What will become of the balance?

[kestas3]

wise pick :]

[Destoyerfros]

Shield Building >_>

Also War eagles were reallly UP when fire had OP units like Skyfire, Need them to be able to hit flying units and do 50% Extra damage v them pl000xx

Also lighblade should be swift.

[Ultrakool]

next thing you ask for is mountaineer to be able to hit flying units right? oh fros

[ImperatorSK]

I hope there will be no balancing in Battleforge reborn. The game was pretty balanced, each fraction had their own "op units" and "up units" exactly this Units balance the game in itself, i can imagine a Game Modus (pve and pvp) with some Card restriction but If the Community try to balance the Game would be still more imbalanced.

[Anonymos]

I hope there will be no balancing in Battleforge reborn. The game was pretty balanced, each fraction had their own "op units" and "up units" exactly this Units balance the game in itself, i can imagine a Game Modus (pve and pvp) with some Card restriction but If the Community try to balance the Game would be still more imbalanced.

/+1

[Alendorf]

I agree with imperator 

[DonProm]

So, it seems that some very nice people have come together to make something we have all wished didn't turn its back on us and desert us: Battleforge.

EA, the worst company to ever produce games simply abandoned their best game. Now that we have that shining ray of hope that is Battlefore Reborn, we will have to come to terms with a problem that was so very apparent in the old Battleforge, and that was balancing.

There have been many ideas of how we wanted to balance the cards in a fashion that would improve the game, but most, if not all, of these ideas were either ignored or were not even noticed in the first place. Near the end of Battleforge's lifespan, the balancing patches themselves took several months to arrive, and even then they were mostly dissatisfactory, or even game breaking (I'm looking at you, Voidstorm). It was a real mess, and I truly hope that this time around, it will be better.

So here's a list of things we can implement that would run along the lines of balancing the game:

-Separating card effects between pvp and pve (and perhaps even rpve)

-having a community poll for which cards to change, how to change them, and which ones to prioritize

-general discussion between the admins and a few elected players from playerbase (as a first step before any serious balancing), or even as a method to balance cards in general aka. "The Council of the Elite"

-this one may be the obvious one but, just let the admins do all the balancing (which I seriously doubt would happen)

This list can be expanded, but I can't really think of any more. I'll add more to this list if any more ideas are posted below.

So yeah, I know that we are all excited for this new revamp of our favorite game, and I would appreciate if you post your opinion about balancing and stuff. See you guys ingame soon (hopefully ).

Letting the community decide what kind of "balances" should be done is actually the worst thing that could happen, because its the broad average mass who in general has no idea of the games details.

Yust remember all the noobs crying for changes in the old bf forums?

99% retarded posts cause they lost last game against card xy.

People who are included in serious balance discussions should be like top 1% ranked in pvp, or dependend on the size of the player base top 0.1%.

[Taker]

Letting the community decide what kind of "balances" should be done is actually the worst thing that could happen, because its the broad average mass who in general has no idea of the games details.

Yust remember all the noobs crying for changes in the old bf forums?

99% retarded posts cause they lost last game against card xy.

People who are included in serious balance discussions should be like top 1% ranked in pvp, or dependend on the size of the player base top 0.1%.

I dont think the rank should matter who is allowed to discuss. 

Rather the best players (maybe who can easily reach top 5 with any deck) should be allowed to discuss. 

For example: 

Player A can only play pure frost (I dont call any names) but can play pure frost pretty well and reach rank 1.

Player B can play any deck and reach top 10 with all decks at least once. 

I think player B should be allowed to discuss about changes even if he has never reached rank 1. He is able to understand whats op and wont try to get the best result for his deck cause he is able to play all decks. 

Bad english but I hope u can understand my poing

[DonProm]

I dont think the rank should matter who is allowed to discuss. 

Rather the best players (maybe who can easily reach top 5 with any deck) should be allowed to discuss. 

For example: 

Player A can only play pure frost (I dont call any names) but can play pure frost pretty well and reach rank 1.

Player B can play any deck and reach top 10 with all decks at least once. 

I think player B should be allowed to discuss about changes even if he has never reached rank 1. He is able to understand whats op and wont try to get the best result for his deck cause he is able to play all decks. 

Bad english but I hope u can understand my poing

I agree with that, but you need something to objectively measure who is "good enough" and things like "he can be top wiht any deck" is far away from that. Maybe some noteworthy results in touranments should also count.

Oh and relying on your argumentation you are out for the job cause fire only qq

[Taker]

I agree with that, but you need something to objectively measure who is "good enough" and things like "he can be top wiht any deck" is far away from that. Maybe some noteworthy results in touranments should also count.

Oh and relying on your argumentation you are out for the job cause fire only qq

yea think so too, maybe the devs should decide or maybe the community who is best for this job :

You played fire/frost didnt you? :

[DonProm]

yea think so too, maybe the devs should decide or maybe the community who is best for this job :

You played fire/frost didnt you? :

I played fire/frost, fire/fire, fire/nature, fire/shadow, frost/frost, frost/fire, frost/nature, shadow/nature competetively. All other decks for fun

[Taker]

I played fire/frost, fire/fire, fire/nature, fire/shadow, frost/frost, frost/fire, frost/nature, shadow/nature competetively. All other decks for fun

Me either :

But btt what do you think about community voting which players should be able to discuss? :

[WatcherOfSky]

Letting the community decide what kind of "balances" should be done is actually the worst thing that could happen, because its the broad average mass who in general has no idea of the games details.

Yust remember all the noobs crying for changes in the old bf forums?

99% retarded posts cause they lost last game against card xy.

People who are included in serious balance discussions should be like top 1% ranked in pvp, or dependend on the size of the player base top 0.1%.

Very good points there.

Still, I'll keep the point of a community poll up, since you never know. I actually want an admin to look at this post and tell me, or this community, what they think they would want to do. This is actually my main goal with this thread.

[DonProm]

Very good points there.

Still, I'll keep the point of a community poll up, since you never know. I actually want an admin to look at this post and tell me, or this community, what they think they would want to do. This is actually my main goal with this thread.

polls for suggestions are totally fine in my opinion, but they shouldn't be decisive if the change WILL actually happen.

Even if 90% want a specific change per poll, admins and group of skilled player should do final decision.

[WatcherOfSky]

polls for suggestions are totally fine in my opinion, but they shouldn't be decisive if the change WILL actually happen.

Even if 90% want a specific change per poll, admins and group of skilled player should do final decision.

Sounds logical.

[Sykole]

Could you explain to me, what kind of balance?

[Taker]

Could you explain to me, what kind of balance?

Dont think that makes sense yet... 

There are a lot u can balance more ... but we have to focus on other things like how will the balancing happen

[WatcherOfSky]

Could you explain to me, what kind of balance?

A balance in the gameplay. I believe that some cards lack counterplay. Like sure, some thing s MAY counter a card that is proposed to be op, but not enough cards can actually do it that it, so it has a slight advantage in more matches than not. Because of this, many players tend to use these cards over other cards/strategies. Balance may also involve the pvp vs pve scene, where some cards are very strong in pve, but almost worthless in pvp, or vice versa. I want more variety in the gameplay of battleforge, and without the need of actually adding more cards, there are plenty of cards there to use, but not enough of them are deemed viable for various reasons.

That is what I think.

[MarbSlonk]

Hmm balance has always been a hard proces, especialy with over 400 cards (correct me if I am wrong) in the game. I always thought some kind of hybrid form would be the best option: top PvP/PvE players that suggest/choose options combined with some kind of more democratic way of deciding ;-)

Another things I think is really important is buffing bad cards, thus enableing them to counter strong ones. This creates more options instead of less, and makes gameplay more divirgent.

[WatcherOfSky]

[quote='MarbSlonk' pid='805' dateline='1434723330']
Hmm balance has always been a hard proces, especialy with over 400 cards (correct me if I am wrong) in the game. I always thought some kind of hybrid form would be the best option: top PvP/PvE players that suggest/choose options combined with some kind of more democratic way of deciding ;-)

Another things I think is really important is buffing bad cards, thus enableing them to counter strong ones. This creates more options instead of less, and makes gameplay more divirgent.
[/quote]

Finally someone gets it. :D

[Aazrl]

I haven't seen a single game, where bad cards were being buffed :) It was always easier for devs to nerf something, instead of thinking about a nice buffs.

[MarbSlonk]

It did happen in BF (Werebeasts, Thugs, Lifestream and many others).

[Taker]

[quote='Aazrl' pid='820' dateline='1434725445']
I haven't seen a single game, where bad cards were being buffed :) It was always easier for devs to nerf something, instead of thinking about a nice buffs.
[/quote]

Well i think if u nerf some cards some "bad" cards get better and will be playable. So u dont have to buff bad cards to get them stronger sometimes a nerf of other cards make them stronger too

[Aazrl]

Nerfing a card forces me to play another card. Buffing a card gives me a possibility to try other card, but my card is still as playable as earlier. That's why I feel that buffing cards is better option, but require much more work.

[beijingguy]

[quote='Aazrl' pid='840' dateline='1434729291']
Nerfing a card forces me to play another card. Buffing a card gives me a possibility to try other card, but my card is still as playable as earlier. That's why I feel that buffing cards is better option, but require much more work.
[/quote]

Sometimes nerfing just one card will make several other cards viable. A card like Lyrish Knight used to be a cost efficient counter vs pretty much all S/M/L units alike but after it got nerfed people have to bring several other cards instead. 

Another example from the newest version of Battleforge is shadow t2, everyone who had access to a shadow orb by t2 would bring Darkelf Assassins and Nightcrawler. You could try to make other cards stronger than those two but by doing that you will just replace but if you nerf them it might open up a handful of different cards than could fill their role. 

But you still have a point there are a lot of cards that will never be viable if they aren't buff