘t feel to good. Now I am not saying that i am totally against capping stuff in whatever way, simply wanted to point it out
  5. Share Your Deck With Us ;)

    Already tried that in rPVE with 4 players - lvl 4 is possible - if i remember correctly at lvl 5 it gets problematic at least if you dont want to wait for power a considerable amount of time.
  6. Current Proposal: Tokens & Gold

    You can simply cap the one currency you have. In following thoughts i assume that BFP is the currency in the 1 currency system. Assuming that the functions of both systems currencies is to acquire and upgrade cards and that the card acquiring part is consistant in both systems you can easily get a rate for gold to BFP conversion for the card acquiring part. As BFP would be capped in the 1 currency system you'll eventually reach a point where the consistant gold income would be way higher than anything a capped system can acquire - it is capped after all. Depending on how you balance that you can manipulate the break even point. Not sure if it is clear what i mean but i actually really lack in vocabulary and am to lazy to draw graphs. Anyways i think both systems can work. A 1 currency system would probably encourage decision making a little bit more as you do not predetermine the use of specific parts of the gain of an account. The player has got the decision to place more emphasis on card acquiring or upgrading, while with the 2 currency system he is basically "forced" to do both. A 1 currency system is probably advantageour for experienced players who know what direction they want to go in and which cards are mandatory for specific decks, while a 2 currency system is definetly more "noob-friendly". I am actually fine with either decision as you probably need a bunch of cards first anyways and by the time you got those you probably got enough gold to upgrade the cards anyways so the difference is probably miniscule for me personally.
  7. Sandbox for Reinforcement learning

    Those cards were untradable for everyone. However i don't think that would be a limiting factor as shown by Tutorial deck cards or Tome cards - which were basically duplicates of cards with a few restrictiongs. So you already have the blueprint on how that works. I mean basically for a sandbox account you basically want to have all options with all cards except that you want them to be account bound and you probably want endless amounts of gold to test stuff with upgrades. As that is basically a attribute mix of normal and Tome cards i doubt that it is impossible to create that. How time consuming - no clue. The only issue i have with this is that you'd probably need a different server or space for those accounts as those accounts participating in normal ranked PVP games or speedruns is a major shortcut and advantage for the users over other players. Some other thoughts: I'd assume those accounts would be incredibly usefull for testing patches or for offiicial tournaments to even out the playing field - relevant especially early on when noone or only a few people have maxed out decks. Even later on probably usefull so newer players can have maxed out decks and make it a competition of pure skill - or as close as it gets.
  8. Daily log in pack

    You won't get login bonuses as far as i am aware of. There will however be a daily quest system which allows you to acquire BFP Out of the FAQ: Whole FAQ for more information:
  9. [Forum Game] Rate the song!

    Uh this thread was not really intended to have multiple songs per post so i'll simply rate the first song of that mix : 7/10
  10. Card upgrades - Loot table

    @MephistoRoss actually created an Excel tool for collecting cards and upgrades:
  11. Bring back permanent Tomes

    Even the deck level thing would probably not work well. I am rather certain that there were guys who got to around Legend rank with only the tutorial deck. As already mentioned this topic was discussed many times and basically comes down to that the very competetive players want to start at an advanced state of the game or get to that point very quickly while the rest is fine with taking more time to get cards and uogrades and just want to enjoy the Battleforge experience again. As for possible suggestions to solve this you can either split up PVP and PVE completely in some form or shape - like with tomes or that every card used in PVP is automatically U3, leave the competetive players in the dust or search for some kind of middleground where you increase card and upgrade acquiring to an somewhat acceptable pace for both sides. Considering that solution 1 probably takes probably a lot of resources to implement and is obviously not wished for by the dev team to keep the spirit of the original BF (at least in the beginning) finding an acceptable pace seems to be the only solution that is viable - as stated so often by @MrXLink and other members of the team. In my opinion this discussion is running circles again and again is because discussing a rate for that pace is very theoretical in the first place with a bunch of factors playing into it, especially different subjective opinions of various "factions" and how other gameplay elements work with that now that the game is completely free 2 play, the transition from tokens to gold as the only upgrade currency and so on and so forth. On all of these factors can at best be approximated which make a calculation utter nonsense if not outright impossible, so unless you can actually test this in an live environment there is no way to get any further on these discussions and would wish that it would be handled accordingly - meaning stop talking about it because the only thing you'll ever get out of this is misunderstandings and bad blood between people and a rather bad mood in this threads in general. Therefor i will probably not further add anything in threads with these topics and would "advise" people to do the same to avoid any kind of unnecassary drama. Everything that can be said, is said up to this point so let's just leave it at that until there actually is new data available to discuss this further - namely wait for Open Beta.
  12. Bring back permanent Tomes

    That is actually much more true for PvP. As you mentioned charges are very important in PvP on quite a few cards. For PvE and rPvE you can get by with a lot lower deck levels due to generally not needing fully charged and upgraded cards to beat the maps. That is even more true for the speedruns on a lot of maps. On some like Soultree you can probably get rank 1 for the speedrun rankings with deck level 30 simply because you don‘t need a lot of cards and not even full charges on those. For rPvE speedruns you can probably get rank 1 with deck level around 80 rather consistantly. There were some similar suggestions on making decks in PvP mode automatically to level 120 and other similar suggestions to enable high level PvP be playable. For example: I personally don‘t mind if players have to play a bit to unlock stuff, but agree that those decks should be accessable in a reasonable amount of time. How long is reasonable will probably be determined in the Beta.
  13. Split rpve lvl 10 into 3 difficulty-levels

    i already posted my opinion in another thread on how to solve the big descrepancy on difficulty between lvl 9 and 10 in another thread. I'll simply be lazy and link it here: TL;DR: I think a restructuring of how mainly lvl 7-10 are built up is a solution that can make the difficulty increase coherently. Basically i want to change back to the old map structure of rPVE where lvl 7 already had a split way at t2 and you had to clear your t3 solo and meet your mate only for t4 (my memories on this are a bit vague tbh as i was still at best and average player at the time). Not sure if the code for that type of stuff is still somewhere. Adding difficulties essentially has the same result as my suggestion. I think both suggestions have in common that you'll get a more coherent increase in difficulty for the very top levels (your suggestions: lvl 10-12, my suggestion: lvl 7-10), while you still have quite a little spike in difficulty from lvl 9 to 10 in your case and lvl 6 to 7 in my case. Both solutions need serious thoughts on map structure and enemy spawn rates and strength to get a coherent difficulty increase and probably also tweaking the direct level before you get to the completely reworked levels to get in line with that. I actually don't mind either way and think that both solutions solve the issue similarly good. Whichever is less work to implement, should get implemented.
  14. More rPvE difficulties

    For lvl 9: Surely there are factions that have most problems with other factions than Lost Souls, however in average i think that Lost Souls can be considered the most difficult faction, that's mostly due to the fact that buff strategies don't work against it (Lost Dancer) and that decks that rely on very little ground presence but massive air presence don't work well either (Lost Dragons - Inc Mo is not standardly used in most decks + burst of Necrofuries). Spellbased decks generally are weak against it as well due to the Banestones. That negates a lot of commonly used strategiesand t1-t4 is the hardest to clear by far. While Twilight can be annoying especially when not having nukes or anti cc or a massive army most strategies are at least viable for lvl 9's. For lvl 10: The Lost Souls t2 clear is generally much harder than any other faction. Especially when not starting fire t1. After t4 you can generally get away with the same stuff you use against LVL 9. For massive air armies Inc. Mo is a must have now though. A mix of ground presence and air is generally hardly playable as air units just simply get killed by the necrofuries if they fly on top of ground presences. Twilight is generally harder after t4 than Souls in that you are required to have at least 2 types of cc and something to destroy willzappers reliably, but t1-t4 is much easier. Generally you can run Buff strategies well against it or spellbased decks, but most decks can get through if you have some sort of cc and don't clear bases alone. Not exactly something that can said to be true for Lost Souls (also you most likely are running out of time and don't have the luxury of going together). Souls is generally way harder to react to because if you don't know what you are doing you will simply get wiped out in an instant. Twilight games are generally slower paced due to the cc reliance of that faction and widdling down an opponent, so you generally have more time to react. This post is kind of the short form of why i think Souls is the hardest faction. Rather than adjusting Lost Souls downwards i would rather see an increase of difficulty of the other factions on somewhat the same (general) level of Lost Souls, except for Twilight lvl 10's which i think are on a good difficulty level.
  15. More rPvE difficulties

    I actually think that 10 difficulties is plenty enough. Adding different ones is in my opinion unnecessary. As @anonyme0273 stated the difficulty in each level is different depending on faction, map layout and some other factors - random, which i actually think is a good thing. The only real problem i see there is in the faction difficulty. While Bandits is by far the easiest, stonekin is a little bit harder than that. Both are rather stable in terms of diffculty increase throughout levels 1-10. Stonekin has a slightly unstable spike from level 9 to 10 though, mostly due to a massive spike in difficulty of clearing t3 and t4. Twilight is by a very unstable faction that is in the point that levels 7 and 9 are rather easy and on about the same level of Stonekin maps of the same level, while levels 8 and 10 are much harder than that, mostly due to the massive amounts of cc. I'd even go as far as that level 8 twilight is at least as hard as level 8 Lost Souls maps. Level 10's are harder than Stonekin but easier than Lost Souls. Lost Souls is actually not that hard until you reach level 9, but there it gets a massive spike in terms of difficulty and is by far the hardest thing you can face. Throughout the whole map you will have very little room for errors. P.s for speedrunning Twilight can actually harder at lvl 10 than Lost Souls. P.p.s The comment was targeted towards 4 player maps. 1 and 2 Player maps are slightly different. Mainly in the fact that Twilight gets a lot harder. Now in terms of average difficulty for each level i think there are a 2 main spikes that have to be looked at. From level 6 to 7 is quite the big jump up in difficulty and from lvl 9 to 10 is the other one. While i am not that familiar from lvl 6 to 7 i remember that the difficulty increases quite substantially compared to other jump ups. With most gameplay that you can easily beat level 7 for example, you will generally still be able to beat level 8 at least a decent amount of times. That is not the case from level 6 to 7 and especially 9 to 10. Level 6 to 7 is not as extreme and can probably stay the way it is. However level 9 to 10 is quite the difference. Most experienced players can beat level 9 maps quite easily. Even Lost Souls maps are generally manageable. Level 10's however i very rarely saw ever people even play those, apart from some speedrunners and veterans. That is mainly due to the changes of map layout and the amount of difficult to handle units. Example: At level 9 Lost Souls maps you will rather rarely find a base with 4+ Lost Dragons which are one of the more problemativ factors of Lost Souls maps(probably like 1-2 bases per game maximal). In Level 10's you have to at least expect that amount at every base in the 2nd layer of bases. Good chance you encounter those bases even in the first layer. I could name more examples but i guess this gets the point across. i am actually more for a restructuring of the difficulty levels, rather than adding new ones. Before the current layout of maps was introduced, there was actually a different one in place. I think at level 7+ you actually had the same map structure as the current lvl 10's which actually made a lot more sense to me ( at least if my memory serves me right - i barely scratched those before they introduced the new layout - i was to bad back then :P). Considering that level 7 is on the high end of things i feel like it is reasonable to have a jump in terms of difficulty. To beat those difficulties i think it is reasonable to demand a certain amount of knowledge and gameplay. I would prefer to have that cut a little bit before jumping to the highest difficulty - Considering level 9 is the 2nd highest difficulty it is - apart from some Lost Souls map - a joke. Pretty much anyone with a little bit of deck level can beat those maps easily and consistantly. Even the fact that you can easily solo those maps is a huge joke in itself in my opinion. P.s.I think i wrote this in another thread before, couldn't find it tho.