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

Jump to content
Eirias

Proposal: Locked, Composed Decks

Proposal: Locked, Composed Decks  

27 members have voted

  1. 1. Are locked, COMPOSED decks a good idea?

  2. 2. What qualities should these locked, composed decks have?

    • 100% competitive, and designed by top PvP players [you should probably all check this one, unless you disagree with the entire premise]
    • All cards U3, for deck lvl 120 [you should probably all check this one as well]
    • Players get one (random) free composed deck per cycle
    • Players get more than one free composed decks per cycle, or this composed deck is choosable each cycle (specify in comments below)
    • Players do NOT get a free composed deck per cycle (must buy them)
    • Players can rent composed decks with no limitations
    • Players can rent composed decks with some limitations (e. g. up to 2 per cycle, pay but get a random deck, etc).
    • Players may NOT rent composed decks (must rely on the free one(s)).
    • Composed decks have slight variations, even with the same faction (i. e. there might be up to 100 different decks spread among 10 factions)
    • Composed decks have no variations (there is exactly one "optimal" deck per faction).


Recommended Posts

Since two other threads have begun to get a bit derailed due to this suggestion, I thought I'd consolidate the proposal here, give pros and cons (and a poll) and discuss whether this should actually happen or not. For those of you interested in the origins of this conversation, read the threads "Starting Cards" and "Removing Upgrade System from PvP" (and I won't tell you where it happens, because those threads have some important conversations in them otherwise).

A brief summary of the problem (for arguments regarding the problem see those threads):

1. PvP is not viable with the normal F2P starter cards (don't even have t1 units for shadow and fire, for instance)

2. PvP is not viable without upgrades

3. For players primarily interested in PvP (such as old BF players, or players coming from other competitive RTS games like Starcraft), an inability to acquire cards and/or upgrades in a TIMELY MANNER will cause them to stop playing BattleForge before they ever get the "real" experience, i. e. playing lvl 120 decks with all the right cards.

(4). Simply giving all players good cards and upgrades would destroy vital, non-PvP aspects of BattleForge.

 

Now, on to my proposal:

Each player gets a free, random, temporary, LOCKED, COMPOSED, fully upgraded deck every two weeks. After two weeks, another random one is given out. These decks will have the following properties:

  • COMPOSED for PvP. Decks will be modeled after top players. They will be fully, 100% competitive. I may not like the faction I have during a particular cycle, but the best player in the world at that faction would have no complaints. This may encourage me to try new decks. Since the decks are made for PvP, they will not have t4 (except, possibly, in certain decks if top players call for it). These decks will be near useless for PvE, although of course there's nothing to stop someone from using them anywhere.
  • Locked. Cards may not be added or removed from this deck. If I want to change cards so that F1 hotkeys to scavenger instead of eruption, too bad. I can't use these cards in any other deck, and I can't add any cards to this deck. They are not modifiable at all.
  • Random cyclic. They will cycle out (like a tome deck) every two weeks (or other determined time). Each player gets one deck, and the odds of getting all factions are equal. This encourages player to try new decks, and possibly broaden the metagame.
  • Fully upgraded. These decks will be lvl 120. A player using one of these decks can have no complaints about losing except that he's worse than his opponent (or possibly has a bad matchup).

This will allow players to immediately have fully competitive access to PvP, without affecting the market (if you want to fine-tune your deck, or be able to reliably play it, you'll need to buy and upgrade the cards yourself. In the meantime, you're exposed to a wide variety of decks, so you can see which one suits your playstyle and get a feel for how things work at U3).

Possible Cons: 

  • If the decks are stale (for instance, if the composed fire-nature deck always contains mauler and I know this) an artificial metagame might develop. In that example, if I think the composed deck will mean a greater than "natural" number of maulers for me to fight, statistically, I might arrange my own deck so that it doesn't have mountaineer/ashbone, but might have Lost Reaver/Tremor instead. This con might actually be a "pro" though, if we can affect the metagame to make "lame" strategies less viable.
  • Some players might multiaccount if they don't have access to the deck they want. This would require a lot of multiaccounting though, and I don't think it will really be a problem compared to other reasons to multiaccount.

Variations

  • All players get access to all (10?) locked, composed decks. This might be dangerous, because it may remove the need for PvP players to participate in the market at all
  • Locked, composed decks are rentable (still 2 weeks) for a comparable price to a booster. Thus buying your own cards is a more permanent solution, but you can have good access to a faction "on demand" if you want it.
  • Individual cards within factions are slightly randomized each time. There would still be an equal chance to get each faction, but--say within a fire-nature deck--variations exist. One might start nature, while the others start fire. Some might have sunderer, some might have mauler instead. One might have earthshaker. One might have no t3 at all. Etc. These variations of course would be subject to some "board of top PvP players" and the reason for variance would simply be so that a player doesn't know what EXACT cards he'll be facing, if he suspects he's facing a composed deck.

What do you think? Should this be done? Should it be done in a different way? Comment below! (and vote!)

Edited by Eirias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this Idea pretty good, as pvp sometimes intimidates people in the beginning, especially when a big time investment is involved.

 

I have checked:

1. 100% competitive, and designed by top PvP players

2. All cards U3, for deck lvl 120

As you said yourself these two are no-brainers if one supports your idea.

 

4. Players get more than one free composed decks per cycle, or this composed deck is choosable each cycle

I like the Idea of people beeing forced to get out of their comfort zone, so I don't think every deck should be avaiable and the decks one receives should be random to a degree. But some vriants are simply neither fun nor interesting for some people so having only one deck you don't like for let's say two weeks might suck all the pvp fun out of it. Because of that the number of decks should be above one, maybe two or three not much more, but that also depends how many decks there will be.

 

8. Players may NOT rent composed decks:

I think renting the decks would go against the "go out of your comfort zone" which I think is pretty important so I would like to avoid a solution where people can choose which deck they want with absolute freedom. As I said above two or three might be alright but if someone can just take the same deck over and over then you can just sell fully upgraded cards or even entire Decks, wouldn't make much of a difference.

In addition, as this feature seems to be more for new players so having to play currency for getting this decks might be asking for a bit to much from them (you could make a mix of both though).

 

10. Composed decks have slight variations, even with the same faction (i. e. there might be up to 100 different decks spread among 10 factions)

I think this is pretty important, some variete even if it is just one or two cards each deck will make a confrontation more intense. If I already know every single action my oponent can take then I will have more option then him (as I know his deck already amd he doesn't know mine).

This of course assumes that said decks are public which they will becomme at least one or two days after distribution.

Wait.... 10 factions? I thought we had only 8 factions? (fire, nature, shadow, frost, twillight, Bandits, Stonekin and lost soul) Did I miss something?

 

 

Some aditional points from me:

1.I would like for this to be implemented a while afte rthe game launched, not right from the start. The reason for this is simply that in the beginning we all start with really weak decks so there is no need to have high level options to level the playing field. I also would rather start wiht low level cards as I like the flavor of seeing my cards become stronger.

2.I actually don't think mentioning this is necessary but the internet teached me to be extra carefull^^.  I'm only in favour if that means we can still use our own decks and arn't forced to play with pre designed decks, that would be a big fun descalation otherwise.

 

Edited by Tam Hawkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stay with to my post in: Starting Cards

On 23.3.2017 at 8:49 PM, Asraiel said:

In Final words spoken for me these are The Startingdecks:

For every Gamemode:

TOME Starterdeck with all 175 Common U0 non upgradeble Cards

Locked Fire PvP Deck with 20 Common & Uncommon U3 Cards

Locked Frost PvP Deck with 20 Common & Uncommon U3 Cards

Locked Natur PvP Deck with 20 Common & Uncommon U3 Cards

Locked Shadow PvP Deck with 20 Common & Uncommon U3 Cards

In Rotation of 2 Weeks:

Randome TOME Decks with 30 Uncommon, Rare & Ultrarare U0 Cards

Aldo i would change the Randome TOME Deck from U0 to new U2 Cards

 

Wasnt so much into PVP and for me it may take only 1-3 months to collect the cards for a own compsited PVP U3 deck. depending on how much a player does play the game and how many other cards hes gonna upgrade. 

as far i remember it it took me abaut 4 month to get 70%-80% of all cards to U3 with all required charces (exept Legendarys and not used cards or affinitys) means around 400 cards x4 so togheter 1600 cards but as max for a deck is only 20x4 so 80 cards needed to get it on U3 max charges. so by fucsing on those it would realy not take that long only for the Ultrarare ones.

Edited by Asraiel

Share this post


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

Wait.... 10 factions? I thought we had only 8 factions? (fire, nature, shadow, frost, twillight, Bandits, Stonekin and lost soul) Did I miss something?

Pure fire, fire nature, fire shadow, fire frost, Pure nature, nature shadow, nature frost, Pure Shadow, Shadow Frost, Pure Frost.

 

4 hours ago, Tam Hawkins said:

2.I actually don't think mentioning this is necessary but the internet teached me to be extra carefull^^.  I'm only in favour if that means we can still use our own decks and arn't forced to play with pre designed decks, that would be a big fun descalation otherwise.

Of course :) This is in addition to everything possible atm.

 

3 hours ago, Asraiel said:

Wasnt so much into PVP and for me it may take only 1-3 months to collect the cards for a own compsited PVP U3 deck. depending on how much a player does play the game and how many other cards hes gonna upgrade. 

This rates will vary depending on how the devs scale it. However, 1 month is WAAY too long to have playable PvP. What counts as "playable" is obviously player-dependent, but the strongest PvP players probably won't be satisfied with less than lvl 100, and with options of Ultra Rare cards. I don't see this being accomplishable in under 1 month, and that might be too long for some players who are only interested in playing PvP.

Imagine if there was some rule, like you have limited access to the market depending on your PvE rank (say, you can't sell/buy rares until PvE rank 8, and ultra rares until you've beaten every map on expert). If the market is your biggest reason to play BF, that would be dumb. Many PvP players feel that a dependence on cards and upgrades is a similarly dumb limitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Eirias I really dont like the 'random' part of your proposal. Players should be tempted to go out of their comfort zone, never forced!

For example if you get a bandit deck and I get a stonekin deck and we play together, I might be able to win because of the decks we have, while your skill is still a lot higher. So you will still blame your losing on the fact that you dont have your favorite deck. Therefor people will be tempted to make a couple accounts (so they always can play with the a deck they like) or they wont play ranked pvp for the rest of the two weeks until they have a deck they like. Also for new players it will be hard to master a certain playstyle if they are forced to change deck every two weeks.

If you dont mind that people will multi-account to solve this problem for themselves, than why not allow it in one account? This could be done with giving access to all different decks or that the player can select one deck on the website that he will get (and make a new/same selection every x day(s)). Having 2 or 3 random decks (like @Tam Hawkins suggested) mitigates the 'random' problem since it at least gives the player a choice and therefor it is also an option, but it still wont let someone master a certain faction he likes to play.

I agree that having just 10 static decks could be a problem for the meta (even if you would only get one random deck). So I agree that there should be a couple varariations of each faction. Therefor I prefer the option to choose the deck that you get on the website (with the option to change it every x day(s)), because than you could choose out of a couple pre-made decks for each faction. But there shouldnt be too many variations to choose from so people will be still tempted to collect and build their own decks to make different variations.

Share this post


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

This rates will vary depending on how the devs scale it. However, 1 month is WAAY too long to have playable PvP. What counts as "playable" is obviously player-dependent, but the strongest PvP players probably won't be satisfied with less than lvl 100, and with options of Ultra Rare cards. I don't see this being accomplishable in under 1 month, and that might be too long for some players who are only interested in playing PvP.

well what are we taling abaout: (pls Correct if wrong) in a pvp deck its important to have T1 cards at U3 with max charches, T2 at U2-U3 with minimum 1-2 extra charges, T3 at U2-U3 with maybe 1 extra charge and T4 also on u2-u3 but without extra charges 

so common and uncommon shouldnt be a problem to get the charges so i only looking in rare and ultrarare cards and list them here:

Dreadcharger,Nightguard_nature,Harvester,Motivate,Nether-Warp_frost,Aura-of-Corruption,Firesworn_fire,Sunderer,Mine,Mortar-Tower,Firedancer,Wildfire,Ice-Guardian,Ice-Shield-Tower,Mountaineer,Dryad_frost,Amazon_frost,Hurricane

mybe i added to many or wo less those are restricted to t1 and t2 Cards

and jep if you start with schadow or fire into pvp then jes you need a lot of rare cards but if you go with natur or frost its less

but then again if you focus on the deired ones you will be able to get them maybe not all like the harvester or firedancer after 1 month but a lot ans solong you can do pvp with Locked decks, by simply chalange someone to a locked deck match so no diffrence in power and what also is missing are the randome TOME decks that may contain some of the prefered cards for 2 week so 2 weeks time to collect them.

3 hours ago, Eirias said:

Imagine if there was some rule, like you have limited access to the market depending on your PvE rank (say, you can't sell/buy rares until PvE rank 8, and ultra rares until you've beaten every map on expert). If the market is your biggest reason to play BF, that would be dumb. Many PvP players feel that a dependence on cards and upgrades is a similarly dumb limitation.

dont think so and thats a diffrent story by searching in places that may be changes befor release. and if you could wait over 4 years for the game to return what does then a month mean. and if he has friends inside the game they may help him with some cards. if he is a compleat stranger then its even better to let him gather some expirience befor challenging the top 20. and after release everyone is on the same stand so competitiv allredy. because everyone has missing cards

Share this post


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

I agree that having just 10 static decks could be a problem for the meta (even if you would only get one random deck). So I agree that there should be a couple varariations of each faction. Therefor I prefer the option to choose the deck that you get on the website (with the option to change it every x day(s)), because than you could choose out of a couple pre-made decks for each faction. But there shouldnt be too many variations to choose from so people will be still tempted to collect and build their own decks to make different variations.

well one of my biggest concern about highend PVP decks is that the PVE part of the game will be dry on players. saw it under EA in the PVP section were several pages filled with plyers but in pve werent enouth to fill a 12 player map. by lowering the decks in count, cards, rarety, upgradelvl and charges it pushes players to do at least a bit pve. but by reading on mephistos last post, i found another solution that may siuts even pvp players better:

the locked PVP decks lvl 120 all raretys must be rent from the game. payeble with BFP how long each rent would be is open. but this does enshure that players can from start (if we get some BFP at start) rent teir favorit decks and do pvp aldo they may need to to a bit pve in order to collect BFP to rent future decks. 

that way its in each players hand what he wanna do, rent a locked deck and start instandly competitiv pvp and kick the top 20 players asses or buy boosterpacks and start slowly with pvp. aldo free BFP at start does support a bit multiaccounts but maybe there will be a restriction to it that you cant sell or send cards for some time, buying or reciving will always be avaible. and maybe an ip limitation

 

if you just get even only for pvp all cards on max is for me like using a cheat and whenever i used a cheat i lost my interest in the game. the game doesnt have a pve content for no reason.

Edited by Asraiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Asraiel said:

well what are we taling abaout: (pls Correct if wrong) in a pvp deck its important to have T1 cards at U3 with max charches, T2 at U2-U3 with minimum 1-2 extra charges, T3 at U2-U3 with maybe 1 extra charge and T4 also on u2-u3 but without extra charges 

Ahh...wrong, actually. t1 should have max charges at U3. T2 should can get away with U2 on some cards (but not on others, like oink, I've learned the hard way). On t3, the charges are more important than the upgrade itself, especially depending on the deck. In t3, you usually only devote a few deck slots--let's say you have brannoc, giant slayer, and virtuoso in t3. If each has 1 extra card, you can play 6+2+4=12 total units in t3. In other words, no matter what happens before t3, if my opponent lasts until I run out of charges, I lose. Actually, even with max charges, some decks revolve around a "defensive" t3 (looking at you lost souls and pure frost) where they stall out the game until their opponent runs out of charges, and then wins simply because of that.

 

Almost no decks carry 4.

 

7 hours ago, MephistoRoss said:

 I really dont like the 'random' part of your proposal. Players should be tempted to go out of their comfort zone, never forced!

Well, the idea is that you should make your own deck. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. IMO this whole system IS just a temptation, not forced.

I don't like the idea of choosing your own deck if it's free (otherwise you choose the same one over and over). But I think perhaps the best solution is to give each player a random, free composed rental, and they can rent extras (not random) if they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Asraiel said:

well one of my biggest concern about highend PVP decks is that the PVE part of the game will be dry on players. saw it under EA in the PVP section were several pages filled with plyers but in pve werent enouth to fill a 12 player map. by lowering the decks in count, cards, rarety, upgradelvl and charges it pushes players to do at least a bit pve. but by reading on mephistos last post, i found another solution that may siuts even pvp players better:

I dont think that supporting PvP with prebuilt decks dry out PvE. I even had the different experience. Only 1 page on PvP almost the same or more per PvE map, now sum the player count of all PvE maps up and the sum of all PvP maps. Usually you get a many times higher number on the PvE part and I dont think that giveing prebuilt PvP decks would change that, because people dont choose PvE or PvP by having better or worse PvP or PvE decks, they choose it, because they dont want to go competitive, because they want to go competitive, because they want to grind, because they like coop or something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Phoenix313 said:

I dont think that supporting PvP with prebuilt decks dry out PvE. I even had the different experience. Only 1 page on PvP almost the same or more per PvE map, now sum the player count of all PvE maps up and the sum of all PvP maps. Usually you get a many times higher number on the PvE part and I dont think that giveing prebuilt PvP decks would change that, because people dont choose PvE or PvP by having better or worse PvP or PvE decks, they choose it, because they dont want to go competitive, because they want to go competitive, because they want to grind, because they like coop or something else.

simple said we made diffrent expirience in BF under EA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a good solution to the PvP upgrades problem.  Here's why:

  1. It takes away the deck-building factor of the game.  Deck-building is an integral part of any CCG and it was one of most fun aspects of the game, for me, at least.  I can't stand the idea of having someone else decide what cards I have in my deck.
     
  2. The meta-game is artificially controlled by a small group of people.  Even if many variations of each deck are added (which becomes somewhat time consuming and can only go on for so long before you get decks that are repeats of older ones), the meta-game is still determined by what a small group of players think is good at the time.  It leaves no room for experimentation and will ultimately lead to a (more) stale meta-game.  Sometimes cards that were previously thought to be very weak turn out to be quite strong when used correctly, and sometimes this is found out because some previously unknown player (or even a new player) who decided to try something new.  This format does not allow for this kind of experimentation—it's completely at the mercy of consensus, which is definitely not always right.
     
  3. It strongly encourages multi-accounting.  I won't go into why multi-accounting is generally a bad thing, but if different accounts have access to different free decks, people will absolutely have as many accounts as they can until they have access to all the decks.  This also completely circumvents player progression, because people effectively have access to all the mainstream PvP decks from the start.  The only ways to prevent this would be to make each region have access to the same decks (likely hard/impossible to implement right now, and would lead to an imbalance of which decks are available) or to make only one free deck that everyone has access to (this might work later on, once most people already have a couple of fully upgraded decks, but early on this will result in nearly everyone in PvP playing the same deck).
     
  4. It's not really necessary if we remove the card charge system and balance gold rewards properly.  See:  

All that said, I do like the concept of having better, fully upgraded tome decks that allow players to experiment with cards/upgrades they don't own.  I don't think that something like this should be implemented on release, because of the issues I noted in point #3 above (and because I don't think it would be a very important feature), but I think that a while after the game's release when many players already have a couple of fully upgraded PvP decks to choose from, it would be cool to have a free, fully upgraded weekly/bi-monthly tome something like this:

  • Would be quite large with 60-100 cards.
  • Would not be locked—it would function like a regular tome in which you can build your own decks from the tome's card pool.
  • Cards would be randomly chosen from a pool of 'viable' PvP cards.  The only real constraints would be no T4 and no cards that are universally considered to be completely unusable in PvP.
  • There would be two pseudo-randomly chosen colors (constrained to prevent repetition within the weekly/bi-monthly cycles).  Each color would have enough pure units to play a pure deck in either color; and, of course, you could play a splash deck using the two colors.
  • Card ratios would be controlled to be half of one color and have of the other.  Tier ratios would also be controlled to include mostly T1/T2 cards (like 75% t1/t2 and 25% t3).

This system would still allow players to build their own decks and it would prevent the multi-accounting issues noted above.  But again, I don't think that this is something that should be implemented early on.  One downside to this idea is that there would be a lot more pure decks than splash decks... perhaps the formula could be tweaked to allow for more splash decks.  You could maybe do something like what Faeria does with their arena and have 3 of the 4 colors available each week.

Share this post


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

I don't think this is a good solution to the PvP upgrades problem.  Here's why:

  1. It takes away the deck-building factor of the game.  Deck-building is an integral part of any CCG and it was one of most fun aspects of the game, for me, at least.  I can't stand the idea of having someone else decide what cards I have in my deck.
     
  2. The meta-game is artificially controlled by a small group of people.  Even if many variations of each deck are added (which becomes somewhat time consuming and can only go on for so long before you get decks that are repeats of older ones), the meta-game is still determined by what a small group of players think is good at the time.  It leaves no room for experimentation and will ultimately lead to a (more) stale meta-game.  Sometimes cards that were previously thought to be very weak turn out to be quite strong when used correctly, and sometimes this is found out because some previously unknown player (or even a new player) who decided to try something new.  This format does not allow for this kind of experimentation—it's completely at the mercy of consensus, which is definitely not always right.
     
  3. It strongly encourages multi-accounting.  I won't go into why multi-accounting is generally a bad thing, but if different accounts have access to different free decks, people will absolutely have as many accounts as they can until they have access to all the decks.  This also completely circumvents player progression, because people effectively have access to all the mainstream PvP decks from the start.  The only ways to prevent this would be to make each region have access to the same decks (likely hard/impossible to implement right now, and would lead to an imbalance of which decks are available) or to make only one free deck that everyone has access to (this might work later on, once most people already have a couple of fully upgraded decks, but early on this will result in nearly everyone in PvP playing the same deck).
     
  4. It's not really necessary if we remove the card charge system and balance gold rewards properly.  See:  

All that said, I do like the concept of having better, fully upgraded tome decks that allow players to experiment with cards/upgrades they don't own.  I don't think that something like this should be implemented on release, because of the issues I noted in point #3 above (and because I don't think it would be a very important feature), but I think that a while after the game's release when many players already have a couple of fully upgraded PvP decks to choose from, it would be cool to have a free, fully upgraded weekly/bi-monthly tome something like this:

  • Would be quite large with 60-100 cards.
  • Would not be locked—it would function like a regular tome in which you can build your own decks from the tome's card pool.
  • Cards would be randomly chosen from a pool of 'viable' PvP cards.  The only real constraints would be no T4 and no cards that are universally considered to be completely unusable in PvP.
  • There would be two pseudo-randomly chosen colors (constrained to prevent repetition within the weekly/bi-monthly cycles).  Each color would have enough pure units to play a pure deck in either color; and, of course, you could play a splash deck using the two colors.
  • Card ratios would be controlled to be half of one color and have of the other.  Tier ratios would also be controlled to include mostly T1/T2 cards (like 75% t1/t2 and 25% t3).

This system would still allow players to build their own decks and it would prevent the multi-accounting issues noted above.  But again, I don't think that this is something that should be implemented early on.  One downside to this idea is that there would be a lot more pure decks than splash decks... perhaps the formula could be tweaked to allow for more splash decks.  You could maybe do something like what Faeria does with their arena and have 3 of the 4 colors available each week.

First, I'm not talking about a tome deck. It bears some similarities, but this is completely different (and I believe there is a separate place for tome decks, and IMO nothing about the old tome system needs to change).

1. This is also NOT intended to be the the deck that most players use. The idea is that this deck gives you a nice option to try something that you don't otherwise have resources to play, and it allows new players to be immediately competitive until they can make their own deck (which should take <1 month to do, after which they have enough bfp and upgrades to build their own deck however they want).

The locked aspect (hotkeys, and missing your "pet" card) combined with unreliability of getting the faction you're best at should be enough that most players will still build a main deck with their own cards, and just use this as a refresher. By no means does this diminish the deck building aspect of the game, except to give new players an idea of what a "standard" deck of a particular faction looks like. And I've never met anyone who likes to exactly copy something else without at least a minor modification.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by "meta-game." You seem to have the impression that players are forced to use these decks, or at least that they would rather use these decks than something they've made themselves. I hope players will instead view these decks as an optional crutch, but something that must be outgrown and used for novelty. While there are definitely "alternative" strategies that go against the meta, if players want to play those, they should build their own decks. Those decks usually have high downsides, which is why they aren't meta, and shouldn't be given as part of the "locked deck" system.

3. Yep, I agree with you on this one. As you see in the proposal, I made some efforts to try to mitigate this. But I think at the end of the day, multiaccounting won't be seriously exacerbated by this:

  • To reliably get the deck a player wants to play would take a LOT of accounts--probably 10 or so, which is a lot of maintenance. 
  • If you have 10 accounts, most of them will probably have a lower PvP level than your actual skill. Who wants to consistently play worse players? 
  • The effort of creating all these accounts and getting them to a decent PvP level is much more work than simply staying on one account until you get enough to permanently buy the cards you need. Especially since you can't trade across your multiaccounts (or @fiki574 and @Lord NullPointer will catch you :kappa:), you'll basically be dividing your rewards by 10 and seriously hindering your progress toward creating the deck you actually want to play. Remember, even if all the cards in the meta deck (that you happened to get only this week) are exactly what you want in your deck, an organic deck at least has the advantage of choosing hotkeys. If you can afford to make an organic deck, there's no reason to use a composed deck of the same faction.

4. Removing charges....I recall a conversation we had a year or so ago. Basically, the idea was that the longer we delayed a player from 100%ing the game, the longer they would continue to play. Once someone has fulfilled all their goals (assuming they don't stay for PvP), the theory was that the player would leave. I think there's some weight to that, but that's another discussion. The point is simply that having charges allows players to play the game at a certain level (low charges) such that it tempts them to want to full charges, thus increasing the time it takes to collect everything. The compromises would be to have the cards be so that 4 copies of the card are essentially "automatically" given for less than the current price of 4 copies, which theoretically decreases the average time players will spend on BF, or the now "single, full" charge cost the same as the current 4 copies of the card, which makes the barrier to entry high, because it's all or nothing. Additionally, having uses for multiple versions of the same card means that players won't be disappointed when they get 2 of a kind, and it creates a greater demand for those cards, increasing trades.

In regards do your version of tome: I'm not sure what niche that fills. Personally I'm happy with the tome system as it is: it's weird, not really competitive, and fun. And you can use those cards in other decks if you feel like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great idea, however wouldn't this remove the urge to collect cards and make a deck out of them? 

Why spent so much effort getting a 120 deck if you could have a random one each 2 weeks? Ofcourse you won't be able to pick them yourself but I can see people not wanting to bother create their own 120 deck if they can get a 120.

Therefore I would suggest making it like a 100 deck so you'll benefit more for making your own 120 deck.
Nontheless a great idea

Edit: Or you have to rent them thats also an option, this way you would save BFP by making your own deck in the long run

Edited by shadowxxs77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

1. This is also NOT intended to be the the deck that most players use. The idea is that this deck gives you a nice option to try something that you don't otherwise have resources to play, and it allows new players to be immediately competitive until they can make their own deck (which should take <1 month to do, after which they have enough bfp and upgrades to build their own deck however they want).

But it would be the deck that a significant portion of the player base uses (especially early on, when almost nobody would play anything else).  This also depends on how many new players join the game after the first few months (realistically, probably not many, but I guess we can hope for the best).  If we end up with one, fairly static player base, then there will eventually be nobody playing these locked decks.

Quote

2. I'm not sure what you mean by "meta-game." You seem to have the impression that players are forced to use these decks, or at least that they would rather use these decks than something they've made themselves. I hope players will instead view these decks as an optional crutch, but something that must be outgrown and used for novelty. While there are definitely "alternative" strategies that go against the meta, if players want to play those, they should build their own decks. Those decks usually have high downsides, which is why they aren't meta, and shouldn't be given as part of the "locked deck" system.

Of course not everyone would be playing these decks, but there would still be a significant enough portion of the player-base using them that it would have a major impact on the meta-game.  It would slow down the rate of change since not everyone has the cards to adapt to new strategies and instead rely on the locked decks—thus creating a more stale meta.  It would be stale not only because a lot of people would be playing these same locked decks, but also because people would build decks designed specifically to counter these decks—what your opponent will be playing just becomes more predictable and thus easier to build against.

Quote

The effort of creating all these accounts and getting them to a decent PvP level is much more work than simply staying on one account until you get enough to permanently buy the cards you need. Especially since you can't trade across your multiaccounts, you'll basically be dividing your rewards by 10 and seriously hindering your progress toward creating the deck you actually want to play. Remember, even if all the cards in the meta deck (that you happened to get only this week) are exactly what you want in your deck, an organic deck at least has the advantage of choosing hotkeys. If you can afford to make an organic deck, there's no reason to use a composed deck of the same faction.

Fair enough.  I suppose the multi-accounting probably wouldn't be as bad as I had originally thought, though it would still incentivize it; whereas there would otherwise be little incentive to play with multiple accounts.

Quote

4. Removing charges....I recall a conversation we had a year or so ago. Basically, the idea was that the longer we delayed a player from 100%ing the game, the longer they would continue to play. Once someone has fulfilled all their goals (assuming they don't stay for PvP), the theory was that the player would leave. I think there's some weight to that, but that's another discussion. The point is simply that having charges allows players to play the game at a certain level (low charges) such that it tempts them to want to full charges, thus increasing the time it takes to collect everything. The compromises would be to have the cards be so that 4 copies of the card are essentially "automatically" given for less than the current price of 4 copies, which theoretically decreases the average time players will spend on BF, or the now "single, full" charge cost the same as the current 4 copies of the card, which makes the barrier to entry high, because it's all or nothing. Additionally, having uses for multiple versions of the same card means that players won't be disappointed when they get 2 of a kind, and it creates a greater demand for those cards, increasing trades.

Read my whole post here: 

Towards the bottom I outlined a system that would make each upgrade cost increasingly more.  I think this is the best possible system, because it removes the messy and useless charge system, allows players to fully upgrade a one or two decks quite quickly (the first deck should be upgradable at the same rate they acquire their cards for the PvP deck, thus those early PvP upgrades are a non-issue), and it actually significantly extends the amount of time it takes to get all of the upgrades (100% the game).

Quote

In regards do your version of tome: I'm not sure what niche that fills. Personally I'm happy with the tome system as it is: it's weird, not really competitive, and fun. And you can use those cards in other decks if you feel like it.

It would serve the same purpose that your locked deck proposal would serve: giving players a good deck to use in PvP while they work on building and upgrading their own deck.  I agree that the current tome system needs no changes—this would be an addition, and perhaps tome is not the best name for it.  It's just a free, rotating, fully upgraded card pool that players can use to build decks.  The biggest difference is that you can still choose which cards you want and build your own deck, rather than having to play a deck built by someone else.

Edited by synthc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Composed decks are a not a good idea because it completely removes an entire aspect of the game: Customizing your own deck to suite your playstyle and strategy. Especially if the cards in these decks are not randomized but predetermined by a bunch of "pro PvP players", then you get a scenario where these guys already have the deck figured out, because they built it, while the rest still has to adapt. Horrible if you want to have some sort of integrity in your PvP scene. Having active competitors decide the terms for the entire field is a nightmare to justify.

Worst case scenario is if one (or a few) composed deck turns out to be way stronger than others. So not only do you have the balance of single cards and their interactions, you are just begging for another balance issue.

It also opens up the option to build specific counters to composed decks, if you have the cards available yourself.

PvP strives on a naturally developing and vivid meta game. Where one strategy turns out to be dominant, so people search for counters and eventually overwhelm the previously dominant strategy, so this counter now becomes the dominant strategy, so people search for counters to that once again. Strategies can come back, be niche or vanish entirely if the scene develops far enough. Different strategies can be viable for different levels of skill. It is just a giant, organic mess and cracking the ever changing code is what a lot of competitors strive for. This is the meta-game. It all happens naturally, provided something isn't completely, overwhelmingly overpowered. It survives on the premise of "If there are enough options, people will figure problems out themselves". If you introduce known quantities in composed decks, you hamper this development and instead force your own vision of how PvP should look like. It makes it feel stale and artificial.

Does this truly lower the entrance barrier to PvP? People starting out would most likely pick a composed deck and because they get matched against other beginners, would fight against other composed decks. There might develop a predictable Rock, Paper, Scissors scenario, where you see "Ah, he has that other composed deck which is strong against my composed deck, so the odds are in his favor already". They also learn a different skill altogether: Adapting to the known decks you and your opponent are given instead of creating your own. Once they start playing against people that make their own decks, this won't help them.

 

Giving beginners something to kickstart their PvP experience is good, but it shouldn't be at the cost of so many different aspects. Most importantly deck building and the meta game. No matter the solution, it should never take away from these two aspects.

Share this post


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

Composed decks are a not a good idea because it completely removes an entire aspect of the game: Customizing your own deck to suite your playstyle and strategy. Especially if the cards in these decks are not randomized but predetermined by a bunch of "pro PvP players", then you get a scenario where these guys already have the deck figured out, because they built it, while the rest still has to adapt. Horrible if you want to have some sort of integrity in your PvP scene. Having active competitors decide the terms for the entire field is a nightmare to justify.

Again, nothing is being removed. This is just an additional option that new players can use if they don't have the cards to play their own deck. Also, I think the current leaning is that the cards will be slightly randomized, so people don't know what exactly is in the deck--just like normal. For instance, if I see a stonekin player, then I don't know if he's going to play t3 or not. Some composed decks will be the MaranV style of no t3, others will have varying t3. And again, if you don't like this deck, build your own. But it's at least an option for when you CAN"T build your own.

 

3 hours ago, Cocofang said:

Worst case scenario is if one (or a few) composed deck turns out to be way stronger than others. So not only do you have the balance of single cards and their interactions, you are just begging for another balance issue.

Well, same as in the normal game. "Better" or "worse" are pretty subjective, because factions themselves are better and worse at certain things. Obviously every bandit deck will be worse than every lost souls deck (otherwise we're not trying to be 100% competitive with the lost souls deck) but bandits are still playable at a much higher level than a beginner will get to, before that beginner can afford to buy his own cards and upgrade them.

3 hours ago, Cocofang said:

This is the meta-game. It all happens naturally, provided something isn't completely, overwhelmingly overpowered. It survives on the premise of "If there are enough options, people will figure problems out themselves". If you introduce known quantities in composed decks, you hamper this development and instead force your own vision of how PvP should look like. It makes it feel stale and artificial.

I actually think these decks will broaden the metagame. BF has historically been dominated by lost souls, pure fire, and fire nature--those decks are both strong, and relatively easy to play. So most players play one of those 3 decks, and then they probably won't play something like pure nature, because it's a "waste" of bfp and upgrades that could be spent on a more "competitive" deck. BY giving players a random deck, each player now has something that's probably not one of those 3 decks, and thus broadens the metagame. Again, the composed decks will not all be the same (in my vision). For instance, every Pure Fire deck has very few options if it wants to be competitive. However, there are a few t1 and t3 cards that can be interchanged, and so there should be several versions of the pure fire deck--one with wrecker, one with scorched earth, etc. But I think it's impossible to make top 20 without maybe 15 of the "standard" pure fire cards--and if someone does it, then we can add his deck to the composed decks.

3 hours ago, Cocofang said:

Does this truly lower the entrance barrier to PvP? People starting out would most likely pick a composed deck and because they get matched against other beginners, would fight against other composed decks. There might develop a predictable Rock, Paper, Scissors scenario, where you see "Ah, he has that other composed deck which is strong against my composed deck, so the odds are in his favor already". They also learn a different skill altogether: Adapting to the known decks you and your opponent are given instead of creating your own. Once they start playing against people that make their own decks, this won't help them.

Yes, it definitely lowers the barrier to PvP--at least as much as the ideas of removing upgrades/charges from cards. Battleforge is not RPS, and even the worst matchup (if I remember @RadicalX saying this) is pure fire vs pure frost, which is still only 40:60. Especially at lower ELO levels, deck levels hardly matter, as long as you have tools to deal with stuff. For instance, common noob-stomping strategies were to spam nomads and frost mages, because the P4F deck had no M units. I want to totally eliminate strategies such as that, because even if you just start for the first time, you'll have a complete and balanced t1 that at least has the tools to deal with those shenanigans. 

And assuming I get my way, at no point would I "know" what's in someone's composed deck any more than I would if they made one themselves. Obviously a pure fire player has fire dancers. Obviously stonekin has stone shards. But does the stonekin deck have crystal fiend, like MaranV, or does it have a larger t3? These are questions I would ask against composed decks and organic decks. In fact, I'm less likely to know what's in a particular opponent's composed deck, because he doesn't get to choose. For instance, anyone who's watched me play knows that I love my mortars. But maybe I want to play some pure fire, and can't afford the cards, but my random deck for the week is pure fire and it doesn't have mortar. I'll still play it because that's my only option to play pure fire (until I can afford my own cards), but my opponent would have no idea if mortar is in my deck.

3 hours ago, Cocofang said:

Most importantly deck building and the meta game.

Hopefully I've clearly stated why I don't believe this system will infringe on either, and will actually help both of those.

 

7 hours ago, synthc said:

f we end up with one, fairly static player base, then there will eventually be nobody playing these locked decks.

Well, the goal is NOT to have a static player base, but one which is constantly bringing in new players. Lowering the PvP entry barrier will go a long way toward keeping new players, imo. Not only do they get to compete with a fully competitive deck from the start, there's also the thrill of gambling (I wonder what deck I'll get this week!) and an easy way to coax players into trying multiple play styles before investing in the one they want.

If we do get a static player base, players will still continue to use these locked decks because they can try out new factions.

7 hours ago, synthc said:

It would slow down the rate of change since not everyone has the cards to adapt to new strategies and instead rely on the locked decks—thus creating a more stale meta.

As opposed to just not having the cards, and trying to beat a lvl 120 deck with a lvl 40 deck with no essential rares or charges, and a t1 that gets stomped instantly by someone with U3?  I exaggerate, because there's more to it than that, but I fear that new players might see it that way. The composed deck is just another option, which has no cost.

7 hours ago, synthc said:

people would build decks designed specifically to counter these decks—what your opponent will be playing just becomes more predictable and thus easier to build against.

I'm not sure you understand what I mean by "multiple iterations of the same faction." Otherwise I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up. If you'd like me to provide some examples, I'd be more than happy to do so (running low on time atm though).

7 hours ago, synthc said:

Towards the bottom I outlined a system that would make each upgrade cost increasingly more.

Yeah I read that. Still thinking about how I feel about it. I'm leaning toward that being a bad idea, because it makes diversifying much harder. Most players just have their single PvP deck, because they are best with that deck and PvE is a huge upgrade sink. I think anything that encourages players to play more diverse decks, especially non-meta ones, is a good thing. PvE requires a lot of different cards (if you want to speedrun at least) and I think an increasing upgrade system would really hurt that area of the game. Not a PvE player though, so I don't really know.

 

In regard to your 60 card U3 "pool," I still feel like it's both too much and not enough at the same time. For instance, it's really impossible to play a deck at a competitive level without the proper t1. So if your 60 card pool is fire and frost, and you're missing scavenger and war eagle, then it's basically useless unless you already have those cards, in which case the pool is probably not helping you a ton anyway. But it's also really strong for PvE.

But if you want to prove the viability of your rotation card pool, just run a simulation. Plug in all the viable PvP fire cards and randomly draw 30. See what percentage of the time you get eruption, scavenger, sunstrider, firesworn, and sunderer? IMO mortar is also needed, and thugs are pretty standard as well, but I think we can go with a 5 card absolute minimum. If you're missing any of those 5 cards (and we have the assumption that you don't have this deck already, so you can't replace them with your own cards), tell me what percentage of the time are you missing one of those? That's what percentage of the time the pool is useless for fully competitive play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, the goal is NOT to have a static player base, but one which is constantly bringing in new players. Lowering the PvP entry barrier will go a long way toward keeping new players, imo. Not only do they get to compete with a fully competitive deck from the start, there's also the thrill of gambling (I wonder what deck I'll get this week!) and an easy way to coax players into trying multiple play styles before investing in the one they want.

If we do get a static player base, players will still continue to use these locked decks because they can try out new factions.

Theoretically lowering the PvP entry barrier will indeed encourage new players to keep playing, but, as much as I hope we do get a steady stream of new players, realistically I really don't think it's going to happen.  I think that 6 months or so after the game's release, the game will consist mostly of a small group of players from the original game.  After a year or so, all active players will have all of the PvP decks they ever intend to play, so locked decks wouldn't be used.  I guess it's somewhat of a moot argument though, because the whole purpose is to retain new PvP players—it's just that I think that if we don't have many new players this feature will be less useful than just fixing the upgrade system in the first place (it would also be harder to implement and maintain).

Quote

I'm not sure you understand what I mean by "multiple iterations of the same faction." Otherwise I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up. If you'd like me to provide some examples, I'd be more than happy to do so (running low on time atm though).

I understand what you mean.  A few variations isn't going to be enough to stop people from building counter decks to these locked decks.  Sure, it will help prevent a few specific cards from wrecking these decks, but the overall counters will still exist.  E.g. it's pure fire week, so everyone plays pure frost to counter it—that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Quote

Yeah I read that. Still thinking about how I feel about it. I'm leaning toward that being a bad idea, because it makes diversifying much harder. Most players just have their single PvP deck, because they are best with that deck and PvE is a huge upgrade sink. I think anything that encourages players to play more diverse decks, especially non-meta ones, is a good thing. PvE requires a lot of different cards (if you want to speedrun at least) and I think an increasing upgrade system would really hurt that area of the game. Not a PvE player though, so I don't really know.

I know what you mean, but the goal here wouldn't be to make it ramp up so fast that it takes months to upgrade your third PvP deck or something like that.  The idea would be that you could get one deck fully upgraded at the same rate you can acquire the cards from the auction house.  Once you have a single deck to play, you can at least fully enjoy your PvP experience while collecting gold and BFP for new decks.  For your second deck, gold would be a little bit of a bottleneck compared to BFP, but not much (depends on the rarity of cards in each deck and just generally how much they BFP cost).  The third deck would take a bit longer to get, but you could still get it in a reasonable amount of play time.  This all depends on how quickly you gain BFP, but I would like to see something like this:

  • First deck takes 10 hours of play to fully upgrade
  • Second deck takes 15 hours to fully upgrade
  • Third deck takes 25 hours to fully upgrade
  • Fourth deck takes 40 hours
  • Fifth deck takes 60 hours
  • Each 20 cards after the first 80 take 60 hours to fully upgrade (an average of 1 upgrade per hour)

At that point you've played 150 hours and you have five fully upgraded decks to choose from (more than most players would even regularly use); but as far as game progress goes, you've only completed 18.5% of the game as far as upgrades go (100/539 cards upgraded), and you'd still have a long way to go time-wise before getting all upgrades.  I would want it to be balanced so that it would take at least 1000 hours to fully upgrade every card in the game.  With the rate of increase in time it takes to upgrade 20 cards I suggested above (capped at 60 hours per 20 cards), it would take 1470 hours to get all upgrades.  We could adjust the hard cap to be 50 (1250 hours) or 40 (1010 hours), or whatever seems best.  We could even replace the hard cap with a soft cap that ramps up more slowly and adjust the entire curve.

The thing is that most people find one or two decks they really like and tend to stick with those for the most part.  For example, I played every deck there was except for pure frost; but in reality, probably 80% of my 1v1 matches were played with pure nature or shadow/frost.  My 2v2 was a bit more diverse, but still probably 70% of my games were with nature/frost or pure fire.  Diversity is mostly limited by what people want to play, rather than what they're able to play in terms of upgrades.

The idea is that this system would give players a good pace to work with.  The goal would be to balance the system so that by the time most players feel like trying a new deck, they have about enough gold to fully upgrade it, but there is still a long-lasting sense of progression due to the large amount of time it would take to get enough gold to upgrade all cards.  This is a way to make upgrading cards slower than collecting cards without crippling people in PvP.

As for PvE, I think that this is where the slower progression really matters the most.  PvP players will always have things to strive for (e.g. rank), but PvE players need a longer lasting game progression, so I think that the slower upgrading after a certain point for PvE decks would be a good thing—you could still get a wide variety of decks to play, but fully upgrading everything would be a very long term goal.  As far as speedrunning goes, I get that it takes more cards than PvP, but I still think that you could have a solid number of decks to optimally speedrun a good number of maps within a reasonable amount of play time.  A lot of the same cards can be used in different maps in speedrunning and there are a lot of different strategies for each map, so I don't think that this upgrade system would be too much of a limitation.  Also, if the pacing we originally decide on turns out to be too slow (or too fast) we can always adjust it.

Edited by synthc

Share this post


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

E.g. it's pure fire week, so everyone plays pure frost to counter it—that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Ah, I see where I wasn't clear. No the deck would be random. So everyone will have a different faction and a different iteration of that faction at any given time. There will be equal odds of getting every faction (although maybe it might be a good idea to tweak those ratios . . . maybe to have smaller odds of getting the popular 3 and bandits?). You might get the same faction twice in a row, you might go 3 months without ever getting pure frost, etc.

Perhaps we can make it so you get a single free, locked deck, and if you don't like it you can pay bfp to randomly get another one? That might be a good compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eirias said:

Ah, I see where I wasn't clear. No the deck would be random. So everyone will have a different faction and a different iteration of that faction at any given time. There will be equal odds of getting every faction (although maybe it might be a good idea to tweak those ratios . . . maybe to have smaller odds of getting the popular 3 and bandits?). You might get the same faction twice in a row, you might go 3 months without ever getting pure frost, etc.

Perhaps we can make it so you get a single free, locked deck, and if you don't like it you can pay bfp to randomly get another one? That might be a good compromise.

OK.  I saw you going back and forth between that idea and just having the same free deck for everyone.  This would work better, but it still has the problem of multi-accounting.  Even if you don't get the rewards on your main account, you can still mail them to yourself or even run two clients at the same time and do bogus trades (I doubt the devs will put that much effort into detecting and stopping this).

I think that your idea isn't bad, it's just that the thought of not being able to tweak the decks at all is horrible.  This is why I proposed the 60-100 card free tome that allows you to build your own decks.  Regarding your points on this being too inconsistent, I absolutely agree.  Each tome should be guaranteed to have certain essential cards.  It would basically be your system, but with more flexibility.  Basically you're given all the core cards for a deck and you could use them to play the standard deck if you wanted to, but there's also a bunch of randomly chosen cards that you can include if you're feeling adventurous.

Maybe we're both missing the obvious easy solution:  put the existing tome ranked in the same pool as normal ranked so that you can actually find tome matches.  This is only a partial solution though, as it's very subject to RNG, which is very bad in an RTS.  But if you combined this with free tome decks (which already existed IIRC) and maybe some tweaks to how tome cards are chosen (some of the ideas I outlined for my mega-tome, like no t4), I think it would help a lot.

Share this post


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

I think that your idea isn't bad, it's just that the thought of not being able to tweak the decks at all is horrible.  This is why I proposed the 60-100 card free tome that allows you to build your own decks.  Regarding your points on this being too inconsistent, I absolutely agree.

As I see it: the pros of your system are the you can customize your deck, with the con of sometimes not being able to play at all.

In my system: con of not being able to customize (which I think is a good thing, because it makes you get your own cards) with the pro of always being 100% competitive.

3 minutes ago, synthc said:

put the existing tome ranked in the same pool as normal ranked so that you can actually find tome matches.

I have no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that players with tome decks will play those with normal decks? There's not a faster way to kill tome (well, if it wasn't dead anyway). I don't think tome was ever competitive, or ever CAN be competitive, but it's a nice game mode to mess around in, and you can use the tome decks to supplement your normal cards.

Share this post


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

As I see it: the pros of your system are the you can customize your deck, with the con of sometimes not being able to play at all.

No:

6 minutes ago, synthc said:

Regarding your points on this being too inconsistent, I absolutely agree.  Each tome should be guaranteed to have certain essential cards.  It would basically be your system, but with more flexibility.  Basically you're given all the core cards for a deck and you could use them to play the standard deck if you wanted to, but there's also a bunch of randomly chosen cards that you can include if you're feeling adventurous.

Quote

I have no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that players with tome decks will play those with normal decks? There's not a faster way to kill tome (well, if it wasn't dead anyway). I don't think tome was ever competitive, or ever CAN be competitive, but it's a nice game mode to mess around in,

Yes, tome will be dead from the start.  This is a way to give it a purpose in that you can at least play with U2 cards.  It would probably need some tweaks like I mentioned.

Quote

and you can use the tome decks to supplement your normal cards.

Does this work with the free tome deck?  I didn't get to try it much because it was introduced around the time I left.  Are the cards U2 with 2 charges?  If so, then I guess there would be no need to mix tome and ranked... just leave tome in its grave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, synthc said:

Does this work with the free tome deck?  I didn't get to try it much because it was introduced around the time I left.  Are the cards U2 with 2 charges?  If so, then I guess there would be no need to mix tome and ranked... just leave tome in its grave.

Yeah. Tome decks are always U2, and they can be added to any other deck. After the time period (2 weeks) it's removed any you get another random set of cards.

Share this post


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

Yeah. Tome decks are always U2, and they can be added to any other deck. After the time period (2 weeks) it's removed any you get another random set of cards.

Hmm.  In that case making tomes U3 and fully charged would really help alleviate this problem.  Though, again, I still don't think it's a complete solution.

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.