Jump to content

Volin

Testing Coordinator
  • Posts

    571
  • Joined

Everything posted by Volin

  1. Share the feeling @Draconnor
  2. you want to support 13 year old hardware for gaming? btw even my 8 or 9 year old budget PC (~200€) used by my wife workes perfectly for BaFo (one graphic card upgrade though) I said before: I like that you have older hardware in mind when developing new stuff, but supporting hardware from 2009 is going a bit too far imo.
  3. Did I hear gold sink? 🤔
  4. This is really hard for me. Even though, for example, Banzai and BH perform a notch better than Emberstrikes and Abo (Spelldeck, of course), I grouped them together as S to have more room for gradation in the lower tiers. Frost is certainly among the slowest A-tiers, but based on the incredible strength and decent clearspeed in T4, I wanted to see this one here. For fire, I would actually like to show A Tier as well, but due to the vulnerability on heavier maps, the light gradation. That other top players see Comet Catcher before Worldbreaker makes me think, but in my personal experience Worldbreaker should be a bit more stable. As Radical already said on Discord. The performance clearly depends on a lot of factors which can make up one or two different tiers easily depending on the situation.
  5. At least I think this could help to make an intended playstyle more rewarding - I am very excited how this feels finally. I'm afraid to make me really happy, we'd need another reduction in the cooldown - but I know from talking to Windhunter that it's not that easy. But my happiness should also truly not be a measure 😄
  6. Like it! Really creative!
  7. Nah all good, I get your point, but I think you understood what mine is 😄 It is not that easy in this case - else the team would have done it already. But I hope you understand why I am still a bit disappointed. Sacrificing it is clearly a good way to play it - but this circumvents the hunger bar, what is clearly not the intended mechanic of this card. BH is in both decks (with Nature splash) or in Bandit colors one of the best decks around, here is the Tortugun clear inferior. Just to emphazise it: Tortugun is not bad. I chose every word carefully there. It is really ok'ish - but I don't see it is "really good". But it must been said that I see this from upper end of decks and here are really a lot decks that can shine far more. In a classical Tier List I would rate Tortugun from my gut in B-Tier. So clearly not a bad deck.
  8. Not really, it has its pros and its cons, you can work with it. But "really good" - not to me. I would rather call it "ok'ish" And it is sad to me, that the hunger bar still brings people to the mentioned playstyle of "sacrifice using Motivate, Blood Healing, or Offering, or by eating it with another Tortugun" cause that is clearly not what is the intended playstyle of the unit (though you are of course right that this is still the superior way of playing it). And though it makes a nice fun deck I think it would be cool if Tortugun would be a little more, as 4 Orb restricted UR card with a super unique mechanic. As shadow cards have mutltiple options of making small temporarily units (crawlers through Infect and Cultist Masters, Grim Bahir and Undead Army for example) I would still love to see one day, that these would be viable to feed the big Turtle.
  9. Hey Radi, thank you so much for correcting this. My first thought on the numbers was: plain numbers don't lie, Eirias is trustworthy, my gut must be wrong here. But the 85% robbed me of an hour or two of my sleep. 🙂 This is much more plausible and your postscript here is very important, the 22% is distorted by speed runs alone - but this is true for all 3 modes (1p, 2p and 4p). Still, it's not quite as simple as Eirias presented the difference between 1p and 4p. Yes, solo rpves are basically much harder due to the layout. And that good players on a 4 player map can pull less good ones along is of course correct, but: This does happen, at least in the random groups in which I play, not very often. In fact it is even seen almost never. One good player is not able to pull a full group here, if not every player has a minimum strength. Even 2 VERY good players (speaking here of our very best ones) would hardly be able to pull a whole group here on an average map, this would only be possible on the most easy maps. Else time is the limit here. That is partly correct of course, but as I stated before: Even for some smaller mistakes it can take the effort of a whole group to keep the player in the game at all. He is still behind after that and this is something where the proposed 2-3min more would come in very handy in my opinion. I remember the bail out in a match a few weeks ago, where Gameover, Treim and another good player saved my ass because I pulled accidently a close camp on position 4. I was drowing in waves and lost 3 or 4 wells and my T1 for two times. If I did not share the side with Treim this would have been a lost game. It took the guys 20-40 spells only to keep me in the game - and I lost so much energy that I was NO help in the late match at all. Just as an example. And damn, I am not that bad myself in BGs usually 😄 If one player dies, this is usually not covered that easy. If for example player1 drops out, player 2 is confronted with 2 additional waves at least - in the worst case (he hit the t3) it may be up to 5 additional waves for the remaining player. As there are enough wells and orbs on a 4player map to do your job in a full group this may be covered by the remaining player, but usually that comes with A LOT extra effort. This is only a no-brainer on the super easy 10s. Just want to add the thoughts that all this is not so easy to judge. And please don't get me wrong Eirias, I want to emphasize that there is some truth in each of your statements. Only there is just also to consider what I have written to the individual facts. If we now still have the 22% in mind, that here partly of the groups that play the 10 4 player mode the worst players are sorted out, who simply would have no chance to pass this mode, then this speaks in my opinion even more for the proposal of Ky here to put the time a teeny tiny bit up. What I'm saying is: In 4p very often only groups compete that have any chance at all, while the threshold to start a 1p to have a look (which is a fantastic option ofc) is very low I want to reiterate here, a good 10% more time would not just make the mode 10% easier. It would make it a little easier and a little fairer, yes, but it truly would not be a trivialization of 10s.
  10. In solo matches there comes no one that says "Nah, not with this deck". We should have that in mind when comparing this numbers. Though still surprised about 85%. Taking early restarts into account, LS maps that most groups usually skip in 10s (even the better ones) I'm really surprised, though I don't doubt your numbers must be correct. May I ask about how many matches in what timespan we speak here?
  11. @Kubik Thanks for the insight so far! Strongly agree with every aspect, Kapo. If the team likes the idea, probably some basic basic features would be better then nothing for the begin and if there is ever time (and even more important - the technical feasibility is given) for more, then more features could be added over time. And max 3 Letters is kind of standard for such "tags". I already guessed that everything beyond basic features would not be easy at all, that why I wanted to share the basic idea first - and the reasoning for the proposal - and wanted to see what happens 🙂
  12. Hello all, the proposal has been brought up from time to time in recent years, but as far as I know it has not been discussed or followed up in any detail. This suggestion came again up during a brainstorming with like-minded. One of the strongest factors that keeps players in a game for a long time, besides intrinsic motivation, will probably be the community. And this is where this suggestion comes in: Most games (at least) have 2 "types" of community, once the common big whole, in our case represented by forum and the official Discord - and then the small, the circles of friends and families: guilds, clans, kinships, whatever. This binding factor is missing in SR so far. In actually all games I have played over many years, or where I have returned again and again over many years, there was something like that. Of course you can organize something like that unofficially in the background but having such a system implemented directly in the game will bring more people into such communities. You do quests together, help each other, master challenges together and chat and spend time together, well organized something like this creates cohesion. This led to long term friendships for me with people I met regularly in RL. And I heard other stories like this from friends here. Of course, I have no idea of the technical feasibility, but it would actually not be so much needed here: A small guild window for organization (similar to the Friendlist), a guild chat, a guild tag on the name (creates common) - done. In the long run, many more features would be conceivable, but even this basic framework would be a great start, right? I don't want to overload this with the ideas from our brainstorming, but if you want more input, more features are conceivable without end. I just wanted to bring this topic up once again, as I personaly think that this could probably help to keep players longer in the game.
  13. Thanks for pointing out at my stream I feel very honoured! Just to mention, I just got a big donation of 380 cards from @THE_BIG_WET to share with newer players (we said we give them out up to Gold 1Star ranks in the first step, preferably to silver and bronze ranks) New players, make sure to hit the next stream on Thursday. Probably I will even make some extra streams to share this stuff with you. We got great uncommons, rares and even some ultra rares to share with you!
  14. Wall of text inc -> tl;dr at the end Time to speak up here as well. I truly did not think when Ky brought the issue to the table that it would be even slightly controversial. Even less so when you see who supports the issue and who brought it up. @Majora, I think you know how much I appreciate your person, your dedication to the team and also you as an innovative pvp player. But. You write 10s are only for players with experience in 10s. Classic chicken and egg problem, right? Furthermore I would like to ask you, how are your personal experiences in 10s? Do you regularly make random groups in the mode? With well known players, because the others have to be sorted out by us anyway? Please don't get me wrong here, but I wouldn't mind if we discuss this with 10s players who also know the mode and the problems with it. Hope for your understanding, this is not an offense, but I guess you get my point. From the comfort zone of belonging to one of the TWO premade groups that, after a lot of work, only with voice communication ever succeeded in such a Lost Souls map you mentioned - since SR exists, it's really a bit nasty to say: Let's keep it all that way, we need a challenge too. As a random map and unprepared such maps would neither be defeated by your premade, nor by ours, even with voice, if we didn't have several attempts, which is just not possible on a random map. That wouldn't even be a problem, I like challenges too, if these maps wouldn't be spit out by the random generator. By the way, the proposed 2-3 min would change exactly NOTHING in this situation. No random group has a chance to beat such maps, we would rather need 30-35min for such a 10, which is not in the pipe. So not only is your answer somewhat off-topic, it is unfortunately also so unappealing that any above average player can only be put off. Groups like yours and ours are already seen as closed, elitist circles that are almost impossible to join anyway. We should actually be doing more to help players move up into 10s than saying "If they're too hard, you're too weak." It should also just be thrown into the discussion that ~10% more time would not make the maps 10% easier, the math is not that simple. Time is by far not the only factor that makes the difficulty of a 10. Most 10's don't forgive one mistake and when one is made, it sometimes takes minutes and the full effort of the whole team to make up for it. And here I am not talking about inexperienced players, but a tiny circle of our top BG players. Yes, we are also human and sometimes make the wrong decision in a split second. But especially double lanes on the T3, close camps at the T4 or certain bosses at the T4 (or even a combination of the mentioned) cost so much time if you are not prepared for it (a.k.a. Motm), that for the T4 phase in 10s not rarely less than 5min remain. Even in T2, however, there can be time guzzlers that not only require highly optimized decks to cope with the situation (which I think is a good thing) - but it actually boils down to the fact that only a few meta approaches are viable at all. I think that's a shame. And picking up on this theme (few valid meta-approaches + the general difficulty of the T2-T4 phase) I find Kybaka's suggestion quite wonderful. Players who are very confident at 9s are often completely gobsmacked by the extended T2-T4 phase when they play their first 10. As someone who has played a bit more 10s randoms, I must even say that reaching T4 is less of a problem here than the time remaining afterwards. And when we play randoms it's not a rare picture that players who don't play a Batariel or a buffed Bloodhorn, spend the last 3-5min only looking at the 3 veterans who bring the map to a finish just before the end. Some of the "new" ones then understand why their actually solid T4 was somewhat ridiculed in the pre-game meeting, build themselves a Bata, or buffed Bloodhorn deck and play the game. But I also understand the players who say: If this is the only solution to get this mode clean, no thanks. Which leads me perfectly to the 2nd topic: Lack of variety. In the 10s we see 90% of the same T1 (Fire meta start), exactly two different T2 variants (Phoenix and Gladiatrix) and two T4 variants (Bata/BH). Isn't that a bit poor? Yes, I think it's good that decks would have to be super optimized in 10. But I also think we would need to empower more deck types to do these if they are very solidly built. And before anyone says it, of course we also have a handful (if at all) players trying to break out of the above scheme (Ky, Treim and myself come to my mind here, I'm sure there may be a few more but none that I can think of right now and I think that's saying something). Unfortunately, I've also seen groups like that fail because the fight to T4 took so long that Treim's Stonekin deck just wasn't fast enough and my Bandit deck was banging out so many Charges by T4 that we ran out of timer. And about me you have to say here: Only my approach to do it without the permanent green-splash forces me to align my deck otherwise to the pure meta (fire start into Phoenix into double shadow spells with BH), otherwise I would have little chance. To exaggerate, even if we gave an hour for 10s, it would still remain a mode for few players due to its base difficulty, as deeper understanding and background knowledge are needed, quick decisions and very accurate play are still required to get to the goal at all. Personally, I think that these difficulties are sufficient and the timer could play a subordinate role here. Because of me it may also be 5min more. But the mentioned 2-3min Kybaka has brought forward here, are a more than good idea. The pressure of the difficulty in 10s is in my opinion more than sufficient, we don't need to put good players through additional difficulties. TL;DR: 10% more time is not 10% easier, a longer timer would not only discourage "new" 10 candidates less, it would also possibly allow a little more variation. I'm very much in favor of that! PS: 5 people that play random 10s regularly support and 2 people that don't do so (really no offense) are against. Says much on this topic imo. in big parts translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  15. If we have 2-3 interested in 10s we cover 10s for sure.
  16. I know, thats why I mention it. The proposal would even make this dodging way more easy
  17. I am no pvp player at all, but I think with our small pvp-player base this could come at the risk of people dodging unwanted opponents, or?
  18. This is my rpve9 allrounder Almost all spells here are recommended. Add offering (g) if you lack too much charges. T2 Harvy is just for the sake of fun. T4 units may be a matter of taste too
  19. I was asked to throw these 2 in here. The trick is, use Disenchant before using a rooting abillity
  20. Pure Frost has become a quite decent deck since the birthday patch, but it is one of the more (if not most) expensive decks around. An endgame viable Frost Deck contains of more ultra rare cards then any other deck. Though it is expensive, it is hardly suiteble for BG 10s due to lacking mid tier tools, mainly in T2. I personally would recommend to play splashed decks from beginner to advanced player levels. Pure decks can be fun and decent, but are usually more expensive and need higher skill levels (for harder tasks). How good Frost works you can read here, a great guide from one of our most dedicated Frost players: This is a guide how the expert maps can be approached, sometimes in Frost perspective too if I remember correct:
  21. That is why I gave the hint to destroy the bombard as soon as possible 🙂 Actually not mandatory (I did not kill it at all in my fastest run so far, but that was a lucky shot) but my intention was to help to keep the both ladies alive
  22. Both sides have pros and cons, they seem quite well balanced and I hear good times from both. Use hero abitlities and those you get from the crystals. No matter what side you decide for, get in asap, ged rid of the bombard asap and destroy the crystals. You don't need to clear all. Kill things (units/buildings) until the Boss triggers. Focus only the boss. Hope this is not a Cpt Obvious post, else please get more specific and we can see if we can help.
×
×
  • 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