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... ×
YaBro0

All Cards: Future Watchlist Discussion

Recommended Posts

Hey future skylords,

In this thread we will try figuring out how to balance certain cards through out discussions. I felt like the "Daily Card Discussion" Thread was always great to talk about Balancing issues but the time to come to solutions was too short since that's not the main meaning of the thread. 

So in this thread I will post one card that needs a buff and one card that needs a nerf based on overall oppinions in the Forum.

 

You have at least two days and at max 1 week to discuss about those cards and make balancing suggestions. The time of the discussion is based on the activity and if I feel like there is nothing more to say about the topic I will announce new cards. 

 

Every card we have discussed about will be named in this start post in addition with the best suggestions you made to balance that card.

 

There will be PvP and PvE relevant cards alike.

 

To make it easier to determine the best suggestions on overall oppinion please give reputation to those suggestions.

 

If you have any suggestions about cards we should discuss about send me a PM with your suggestion and the reason the card should be buffed/nerfed.

 

Remember: This thread is no real Watchlist. It's a discussion to find solutions about balancing issues that will be of great use once a real watchlist is released. Also it should help the devs to determine important balancing problems easier once it becomes relevant.

 

We start with a easy one

Nerf


Amii-Monument.jpg

 

 

 

I don't think there's much to say wether this card is too strong or not. So what are your specific thoughts how we could balance this cards.




Buff


Banditos_frost.jpg

Banditos_nature.jpg

Also not much to say, a pretty useless card in one of the weakest factions. What are your suggestions?

 

Edited by YaBro0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just copy what I wrote in the Daily card discussion a few minutes ago

"Honestly I think very little cards are seriously so overpowered that they should need to be reworked, and starting with a  single buff/nerf will lead to a community boom where everyone will ramble about a card they can't handle or deem overpowered. This could lead to an infinite loop of new meta - new op combo - new nerf/buff - start over

I don't think BattleForge is that kind of game that needs ridiculous updates as to card balancing. Vileblood can be killed, Amii monument destroyed (I seriously haven't seen it more than 2 in Ranked PvP) and any other kind of card has its primal counter. Thats what SMLXL system exists for, Siege is for and CC is for. Every deck is beatable, the one thing that matters most is skill, not cards (in my honest opinion)

Some may disagree, but I wouldn't like to see BattleForge become the type of game with a community like LoL has - flaming and screaming about champions (cards) unfairness.  I never was a magnificent PvP player myself, but I was willing to learn, break the meta and find the gamestyle I deemed most fun to play."

Now if there is a need to buff/nerf some card, it should really be highly suggested by many more people and tested in PvP, PvE etc. when the game is up. 

Every card can be usefull when used correctly, even Banditos as a S counter with an S armor type - with their life steal ability, they could be used to take down T1 Frost units as T1 Frost units have balanced health/damage and Banditos could use that to their advantage (now that I think of it, noh, not worth it as most Frost T1 S cards are S counters themselves). But for example Defenders are and L counter of the armor type S, there, one use for Banditos. Forsaken as well, M counter, S armor type. Phalanx, Rageclaws (if someone dares use them), Stone Shards... many uses for that card

Amii Monument... tell me, honestly, did you ever see it use a purpose in Ranked PvP, where every good player has some kind of T3/T2 Siege unit that will wreck this building before it even gets activated? Have you? I haven't.

Think twice, browse AllCards - you can choose attack categories and armor type categories as well, think a bit, strategize, think of a battle situation and any potentional use of a card and find its primal counter to focus/avoid.

BattleForge is one of the best balanced games I have ever seen, and I don't think we can improve it easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is not the right time for a watchlist like balancing discussion and really, everything we can do at the moment is already covered in the daily discussion thread.

There are a couple of reasons why in-depth discussing at the moment is only a waste of time.

Frist, we can't play and the game as been closed for a long time. Everybody still needs to get into the game again, become familiar with the cards and I am sure once we are able to play we see the issues much more clearly. Therefore, any solutions we come up now might not be suitable at all.

Second, as I already said in the old forum, the old watchlist system was not good. We should think of something better but most of all, we (meaning those who are in charge) need to set goals that they want to achieve. Like equal chances for everybody in T1, balancing of particular factions in T2 (like nature, Bandits or Lost Soul), more diversity in speedruns etc. Something that really helps solving the issues of the game rather than a random collection of buffs and nerfs.

Then, and only when there are goals that seem reasonable to improve the game as a whole, it is the time to determine cards should be discussed and what the goal of the discussion should be. An unguided thread where everybody just gives his opinion is just not helpful in many cases. Also, I am not opposed to limit the community interaction to a minimum and let most of the decisions be handled by a group of persons who are qualified. However, that needs to be worked out first, of course.

Banditos are a great example for that. Yes, I am sure we can make this card good and it might even become a card that is viable in pve or pvp, but it doesn't help Bandits T2 a lot either, there are bigger issues and that cannot be solved with Banditos alone. There are issues with much higher priority. Look, most of the people have never played Bandits and only a few really know the faction well. I find it doubtful that the majority can come up with something useful for that matter.

Third, I think the only way community driven/influenced balancing (at least to some extend) can only work when it is guided by an official part of the dev team and I am not seeing that either.


 

Edit: @anonyme0273

There are only few cards left who are clearly overpowered (yes I am looking at you, Brannoc) but there is A LOT of inconsistency and broken combos in the game that cannot be beaten by every colour. Of course, everybody can be beaten with enough stkill. However, there are matchups where one player is drastically favoured despite having equal skill.

And don't let me get startet about stupidly designed cards Curse Well or Church of Negation + Heal.

I also agree that the game does not need "ridiculous" updates, but there are many tweaks that can help improve the game a lot. Ever heard of the pareto principle?

As for your 2 examples, Vileblood is outclassed by Burrower due to its nerf and of course Amii Monument isn't op in pvp... we talk about (r)pve where it is almost like an "I win" button.

If there is a concept behind the changes influenced by people who offer great knowledge about the game and bring experience from a theoretical game design point of view (which I never noticed by the devs of Phenomic) every change is an improvement and it will not come to a constant change in meta. Balancing is bound to generate new UP/OP cards but when done right it is to a far lower degree than they were to begin with and even then, we can react to that as well.

I was always very active in watchlists in the original game and honestly, I've read a lot of similar statements by people who did not want that their favourite faction gets "balanced" (most the time, this was Lost Soul with their ridiculously op range of cards they had long time ago).

Edited by Mental Omega

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, anonyme0273 said:

"Honestly I think very little cards are seriously so overpowered that they should need to be reworked, and starting with a  single buff/nerf will lead to a community boom where everyone will ramble about a card they can't handle or deem overpowered. This could lead to an infinite loop of new meta - new op combo - new nerf/buff - start over

I don't think BattleForge is that kind of game that needs ridiculous updates as to card balancing. Vileblood can be killed, Amii monument destroyed (I seriously haven't seen it more than 2 in Ranked PvP) and any other kind of card has its primal counter. Thats what SMLXL system exists for, Siege is for and CC is for. Every deck is beatable, the one thing that matters most is skill, not cards (in my honest opinion)

Some may disagree, but I wouldn't like to see BattleForge become the type of game with a community like LoL has - flaming and screaming about champions (cards) unfairness.  I never was a magnificent PvP player myself, but I was willing to learn, break the meta and find the gamestyle I deemed most fun to play."

 

I think even if a game is really balanced this is no reason to just stop balancing at all. Getting rid of the last few dents is very important and people will ramble anyway if the community is big enough. There are always people like that. Excluding the community from balance decisions is not a clever thing to do imo.

Also pvp is not the only thing that should be balanced. Amii monument felt to strong in pve to me.

However I agree to the others here and say that balancing should start when BFReborn is finished and if the devs decide to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already answered anon in the other thread so I won't repeat myself.

@Mental Omega I agree with you, especially on the need for an alternative solution to the old watchlist.

What I don't agree with completely which several people here said is that it is too early for discussing balancing issues. This might be true overall, as most people can't access the game, the game isn't playable right now, we all forgot how things are exactly and all the other reasons mentioned. But those cards that were imbalanced enough to be called extreme can surely be discussed. Those are mostly in need of more than a slight buff/nerf and some even need a complete rework. By discussing that we can already find ideas how to handle them until the time is ripe to bring up balancing again. The only thing I fear is that the thread will simply be buried in the future and all the work will become worthless. So I'm not against discussing some cards already, but it might not be optimal and the general balancing discussions should be saved for the future.

Share this post


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

Might be worth to check this thread out: 

 

I'm sorry, I used the search function but couldn't find anything... stupid me :D

1 hour ago, Ladadoos said:

@Mental Omega In my opinion it is indeed too soon as well. As long as the cards are discussed again when the game is out there should not be any problems though. Blame the :hype:

It sure is pretty early but I remember being very active in the old forums watchlist and the suggestions while the game was up were far more ridiculious than what I read in this forum. I know it sounds weird but I feel like people make better decisions about balancing when they don't have to deal with its problems ingame. You know all the rage you have when you lose to a probably unbalanced card? For many people that was enough to blame this card in the forum and many stupid cards made it in the watchlist. So I don't feel like there's a huge difference in discussions now or later exept for flameposts.

@anonyme0273 I couldn't disagree more with you :D

Battleforge is not comparable to other games and so is its balance. You're right that Battleforge became pretty balanced once you compare it to the begginings. The balancing of BF PvP in the first days was a complete Desaster and many cards destroyed the PvP experience (which is imo the reason so many people left). Compared to these days Battleforge developed great but just because there are no extreme gamebreaking cards doesn't mean that we should stop balancing. We should constantly change cards and the meta and make BF's balance better and better. I know your point is that with changing meta there won't be an end to balancing but that's nothing bad since we come closer to a complete balanced game without ever reaching it :)

Btw I have a very huge problem with PvE balance ... since no one really loses in PvE no one really cared about balancing PvE cards. I really feel like the PvE balance is pretty messed up right now due to cards like Amii-Monument.

And I actually don't feel like losing a grip on the game. I made a list with cards in order which should be balanced and why. And I feel like everything is fine in this list, of course that's only my oppinion so that doesn't really count :D

But @anonyme0273 has a point that there's no meaning in discussing so many cards since a watchlist could change the meta in a way that there wouldn't be a change needed anymore. 

So how about I share my list with you that is actually not that long and you make suggestions related to those cards which are in need to be balanced? :)

Edit: The whole point if this thread was more like discussing OP/UP cards in detail and not let everyone throw in random cards even if it may have sounded like it. I just don't wanted to make a thread for every single one and just summarize everything in this one. I just felt like when cards like treespirit came up in the daily discussion that people wanted to talk more about this card and the day was not enough. So I wanted to make a thread were only specific cards were discussed in more detail with and summarize the thoughts. I know the thread title is pretty missleading :D but hopefully you get what my intention was.

 

 

Edited by YaBro0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through all these comments and i agree with most of them. There is one point I will stop commenting on as i have little to no experience with which is the PvE (except campaign my PvE practice was almost 0 and I only played when bored late in the night with noone to play against)

@YaBro0 - disagreeing with me is smart, I agree with your point in almost all cases except the constant meta changing. Meta is something that should (in my opinion) change by its own from the will of the community - someone finding a better solution, "breaking" the meta is a good way, having fun decks and finding out they somehow work etc.. Meta changes shouldn't be forced as if some decks are found too OP, someone will find a counter by testing and testing, losing losing and losing, but not giving up. Anyone can do that, it just demands a bit of patience and good idea for a counter deck. Constant card changing will mess up things and nothing will be stable, which I won't give up on.

 @Kiwibaum makes sense to me, I agree with practically everything you said without further comment

 @Mental Omega Well this is a toughie :) I agree with most of your objective points (waiting for the game release, more diversity, watchlist comments), but I want to make some things clear - I am not defending my favourite faction - Shadow/Lost. I start Shadow T1 as lost and Pure Shadow deck is rekt by any MOST forms of CC when used properly. One of the things I disagree with is subjective naming of Brannoc (yes, sorry :) ). I didn't play him, but I really liked the concept of the card. It was my favourite card after Wrathgazer and Rifle Cultist, neither of which I really used too much :D Brannoc is extremely strong against units not spread apart and thus in my opinion may force players to learn to micromanage to counter him. As I said many times, I am not a perfect PvP player, but I always found a way of dealing with Brannoc - desintegration, XL counters (Giant Slayers) or Nether Warp when his ability was used. Gladiatrix was also pretty good against him as her swiftness and Giant Slayers slow worked well together. EVERY card can be beaten, and while I agree some are harder to kill/counter, there is always a way. That's for me the beauty of BattleForge - the diversity and openness 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anonyme0273 said:

@YaBro0 - disagreeing with me is smart, I agree with your point in almost all cases except the constant meta changing. Meta is something that should (in my opinion) change by its own from the will of the community - someone finding a better solution, "breaking" the meta is a good way, having fun decks and finding out they somehow work etc.. Meta changes shouldn't be forced as if some decks are found too OP, someone will find a counter by testing and testing, losing losing and losing, but not giving up. Anyone can do that, it just demands a bit of patience and good idea for a counter deck. Constant card changing will mess up things and nothing will be stable, which I won't give up on.

But the way it currently is, many decks aren't even playable because so many cards are too weak to be efficient. In PvE you can play almost anything because you can choose the difficulty of the opponent and don't have to expect counterplay (as well as knowing what awaits you). But that doesn't make the cards any good. So to really offer alternatives how to build a deck those cards need to be balanced. Otherwise you'd always choose to be at a disadvantage by choosing the weaker cards (even if you like them). Therefore we need to balance them to make the things that are "breaking" the meta viable decks. Even if it is only for PvE and not for PvP that would be progress. So instead of trying to make a counter-balance that you mention (which is essentially changing cards to hard counters for a certain card that is OP in the meta) - which pretty much messes up the game long-term - we should go for simple buffs/nerfs that are oriented towards a fixpoint. I fear that we won't find a fixpoint though.

A fixpoint would be (for example) a card at T2 with 1000/1000 that costs 100 power. From that we can define a ratio of combat value/power. We define the combat value as generally being
dmg x health, so our card has a combat value of 1.000.000 at a 100 power cost. The ratio would then be 10.000 cv/power, which we'll use as a fixpoint.
Now we want every card at T2 to have an equally strong ratio. But we must consider that every card is used differently in BF and to assign them a combat value we need to consider things like range, abilities and roles. An archer with the same stats as a melee unit is much stronger as he got range as a bonus, so we know that range adds to the combat value, etc...
With all that being said we can try to work out the combat value of each card but that won't help us here. There are too many and too different cards to use a fixpoint. So instead we need to look at every card itself and compare it to the other cards, so that we can use them as fixpoints. Is the card stronger/weaker than other cards that fulfill the same role? Are those cards balanced?
If we classify the cards by the role they have and the result they deliver we can objectively determine how OP/UP a card is and maybe even how much it needs to be changed. :)
And that process will help us to make more card combinations playable as it puts more cards on the (generally) same level of combat value to power cost. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kaliber84 said:

But the way it currently is, many decks aren't even playable because so many cards are too weak to be efficient. In PvE you can play almost anything because you can choose the difficulty of the opponent and don't have to expect counterplay (as well as knowing what awaits you). But that doesn't make the cards any good.

 

A fixpoint would be (for example) a card at T2 with 1000/1000 that costs 100 power. From that we can define a ratio of combat value/power. We define the combat value as generally being
dmg x health, so our card has a combat value of 1.000.000 at a 100 power cost. The ratio would then be 10.000 cv/power, which we'll use as a fixpoint.
 

I really am not fluent in PvE... thus I can't really reply meaningfully to that. 

However, setting a fixpoint, as you said, is meaningless. Every role has its strenghts and weaknesses etc etc. I could honestly go for days here, I will instead, however, post some usefull BF wiki pages that might help with understanding to anyone unfamiliar with these roles (I see you are familiar with them, but even I read through them often just for fun)

  • Soldier - Essential melee combatant, balanced damage and life
  • Archer - Ranged combatant, higher damage, lower life
  • Wizard - Spell-casting combatant, lower damage and life but have special attack abilities.
  • Supporter - Supportive role, very low damage or cannot attack at all.
  • Dominator - Combatant amongst the strongest for its tier, higher damage and life, but higher casting cost
  • Destroyer - Powerful combatant with siege capabilities
  • Corruptor - Special units that may apply debuff or perform crowd control on foes.
  • Crusader - Special Units that may apply buffs or support on allies.

More information is at this page 

http://battleforge.wikia.com/wiki/Card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what @anonyme0273 said:

A card is (afaik) always composed of those roles but can be part of several classes.

For example Defenders are ranged archers. But their damage is relatively low and they are very tanky. If we want to put them into one class we got a problem. They aren't archers because their damage isn't high enough. However they don't have any abilities that support other units or do damage, so they are also not a supporter or wizard. They might be considered a Crusader as they can buff themselves but that's also not perfect.
But if we consider that a card can be part of several classes it's easier to categorize them. Defenders are certainly archers as the only thing they can do is dealing damage. But they are really tanky and can buff themselves to be even tankier, so they also fit into the Crusader category (partly).
Personally I would call them tanks as they can take a beating but their damage output is low but that class wasn't listed. Personally I would list tanks as a separate class.
For example Lightblade excels at being a tank.

Another example for a unit that fits into several categories is Parasite Swarm. They are mostly used for their Mind Control ability which is likely a Wizard/Corruptor class ability. But they also deal high damage and are great M counters, as well as being able to fly. Therefore they also fit into the Archer category.

Spells are almost always only part of one category because they rarely got more than one effect.
Inferno is a Destruction class spell. Coldsnap and Oink are Support spells. Unholy Hero is a Crusade class spell.

Buildings can be mostly considered tanks additionally to their other defining characteristics (damage or support abilities for example). Almost all towers that deal damage can at least be considered Archer class. There are a few exceptions though (like Makeshift Tower which is used for it's knockback but still deals damage).
Phase Tower is an Archer tower as it is mostly used for it's damage. It might additionally be considered Wizard class because of it's teleport ability. Ice Shield Tower is a Crusader Class tower.
Ice Barrier is a Support tower and Mark of the Keeper is a Corruptor tower.

I hope the examples make it a bit easier to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heyhey everyone,

I just read this Thread and got to think about what makes PvP interesting. And though i've never really been into PvP and i have never been in any game, i think everyone must think about what i call the "Perfect Imbalance". What makes PvP challenging and intersting is not only the skill one needs, to be good at it, it's also the ever changing meta great PvP needs. I remember back to StarCraft1, which has been in my opinion the perfectly balanced game ever. Although it was a great game, Multiplayer became just boring after a while, 'cause it was perfectly balanced. If you knew, what strategy your opponent was going for u always knew, what to do to win. There was no thinking necessary, no point in trying something different. That's something i don't want see happen to BattleForgeReborn, 'cause if it gets boring, Players will leave. And if Players leave, we might once again lose what we love.

In my opinion, the game will need Nerfs and Buffs to keep PvP interesting. If just one cards get better or worse, a lot of new strategies and card sets can be used. It will make players try something new in order win. So i think there have to be a changing Meta and by that there have to be Nerfs and Buffs. What i think is far more important is to think about, how often Balancing will be done, 'cause if it is done to fast, no one will have the time to fully benefit from the changes made, if it takes too long, Players might get stuck with their strategies and might get bored.

And by the way i think it is far too early do discuss changes to specific cards as most of us only remember things from old days and even those, who are granted Alpha Access are only able to get thinks via the Forge, not actual Gameplay.

Greetings, Corey

 

PS: Hope my bad english does not stop someone from getting my opinion and thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@anonyme0273 @Kaliber84 

The list you posted is actually pretty good for T1 balancing imo. If you look especially at the T1 archers you'll see the very familiar stats. Anyway it become more and more useless the higher the tier. Because you can't simply compare units from different factions in T2 to each other, since every faction has their own specific support and synergy with their units. A great example was DO before the nerf, it was massively OP because the synergy with shadow buffs and nature support was to great but in Pure Nature it's fine. 

My main point is that even if you might be able to compare unit stats in higher tiers there is no way to messure the strenght of specific abilities inside a certain faction. Firedancer is a destroyer and a very powerful one. It's main strenght is not that is has siege but that it has high range. If firedancer had normal range fire would become pretty damn hard. Other example is shadow mage. If shadow mage wouldn't have m- knockback shadow would be worse than bandits in defense. You see this little abilities which can't be messured really are the things which make cards useful and keep the balance. All cards which we could consider OP atm are OP due to their abilities inside certain factions and not their atk or def stats.

I don't believe we could ever find something like a fix point. But there's no need for that since we still have cards and factions which we can determine to be clearly weaker or OP without exactly messuaring them :)

And about this whole we "no game experience" thing, if you know what the strenghts and weaknesses of certain factions are and you have a understanding how competitive decks from every faction are build, there is no need for any game experience. And imo that's the way cards should be balanced, not to certain fix points but to determine their place inside a faction and what positive and negative effect it can bring for the faction and then compare it to all matchups and look for their strenghts and weaknesses in every matchup. 

One last example, sunderer was a massive OP unit back in day and even after they changed the abiltiy (with which you could nearly one hit a well) it was still to strong, because there were no L-counters in T1. Now that every T1 has a possible L-counter and two of them are considered core cards sunderer is no longer OP. Again the point I'm making is that not only the fact that every T1 got a L-counter makes Sunderer balanced but the fact that the use of his counters is not limited to only himself. 

Sorry I'm talking to much again :D

How about we stop discussing if a discussion is worth it and start a discussion about actual card changes?! :D

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.