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

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting May Cause Permabans! Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
iRoDiieK

Starter Deck

Recommended Posts

In the final version, will the current starter deck  be changed to the official deck that was received when creating a new account on the old battleforge?

These were the cards you received when creating an account:

C7B63AAD-BD95-4AE3-8C2C-375D226BBB34.thumb.jpeg.3dce8a3cedefa5a75f515b9ec2976dce.jpeg

622C55B1-4813-4D72-92B3-2249C2D79FC1.thumb.jpeg.da4be394ad0ab5c21965d0dc91780467.jpeg

I ask this because the currently decks received when creating an account are not good.

 

 

Edited by iRoDiieK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they change them. I don't particularly mind them for myself, but I want to introduce new people into the game once we get to a more stable phase, and the original starter cards were more beginner-friendly.

nofearek9 and hYERP like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nahath said:

I hope they change them. I don't particularly mind them for myself, but I want to introduce new people into the game once we get to a more stable phase, and the original starter cards were more beginner-friendly.

Exactly, they are better strategically and more harmonious

hYERP and nofearek9 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I liked them more too (primarly because of green / red), but the reason I would prefer them is nostalgy, so you can start as you did years ago.

@Devs would it be possible to change that or at least to give everyone the option?

Edited by Kilian Dermoth
nofearek9 and hYERP like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't change the starter decks for fun for the stress test only.
It's very unlikely that they will change it back to the original.

2bh: I personally like the new decks. But imo it doesn't even matter a lot what starting cards you will have. It's just a matter of a couple of days (weeks at most) until you get the same result - no matter what starting cards you got.

 

@33:20

Share this post


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

They didn't change the starter decks for fun for the stress test only.
It's very unlikely that they will change it back to the original.

2bh: I personally like the new decks. But imo it doesn't even matter a lot what starting cards you will have. It's just a matter of a couple of days (weeks at most) until you get the same result - no matter what starting cards you got.

 

@33:20

I don't like these new starter decks due to the fact that cards were randomly placed to form a deck, without thinking much about how the player's experience would initially be. 

Edited by iRoDiieK
hYERP likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clearify, one of the biggest reasons to change the starter cards is because the community voted overwhelming to change them some time ago (see thread below).

Are it the starter cards you guys don't like, or just the preset decks? What would you like to change about them except going back to the old cards? The only negative point I've heard so far from people about the cards is that shadow and frost are missing an own T2 unit. 

I personally think the new cards are stronger than the old if you build your own deck from them.

 

 

Chimerae, iRoDiieK and Ultrakool like this

Share this post


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

Just to clearify, one of the biggest reasons to change the starter cards is because the community voted overwhelming to change them some time ago (see thread below).

Are it the starter cards you guys don't like, or just the preset decks? What would you like to change about them except going back to the old cards? The only negative point I've heard so far from people about the cards is that shadow and frost are missing an own T2 unit. 

I personally think the new cards are stronger than the old if you build your own deck from them.

 

My specific feedback is that I would like to see cards that are more beginner-friendly, as it will increase our ability to bring our friends into the game. 

Cards from expansions tend to have a lot more text that represents subtle differences because they had to create distinctions between affinities. Using primarily (maybe even entirely) cards from the original version would probably increase the retention rate of new players.

Navarr, iRoDiieK and wertyy like this

Share this post


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

Just to clearify, one of the biggest reasons to change the starter cards is because the community voted overwhelming to change them some time ago (see thread below).

Are it the starter cards you guys don't like, or just the preset decks? What would you like to change about them except going back to the old cards? The only negative point I've heard so far from people about the cards is that shadow and frost are missing an own T2 unit. 

 I personally think the new cards are stronger than the old if you build your own deck from them.



I think that the current decks have many spell cards and few units, and the unit cards they have are mostly weak. I had difficulties in the beginning to win the campaigns because of that. In addition, there has to be a proportion of cards, as in the old battleforge, where you initially received 8 cards from each faction, totaling 32. And I agree that the cards are better than the original ones, but they do not work with each other.

------------------

I agree with the nahath, for an starter deck it is exaggerated to have affinity and expansion cards, because they are complex. Using common and basic cards on the starter deck would be a good thing, because they are easier to use.

Edited by iRoDiieK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i agree that the current decks are probably not optimal, they are definetly better than the original ones.
About the point that they are too "complex" and the original decks were easier. That is true, but it is also true that the game became a lot more complex compared to the original release. Introducing these topics is important to show players that they exist. The extent of that introduction can be debated obviously though. I think in the topic of 2015 we reached the conclusion that at least 1 affinity card should be included in the starter decks for that very reason.

I think the biggest problem with the starter decks is that they are both in the extremese. While the original decks had 1 offensive and 1 defensive faction to balance both sides out, now both offensive/defensive factions are clustered into one deck and therefor creates extremes.
That is not so much a problem for the defensive deck as it might take longer to reach your goal of finishing a map but ultimately it is relatively easy if time consuming.
The offensive faction however has very little safety mechanisms, especially once in a fight and with the removal of lava field especially t2 is pretty weak at the moment and lacks fire power. While Rifle Cultist + Unholy Hero is undoubtly a very powerful combination it does not provide consistant damage and emberstrike is after all only a L unit with burst as well. Therefor you struggle a lot more in drawn out fights, especially bosses as you simply lack the consistant damage to beat anything. Adding onto that you have no cc or heal with your only protection being Unity which does not help a lot if you have a very low  HP pool (due to S -L units only).

I personally would like to go back a little back on the affinity cards and back to a more balanced way of mixing offensive and defensive factions (that is for the moment at least).
The factors above can be played around by players that are familiar with the game but might make it harder as a new player. Especially because the new cards offer great options for mixing them up in your own deck. Those are definetly better than before.

I am sure however that the dev team and (tell me if i am wrong) especially @MrXLink made themselves quite a bit of thoughts about these new decks and had their reasons for doing them the way they are. I would really like to hear the reasoning behind the choices he/they made. Maybe that will clear things up a bit and we can go from there, agreeing with the choices in the end or using that as a base improving the current decks

Navarr likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as you said new decks are more complex and are for people you already know the game,for new player it will be more dificult to understand the game .just give 3-4 booster at begin of the game to each player and move from there as they wont ,no needed to change the original starter deck.

i think you should make a new vote topic about the starter decks.the time old topic was on ,lot of people wasnt active in forum voted 100+ and we are more than 1000 and i am sure all voted second choice to get ALL the commons .

if we want new people to join our game we need to give them an easy deck to understand how game works.

Edited by nofearek9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous starting cards were more unit focused. The new decks have a more balanced approach, and require you to use a combination of buildings, units and spells. I think the new decks have a higher learning curve, but are indeed much more strategically flexible than the old ones plus the new decks allow you to remake the 1st tier. The higher complexity is not an issue I think, because it still allows you to just make units and push to victory by supporting them with spells while allowing some room for experimentation. I would probably modify some of the cards in order to give some extra fire power to the fire/shadow deck in T3, where it is lacking. Ironically enough frost/nature T3 is a lot more capable of mounting a good offense than the fire/shadow. Swapping bandit waystation or necroblaster with a sun reaver should give it a bit more DPS. Additionally I would swap Oink with Stone Tempest, Stone Shards with Defenders and Bandit Spearmen with Nightcrawler. This way every colour besides lost souls will have a T2 unit and will allow for building a deck with any other colour combination.

Edited by lost thing5
Word order changed.
wertyy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As @Treim already stated, there has been a huge amount of thought and discussion regarding the starter decks behind the scenes already. There are many reasons, rules and thought processes to take into account for these starter decks, and they were mainly set to promote variety, introduce intriguing game mechanics (such as affinities and multi-coloured cards), and give a good impression of what each colour has to offer. A large influence is also to introduce existing players to niches and get people out of their standard comfort zone to create new strategies or perhaps see value in cards they would never have even considered buying or trying in the first place. The high amount of boosters and BFP available should swiftly help to get the Common card pool expanded regardless, and should not be hard to obtain and vary about at all. We would like users to be grateful and happy when they get Tremor or Lava Field in a booster, rather than looking at them as just another starter card copy.

We have always been of mind to not give out all cards in the start to give a sense of progression. The "everyone gets all commons" suggestion would throw progression mechanics over so much, rendering half of a booster's content useless and limiting the card pool by hundreds of cards, that we would never think of that. Currently, starter cards are untradable unless you have obtained more copies of them. This should inherently solve multiaccounting problems. Starting boosters will also become untradable soon (or so we hope). A rash decision was made for the starter boosters without consulting design, and has now led to huge multiaccounting abuse. We intend to solve that as well, but I digress.

In a short summary, these are the major points that were taken into consideration for creating each deck:

  • Promote card variety at all costs and give people a new experience; try to divert from old starter cards as much as possible as per community and staff request
    • Decks will be changed to frost/nature and fire/shadow as opposed to the original starter decks for this reason
  • Increase starter deck size from 16 to 20 to give newcomers more immediate options and room to work with
  • Provide 5 T1 cards of each colour to allow for multiple starting approaches
  • All cards must be Common in order to prevent devaluation of cards of other rarities, inherently harder to get in boosters.
  • All tiers of all cards in the deck (and T1 supplements) must contain the following:
    • At least 2 Unit cards
      • At least one ranged and one melee unit
      • Preferably of different damage types
    • At least 1 Spell card
    • At least 1 Structure card
  • All decks must at least have 3 dual-orb cards to introduce players to the concept of dual-orb benefits, strategies, and similarities
  • All decks must have several different affinity varieties
  • All decks must be able to have all cards usable at each tier (e.g. no T3 cards of which one requires 2 shadow orbs and the other 2 fire orbs)
  • Chosen cards must show visual/mesh variety, preferably within their respective decks (e.g. Tempest/Stone Tempest as starter cards)
  • Chosen cards must clearly reflect their colour's main purpose, without penalising too much for using cards wrongly (e.g. without much opportunity to fuck up as Shadow)
    • Nature cards should focus on high Crowd Control and healing
    • Frost cards should focus on defensive strategies, slows, and structures
    • Fire cards should focus on aggression, high direct damage, besieging, and joint combat
    • Shadow cards should focus on high buffs, corpse collection, and a little risk, but preferably not having too much impact if handled wrong (e.g.Mutating Frenzy, Stone of Torment, Knight of Chaos are all easy to greatly mess up with if not carefully handled)
    • Stonekin cards should focus on high defense, but having a decent offensive incentive
    • Bandit cards should focus on clever use of cards/abilities to regain health in combat through Lifestealer
  • To aid progression and ease the annoyance that some players have with having to start all over, Offering (G) has been added to help take away frustration when it comes to lacking charges
  • T4 cards can not be changed whatsoever due to the lack of usable T4 common cards

As you can see, there's a lot of aspects that have been taken into account while making these decks. Certainly, this does not make them perfectly ideal for every situation, but it adds a blend to deck consistency, variety, mechanics introductions, and splashes. 

I do understand that both decks are quite extreme in their purpose, which provides a good main approach for multiplayer matches (having an aggressive and a supportive player/deck), and through the starting decks being 20 cards each, it is still possible (and encouraged) to make 17-card decks that blend these extremes together, and you'd still have 1 more card than the original game would set your decks up with (16). It is about experimentation and a clear significance of deck and colour purposes that should instil a mentality of experimentation, variation, and mixing things up, and these decks give a decent side of possibilities for each colour, exposing their risks and rewards more clearly.

These decks are just as much focused on units as the original starting decks were. Frost/Nature has 8 units (imho justified by both factions being highly spell-based), Fire/Shadow has 9, whereas both starter decks in the original game had 9 each. Not too much of a difference there, and there is room for variety in card types. 

As far as complexity goes, especially on the shadow side of things, cards are less penalising than they were before. Blaster Cannon might be a bit tough to get at first (though the affinity was specifically selected so that this wouldn't be too harsh on players), but you really should not underestimate player capabilities. Cards like Spirit Hunters, Ravage, Necroblaster and Frost Bite may look complex at first glance, but are actually pretty straightforward. If people could handle cards like Mutating Frenzy, Stone of Torment (both with high risk and highly confusing effects) and Magma Spore (with its weird, specific targeting), the current starter cards should not be that overwhelming. They help with a lot of introductions the original starter decks couldn't give, like affinities, splashes, and even void power and cost reduction (Banner of Glory, Breeding Grounds). The affinity cards are important to have, as they do not only mark an important game feature that people need to know about, but also mark expansion cards, which have been a game-changing addition to BattleForge and should honestly be introduced very soon to get the full, developed experience of what BattleForge was after all its updates.

Do remember that our progression is significantly increased compared to the old BF, and starter decks can be altered in a really low amount of time to suit everyone's needs. I just think that the current starter decks (and lots of discussion about if internally) should be sufficient to not prove to be too harsh of an introduction, yet bring way more mechanics, features, and variety to new and returning players alike than the old decks did. Unless there is a huge, major breaking point here that urgently needs to be changed, I am not utterly convinced that these decks need any heavy changes or changes at all, especially since the changes would require some coding changes as well as a possible loot list rewrite (which is currently adjusted to the starter decks), which does not seem to be as necessary a task to add to the list. We prefer to stick as closely to these decks as possible unless a truly big change needs to happen, which I don't currently deem to be the case. Feedback on these decks has been extremely varied, from this thread to very positive feedback from a lot of players, and I do try to take as many people into account as possible here, but so far the starter decks have been working well, players are not stuck too long with them if they don't agree, and overall they seem to be greatly appreciated. 

Hope that cleared things up a bit and gave you a more in-depth view on the thought process behind these decks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.99832e0833f5781107c82050e571c9ed.pngimage.png.99832e0833f5781107c82050e571c9ed.png

2 hours ago, MrXLink said:

As @Treim already stated, there has been a huge amount of thought and discussion regarding the starter decks behind the scenes already. There are many reasons, rules and thought processes to take into account for these starter decks, and they were mainly set to promote variety, introduce intriguing game mechanics (such as affinities and multi-coloured cards), and give a good impression of what each colour has to offer. A large influence is also to introduce existing players to niches and get people out of their standard comfort zone to create new strategies or perhaps see value in cards they would never have even considered buying or trying in the first place. The high amount of boosters and BFP available should swiftly help to get the Common card pool expanded regardless, and should not be hard to obtain and vary about at all. We would like users to be grateful and happy when they get Tremor or Lava Field in a booster, rather than looking at them as just another starter card copy.

We have always been of mind to not give out all cards in the start to give a sense of progression. The "everyone gets all commons" suggestion would throw progression mechanics over so much, rendering half of a booster's content useless and limiting the card pool by hundreds of cards, that we would never think of that. Currently, starter cards are untradable unless you have obtained more copies of them. This should inherently solve multiaccounting problems. Starting boosters will also become untradable soon (or so we hope). A rash decision was made for the starter boosters without consulting design, and has now led to huge multiaccounting abuse. We intend to solve that as well, but I digress.

In a short summary, these are the major points that were taken into consideration for creating each deck:

  • Promote card variety at all costs and give people a new experience; try to divert from old starter cards as much as possible as per community and staff request
    • Decks will be changed to frost/nature and fire/shadow as opposed to the original starter decks for this reason
  • Increase starter deck size from 16 to 20 to give newcomers more immediate options and room to work with
  • Provide 5 T1 cards of each colour to allow for multiple starting approaches
  • All cards must be Common in order to prevent devaluation of cards of other rarities, inherently harder to get in boosters.
  • All tiers of all cards in the deck (and T1 supplements) must contain the following:
    • At least 2 Unit cards
      • At least one ranged and one melee unit
      • Preferably of different damage types
    • At least 1 Spell card
    • At least 1 Structure card
  • All decks must at least have 3 dual-orb cards to introduce players to the concept of dual-orb benefits, strategies, and similarities
  • All decks must have several different affinity varieties
  • All decks must be able to have all cards usable at each tier (e.g. no T3 cards of which one requires 2 shadow orbs and the other 2 fire orbs)
  • Chosen cards must show visual/mesh variety, preferably within their respective decks (e.g. Tempest/Stone Tempest as starter cards)
  • Chosen cards must clearly reflect their colour's main purpose, without penalising too much for using cards wrongly (e.g. without much opportunity to fuck up as Shadow)
    • Nature cards should focus on high Crowd Control and healing
    • Frost cards should focus on defensive strategies, slows, and structures
    • Fire cards should focus on aggression, high direct damage, besieging, and joint combat
    • Shadow cards should focus on high buffs, corpse collection, and a little risk, but preferably not having too much impact if handled wrong (e.g.Mutating Frenzy, Stone of Torment, Knight of Chaos are all easy to greatly mess up with if not carefully handled)
    • Stonekin cards should focus on high defense, but having a decent offensive incentive
    • Bandit cards should focus on clever use of cards/abilities to regain health in combat through Lifestealer
  • To aid progression and ease the annoyance that some players have with having to start all over, Offering (G) has been added to help take away frustration when it comes to lacking charges
  • T4 cards can not be changed whatsoever due to the lack of usable T4 common cards

As you can see, there's a lot of aspects that have been taken into account while making these decks. Certainly, this does not make them perfectly ideal for every situation, but it adds a blend to deck consistency, variety, mechanics introductions, and splashes. 

I do understand that both decks are quite extreme in their purpose, which provides a good main approach for multiplayer matches (having an aggressive and a supportive player/deck), and through the starting decks being 20 cards each, it is still possible (and encouraged) to make 17-card decks that blend these extremes together, and you'd still have 1 more card than the original game would set your decks up with (16). It is about experimentation and a clear significance of deck and colour purposes that should instil a mentality of experimentation, variation, and mixing things up, and these decks give a decent side of possibilities for each colour, exposing their risks and rewards more clearly.

These decks are just as much focused on units as the original starting decks were. Frost/Nature has 8 units (imho justified by both factions being highly spell-based), Fire/Shadow has 9, whereas both starter decks in the original game had 9 each. Not too much of a difference there, and there is room for variety in card types. 

As far as complexity goes, especially on the shadow side of things, cards are less penalising than they were before. Blaster Cannon might be a bit tough to get at first (though the affinity was specifically selected so that this wouldn't be too harsh on players), but you really should not underestimate player capabilities. Cards like Spirit Hunters, Ravage, Necroblaster and Frost Bite may look complex at first glance, but are actually pretty straightforward. If people could handle cards like Mutating Frenzy, Stone of Torment (both with high risk and highly confusing effects) and Magma Spore (with its weird, specific targeting), the current starter cards should not be that overwhelming. They help with a lot of introductions the original starter decks couldn't give, like affinities, splashes, and even void power and cost reduction (Banner of Glory, Breeding Grounds). The affinity cards are important to have, as they do not only mark an important game feature that people need to know about, but also mark expansion cards, which have been a game-changing addition to BattleForge and should honestly be introduced very soon to get the full, developed experience of what BattleForge was after all its updates.

Do remember that our progression is significantly increased compared to the old BF, and starter decks can be altered in a really low amount of time to suit everyone's needs. I just think that the current starter decks (and lots of discussion about if internally) should be sufficient to not prove to be too harsh of an introduction, yet bring way more mechanics, features, and variety to new and returning players alike than the old decks did. Unless there is a huge, major breaking point here that urgently needs to be changed, I am not utterly convinced that these decks need any heavy changes or changes at all, especially since the changes would require some coding changes as well as a possible loot list rewrite (which is currently adjusted to the starter decks), which does not seem to be as necessary a task to add to the list. We prefer to stick as closely to these decks as possible unless a truly big change needs to happen, which I don't currently deem to be the case. Feedback on these decks has been extremely varied, from this thread to very positive feedback from a lot of players, and I do try to take as many people into account as possible here, but so far the starter decks have been working well, players are not stuck too long with them if they don't agree, and overall they seem to be greatly appreciated. 

Hope that cleared things up a bit and gave you a more in-depth view on the thought process behind these decks.

My main problem with the way the starter decks look now is that they have too many buildings. After seeing your explanation of banner of glory and breeding grounds, etc., I whole-heartedly agree.

So perhaps instead of having too many buildings, there aren't enough usable units. The "theme" kinda contributes to that. But why not just add a bit more cards?

Why not make 4 starter decks, adding Nature-Fire and Shadow-Frost? That would only require adding a few new cards, and give a wider spectrum of splashes. It would also give players a few critical cards to use for PvP (since fire nature and shadow frost are the better pvp splashes). 

I also think that you guys missed a bit about upgrades. For example, I thought nightcrawler and lavafield where pretty bad for a long time, because at U0 they have poor stats. It wasn't until I got into higher PvP levels and saw them being played that I gave them a 2nd chance. Same with magma spore. So these are cards that I would never have thought were good, except that I had them in my deck from the start and could test them out.

I am concerned that getting common cards will be a bit difficult. In other words, a new player would not know where to start to get the necessary common cards. Lowering the AH minimum buyout to 1 bfp might help. Or bringing back the 1bfp common card "booster." I think the best solution would be to build in a way to choose any common card to buy for 1 bfp, but perhaps that's overkill and too much coding.


PROPOSAL

I propose adding these 2 starter decks, for a total of 10 new cards (more than actually necessary, but I'll explain why).

(btw I'm not 100% sure these are all common, but according to the cardbase, they are. If anyone shows me that a card is not, I'm sure it can easily be replaced)

 

To Fire Nature, I would add slaver, twilight minions, Fleshbender, Infected Tower, and Treefiend. Slaver and Twilight minions are both *playable* in PvP, and brings up the number of t2 units. Additionally, they can expose players the the transformation mechanic. Treefiend shows players that transformation works between tiers, and introduces players to the root system. Fleshbender and infected tower round out the list as being unique and introducing players to the idea of twilight bug transformation.

Fire Sphere and Ray of Light are not in this deck, to make room for these cards. In fact, I recommend replacing Ray of Light with Defenders in the Frost Nature deck, as well (because I need defenders in the shadow nature deck).

https://allcards.skylords.eu/cards.html?d=TmF0dXJlIEZpcmU+MjcxfDM4MnwzMDN8MTgyfDUyM3wyNzR8MzMyfDUyNXw0N3wzNnw0NjR8MzA0fDE2NXwzMjV8Nzd8MzUwfDkyfDEwOHw0MzJ8MjIyfA==

image.png.380b7db8780ac5ee9e96a730dea34ed5.png

 

To Shadow Frost, I propose adding 5 cards (plus defenders). These cards are defenders, Lost Dancer (red), Lost Wanderer (green), Lost Launcher (blue), Lost Horror, and Lose banestone (green).

(I can't believe Lost horror is common, but that's what cardbase says).

I'm not as happy with this final deck strength, but I think it goes for some of the themes you guys were looking for. There are some ice shield synergies, as well as revenant synergies. Also another siege unit. I'd really love to get a few more normal frost/shadow cards like ripper, tremor, and mutating frenzy (especially since adding tremor and mutating frenzy makes players choose which one to use when deckbuilding. So it would work will with a portal that makes you build your own deck, as laid out below).

https://allcards.skylords.eu/cards.html?d=U2hhZG93IEZyb3N0Pjk1fDN8MjY2fDQ2OHwxOTd8MzQ4fDU0fDQ3NXw0OTV8MTYxfDM5fDE1MnwyNDZ8MjU3fDUwOXwyMjh8MzQ3fDMwOXw0ODN8NDcxfA==

image.png.99832e0833f5781107c82050e571c9ed.png

 

IF POSSIBLE, I would like if these cards were added as a reward. For example, as an achievement for playing 40 unique cards, you get the 5 twilight cards. Then, it would be nice to have some kind of portal that walks players through how to add these cards to the deck (I would be happy to write such a walkthrough) and the portal guides players into adding the cards to their own deck. After completing this portal, a new achievement is unlocked, giving you the 5 Shadow-Frost cards and the final preset deck.

Perhaps it would be possible to prevent players from creating a new deck until they unlock the Nature-Fire deck (although if this is the case, the requirement to unlock it should be pretty easy).

Of course, I realize that's a lot of work for you guys, but I'm just theorizing on the optimal way to set this up.

 

Edited by Eirias
Treim, indubitablement and wertyy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st of all: Why do people on this forum always "quote" a whole post instead of the part that they wanna talk about? ...

29 minutes ago, Eirias said:

Why not make 4 starter decks, adding Nature-Fire and Shadow-Frost? That would only require adding a few new cards, and give a wider spectrum of splashes. It would also give players a few critical cards to use for PvP (since fire nature and shadow frost are the better pvp splashes). 

[...]

I propose adding these 2 starter decks, for a total of 10 new cards

I thought the whole point of this thread was "new starter decks are too complex *whaaaa*" and "old ones were more noob-friendly *cry*".
So the solution to that is adding more decks and cards? :thinking:

I wanna point out my previous opiniononce again:
Everyone here is philosophing about decks that are not being used a few days after you get them, as it is fast to get boosters in the beginning. Why do you waste that much time into it? Who here is actually still using the starter decks? Who would stil use them if they'd have been the original starter decks? I call bullsh1t.

 

PS: You pasted your first deck (Lost Souls one) twice in your post.

Edited by Nerevar
minor corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the old players dont matter what cards we will get ,we will use them maybe for the first 2 days then we will build our deck.

But as many said above ,i have to agree we must consider new players ,if we want them to the game ,they need "easy" cards to start the game.

Share this post


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

Everyone here is philosophing about decks that are not being used a few days after you get them, as it is fast to get boosters in the beginning. Why do you waste that much time into it? Who here is actually still using the starter decks? Who would stil use them if they'd have been the original starter decks? I call bullsh1t.

I am in fact still using 90% starter cards. Part of this reason is because it's difficult to complete quests with d/c's. Part of the reason is that I'm never on when people want to trade for commons and I'm not willing to spend 3 bfp for commons yet. Partly I want to see where the market settles for buying/selling. And partly because I want to see how usable those initial cards are.

New players are often very conservative and will have minimal interactions with other players. They are unlikely to trade early, because they're (rightly) afraid of getting ripped off. They might not know how bad their initial cards are. They'll very often believe the original deck recipes are a model that they should mimic when building their own decks.

This all results in new players using the starter deck for much longer than veterans.

 

My solution was just to improve upon the goals @MrXLink specified. If you want easy-to-use, useful cards for beginners (and I do), then you may want to weigh in on the original topic I posted over 3 years ago. 

However, the devs saw that, apparently took some inspiration from it, and made a deck with different goals in mind. 

I would personally love to see some tests done with completely new players (as in, we take a test server, invite 100 irl friends who have never played battleforge and aren't on the forums, and take notes on their experience). Because until we do something like that, we're all just theorizing about the most effective way to keep new players in the game.

 

iRoDiieK likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nerevar said:

1st of all: Why do people on this forum always "quote" a whole post instead of the part that they wanna talk about? ...

I thought the whole point of this thread was "new starter decks are too complex *whaaaa*" and "old ones were more noob-friendly *cry*".
So the solution to that is adding more decks and cards? :thinking:

I wanna point out my previous opiniononce again:
Everyone here is philosophing about decks that are not being used a few days after you get them, as it is fast to get boosters in the beginning. Why do you waste that much time into it? Who here is actually still using the starter decks? Who would stil use them if they'd have been the original starter decks? I call bullsh1t.

I just think you're being rude and thinking only of old players. I understand that you already know how to play and that for you the current initial deck is dispensable, but I agree with what @Eirias said. Many new players remain with the initial deck for a long time. In the old battleforge I spent a lot of time using the starter deck, because it was necessary to acquire the BF's points to be able to buy new cards. And that was good, because it gave me the desire to get new cards and kept me "stuck" in the game.

As for you getting new cards quickly, I think it will be a issue in the future because you will end up abusing the game more easily.
I suggest it's a little harder to get new cards, to make it more addictive. And for this, it is necessary that the starter deck is well structured so that it can be used for a long time without difficulties.

 

Share this post


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

As for you getting new cards quickly, I think it will be a issue in the future because you will end up abusing the game more easily.
I suggest it's a little harder to get new cards, to make it more addictive. 

I would also like that, although we're getting off-topic now. Boosters come fast, which is cool. But I'd rather see something where the first dozen or so boosters come quickly, then it slows down.

To mitigate this, I think there should be some rental PvP decks (or locked, composed decks), but that's an entirely different discussion. But simply slowing down the card aquisition rate would be infuriating to veterans--which admittedly, is most of the playerbase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current starter decks try to do way too many things at the same time, and this way they lack any actual educational power because there is too much going on at the same time for a player who doesn't already know how everything works. (Consider: one of old BF's weaknesses in retrospect was poor tutorialization, and these decks have even more things going on)

For veteran players, well you're just going to make your own deck ASAP anyway so it doesn't matter too much. For new players, these decks are fairly worthless with regards to learning the game.

PvP risking being dead on arrival because of poor card availability (and acquisition rate) is a whole other concern for another topic :p

nofearek9, Navarr and wertyy like this

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
Sign in to follow this  

×

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.