Posts posted by macabi
I agree there are powerful as well as flexible cards such as Lost Spirit Ship and that some restrictions is appropriate for such cards.
That is the other side of the argument.
I agree with both approaches.
Make very strict cards such as Lost Warlord more flexible while making other powerful cards such as Lost Spirit Ship more restrictive.
The objective is to close the gap as much as possible and give player more good options.
Also, there is nothing wrong with having both of these units in the same deck.
Air units are very useful but we also need normal units in order to spawn more units.
Besides, lost Warlord is more powerful than Lost Spirit Ship from the aspect of live points and damage.
1 hour ago, Cocofang said:
Frankly, who the fuck cares. They'll manage.
I think the point you are missing is that your approach, in an attempt to dodge around the issue, would make it worse.
We should all care about how players feel about game changes.
Angry players move on to other games and we want our fan game base to grow not shrink.
By making unused cards better we make them more popular.
That will increase the number of often used cards which is the objective.
Is that too hard to understand?
@Cocofang, The problem you are describing is already present.
Some cards are used by most players and some other cards are not used at all.
My suggested approach is simple, don't nurf popular cards because that will anger some players who like their powerful cards.
Instead, improve unused cards such as Lost Warlord (which you never see) by making one of his orbs Neutral.
This will encourage platers to switched to cards that were not used before.
Any decision regarding this proposal?
Implementing it should be very easy.
On 4/2/2021 at 8:07 AM, Eirias said:
At what point does this become PvE though?
It's a PvP style PvE.
In PvE the AI just have units in place defending an areas and buildings that spawn more units, that's it.
In PvP it's about capturing power wells and monuments and attacking the player's monument and power well.
PvP has more dynamic game play and therefore more rewarding.
For that reason every RTS games have a Skirmish game mode where the AI plays a PvP game style mode.On 4/2/2021 at 12:52 PM, SunWu said:
Isn't pvp far too complex for a bot? A simple decision like a) retreating or b) stay attacking depends on so many factors like: whats the HP of the attacking unit, whats the HP of surrounding enemy units, whats their damage? What CCs or dmg spells do i carry, wich does the oponent carry? you have decisions like this literally every second - is it even possible to make a bot wich isn't just a slightly better PVE AI?
Yes, but there are ways to get around the complex portion of PvP gameplay.
For example, no retreating.
When attacking, summon several units and attack all together.
No special abilities initially, so no micro.
The AI can manage with some resource cheating.
AI units should all be fully upgraded. HP and damage is handled automatically just like in PvE games.
Many years ago I wrote custom scenarios Skirmish style for Age of Empire 3 via their Map Editor.
The scripts for Map Editing are vast, and their are numerous way to know to handle he situation on the ground, and base on that how to react.
Battleforge/Skylords has even more complex map editing scripts than Age of Empire 3.
I would love to look into it myself but this is more appropriate for a team effort.
15 hours ago, LagOps said:
an AI mode does sound great, but i wouldn't even know how to start writing AI for battleforge. the game is way way too dynamic for it as it lacks classical base-building mechanics and tech progression. the void system, ability to spawn units in the field and use of spells leads to vastly different approaches to matches when compared to other rts games. if anyone has any sort of idea on how a decent bot can be made, then i am all for it. i have however the suspicion that the lack of bots in pvp is for good reason: the devs could not deliver an acceptable bot in an acceptable sort of timeframe (and maybe even neither of those) and that's why we never got bots in pvp.
Don't underestimate the ability of the developers.
The scenario scripting for Battleforge is vast.
Of course, we can never expect the AI to play as good as human players.
However, that can be resolved by allowing the AI to cheat with resources.
The higher the difficulty level, the more the AI cheats.
This will allow every player to find the difficulty level that is right for him.
I challenge the developers to look into that.
They can start with something basic and then improve it over time.
Unfortunately PvP is declining every day.
Only the best players play PvP now days and new players who try to play PvP just get crashed so they never go back to PvP.
Skylords is missing an essential game mode that exists in other RTS game.
That game mode is "Skirmish" against the AI.
We have a PvE for that, but PvP is entirely different play style.
In other RTS games many players like to play "Computer Stomp" via Skirmish.
We don't have such option with Skylords.
That could be done via scenario design where the AI captures and builds power wells and monuments.
We just need a good team of scenario designers to work on that.
This will help players to get better in PvP and PvP will become more popular.
There are several cards such as Lost Dragon and Lost Warlord that are hardly being used.
That is the case not because they are not good cards but because of the orbs restriction.
The entire idea is to make unused cards to be more accessible.
14 hours ago, SunWu said:
Lost warlord though, he's really just an average T4 XL wich sees no play cause of the orb restrictions. But if units like lost warlord get a buff maybe decks like become more interesting.
That is also a good idea.
Many cards have 2 affinities where one is better than the other and therefore being used much more.
So how about this idea:
Make one affinity more powerful and leave the color requirements as it is now, while easing color restriction for the other affinity where that card is less powerful and therefore less popular.
Such change will make both affinities popular.
Just a reminder - we are talking only about 4 tier cards where all 4 monuments require a certain color.
I agree with you that there may be an exception for some overpowered cards such as Batariel (Fire Affinity).
However, most of these cards are not overpowered such as Lost Warlord and Lost Dragon.
For these cards easing the color requirements makes sense.
It doesn't necessarily mean that every deck will have Nature.
Players can choose Fire instead.
My point is that it doesn't make sense for some cards to require 1 or 2 monuments to have certain colors while other cards require all 4 monuments to have certain colors.
It is a restriction with no meaning.
My suggestion is that for tier 4 at least one monument should be Neutral so the player can fit such card with more decks.
I would like to suggest easing color restrictions across the board for tier 4 units where all 4 monuments require a certain color.
Example - Lost dragon require 2 frost and 2 shadow while lost Spirit Ship requires only 1 frost and 1 shadow.
This is a major restriction because healing (Nature monument) is crucial for rPVE and even for some campaign maps.
As a result, we see Lost Spirit Ship in many rPvE games but no Lost Dragon.
There is really no good reason for such restriction for some cards while other cards don't have much of a restriction.
So my suggestion is to reduce ALL tier 4 color restrictions to maximum of 3 colors with at least 1 neutral color.
The Collection PvP mode was added after players express their desire to collect all cards and not just PvE cards.
We all know that acquiring new cards is a lot of fun, so by eliminating the need to acquire PvP cards we eliminate an important feature of the game.
Adding a few achievements for Collection PvP will help preserve the fun of collecting PvP cards.
I cannot see anything wrong with that.
It's not like everyone will drop all the other game modes and play only Collection PvP.
We are talking about a balanced incentive, that's all.
First of all, there is no danger of uneven player deck level in Collection PvP because the host usually kick out players with low deck level.
The same thing is done when a low deck level player joins rPvE level 9. He gets kicked out.
So, we can trust the host to ensure the game has players with similar deck levels.
Also, very important, players who play Unlimited PvP have no need to buy important PvP cards because they can get them free from the free decks.
However, if they are encourage (via achievements) to play Collection PvP instead of Unlimited PvP, then they would need these "free cards" which they cannot use with collection.
Let us not forget, that was what players complained about, and why the developers introduce the "Collection PvP".
I have joined Collection PvP games many times and noticed players don't want to play them.
These collection PvP games are usually hosted by new players who are unaware of the free unlimited PvP decks.
Personally I don't mind playing Collection PvP, however, every player who joins the game quits once he realizes it is Collection and not Unlimited PvP.
So, I wanted to bring this issue to the developers attention who spend extra time and effort offering us this game option.
The fact is, players are not interested in playing Collection PvP.
So perhaps its time to offer some incentives for Collection games via achievements.
How about adding the following achievements:
"Play 5 Collection PvP games" - reward - free booster
"Win 5 Collection PvP games" - reward - 2 free boosters
Next achievement sets:
"Play 10 Collection PvP games" - reward - 2 free boosters
"Win 10 Collection PvP games" - reward - 4 free boosters
And so on.....
After sending many emails, and tweet messages to game reviewers, I finally got the first article to be published.
This article was published by Jonathan Bolding a month ago:
I hope more will follow.
22 hours ago, Mighty_Rathalos said:
well ok, when it comes to gold then yes, losing = no or almost no gold that is bad but if I understood your main post correctly you were refering to the reward of the quests. which is a one time thing and my feedback was mainly focused on that.
I started this post back in September before the release when the number of players was small and almost nobody played PvP.
That situation has changed now with the new release.
It is now easy to find a PvP game.
Therefore, the moderators are welcome to close this thread.
On 1/13/2021 at 4:24 PM, Mighty_Rathalos said:
well, just my 2 cents on this but higher rewards would not do alot from what I have seen in other games. a) for people like me its not how tedious it is, its mainly that I reeeally dont like how pvp works in this game (although thats comming from someone who always loved RTS for theis gameplay and campagins but alwas hated it VS players) and b) those who are driven to it mainly for the rewards will either just play as poorly as possible if they dont need to win or get frustrated fast if they have to win and dont achieve that.
Usually that drives alot of players to the PvP who dont do it with the intend to learn and be better but to be "done with it and get the rewards"
because if it gets you more than pve content then it will make alot of peeple feel like its a must in order to progress faster.
PvE gives better Gold reward than PvP, especially when you win.
When you play PvP and lose you hardly get any gold so there is no incentive for players to play PvP unless they really enjoy it.
On 1/7/2021 at 10:28 AM, Ladadoos said:
If we take the normal booster as an example: Originally it costs 450BFP, but with the current 100BFP discount until 18th of January you can buy it for 350BFP or even for 250BFP if you also have the daily 100BFP discount.
After the 18th of January the booster will be set back to its original price of 450BFP, after which you can buy it for 350BFP if you have the daily 100BFP discount.
That's too bad.
I am really like the fact I can buy a booster for 250 after playing for 45 minutes.
Are you planning to bring back the discounted boosters again at a later point?
I hope you do.
7 hours ago, Squishydew said:
The game doesn't have the playerbase to support grinding PvP cards.
Anyone whos interested in PvP and joins as a newbie is going to be slaughtered in a PvP grind system and be instantly demotivated to play.
If we had 10k players on all the time that'd be fine, there would be plenty of other newbies for newbies to be matched up with. But we dont.
Realistically we have 500-1500 players on at any time, and we have to keep in mind a large portion of them will be playing PvE.
Locking ranked behind collecting cards is an idea i find pretty revolting, if collecting cards is a thing it should be the other way around, collecting for unranked, all cards free for ranked.
I agree with you that we don't yet have a player base to support all players for all levels.
I believe most players play PvE and not so much PvP because of the greater gold reward in PvE, especially in rPvE 9 where in one hour a player can gain more than 13,000 gold.
I make only 20% of that if I am lucky after one hour of PvP.
So to increase the player base in PvP we need more gold rewards/achievements for PvP.
We also need more players to join the game.
So I am hopeful the developers put extra effort in advertising the game.
I also suggested earlier adding option for deck level range limitation for PvP to ensure players with similar deck levels play together.
I also agree with "collecting for unranked, all cards free for ranked.". Either way works.
I also think that the game should reward gold when losing Unranked game just like Rank games do.
Keep in mind that 3v3 is popular and is available only in Unranked games, and 2v2 unranked is much easier to find vs 2v2 ranked.
So players who want to play 2v2 or 3v3 (regardless if they want ranked or unranked) have no choice but to play Unranked.
So why not rewarding them with gold even if they lose?
15 hours ago, Ultrakool said:
As for longevity, it's just artificial longevity, as players are forced to play modes they don't like, just to get on even footing. Even if it is weeks/months, it's still time that is 'wasted' and would feel like a chore, rather than a game you have fun in.
When I started to play Skylords in January 2020, before free PvP decks existed, I had to start with no cards and no upgrades.
That forced me to play PvP and PvE with cards that are not the best but it was fun and interesting experience.
Buying new cards and upgrading them contributed to the fun greatly.
I always preferred PvP (since Battleforge days) so I had to play PvP with low level decks and lost most of the games, but I was fine with it.
What I didn't like so much is grinding gold with PvE (especially rPvE level 9) where most of the gold is.
Unfortunately, losing in Unranked game doesn't give much gold, and most of the gold we get in PvP is if we play ranked games and win.
That was almost impossible for me to achieve in PvP with low level decks so I had to grind gold in rPvE which felt many times as a chore.
So, I am not here to complain.
I just want to point out that there is room for improvements.
One improvement will be to give more gold in PvP so players who prefer PvP don't feel they have to play rPvE for the gold.
Another improvement would be to make Collection PvP more appealing with rewards to encourage players to play it more and allow them to experience the fun of upgrading all the cards in the game and not just the PvE cards.
Now, I am sure that not everyone feel the same as I do, but I am also sure there is enough players out there who feel the same.
2 hours ago, Zyna said:
It was our goal to make PvP accessible from the start without forcing players to grind for cards and upgrades. If you are satisfied with only having two decks in PvP, then yes, you do not need any more cards next to the free PvP decks.
Let's say it's the year 2022. The game has been out for a year and plenty of people have been playing for a while now. A lot of them have multiple level 120 collection decks. Now, let's suppose you are a new player who exclusively wants to play the PvP mode. What sounds more appealing:
1. Constantly losing against other players because they have a high level deck and you have a low level deck, while completely ignoring any skill differences.
2. Having the same high level deck as all other players and have the skill difference actually be the decider of the match.
I agree with you 100%.
Unlimited mode accommodates these players.
But then there is a second group of players who expressed their opinion in another thread where they like the idea of grinding for PvP cards and upgrades.
So the developers came up with a good idea of adding a Collection mode to accommodate these players.
However, if unlimited is the easier choice then everybody will play Unlimited mode and not many will play Collection mode which is a fact so far.
That is why I suggested more rewards for Collection mode to encourage more players to play that mode.
Regarding players with different deck levels.
Can the developers add a deck level range option where I can specify that only players with deck level 1-20 can join the game?
The different options for deck levels can be 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 and so on up to 120, or whatever deck level range the player chooses.
Can this be done for both Rank and Unranked?
That could be a good way to ensure that players with similar deck levels end up playing together.
Now with the free PvP deck I don't have the need to buy PvP cards such as Fire Dancer or Mountaineer.
There is also no need to upgrade many cards that are used for PvP.
At this point we just go after PvE cards and PvE upgrades.
This means that the longevity of the game for many players could be cut in half.
My suggestion is to make "Collection" PvP mode more appealing by awarding much more gold.
You can also make Ranked games "Collection" only.
In addition to that, you can add make PvP Collection quests and achievements more common.
This way, Unlimited mode will be still available while Collection mode will be more appealing.
2 hours ago, Zyna said:
Please keep in mind that sparring only grants 33% of the rewards you gain from ranked. Also, if you lose in PvE you do not gain any gold. Right now the winrate for rPvE matches at level 9 that last at least 2 minutes is 51.55%.
I understand that it makes sense certain modes give more gold than others.
However, IMO 6 times more gold for rPvE vs Unranked PvP is a bit too much of a difference, so I wanted to bring it to the developers attention.
Also, I want to remind everyone that BFP is being given to players at the same rate for all game modes in contrast to gold.1 hour ago, RayG said:
Friend every post that i read that you created is you complaining about something that affects only you. Apart from what Zyna answered to you above you want to match pvp and rpve 2 completely different gamemodes to suit you.
I want to emphasize that my suggestions are simply suggestions not complaints.
My intention is to offer suggestions to improve the game and the experience for as many players as possible.
Pointing to imbalance is not necessarily a complaint.
Easing Cards Color Restrictions
The problem we have right now is that some cards are very restrictive (e.g. Lost Warlord) while other cards are not restrictive at all (e.g. Lost Spirit Ship).
That makes the game unbalanced.
So the right approach is either make restrictive cards less restrictive or make them more powerful while leaving them restrictive.
Another approach is to add another version of the same restrictive card making the new card less restrictive while making it less powerful (e.g. remove its affinity).