Jump to content

Proposal: Rewards


MrXLink

Recommended Posts

Map of the Day would be hard to make I think, would make the map be very repetitive as the same maps would need to come back or we would hardly have enough maps.

Yes that is what it is supposed to be. So that maps which are not often played (especially on higher difficulties), those are mostly 12p maps, will be played. Anyways no one is forcing you to play the "Map of the Day". The rewards should be very little so that you won't feel like "I have to play map of the day because I would potentially miss out on a booster or two if I don't play Map of the Day all day long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that is what it is supposed to be. So that maps which are not often played (especially on higher difficulties), those are mostly 12p maps, will be played. Anyways no one is forcing you to play the "Map of the Day". The rewards should be very little so that you won't feel like "I have to play map of the day because I would potentially miss out on a booster or two if I don't play Map of the Day all day long. 

The purpose of the map of the week was to challenge each other's skill levels by beating it as quick as you possibly could. Not to grind the exact same thing over and over again. There probably were some players who did that regardless though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of the map of the week was to challenge each other's skill levels by beating it as quick as you possibly could. Not to grind the exact same thing over and over again. There probably were some players who did that regardless though...

Maybe I have been missing something (tbh I only played Battleforge in it's first year and quit shortly after the first Card Pack (the one with swiftclaw) after the Renegade Expansion was released).

What I proposed is not related to something existant before. By "Map of the Day" I proposed a system (see my previous posts) which helps to make unpopular maps "popular". So that people are able to earn rewards of them which they otherwise would not (because of lack of interest, empty lobbies in 12player maps etc.).

Maybe it would be possible to make a "Weekly Quest" (big reward) which is the same for everyone. Which you can complete and get a reward. Then you could complete it in other map difficulties (optional) and earn extra rewards.

Main objective:

  • "Succeed in <insert 12player map here> 0/2 on any difficulty setting"  -> Reward: 500 BFP 

optional objectives:

  • "Succeed in <insert 12player map here> on "advanced" difficulty 0/1" -> Reward: 100 BFP
  • "Succeed in <insert 12player map here> on "expert" difficulty 0/1" -> Reward: 200 BFP
  • "Succeed in <insert 12player map here> with a maximum of 8 players on any difficulty" -> Reward: 200 BFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I proposed is not related to something existant before. By "Map of the Day" I proposed a system (see my previous posts) which helps to make unpopular maps "popular". So that people are able to earn rewards of them which they otherwise would not (because of lack of interest, empty lobbies in 12player maps etc.).

Oh, that sounds quite interesting to me actually! This might also add some more competition to PvE :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I think so too. I read a lot in the forums here and people were complaining about having to grind rPVE for ages to get upgrades.

Pardon the pun, but...back in my days, when I was playing Battleforge...we didn't grind rPVE (this was just a new gamemode and another lame excuse of EA for not bringing new PVE-content, tokens didn't even exist) for upgrades! We had to play the PVE Missions on advanced and expert difficulty. So yeah it was hard to find a team to play 12p advanced or expert, even 4p was very rare (atleast on expert). Actually it didn't happen (4p rarely did, 12p not at all), so I was stuck at U2 with some cards. IMO instead of introducing tokens EA should have gone this path and promote existing maps. Anyways introducing PVP-tokens probably was a good move. 

Disclaimer: I never played with Token-System so maybe I misunderstood something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Disclaimer: I never played with Token-System so maybe I misunderstood something.

I think you will be happy to know that tokens will almost for sure be removed from the game, and that Gold will be the new currency used to upgrade. Furthermore, upgrades will most likely not be destroyed when you remove them from cards. To re-apply them, you will need to pay Gold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you will be happy to know that tokens will almost for sure be removed from the game, and that Gold will be the new currency used to upgrade. Furthermore, upgrades will most likely not be destroyed when you remove them from cards. To re-apply them, you will need to pay Gold. 

Ah nice, I think it was this way in the very beginning when I played too (before tokens). But my memory might trick me since it was like 5 years before.

Edited by Bratzmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, before EA thought of ways to milk the game then :P

It was very p2w and not enjoyable back then too after they started releasing new card packs they were more expensive than normal boosters and almost every card was OP and they did not get nerfed for 2 month or something (you got kicked from lobbies even on normal difficulty if you didn't bring card x and pvp was not enjoyable at all ,that's when I quit). Even though the game was Pay2Play It was not possible to earn BFP without buying them or AH trading. I didn't have much money at this time and I just did not want to spend anymore so I quit. If the game didn't get abused this hard by the publisher it would have been one of the most successful rts (and tcg, since those were not present at this time). 

Anyways lets stay on topic :)

Edited by Bratzmeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think it's only a small part of the userbase? There are quite many players who don't like to play PvE at all and quite a few threads that proof that. And I don't think that every PvP player feels the need for 2v2 all the time (or the other way around 1v1). You make assumptions without anything to back them up. We can't make suggestions using something we can't proof.

You also to have to consider if you give alternatives like "Beat a map with X players in your party" instead of "Beat map X" the first one is much easier to complete because you can take any multiplayer map, while the second restricts you to one (be it multiplayer or solo). The generic quests are completable without restrictions to game mode so I doubt they are specific about the amount of players.
I think you got a wrong idea how many possibilities the single reroll per day has. With that one you can have 2 generic quests that are completable in any mode you like and one gamemode specific one that might restrict your party size. But I think one per day is tolerable. If you tend to not play every day and gather 6 or 9 dailies then you probably won't even be able to complete them in a session anyway and you can just choose the ones that fit you.

Again, I stand by the statement that most players engage in a fair amount of multiplayer. Look up Ziph's law, it answers your argument about "proof" of the larger portion of the userbase being solely solo players based on forum posts. My proof is just as valid as yours. All of my friends and most of the players I interact with on a daily basis used to engage in party-play enough that a quest of the sort that I suggested would be feasible

About the "Beat a map with X players in your party" being easier than the latter; yes is it easier. That's the point. Encouraging multiplayer interaction is something that works great in a lot of games (LoL, WoT, DotA 2, did something like that IIRC, WoW, MMOs in general). It's not as punishing as you're making it out to be. The re-roll would be available in addition to your regular re-roll, and would only be usable on MP quests (to be honest, I find the free re-roll to be redundant because it's not really that punishing in the first place).

My quest example was just that, an example. It wasn't an absolute statement on how the generic quests would look. There's very possibly a better way to phrase it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I stand by the statement that most players engage in a fair amount of multiplayer. Look up Ziph's law, it answers your argument about "proof" of the larger portion of the userbase being solely solo players based on forum posts. My proof is just as valid as yours. All of my friends and most of the players I interact with on a daily basis used to engage in party-play enough that a quest of the sort that I suggested would be feasible

About the "Beat a map with X players in your party" being easier than the latter; yes is it easier. That's the point. Encouraging multiplayer interaction is something that works great in a lot of games (LoL, WoT, DotA 2, did something like that IIRC, WoW, MMOs in general). It's not as punishing as you're making it out to be. The re-roll would be available in addition to your regular re-roll, and would only be usable on MP quests (to be honest, I find the free re-roll to be redundant because it's not really that punishing in the first place).

My quest example was just that, an example. It wasn't an absolute statement on how the generic quests would look. There's very possibly a better way to phrase it.

I didn't find Ziph's Law but only Zipf's Law which doesn't proof anything what either of us said. It states that the position of a word is inversely proportional to it's frequency of use.
This doesn't even apply here because we are not speaking about words but whole comments in different threads. There is even more to that but I'll keep it short.

And please don't twist the meaning of the words I said. I never said that the "larger portion of the userbase" was solo players but that "There are quite many players who don't like to play PvE". And I also haven't made a proof but I mentioned one. If you look into some of the larger PvP threads you'll see what I mean.

I don't know why you think I make it out to be punishing but yes it can be interpreted as punishment if you give one part of the users an advantage over the others. It is irrelevant if that is the majority or not.

I never doubted that the majority of players engages in multiplayer and I am also not against trying to improve on that. But I simply don't think your solution as it is, is good or in any way an improvement.

@Bratzmeister I really like your idea of promoting maps that are rarely played. It both enables game content to be played more frequently that wouldn't be otherwise and at the same time gives an incentive to play more multiplayer. The rewards you suggested are too big though. IMO it should be 50-100BFP depending on the difficulty and time needed. Everything with 200BFP and more is already half a booster for playing one or two maps which is too much. Also if there is a reward it should be only achievable once per week preventing grinding on a map.
But I see a big problem with the suggestion though. It is strictly PvE and everyone who doesn't like that is being treated unfair because he doesn't get those juicy BFP. If this is implemented it should be to complete either "win x difficulty on 12-player map y" or "play x PvP matches on map y"(or something similar). So both PvE players and PvP players are able to do the challenge and receive the reward but you don't get more if you do both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bratzmeister I really like your idea of promoting maps that are rarely played. It both enables game content to be played more frequently that wouldn't be otherwise and at the same time gives an incentive to play more multiplayer. The rewards you suggested are too big though. IMO it should be 50-100BFP depending on the difficulty and time needed. Everything with 200BFP and more is already half a booster for playing one or two maps which is too much. Also if there is a reward it should be only achievable once per week preventing grinding on a map.
But I see a big problem with the suggestion though. It is strictly PvE and everyone who doesn't like that is being treated unfair because he doesn't get those juicy BFP. If this is implemented it should be to complete either "win x difficulty on 12-player map y" or "play x PvP matches on map y"(or something similar). So both PvE players and PvP players are able to do the challenge and receive the reward but you don't get more if you do both.

I like your comments about the too big reward and yes it shouldn't be BFP that's right. Maybe some other reward like "after killing a boss in the map there will 2 cards drop instead of one" (double chance of obtaining the upgrade you look for). And yes IF the reward was BFP it should be only once in the week (as I said a quest). 

Anyways I have to disagree with you in the point that there should be a "pvp version" of this. Because first of all, PVP-Players need upgrades too and they don't like rPVE at all. So this actually benefits them (if you cut the BFP reward, you are right this shouldn't be implemented as i suggested before, because then people just play it for BFP and the PVP-Players would miss out on a lot of BFP or being forced to play PVE (once a week tho)). Secondly a "PVP-version" wouldnt be good because this is all about promoting rarely played (mostly 12player) Maps, so that people are able to obtain rewards by playing PVE-Missions (the fastest way) instead of having to grind rPVE for weeks.

I hope this clarified my intentions a bit. Please reply if you have further questions or something is not clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bratzmeister Of course PvP players need upgrades too. But as many pure PvP players complained that they had to play PvE for upgrades even though they didn't enjoy it they introduced a system for BFR where they don't need to anymore. Upgrades will be purchasable (and upgradable) with gold (instead of tokens) now. I guess PvP will also give more gold over time than PvE. Now what you suggested would be once a week but I still don't think it should be PvE only. Of course the main reason behind the whole suggestion is to promote rarely played maps. But to make it fair for pure PvP players there could be something like "X% more gold for playing 1v1/2v2 on map Y". That way they would also have a once-a-week-special that rewards them with almost one upgrade. I don't suggest this because I don't like the promotion idea but just to make it fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't find Ziph's Law but only Zipf's Law which doesn't proof anything what either of us said. It states that the position of a word is inversely proportional to it's frequency of use.This doesn't even apply here because we are not speaking about words but whole comments in different threads. There is even more to that but I'll keep it short.

And please don't twist the meaning of the words I said. I never said that the "larger portion of the userbase" was solo players but that "There are quite many players who don't like to play PvE". And I also haven't made a proof but I mentioned one. If you look into some of the larger PvP threads you'll see what I mean.

I don't know why you think I make it out to be punishing but yes it can be interpreted as punishment if you give one part of the users an advantage over the others. It is irrelevant if that is the majority or not.

I never doubted that the majority of players engages in multiplayer and I am also not against trying to improve on that. But I simply don't think your solution as it is, is good or in any way an improvement.

First off, I apologize for the mix-up with "Ziph" and "Zipf". It was a silly mistake for me to make. The law is relevant because it doesn't prove, but supports the theory that a very small part of the community will speak the loudest, and in this case the solo players seem like they're more frequent than they are. In short, I'm saying that they're most likely over-represented.

 As for the actual topic, I don't believe I twisted your words. I interpreted your response as a way of saying "A non-insignificant (or even major) part of the userbase don't do party-play." If that wasn't what you meant, I seem to have misunderstood you. I would really appreciate if you gave me a link or a pointer to one of those threads you talk about.

You say that you don't mean to make my solution out to be punishing, but you completely disregard the idea without trying to find a compromise? I don't think that adds up, really. I can see how one could make it out to be punishing, albeit that's a very minor punishment I have to say.

I think that this discussion could be a lot more productive if we instead of cherry-picking (I may be guilty of that too), we just try to break down why the solution isn't viable. If you think that you already explained that, I did not really see your point very clearly. The solution seems perfectly viable and rewarding to me, and I can see it working well because of how well it has worked in other games. It doesn't have to be executed exactly how I suggested. It could be in the form of a non-map specific party reward, or whatever else.

Bottom line, I think promoting party-play and interaction between users is a good thing, and shouldn't be disregarded without being thoroughly investigated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, i think the social media rewards will be a great feature for BFR to create interest to people who may or may not have even heard about the game before.

I mean this game has a potential to get over a million players if it is cared for (the opposite of EA´s work)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

When I first read this proposal, I was very strongly opposed to not being able to buy BFP.  This is because while your system makes a lot of sense for a new game, Battleforge is not a new game.  Things like daily quests and slowly earning new cards are great for player retention and preventing new players from being overwhelmed by tons of new cards all the time, but the problem is that the vast majority of at least the initial playerbase is going to consist of Battleforge veterans—players who have already spend countless hours grinding PvE for card upgrades and gold before losing everything.

In the original Battleforge, grinding upgrades was a horrible experience for me, because I didn't like PvE and the very existence of upgrades mades PvP matches unfair (when both players didn't have max upgrades).  I remember trading BFP for gold and paying people to grind 2 or 4 players maps for upgrades while I alt-tabbed (which I know is a violation of the rules, but I couldn't have cared less at that point).

After thinking about this for a while, though, I think that your proposed system can work if it is implemented properly.  The two most important things are that you balance PvP and PvE to give equal rewards for the amount of time spent, and that you provide enough gold to fully upgrade any cards you buy from the auction house.  Before the introduction of Battle Tokens in the original game, PvP rewards were an absolute joke.  If you wanted to get any upgrades at all you had to grind hours and hours of PvE, which nearly ruined the game for me (but once I had all of my upgrades, then the game became amazing).

The rewards system needs to be balanced in such a way that players will have enough gold to buy upgrades for all of the cards they are able to buy with their daily BFP.  This would prevent frustrating gold bottlenecks and unfair matches where one player has more upgrades than another, despite both playing the game for the same amount of time and doing all of their quests.  Of course, in order to accomplish this, you either need to make all cards equal in upgrade cost (regardless of rarity), or you need to make upgrades fairly cheap, so that even decks with many R/UR cards can be fully upgraded quickly.

BFP should always be what regulates the rate of new content in the player experience (getting new cards is the only thing that significantly changes the experience, not upgrades).  After thinking about it for a while, I changed my mind and decided that your proposed system can work.  I will admit that although I would still rather just buy BFP and gold and get all the cards and upgrades I need for my PvP decks, I somewhat look forward to slowly buying cards from the auction house and building my decks bit by bit (simply because it will be a different experience from what I had before—a handicap, but one that everyone will have).  What I very much would not be looking forward to, however, is playing unfair matches.  I understand why the upgrade system exists from an MMO perspective, but I think that it has no place in an RTS.

TLDR:  Make the reward system give enough gold to fully upgrade every card you buy (not necessarily every card you get in a pack, just the ones you would use in a deck) in order to help prevent unfair PvP matches.  This way PvP won't be perpetually imbalanced for players who play for equal amounts of time and do all their quests, and completionists can still get satisfaction from upgrading every card they own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first read this proposal, I was very strongly opposed to not being able to buy BFP.  This is because while your system makes a lot of sense for a new game, Battleforge is not a new game.  Things like daily quests and slowly earning new cards are great for player retention and preventing new players from being overwhelmed by tons of new cards all the time, but the problem is that the vast majority of at least the initial playerbase is going to consist of Battleforge veterans—players who have already spend countless hours grinding PvE for card upgrades and gold before losing everything.

In the original Battleforge, grinding upgrades was a horrible experience for me, because I didn't like PvE and the very existence of upgrades mades PvP matches unfair (when both players didn't have max upgrades).  I remember trading BFP for gold and paying people to grind 2 or 4 players maps for upgrades while I alt-tabbed (which I know is a violation of the rules, but I couldn't have cared less at that point).

After thinking about this for a while, though, I think that your proposed system can work if it is implemented properly.  The two most important things are that you balance PvP and PvE to give equal rewards for the amount of time spent, and that you provide enough gold to fully upgrade any cards you buy from the auction house.  Before the introduction of Battle Tokens in the original game, PvP rewards were an absolute joke.  If you wanted to get any upgrades at all you had to grind hours and hours of PvE, which nearly ruined the game for me (but once I had all of my upgrades, then the game became amazing).

The rewards system needs to be balanced in such a way that players will have enough gold to buy upgrades for all of the cards they are able to buy with their daily BFP.  This would prevent frustrating gold bottlenecks and unfair matches where one player has more upgrades than another, despite both playing the game for the same amount of time and doing all of their quests.  Of course, in order to accomplish this, you either need to make all cards equal in upgrade cost (regardless of rarity), or you need to make upgrades fairly cheap, so that even decks with many R/UR cards can be fully upgraded quickly.

BFP should always be what regulates the rate of new content in the player experience (getting new cards is the only thing that significantly changes the experience, not upgrades).  After thinking about it for a while, I changed my mind and decided that your proposed system can work.  I will admit that although I would still rather just buy BFP and gold and get all the cards and upgrades I need for my PvP decks, I somewhat look forward to slowly buying cards from the auction house and building my decks bit by bit (simply because it will be a different experience from what I had before—a handicap, but one that everyone will have).  What I very much would not be looking forward to, however, is playing unfair matches.  I understand why the upgrade system exists from an MMO perspective, but I think that it has no place in an RTS.

TLDR:  Make the reward system give enough gold to fully upgrade every card you buy (not necessarily every card you get in a pack, just the ones you would use in a deck) in order to help prevent unfair PvP matches.  This way PvP won't be perpetually imbalanced for players who play for equal amounts of time and do all their quests, and completionists can still get satisfaction from upgrading every card they own.

First of all, welcome to the forums! :)

There's no way they can make BFP purchasable as they cannot make any profit or sell in-game things for cash as they do not own it.

I totally agree that PvP should gain somewhat the same amount of rewards, I think most people want it this way. I'm not sure what people have came together about as I've already speed read it all through. 

I find that R/UR cards should be harder to upgrade though as these should be more "end-game" content for one. This would make it so that everyone can't achieve the top notch deck in a very short period of time but you can still manage in PvP :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that R/UR cards should be harder to upgrade though as these should be more "end-game" content for one. This would make it so that everyone can't achieve the top notch deck in a very short period of time but you can still manage in PvP :)

Rare and Ultra rare cards are already harder to upgrade than commons and uncommons, they cost more tokens as shown in the table below.

Card RarityLevelBattle TokenVictory TokenHonour TokensPvP Rank Required
CommonI10001
 II35606
 III7018510
UncommonI15103
 II401209
 III80251512
RareI20208
 II5020013
 III100502514
Ultra-RareI304011
 II6030016
 III120704017

Source: http://battleforge.wikia.com/wiki/Upgrades 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nah you're right about that. The dev's do want to replace it with a system that is based about gold.

In that case you should be able to get gold from PvE and PvP. This way you can always upgrade your cards, whether you play more PvP or more PvE.

Is PvP not that you get matched against someone with the same deck level? or was it the same PvP rank?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Zyna changed the title to Proposal: Rewards
  • Zyna unpinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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