Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

Epicduel: Longer, smarter, more diverse

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance >> Epicduel: Longer, smarter, more diverse
Page 1 of 3123>
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
9/6/2015 16:33:57   
Therril Oreb
Legendary AdventureGuide!


So, here I am again. I made this thread one time before. The comments were very diverse. But with BioBeasts coming close to release. Bigger plans for EpicDuel become possible.
Some already set in stone, others not. But something everyone is worshiping is the almighty and fickle lord of BALANCE.

However, a glaring issue I personally see is the wall of time.
Most 1v1 battles last 5 rounds, give or take 2. This makes that people pretty much do rock paper scissors and 3/5 wins.
Doesn't have much strategy to it now does it? Every change made so far changes the most used build but does not offer much diversity even if that was what the devs were going for.

Then I see a lot of " Deflection OP" and similar posts complaining about the luck factor in a game (Which will exist forever). And I actually disagree whenever see such posts.
Why? Everyone gets that on him but when it happens, you feel more enraged.
But you see, the problem does not lie with the fact there is deflection,nor that even with no dex or tec, you have a chance to deflect.
The issue is with the impact of this.

If you must win 3/5 in a rock paper scissor contest but you know there is the off chance that you lose, regardless what you picked, you would find that highly unfair.

Now let us say that we make fights 5 times as long. 25 rounds of heated combat. everything counts, energy preservation, stuns, DoT's long term skills.
But while everything has their impact, it is not as bad. Everyone can recover from a deflection at a bad point. Oh you got stunned even if there was only 25% chance? No biggie. it is still early in the fight.
You can heal up, raise your defenses and there you go.

Now, I can hear people say " I don't want 5 times longer battles. I need more wins! I need more EXP! I need more Gold!' and you are right. It would suck if farming took 5 times longer than it already did. Heck, I would dislike that myself.
But think about this.

Longer battles:
  • Rewards could increase per fight as to make fights take longer but also more rewarding.
  • If battles are longer, you could think of more strategies and counter-actions rather than sticking with your build and hope you get lucky.
  • Dev's could implement more and new interesting concepts in the game giving more diversity and fun for everyone (Admit it, you are sick of having 5/10 skills being the same in every class)

    Now, this is an idea of mine as a player. Not as PR assistant. This does not come from the devs. So this is not something that will happen regardless of what is said.
    And guys, please read this thoroughly before saying " I hate this! Cuz reasons I need to come up with"
    I want this game to become as fun as you guys want it to be. So do comment and give your ideas and opinions on this!

    tl;dr:
    Longer fights give everything everyone wanted. More rewards and more diversity.
  • AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 1
    9/6/2015 16:41:20   
    One Winged Angel1357
    Member


    If you are talking longer fights there would have to be a complete overhaul of the energy system and skills because outside of TLM and TM the classes aren't set-up to deal with using energy skills over long fights.

    As for the final comment about shared skills yes something needs to be done about that too and I am all for just starting with making clone skills that function exactly the same but have a different name and animation, like Overload and Plasma Grenade, because that is a step everyone here has brought up as needed to progress balance
    AQ DF AQW Epic  Post #: 2
    9/6/2015 16:43:26   
    Therril Oreb
    Legendary AdventureGuide!


    Oh, I am very aware that if the intention is to make fights longer, a huge overhaul is needed. But if this could be done, room is made for a lot of new possibilities for players and dev's alike. :)
    AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 3
    9/6/2015 16:59:41   
    santonik
    Member

    quote:

    Longer, smarter, more diverse

    IF this happens, IM dancing victory dance. ^^
    Epic  Post #: 4
    9/6/2015 17:08:24   
    .Lord Ginger.
    Member

    Longer doesn't mean more intelligent If I play a 5 focus tech mage, when they battery, I static, then they assimiliate, then I do robot, then they do robot, all with mixing heals and stuff is really predictable. Short battles we're nice, I know I never complained. But longer battles are pretty boring in my opinion. You're playing the same person for a solid 3 minutes, and if luck happens(you're basically dead anyways no matter the turns unless you magically make it up in 15 rounds which in my experience, I get deflected....again.) If they just took away the energy regeneration crap, I'd be fine. Because frankly, a tech mage has the potential to infinite energy.... my average battle against strength is about 8, and against focus is about 20. So 5 is invalid.
    AQW Epic  Post #: 5
    9/6/2015 18:12:30   
    Lord Machaar
    Member

    If we are just going to make fight longer with the current meta, I mean it's already flawed and some players can't stand playing 6 - 8 turns with another player while knowing the result, due to one factor or
    two.
    The "make battles" longer is like "fix the game", sure everything wants that, but not everyone agrees on how to make that happen.

    I would prefer a detailed post on how you are planning to make battles longer, plus, do you think is it the right time? At reset for instance, player base drops down to 140, meaning you won't find a 2vs2
    battle at some level ranges, while struggling to find a 1vs1 one, so by no means I think making battles longer could solve this issue.

    < Message edited by Lord Machaar -- 9/6/2015 18:15:24 >
    MQ Epic  Post #: 6
    9/6/2015 18:21:58   
    Therril Oreb
    Legendary AdventureGuide!


    I never said that longer battles alone would make the fights more advanced. With the current skill set of each class, it would just be 5 times what we do now already.
    But it gives more ground for devs to work on. Skills with no immediate effect like instant damage skills will be more useful since giving a turn to make yourself stronger no longer needs to be ridiculous OP in order to be useful.

    quote:

    But longer battles are pretty boring in my opinion. You're playing the same person for a solid 3 minutes, and if luck happens(you're basically dead anyways no matter the turns unless you magically make it up in 15 rounds which in my experience, I get deflected....again.)

    And this is where I have to disagree Ginger. Luck plays a factor but is no longer debilitating. Having a skill, even an enraged skill deflected/blocked doesn't mean the end anymore.
    Also, with more turns, skills can be more subtle. You would no longer need to invest in only high damage or energy vampire skills. You can take a turn to increase your defenses if you like a more defensive style.
    Because right now, who plays truly with a defensive skill set? I see and hear plenty of people totally ignoring all defensive skills.

    The meta that has been going on for a long time now si this, no matter the build:
    "Deal most damage in 5 turns and you win"

    Because on matter the stats, be it support, strength, dex or tech, people just use what has the highest DPT. Unless there would be defensive skills that completely negate damage for 2 turns (which would be OP), nobody would ever use them.
    Niche cores that have interesting effects are ignored because again, no high DPT.

    (For those who don't know what DPT is. It is Damage Per Turn)

    The idea of longer battles is to give everything released so far a chance while still giving what we have right now still good use.
    Also take in mind that a lot of skills would have a completely different place on the battlefield then since burning your energy down would be very unwise while being too conservative might work against you as well.

    Strategy is more than stalling for time or dealing damage. It is taking your opponent's actions in mind and utilize it to your advantage or at least mitigate the damage.

    And also Ginger
    quote:

    Because frankly, a tech mage has the potential to infinite energy.... my average battle against strength is about 8, and against focus is about 20. So 5 is invalid.


    While this is correct, like OWA said. Every class would have to be revised, edited, and well, some skills might even go away to make room for others. It would certainly give more space for diversity instead of the same attack with a different animation and name for every class.

    EDIT (Machaar, you sneaky):

    There are plenty of ways to lengthen fights. I just don't want this to become a suggestion thread but rather a discussion of how balance would change should longer battles be introduced.
    But if you want a few examples:
    - More HP and energy while the current damage stays.
    - Introduce energy regeneration on top of it so that every class always has energy at its disposal but some might regenerate more than others while trading in damage or something else for it.
    - Have more effects that can counter other skills. A defense buff to mitigate strong hit attacks, buffs to counter debuffs, purifications to remove negative effects.

    And the playerbase is a problem on a whole different level. It has no direct connection to this thread. To think of ways to get a bigger playerbase is something of long term and requires a lot of things.
    But don't you worry, it is something we work on. But again, it is not the topicof this thread.

    < Message edited by Therril Oreb -- 9/6/2015 18:27:18 >
    AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 7
    9/6/2015 19:34:51   
    Silver Sky Magician
    Member


    Changing the average number of turns required to finish a battle would necessitate a complete rework of game balance mechanics. It's not practical and the benefits are dubious. It's a monumental task that would likely limit build diversity and worsen balance. There are bigger issues in the game than luck factors, and if the devs do have time to undertake such a massive balance change it would be better invested elsewhere.

    Most fights at level 40 also take around 10 turns, which is why 5 Focus IA users are so deadly. If the fight ends within five turns, it means that a player has fallen into a glass cannon's trap. I call it a trap because it is usually avoidable if you have sufficient experience.

    < Message edited by Silver Sky Magician -- 9/6/2015 19:43:40 >
    Post #: 8
    9/6/2015 20:10:23   
    Lord Machaar
    Member

    I'm more than sure that the lenght of battles has a direct relation with the player base and PVP battles, just yesterday, I played 2vs2 with a level 9 alt at reset, it took me 5 - 7 minutes, sometimes more to find a battle.
    Now how the lenght of battles can affect the search engine to find you a battle, I think that's simple, the faster 2 players finish a battle (4 players in case of 2vs2), the faster a new one starts.
    Because sometimes, you face same player(s), over and over again, imagine if battles' lenght gets extended, I'm sure 2vs2 will take years to gather 4 players as others are already busy with their 10 minutes battle, since looking at the big picture, we aren't talking about 1vs1 here but 2vs2 too.

    < Message edited by Lord Machaar -- 9/6/2015 20:14:13 >
    MQ Epic  Post #: 9
    9/6/2015 20:48:00   
    Mother1
    Member

    Basically what Silver Sky mentioned is part of the reason many try to avoid long fights. That infernal android with focus 5 makes long battles a liability. It can cut through your defenses like a hot knife through butter especially when combined with rage. Seriously why would people try to make fights longer when someone is using that ticking time bomb? It is literally one of the many enemies of long battles.

    < Message edited by Mother1 -- 9/6/2015 20:53:27 >
    Epic  Post #: 10
    9/7/2015 0:45:15   
    Therril Oreb
    Legendary AdventureGuide!


    @Silver Sky Magician: Could you please elaborate? How would longer battles limited build diversity even more (It really is not that good either now) and worsen balance?
    Yes, I am aware that if this would be done, it would take a lot of work. But considering how things are now, I doubt it could be any better.

    Also, You cannot take level 40 + ranks into account as the sole factor here. Plenty of people who are not level 40 as well. So everyone should be taken into account.

    And what about infernal android?
    quote:

    Deals 85% base damage, increasing by 5% each round in battle (125% cap)

    So after 8 turns, it reached it maximum potential. So that is 1 hit that deals 25% more damage than your average attack. I only see a big deal here if you run what you called the "Glass Canon's trap".
    Go full offensive with no defensive moves? Sure, you might win quick but if you don't, you die very quickly.

    Besides, you guys have seen bigger bombs being put into ED and found ways around it. It is just another game changer where people find new builds to fight supreme.

    We all can agree that ED needs something big changed in order to make the game more fun, otherwise people wouldn't already have given so many ideas to work on balance.
    This is just an idea of myself that I see as an improvement.

    And regarding waiting times and player base. It is very low already. I have done 10 fights in a row where I fought the same guy 5 times. Making those fights longer wouldn't make the difference anymore.
    Ways need to be thought of to achieve a greater player base, be it through a big overhaul that attracts older players or other ways.
    AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 11
    9/7/2015 7:31:53   
    Lord Machaar
    Member

    IA needs a nerf, I use it right now and it is pretty OP, add that +40 damage from ranks, 25% of it which is 10 more damage, that's 50 damage from ranks alone when this bot is being used at round 8 or
    more, 50 Damage from ranks + X damage depending on your Tech x 125% + Rage? sometimes, means a deadly combo. This means any 5 focus build that uses a bot other than IA gets punished.
    But nerfing IA will mean nerfing other 5 focus build who aren't doing so well right now, so that should be taken in consideration as well.
    MQ Epic  Post #: 12
    9/7/2015 7:45:45   
    Therril Oreb
    Legendary AdventureGuide!


    Well, and what if we use an indirect nerf? If damage is too high, increase Health.
    It is one of the multiple ways of increasing battle duration and all skills that boast solely damage output are nerfed indirectly.
    It is hard perhaps to recover form a hard hit from IA in 2 or 3 turns. But if you got more turns to recover from it, things might change.
    AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 13
    9/7/2015 12:15:56   
    Silver Sky Magician
    Member


    @Therril

    Increasing the length of turns taken to finish a battle would all but kill glass cannon builds and builds which have inferior energy regen. This means that DEX BH and the entire Merc class would go extinct. All burst damage skills would become irrelevant. Dex and support builds would be so disadvantaged that the meta would return to just STR and 5 focus tech builds. TLM, BH and TM will dominate, leaving just six viable build types. It would be a disaster.

    Even if game balance was completely overhauled with the assumption of a 25-turn battle while leaving build diversity somehow intact, players would leave in droves due to the boredom of such long battles and long waiting times, as Machaar has pointed out. Just as importantly, the devs don't have time for such a revamp. We're looking at a year's worth of work for the initial revamp and a year's more to fix all the issues that will pop up. Three years, probably, before balance and diversity return to an acceptable state, and by that time the game will really be dead. I'd really rather such resources be poured into an ED Unity 2.0 instead.

    Luck factors are no longer a significant balance problem, and three years isn't worth it to fix a non-issue. More importantly, increasing battle duration isn't going to incentivise more strategizing. You're just going to have a loop of predictable actions until enough health is whittled down, like in AQ. IMO, these are the balance issues that the devs have to focus on now:

    1. Fix Merc's energy drain. This class is completely uncompetitive at the moment.
    2. Nerf IA. This bot is reducing build diversity and affecting balance. IMO it should just be turned into a Gamma Bot copy - balance and diversity concerns trump any rare collectors.
    3. Introduce a custom Underdog for 2v2 and Juggernaut
    4. Introduce more skill cores with the explicit goal of addressing balance and diversity issues. This is currently not practical due to time constraints, but is necessary in the long term. An interesting option is to have class-specific skill cores to address class-specific issues.

    If the devs are to make ED 2.0, my suggestion is to centre balance around the goal of maximising build diversity. Once this is achieved, I propose that we halve the cost of class changes to keep the game interesting and dynamic. This is currently unwise as it will reduce build diversity by encouraging hopping to the strongest classes-of-the-day, but satisfactory build diversity means that there's no clearly superior class or build, so halving costs would be feasible in that scenario.


    < Message edited by Silver Sky Magician -- 9/7/2015 12:23:24 >
    Post #: 14
    9/7/2015 12:28:46   
    Therril Oreb
    Legendary AdventureGuide!


    his I find a very interesting point:
    quote:

    Even if game balance was completely overhauled with the assumption of a 25-turn battle while leaving build diversity somehow intact, players would leave in droves due to the boredom of such long battles and long waiting times, as Machaar has pointed out. Just as importantly, the devs don't have time for such a revamp. We're looking at least a year's worth of work for the initial revamp and a year's more to fix all the issues that will pop up. Three years, probably, before balance and diversity return to an acceptable state, and by that time the game will really be dead. I'd really rather such resources be poured into an ED Unity 2.0 instead.

    And you are right. The overhaul needed for ED might as well be better used in an ED 2.0 unity engine.
    But if that would happen, the groundworks better be laid out well and if that would mean longer battles, I would be all in for it.

    Also, I wouldn't shoot down offensive builds just yet. As I said, for this to work, classes need a whole change. Meaning that TM would still have superior energy regeneration but would lose on other factors in turn (making it a better late game class).
    While for example Bounty Hunter could be more offensive but lose on defensive options compared to other classes.

    The idea behind longer battles is not to just give more HP and energy and be done with it. It is a mix of this and with what you suggested SSM.
    Rather that the idea behind it is that it allows for more options to work with.

    Just look at a game like heartstone (let's not discuss the balance of it, it is a mere example). Both aggressive and long term play is viable.
    I can see the same for EpicDuel. That is my view on this at least.
    AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 15
    9/7/2015 12:41:02   
    Silver Sky Magician
    Member


    ^

    I feel that longer battles shouldn't be a goal in and of itself. Furthermore, given their inherent drawbacks (longer waiting time), we have to ask if this is truly the best or even a good balance foundation to encourage build diversity and strategy. AQ has done a spectacular job of using longer battles as a balance foundation to increase the diversity of items used, build diversity and overall game balance. But the trade-off is even more repetitive battles that not only require little strategy, but permit limited deviation from the optimal course of action (sit in an armour and strike). And IMO most releases are just not particularly fun as a result - if not for the intriguing storytelling and occasional interesting boss, I would have quit AQ entirely. If I could skip gameplay altogether to get to cutscenes and bosses, I would do so.

    AQ is much easier to balance than ED, and this is the best their devs can do, even though they have many more balance experts than we do. So I'm really uncomfortable with this suggestion. We also have to ask if there is more strategy needed in playing one 25-turn battle, or in playing two 12-turn battles, even three 8-turn battles.

    I can see where you're coming from, though. If every duel in ED was like a CEB fight in AQ, I'd be hooked. But I simply don't think that's likely to happen. It's too difficult to implement, even as part of ED 2.0, and there are superior and simpler alternatives to rebuilding balance.

    < Message edited by Silver Sky Magician -- 9/7/2015 13:14:58 >
    Post #: 16
    9/7/2015 21:52:07   
      Exploding Penguin
    Moderator


    I think that it's mandatory for battles to start giving out extra credits and exp and stuff after a certain base turn (turn 5 for example, or something).

    Also as a note is to fix the darned matchmaking system. Once you do that you can actually see what's balanced and imbalanced. There's basically no playerbase to test any sort of balance sine barely any players who fight in PvP are actually pitted against someone of the same level and rank. Basically, fix the ranking system
    Epic  Post #: 17
    9/7/2015 22:28:58   
    Mother1
    Member

    @ Exploding Penguin

    and that is the true problem. As you said we have no player base because there is no back up system for said problem "fixing the matchmaking system" the way most suggest would only isolate players even more.

    So you are stuck with either

    A) a flawed matchmaking system but you can get matches

    Or

    B) a good matchmaking system but you have trouble getting matches due to the lack of player base to support said change.
    Epic  Post #: 18
    9/7/2015 22:37:36   
    .Lord Ginger.
    Member

    Battles that are long, are boring, because the same thing basically happens over and over and over and over and flipping over again. This is why it gets extremely freaking boring. Where you think it's strategy it's all about energy manipulation which is basically full of frost shards, healing and energy drains/buffs. It wouldn't increase diversity, it would encourage more tank builds because of the reduced damage over time.

    You guys complain about diversity and don't look at the problem with builds, there's only a few viable per each class, and you know what? Its either 5 Focus, strength or support, no 3 focus tank, or 4 focus tank. It's one of those

    You guys complain about diversity and forget the fact that passives made builds, they made classes unique. In the responses you talk about wanting BH with the advantage at the beginning and TM near the end. Do you know how reroute and bloodlust worked? Bloodlust was better for quick finishing builds, while reroute was basically the extra heal near the end once your opponent hit you.

    You guys complain about diversity and think that having longer battles is the key to the locked door. It's the wrong key. It's about making certain skills good. Make skills equally important as the other... So there will be some real tactics included. Are you kidding me?

    You guys complain about diversity and yet all of the strength builds, sup builds, focus builds have been running since all this passive-> active garbage and you guys have basically nerfed everything, so that they all still work because they've all been nerfef before.

    You guys complain about diversity and forget that CH used to have a +12(+11 once nerfed) plasma armor. Merc had hybrid, TLM had Mineral, These we're ideal for tank builds. Hell, they even worked as STRENGTH builds too, how convenient.

    You guys complain about diversity and forget that OP builds are only OP because someone isn't smart enough to find a counter, but the devs listen to it. There is so much ridiculous complaining that it doesn't even matter anymore.


    YES, deflections can ruin a battle. Someone deflects your rage Infernal Android and I want to see you win against a good player, because you won't.

    You give people more turns to make up a deflection by getting their own deflection basically. And if it doesn't work, the extra 20 turns are wasted

    Why would you guys want longer battles?
    I know personally, that I didn't complain about facing fast rounds.
    Why would my opponent want to face a person for 50 rounds that they know they are going to lose to? It's basically just wasting time. Longer battles lead to wasting time if there is now way to win the battle.

    You think that granting more experience is "fun" I think that playing different people with different builds is fun. But ow with like 200 players, I get the same person a million times and it's not really fun....

    If you honestly think that having 25 rounds is "heated combat" then you're mistaken full of DOT's and crap.... yea the only class that does that is TLM and Maybe CH, and frankly, most TLM's are support, which is kind of funny.

    Energy Vampire skills: People would DEFINETELY MAX these skills, you know why???
    Let's compare BH static grenade....
    Let's say you have someone who drains 330 energy every time they use it, and someone with the same build has it drain on 7, but yet they have a different skill(let's say smoke on 4).Well hooray for them. After 1 use of static, they drained 30 less energy, 2 rounds 60, 3 rounds 90. In a 25 turn battle, they use energy vampire skills ATLEAST 4 times. The only way to make up that 120 energy difference is basically a deflection or a critical that basically can overdo a field medic.


    Longer battlesmore strategy??!??! WHAT? Is that some kind of joke?

    This is how a normal PVP battle goes. and yea, it gets BORING and PREDICTABLE because I have atleast 25k wins in this new Omega phase. so most people are extremely predictable.

    My normal PVP battle: Robot, Robot, Aux, Aux, shards, shards, rage, heal, gun, rage, heal, REPEAT without shards(sidearm instead)
    I mean come on, battles are so freaking predictable.... and it's not even fun anymore.

    You guys want LONGER battles? Do you want to see my first battle of Power Hour?!
    Let's 5X this battle, oh BOY

    Short battle?!
    AQW Epic  Post #: 19
    9/7/2015 22:43:09   
    Lord Machaar
    Member

    quote:

    I think that it's mandatory for battles to start giving out extra credits and exp and stuff after a certain base turn (turn 5 for example, or something).


    I like this suggestion, I mean why you receive extra credits and experience from 2vs2 battles.

    @Therril:
    Well, by simply adding more HP would only make it more difficult for other bots.

    Making fights longer would also mean the heavier the advantage from levels/ranks difference will become, sure luck will have less impact, but for instance if 2 players with 60 ranks in difference meet, and
    if the battle reaches a duration of 30 turns, the player with more 60 ranks will receive 900 - 600 less damage, and will deal 1200 / 900 more damage. Atleast in shorter fights, ranks do not have this huge
    impact, in 10 - 15 turns, you can recover from that impact, but when it gets longer and longer, you will clearly see its huge impact.
    MQ Epic  Post #: 20
    9/7/2015 23:02:50   
    .Lord Ginger.
    Member

    EDIT: Ranks should give an advantage, longer battles would show ranks more. Still against longer battles though.

    Right, like my static grenade example

    < Message edited by .Lord Ginger. -- 9/7/2015 23:22:59 >
    AQW Epic  Post #: 21
    9/8/2015 0:26:19   
    Therril Oreb
    Legendary AdventureGuide!


    The issue I see people bring up right now is that the current skills/cores/bots would certainly not improve with having longer battles.
    And you guys are right. But that is because everything is set to the current battle system. Longer battles are not merely achieved with more health alone. That would just drag things out.

    Let's sum up what we have that can give additional skills right now:
    12 skills from your class (Does not mean you use them all)
    Aux
    Gun
    Bot
    Weapon
    Armor

    That would mean a total of 17 skills one could achieve at max if I am correct. This could give quite the possibilities once everything has been redone.

    To recap of what I have said:
  • The battle system would need an entire rework. Might even be better if this would be something for a possible EpicDuel 2.0
  • Health alone would not achieve this.
  • Classes can and should be more different from each other.
  • Player base is an issue, no matter what. More players would be needed in order to have a good matchmaking system. But that is a topic for elsewhere.
  • Long does not mean tedious or boring. Just that you need to think long term instead of only 1 turn ahead.

  • AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 22
    9/8/2015 3:35:01   
    Xendran
    Member

    As great as promises and ideas are, ideas themselves are cheap. What the players need first is to see that there is someone on the ED team actually capable of actually bringing these ideas together in a streamlined, easily expanded upon, cohesive, and enjoyable combat system with elegance and depth.

    Longer fights ARE necessary though. Also, longer fights and more diverse skill trees would also allow you to hide skill trees.
    The reason you can't hide skill trees now is because you need to know what build your opponent is playing since you're going to die in a minute and a half anyway.
    If you actually have 2 - 4 turns of seeing how they're playing, you can figure out their build before they pull out their big combos and play around potential plays.

    The revamp this would require to actually be good enough to draw in new players would also require more skills on each class, as WELL as removing all overlap, and even then you'd struggle unless new classes were also added.
    Defence and Resistance system has to be completely redone, so every damage number in the game also has to be redone.
    Damage and effects on skills have to get a mana standard to help balance skills to a standard.
    Skill Cores should be released frequently and with very diverse effects and true synergies with each other, enough of them that your core loadout is just important in making your build unique as your stat distribution and skill layout.
    Weapons also need to become unique again.

    You can see what i mean when i say all of those ideas are "cheap". They're easy things to think up, claim to want to do, say are good ideas etc.
    Actually implementing those ideas well, that's something that the ED playerbase will never trust the current developers with which means they won't be as likely to spread the word about the "New ED".

    I'm also concerned that these specific issues are being put toward the community, because this game is way past "what do the most vocal forum users want". The fact that it's being posted in threads like this make me concerned that the Developers do not realize that it's not about what your most vocal forum members want on a forum this miniscule, it's about what makes sense, what has worked in the past and present for other games (especially turn based games like Hearthstone).

    Needing to increase the length of matches? That's just a fact of life that needs to happen for ED to actually survive and appeal to people who want actual strategy in their fights. Some things, you just have to ignore everyone that's complaining and just fix. Good example being the 10x HP/Damage/Mana update that fixed the rounding issues.

    So then I ask: Who among the ED staff is capable of streamlined mechanical design and balance? There is nobody on the team qualified for it as of yet that we know about.
    We know that neither Titan, Nightwraith, Rabblefroth nor Charfade can head this up. All of them are specialized in other fields, and the game has shown over the years that they simply cannot take the time to re-specialize into mechanical design and balance.
    This means they need to not only spend time and resources on pushing this update, but even more resources hiring another body for it as well. Are we really confident that this level of resources is going to be spent on a dying flash game from pre-2010?

    Seems like an unwinnable situation here. The amount of money they would have to spend on a product that has relied on whales in an attempt to re-popularize it while remaining on a dying platform is likely more than would be allowed to be allocated to the ED dev studio.
    Remaking the game in Unity is a potential, but they then have to figure out how to handle existing accounts and inventories. This has an even higher cost than the previous option, although it is the best option.
    Not hiring and attempting to revamp the game with the current team will simply not have drastic enough changes to do anything but cause ED to hemorrhage money from it, which encourages them to continue their microtransaction style in the way that they have.

    Then comes the issue of communication. There's no way any of the players would feel confident with such large scale behind the scenes balance changes unless Development Manifestos (akin to how Path of Exile does it) were posted, because we simply do not trust 2 programmers and 2 artists with their time already being spent on other important tasks to be able to also handle the job of a dedicated mechanical designer and balancer. Their minds are in general not going to immediately be going to balance when they get home at night and start thinking about their project again, so they aren't going to have many unique ideas or epiphanies about balance or combat when their mind immediately goes to something programming or art related.

    Also, nobody can blame them for their mind going there, that's what they specialize in which is exactly why they should stick to it and not spread themselves thin.
    The unfortunate part, though, is the developers do not seem to realize this fact.
    Knowing what you don't know is an important part of ensuring that you bring any product to its highest potential quality.
    The current devs don't know how to balance. That's fine, they don't need to, they are already talented and specialized in their own fields. What's not fine, however, is not accepting the fact that design is not for everyone and that you can still have it be YOUR game even if someone else is in control of the finer details of the combat.

    The hole they've dug themselves is deep, and escaping it is a very expensive feat.
    If they manage to do it, and do it properly, I will be very impressed and likely give this game another shot.
    Like thousands of others that came before and after me though, here's the ultimatum: Hearthstone is free to try, turn based, not laggy, and also on mobile. Convince me that my time and money should go towards this turn based game as well, and not just Hearthstone.
    You can't compete with the visuals or polish because of your engine alone (not even considering the size of Blizzard), so if you don't remake ED in unity then focusing in very strategic combat is the way to go.

    Remember what the original age group was for this game?
    Sure, we don't have to bring the art and story content back up to that level now that it's been lowered to a more age 12+ area, but think about the age group that:

    1. Would benefit most from a mobile port
    2. Often has 10-30 to minutes to kill in the morning and evening (and would probably rather spend it on 2 - 4 interesting battles with "LOL DID THAT REALLY JUST HAPPEN" moments, rather than playing 5 battles in 5 minutes and getting bored for the rest of the bus ride)
    3. Would prefer more strategic gameplay
    4. Is the largest
    5. Has their own money

    Don't want to alienate more casual or younger players who don't necessarily want strategy? Separate casual and ranked play. Eventually they will simply become good enough to switch over to ranked, and become better at prediction, logic, and problem solving as a whole as well, encouraging more well-thought out discussion and theorycrafting on the forums.


    < Message edited by Xendran -- 9/8/2015 4:33:22 >
    AQ DF Epic  Post #: 23
    9/8/2015 10:16:06   
    Satafou
    Member

    +1 Xend, although we both know that the devs wouldn't even consider doing the most logical or effective way as it requires them too much effort to even recruit testers who play the game and have a high win ratio lol
    Post #: 24
    9/9/2015 6:31:21   
    shadow.bane
    Member

    ED os already boring and un-playable ! don't give suggestions that might make it worst ! i support on 10 - 20 rounds but not more !!! it would be a laughing stock , so no point !
    AQW Epic  Post #: 25
    Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance >> Epicduel: Longer, smarter, more diverse
    Page 1 of 3123>
    Jump to:



    Advertisement




    Icon Legend
    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts




    Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

    "AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
    and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
    PRIVACY POLICY


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition