Jump to content

DarcReaver

Member
  • Posts

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Steam
    [EF-Dev]DarcReaver
  • Skype
    -
  • Website URL
    -

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2541 profile views

DarcReaver's Achievements

Veteran

Veteran (9/34)

14

Reputation

  1. DarcReaver

    pvp balancing

    Wouldn't call the balance bad per se, but it feels very stale and mechanic to play PvP. There is not much room for newbies. The learning curve is extremely steep. Even though it seems to be easy at first glance, the game mechanics are pretty complicated and overall hard to read unless you invest a lot of time into figuring out what's going on. On top a lot of animations and unit behaviors feel clunky and unresponsive. Also the fact that units sometimes randomly change targets and do not respond to orders after being spawned doesn't make it better... It's also hard to counter all the shenanigans that some factions can play, esp. shadow splashes and Stonekin. Both are not OP per se but very unfun to play against. Stonekin with all their dmg reductions/abundant CC/heals/knockback mechanics are extremely annoying, and shadow has plenty of abilties that are hard to read and can punish newbies extremely hard who think "ok wtf is going on here". I get that it's a dance on a razor's edge to please old bf veterans and new players, but overall I still think it would've been better to start off with shaking up the old meta and allow more variations to be played, alongside with nerfs to major OP factions and cards to bring them in line with other cards. A good start would have been a nerf to the beetles, extremely long lasting passive abilities like crippling bite, or CC abilities in general. This does not necessarily mean to nerf the card stats themselves, but for example reduce the maximum charges per card. I know stuff like this has an effect on PVE but on the other hand a healthier card pool allows new ways to play and finish the maps.
  2. Unpopular opinion: Fix the existing factions first instead of working on making Fire-Frost cards a thing (or introducing dozens of new cards). No need for more splash cards as long as stonekin are ingame unchanged and bandits suffer from being among the worst pvp decks out there...
  3. About the Warlock: A Pure Fire deck lacks the slots for additional "fun" cards, esp. in PvP. To include the Warlock into the typical pure Fire deck it needs to replace one of these units: - Enforcer - Gladiatrix - Skyfire Drake - Ravage (a heal can be seen to be sort of similar to a damage mod that the Warlock Spell provides) From my point of view the only cards that POSSIBLY could be replaced are the Gladiatrix and Ravage. And both come at a hefty tradeoff (no gladi = less reliable counter to air units with Spear + Eruption, no Ravage means much more problems at keeping Skyfire Drakes and Scythe Fiends alive). Overall, I doubt it would be played at all, even if you'd buff it with cheaper cost and QoL changes. The fire player has to sacrifice at least one major or even core card in his T2 to field a Warlock instead. Alternatively the fire player can choose to pick the Warlock over T3 Cards i.e. Giant Slayers or other shenanigans which nobody will do in a serious environment. This leaves the Warlock card to be used in non-serious games and "for fun" PvE decks. Which is where a minor change like -5 power cost or +5% ability damage boost won't change much, since it's not played for its efficiency but because the player likes the card. That's why I propose to remove it as a pure only card to a 1 Fire 1 Neutral orb. The damage boost/damage reduction is an interesting game mechanic that a lot of splash decks could make use of. It would become much more popular card since it would be waaaaaaay more useful in a lot of decks.
  4. Rogan Kayle should become a bit cheaper, like 70 or 80 power max, his attack and damage is decent but he's underperforming for sure. The ability is great but a bit too expensive aswell. Alternatively, him being immune to knockback could be interesting. About Moon and Virirdya - haven't used them much yet, can't comment on that. But I think the legendarys are too expensive in general.
  5. After playing some time with the new BFP system I think this is a great way to distribute BFP to players, good job.
  6. Statements like this are coming almost exclusively from people who want to shove their weight around. There are dozens of games that have ladders for multiplayer matching and are wiped every now and then. Yet people still play these games, even if they have to re-invest up to hundreds of hours. The game requires a steady time of like 4-5 hours per week to receive boosters and manage to play a mission or two, or a couple of pvp matches. It's literally not much more than playing CS GO at this point. Considering this fact it's likely you won't start playing even after a wipe either. Just like all the tards from reddit who are talking about the "glorious days back then". They just talk about the game but won't play it anyways.
  7. I proposed to change the L/XL damage types to deal +50%/100% additional damage instead of the flat 50% bonus damage they currently have to reduce the cost efficiency of t3 and t4 units. The unit is stronger but at the same time more vulnerable to its counters.
  8. DarcReaver

    Rifle Cultist

    sorry read your post incorrectly. Good that we're on the same boat here.
  9. I'd also suggest a range increase for the ability on top. Makes them easier to use.
  10. Still think this is the wrong approach to the Mutating Maniac. The unit is a fire-nature version of a mutating frenzy. Frenzy has a risk concept connected to it with loosing HP -> gain damage%. Mutating Maniac needs control + aggression elements to fit fire-nature. It should have more of a Vanguard/tanky unit role that can stand in the center of aggression for a long time and frees other units from focus fire. this makes this unit useful in both PVE and PVP instead of only making it a niche pick for certain PvE maps Possible solutions to apply this: 1) Toxic Cloud applies a DEBUFF i.e. enemy units in the cloud have slower movementspeed, deal less damage or be "blinded" (tankyness + control) 2) Maniac gets a different damage class (M, S or L) to not interfere with Fathom Lord/Giant Slayer anymore 3) Maniac has passive healing/ravage type ability during fights (sustain + tankyness) 4) Maniac receives rage ability (aggression) 5) Maniac receives a charge ability, similar to Enforcer/giant slayer (aggression) 6) Maniac gains resistance to CC when in a fight, i.e. CC lasts 50% shorter, or he's immune to slowing abilities (tankyness + control) 7) Maniac takes less damage when his health points drop. ie. takes 50% less damage when below 50% health (tankyness) 8) Maniac gets a "berserk" - deals more damage when his health points drop i.e. +50% more damage when below 50% health, + 100% damage when below 25% health (aggression) 9) Maniac receives an AoE taunt-type ability (control) Of these options only 2-3 points should be combined each, preferably different types of abilites.
  11. DarcReaver

    Rifle Cultist

    Do you even read texts before quoting them? Yes, a Necrofury, along with most other XL units, performs better than Rifle Cultists. Which is what I wrote. So what's your point? It's a common issue that the splashable XL units in t4 overperform. Necrofury with nature spell support + unholy hero has among the highest burst damage in the game. That doesn't change the fact that Rifle Cultists ARE a good unit. Their ability range is longer than Necrofury, they can profit from + % damage from Corsair aura and they do not need nature splash cards to perform. Still XL units are easier to micro and because of that easier to use.
  12. DarcReaver

    Rifle Cultist

    Dunno if you ever used the Dark Grenade ability, but the AoE damage is nuts, and it benefits from spells like Unholy Hero. It's a very cool and unique unit but as usual overshadowed by all the XL units running around.
  13. Minorities are usually overpresent in any kind of public internet vote because they have a higher percentage of participants compared to other groups. Solely listening on thse votes is a bad idea because of that. About the daily rewards: Just as another option: How about adding the "get a free common card" for a "win of the day" quest?
  14. Edit: great, half my post is now in the spoiler area and I can't get it out. Some mod can move the text behind the videos out of the spoiler area pls? I can't edit it. The more I think of the balancing discussions the more I think the problem is rooted relatively deep. I want to split this post in 2 areas, part one is to introduce to a seasoned RTS game from Blizzard, which the older players should still know and is widely considered to be one of the best RTS of all times: Warcraft 3. (of course there is Starcraft, but I'm not that invested in the meta and didn't play it that much. Warcraft was one of my favorite games for years). Part 2 is to compare it to Battleforge and see what's different and how that influences the perspective on balance. Part 1 One thing warcraft is very known for is how the game has a huge skill gap (means you can play ith with 30 APM but if you want to unlock all unit's performance you'll need at least 120 APM or more. Top players used to maintain up to 300 Actions per Minute during fights). Another thing Warcraft is known for is its strategic depth. You have multiple different types of early strategies, even in high level play and a lot more transitions for lategame. 1) Human has multiple different hero choices along with different eco strategies - Archmage along with fast militia level 2/3 creep; Archmage fast expansion; Paladin/Mountain King aggressive start 2) Undead can use Dreadlord/Death Knight/Lich along with either fast Ghouls or fast Crypt Fiend strategies and play around that (1 is a melee unit centered aggression strat, the other is ranged unit/focus fire strat that relies on creeping leveling heroes up first) 3) Orc can use Blademaster harassment strategies along with fast tech, early Grunt aggression, a Headhunter start (on larger maps) and a creeping, mass AoE strategy with Far Seer hero 4) Night elves can play mass huntresses, fast huntresses along with Keeper or Demon Hunter heroes, or Archers into Fasttech, or a neutral hero start on top of that you have a few cheese strategies that can work or not, and offer high risk-high reward. Since you probably have no idea what this means, here are some short clips: In short: for each faction there are multiple different types of strategies in 1v1, and even more in 2v2+. These strategies can be adjusted "on the fly" during the match. You see something odd from your enemy, you can react to it by using a neutral hero, switching your tech to some other unit, or you can try to outsmart/outmicro your opponent and stick with your strategy. Overall this is satisfying, because you feel that you "earned your win" by doing better strategical/tactical decisions instead of loosing to "some OP wombo combo". This brings me to part 2, Battleforge. In battleforge you plan your strategy beforehand - by creating your deck, and you will not be able to switch it during a match. This means you're forced to play your strategy, no matter who your enemy is. You decide how many t1 t2 t3 t4 units and spells you use, which colors at which point and so on. While this sounds intriguing on paper, it suffers from one large issue: There are only a couple of really viable cards for each deck slot and color. And if you don't use these units you'll most likely end up being stomped. So while in theory you have at least half a dozen options, only 1 option can be used. That is because you need your deck to be able to counter as many possible unit combos as possible. And usually this is only possible by using the most slot efficient cards. If one card has multiple effects, for example counter M units, swift and siege, this is most of a time a more efficient slot pick for your deck than picking a seperate M counter unit and a siege unit, because you need 2 deck slots for this. Only under very specific circumstances this is worth it. This has one advantage: it establishes stability in matchups, because you know what your opponent most likely will play - but it's REALLY unhealthy for the game's long term motivation, because all you can do is repeat and repeat the strategy over and over again. This can be considered "balance", because these meta strategies are equally powerful, and so each player has the ability to compete with others. But the disadvantages are way more severe: 1) it's repetitive, and becomes boring (unless you're good at it, because winning is fun) 2) the repetition rewards players who are grinders. The more often you play the same you get better at it. This also increases the gap between veterans and newer players, with newer player not being able to catch up at all 3) Because there is a lack of alternative strategies you don't feel rewarded for being creative with the units at your disposal, because you get stomped - this is the worst thing, because it teaches players "I don't have alternatives and I NEED to play this." and if I do not enjoy this particular strategy I will leave the game ultimatively. And this is the worst thing that can happen. The upgrade system requiring players to grind upgrades and stacks further emphasizes this issue. 4) Because the meta cards are mandatory, they're usually overpriced and require grinding. In the worst case a player can think "I have to grind for cards I personally dislike to play matches that I get stomped in. Why should I invest my time into this? This sucks" And another major issue is following: In Warcraft you have cheese strategies (cheese means it's a strong strat but can be easily countered if you know how, for example by scouting the enemy). But those strategies are usually rushes and either end the game quickly for the cheese player, or the attacked player counters it and gains a large advantage to win. In Battleforge, there is almost 0 cheese going on in t1, and even in t2 there is not that much cheese possible (except for stonekin, which is a whole cheese faction by itself). But t3 suddenly becomes a cheese fest. There are quite a few lame cards with 0 counterplay or are not fun to play against, and this leads to major frustration. Loosing to earlygame cheese strategies is frustrating aswell, but this only lasts a couple of minutes and afterwards you can do a fresh start with a new opponent. If a players has a 20 minute long, close game and then looses to some t3 cheese he will feel cheated from the game because he was very invested. Also t3 usually becomes a spam fest on who destroys power wells more efficiently. And cheese has the most potential to do that. Of course someone can argue that players have options to counter game moves, especially if you have invested years in playing and know all possible micro tricks and have played against certain factions/cards dozens of times. But this doesn't help newer players at all. All they see is that they get "stomped by lame shit" and quit eventually. This is why there NEED to be more viable cards in PVP. Currently I feel bad for executing the routine meta strategies against newer players because I know they will be frustrated for loosing just because I have executed the strategy more often than they did. This is the same reason why I don't enjoy playing against top players because they do the same with me. There should be at least 3-4 possible strategies for each deck color in t1 - swift/non swift starts - melee/ranged centered strats - multiple core spells that can be exchanged for different outcomes and depending on your game plan - options for high risk/high reward strategies for all factions - nerfs to cookie cutter strategies/units that outshine all others. I even think it should be considered to make certain splashable cards pure to remove them from mixed color decks While this sounds a lot, it doesn't really take that much effort. Increasing some cards power per HP/dmg ratio to make them viable while nerfing some others to bring them in line will establish a much larger variety already. Of course there are cards that will never be competitive, simply because their use is so niche, but they can be ignored, as long as halfway useful designed cards can be included in pvp decks. Whenever I played long games in Battleforge in the past there were quite a few games where I felt the win for the enemy side was unjustified because of card XY being used. Also when I played said XY card I didn't really feel rewarded for winning, because I knew it was lame. That's why I kept switching colors throughout the time I played the game. Some other of my mates also left the game because of that. One was Apoll, a first hour pure frost player, and the other UchihaSasuke, who played pure Nature. He switched to PVE after the mixed color factions were released and eventually quit the game. Maybe some of the beta-2011 era players remember these names. tl;dr : The amount of viable t1 cards needs to be increased for the sake of variety in pvp deck creation.
×
×
  • 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