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... ×


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DarcReaver

  1. DarcReaver

    Inferno charges

    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.
  2. DarcReaver

    Legendary units (T2)

    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.
  3. DarcReaver

    UPDATE: BFP Reserves and Boosters

    After playing some time with the new BFP system I think this is a great way to distribute BFP to players, good job.
  4. DarcReaver

    Monetization system

    read the FAQ
  5. DarcReaver

    Card Balancing and the Future of the Game

    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.
  6. DarcReaver

    How to make PvP more attractive (Discussion)

    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.
  7. DarcReaver

    Rifle Cultist

    sorry read your post incorrectly. Good that we're on the same boat here.
  8. DarcReaver

    Balance Proposal: Boom Brothers

    I'd also suggest a range increase for the ability on top. Makes them easier to use.
  9. DarcReaver

    Balance Proposal: Mutating Maniac

    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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. DarcReaver

    Balance changes Balance changes to game

    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.
  14. DarcReaver

    Synthc's Balance Proposal

    If you don't change the overall meta the veterans will stomp the newer players and drive them away from the game, leaving the pvp community ultimatively dead for everyone but a couple of old day players. It's already almost impossible to catch up to all the abusive combos, micro tricks and other gameplay elements to even get on par with the "average joe" player who used to play Bforge before shutdown. Bugs need to be fixed, wombo combos should be harder to obtain and overall it would be nice to have a couple of equally available units for each unit role instead of a couple of no brainer cards that outclass every other card in one ore multiple areas. That's why SynthCs approach is good.
  15. DarcReaver

    Balance changes Balance changes to game

    Making it 4 orbs is not for speedrunning but making it an options for players to play more creative decks. Full color t4 + an additional 5th color for healing, CC or different support units etc. You said yourself you don't need it for speed running, it only lowers the time for finishing certain maps, which makes the use of this card questionable anyways. Or switching orbs to feature a larger variety of multi orb units throughout the game.
  16. DarcReaver

    Balance changes Balance changes to game

    Separate balancing sounds good in theory but is impractical. Mostly because it confuses people even more than the game currently does. That's why it's better to keep the stats for both PVE and PVP the same. The good thing about PVE is that in theory you can buff underused cards to serve more of a purpose in PVE matches. Example: for some reason Master Archers are nerfed. Northguards on the other hand are never used in PVP, so they can be used by PVEs instead if necessary. This is just an example though. If the amii monument is doing exactly as intended answer following questions pls: Why is it that if you play a 4 player map in single player that the other starting locations have no orbs? And the other orbs on the map are usually guarded by L and XL creatures? Easy answer: because each tier gets exponentially more powerful. So gaining an easy way to get an additional tier level lowers the map difficulty. And on Soultree this even leads to winning the game instantly. The card should be reworked to require 4 neutral orbs to allow 5 multicolor splashes. This would indirectly buff pure color decks because you could mix in different 1-orb t4 abilities to support your pure color creatures instead of breaking map difficulty on several maps. Everybody stating stuff like this needs to be banned from development processes. This statement is utter ignorance. I doubt that there is a large number of people "waiting for reset". There are new players every now and then who try PVP, get smashed by the old school players and leave. The game has a very, very steep learning curve with all the different colors, splashes, XL units, tiers, void/power management and so on that only a small part actually stays and plays. There are quite a few balance issues, and some stuff like counterplay against certain units is just so counter intuitive that I doubt it's healthy for the game. The whole stonekin faction is pure cancer for healthy gameplay as an example, at least if played with half a brain cell. Indeed. The longer patches are absent the more repetitive strategies and abuse/exploits are found and used in matchmaking. This usually leads to most players who disagree with that leaving the game. This also applies to the stuff I wrote in the paragraph above. I do agree on these points - but I disagree on point 2 - I doubt there will be a large amount of people to increase the community for longer time. The issue with old games is that newcomers rarely have the chance to catch up on the old seasoned players skill wise. The longer a game is left unpatched, the more abusive the meta becomes and the more exploits are found and used to win. BF already suffers from its steep learning curve even before playing the first match (hundreds of cards of 4 different main colors + 3 splash decks + neutral cards, how to build a working PVP deck, how to manage power, how to manage units etc.) and then there is the fact that you need to upgrade your cards to even stand a chance in pvp matches at all. This leads to early frustration and makes people abandon the game. I encounter new players every now and then in matchmaking, and they're gone after quite short time from my impression. The game was made by Phenomic, and Phenomic was widely known for making RTS games who were at the border of frustratingly hard to play. About the card nerfs itself: I do agree that some cards need buffs and some might need nerfs, but in general I would appreciate more variety in the viable core cards. The game has dozens of cards that could be used for the same role but aren't because some other card is stronger. Not a little bit stronger, but so strong that it hurts. Great examples were shown in RadicalX underwhelming Top50 topic. Having more alternatives automatically leads to a more healthy enviroment because a) players have more options to choose from (more happy players because they can use their favorite unit X more frequently) b) games are more interesting to watch because you see more varied decks c) certain decks may get buffed because they can mix unit types more frequently
  17. DarcReaver

    Balance Changes

    My guess is that some ppl base their balance judgement on the fact whether or not they win the majority of their games... Generic statements like "back in the day I had XXX" are useless anyways. I see 2 main issues : Main issue 1 is that the game suffers from a couple of cards having no proper counterplay concept. This mostly applies to cards like Curse Well, Church of Negation, Phase Tower, Mortar Tower and spell cards like Wildfire, Nether Warp, Undead Army etc. Those cards do something and other decks rarely have an option to stop it from happening. Main issue 2 is that some cards do too much at once, rendering all other options useless. Examples are : Stormsinger (swift, ranged, tanky along with Anti Air ability), Burrower (Swift, tanky, siege, playable with many splashes), Night Crawler (swift, cheap, sick damage output, playable with many splashes) etc. there are quite a few more but you get the drill. This leads to many potential units being not used, simply because they're less effective. Since these units overperform, an easy way to counter them is to use Crowd Control and spells. Which makes mixing nature splashes relatively powerful. Note that not every nature deck is "too strong", but it's an easy way to fix sloppy errors during a game. The whole stonekin faction seems to be built around this (knockback on almost all units along with cheap healing spells), and fire-nature are considered the most "balanced" decks in the game (although personally I'd disagree). It's of course not possible to give every card a spot in competitive pvp, but there should be at least 2-3 viable units per required unit role. The current amount of cards per colour would easily allow this. And for some colors it is possible already.
  18. DarcReaver

    Balance Changes

    Nature isn't much interesting either ... S units are hurricaned and melee units ensnared, most of the time that's about it because Nature rarely destroys wells in t1. And later on you get perma healed deep ones or (even worse) stonekin cancer.. I'd rather play against Shadow mages with nether warp or shadow frost.
  19. DarcReaver

    Command Delay

    Hello, don't know if it was discussed in the past - but isn't a 500ms command delay quite outdated nowadays? I know that Warcraft III (and Bnet in general) had a 250ms command delay to prevent that players with low internet connections to cause lags ingame (28.8k Modems were a thing back in 2003 afterall). For Wc 3 it was recently removed by Blizzard, along with some QoL changes and removed performance limitations to game clients. I would suppose that the command delay in bforge is for a similar reason. Would it be possible to lower the command delay to "modern time" delay by around 50-75%?
  20. DarcReaver

    Command Delay

    The click is the order that is given to the unit, and the counter is the time it takes until the unit responds to the order. For bnet this value used to be a lot higher, that's why the creator asked if there was a hidden change to the command delay in a recent Starcraft patch. I'm asking because it seems like the units are incredibly unresponsive to orders, especially when forced to use their abilities. Which reminds me a lot of Warcraft 3, although even with a higher command delay in place the units control a lot more "direct and precise" than in Bforge. But when casting spells like Ray of Light or Eruption the delay seems to be a lot lower. That's why I got the feeling that there is some kind of artificial delay for input is in place.
  21. DarcReaver

    Command Delay

    I'm not talking about the individual ping. I'm talking about the command delay which is a set value that is added on top of a player's ping. I.e. if your ping is 120ms and command delay is 500ms the total execution delay is 620ms. If ping is 120ms and command delay is 250ms total delay is 370ms. https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/warcraft3/t/artificial-delay/4169
  22. DarcReaver

    Command Delay

    That's what is shown ingame when you hover over the ping light.
  23. DarcReaver

    Could some cards get a speed buff?

    the card is pretty iconic for frost decks, would be a shame just because some mixed splashes can "teleport" the ship the speed wouldn't be increased. However I'd also like to see stuff like knockback or an aura effect (similar to corsair) would affect nearby troops to suffer less damage instead of a speed buff. This way you'd have a flying fortress that leads forward a massive frost army, that is even more protected from enemy attacks than usual. Fits the Frost theme a lot better I think.
  24. DarcReaver


    Bonjour baguette.
  25. Right now you just play the most potent/toxic combos from the BF era when it was taken down... I don't see much of a difference. But wipes are bad because grinding takes so long in this game and is so vital. In Diablo you can play without having to grind for hundreds of hours To make this work with BF you'd need to increase rewards to make players able to reach their full deck within 4 weeks or so maximum. Better booster collection would help though (uncommon single card, common card boosters, etc.)

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.