What will become of the balance?

[WatcherOfSky]

[quote='beijingguy' pid='860' dateline='1434732425']
[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
[/quote]

Everybody would splash t2 shadow just for nightcrawler and darkelves? Hmm. I guess I didn't know that.

[ImaginaryNumb3r]

Hello guys.

In Battleforge I've always been very present in balancing discussions, but I think we should not repeat the errors of the old EA Phenomic team.

First, most cards are fine. T1 is very well balanced and balance in T4 doesn't matter that much as well since most stuff already is over the top (well, lost spirit ship really needed a nerf).

Therefore, the only real issues are T2 and T3. I think in pve all factions were fairly balanced, however in pvp much imbalancing was present.

T2 pvp:
- Lost Souls basically had everything.
I've seen decks of people with a Nightcrawler, Lost Reaver and Darkelf Assassins, tons of spells and a gigantic T3. Because of the extremely powerful synergy, it was extremely hard to beat the faction. This was also part because frost splashes have access to Kobold Trick and Glacier Shell.

- Bandits were never a really competitive choice.
Without CC and no true harrassment unit, you had to be an inredible player and could not allow any kinds of mistakes. Once you started defending, you basically lost the game.

- And in parts, Twilight was no competitive choice as well (Twilight cards, not fire/nature). With their debuff/sabotage focused army and the transformation ability this could have been one of the most interesting and dynamic factions in the game.


Now, here is what I suggest:
Don't change random cards and units. Let us have goals we want to achieve. Such a goal could be to balance out the T2 and here we move from one faction to the next.

Don't let us repeat the errors of Phenomic where they had no balancing plan and headlessly made changes to a random selection of cards.

BF has a solid basis for balancing and does not need any fundamental reworks. I think we can improve this game even further by tweaking key cards.


Also, I am against an elite of players who deciding where the game is going, you really think they are unbiased? Most just want to have an easier life and propose the according changes.

However, I think it would be reasonable to have a democratic representative system. A system which lets us vote for certain people (maybe every 2 months?) who are the drivers behind discussions.

They propose changes, they decide which cards are going to get balanced, but the changes are only implemented if +50% agee.

[WatcherOfSky]

[quote='Mental Omega' pid='1282' dateline='1434896065']
Hello guys.

In Battleforge I've always been very present in balancing discussions, but I think we should not repeat the errors of the old EA Phenomic team.

First, most cards are fine. T1 is very well balanced and balance in T4 doesn't matter that much as well since most stuff already is over the top (well, lost spirit ship really needed a nerf).

Therefore, the only real issues are T2 and T3. I think in pve all factions were fairly balanced, however in pvp much imbalancing was present.

T2 pvp:
- Lost Souls basically had everything.
I've seen decks of people with a Nightcrawler, Lost Reaver and Darkelf Assassins, tons of spells and a gigantic T3. Because of the extremely powerful synergy, it was extremely hard to beat the faction. This was also part because frost splashes have access to Kobold Trick and Glacier Shell.

- Bandits were never a really competitive choice.
Without CC and no true harrassment unit, you had to be an inredible player and could not allow any kinds of mistakes. Once you started defending, you basically lost the game.

- And in parts, Twilight was no competitive choice as well (Twilight cards, not fire/nature). With their debuff/sabotage focused army and the transformation ability this could have been one of the most interesting and dynamic factions in the game.


Now, here is what I suggest:
Don't change random cards and units. Let us have goals we want to achieve. Such a goal could be to balance out the T2 and here we move from one faction to the next.

Don't let us repeat the errors of Phenomic where they had no balancing plan and headlessly made changes to a random selection of cards.

BF has a solid basis for balancing and does not need any fundamental reworks. I think we can improve this game even further by tweaking key cards.


Also, I am against an elite of players who deciding where the game is going, you really think they are unbiased? Most just want to have an easier life and propose the according changes.

However, I think it would be reasonable to have a democratic representative system. A system which lets us vote for certain people (maybe every 2 months?) who are the drivers behind discussions.

They propose changes, they decide which cards are going to get balanced, but the changes are only implemented if +50% agee.
[/quote]

Very true. +1 ;')

[SunWu]

curse well, anyone remember ?
frost protects plus this spell made frostsplash T3s OP because theres no counter to a one-click-well-destruction. Glacier/kobold/shieldbuilding made a counteroffensive near impossible. That was the most unbalanced thing to me (because mathces with frost splash contribution werent unusual to reach T3)

[LagOps]

[quote='SunWu II.' pid='1467' dateline='1434991709']
curse well, anyone remember ?
frost protects plus this spell made frostsplash T3s OP because theres no counter to a one-click-well-destruction. Glacier/kobold/shieldbuilding made a counteroffensive near impossible. That was the most unbalanced thing to me (because mathces with frost splash contribution werent unusual to reach T3)
[/quote]

i feel the same. curse well is super toxic, especially in a frostsplash. i have seen players turtle into t3 and then abuse this with shield building as well. impossible to do anything until you lose with most decks. i am usually not a player who is in favor of bannigs cards, but curse well is just braindead and i see no way to fix this. luckyly it was not that popular... overshadowed by those grigory bombs maybe?

[ndclub]

Balancing is ever so close to my heart and I agree with much of what Mental Omega wrote for at least phase 1. I understand how an elite council would be biased but if its membership rotated and all colors were constantly represented it might be something to try.

I think it also needs to be discussed if we want to have a rock paper scissors approach (like currently pure frost is the rock to pure fire scissors and pure nature was a weak paper in 1v1). I personally do not think it should be that way but we would have to put considerable time into figuring out a way to execute an alternative. (something I don't mind doing in the least)

[ImaginaryNumb3r]

[quote]
Balancing is ever so close to my heart and I agree with much of what Mental Omega wrote for at least phase 1. I understand how an elite council would be biased but if its membership rotated and all colors were constantly represented it might be something to try.

I think it also needs to be discussed if we want to have a rock paper scissors approach (like currently pure frost is the rock to pure fire scissors and pure nature was a weak paper in 1v1). I personally do not think it should be that way but we would have to put considerable time into figuring out a way to execute an alternative. (something I don't mind doing in the least)
[/quote]
I think that there are good ways to create such a council, but is it really necessary anymore? The intent of such a council was ever to lure the power away from EA/Pheonmic and lets us have more control over the game xD

I trust the devs and I think they will find a reasonable way to approach this issues, as they are fans just like us :)

And I think a rock paper scissors approach can only work with at least 4 or more total players in pvp.
Anyway, cool to see another familiar face back!


[quote]
i feel the same. curse well is super toxic, especially in a frostsplash. i have seen players turtle into t3 and then abuse this with shield building as well. impossible to do anything until you lose with most decks. i am usually not a player who is in favor of bannigs cards, but curse well is just braindead and i see no way to fix this. luckyly it was not that popular... overshadowed by those grigory bombs maybe?
[/quote]

I completely agree. It's a broken card which does not serve any greater purpose than just being broken.
This is the only card I can think of that should never have existed in the first place.

[BraderZ]

With the balance I'm going with it will end up like a free earning currency with completing quests and logging As well earning through PvP and PvN.

[MarbSlonk]

[quote='ndclub' pid='1564' dateline='1435015597']
Balancing is ever so close to my heart and I agree with much of what Mental Omega wrote for at least phase 1. I understand how an elite council would be biased but if its membership rotated and all colors were constantly represented it might be something to try.

I think it also needs to be discussed if we want to have a rock paper scissors approach (like currently pure frost is the rock to pure fire scissors and pure nature was a weak paper in 1v1). I personally do not think it should be that way but we would have to put considerable time into figuring out a way to execute an alternative. (something I don't mind doing in the least)
[/quote]

I agree with both statements. I also think the latter one is both extremely important and quite doable. There are a lot of experts on certain factions and a lot of people with knowledge of the entire (PvP) game. For example, I played mainly pure nature and I know that its weakeness is, among others, cheap M units. Combining these with an understanding of other weakenesses might result in a buff to (again, this is an example) Parasite Swarm attack damage or a Steadfast ability for Ghostspears. This way it might be possible to fix factions based on their main problems.

And nice to see another known name back ;-)

[beijingguy]

Nice to see you guys Ndclub and Marbslonk :D

First of ill sign any petition to remove Curse Well from the game.

Secondly about Mental Omega's suggestion to vote people into the council. 

My biggest concern about elections is twofold. First of all, the voters, should everyone be allowed to vote ? If so how do we prevent people from using multiple accounts to vote for themselves or someone they agree with. 

Secondly should everyone be allowed to run ? If so you might end up with people who doesn't have the micro/skill to play the game at the highest level.  On top of that how do you ensure that the council is mixed properly, you might end up with two pure frost players and having none on the council that plays pure shadow.

[SunWu]

[quote='beijingguy' pid='1736' dateline='1435092604']
[b][...]
My biggest concern about elections is twofold. First of all, the voters, should everyone be allowed to vote ? If so how do we prevent people from using multiple accounts to vote for themselves or someone they agree with. [/b]

I think a restriction like a minimum post count or something like that could help. Can't think of something better at the moment.
[b]
Secondly should everyone be allowed to run ? If so you might end up with people who doesn't have the micro/skill to play the game at the highest level.  On top of that how do you ensure that the council is mixed properly, you might end up with two pure frost players and having none on the council that plays pure shadow.[/b]
[/quote]

i think microskills aren't important in that matter. Intelligence, experience (knowing the meta as good as possible) and objectivity are more important. Of course the players in the council should have some high-rank experience, though.
I don't think the forum would vote for a beginner, the best PVP players are widely known.
To ensure that every faction is represented, there would indeed have to be some kind of ministry for each one. Luckily there are a lot of quite highranked players who know every deck or at least more than one.

Edit: :D  last sentence wasn't a pun in your direction, i always used to be a fan of your rootnetworks !

[Avenged]

[quote='Necrospaz' pid='162' dateline='1434560265']
Well the community couldn't agree after 1482 pages of "rational debate"
I think the idea proposed last time about a "council of the elite" seemed a fairly legit way to do things.
As long as all factions/perspectives are voiced properly and not neglected.
[/quote]

Could work, but even the original BF tried this somewhat.
They invited Elendil over (I think? maybe someone else...) to help out afaik, but didn't result in too much I think.

Still seems like one of the better options though.

[ImaginaryNumb3r]

[quote='Avenged' pid='1809' dateline='1435101401']
[quote='Necrospaz' pid='162' dateline='1434560265']
Well the community couldn't agree after 1482 pages of "rational debate"
I think the idea proposed last time about a "council of the elite" seemed a fairly legit way to do things.
As long as all factions/perspectives are voiced properly and not neglected.
[/quote]

Could work, but even the original BF tried this somewhat.
They invited Elendil over (I think? maybe someone else...) to help out afaik, but didn't result in too much I think.

Still seems like one of the better options though.
[/quote]

You need to give people a direction. In such an open game like BF, there is no "one perfect solution" but issues can be fixed with a variety of approaches.

And if I am honest, I think many card changes were planned beforehand and the watchlist threads were just opened to give the community at least something to discuss... there were a couple of cards where virtually everybody agreed on a small buff or nerf and we got the complete opposite (that's corsair for you).

Imo, if you really care about what the community thinks, create a framework. A specific sequence consisting of several steps which is the same for every card. Quality requires time, and fortunately we have plenty of it.

Step 1: Determine which cards are going to be balanced. This phase is crucial.
It is important that this is not a selection of random cards, but content that will make a difference for the better. As already mentioned, we need tangible goals, otherwise we achieve not really anything. However, if there would be one or two extra cards without context which are not viable, I'm very fine with that too.

Step 2: The authority then chooses a selection for watchlists.
At this step, I trust that the devs/council/whoever knows what they are doing and they just choose cards they think are apropriate to accomplish mentioned goals. If general consensus turns out to be that the listed cards are a bad choice, no problem. Players are probably going offtopic anyway and tell what cards would be better suited.

Either way, in the second step it should be discussed which good possibilities actually exist. This is an open discussion without a poll and just an exchange of ideas where the best are picked.

And in the final step, there will be a vote for each possibility and now it would be the details that are the matter of discussion.

Well, that's how I could imagine it at least. I'm not saying it's fool proof, but this was just supposed to be a fast concept and I think that is already better than what we had for the longest time.
Anyway, I think we should first just see how it goes and then tweak and adapt the process whenever needed.

I think everybody should be able to make his voice be heard.

[WatcherOfSky]

[quote='Mental Omega' pid='1822' dateline='1435106589']
You need to give people a direction. In such an open game like BF, there is no "one perfect solution" but issues can be fixed with a variety of approaches.

And if I am honest, I think many card changes were planned beforehand and the watchlist threads were just opened to give the community at least something to discuss... there were a couple of cards where virtually everybody agreed on a small buff or nerf and we got the complete opposite (that's corsair for you).

Imo, if you really care about what the community thinks, create a framework. A specific sequence consisting of several steps which is the same for every card. Quality requires time, and fortunately we have plenty of it.

Step 1: Determine which cards are going to be balanced. This phase is crucial.
It is important that this is not a selection of random cards, but content that will make a difference for the better. As already mentioned, we need tangible goals, otherwise we achieve not really anything. However, if there would be one or two extra cards without context which are not viable, I'm very fine with that too.

Step 2: The authority then chooses a selection for watchlists.
At this step, I trust that the devs/council/whoever knows what they are doing and they just choose cards they think are apropriate to accomplish mentioned goals. If general consensus turns out to be that the listed cards are a bad choice, no problem. Players are probably going offtopic anyway and tell what cards would be better suited.

Either way, in the second step it should be discussed which good possibilities actually exist. This is an open discussion without a poll and just an exchange of ideas where the best are picked.

And in the final step, there will be a vote for each possibility and now it would be the details that are the matter of discussion.

Well, that's how I could imagine it at least. I'm not saying it's fool proof, but this was just supposed to be a fast concept and I think that is already better than what we had for the longest time.
Anyway, I think we should first just see how it goes and then tweak and adapt the process whenever needed.

I think everybody should be able to make his voice be heard.
[/quote]

I think this is a very good idea, and I do have it similarly explained in the opening post. I'm just waiting for an official voice to say what they are planning for this. I think the admins aren't saying anything at the moment because they still aren't sure about how things are going to end up. Oh well.

[beijingguy]

[quote='SunWu II.' pid='1750' dateline='1435093976']

i think microskills aren't important in that matter. Intelligence, experience (knowing the meta as good as possible) and objectivity are more important. Of course the players in the council should have some high-rank experience, though.
I don't think the forum would vote for a beginner, the best PVP players are widely known.
To ensure that every faction is represented, there would indeed have to be some kind of ministry for each one. Luckily there are a lot of quite highranked players who know every deck or at least more than one.

Edit: :D  last sentence wasn't a pun in your direction, i always used to be a fan of your rootnetworks !
[/quote]

All the qualities you mention are important and if you add a criteria of having high-rank experience i'm sure that would entail enough micro to satisfy what i was asking for. 
I think its fair to assume people wouldn't vote for a beginner but you cant expect the majority of voters to actually inform themselves about all the candidates and what views they might have on balance. You might end up with a council where one half just wants to do minor changes and the other half wants to do the major changes Mental Omega suggested. 

No offense taken about the "pun". Pure nature and proud ;)

[Titan]

I love this project and I loved Battleforge when it was around, but I was never able to get into the community side of it and actually be heard myself. Especially about balancing.

And I really want to stress my biggest worry, which is the needs of PvP balancing destroying the balance of PvE, or even destroying cards for PvE like the Mortar Tower had done to it. (I'm sure I don't have to go into detail about it) I just hope that we do get a separation of PvP and PvE for cards, even different abilities depending on which mode.

I 99% agree with Mental Omega's view, I just think separation of PvP and PvE is "one perfect solution". :)
As far as Micro/Skill coming into play, I believe it does, since if everyone is having trouble with a level BUT the high-skill, high-micromanagement players, then it eventually needs to be thrown into it's own extra Challenge-tier and then changed for the regular difficulty.

Thanks for hearing me out, I hope this project comes to fruition and everyone's ideas are heard (and PvE and PvP end up separated :P )

[beijingguy]

@Titan: Can you please enlighten me how you can destroy balance in pve ? I don't understand that concept unless a map actually becomes unbeatable following some balance change.

[Aazrl]

Would you like to get nerfed Hurricane, because it was too strong at certain PvE map?

[Titan]

It isn't that a map becomes unbeatable, but more that using that unbalanced card in a map would become [s]impossible[/s] disadvantageous. I'll stick with the example of Mortar Tower for now. Say you could take out a ranged enemy spawn camp with it originally because it was able to shoot within 30m - 50m at a cooldown of 20 secs. Then suddenly EA changed it for PvP because that was obviously very strong and made walls almost pointless. But the changes being that you could only shoot nearby your own troops within it's own 30m range made it completely useless in PvE as it would just fall before it's long cooldown (60 secs) of its only attacking ability could come back up, making it a 1 shot deal for very little progress, if any, even as a heavy micro defensive tower. This made it entirely pointless to own as a card if you PvE'd as there were just far better choices to spend your card slot AND points on. http://bit.ly/1TNt6yw

That's the kind of balance destruction in PvE I mean, and my friends all agree, so I don't think I'm alone in that thinking, but maybe I am.

[SunWu]

[quote='Titan' pid='1950' dateline='1435183937']
It isn't that a map becomes unbeatable, but more that using that unbalanced card in a map would become [s]impossible[/s] disadvantageous. I'll stick with the example of Mortar Tower for now. Say you could take out a ranged enemy spawn camp with it originally because it was able to shoot within 30m - 50m at a cooldown of 20 secs. Then suddenly EA changed it for PvP because that was obviously very strong and made walls almost pointless. But the changes being that you could only shoot nearby your own troops within it's own 30m range made it completely useless in PvE as it would just fall before it's long cooldown (60 secs) of its only attacking ability could come back up, making it a 1 shot deal for very little progress, if any, even as a heavy micro defensive tower. This made it entirely pointless to own as a card if you PvE'd as there were just far better choices to spend your card slot AND points on. http://bit.ly/1TNt6yw

That's the kind of balance destruction in PvE I mean, and my friends all agree, so I don't think I'm alone in that thinking, but maybe I am.
[/quote]

Nice to get to know another point of view when it comes to balancing. When i made contributions to balance discussions in BF i was always one to also think of the effects they would have on PVE. But it seems i was thinking in a wrong direction because when there were nerfs i mostly thought: ,,Okay that wont hurt them because it wont mess up speedrun records, they might even like it because it's more challenging now...they're PVE-players - they like challenges !''
Never thought of the fact that PVE-only-players could lose cards completly. But that's also because of the fact that in my time the game was already fairly balanced. I think those harsh nerfs like the mortar tower example won't be needed anymore.
Can't say i know exactly what to balance, but most of the PVP community agrees that there are only slight changes needed (like balancing nature T2 a little and making bandits a little more competitive, maybe also killing cursewell :) )
I would be surprised if there would be any more nerfs that would kill cards for PVE.
about balancing democracy: Eventhough i would like for everyone to have a choice, i wouldn't want a PVP beginner's opinion to have the same weight as a PVP-vets one who spent nights sleeples because of balancing thoughts. Maybe there's a middleway.

[Aazrl]

That's why I enjoy buffing over nerfing. If you buff A card, the B card will not be removed completly from the game and there will be option to play A card over B card. If you nerf A card, A card will not longer be useful anywhere.

[beijingguy]

[quote='Aazrl' pid='1958' dateline='1435188392']
That's why I enjoy buffing over nerfing. If you buff A card, the B card will not be removed completly from the game and there will be option to play A card over B card. If you nerf A card, A card will not longer be useful anywhere.
[/quote]

Really want to stress a point here nerfing a card doesn't mean it will become useless. 

But to argue your point, say card X is very strong to fix it you could either nerf card X or buff card Y+Z+X+B+N+M to get them on the same level and actual be viable options. The easiest and safest route is to jsut nerf X and see what happens next, if you start buffing 5 others cards to match X's strength you might end up with Y+Z being too strong and X actually being inferior.

[WatcherOfSky]

[quote='SunWu II.' pid='1956' dateline='1435188061']
Nice to get to know another point of view when it comes to balancing. When i made contributions to balance discussions in BF i was always one to also think of the effects they would have on PVE. But it seems i was thinking in a wrong direction because when there were nerfs i mostly thought: ,,Okay that wont hurt them because it wont mess up speedrun records, they might even like it because it's more challenging now...they're PVE-players - they like challenges !''
Never thought of the fact that PVE-only-players could lose cards completly. But that's also because of the fact that in my time the game was already fairly balanced. I think those harsh nerfs like the mortar tower example won't be needed anymore.
Can't say i know exactly what to balance, but most of the PVP community agrees that there are only slight changes needed (like balancing nature T2 a little and making bandits a little more competitive, maybe also killing cursewell :) )
I would be surprised if there would be any more nerfs that would kill cards for PVE.
about balancing democracy: Eventhough i would like for everyone to have a choice, i wouldn't want a PVP beginner's opinion to have the same weight as a PVP-vets one who spent nights sleeples because of balancing thoughts. Maybe there's a middleway.
[/quote]
Are you saying that mortar doesn't need to be the way it is currently?

Mortar was a win condition that cost 50 power on some maps. :|

But yeah, in the original post of this thread, I have stated that the pvp and pve balancing of cards need to be divided. I also think that some cards that are op in pvp are just fine in pve.

[Titan]

Well I remember a particular map needing a Mortar Tower for the longest time just because there was no way to beat it in time for most players, unless you took out the spawners from that 50m range. Of course that's OP on some maps, but on others it's almost necessary, not to mention it allowed other strategies that wouldn't normally work instead of using the same old strategy that one person figured out to work successfully. OP or not, it stops the game from being stale if you can use more than the same 10 cards on that map without failing over and over.

And I'm not restricting this to mortar tower either, it's just a good example, heck, the 95% damage reduction aura that my avatar has is pretty much the definition of OP.

[WatcherOfSky]

[quote='Titan' pid='2025' dateline='1435242629']
And I'm not restricting this to mortar tower either, it's just a good example, heck, the 95% damage reduction aura that my avatar has is pretty much the definition of OP.
[/quote]

I know you're not, I just got the feeling that Sun was saying Mortar didn't need the nerf.