Welcome to Skylords Reborn

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • InsaneHawk

      Donations are back   01/17/17

      If you want more information, you can go check this topic : http://forum.skylords.eu/index.php?/topic/2790-donations-are-back/
    • MrXLink

      Future of Skylords Reborn and intro to Ardent Peak   02/10/17

      Dear Skylords, Skyladies, Skythings We have received the awesome news that we have been allowed by EA themselves to continue our project and open up many future possibilities! For all information and stream VODs, please refer to this topic:   
    • MrXLink

      NOTE: Stricter (chat) Rule Enforcement   04/11/17

      Greetings Skylords, Skyladies and Skythings. There has been a lot of commotion going on lately regarding moderation and people calling us out for favouritism and improper judgement. @Kiwi, myself and the rest of the team have had enough of this and we are changing our approach and leniency towards the community drastically, and eliminate this pseudo-favouritism factor. Not that we ever had favourites to begin with, nor in our eyes treated regulars in any way advantageous over others, but we have received several complaints regarding this issue, as well as there have been quite some clashes in chatbox recently. Aside from that, we have decided to act much more strictly about members in the foreseeable future as well.  Considering people have deemed our judgement to be unfair, this will result in us warning the community even for minor infringements, and possibly introducing more temp bans. We feel this is sadly necessary in the current community's state and we're better off having an ordered community in which people see us treat everyone the same way, although in my opinion harshly, and in which members treat staff with respect. As long as the safety and trustworthiness of moderation on the website and discord server is at risk, we will have to make it well-known that we do exert judgement on everyone equally. So from now on, we will be warning people more frequently. This can be for minor insults, misbehaviour, memberating or what we consider as staff disrespect. We're done with the leniency we have once shown here. I'm sad it has to happen this way and of course we will do everything in our power to keep the chatbox a nice, welcoming place. Perhaps this means people will start thinking that we are being sensitive, especially when it comes down to staff disrespect and failure to abide by warnings, but we consider that to be the lesser evil compared to giving members the illusion that we don't consider every member as equal. Equality, understanding, respect and involvement in the community are the cornerstones of community management and moderation, as they also should be within the staff area. So from now on, we are going to monitor this more closely than before. I hope we can treat everyone with understanding and respect here, members and staff alike. We are confident that this approach won't damage the community as much as our currently projected moderation image, valid or not, drags our reliability down. We are all human, and we strive for excellence within community management, moderation and involvement with the community, and aim to execute measures to achieve these goals with respect, passion, and dedication as we did before. We are saddened to have our strictness come to this point. As much as the (chatbox) community has made sure that this became the way it is, we do encourage to take the liberty to speak freely and have a good time here on the forums, as long as said behaviour is in accordance to the forum rules.  Remember, you can find the forum rules over here:  It saddens us to head in this direction, but we feel it will be for the best. We sincerely hope you can all respect this decision, keep the hype up, and have a nice time enjoying the chatbox and its features within a reasonable and orderly manner. Sincerely, and on behalf of @Kiwi and the Skylords Reborn Staff,
      MrXLink, Community Manager

synthc

Member
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About synthc

  • Rank
    Savage
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

222 profile views
  1. I was thinking about how we could increase awareness of this project and attract new players, and I remembered a site I spent a lot of time on back in my Command & Conquer days before the original Battleforge was released: gamereplays.org This site is mainly dedicated to Command & Conquer and similar RTS. It has a great replay system and has portals for each game that have news, tips, guides, forums, and etc. There were several threads back in 2009 on the GR forums about Battleforge and possibly adding a portal to the site, but all of the negative experiences people had with the game were regarding the fact that it was a pay2win grind-fest (GR consists mostly of competitive RTS players who want a fair playing field). Now that the game is no longer going to be pay2win, and we have the opportunity to minimize/eliminate grinding (I really hope the devs do this, as it would be incredibly healthy for the playerbase), I think that the people at GR would be very interested in Battleforge. The site has over 215,000 registered users and there seems to be around 500 people active at any given time; so getting a portal added to the site (visibility from the home page) would be a massive free advertisement for us. Additionally, it would provide us with a very nice replay + discussion system to use. The replay system is what the site was built on and has features such as likes, searching, sorting, sharing, commenting, reviews, and casting integration (IIRC). I think that when the game is finally officially released, we should start a new thread in their forums and create a petition to show how big our community already is (this is important, because creating a new portal and adding replay support involves a significant of work for them). In the meantime, it certainly wouldn't hurt to mention the project in a new thread on their forums, just to raise awareness of the project. What do you guys think of this? I really want to do everything we can to make sure the game doesn't end up dead again shortly after its release. In any case, I used to be a writer for GR, so when the game is released I will be messaging some admins about the possibility of adding a portal; but it will definitely take the support of the Battleforge community to actually make it happen.
  2. Regardless of what the fix for PvP upgrades is, PvP and PvE should always give the same amount of rewards per time spent. Even if we were to go with a tome-like system (like Eirias' suggestion), playing PvP with tomes should still give the same rewards so that you can upgrade your own decks instead of being stuck playing tome forever. Also, even after we do get a fully upgraded PvP deck to play with, we don't want to be stuck with only that deck for a really long time—we want to be able to upgrade cards to build other decks as well. There's simply no reason for PvE to give more rewards than PvP. See my suggestions here:
  3. Hmm. In that case making tomes U3 and fully charged would really help alleviate this problem. Though, again, I still don't think it's a complete solution.
  4. No: Yes, tome will be dead from the start. This is a way to give it a purpose in that you can at least play with U2 cards. It would probably need some tweaks like I mentioned. Does this work with the free tome deck? I didn't get to try it much because it was introduced around the time I left. Are the cards U2 with 2 charges? If so, then I guess there would be no need to mix tome and ranked... just leave tome in its grave.
  5. I've been away from this forum for quite a while, but I came back a couple of days ago and saw the Ardent Peak announcement which has revitalized my interest in this project. So, I've been thinking about the long debated issue of PvP upgrades and came up with the following proposal: Balancing Gold: My idea is to make upgrades work like levels in an RPG, in that each upgrade costs more than the previous one (up to a cap). Each player would have a total upgrade level based on all the upgrades on all the cards in their collection, and the higher the level, the more it costs to apply new upgrades. The purpose of this would be to make it so that PvP players and PvE speedrunners are able to get a fully functional deck fairly quickly without upgrades being a bottleneck. What makes this different from the other proposals I've seen is that it preserves (even extends) the player progression that is collecting upgrades. Since the upgrade costs ramps up with each upgrade you apply, it would still take a very long time to get all 1,617 upgrades (3 for each card in the game); thus preserving the long-lasting, difficult to achieve end game goal for PvE players and completionists. I haven't worked out a perfect formula for this, and these numbers are entirely dependent on the rate at which we get BFP and how much gold the upgrades themselves cost, but the end result should look something like this is terms of how long it takes to fully upgrade your decks: First deck takes 10 hours of play to fully upgrade Second deck takes 15 hours to fully upgrade Third deck takes 25 hours to fully upgrade Fourth deck takes 40 hours Fifth deck takes 60 hours Each 20 cards after the first 80 take 60 hours to fully upgrade (an average of 1 upgrade per hour) When you get to the point of having played 150 hours, you have five fully upgraded decks to choose from (more than most players would even regularly use); but as far as game progress goes, you've only completed 18.5% of the game as far as upgrades go (100/539 cards upgraded), and you'd still have a long way to go time-wise before getting all upgrades. I think it should be balanced so that it would take at least 1000 hours to fully upgrade every card in the game. With the rate of increase in time it takes to upgrade 20 cards I suggested above (capped at 60 hours per 20 cards), it would take 1470 hours to get all upgrades. We could adjust the hard cap to be 50 (1250 hours) or 40 (1010 hours), or whatever seems best (maybe we want to make it take 2000+ hours). We could even replace the hard cap with a soft cap that ramps up more slowly and adjust the entire curve. The idea is that this system would give players a good pace to work with. The goal would be to balance the system so that by the time most players feel like trying a new deck, they have about enough gold to fully upgrade it, but there is still a long-lasting sense of progression due to the large amount of time it would take to get enough gold to upgrade all cards. This is a way to make upgrading cards slower than collecting cards without crippling people in PvP. Balancing BFP: It is also equally important that we properly pace BFP income in order to avoid the PvP grind—you can't upgrade cards you don't own. So the problem here is that, even though upgrading your first deck should be quick and easy with the above proposal, you still need BFP to buy the cards for your deck. While decks will be a lot more playable without optimal cards than they would without upgrades and charges (e.g. Witchclaws aren't that much worse than Dreadcharger, and a deck with u3 Witchclaws and full charges will destroy a deck with u1 Dreadchargers), this is still a problem and a big barrier to new players (and veterans that don't want to grind) that doesn't need to exist now that the game is not P2W. I don't know what level of control the devs have over the server and how it interfaces with players' collections at this point in time, but here are a couple of possible solutions to the problem: Give players a sum of starting BFP that can be used to buy packs, buy cards from the AH, and trade for cards. This must come with the restriction that all cards acquired with these starting BFP are bound to the account and cannot be sold/traded/gifted (likely hard to implement). Do the usual F2P thing and give new accounts a bunch of high reward quests to give them an early BFP boost. This will help PvP'ers and speedrunners get their first deck built quickly so that they can enjoy the game. This is also a common trick to help with player retention—players are more likely to keep playing if they think they're getting a lot of rewards and making quick progress/generally doing well in the game. The obvious downside is that this encourages multi-accounting. Maybe we could lock down trade a bit or create a system that detects grossly uneven trades. I also don't think it's necessary to allow players to send cards/BFP by mail—this opens up possibilities for a lot of abuse. Reduce the amount of BFP an account earns based on how much it has already acquired. This idea is similar to my gold idea above. You make it so that an account earns a % less BFP based on how much it's already gotten through rewards and through trade/mail. This allows players to earn lots of BFP early on that drops off slowly until it hits a cap and becomes constant. This helps prevent players from benefiting from mailing BFP to their main account, since the account's normal BFP income will drop off if they do so. There should also be a limit to the amount of BFP an account can gain from mail and trades (possibly based on level)—cards could also be limited based on rarity. Implement in-game + forum account linking and give registered forum members a bunch of BFP boosters. This helps to prevent multi-accounting and has the added bonus of getting new players to register on the forums and be a part of the community. Balancing Rarity & Enabling Diversity: My original thought for balancing card rarity was to remove the card charge system. The charge system serves no purpose in a true F2P game (it's purely a money grab) and it causes problems with rarity distribution (it's much harder to fully charge an UR card than a UC/C card). This can make decks such as pure shadow, pure nature, (and also pure fire due to the market not being flooded with promo Firedancers) unplayable for players until they've amassed a huge amount of BFP to buy four copies of those essential ultra rares. In the end, I realized that removing the charge system is probably unnecessary, as we can fix the problem more easily using other methods. An easy way to fix this issue is simply to greatly increase the chances of getting URs and Rs in packs. Let's think about the purpose of rarity in CCGs. Sure, it's exciting to open a pack and get a super rare card in it, but that's really not primary purpose—it's just a small side benefit. The real purpose of rarity systems is $$$. By making a few very powerful/specialized cards that are required to play certain decks, companies can get players to buy insane amounts of card packs in order to get those super rare cards—that is the real purpose of card rarity; and what EA has done with Battleforge is no different. So, if we increase the chance of getting URs, we're essentially 'unlocking' those decks that need URs to function properly—thus allowing players to play the decks they want to play and increasing the overall diversity of decks played. Otherwise we'd just see endless shadow/frost and fire/nature (which we'll see a lot of anyway, but at least this way we get some pure shadow, pure fire, and pure nature too). It is very important that we both prevent returning veterans from not coming back because they can't bear the though of doing all that grinding again in order to get a playable PvP deck (many people have already said they won't play the game again if they have to grind to get their decks back), as well as prevent new players from being daunted by the amount of time it takes to get the cards and upgrades to become competitive in PvP. This also applies to speedrunning in the same way, as upgrades are vital there as well. I want the playerbase to be as big as possible, and I want this game to be as good as it can possibly be. Notice that every successful F2P game has given players a very large boost in rewards when they first start playing that slowly drops off. We should do the same, as it's very important for player retention. Battleforge is also a special case, since most of the player base will have already done the grind, and many are not willing to do it all over again. Let's not make the same mistakes EA made back when they had no clue how to manage a F2P game.
  6. OK. I saw you going back and forth between that idea and just having the same free deck for everyone. This would work better, but it still has the problem of multi-accounting. Even if you don't get the rewards on your main account, you can still mail them to yourself or even run two clients at the same time and do bogus trades (I doubt the devs will put that much effort into detecting and stopping this). I think that your idea isn't bad, it's just that the thought of not being able to tweak the decks at all is horrible. This is why I proposed the 60-100 card free tome that allows you to build your own decks. Regarding your points on this being too inconsistent, I absolutely agree. Each tome should be guaranteed to have certain essential cards. It would basically be your system, but with more flexibility. Basically you're given all the core cards for a deck and you could use them to play the standard deck if you wanted to, but there's also a bunch of randomly chosen cards that you can include if you're feeling adventurous. Maybe we're both missing the obvious easy solution: put the existing tome ranked in the same pool as normal ranked so that you can actually find tome matches. This is only a partial solution though, as it's very subject to RNG, which is very bad in an RTS. But if you combined this with free tome decks (which already existed IIRC) and maybe some tweaks to how tome cards are chosen (some of the ideas I outlined for my mega-tome, like no t4), I think it would help a lot.
  7. How is that a good thing? That's a terrible thing; it just makes tome come down to luck. Yes, skill still plays a bigger role in tome than luck, but in a match between players of equal strength, the player with the better tome wins, thus it comes down to luck. Sure tome will help with the upgrades issue, but it's definitely not a complete solution. I never said anyone should get a level 120 deck without working for it. Read my suggestion on the previous page.
  8. Theoretically lowering the PvP entry barrier will indeed encourage new players to keep playing, but, as much as I hope we do get a steady stream of new players, realistically I really don't think it's going to happen. I think that 6 months or so after the game's release, the game will consist mostly of a small group of players from the original game. After a year or so, all active players will have all of the PvP decks they ever intend to play, so locked decks wouldn't be used. I guess it's somewhat of a moot argument though, because the whole purpose is to retain new PvP players—it's just that I think that if we don't have many new players this feature will be less useful than just fixing the upgrade system in the first place (it would also be harder to implement and maintain). I understand what you mean. A few variations isn't going to be enough to stop people from building counter decks to these locked decks. Sure, it will help prevent a few specific cards from wrecking these decks, but the overall counters will still exist. E.g. it's pure fire week, so everyone plays pure frost to counter it—that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I know what you mean, but the goal here wouldn't be to make it ramp up so fast that it takes months to upgrade your third PvP deck or something like that. The idea would be that you could get one deck fully upgraded at the same rate you can acquire the cards from the auction house. Once you have a single deck to play, you can at least fully enjoy your PvP experience while collecting gold and BFP for new decks. For your second deck, gold would be a little bit of a bottleneck compared to BFP, but not much (depends on the rarity of cards in each deck and just generally how much they BFP cost). The third deck would take a bit longer to get, but you could still get it in a reasonable amount of play time. This all depends on how quickly you gain BFP, but I would like to see something like this: First deck takes 10 hours of play to fully upgrade Second deck takes 15 hours to fully upgrade Third deck takes 25 hours to fully upgrade Fourth deck takes 40 hours Fifth deck takes 60 hours Each 20 cards after the first 80 take 60 hours to fully upgrade (an average of 1 upgrade per hour) At that point you've played 150 hours and you have five fully upgraded decks to choose from (more than most players would even regularly use); but as far as game progress goes, you've only completed 18.5% of the game as far as upgrades go (100/539 cards upgraded), and you'd still have a long way to go time-wise before getting all upgrades. I would want it to be balanced so that it would take at least 1000 hours to fully upgrade every card in the game. With the rate of increase in time it takes to upgrade 20 cards I suggested above (capped at 60 hours per 20 cards), it would take 1470 hours to get all upgrades. We could adjust the hard cap to be 50 (1250 hours) or 40 (1010 hours), or whatever seems best. We could even replace the hard cap with a soft cap that ramps up more slowly and adjust the entire curve. The thing is that most people find one or two decks they really like and tend to stick with those for the most part. For example, I played every deck there was except for pure frost; but in reality, probably 80% of my 1v1 matches were played with pure nature or shadow/frost. My 2v2 was a bit more diverse, but still probably 70% of my games were with nature/frost or pure fire. Diversity is mostly limited by what people want to play, rather than what they're able to play in terms of upgrades. The idea is that this system would give players a good pace to work with. The goal would be to balance the system so that by the time most players feel like trying a new deck, they have about enough gold to fully upgrade it, but there is still a long-lasting sense of progression due to the large amount of time it would take to get enough gold to upgrade all cards. This is a way to make upgrading cards slower than collecting cards without crippling people in PvP. As for PvE, I think that this is where the slower progression really matters the most. PvP players will always have things to strive for (e.g. rank), but PvE players need a longer lasting game progression, so I think that the slower upgrading after a certain point for PvE decks would be a good thing—you could still get a wide variety of decks to play, but fully upgrading everything would be a very long term goal. As far as speedrunning goes, I get that it takes more cards than PvP, but I still think that you could have a solid number of decks to optimally speedrun a good number of maps within a reasonable amount of play time. A lot of the same cards can be used in different maps in speedrunning and there are a lot of different strategies for each map, so I don't think that this upgrade system would be too much of a limitation. Also, if the pacing we originally decide on turns out to be too slow (or too fast) we can always adjust it.
  9. Grinding for upgrades is exactly what we're trying to eliminate. Most people don't like grinding and a lot of people don't like PvE at all. The purpose of grinding in the original game was to force people to buy BFP; now that the game is truly F2P and not P2W, there is no need for grinding anymore. I don't think that upgrades should be removed from PvP either, but I definitely don't think the upgrade system should be the same as it was before—the massive amount of grinding it took to get a competitive PvP deck would turn a lot of people away from the game. I agree that the PvE system should remain the same. PvE players tend to want different things from the game (more long progression), while PvP players just don't want to be at a disadvantage. The problem is that not everyone likes PvE. Getting fewer rewards for playing PvP vs PvE is a terrible idea. That's how the game worked originally and the grinding was so bad that even EA added tokens to ease the pain. You should get the exact same number of rewards for your time spend in PvP and PvE.
  10. But it would be the deck that a significant portion of the player base uses (especially early on, when almost nobody would play anything else). This also depends on how many new players join the game after the first few months (realistically, probably not many, but I guess we can hope for the best). If we end up with one, fairly static player base, then there will eventually be nobody playing these locked decks. Of course not everyone would be playing these decks, but there would still be a significant enough portion of the player-base using them that it would have a major impact on the meta-game. It would slow down the rate of change since not everyone has the cards to adapt to new strategies and instead rely on the locked decks—thus creating a more stale meta. It would be stale not only because a lot of people would be playing these same locked decks, but also because people would build decks designed specifically to counter these decks—what your opponent will be playing just becomes more predictable and thus easier to build against. Fair enough. I suppose the multi-accounting probably wouldn't be as bad as I had originally thought, though it would still incentivize it; whereas there would otherwise be little incentive to play with multiple accounts. Read my whole post here: Towards the bottom I outlined a system that would make each upgrade cost increasingly more. I think this is the best possible system, because it removes the messy and useless charge system, allows players to fully upgrade a one or two decks quite quickly (the first deck should be upgradable at the same rate they acquire their cards for the PvP deck, thus those early PvP upgrades are a non-issue), and it actually significantly extends the amount of time it takes to get all of the upgrades (100% the game). It would serve the same purpose that your locked deck proposal would serve: giving players a good deck to use in PvP while they work on building and upgrading their own deck. I agree that the current tome system needs no changes—this would be an addition, and perhaps tome is not the best name for it. It's just a free, rotating, fully upgraded card pool that players can use to build decks. The biggest difference is that you can still choose which cards you want and build your own deck, rather than having to play a deck built by someone else.
  11. I don't think this is a good solution to the PvP upgrades problem. Here's why: It takes away the deck-building factor of the game. Deck-building is an integral part of any CCG and it was one of most fun aspects of the game, for me, at least. I can't stand the idea of having someone else decide what cards I have in my deck. The meta-game is artificially controlled by a small group of people. Even if many variations of each deck are added (which becomes somewhat time consuming and can only go on for so long before you get decks that are repeats of older ones), the meta-game is still determined by what a small group of players think is good at the time. It leaves no room for experimentation and will ultimately lead to a (more) stale meta-game. Sometimes cards that were previously thought to be very weak turn out to be quite strong when used correctly, and sometimes this is found out because some previously unknown player (or even a new player) who decided to try something new. This format does not allow for this kind of experimentation—it's completely at the mercy of consensus, which is definitely not always right. It strongly encourages multi-accounting. I won't go into why multi-accounting is generally a bad thing, but if different accounts have access to different free decks, people will absolutely have as many accounts as they can until they have access to all the decks. This also completely circumvents player progression, because people effectively have access to all the mainstream PvP decks from the start. The only ways to prevent this would be to make each region have access to the same decks (likely hard/impossible to implement right now, and would lead to an imbalance of which decks are available) or to make only one free deck that everyone has access to (this might work later on, once most people already have a couple of fully upgraded decks, but early on this will result in nearly everyone in PvP playing the same deck). It's not really necessary if we remove the card charge system and balance gold rewards properly. See: All that said, I do like the concept of having better, fully upgraded tome decks that allow players to experiment with cards/upgrades they don't own. I don't think that something like this should be implemented on release, because of the issues I noted in point #3 above (and because I don't think it would be a very important feature), but I think that a while after the game's release when many players already have a couple of fully upgraded PvP decks to choose from, it would be cool to have a free, fully upgraded weekly/bi-monthly tome something like this: Would be quite large with 60-100 cards. Would not be locked—it would function like a regular tome in which you can build your own decks from the tome's card pool. Cards would be randomly chosen from a pool of 'viable' PvP cards. The only real constraints would be no T4 and no cards that are universally considered to be completely unusable in PvP. There would be two pseudo-randomly chosen colors (constrained to prevent repetition within the weekly/bi-monthly cycles). Each color would have enough pure units to play a pure deck in either color; and, of course, you could play a splash deck using the two colors. Card ratios would be controlled to be half of one color and have of the other. Tier ratios would also be controlled to include mostly T1/T2 cards (like 75% t1/t2 and 25% t3). This system would still allow players to build their own decks and it would prevent the multi-accounting issues noted above. But again, I don't think that this is something that should be implemented early on. One downside to this idea is that there would be a lot more pure decks than splash decks... perhaps the formula could be tweaked to allow for more splash decks. You could maybe do something like what Faeria does with their arena and have 3 of the 4 colors available each week.
  12. The real problem with most of the solutions I've seen in this thread is charges, and the solution is simple—remove them. Charges really have no value whatsoever; their sole purpose in the original game was to function as a money grab (why make players buy one copy of a card in order to competitive when you can make them buy four?). There is a value in the upgrade system (player progression/player retention), but the charge system is completely worthless and should just be removed. Make it so that owning one copy of a card gives you the full four charges. BFP income and/or pack rarity distribution can be adjusted to compensate for players not needing duplicate cards. It's been suggested that card charges are analogous to having multiple cards in a deck in a traditional CCG, but this is not the case because you're not trading off versatility for reliability when you add multiple copies of the same card in Battleforge, you're just directly increasing the power of your deck with no tradeoff at all—this mechanic is not useful and it's redundant with the upgrade system. With the charge system gone, really any number of solutions to the upgrade grinding problem would work. You could go with ndclub's idea of removing them for PvP only, and as much as I would like that, I think that a compromise that keeps PvP upgrades around really wouldn't harm the PvP experience much (if at all) if done correctly. I think that as long as players earn enough gold from PvP to fully upgrade only the cards they need for their PvP decks, things will work out just fine. There will always be a BFP bottleneck as players acquire new cards to make their decks more competitive. As long as you have enough gold to upgrade those cards when you get them, then upgrades are a non-issue for PvP. Note that I'm not saying players should have enough gold to upgrade ALL cards they get from opening packs and such (this would defeat the purpose of upgrades)—only the 20 that they need for their PvP deck. Getting all of the card upgrades would still be a very significant challenge that would require a large time investment and provide a long-lasting player progression path. I also had another idea (hopefully this hasn't already been suggested). What if upgrades worked like levels in an RPG, in that each upgrade costs more than the previous one? You could even give players a total level based on the number of upgrades they have (similar to deck levels, but based on all cards in a player's collection) and the higher the level, the more upgrades cost. This level should, of course, be weighted so that higher level upgrades (e.g. u3 vs u2) add more to the level, rather than the linear deck level calculation that just counts the number of upgrades. The purpose of this would be to make it so that players could upgrade a single deck fairly quickly (at least as fast as they could acquire BFP for the cards), but each subsequent deck would take increasingly longer to upgrade, and upgrading all 539 cards would be quite a feat that only the most dedicated completionists will achieve. This system would be nice because PvP players and PvE speedrunners would be able to fairly quickly get one or two competitive decks, but the overall depth of player progression would be preserved, if not enriched. As for Eirias' locked tome deck idea, I don't think this would be a good thing (at least not in its current form). I'll make a separate post in the thread he created explaining why. EDIT:
  13. Well until I either have a list of U3 stats (from what I see on the wiki, you'd have to add up all the upgrade stats to get U3 stats) or I have access to the actual game, I'm not going to make a list. Having up to date U3 stats is a bare minimum for this to work. My goal here was more just to put the idea out there than to garner lots of support right now. When I'm looking for support I'll make a full detailed list of changes explaining my reasoning and I'll include a poll.
  14. I know that there were lots of players who tried new things. I was one of them. I think I was the first Legend to play Phalanx + Embalmer's + Furnace + Phoenix (really lame I know), or at least I never saw anyone else play it long after I had played it. I also don't know of any other top 10 pure nature players who didn't use T3 (I used MotK, Rogan, and Spikeroot instead). I even played Executor to great success in a frost heavy meta (motivated Executor rush wrecks frost without Imperials). NinjaFlute was a good player who experimented with and discovered a lot of new things in bandit (I think he played fire/shadow before bandits). What I said was that most players don't try different decks, and this is true. Most ladder players just copy the common high-level decks rather than try to come up with and learn to play a deck of their own. It's interesting that you should mention 25 deck slots. I remember making a thread and having a very long and intense discussion about this on the old forums. I was a huge proponent of 25 deck slots and I still am. I absolutely agree that it would increase diversity for the reasons you stated. I didn't suggest it here though because it would require UI changes which are something that will happen a long time from now, if at all, I think. As for the changes I have in mind, I had a huge list on the old forums, but I'd rather not spend the time making a new list, explaining my reasoning behind each change until I either know that the devs are open to the idea of a balance overhaul, or I at least have a lot of other people supporting me in this idea. Another reason for not making a list is simply that I don't have access to the game any more so I can't test things; allbfcards doesn't even have U3 stats, so it would all be guesswork unless someone has a full U3 card list. If I do decide to make a list I'll start a new topic.
  15. Maybe not at the moment, but from the FAQ: I suspect that they'll have to change the client when they change the upgrade/rewards system (unless they're planning on doing everything by mail, which would be pretty bad).