Jump to content

TBird

Member
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. TBird liked a post in a topic by RadicalX in Pls make pvp reward higher   
    I think at least 2 things are clearly problematic in this calculation.
    1. No one will use rPvE 6 to farm gold. Almost no player will use rPvE 10 to farm gold unless the MotM is super easy to allow 3 runs per hour. rPvE 9 is the realistic measurement for an average PvE player that farms gold. You can easily go for 12.000 gold per hour here without being super experienced at the game. Just build 8-11 Windweavers, fight to T3, build Amii, spam lost spirit ship and that's it for the 1p version. 
    2. In rPvE 9 it is at least 20 times easier winning every single game. Especially with Map of the Month you can collect information about difficult camps beforehand and improve strategies to get more effective with each run. These maps are easily beatable in 20mins, which gives you about 12.000 gold. An average rPvE player should get about 95-100% winrate while an average PvP player probably sits at sub 50% due to the top 20 being much more active than other PvP starters. 
  2. fiki574 liked a post in a topic by TBird in Boring for beginners   
    After having had the chance to play the current version for a week, I am happy to say that I have to retract part of my criticism.

    The reason for this is that at first, I didn't realize the upgrade system had been reworked to allow purchases of upgrades for gold, which is an excellent idea.
    Initially, I just saw that tokens were removed, looked at the huge loot tables per map and assumed I would have to farm all upgrades by playing the same maps over and over again (which if I remember correctly was a major PITA back in the day before tokens were available, especially in cases were a certain upgrade just wouldn't drop and you had to endlessly farm the same multiplayer map).
    Now, given that upgrades can be bought for gold and the prices are indeed reasonable, it makes sense that card acquisition can't be super fast as well.

    Not having access to certain cards in the beginning is also easier to deal with, if in turn the other cards you have in your deck are upgraded.
    I understand this doesn't solve the issues for PVP players and speedrunners, but the situation for regular PVE players is certainly much better than I thought in the beginning.

    A few additional observations from my perspective (might be well-known):

    - The best strategy in the beginning seems to be to never open a booster, but instead always sell them for BFP and buy cards on the market. I don't know if there is a solution, but it feels a bit weird.

    - As has been discussed, currently the rate of card acquisition is almost completely linear. I agree with the people who feel that it would feel more motivating to speed up card gains in the beginning and slow it down later. Total time for completing a collection could stay the same, but the pace would change.
    I think the achievement that awards additional boosters for completed quests in the beginning has that goal, but currently it slows down very fast.
  3. Einarson liked a post in a topic by TBird in Open Stress Test Information   
    The problem is that a stress test does not work well with the goal of conducting a long term observation of the ingame economy at the same time.

    Let's face it: It's been 10 years since Battleforge was initially released, but today many players have less time due to real-life commitments. In my case that means, I have neither the time nor the desire to refarm my collection up to 3 times including upgrades after every possible reset.

    So currently with my crappy starter deck, I will just play through the standard maps once and then be gone until all the resets are done, which should probably not be the goal of a technical stress test.
    So in my opinion, it would be preferable to EITHER conduct a technical stress test with quicker access to all cards to enable many players to test expert difficulty, challenges, speedruns, favourite PVP decks, etc. and not having to worry as much about any lost time for farming. OR - once you are happy with the technical aspects of the game - you try a realistic unlocking system to simulate the ingame economy once for a predetermined amount of time. But I don't think mixing up technical issues and balancing the economy is the best solution.

    I will also say that while I absolutely appreciate the work the dev team has accomplished, given the length of the current development cycles the problem becomes even more pressing: It's one thing if you have people farm for a month, watch the ingame economy and then reset it and make changes. But if you reset collections every ~8 months - maybe even several times - I suspect a lot of new or casual players will have moved on once the final version of the game goes live.

    Then again, I assume that you have statistics concerning the development of player numbers over time and will use these to decide on the best course of action.
  4. TBird liked a post in a topic by RadicalX in Boring for beginners   
    Just to throw in a certain idea here
    -> Make more PvP quests and let people choose between a PvP or a PvE quest tree. So no one ends up being forced to play a game mode he doesn't want to play.
    -> Give PvP meaningful gold rewards, especially for losing players the experience is awful. As I already stated, the current values are even worse compared to EA times. 
     
    This would give people a choice of playing PvP to farm upgrades and cards and it also would be less frustrating to lose matches if you get decent gold/bfp rewards. Someone lost 5 games in a row because of bad upgrades and cards? At least he does get to buy/upgrade some cards then in order to get competitive. Especially people, that don't have the time to grind hours and hours for upgrades and cards, do want to get the cards by playing the games they enjoy, may it be PvP or PvE. I mean just take a look at the amount of people from the PvE community, that started crying about the PvP quest before rerolls got introduced. People don't want to get forced into a gamemode they don't like.   
     
    This is a quick overview for one of the current Shadow Frost decks that shows the difference between U0 and U3. Almost every single card gets a significant buff, making it more effective from a range about 10-60%. This is huge. Just for comparison: The stat difference between T1 and T2 units ranges about 10-25%. So this is somewhat worse than starting a T1 vs T2 match. Alot of combos aren't working anymore, which decreases the cost efficency of cards even further (burst breakpoints are the most important thing here).

    One simple example: Nightcrawler + Nasty Surprise is a standard combo for 4/10 decks to burst down the  Skyfire Drake, who is used in 4/10 of available color combinations. With an U0 Nasty it doesn't kill the Drake anymore leaving couterplay potential with healing spells like ravage. This has huge implications on how these matchups end up playing out. The lack of charges for core trading cards makes things worse on top of that as you will run out of effective counter methods much faster than your opponent. 
    I'm the current rank 1 player in PvP, yet I wouldn't stand a chance against any decent player, who has an upgraded deck even if my winrate was up to 100% against that person beforehand. There definitely is a decent playerbase outside of the "top 10/20", just take a look at toggys recent rookie tournaments. People are willing to play PvP if there is an environment to do so and there are alot of people from the PvP community, that simply don't bother playing before the reset, as they want to avoid as much PvE grinding as possible. 
    If we take that comparison to the old Battleforge, it is looking pretty grim for PvP. There was a way to get cards and tokens for upgrades just by investing a small amount of money. People had the chance of getting cards and upgrades for a strong PvP deck and PvP players used that opportunity as they wanted to play PvP, not PvE. Right now the game suits to players, that like PvE and you did a good job at that so far, but honestly it is worse compared to vanilla BF for PvP players. I'm pretty sure, that the majority of PvP mains would rather invest 10€ rather than being forced to play 30 hours of PvE over multiple weeks to start playing the game mode they do enjoy. Right now this possibility of paying money is gone for good reasons, but there is no compensation for it for a player who just likes playing PvP. 
     
  5. TBird liked a post in a topic by Navarr in Boring for beginners   
    Aaaand that's the point where Navarr joins the discussion again xD
    Can you all please stay with the topic which is not PvP but the fact that beginners can't get a hold onto the current system? This way the community can't grow and we all don't want to see the downfall of Skylords earlier than expected. So, what are we gonna do? Maybe focus on the topic and evaluate the already stated points instead of dodging to other debates.
    I would really wish that some points we brought up about PvE and general BFP : Booster value and market balance would be adressed. Also Kubik, we all appreciate what you do here so no worries about that. I just think your comparisons to other games don't quite fit in my opinion as they are very different in almost all aspects, not only concerning target audience and scale. In my opinion the community would profit much more from a discussion where we figure out how to fix the obviously broken current system. I heard that you are planning to fix some things simultaniously with the reset because of just how much the market is messed up at the moment. So if I were a developer here, I'd try to find out with the help of the community, how to make an efficient fix (and tweaking a few numbers is one of the most efficient things that can be done at the moment). So, many people already stated throughout different forums, different ideas for solutions that help both the market problems and the beginner problems which are obviously strongly interconnected. Why fight them instead of discuss? I don't get it.
     
    ps: One last thing about PvP that I see is getting misunderstood. PvP is only 1% of matches (if this is true) BECAUSE it's so hard to get into it. Not the other way round obviously.
  6. Navarr liked a post in a topic by TBird in Open Stress Test Information   
    The problem is that a stress test does not work well with the goal of conducting a long term observation of the ingame economy at the same time.

    Let's face it: It's been 10 years since Battleforge was initially released, but today many players have less time due to real-life commitments. In my case that means, I have neither the time nor the desire to refarm my collection up to 3 times including upgrades after every possible reset.

    So currently with my crappy starter deck, I will just play through the standard maps once and then be gone until all the resets are done, which should probably not be the goal of a technical stress test.
    So in my opinion, it would be preferable to EITHER conduct a technical stress test with quicker access to all cards to enable many players to test expert difficulty, challenges, speedruns, favourite PVP decks, etc. and not having to worry as much about any lost time for farming. OR - once you are happy with the technical aspects of the game - you try a realistic unlocking system to simulate the ingame economy once for a predetermined amount of time. But I don't think mixing up technical issues and balancing the economy is the best solution.

    I will also say that while I absolutely appreciate the work the dev team has accomplished, given the length of the current development cycles the problem becomes even more pressing: It's one thing if you have people farm for a month, watch the ingame economy and then reset it and make changes. But if you reset collections every ~8 months - maybe even several times - I suspect a lot of new or casual players will have moved on once the final version of the game goes live.

    Then again, I assume that you have statistics concerning the development of player numbers over time and will use these to decide on the best course of action.
×
×
  • 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