Wolfreich wrote: »
@RyleeGrace I don't understnad your comment, you seems to argue against both a hard and a soft wall, what do you want?
UofMBish wrote: »
If we are looking to balance MK with a counter rather than a nerf, wouldn't buffing dwarves be an obvious choice? I find them to be fairly worthless in both PVP and PVE, which is a shame as there is opportunity for some effective synergies with that team.
Ensure that SKL matters in healing and buff bonuses, and affects the resistance of debuffs/status effects in an attacker SKL vs. defender SKL ratio. E.g. that SKL helps apply/resist debuffs.
FatCat69 wrote: »
@RyleeGrace The idea of the hard wall in this sense wouldn't be to stop people from playing once they get to a specific point, but rather to stop lower level people from wading into the deep end.
Someone who is level 55 is never going to make it all the way to Legend I, no matter how dedicated they are, because they're going to be stopped in their tracks by heavily runed level 70s with much larger rosters/arsenals once they wade into the deeper waters. Not only will they not be able to win much, if anything, but they're going to be a big old target and attacked more heavily than others in their bracket because, "hey! Guaranteed win!"
Right now we have a soft wall. People play until they're overmatched and things become ludicrous and then the others pound them back down to a lower league. Right now, people will put up a one man defense, put down the game and walk away for a while because they are allow to go farther than they should. They are essentially being discouraged from play by that soft wall.
If there was a hard wall that prevented people under 60 from wading into the free-for-all and just kept them in the lower tiers, they might still be able to play regularly and continue to do their quests and earn honor.
What you're asking for with "no walls" would theoretically be possible with the following setup:
1. Matchmaking would need to be changed to use a pool of candidates from a range of levels rather than based on current league/tier status.
2. With six leagues, let's say that at Recruit, you're being matched up with people at your level and five below. At Brawler, matches would be for four levels below and up to one above. At Champion, three below and two above. All the way to Legend where you're only being matched up with players that are your level or higher, up to five levels higher than yourself.
3. Finally, runes and rewards would be nerfed to provide lower powered runes and lesser payout for lower level players. (Basically, its great that you want to put in the time and do a ton of PVP but if we are going to make your matchups easier, there's no way a low level player deserves a five star Greater Champion rune for getting to Legend I.)
Lots of options. Just depends on what they want to build. I do like the idea of having a separation between laddered and non laddered play. That would allow everyone to compete for the same prizes in the same environment but yet still have easier PVP available once you do hit the soft wall of Level 70s and still need to do your quests.
Skip_Holmes wrote: »
The goals you list and overarching direction you describe are not new. They are mostly sensible targets that I'm sure have been in place for the history of this game and virtually every other game of similar style. Balance, diversity, cost benefit. But why are we to believe that you will now start addressing those issues, when very, very recent history shows us the opposite.
Examples: attack stacking is not a new problem, yet you release Koros and exacerbate it even more. Diversity in the PvP meta is not a new problem, but you continue to trot out "game breaker" heroes that end up being used by virtually everyone in PvP. Rune strength is not a new problem, yet you make all the best rewards (leagues, top 100, winterfest, etc) ever more powerful with increasingly stacked stats. You've continually chosen to work against the very goals you profess to have
Skip_Holmes wrote: »
Either you are telling us what we want to hear but don't intend to honor those plans, or else something very recently has changed your mind on the overall direction (since, as outlined above, even up to recent weeks you have continued to exacerbate the very problems you tell us you are working to fix).
Given the lip service we've gotten in the past, why should we think that this time is different and we really will see these changes in direction? Has revenue dropped to the point that you're more willing to listen to us? Has development team personnel changed recently and led to a general change in vision?
Eej wrote: »
The only way we move forward is demonstrate via action - and while there have been misses, I'd like to think that the recent pattern demonstrates better attention to feedback and that the community has stronger influence.
Wolfreich wrote: »
@MattCauthron I wholeheartedly agree. I have to admit i haven't seen nearly all of those but on my count about 21.5% of heroes were represented well in PVP. Guess this comes down to where in the brackets you fall.
MattCauthron wrote: »
I'm really curious where your 90% of heroes numbers comes from?
I would also challenge you to list a meta where more heroes were used than the one we currently have.
© 2015 Big Fish Games. Inc., Big Fish, the Big Fish logo, and Dungeon Boss are trademarks of Big Fish Games, Inc., used with permission www.bigfishgames.com