Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Factions Live! Feedback - (Your experience and thoughts on Basic Units)

  1. #21
    After playing the game in Beta and loving it, I then playing the final release I was very disappointed. In addition to having no choice over my starting units and being forced specific character upgrades as part of the tutorial, the game is dripping with the feel of "Pay 2 Win". I didn't expect Factions to be the kind of game that requires constant grinding or cash to enjoy, and it seems that even the simplest of joys such as renaming your characters require renown. Since the rate of renown acquisition is so slow, and the market place is heavily promoting sales to encourage people to spend every time I see renown all I see is a dollar sign between me and a game that I used to enjoy playing with my friends.

    Which is another point of contention in that by playing with friends instead of strangers we cannot earn any renown. I understand that it would be easy to potentially abuse this by throwing games for your friends, but unless I pay or grind my way to the particular style of army I want I won't be able to enjoy playing the game with my friends.

    To be honest, I will probably un-install Factions and just wait for the single player game. I can see there has been a lot of love and quality put into this game, I just think it needs some rebalancing in how renown is dished out to encourage people who don't have several hours every day to dedicate to grinding away. I'd rather play something else.

  2. #22
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Hi arteris, thanks for giving your feedback, it's really great people are speaking up, because if they didn't, any potential problems could never be looked into and addressed.

    I'm glad you enjoyed the beta, and do note, the marketplace was one of the last features put into the game, and that received the least amount of time to give feedback on. Even with the game live, it's something still in flux as stoic figures out what will be the fairest but most economical way to work it out.

    I can say, for them, that their intention for the marketplace and the renown system, is NOT at all to milk players or require them to pay to win. They would like the players to be able to enjoy the game, as is, even without having to pay, and are putting in the utmost effort to figure out how to do that, but to also be able to support Factions on it's own, and generate additional income to feed into the single player, The Saga.

    Please remember, Factions is being provided to us for free, and even if the game is just a portion split off from the single player, it still requires servers, hosting, maintenance, and other costs which can add up, which still need to be covered.

    Again, the first priority still, for stoic, is for the players to have fun. The economics behind is for them to figure out and not for the player to be concerned about.

    Having said all of that, how exactly do you feel that the game now requires a lot of grinding to enjoy? It's definitely something being discussed, and it would be good to know what is making you and others feel that way. When the projections were made for player progress and promoting units, what came out was that it would only take you a week or 2 to promote all the units given to you.

    1-2 weeks and your playing with a team with full options...so to speak. What's left for you after that is hiring, promoting, and experimenting with other units.

    Renown is earned at about 15 renown per hour, on ave. Do you feel that is too slow for the cost of things at the moment?

  3. #23
    Hi Raven. First I just want to say I didn't mean to imply that it was their intention to milk players, rather that as someone loading the game up and looking at the marketplace for the first time it resonated with me as the kind of game where paying has a distinct advantage in progress. First impressions count for a lot, and both me and my friend who have been playing it in the Beta were super excited to try out the near-finished product and after loading the game and seeing our limited initial options and the marketplace, decided to play something else instead.

    Factions is being provided for free, true. And I can see it being a very useful tool both to help perfect the combat system and help generate revenue to maintain itself and I'm sure some proceeds will help develop the full game itself. But if the first priority of Stoic is to make the game fun, then here are a few of the things that killed our joy as soon as we loaded up:

    - Being unable to rename your characters without spending cash or time.
    - Not being able to choose or customize your initial party in any way, including during the tutorial steps when you're forced to choose specific promotions.
    - Related to the above, all the players having the exact same units at start.
    - Not being able to earn any renown by playing with your friends.

    As a suggestion, perhaps you could have an option for a beginning and an advanced introduction, where beginners start with a set party and in the advanced players are allowed to choose their own units from an initial pool of renown points, but will end the introduction with the same final number of renown points as beginners?

    One of the problems with the sense of grinding for me is a lack of connection to my team. Not being able to name them or customize them in any way in the beginning, I have no personal connection to the units and no vested interested in their success or well being. Asking for about 1-2 weeks worth of time to invest in something I have no immediate connection with is a lot to ask I feel.

    I had a chance to play one versus round while I was waiting for my friend to join me, and I earned 10 renown for my one battle. That works as an average of five battles to promote each unit which to me seems high as it will require at least 25 battles to get the whole team up. If the average is 15 renown per hour, and 30 renown costs $2 (normally) that's like getting paid $1/hr to play the game. Obviously you're not actually getting paid, but with a dollar price on renown, and renown being the life blood of the game it's hard not to make the comparison while you're playing.

    If Banner Saga: Factions was the only game I had, that would probably be less of an issue. But you're competing with a large market for the player's attention and players tend to gravitate towards games that feel rewarding with their limited time. Knowing that it will take me two weeks to get my team to where I would like them to be is even less motivating of a factor for me to pick the game up.

    Maybe I'm just spoiled for choice, or maybe I was spoiled by the all-access nature of the beta to the units. What I wanted most out of Factions was a fun tactical game to play against my friends more than against strangers online. And it is a fun tactical game, but me and my friends can't play against each other the way we would like without first having to invest time or money into it. Since friend matches do not earn renown perhaps you could allow for "Mercenary" units that would be stock units you couldn't customize but could use for friends-only battles free of charge? It would also allow players to try out different units before choosing to spend their renown and regretting their decision.

    I'm sorry if this is a bit rambling and disjointed, I'm sure there are people who will disagree with my views. It's late and I really should have gone to bed but I knew if I didn't reply tonight I probably wouldn't have been able to reply until late next week and that would've been too late to provide feedback.

    I do want you to know I hold the quality of the game itself from the combat, the artwork, the sound and everything else to the highest of respect. It's because of this affection for the game I was playing, that I am saddened by the game I now have.

  4. #24
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    That's a really detailed post asteris, and the suggestions also help. Thank you for taking the time to post all that. I and I'm sure Stoic also, will appreciate it.

    I'll bring this forward to them and I'm sure it'll be food for thought. Your point on having units for friend matches is quite good also.

    To respond to some things . I do think it's a drastic change to come from beta with everything, and then come into the live only with the basic units and no way to distribute points. We're discussing this actually: The points on basic units. But, also remember that when new players come into the game, they have no idea how the stats work and what stats are good.

    A suggestion on this has been made where maybe, we can give basic units the ability to distribute stats, but be sure their initial stats are "ok". Then later on, players can play around with it as they like. (Still, this doesn't prevent a player from potentially screwing himself over, and then blaming the game...it's a delicate thing to figure out.)

    In relation to this, with the current unit roster, if we gave player's a choice beyond the basic units, in the end I think we won't be able to avoid people avoiding basic units as a component of the game. I mean if rank 1 is "where it's at" why bother playing with basics, just save up, buy a veteran, promote it, and go rank 1 straight. Playing with a basic is more the long route only when the renown isn't available for the +40 renown in cost.

    Of course, I think the solution to this isn't to restrict players, but to make basic units more compelling.

    Giving player's access to a lot of advanced units, even with the limits on renown pool, also kill some progression. I mean you could try out an advanced team (maybe not all are advanced), and get bored with it after a while after thinking: "well it's cool and all, but there's nowhere to go after this."

    I can also understand your concerns about taking 2 weeks to get where you want your team to be. But then let's say we do make that much easier (side note: what would feel right to you? that's a good point of feedback too ) and made it 5 days or even 1 week to get your team where you want it to be.

    What's there after that? Having a long enough period to invest in to get where you want to be, is also as important as making sure it's not too short, or you're "done" with the game too soon (even from a perspective of fun and player experience).

    On the friend matches, I also thought only having renown awarded for the first win in friend mode was a bit strange. I just want to explain why the team went in this direction

    1. This is to encourage players not to isolate themselves in friend matches only, but to also venture into the regular matchmaking, and promote a more unified and larger community
    2. To avoid players farming each other or accounts for renown (which is somewhat an irregular behavior but some will tend to do this

    Still, I think this can be maybe modified so maybe your first match of the day (per day/everdyay per person) gives you 5 renown or even more. But succeeding matches only give you 1-2 renown

    Last thing I'll respond to is the $1 - game time conversion. How do you feel about that exactly? Should it cost more or less? The renown from the marketplace, the way I look at it isn't pay to win, it's a pay to speed up what I can do/have. The problem of facing teams of mismatched power levels is the culprit at the moment actually, and based on the observations stoic has been making, the matches are mostly close, but when they aren't close...it's Bad. So the issue is with matchmaking. Nothing in the marketplace will affect a player who has been playing about 2 weeks casually.

    This is a significant difference to many (bad examples of) free-to-play games, and 2 weeks compared to many other games that have their own stores, is very much less than the grinding in those games.

    To summarize though:
    1. I'll bring the point on the names costing renown to the team. I think that's a good point you made. Customization is important and could be free/cheaper. They can explore MORE customization like titles, as a source of using renown (which makes more sense)
    2. How having more units available for friend matches, is also something that needs to be considered
    3. Some regular renown for friend matches
    Last edited by raven2134; 02-21-2013 at 03:35 AM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Jorgensager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    115
    Since negative feedback is what tends to surface, I want to give my experience of this as well ~ largely the opposite view.

    I can see how it must have been a big step to go from playing with a level 1 team for quite a while to basic units. From a new player's perspective I've found it to be a good thing not to have too many abilities to worry about in the start. It's a complex game and takes some time to get used to. The same goes for the lack of choice of units. My guess is that a lot of players would naturally tend to choose the units with the highest strength when they don't know the value of armour, willpower etc. and pick an unbalanced team.

    Forcing us to play with all basic types allows us to find what we like, and beware of strengths in units we wouldn't normally choose (example: stereotype of mainstream player who would choose 2 warriors and 4 raiders (to get the point across) may discover that puncture isn't a bad idea to have on their side of the team... and not in the hard way). It also means we get to play with all countering options in all our first games, which I've found useful.

    With the previous (1.5.70) renown costs [i.e. including 4 for stat point allocation] I seemed to get around one level upgrade per day. From the beta tester's point of view this probably translates to frustration over being unable to play with the units they want to play with, because they know the team they want, but for me it has given me sufficient time to familiarise myself with the upgrade choice I made ~> gives me time to reflect over what's good and what could be better before I upgrade my next unit. And with yesterday's update I don't think I have a problem with it... with the exception of things like renaming. It has no impact on the gameplay yet it costs 15 renown O_o And considering we couldn't name the thrasher during the tutorial, that's a bit steep since most people would want to focus on upgrades, not spending their hard-earned renown on changing name from "Thrasher".

    Disclaimer: Not every player thinks like me!

  6. #26
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    2. How having more units available for friend matches, is also something that needs to be considered
    3. Some regular renown for friend matches
    Very interesting points. If friend matches are the main experimentation grounds, than being able to try some extra units in those matches would be sensible.

    I'm also a bit afraid that having too much renown from friend matches may lead to abuse. However, if we were able to try units we don't own in the friend match as suggested above, than in theory we wouldn't have to give out renown for friend matches - assuming we are doing our best to maintain balance/sense of progress but at the same time cater for players like arteris, who loves the gameplay but primarily plays with friends and can't contribute time towards building and progressing his team.

  7. #27
    Backer Conundrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    20
    Two main things stuck out from your post, arteris.

    Quote Originally Posted by arteris View Post
    Asking for about 1-2 weeks worth of time to invest in something I have no immediate connection with is a lot to ask I feel.
    I don't quite understand this argument. Look at so many other games - MMOs, online FPS like Call of Duty, F2P online FPS like Planetside 2, any RPG. The progression there is part of the fun and part of the accomplishment, and it takes *longer* to progress in those games. As long as the progressing is fun in and of itself, what's the problem?

    (Disclaimer: Obviously this means I find the progression in Factions fun. People are free to disagree with me on that.)

    Quote Originally Posted by arteris View Post
    Since friend matches do not earn renown perhaps you could allow for "Mercenary" units that would be stock units you couldn't customize but could use for friends-only battles free of charge? It would also allow players to try out different units before choosing to spend their renown and regretting their decision.
    I think this is a really interesting idea. I don't know how much it might threaten to fragment the playerbase, but there will always be players interested in ELO/progression and players interesting in playing with their friends. I don't see a reason Factions can't cater to both. I probably wouldn't want all the units given to Friend Matches - maybe a rotating roster system similar to League of Legends would be appropriate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgensager
    And considering we couldn't name the thrasher during the tutorial, that's a bit steep since most people would want to focus on upgrades, not spending their hard-earned renown on changing name from "Thrasher".
    I also think we should be able to name poor Thrasher whatever we want during the tutorial, but I'm guessing this is a technical limitation of the tutorial given that nothing else in it reflects your actual account (renown, roster size, etc).

  8. #28
    Senior Member Jorgensager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    I also think we should be able to name poor Thrasher whatever we want during the tutorial, but I'm guessing this is a technical limitation of the tutorial given that nothing else in it reflects your actual account (renown, roster size, etc).
    Fair point, although my argument was to lower the price of renaming characters in general. Had it been 5 renown then it's just under a game's worth of effort, which would seem more appropriate.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    The problem of facing teams of mismatched power levels is the culprit at the moment actually, and based on the observations stoic has been making, the matches are mostly close, but when they aren't close...it's Bad.
    I tend to b the voice of the game-as-is here, but I think a few rare mis-matches like this can be a great thing (though I hope it doesn't overly affect ELO). I nearly beat a fully-upgraded team with basic units, and felt great after the game. There's something about that immense challenge that just adds to the interest of Banner Saga. That said...I definitely don't want too many mis-matches.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertTheScott View Post
    I tend to b the voice of the game-as-is here, but I think a few rare mis-matches like this can be a great thing (though I hope it doesn't overly affect ELO). I nearly beat a fully-upgraded team with basic units, and felt great after the game. There's something about that immense challenge that just adds to the interest of Banner Saga. That said...I definitely don't want too many mis-matches.
    I had a similar experience where I was about to beat a guy with 4 upgraded units with only 2 upgraded units...and then my internet randomly disconnected.

    RECONNECT FEATURE PLEASE!!!!!!!!

  11. #31
    The weird thing with renaming is, that you only 'need' it once for the starter-thrasher (except special occasions), as you can name every new upgraded unit. However, 15 renown still seems rather high for something -that- simple. I would like 10 renown cost for a renaming.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    Of course, I think the solution to this isn't to restrict players, but to make basic units more compelling.
    This. A thousand times this.

    A couple things in this thread stood out to me:
    -Redistributing points on base units.
    -Naming units for free (at least the first time)

    First of all, half the fun of TBS is team building. Right now playing TBS is like playing magic the gathering, except for your first ~20 games or so you're only allowed to play with a premade deck, and all of your opponents have the exact same deck as well. A large part of what makes the game enjoyable is hidden completely behind a time/pay wall.

    Now that point redistribution is free, it is a must for the early game. It's important that right after their first game a player might be able to go "I really like archers" go to the proving grounds, pick up a third base class archer, and redistribute the points on his team as he sees fit, experiment, so that even when playing against other new players with base units the teams can still vary a lot.

    One of the most compelling and unique aspects of videogames is self-expression within a system (clearly stoic already realizes this), and we want the player to be able to begin developing their own playstyle right from the get go. The last thing we want is for the first 5 or so games every player plays to feel samey, and being unable to describe what's different between the two players.

    A caveat: make sure that, even though they can redistribute points, don't let base units reduce their armor break values any lower than they currently are by default. One of the first things new players would do is take points out of break and put them into strength or armor, not realizing how important break is, and nothing is more frustrating in this game than simply not having enough break to get through the remaining armor on a team and slowly being whittled down.

    Onto the naming units bit, naming a unit can be a powerful thing, it can immediately bring strong attachment to a character that was previously just a generic "unit." And most importantly, it can create attachment to your team/characters immediately with no time investment, and can make the player want to play more even when they've never even played a match before! Why are we putting a roadblock here again? Especially when it's free with a promotion anyway. If we want to make it cost renown to rename a character I think that makes sense, so that when you name someone it has value and people don't change the character's name every other game, but right now we're missing out on an easily implemented opportunity to create strong player investment right from the start.

    EDIT: Just remembered, why the heck don't we let players name their thrasher? That would create some player investment before they've even finished the tutorial.
    Last edited by mrpresident; 02-21-2013 at 12:11 PM.

  13. #33
    Superbacker StandSure's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by mrpresident View Post
    Onto the naming units bit, naming a unit can be a powerful thing, it can immediately bring strong attachment to a character that was previously just a generic "unit." And most importantly, it can create attachment to your team/characters immediately with no time investment, and can make the player want to play more even when they've never even played a match before! Why are we putting a roadblock here again? Especially when it's free with a promotion anyway. If we want to make it cost renown to rename a character I think that makes sense, so that when you name someone it has value and people don't change the character's name every other game, but right now we're missing out on an easily implemented opportunity to create strong player investment right from the start.

    EDIT: Just remembered, why the heck don't we let players name their thrasher? That would create some player investment before they've even finished the tutorial.
    I posted in another thread an idea about giving a free rename when a unit earns its 5 kills. That way you get something as an immediate reward for earning that "Promote!" level, even if you don't have the 50 Renown. I likened it to a warrior earning enough fame on the battlefield to be known by name.

  14. #34
    Senior Member Jorgensager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by mrpresident View Post
    Now that point redistribution is free, it is a must for the early game. It's important that right after their first game a player might be able to go "I really like archers" go to the proving grounds, pick up a third base class archer, and redistribute the points on his team as he sees fit, experiment, so that even when playing against other new players with base units the teams can still vary a lot.
    Perhaps I misunderstood, but can a new player not pick up a third archer straight away? An extra archer would cost 10 renown, and we start with 30, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by StandSure View Post
    I posted in another thread an idea about giving a free rename when a unit earns its 5 kills. That way you get something as an immediate reward for earning that "Promote!" level, even if you don't have the 50 Renown. I likened it to a warrior earning enough fame on the battlefield to be known by name.
    Great idea in my opinion! The "Promote!" banner is currently a bit misleading since you typically won't have enough renown to promote units when they reach the 5 kills mark. Giving the free rename at this point would however provide something so there's a reward for reaching the 5 kills mark, even if you can't afford to upgrade.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by StandSure View Post
    I posted in another thread an idea about giving a free rename when a unit earns its 5 kills. That way you get something as an immediate reward for earning that "Promote!" level, even if you don't have the 50 Renown. I likened it to a warrior earning enough fame on the battlefield to be known by name.
    I support this idea. Promotion is not worth much in itself, it rather draws the attention to your very limited resources, so at least gaining *something* when a unit proves its worth would be nice. I wouldn't even mind if you made it 7 or 10 kills, that's all achievable in three or four games, and you get something in return.

    Remember, gaming and especially F2P gaming works best when the Skinner box is set up the right way.

  16. #36
    Raven I just want to let you know that I will try to get back on the forums later tonight to respond to you in full, I just wanted to take a quick moment on my lunch break to reply to Conundrum's question and elaborate on my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    I don't quite understand this argument. Look at so many other games - MMOs, online FPS like Call of Duty, F2P online FPS like Planetside 2, any RPG. The progression there is part of the fun and part of the accomplishment, and it takes *longer* to progress in those games. As long as the progressing is fun in and of itself, what's the problem?
    When you're playing a FPS game, you are the character and your connection to that character is your own experience of playing the game, the sense of fun from progressing is a direct result of your own abilities and actions. You pulled off those head shots that unlocked the Sniper Rifle, you defused the bomb at the last second and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

    When you're playing an RPG or an MMO, you're controlling the character and your connection to that game is through their achievements and progress. One of the first things you get to do is choose your class, name your character and then start to choose what kind of skills/talents/weapons to use etc. Each decision customizing your avatar further until it becomes very personal very quick and you associate your characters progression with your own.

    With Factions, and other games that have you controlling teams, you're a disembodied hand guiding their lives and determining their fates. That actually seems very appropriate considering The Banner Saga's settings, but how do you distinguish your pawns from other pawns? The customization options of appearance is a good start, and so is the idea of being able to give units titles. Perhaps even have the units earn titles through individual unit achievements. Who wouldn't love a Thrasher named "Bjorn the Bloodthirsty" for the time he took out three enemies or more in a single battle. Or "Erik the Indomitable" who was the last Varl standing and still took out all of the remaining enemy team. It gives you a sense of history and connection to your units and you start to root for them. I mean, how many of us who played any of the Fallout games would reload the moment something bad happened to Dogmeat? I'll admit I'm guilty of that.

    I may be the exception to the majority, but it makes the experience more rewarding for me to have that sense of connection and development especially in a game where you control a team. Much akin to Fallout: Tactics, X-Com, etc.

    At any rate, I need to get back to work and I hope this clarifies my point some for you Conundrum!

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post

    I don't quite understand this argument. Look at so many other games - MMOs, online FPS like Call of Duty, F2P online FPS like Planetside 2, any RPG. The progression there is part of the fun and part of the accomplishment, and it takes *longer* to progress in those games. As long as the progressing is fun in and of itself, what's the problem?

    (Disclaimer: Obviously this means I find the progression in Factions fun. People are free to disagree with me on that.)
    I know the argument you're responding to is about the connection players have with their characters, but my problem with the progression is a bit different. Like you said, it's personal preference, but here's my view anyway.

    In single-player games, progression is fun. In cooperative online games, progression is fun. In competitive multiplayer games, progression creates imbalance (annoying, no matter how small), discourages experimentation considering the time required to build a team, and separates the player base depending on when you started and how long you play. I'm really getting tired of the carrot-on-a-stick type of incentives in MP games to make them 'last longer'. The best competitive games don't need it, take Starcraft (most RTS games really), Counter Strike, Dota 2, just about every fighting game, Risk, Warhammer (though yes money plays a big role teams are more or less even based on the point cap for armies), or going back centuries, chess. After playing in the beta where there was no progression, I still played a ton, and I know a lot of other players put way more time into it. The reason you play is to get better and challenge yourself, not to unlock the next cool thing, and this is especially frustrating when that 'thing' effects the gameplay.

    That's the biggest reason I can't get into games like those you mention. If a guy kills me because he is better, fine, but if he kills me solely because he has a better 'thing', whether that be gun, team, power, whatever, and the only way I can legitimately compete is to put as many hours or as much money into it as he has, that's not good. It's a big problem I have with F2P games in general. If I buy stuff I feel like I have an unfair advantage. If I don't, I am at a disadvantage unless I put a ton of time into the game playing with that disadvantage. I understand the argument that in the Banner Saga you'll (ideally) always be matched against players with the same renown level, but how long will it last before the gaps in the player base show up and this is just not possible? Even now, when people are more or less just starting there have been issues. I just don't see the need for it at all. Why not take the Dota 2 route, leave the payment/grind stuff to aesthetics alone, and leave the gameplay based only on skill, where it should be?
    Last edited by Kord; 02-21-2013 at 04:41 PM.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Kord View Post
    I understand the argument that in the Banner Saga you'll (ideally) always be matched against players with the same renown level, but how long will it last before the gaps in the player base show up and this is just not possible? Even now, when people are more or less just starting there have been issues.
    Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this effect is worse right now than it'll ever be again, as right now we probably have the highest variances in team strength all trying to play together, and a relatively small population. Once there are a larger number of players pooling in the rank 1 or above area, this effect should be greatly diminished - 99% of games will be played at exactly equal power.

  19. #39
    Did a quick read here and didn't see these suggestions:

    Ive played about 25 games and would like the info on the units to be more exact. Right now for the archer, it says does more dmg if enemy has lost some shield if the archer stays still. Id like it to say adds 1 Str for each 2 shield lost. Another example would be the tempest ability of the Warhawk. It says does dmg to enemies, but when used the swing will hit allies as well. I know if you go to the proving ground it will say there, but I would like to see it in the info box during the battle. Id like to be able to click on a unit and see the info without having to click on there profile picture at the bottom left.

    Also, I find it hard to quickly tell what unit is upgraded. Being able to rename them makes it even harder. I would like it to tell what the unit is under the renamed name.

    The Shieldbanger bangs his shield way too much, really annoying sound I'd like to turn off or have reduced.

    Thanks for Factions, I understand it is a bonus to the single player game and the micro transactions only applies to Factions.

  20. #40
    Backer Seth Roivas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2
    For me, using base units (and being too cheap to upgrade in the marketplace) was a good chance to practice my basic strategies without getting bogged down with the intricacies of active abilities.

    I think it would be beneficial for new players who only have access to base units to put some sort of filter for random battles- nothing very in depth, but you could choose to search for others with base units only, or 'no more than __' upgraded units. It gets a little frustrating trying to get kills and reknown when you continually get paired up with people with a full lineup of upgraded characters versus your base units.

    I do think the price for upgrading is pretty high right now- to me 50 reknown to upgrade seems excessive, but I'm not sure how you could fix that without upsetting the balance of the game. The only option I can come up with is that the base units you start out with should have a discount, but any units you get from the Mead Hall cost fifty, no matter what. That would let new players get the next level units quickly enough that earning reknown doesn't drag, but still keeping the difficulty of getting new units later on the same.
    I will search for my own Fairy Tail!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •