Banner Balance:
- Its needed so that clans can play together. Strat is not a valid alternative for everybody as it requires far more effort than a lot of players can manage. just look at how many clans don't play strat at all.
- It does not need to be so high. I think its capped at 40% of your teams levels atm and that is just too much. 30% or even 25% would be much better and leave more room for multiple clans on each team.
I think a fixed percentage is too unflexible. If there is only one clan with several players on, the banner balance should be 0%. In any other case the smallest group of clan players decides. The "team balance value" for clan groups should be exponential, and if it already is, the value growth has to be raised. Five clan players can very well equal twelve random players. You want to play together? Fine. But single players also have a right on fun. So deal with a huge crowd as enemies if you think you need teamspeak to beat a few pubs.
Multipliers:
- Are needed to focus the team on an objective. Conquest mode is merely changing the objective, it doesn't give any incentive to go for the objective on its own
- However there are better systems that need investigating and testing in cRPG so that the best can be picked for M:BG
- Personally I would like to test multipliers only effecting XP gain with gold a static time based gain (and possibly a smaller win bonus)
- Another alternatice would be to cap the multiplier at x2 but double the base gain. The average multiplier would go up slightly whilst the max multiplier would decrease
1st: Conquest mode is merely changing the objective and doesn't give any incentive to go for the objective? What the heck? How can you state something like that without even bothering to explain it? Because, you know, the invention of the car did not raise the mobility of the people. World war 2 never happened. I can fly.
2nd: which are the better system? I'd like to hear it, because I could not think of any.
3rd: Sounds okay, but honestly the whole multiplier and upkeep system has to go.
4th: Multiplier has to go. Definitely. For good.
Valour:
- Is a massive pile of crap. It rewards the best players by allowing them to use more expensive gear on average thereby increasing the gap between them and everybody else even further.
- Valour should at least be changed to effect XP only or even better it should be removed. Good players do not need a reward.
Agreed.
Looms:
- Are nice but i'm glad M:BG will be using a trade off system rather than the current improvement system.
- Would be interesting to test such a system in cRPG. We already have 6+ extra versions of every weapon so why not turn that into a simple speed vs damage trade off system
The trade off system would require the double amount of looms, as you would have two directions to go, either the "raise speed" or "raise dmg" direction. And for every additional trade off pair added you have six more weapons added. So I doubt they will implement it, although I basically agree. P.S.: You probably broke the rules of NDA with your loom statement
Upkeep:
- needs changing as it encourages leeching too much. People want to make money so use peasant gear but why even bother fighting if you are stuck with peasant gear.
- the simple change would be to reduce upkeep on all items by ~250 gold. Then low tier and some mid tier items become free to use whilst only the higher tier gear has upkeep.
I think a simple reduction won't help much, as it will only raise the people's expectations towards the gear they will be able to afford, and they will leech the same way, just to be able to wear slightly better equipment than before. That fucking, incredibly idiotic upkeep system has simply to go. Replace it with a system where the soft level cap is raised a bit, but you must spend skill points to be able to wear more expensive gear. Either have a good character with poor gear, a character with great gear but poor skills, or a character with decent skills and decent gear. No time limit on your favourite expensive gear, no "losing" something in a game (games ALWAYS work with rewards as motivation, and not with missing punishment
), and no effectivity difference between different characters of the same level but with different gold budgets. And finally the value of some items will REALLY work as a restriction, in difference to now where you need to sell a loom point on the market and be able to wear the most expensive gear for a really long time. The system is so flawed, I could go on for hours about it.
Characters (whilst i'm at it):
- need adjusting to reduce the gap between low and high level players
- starting all chars at 18/18 and then halving all the passive stat gains would work best for me. So an 21/21 char (gaining 21HP) becomes a 36/36 char (gaining 18HP) staying roughly the same. Skills would require 6 attribute points per level not 3 to again re-balance. So 21/21 with 7 points in IF becomes 36/36 with 6 points in IF also staying roughly the same. The main difference is that half the passive attribute gain is present at level 1.
- This also reduces the impact of extreme builds and high level chars on the game slightly. 33/3 with 30HP gained becomes 48/18 with 24HP gained
I never experienced the level cap as a problem. You can get level 20+ quickly, and then you can already contribute something. The whole motivation to level your character up comes from the level differences and the advantages they bring. Reducing it would lower the incentive to work towards a certain goal. For some people, who also enjoy "Counter Strike" like games, this sounds nice. But I think most people here on cRPG prefer a certain extend of grind, and nothing is more motivating than grind with a noticeable purpose. If anything, I would be for a slight increase of the level cap, to something between 33 and 36.
