Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting Will Cause Permabans! Read more... ×
MrXLink

Current Proposal: Tokens & Gold

Recommended Posts

Or you can make it ratehr easy and have one currency. Gold.
Delete BFP.

And use gold for everything, since the game is 100% free, i don't see a point to have two type of currency.

Easier to balance imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheSilverlost said:

Or you can make it ratehr easy and have one currency. Gold.
Delete BFP.

And use gold for everything, since the game is 100% free, i don't see a point to have two type of currency.

Easier to balance imo

Splitting the currency (like it was, and probably will be) makes sure that the currency gets spend on what it was meant for. This way beginners wont make the mistake to totally neglect upgrading, or upgrade shitty cards while they could have better bought new boosterpacks or actioned some cards.

Pandzia likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Splitting the currency (like it was, and probably will be) makes sure that the currency gets spend on what it was meant for. This way beginners wont make the mistake to totally neglect upgrading, or upgrade shitty cards while they could have better bought new boosterpacks or actioned some cards.

The two currency wasn't made for this.
It was just to seperate real money from virtual money.

Neglecting Upgrading is something the player need to learn by himself.
Upgrading Shitty Card is a opinions, some player can find card great or bad. Again that based on the player knowledge of the game.

And the knowledge is gained through playing the game and winning. Same for gold.

(Also the freedom of making mistake, can reinforce community)


I can go a bit deeper on this subject.

Talking as a Game Developper

Edited by TheSilverlost
correcting and new line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to talk about this for sure. Because maybe 1 currency could be a better option than two.

How do you think about the balance? How much gold is worth 1 bfp or how much bfp is worth 1 gold? There has to be a conversionrate that is really balanced out. If you can get 100 bfp together in an hour with quests and such, it wouldnt be fair if an upgrade costs rediculously high or low amounts of bfp (if the gold currency is removed). On the otherhand, if you can find hundreds of gold coins in a few hours playing (if bfp is removed), it wouldnt be fair if rare and ultrarare cards cost just 50 or 100 gold in the auction house. (take in mind that previously some cards were sold for 1000+ bfp, but the markethouse is gonna change and maybe be whole different this time, because of no real life money).

Another option is to just set the conversionrate to 1:1, and redifine how much everything costs. In that case the gold should be removed, as it is only used for upgrading, so you would only have to 'rework' the upgrading costs which they might already have to do because of the removal of tokens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think having 2 currencys is good because bfp is capped per day, gold is not. Or am I mistaken?

If you go only with one non-capped currency the 10h per day player would get 10 times more progress than a 1h per day player.

The capped BFP per day is balancing this out to that the 10h per day player does not get 10 times more cards than a 1h per day player.

Overall I think having 2 currencys is the way to go. Open Beta will tell us if it is good or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Frosthor said:

I think having 2 currencys is good because bfp is capped per day, gold is not. Or am I mistaken?

If you go only with one non-capped currency the 10h per day player would get 10 times more progress than a 1h per day player.

The capped BFP per day is balancing this out to that the 10h per day player does not get 10 times more cards than a 1h per day player.

Overall I think having 2 currencys is the way to go. Open Beta will tell us if it is good or not.

You can simply cap the one currency you have.

In following thoughts i assume that BFP is the currency in the 1 currency system. Assuming that the functions of both systems currencies is to acquire and upgrade cards and that the card acquiring part is consistant in both systems you can easily get a rate for gold to BFP conversion for the card acquiring part. As BFP would be capped in the 1 currency system you'll eventually reach a point where the consistant gold income would be way higher than anything a capped system can acquire - it is capped after all. Depending on how you balance that you can manipulate the break even point.

Not sure if it is clear what i mean but i actually really lack in vocabulary and am to lazy to draw graphs.

 

Anyways i think both systems can work. A 1 currency system would probably encourage decision making a little bit more as you do not predetermine the use of specific parts of the gain of an account. The player has got the decision to place more emphasis on card acquiring or upgrading, while with the 2 currency system he is basically "forced" to do both. A 1 currency system is probably advantageour for experienced players who know what direction they want to go in and which cards are mandatory for specific decks, while a 2 currency system is definetly more "noob-friendly".

I am actually fine with either decision as you probably need a bunch of cards first anyways and by the time you got those you probably got enough gold to upgrade the cards anyways so the difference is probably miniscule for me personally.

 

Edited by Treim
Pandzia likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

I'd like to talk about this for sure. Because maybe 1 currency could be a better option than two.

How do you think about the balance? How much gold is worth 1 bfp or how much bfp is worth 1 gold? There has to be a conversionrate that is really balanced out. If you can get 100 bfp together in an hour with quests and such, it wouldnt be fair if an upgrade costs rediculously high or low amounts of bfp (if the gold currency is removed). On the otherhand, if you can find hundreds of gold coins in a few hours playing (if bfp is removed), it wouldnt be fair if rare and ultrarare cards cost just 50 or 100 gold in the auction house. (take in mind that previously some cards were sold for 1000+ bfp, but the markethouse is gonna change and maybe be whole different this time, because of no real life money).

Another option is to just set the conversionrate to 1:1, and redifine how much everything costs. In that case the gold should be removed, as it is only used for upgrading, so you would only have to 'rework' the upgrading costs which they might already have to do because of the removal of tokens.

 


Lets say, bfp is removed. And a player find a ultra rare card for 100 gold, and 100 gold is like 1 hours of playing lets say. That just a mistake of the guys selling the card.
You can't block someone selling a ultra rare card at a bad price.

And remember most player sell their card on "Gold/hr, Rarity, Power", so if you can gain 50gold per hour for a decent player. A good card will probably be around 700 gold.
And if you can get more then that, let's say 150 gold. The card will be around 4000.
(Number are example, i didn't do any math.  It's just to get the point)

 

And upgrade should cost the same for every card. Because as a dev point of view, there is no card more powerful then other. They are all card. The player define the power of a card. Dev just make card.
( 1 Upgrade = 100 gold; 2 Upgrade = 300 gold; 3 Upgrade = 1000 gold; Example number again)

 

And yeah, we should remove from our head the cost of card on the real game. Because we are not going to have the same reward system.

 

1 hour ago, Frosthor said:

I think having 2 currencys is good because bfp is capped per day, gold is not. Or am I mistaken?

If you go only with one non-capped currency the 10h per day player would get 10 times more progress than a 1h per day player.

The capped BFP per day is balancing this out to that the 10h per day player does not get 10 times more cards than a 1h per day player.

Overall I think having 2 currencys is the way to go. Open Beta will tell us if it is good or not.


Capping the money gain per day, is just a horrible decision imo. And i'm sad some recent game use it.
Because it's like, saying to the player "Yo dude stop playing our games, since you play too much and you love the game, we are gonna block you for getting anymore money !"

Some player can find it bad to see other player go really fast.
But as a dev pov, why should i give the same reward to a player that only play my game for 1 hours, and the other that play it 10 hours ?? You get my point.

 

 


 

Edited by TheSilverlost
bad english

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheSilverlost said:

And upgrade should cost the same for every card. Because as a dev point of view, there is no card more powerful then other. They are all card. The player define the power of a card. Dev just make card.
( 1 Upgrade = 100 gold; 2 Upgrade = 300 gold; 3 Upgrade = 1000 gold; Example number again)

Is this true? A 4 orb card is per definition better than a 3 orb card... so should that have the same upgrade prize? or for example a ultrarare and rare card? 

10 minutes ago, TheSilverlost said:

Capping the money gain per day, is just a horrible decision imo. And i'm sad some recent game use it.
Because it's like, saying to the player "Yo dude stop playing our games, since you play too much and you love the game, we are gonna block you for getting anymore money !"

In the new battleforge, there will be no hard-cap for bfp gain. There will be a soft cap, where gaining bfp/gold is more efficient during the first hours you play in a day, and gets less efficient if you play more hours.

 

@InsaneHawk Could you tell us if you guys are actually considering a 1 currency system? Otherwise talking about it would be rather useless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Is this true? A 4 orb card is per definition better than a 3 orb card... so should that have the same upgrade prize? or for example a ultrarare and rare card?

Why more orbs doesn't define better card ? Because you still pay for his power.
And you pay it in a multiple way, having the right amount of orbs, making the deck less good in early game and of course the price to summon it.

It's kind of hard to explain that, but if you played heartsthone. You should know that, 1 cost card can be better then 10 cost card. (Where cost is Orb in the comparaison)


Rarity should affect only his principal purpose. Hard to get. And being hard to get is prob being high priced on AH or just being hard to get on pack.
But at the end, they are just card.

 

13 minutes ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

In the new battleforge, there will be no hard-cap for bfp gain. There will be a soft cap, where gaining bfp/gold is more efficient during the first hours you play in a day, and gets less efficient if you play more hours.

That fine. :)



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheSilverlost said:

Why more orbs doesn't define better card ? Because you still pay for his power.
And you pay it in a multiple way, having the right amount of orbs, making the deck less good in early game and of course the price to summon it.

Pretty sure that this isnt true. The thing about higher orb cards is that they are more power sufficient than lower orb cards. So you get more hp/damage for the power you pay. Of course you need to invest some initial power to build the orb, but this investment is earned back pretty quickly if you make some more units.

Example:

- Skyfire drake (U0: 2 fire orbs, 110 power, 1360 damage, 390 hp) So it has 1360+390=1750 total stat for 110 power, which leads to 15,9 stat per 1 power

- Fire Dragon (3 fire orbs + 1 orb of any kind, 250 power, 2150 damage, 2400 hp) So it has 2150+2400=4550 total stat for 250 power, which leads to 18,2 stat per 1 power

In addition to the 2,3 extra stat per power, the fire dragon also has an ability (rage, deal more damage the longer you constituvely attack)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Pretty sure that this isnt true. The thing about higher orb cards is that they are more power sufficient than lower orb cards. So you get more hp/damage for the power you pay. Of course you need to invest some initial power to build the orb, but this investment is earned back pretty quickly if you make some more units.

Example:

- Skyfire drake (U0: 2 fire orbs, 110 power, 1360 damage, 390 hp) So it has 1360+390=1750 total stat for 110 power, which leads to 15,9 stat per 1 power

- Fire Dragon (3 fire orbs + 1 orb of any kind, 250 power, 2150 damage, 2400 hp) So it has 2150+2400=4550 total stat for 250 power, which leads to 18,2 stat per 1 power

In addition to the 2,3 extra stat per power, the fire dragon also has an ability (rage, deal more damage the longer you constituvely attack)

They are stronger for sure, that why you want to play them. But they are not better. Every card have a usage.
And everything you does to get to the point of summoning the card, is a cost.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Pretty sure that this isnt true. The thing about higher orb cards is that they are more power sufficient than lower orb cards. So you get more hp/damage for the power you pay. Of course you need to invest some initial power to build the orb, but this investment is earned back pretty quickly if you make some more units.

Example:

- Skyfire drake (U0: 2 fire orbs, 110 power, 1360 damage, 390 hp) So it has 1360+390=1750 total stat for 110 power, which leads to 15,9 stat per 1 power

- Fire Dragon (3 fire orbs + 1 orb of any kind, 250 power, 2150 damage, 2400 hp) So it has 2150+2400=4550 total stat for 250 power, which leads to 18,2 stat per 1 power

In addition to the 2,3 extra stat per power, the fire dragon also has an ability (rage, deal more damage the longer you constituvely attack)

Surely you realize that T4 is quite bad in PvP, right?  It's not just the up-front cost that's the issue, it's the fact that you need map control and you have another orb to defend—and perhaps the bigger issue is the fact that power spent on orbs is permanently lost, meaning it is removed from your power pool.  In PvP it's almost always better to stay T3 and have +300 power in your pool than to go T4.  In 1v1, it's often better to stay T2 for a long time and some decks can actually do better without any T3 cards at all.  This is also the reason why playing a long T1 can give you a power advantage.

In any case, I completely agree that all cards should cost the same amount of gold to upgrade.  Making card upgrades more expensive by rarity or by orb cost would put pure decks and PvE decks at an upgrade disadvantage, and there's just no reason to do that.

As for having only one currency, I like the idea, but I don't really think there's much of a point.  As @Treimsaid, a single currency system would be more punishing to new, or uninformed players, which I think is a bad thing—these players will already be at a disadvantage and I think that the game should be designed in a way that guides them to make good decisions with their collections.  I do like the idea of finding the optimal card acquisition/upgrade path for your decks, but I don't think it's worth the cost of leaving new players confused and regretting their decisions.

Edited by synthc
Pandzia likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, synthc said:

Surely you realize that T4 is quite bad in PvP, right?  It's not just the up-front cost that's the issue, it's the fact that you need map control and you have another orb to defend—and perhaps the bigger issue is the fact that power spent on orbs is permanently lost, meaning it is removed from your power pool.  In PvP it's almost always better to stay T3 and have +300 power in your pool than to go T4.  In 1v1, it's often better to stay T2 for a long time and some decks can actually do better without any T3 cards at all.  This is also the reason why playing a long T1 can give you a power advantage.

I am aware of this ;P I just didnt know we were talking about PvP...

I also agree to make each card the same upgrade cost, I just stated that it could also be different :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't get the point why one currency should be gone. The split is important IMO because the important one, BFP, can't be grinded on the same level all day like gold. I've read that you might get a BFP reward with playing time but it should not be too high so the gap between the diffrent player types isn't too high. And if only one currency is left, the upgrading system would be too expesive and you have to balance it even more, which means alot more work to see how much gold may be in a chest, how much gold may you receive per daily rewards compared to booster pack prices and so on. Splitting it is way easier to control both currency. And tbh your arguments pro 1 currency was too dunno... not just because your number examples doesn't fit at all. And you get this one wrong: 

14 hours ago, TheSilverlost said:

[...]

Capping the money gain per day, is just a horrible decision imo. And i'm sad some recent game use it.
Because it's like, saying to the player "Yo dude stop playing our games, since you play too much and you love the game, we are gonna block you for getting anymore money !"

Some player can find it bad to see other player go really fast.
But as a dev pov, why should i give the same reward to a player that only play my game for 1 hours, and the other that play it 10 hours ?? You get my point.
 

It doesn't mean they don't want you to play but slow down the daily progess.

 

Edited by bazzacah
Sounded too offending at 2nd reading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bazzacah said:

I actually don't get the point why one currency should be gone. The split is important IMO because the important one, BFP, can't be grinded on the same level all day like gold. I've read that you might get a BFP reward with playing time but it should not be too high so the gap between the diffrent player types isn't too high. And if only one currency is left, the upgrading system would be too expesive and you have to balance it even more, which means alot more work to see how much gold may be in a chest, how much gold may you receive per daily rewards compared to booster pack prices and so on. Splitting it is way easier to control both currency. And tbh your arguments pro 1 currency was too dunno... not just because your number examples doesn't fit at all. And you get this one wrong: 

It doesn't mean they don't want you to play but slow down the daily progess.

 

Some game, don't slow down. But block you from gaining anymore reward. I was referencing to these game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheSilverlost said:

Some game, don't slow down. But block you from gaining anymore reward. I was referencing to these game.

 

13 hours ago, bazzacah said:

I actually don't get the point why one currency should be gone. The split is important IMO because the important one, BFP, can't be grinded on the same level all day like gold. I've read that you might get a BFP reward with playing time but it should not be too high so the gap between the diffrent player types isn't too high. And if only one currency is left, the upgrading system would be too expesive and you have to balance it even more, which means alot more work to see how much gold may be in a chest, how much gold may you receive per daily rewards compared to booster pack prices and so on. Splitting it is way easier to control both currency. And tbh your arguments pro 1 currency was too dunno... not just because your number examples doesn't fit at all. And you get this one wrong: 

It doesn't mean they don't want you to play but slow down the daily progess.

 

It doesn‘t really matter if you hard or softcap it. You disincentivize players from playing by diminishing returns over time. 

Imagine getting less money/hour of work the longer you work a day. At some point you‘d probably simply stop working because you think you‘re time is more worth. And yes obviously you are not working but playing to have fun, but it still doesn‘t feel to good. 

Now I am not saying that i am totally against capping stuff in whatever way, simply wanted to point it out :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Treim said:

It doesn‘t really matter if you hard or softcap it. You disincentivize players from playing by diminishing returns over time. 

Imagine getting less money/hour of work the longer you work a day. At some point you‘d probably simply stop working because you think you‘re time is more worth. And yes obviously you are not working but playing to have fun, but it still doesn‘t feel to good. 

Now I am not saying that i am totally against capping stuff in whatever way, simply wanted to point it out :) 

Do you have any thoughts or a proposal of what the cap should be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Do you have any thoughts or a proposal of what the cap should be? 

I am not anywhere knowledgeable enough to give a proposal that i can feel confident about to be right.

If you ask me for my personal opinion, I'd prefer an unrestricted acquiring of BFP or a restriction that is as marginal as possible. I feel like that if someone puts in the time/effort he would be rewarded at the same rates as anyone else. If someone is unable to play much than that simply means that you prioritize things differently and that is fine, but shouldn't be accounted for by a game.

If you want to have some sort of restriction I would need to do some research but on first glance don't cap it to more than 75% at any time. I feel like the first 3 or 4 hours should be penalty free in any case. After that timeframe go down somewhat periodically in whatever percent/hour you feel like.

Closing the gap between players who play a lot and those who don't is an issue in this specific case because a lot of people already know what they want from the game so every BFP is probably even more worth than other (new) games as people know how to beat the content and can work much more effiiciently, so i understand that the devs don't want that, so i can live with capping it to minimize that, however by doing that you also create an even bigger disadvantage for players who only can play on very few days but play excessively on those days instead of spreading it out over the week.

 

Edit: From here it is made up from the top of my head so you probably can see my thought patterns in my writing - hope it doesn't get to confusing.

 

From my understanding there is going to be playtime rewards and daily quests so in order to go with the 75% proposal you have 2 base solutions which come to my head right away:

1. balance income symmetrical around both systems making up about 50% and cut in either of them 25% or in both for a combined 25% with whatever percentage over 1 hour after 3 or 4 hours(1.1) or up one of the income of one of the systems to 75% (1.2)

2. balance income asymmetrical around both systems, so 75% to 25% (as extreme)

Advantage of 75% to 25% is that you can put the quest system at 25% income production and don't generate new quests for a day after the initial 3 or 4 hours of playtime is up. That way you can get away with less quests to minimize repetition of quests. On the other hand you swap main and secondary income systems. At least from my understanding the quest system is/was supposed to be the main system which you just turned on its head and works more as complimentary system to spice things up for a few hours.  (2.1)

For the other extreme you simply inverse that, so you need more quests to minimize repitition, but make sure that the quest systems is the main system in which case you probably don't need the playtime rewards at all and simply diminish quest rewards. (2.2)

 

Major disadvantage of 1.1 is that you have to do both systems so you basically lose the advantage of shutting one system down and can't avoid the repitition problem of the quest system so why bother with having 2 systems in the first place?

1.2 addresses that so you can shut down the quest system but don't lose to much income production by simply upping the income of the playtime system. This is awfully similar to suggestion 2.2 but you at least let it be an equal part of the system for the first few hours.

 

3. Actually this brings another possibility to mind which is simply completely relying on the quest system for the first 3 or 4 hours before shutting it down after that time frame - matches that overlap should count to the quest - and after that playtime rewards get handed out.

 

Obviously that kind of system has its flaws in that a quest system doesn't offer any guaranteed income as you have to hit objectives which different people take different amounts of time for and that different quests inherently will take different amounts of time to complete. So you would need to scale quest rewards depending on the quest difficulty, which are inherently subjective - so there's no way to nail that perfectly for everyone. So that is a bunch of work to approximate those - especially with probably no or little data the chance to miss the mark is very high.

I am not sure how far the devs thought this through, but i am sure that they and a lot of other people made more thoughts on this than me, so please point out any flaws in my logic. I made these solutions up on the fly so please correct me or add stuff.

Overall I'd say i prefer solution 3 the most as it is easiest to balance and you can be "lazy" and avoid creating massive amounts of quests or minimze repitive quests.

 

Edit 2: Just realized that i went astray from the original question quite far. woops.

 

Edited by Treim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, why do you think 3 or 4 hours is good? For people who work 8 hours a day it is near impossible to play that long... I would boost the first hour (maybe go to 200%), than an hour of 100%, hour 3 for 75% and all hours after for 50%.

The question is a good point you mentioned, and as you said will depent on the difficulty. I wonder if it is gonna be a 'checklist' quest system, in which everything is doable by everyone, but you just have to do them. Or if it is gonna be an 'achievement' quest system, in which the quest are a lot harder, and completing one is a real achievement (including bigger rewards, i guess).

The whole deal of balancing the bfp gain is really complex, but I hope the devs think it through better then I do :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

First of all, why do you think 3 or 4 hours is good? For people who work 8 hours a day it is near impossible to play that long... I would boost the first hour (maybe go to 200%), than an hour of 100%, hour 3 for 75% and all hours after for 50%.

I am not denying that working people probably won't be able to play 3 or 4 hours. However why would you diminish peoples return who can play that long simply on the basis that others can't.

Again I see the point of not letting people get to far ahead of others, but i think there is a reasonable amount of people who definetly can play 3 or 4 hours a day without a problem for whatever reason. You probably could even do it if you have a regular job 9-5 job at least semi consistantly. If you don't than you probably simply have other priorities like a girlfriend or going out with friends, watching some Netflix, doing sports, etc. . That is the case for me as well. However i'd consider 3-4 hours a timeframe that most people COULD achieve semi-consistantly. So if it is possible for most people i don't see why you would punish people who actually do it and diminish their return. After that timeframe it probably gets a little bit problematic and aside from students others can't do it anymore and if you want a cap  you gotta do it somewhere.

I definetly have other priorities as well and definetly won't play 3 or 4 hours a day but realistically i could definetly do it. Speaking of my limited experience with a 9-5 job living alone of about 2 month I'd say that i could have definetly done at least 3 hours a day if i dedicated a considerable amount of my free time playing games. That is obviously a measly amount of experience, but it really is all i can go on as i probably won't find time charts about that kind of stuff. 

TL;DR start the cap at a point which is achieveable for most people with a 9-5 job if they really set battleforge as a top priority for their free time.

I really wish i could express this a little bit better, but i am unable to find the right words to wrap this up nicely, so this will have to do for now.

42 minutes ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

The question is a good point you mentioned, and as you said will depent on the difficulty. I wonder if it is gonna be a 'checklist' quest system, in which everything is doable by everyone, but you just have to do them. Or if it is gonna be an 'achievement' quest system, in which the quest are a lot harder, and completing one is a real achievement (including bigger rewards, i guess).

The whole deal of balancing the bfp gain is really complex, but I hope the devs think it through better then I do :P

I actually don't even think it has to be exclusively a checklist or an achievement system. You can probably do a mix as well, as long as you can guarantee a somewhat similar income rate no matter which quests you get. That might be a little bit harder to achieve than an exclusive system, but i am sure it is far from impossible once you figure out at what rate you want people to acquire BFP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Treim said:

However i'd consider 3-4 hours a timeframe that most people COULD achieve semi-consistantly.

I think you are wrong there. That statement is almost unhealthy xD

You also say you have very little experience, and so do I. I work a 8 to 5 job for a few months now as well, but living alone criples your freetime. I can maybe spend 2 or 3 hours on any of my freetime.  So if I would do battleforge 100% of my freetime 2 to 3 hours is max for a day. But I won't, cause I simply enjoy other things, like you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

I think you are wrong there. That statement is almost unhealthy xD

You also say you have very little experience, and so do I. I work a 8 to 5 job for a few months now as well, but living alone criples your freetime. I can maybe spend 2 or 3 hours on any of my freetime.  So if I would do battleforge 100% of my freetime 2 to 3 hours is max for a day. But I won't, cause I simply enjoy other things, like you said.

Well i said it i think it is possible to do 3 hours a day semi consistantly( at least 3/5 days a week). So if you are really dedicated you can enjoy full payment for all your time. That is probably possible for a majority for people here (not sure about the actual people with kids or jobs that require more time, etc.) but considering average age is probably around early twenties here i think it is quite likely that my assumptions are correct or not too far off.

The longer i think about this issue the more i wouldn't want any cap at all tbh. If you want to invest hours a day into playing this game then get your reward. And sure that massively favors students who got more time, but most people here probably had that advantage in other games. And if that causes that some people basically rush through the game and got all cards and upgrades within a few weeks or month, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Treim said:

Well i said it i think it is possible to do 3 hours a day semi consistantly( at least 3/5 days a week). So if you are really dedicated you can enjoy full payment for all your time. That is probably possible for a majority for people here (not sure about the actual people with kids or jobs that require more time, etc.) but considering average age is probably around early twenties here i think it is quite likely that my assumptions are correct or not too far off.

The longer i think about this issue the more i wouldn't want any cap at all tbh. If you want to invest hours a day into playing this game then get your reward. And sure that massively favors students who got more time, but most people here probably had that advantage in other games. And if that causes that some people basically rush through the game and got all cards and upgrades within a few weeks or month, then so be it.

Iam in for no cap too. Because the days I can play a lot (a free time weekend day or vacation day or so), I will probably exceed 5 hours a day... 

The problem is contests... The fastest speedrunner, or best PvP player or that kinda stuff will be hugely influenced by the amount of upgrades you have. If there would be a solution for that problem, then you could completely remove the cap. 

(Also, PvP'ing is a problem, if the matchmaking system puts two persons of equel skill against eachother, but one with 100+lvl deck vs one with deck lvl 20-40... just results in unfair matches. This again could be fixed. Probably something like including upgrades into matchmaking, which on itself introduces yet another problem because it is splitting up the maybe already smaller PvP community)

Edited by SilenceKiller99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A one currency system is the best possible system to implement in my opinion. It is the most streamlined of all approaches, allows for a better economy to develop where we wont have massive influxes of one currency and declines in others. Perhaps someone get's a super rare card they don't need, but have a deck that's not upgraded at all. I don't know about you but I want the option to sell that card and upgrade my deck. People mention new player support as a pro for a 2 currency system but I think it's the opposite. As a "new player" (I played BF when I was a kid, and I barely remember anything), I'll tell you right now that most people will be familiar with a one currency system and anything different from that is confusing. As for forcing people to be frugal with how they spend their currency, I think that's ridiculous too. How people spend their currency and whether it's on upgrades, cards, or some variation in between should be the players prerogative.

On 1/14/2018 at 1:28 PM, SilenceKiller99 said:

First of all, why do you think 3 or 4 hours is good? For people who work 8 hours a day it is near impossible to play that long... I would boost the first hour (maybe go to 200%), than an hour of 100%, hour 3 for 75% and all hours after for 50%.

The question is a good point you mentioned, and as you said will depent on the difficulty. I wonder if it is gonna be a 'checklist' quest system, in which everything is doable by everyone, but you just have to do them. Or if it is gonna be an 'achievement' quest system, in which the quest are a lot harder, and completing one is a real achievement (including bigger rewards, i guess).

The whole deal of balancing the bfp gain is really complex, but I hope the devs think it through better then I do :P

I don't understand why we're so focused on keeping everyone's level of progression the same? If I put in more work then someone else, I should get more reward, it is as simple as that.

4 hours ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

I think you are wrong there. That statement is almost unhealthy xD

You also say you have very little experience, and so do I. I work a 8 to 5 job for a few months now as well, but living alone criples your freetime. I can maybe spend 2 or 3 hours on any of my freetime.  So if I would do battleforge 100% of my freetime 2 to 3 hours is max for a day. But I won't, cause I simply enjoy other things, like you said.

I go to school full time, 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, and then I Wrestle from 3:00 to 6:30. I get home everyday at around 7, and by the time I finish eating, showering, and doing homework, it's literally almost 10:00. That's not even accounting the hours I spend running usually at around 10:00 to 1:00 AM just to keep my weight down. And on Saturdays I often have tournaments that take all day. The word free time doens't exist. Regardless of all those things, and as someone who would benefit the most from a capped rate of progression before slow down, it's completely unethical to penalize people who want to play the game. That's the literal purpose of a game. Something we also seem to forget is that those who are most willing to put in a bunch of hours into the game are often the most loyal supporters of it. If we want to encourage growth and keep people playing over long periods of time, we need to try and keep those people interested. I'd challenge you to think of a single logical reason as to why people should be penalized for playing more/why people should have the same or similar progression. It's a communist like idea and we all know how that works out in real life.

1 hour ago, SilenceKiller99 said:

Iam in for no cap too. Because the days I can play a lot (a free time weekend day or vacation day or so), I will probably exceed 5 hours a day... 

The problem is contests... The fastest speedrunner, or best PvP player or that kinda stuff will be hugely influenced by the amount of upgrades you have. If there would be a solution for that problem, then you could completely remove the cap. 

(Also, PvP'ing is a problem, if the matchmaking system puts two persons of equel skill against eachother, but one with 100+lvl deck vs one with deck lvl 20-40... just results in unfair matches. This again could be fixed. Probably something like including upgrades into matchmaking, which on itself introduces yet another problem because it is splitting up the maybe already smaller PvP community)

Well of course these things are going to be influenced by the amount of upgrades you have, the question is, why is that a bad ting? As for PVP, while yes it might be frustrating to deal with people have higher level decks then you, we need to ask ourselves why. It's frustrating because it isn't fair, but PVP is never fair. The best move up the ladder and the worst move down. Is it fair that someone has way higher APM then you so they can micro way better? Is it way better that some people can strategize and react faster/better then you? No, but that's part of what makes it fun. The natural skill level of people will balance out the PVP until everyone can get the necessary upgrades for their decks. People with 100+ decks can lose to people with 40-50 or w/e decks if the guy playing the lower deck is good enough. That'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×

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.