Jump to content

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, SunWu said:

Fully understand that Gold/XP distribution is the problem of this tread and not decomposer, still i think you made some flawed arguments.

Nobody said that the problem is playing the game as it's not intended (complaints about amii monument go more in that direction). The problems stated were more about the consequences of totally unbalanced XP/gold rewards for 2-3 min BH runs wich a lot of new players do now since they heard of it. And a card being a certain rank in most played cards doesn't make it problematic or unproblematic. I'm sure amii monument isn't in the Top 50 and a lot of people have complained about it. I'm even more sure decomposer wasnt intended to be what you say. Doesn't it even say ,,own units'' on the card lol?

I think the real problem and some possibly good solutions have been pointed out, but i still wanted to give my 5 cents cause you're all jumping on him and some arguments here i found to be rather weak.

I have followed most of the discussion, both here and in Discord and from what I can see a lot of the comments come back to what is intended or not. Mostly then given what is written on the card. My comments on "intended" then is the opposite of this, just because that is not how the card actually works today, intended or not. I was simply (but perhaps a bit complicated) trying to state that the current way it works is not a problem, instead the problem for this discussion is the setup around how gold (mainly) is being farmed on the BH map, for example. 

1 minute ago, Cocofang said:

Two entirely separate issues are being conflated here. With gold/XP progression is mostly being used as a deflection to protect Decomposer.

Say Decomposer was fixed. Instantly the times to finish certain multiplayer maps would rise because it is by far one of the most powerful tools there is to speed up progress. Undoubtedly a new "most efficient" way to get gold would surface. It would be noticeably slower than currently. Maybe it would even be achievable through regular play. Passage to Darkness comes to mind. Or rPvE9. The point is that the margin between the "most efficient" way to farm gold and the "average" way would be significantly smaller. For now.

However what a Decomposer fix wouldn't protect from would be some other speedrunning tactic/strategy finding it's way into the "mainstream" and being now used to finish maps quickly for massive gold returns, exploiting the current gold/XP reward system once more.

So now say gold/XP returns were changed. First of, it's important that the reward system is intuitive. So some messy formula that gives you a % of whatever gold for orbs or objectives or whatever is nonsense. But it's not impossible to rework the system, maybe the initial implementation just didn't hit the mark. Let's assume a new reward system gets implemented that is both intuitive and simple (maybe something with bounties on side objectives or placing gold chests in key locations) but also does not reward the same gold/XP simply for finishing maps as fast as possible. That would immediately discourage straight forward goldfarming.

However, something I have not seen talked about a lot are upgrades. Rare and especially Ultra Rare upgrades are expensive to unlock so it incentivizes people to instead play their respective maps. Even if someone got very low gold/XP for b-lining a map as fast as possible, they'd still be rewarded with upgrades. Would you then tie getting upgrades to in-game actions? Getting the ones you want is already slow because of RNG and distribution among players. Leaving an upgrade on the map would be a big hit to progression.

Something else to consider with strictly tying gold/XP rewards to objectives/chests/whatever is that a pressure would emerge for all participants to go for these key points. We have already seen that in the beginning with the Passage to Darkness gold chest achievement. People were constantly pushing to open all chests and complain after the match if something was missed.

Also, if only gold/XP rewards were changed and Decomposer would retain its current function it would just be a matter of time until it rears its head again to be a problem once more. Instead of farming gold/XP, people could continue farming upgrades with it. Or maybe eventually a strategy emerges where, even with a changed gold/XP reward system, you'd be able to finish a map exceptionally fast while also hitting most objectives. Speedrunning tactics constantly trickle down into regular play in this game. You'd always have to be on the lookout, all you'd do was to push back the problem.

 

Both the current gold/XP reward system for maps and Decomposer are separate issues that happen to overlap here. Addressing only one will just result in the other becoming a problem again somewhere down the line.

Just to be clear, there is nothing to fix with Decomposer, it is a common misconception that recently has popped up because people do not want to spend hours and hours and hours getting somewhere in the game. Maybe we did in 2009, but that is a long time ago now...

Otherwise I sort of agree with you, but it differs on a crucial part, I do not see any problems with things going quick in this game. I cannot understand why people want the ever so boring grinding activities to be a central feature of this game. Also, there are a limited set of maps, they are analysed to the extent that a lot of them are found to be broken. Changing card attributes will only do so little to "correct" this in the long run (for PvE that is then...). So, if focus instead could be on the real problems instead I would be happy, for example:

- After the first few months of re-release hype, we are almost down to number of online people of the pre-reset era.

- Grinding is not a key success factor of this game, I am quite certain it will scare people away. I have played with a lot of newbies which played a few weeks and then they have never been online again...

- etc, etc,

// Ponni

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm quite shocked that an experienced player like you is writing nonsense like this. Do you really think all of this restrictions are going to solve the problem? I can assure you, it's not going

I think we have a problems with terms here. Some are speaking of speedrunning and some are speaking about speedrunning - but you mean complete different things. I would rather call the one speedr

Addressing the symptoms rather than the "disease" will not help in this case as @wanky points out above. Please ask yourself the question, why do people resort to these gold runs on BH? My answers to

Posted Images

Possible paradox: 2-3 min BH runs make some new people grind more than less. New players see/hear how easy it is to get gold and a shiny rank with these runs and stop caring about the rest of the game and don't check out other maps and modes. I don't think that's a good introduction to this game. Yeah, old players dont want to grind, but we're still on the same page when we say we want to get and keep new players, right?

Edited by SunWu
Draconnor, Zorana and Loriens like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, SunWu said:

Possible paradox: 2-3 min BH runs make some new people grind more than less. New players see/hear how easy it is to get gold and a shiny rank with these runs and stop caring about the rest of the game and don't check out other maps and modes. I don't think that's a good introduction to this game. Yeah, old players dont want to grind, but we're still on the same page when we say we want to get and keep new players, right?

I totally agree with that.

While i don't agree to (as proposed) get same reward for 3min speedrun as for 40 min regular play with no cannons destroyed.

Edited by Draconnor
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SunWu said:

Possible paradox: 2-3 min BH runs make some new people grind more than less. New players see/hear how easy it is to get gold and a shiny rank with these runs and stop caring about the rest of the game and don't check out other maps and modes. I don't think that's a good introduction to this game. Yeah, old players dont want to grind, but we're still on the same page when we say we want to get and keep new players, right?

Absolutely, more players are needed and they need to stay. I truly believe a lot of new players also do not want grind, but then again I know about quite a lot of old players who really enjoy the grinding so it is not a labeling made easy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

so to be honest it seems to me that decomposer as a card as it exists now would not cause any problems. Since everything you say depends only on XP and Gold Reward, I mean the upgrates on a map to farm with decomposer is now a moot point. You do the map 4-5 times then you have eigendlich the most important upgrates all. Especially since it is not to forget that on most maps even with decomposer still very much must be done, even by the suport player. 

The thing is this: Even back in EA times you got more XP if you have completed all quests. Most will certainly still remember. Otherwise just watch an old BF video on Youtube, As soon as a "side quest" was completed came directly the number of XP this has yielded. It should not be too difficult to introduce this system what mind you very well fucnktionierte, in the game.

Decomposer is and remains from my point of view a niche tactic for speedrunners. TBH it is sometimes not much fun to play a super role without decomposer because carry as well as super players just wait 1-2 minutes for the energy to come. Ravens End, for example, is just such a map. There is something fed at the beginning then no longer, simply to minimize the 2 minute wait.

I would prefer it if times a position of a Devs comes here regarding this. It feels like we've been talking about the same thing for 15 posts, all of them. Everything has been said, multiple times, and all facts and all views shared. Now it is up to a dev to decide how to proceed.

/wanky

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, account progression and map rewards are different issues that just happen to overlap with Decomposer.

The problem with Decomposers function not being intended is just a small faction of the entire deal and not a main point. Although I highly doubt it would still be able to do what it does, had the game not faced an early decline and death. The question is what effects the card has.

The second the Decomposer tactic is used a good chunk of the game (if not all of it) plays out significantly different to the point where it isn't even vaguely comparable to a strategy without it. Supercharging one player has huge ramifications. The fed player has much more agency in the round and can progress at a much faster rate. Meanwhile every point of energy transferred from the feeding players equals less agency for them.

Since orb-tiers function as force multipliers (every point of energy spent on a higher tier nets greater results) the boosted players power grows exponentially as they use their advantage to skip ahead. That reaches a point where one players performance vastly overshadows what otherwise could be done by the entire team without Decomposer.

It also interferes with two parts of the game that no other mechanic can: The starting power of each player is theirs alone and players cannot trade power they have acquired.

This shows that the Decomposer tactic fundamentally warps the game when it is used.

It is so strong that even people that rely on it as a speedrunning tactic to achieve faster times on certain maps made the admission it's broken. But it is a tool that significantly boosts performance, so where things drift apart again is that some people want to keep it because its power is what they desire. A repeat argument is that some fastest times on multiplayer maps could no longer be achieved without Decomposer and by a big margin at that. So if that is true then there is absolutely no question about its excessive power.

Something being too strong is also not always related to it seeing play everywhere and all the time, that's a misconception. Niche tactics can be unreasonably strong when their circumstances align. Because what matters is how it plays out when it can be utilized. Nobody would argue Enlightenment is a weak card because it can be used to prematurely summon Emberstriker or because it isn't very useful on maps where T3 and T4 are very close to one another. Or, just to illustrate the point further with a different example, say in a team VS team egoshooter players only buy cheap pistols in one round but a certain pistol is much more powerful than others. So despite this strong pistol not seeing use in rounds where all kinds of weapons can be bought, it's still too strong within its niche.

You mostly measure its power by its effectiveness when there is an opportune situation to use it. Those circumstances being more plentiful only elevates an issue further. Similarly, while the Decomposer tactic cannot be used on singleplayer or maps where orbs (and their necessary force multiplier) are too far apart, when the situation allows for it, it provides power like nothing else.

Additionally, all of that has to come with the consideration that Decomposer is a T1 card. That means that one of the most powerful tools in the game, that can entirely warp how a round plays out, and intersects with the fundamentals on how energy works between players, is available at the very moment you start a map. If you'd compare tactics within their respective niches is there anything even vaguely similar to the power the Decomposer tactic enables? The argument that finishing times for maps would be much slower implies not.

And, like I stated previously, the tactic can always find its way into average play and warp it with its power and influence. Attempting to preserve it by changing other things in the game to accommodate it would mean that it's still there, waiting to be a problem again.

Not to mention it would always have to be considered when making future balancing/progression decisions. A repeatedly brought up concern is how PvP balancing limits and affects PvE balancing. But what about how a mechanic like this would unjustly limit design space on multiple fronts for the entire game? What can, cannot and must be changed because of how it would interact with this excessively strong mechanic is a question that will always have to be considered. And if something is missed the game is in shambles once more until that is addressed.

Finally, to touch on the aforementioned PvP again, it was already noted that Decomposer can be problematic in 2v2 and 3v3. Orbs are accessible from the start and therefore the force multiplier by one player ascending tiers faster could prove oppressive. It's simply not meta yet but that can change.

All of these problems have nothing to do with account progression and only with Decomposer.

Edited by Cocofang
Draconnor and Zyna like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cocofang said:

See below:

Again, account progression and map rewards are different issues that just happen to overlap with Decomposer.

- No, everything is tied together. The "problems" we see now with Decomposer are only symptoms of a larger issue. Of course we could only pinpoint each and every issue by itself, but I do not believe that is the right way to do it. But if we then are to pin point every issue for itself then start from the other angle instead with rewards and progress mechanics of this game which is more urgent I believe. 

The problem with Decomposers function not being intended is just a small faction of the entire deal and not a main point. Although I highly doubt it would still be able to do what it does, had the game not faced an early decline and death. The question is what effects the card has.

- Strangely then it always circle back to what is written on the card when discussing the points here. Anyway, we will never know what would have happened should the game have survived the terrible EA years.

The second the Decomposer tactic is used a good chunk of the game (if not all of it) plays out significantly different to the point where it isn't even vaguely comparable to a strategy without it. Supercharging one player has huge ramifications. The fed player has much more agency in the round and can progress at a much faster rate. Meanwhile every point of energy transferred from the feeding players equals less agency for them.

- Get some stats out in how many matches this card actually is played for a win and we could possibly have another direction of this discussion. 

Since orb-tiers function as force multipliers (every point of energy spent on a higher tier nets greater results) the boosted players power grows exponentially as they use their advantage to skip ahead. That reaches a point where one players performance vastly overshadows what otherwise could be done by the entire team without Decomposer.

- Again these opinions on what the game is or what it is not...referring back to the point above, how much of a problem is it, is the card available in all decks all the time? 

It also interferes with two parts of the game that no other mechanic can: The starting power of each player is theirs alone and players cannot trade power they have acquired.

- Who has told you that this is how it is supposed to work? Is there a manual or instruction that I have missed reading?

This shows that the Decomposer tactic fundamentally warps the game when it is used.

- Cannot argue on this as it is correct.

It is so strong that even people that rely on it as a speedrunning tactic to achieve faster times on certain maps made the admission it's broken. But it is a tool that significantly boosts performance, so where things drift apart again is that some people want to keep it because its power is what they desire. A repeat argument is that some fastest times on multiplayer maps could no longer be achieved without Decomposer and by a big margin at that. So if that is true then there is absolutely no question about its excessive power.

- I dont have all necessary information to way in on this one, but I suppose a four player setup on BH possibly could render a very fast time too, with one runner, one going T2 helping the runner out with certian things and two feeders/supporting figures of some sort, without Decomposer...there are 8 orbs in the starting area of BH and to my knowledge you only need 4 (or possibly 3 looking at the current fastest time?) to win the map.

Something being too strong is also not always related to it seeing play everywhere and all the time, that's a misconception. Niche tactics can be unreasonably strong when their circumstances align. Because what matters is how it plays out when it can be utilized. Nobody would argue Enlightenment is a weak card because it can be used to prematurely summon Emberstriker or because it isn't very useful on maps where T3 and T4 are very close to one another. Or, just to illustrate the point further with a different example, say in a team VS team egoshooter players only buy cheap pistols in one round but a certain pistol is much more powerful than others. So despite this strong pistol not seeing use in rounds where all kinds of weapons can be bought, it's still too strong within its niche.

- It is also a misconception calling out things being too strong actually being too strong, in game and in the forum there is this throwing OPs around you without really understanding the mechanics and practice needed to get things right. Not everyone will succeed in their first try with these strategies, not even their second try will be successful I dare to say. You need to invest a lot of time in order to perfect it for it to be successful and strong in the end. This notion on "everything is so easy with this and that", well, strangely enough then why do we only see a rare few people on top of the leaderboards? I understand not everyone wants to do the speedrunning stuff and they want to play their one deck. But, taking away things from people evolving the game is not really how I would consider things. 

Now, with Decomposer there comes this feeder/farming thing, meaning anyone can succeed completing a map just by spawning troops. But then I suppose we should stop the carry aspect which is there in pretty much every multiplayer map. I have played so many matches with people that I and usually one or two of my friends have carried to a victory, is that a bad thing? They have hopefully learnt something and the next run they do they might contribute more or even succeed on their own.

You mostly measure its power by its effectiveness when there is an opportune situation to use it. Those circumstances being more plentiful only elevates an issue further. Similarly, while the Decomposer tactic cannot be used on singleplayer or maps where orbs (and their necessary force multiplier) are too far apart, when the situation allows for it, it provides power like nothing else.

- Yes, it does.

Additionally, all of that has to come with the consideration that Decomposer is a T1 card. That means that one of the most powerful tools in the game, that can entirely warp how a round plays out, and intersects with the fundamentals on how energy works between players, is available at the very moment you start a map. If you'd compare tactics within their respective niches is there anything even vaguely similar to the power the Decomposer tactic enables? The argument that finishing times for maps would be much slower implies not.

- I have thought about this one too, however I do not see the problems like you that sharing power is a problem. To me, and others, its a feature. But, it is a very strong card for being a T1, agreed, there are others too though, like Motivate, Surge of Light and Suppression which in certain setups can turn the tide, but perhaps not as strong as Decomposer I grant you that.

And, like I stated previously, the tactic can always find its way into average play and warp it with its power and influence. Attempting to preserve it by changing other things in the game to accommodate it would mean that it's still there, waiting to be a problem again.

- Sure, however, I see no problems with that, to me the problems here (eg. the BH farming stuff) is a thing that over time will not be a problem any longer. With how the reward system is setup, as long as the gold is needed it will be a "problem". But, is it not natural that people also learn how things work and then fine tune their game getting better in understanding how things work? Do we not want newbies and others to grow in this game and get better? Also one thing I really want to mention here, not everything about this game is unit centric, there are so many combos you can do with buildings and spells. I have decks which are both, but most decks of mine tend to be spell centric with the support of buildings and units. Point then is there are multiple ways to play this game, which changes like this and others I fear might come is that in the end we all should build huge armies waiting at T4 for 5 mins before we start the end game.

Not to mention it would always have to be considered when making future balancing/progression decisions. A repeatedly brought up concern is how PvP balancing limits and affects PvE balancing. But what about how a mechanic like this would unjustly limit design space on multiple fronts for the entire game? What can, cannot and must be changed because of how it would interact with this excessively strong mechanic is a question that will always have to be considered. And if something is missed the game is in shambles once more until that is addressed.

- Referring back to the point above on stats for the use of this card, is it used in all matches played I can agree we have a problem, if it is only a fraction we will only try and solve a problem because of opinions. If it is somewhere in the middle we can continue this discussion. 

Finally, to touch on the aforementioned PvP again, it was already noted that Decomposer can be problematic in 2v2 and 3v3. Orbs are accessible from the start and therefore the force multiplier by one player ascending tiers faster could prove oppressive. It's simply not meta yet but that can change.

- Now I will be extremely bold and post a very unpopular thing (referring back to the initial sentence of the start posting of this thread). Looking at the statistics, 0.8% of all multiplayer matches played PvP and PvE are 2v2 and 3v3, in fact, only 3% of all matches played in this game are PvP. I will then state I think we need to get our priorities straight here when it comes to what we should do sorting out "problems" in the game for whom. 

All of these problems have nothing to do with account progression and only with Decomposer.

- Well, that is one opinion, my opinion is the opposite, a lot of things/problems cannot be separated from each other. 

// Ponni

Edited by Ponni
GreenSapphire likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

I briefly want to mention, that while I'm on the Skylords Discord server most of the time I'm playing I have a lot of contact with newer players. None of those so far tended to say that the game is fundamentally broken. Most of those players say that a lot of expert maps are way too hard and even tho they saw tactics on youtube or in replays they can't finish a lot of maps because they are "just too hard to beat without working together". 
The part I just don't get is, that @cocofang seems to be not playing since weeks, at least not at any maps besides rpve. 
And here is the foundation for my frustration: Being out of touch with those players you desperately trying to represent.

Besides @Ponni wrote something I personally did not really think about before: How much grind is needed to play this game? 
This game worked in a time where the playerbase was 15, playing after school until bedtime and repeat this on the next day. It certainly was this way for me back in the ea-days. But now most of the players are at least in their twenties, not having the amount of time to play. 
So what exactly is the amount of hours you want people to spend before they beat expert maps for the first time? How many people do quit because they notice this game is way too much grind and way too repetetive? 

Talking about strong tactics being hold captive by "toxic elitists" is just so out of focus of the actual discussion.

Edited by GreenSapphire
Ponni and DieToPlay like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, GreenSapphire said:

So what exactly is the amount of hours you want people to spend before they beat expert maps for the first time? How many people do quit because they notice this game is way too much grind and way too repetetive? 

Well, I am pushing 300+ hours since re-release, opened ~250 boosters and I own ~420 cards, all fully upgraded (charges still missing of course for a lot of them) with 750000 gold to spare, no need to Decompose things any longer! :)

// Ponni

Edited by Ponni
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cocofang said:

Two entirely separate issues are being conflated here. With gold/XP progression is mostly being used as a deflection to protect Decomposer.

Say Decomposer was fixed. Instantly the times to finish certain multiplayer maps would rise because it is by far one of the most powerful tools there is to speed up progress. Undoubtedly a new "most efficient" way to get gold would surface. It would be noticeably slower than currently. Maybe it would even be achievable through regular play. Passage to Darkness comes to mind. Or rPvE9. The point is that the margin between the "most efficient" way to farm gold and the "average" way would be significantly smaller. For now.

However what a Decomposer fix wouldn't protect from would be some other speedrunning tactic/strategy finding it's way into the "mainstream" and being now used to finish maps quickly for massive gold returns, exploiting the current gold/XP reward system once more.

So now say gold/XP returns were changed. First of, it's important that the reward system is intuitive. So some messy formula that gives you a % of whatever gold for orbs or objectives or whatever is nonsense. But it's not impossible to rework the system, maybe the initial implementation just didn't hit the mark. Let's assume a new reward system gets implemented that is both intuitive and simple (maybe something with bounties on side objectives or placing gold chests in key locations) but also does not reward the same gold/XP simply for finishing maps as fast as possible. That would immediately discourage straight forward goldfarming.

However, something I have not seen talked about a lot are upgrades. Rare and especially Ultra Rare upgrades are expensive to unlock so it incentivizes people to instead play their respective maps. Even if someone got very low gold/XP for b-lining a map as fast as possible, they'd still be rewarded with upgrades. Would you then tie getting upgrades to in-game actions? Getting the ones you want is already slow because of RNG and distribution among players. Leaving an upgrade on the map would be a big hit to progression.

Something else to consider with strictly tying gold/XP rewards to objectives/chests/whatever is that a pressure would emerge for all participants to go for these key points. We have already seen that in the beginning with the Passage to Darkness gold chest achievement. People were constantly pushing to open all chests and complain after the match if something was missed.

Also, if only gold/XP rewards were changed and Decomposer would retain its current function it would just be a matter of time until it rears its head again to be a problem once more. Instead of farming gold/XP, people could continue farming upgrades with it. Or maybe eventually a strategy emerges where, even with a changed gold/XP reward system, you'd be able to finish a map exceptionally fast while also hitting most objectives. Speedrunning tactics constantly trickle down into regular play in this game. You'd always have to be on the lookout, all you'd do was to push back the problem.

 

Both the current gold/XP reward system for maps and Decomposer are separate issues that happen to overlap here. Addressing only one will just result in the other becoming a problem again somewhere down the line.

There are many campaign maps where u complete all objectives even in speedrun because they are all mandatory. The most simple solution is to just handle gold gain as it is done with bfp right  now. The longer u play, the more gold u get, directly tied to ingame time.

Then regardless of with or without decomposer as long as you play it fast and efficient ur gold gain is screwed.

Edit: All factions have a tool (most of them t1) to influence power flow and depending on the language u chose, some of these examples also have the mismatch between tooltip and functionality regarding the "own units" thats often cited for decomposer:

- Banner of Glory: Interaction to manipulate void return
- Decomposer: Interaction to manipulate actual power pool
- Construction Hut: Interaction to manipulate building expenditures
- Breeding Grounds: Interaction to manipulate unit expenditures

Edited by LEBOVIN
Ponni and DieToPlay like this
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LEBOVIN said:

There are many campaign maps where u complete all objectives even in speedrun because they are all mandatory. The most simple solution is to just handle gold gain as it is done with bfp. The longer u play, the more gold u get, directly tied to ingame time.

Then regardless of with or without decomposer as long as you play it fast and efficient ur gold gain is screwed.

Would be a simple solution indeed, but is it what the player base demand? 
Playing three days until I can upgrade my church of negation e.g. doesn't seem very fun to do. On the other hand playing Nightmares End 25 times without getting the upgrade won't increase the moral either. 
And in addition: I remember those days when everyone was just spamming rpve 9 and nothing else, because of simplicity + Gold/min. 

I guess we need some kind of "gold/min" equation everyone is happy with.

Edited by GreenSapphire
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is kinda obvious that a solution that shall reward based on ingame time, would need a gold/min equation :D

Getting everyone happy with that is a different thing^^ I would suggest something like the current rpve 9 avergame time and its gold reward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LEBOVIN said:

Well it is kinda obvious that a solution that shall reward based on ingame time, would need a gold/min equation :D

Getting everyone happy with that is a different thing^^ I would suggest something like the current rpve 9 avergame time and its gold reward.

Me not being a professionell rpve player thinking this would come around 2,5 k gold per 15 minutes?
Could be ok (even tho I really don't mind players farming gold faster tbh). What would be the solution for upgrades? Not allowing to disenchant them at all could be a thing but would it shift the whole meta just back to rpve 9 then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing about what problem takes priority won't change anything about Decomposers issues. Also there are problems with both the reward system and this card that very clearly have nothing to do with one another.

Orb tiers are force multipliers. A boosted players power grows exponentially because of that. The performance of one player then completely overshadows what an entire team could do otherwise. Nothing else in the game can transfer energy between players. Decomposer being utilized fundamentally warps how the entire round plays out. What is the „opinion“ here?
And where is the connection to the reward system when stating, in addition to the previous points, that the power of a card not always being tied to the amount of use-cases or Decomposer and its power being T1.

One would assume if even people defending and relying on a tactic to achieve the fastest times say that it's broken or even a mistake then its power is truly unreasonable.

Generally games are balanced around top play, not top players. Top play being min-maxing a game, therefore highlighting what is actually too good and what is too bad. This then seeps down into regular play, which is one of the contributing factors why a meta emerges. In that way speedrunning exposes broken and overpowered mechanics. It identifies outliers. When something is seeing consistent play at the top, the question is usually not "Is it strong?" but "What makes it so strong? And is it too far above the rest?"

As was already said, if carrying inexperienced players is supposed to be the aspect worth preserving there are plenty of other ways to do it. And as long as the spearhead player doesn't hog all resources then the things learned from watching can probably be applied to a broad spectrum of scenarios. It's of course not completely void of transferable knowledge but funneling on the other hand is a very specific tactic and therefore a lot of what you learn from it only applies to funneling. Everything a carry achieves is first and foremost enabled by having such excess energy. The execution, no matter how skillful, is only possible because of that.

Decomposer also doesn't really have anything to do with unit/building/spell focused decks. What it does is simply supercharge one player and whatever deck gets used. Nor is the existence of the current iteration of Decomposer necessary for people to learn and understand the game.

Bringing other T1 cards to the discussion, even those that find usage outside of T1, seems like a big stretch. Where would we even rate the ability to transfer energy, and the snowball effect it can enable, in terms of tiers? Granted a big part of its current power is being able to skip ahead immediately. But just as a concept, surely it would be higher than mere T1. T3 possibly? Akin to how current Shrine of War can negate the void-return system in many circumstances, making the 90% energy return near instant? How Enlightenment can circumvent the rule that you have to have certain orbs? Amii Monument changing the rule of having to claim T4 on the map and the amount of orbs available? It'd probably be in that type of echelon. Yet it's T1, making it stand out even more.

Saying that farming would be gone anyway because people eventually own everything is such an odd point to make. What does that even mean? Almost seems like an existential angle. Why bother doing anything, eventually we will reach technological singularity and the AGI takes over.

There is no single stat to rule them all, like play rate, either. Play rate of a card tells you nothing except … well, how often a card is played. You learn nothing from this number aside from that. You don't learn when it is used, why it is used, how it is used, how it affects the game when used, with what other cards it gets used, etc. Stats are not the end, they are the beginning. Stats also do not show how limiting the current Decomposer can be going forward because of its excessive strength that is always looming and always demands to be considered.

As for wanting to dismiss Decomposer being a potential trouble maker in 2v2/3v3 PvP, I wonder where we should be inclined to make the cut-off point in terms of relevant population. Because if one were to argue that considering PvP in this matter is unimportant because it's just a small fraction of the community then the logical conclusion of that reasoning is that the handful of speedrunners that rely on Decomposer are equally negligible. After all, a repeat-argument is that if map rewards were changed then Decomposer would stop being a problem for regular play, retaining its status as a speedrunning tool. Which would mean it was solely preserved for a faction of the community. So, I'm unsure where that argument is supposed to lead us.

Taking Expert difficulty, meant to be the most challenging in the game, as the benchmark for accessibility, is odd.
Maybe the problem is that new players notice Expert difficulty is unlocked right from the start. Creating the expectation that they can tackle it right out of the gate.
There are a few Expert maps that border unfairness (after all, the initial business model aimed to push people into buying more and stronger cards) and I am not against adjustments at all but it IS the highest difficulty.

Not so sure if mud slinging about authority is the thin ice we want to tread on. Plenty could be said there.

Reworking gold payout to be based on in-game time like BFP payouts ignores card upgrades once more. They are effectively gold payouts and would these be regulated? Also, might as well just rename the game to "Encounter with Twilight"-lords at that point, as that is pretty much an open secret.

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

Arguing about what problem takes priority won't change anything about Decomposers issues. Also there are problems with both the reward system and this card that very clearly have nothing to do with one another.

Orb tiers are force multipliers. A boosted players power grows exponentially because of that. The performance of one player then completely overshadows what an entire team could do otherwise. Nothing else in the game can transfer energy between players. Decomposer being utilized fundamentally warps how the entire round plays out. What is the „opinion“ here?
And where is the connection to the reward system when stating, in addition to the previous points, that the power of a card not always being tied to the amount of use-cases or Decomposer and its power being T1.

One would assume if even people defending and relying on a tactic to achieve the fastest times say that it's broken or even a mistake then its power is truly unreasonable.

Generally games are balanced around top play, not top players. Top play being min-maxing a game, therefore highlighting what is actually too good and what is too bad. This then seeps down into regular play, which is one of the contributing factors why a meta emerges. In that way speedrunning exposes broken and overpowered mechanics. It identifies outliers. When something is seeing consistent play at the top, the question is usually not "Is it strong?" but "What makes it so strong? And is it too far above the rest?"

As was already said, if carrying inexperienced players is supposed to be the aspect worth preserving there are plenty of other ways to do it. And as long as the spearhead player doesn't hog all resources then the things learned from watching can probably be applied to a broad spectrum of scenarios. It's of course not completely void of transferable knowledge but funneling on the other hand is a very specific tactic and therefore a lot of what you learn from it only applies to funneling. Everything a carry achieves is first and foremost enabled by having such excess energy. The execution, no matter how skillful, is only possible because of that.

Decomposer also doesn't really have anything to do with unit/building/spell focused decks. What it does is simply supercharge one player and whatever deck gets used. Nor is the existence of the current iteration of Decomposer necessary for people to learn and understand the game.

Bringing other T1 cards to the discussion, even those that find usage outside of T1, seems like a big stretch. Where would we even rate the ability to transfer energy, and the snowball effect it can enable, in terms of tiers? Granted a big part of its current power is being able to skip ahead immediately. But just as a concept, surely it would be higher than mere T1. T3 possibly? Akin to how current Shrine of War can negate the void-return system in many circumstances, making the 90% energy return near instant? How Enlightenment can circumvent the rule that you have to have certain orbs? Amii Monument changing the rule of having to claim T4 on the map and the amount of orbs available? It'd probably be in that type of echelon. Yet it's T1, making it stand out even more.

Saying that farming would be gone anyway because people eventually own everything is such an odd point to make. What does that even mean? Almost seems like an existential angle. Why bother doing anything, eventually we will reach technological singularity and the AGI takes over.

There is no single stat to rule them all, like play rate, either. Play rate of a card tells you nothing except … well, how often a card is played. You learn nothing from this number aside from that. You don't learn when it is used, why it is used, how it is used, how it affects the game when used, with what other cards it gets used, etc. Stats are not the end, they are the beginning. Stats also do not show how limiting the current Decomposer can be going forward because of its excessive strength that is always looming and always demands to be considered.

As for wanting to dismiss Decomposer being a potential trouble maker in 2v2/3v3 PvP, I wonder where we should be inclined to make the cut-off point in terms of relevant population. Because if one were to argue that considering PvP in this matter is unimportant because it's just a small fraction of the community then the logical conclusion of that reasoning is that the handful of speedrunners that rely on Decomposer are equally negligible. After all, a repeat-argument is that if map rewards were changed then Decomposer would stop being a problem for regular play, retaining its status as a speedrunning tool. Which would mean it was solely preserved for a faction of the community. So, I'm unsure where that argument is supposed to lead us.

Taking Expert difficulty, meant to be the most challenging in the game, as the benchmark for accessibility, is odd.
Maybe the problem is that new players notice Expert difficulty is unlocked right from the start. Creating the expectation that they can tackle it right out of the gate.
There are a few Expert maps that border unfairness (after all, the initial business model aimed to push people into buying more and stronger cards) and I am not against adjustments at all but it IS the highest difficulty.

Not so sure if mud slinging about authority is the thin ice we want to tread on. Plenty could be said there.

Reworking gold payout to be based on in-game time like BFP payouts ignores card upgrades once more. They are effectively gold payouts and would these be regulated? Also, might as well just rename the game to "Encounter with Twilight"-lords at that point, as that is pretty much an open secret.

Will only respond to a few points from this mega post, because, well, my employeer will probably start to complain I am spending too much time in this forum.

Arguing about what problem takes priority won't change anything about Decomposers issues. Also there are problems with both the reward system and this card that very clearly have nothing to do with one another.

- Yeah, in multiple posts in here and in Discord you are talking about deflecting behaviors of others, in my opinion you are doing the exact same thing here. Not looking at things being tied together could and will cause unwanted side effects, like new players (and possibly old ones too) turning their interest away to something else...

Also, I will continue to refer back to statistics until they are presented, then we will see how big the problem you want to resolve is. As I have stated before, once the statistics are presented I might even consider to swap sides in this discussion depending on the outcome. You might come out on top there then, I suggest you contact @Zyna and ask for this information and present it to us.

Decomposer also doesn't really have anything to do with unit/building/spell focused decks. What it does is simply supercharge one player and whatever deck gets used. Nor is the existence of the current iteration of Decomposer necessary for people to learn and understand the game.

- Well, it was simply an example trying to point out there are multiple ways to play the game. You want us to play it in fewer ways...

As for wanting to dismiss Decomposer being a potential trouble maker in 2v2/3v3 PvP, I wonder where we should be inclined to make the cut-off point in terms of relevant population. Because if one were to argue that considering PvP in this matter is unimportant because it's just a small fraction of the community then the logical conclusion of that reasoning is that the handful of speedrunners that rely on Decomposer are equally negligible. After all, a repeat-argument is that if map rewards were changed then Decomposer would stop being a problem for regular play, retaining its status as a speedrunning tool. Which would mean it was solely preserved for a faction of the community. So, I'm unsure where that argument is supposed to lead us.

Not so sure if mud slinging about authority is the thin ice we want to tread on. Plenty could be said there.

- Indeed, while you are the expert and self appointed authority here then how should we do it? Destroy things for which community of players? It is an assumption, but I would say that the PvE speedrun community in itself is larger than most parts of the PvP community...

// Ponni

Link to post
Share on other sites

@PonniSince you asked, here are some stats, For each map, the amount of matches where any of the players has decomposer in their deck are divided by the total amount of matches on that map.

Campaign maps - Standard

name used_percentage
PassageToDarkness 35.9955
Ascension 32.6199
Empire 15.1042
BadHarvest 13.5707
RavensEnd 13.1328
Blight 12.5150
Titans 11.2018
KingOfTheGiants 10.9950
Convoy 6.8841
PvECommunity4P 6.4888
SlaveMaster 5.8498
Crusade 5.3855
NightmaresEnd 4.7486
NightmareShard 4.5319
Sunbridge 4.2641
PvECommunity2P 4.2381

 

Campaign maps - Advanced

name used_percentage
PassageToDarkness 40.2985
Ascension 37.1483
TheGunsOfLyr 21.6562
PvECommunity4P 21.0884
KingOfTheGiants 19.2003
Empire 18.3099
RavensEnd 17.9451
BadHarvest 17.7158
Titans 16.4844
Blight 16.2293
TheDwarvenRiddle 13.9569
Convoy 9.8866
SlaveMaster 8.0141
Crusade 7.8074
PvECommunity2P 7.3077
Sunbridge 7.0674
NightmaresEnd 7.0041
NightmareShard 6.8242
TheInsaneGod 6.4232

 

Campaign maps - Expert

name used_percentage
BadHarvest 91.7773
PassageToDarkness 68.0524
TheGunsOfLyr 61.4198
TheDwarvenRiddle 43.1285
Ascension 42.9437
Empire 28.3441
KingOfTheGiants 28.3294
PvECommunity4P 26.7319
Convoy 22.1411
RavensEnd 21.5033
Titans 17.4075
SlaveMaster 17.3196
TheInsaneGod 16.5959
Blight 14.5030
Sunbridge 13.2432
NightmaresEnd 11.3855
Crusade 9.9595
PvECommunity2P 7.9137
NightmareShard 6.9473

 

Random maps - Level 9

name used_percentage
rPvEFourPlayers 41.5978
rPvETwoPlayers 12.2017

 

Random maps - Level 10

name used_percentage
rPvEFourPlayers 29.1335
rPvETwoPlayers 6.1983
Draconnor, Volin and Ponni like this
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a revelation.  Some of the numbers are really hard for me to explain, like the quite high values for PtD. I can see that on PtD the Decomposer would make for good farming, but I've never seen it before in any random group. It's already hard enough to do a proper round of PtD with 3 unfeeded runners on each map.

Even harder to understand is the 41% value for rpve9, though ofc we are not speaking of feeding here at all.

Love such statistics, happy to see more of them. @Zyna@Majora

 

Majora likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Xamos said:

That´s actually insane :D

Indeed, but not surprising, considering the main use of this map today, gold farming. I am actually surprised it was not a higher figure, Now there are still a lot of people trying to beat the map the good old-fashioned way! :)

Thanks @Zyna will crunch the numbers as soon as my boss goes for lunch!

// Ponni

5 minutes ago, Volin said:

Wow, what a revelation.  Some of the numbers are really hard for me to explain, like the quite high values for PtD. I can see that on PtD the Decomposer would make for good farming, but I've never seen it before in any random group. It's already hard enough to do a proper round of PtD with 3 unfeeded runners on each map.

Even harder to understand is the 41% value for rpve9, though ofc we are not speaking of feeding here at all.

Love such statistics, happy to see more of them. @Zyna@Majora

 

In rpve9 a lot of people are using Decomposer when at t2 or t3 to get power back for themselves, so a quick notion there is that it is not so surprising. In fact there people are using it as intended... ;)

// Ponni

Edited by Ponni
a lot of typos...
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ponni said:

n rpve9 a lot of people are using Decomposer when at t2 or t3 to get power back for themselves, so a quick notion there is that it is not so surprising. In fact there people are using it as intended...

Yeah, thats why I said "ofc we are not speaking of feeding here at all." I mean, I did less random groups lately then I did in open Beta, but still from my feelings the number of seen Decomposers is alot lower. This is one of the reasons why I love such overall statistics, because they help you to get away from the often very extreme personal point of view.

 

50 minutes ago, Ponni said:

I am actually surprised it was not a higher figure

Me too! That means that almost 1 out of 10 matches is played normal. Given that 9 farmruns are maybe around the same amount of time then doing the map the normal way, this is indeed surprising to me. And this is a nice prove, that people who want to do the map normal, still find mates to do so.

This is not to argue for or against, I'm out of it and continue to think all arguments have been exchanged. I have confidence here in our balancing team that they will make the right decisions (because I personally can no longer say whether I would like to see a nerf or not)

Ponni likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Volin said:

Wow, what a revelation.  Some of the numbers are really hard for me to explain, like the quite high values for PtD. I can see that on PtD the Decomposer would make for good farming, but I've never seen it before in any random group. It's already hard enough to do a proper round of PtD with 3 unfeeded runners on each map.

Even harder to understand is the 41% value for rpve9, though ofc we are not speaking of feeding here at all.

Love such statistics, happy to see more of them. @Zyna@Majora

 

I think the statitics for PtD and Ascension are a bit flawed here. If any of the 12 players have decomposer in their deck, it will count as a "Decomposer match". The numbers may also be somewhat flawed in general since they just mean that decomposer was in a deck. Here is a similar table which also has the condition that decomposer needs to be played at least once. Here the numbers are somewhat skewed in the other direction though, because matches which just end after e.g. 30 seconds count towards the total match count.

Campaign maps - Standard

 

name used_percentage
PassageToDarkness 24.4094
Ascension 18.0651
BadHarvest 9.0022
Empire 8.9844
RavensEnd 8.9600
KingOfTheGiants 8.1039
Blight 8.0798
Titans 6.1930
Convoy 3.9597
SlaveMaster 3.5615
NightmaresEnd 3.0911
Crusade 3.0114
Sunbridge 2.6276
NightmareShard 2.4569
PvECommunity2P 1.7619
PvECommunity4P 1.4420

 

Campaign maps - Advanced

 

name used_percentage
PassageToDarkness 29.5522
KingOfTheGiants 13.5343
Empire 11.8093
Ascension 11.1253
RavensEnd 11.1189
TheGunsOfLyr 11.1071
BadHarvest 10.1430
Titans 9.9856
Blight 9.8344
PvECommunity4P 7.2848
TheDwarvenRiddle 6.2045
Convoy 5.5627
Sunbridge 4.7130
Crusade 4.5852
NightmaresEnd 4.3546
SlaveMaster 3.9979
NightmareShard 3.2905
TheInsaneGod 3.0109
PvECommunity2P 2.5000

 

Campaign maps - Expert

 

name used_percentage
BadHarvest 90.4072
PassageToDarkness 58.4894
TheGunsOfLyr 47.9506
TheDwarvenRiddle 26.1229
Empire 19.4461
KingOfTheGiants 18.3970
Ascension 16.4360
RavensEnd 13.3122
SlaveMaster 12.5455
TheInsaneGod 11.2327
Convoy 10.4208
Titans 7.6923
Sunbridge 7.1506
NightmaresEnd 6.8105
PvECommunity4P 6.6830
Crusade 5.1586
Blight 4.6988
PvECommunity2P 2.0384
NightmareShard 1.7138

 

Random maps - Level 9

 

name used_percentage
rPvEFourPlayers 30.1400
rPvETwoPlayers 6.8872

 

Random maps - Level 10

name used_percentage
rPvEFourPlayers 10.8617
rPvETwoPlayers 1.2810
Volin and Ponni like this
Link to post
Share on other sites

For last FOUR games played on BH exp last 2 days I had TWO games with "Whoops - guys - its not speed? But i have feed deck only". While the second time game creator had deck named "ITS NOT RUN". Decomposer problem or not - its terrible how the first (unlocked to new players) big map advertises the game.
 

Quote

BadHarvest 91.7773

so 1 for every 12 games is normal...

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

For last FOUR games played on BH exp last 2 days I had TWO games with "Whoops - guys - its not speed? But i have feed deck only". While the second time game creator had deck named "ITS NOT RUN". Decomposer problem or not - its terrible how the first (unlocked to new players) big map advertises the game.
 

so 1 for every 12 games is normal...

Yes, quite normal with the fact that figure represents, a quick way for people to generate gold. If this map would not have been a gold farming map, how much would it really have been played? Most players would have turned to the next map which generates gold the fastest and easiest, until gold is no issue any longer. In the end I think it would have been equally difficult to find people to play this map even if Decomposer were to be "fixed".

// Ponni  

Edited by Ponni
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Draconnor said:

...so lets give everyone infinite gold... its far better option than that.

BH is one of most fun 4 player maps that many likes to play just for fun... because that is what are games for :P

who is stopping you from playing it?

There is a guy called Fimion, who is always playing a non speedrun version of it, join him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

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. Terms of Use