February 14th 2017 PVP Arena Update Discussion

[Mizrael]

Honestly, I've yet to find a game similar in play-style to LOTB that actually has a fun PVP system. I guess it just comes with the territory of these types of games that PVP will generally be a dull experience unless you're a longtime player who has ample resources stockpiled. :S

That's because this genre isn't naturally meant to have a PVP and,imho, isn't seeked out by individuals who like to play PVP. if you like PVP go play some MOBA or mmorpg. turn based rpgs are more for the layed back players, who like to take their time to think about their moves and see a challenge in collecting all the characters,talismans and maxing them out to beat some bad ass boss. at least that's what i came here for...

take for instance chess. imagine that someone would suddenly try to create new rules and units with laser guns,who can teleport and multiply and idk what...that wouldn't be chess anymore,would it?

What this kind of game needs is new worlds and special stages which provide a gradually higher challenge for the player and bring with them new in depth contents and new ways to further develop your precious characters. but that would require a dedicated team of pro developers, who know their game,have a clear vision of where it's headed and most importantly know how to get it there.

I don't mean to insult the guys from NF but sadly from what we have seen so far proves that it never was and never will be in their capabilities to provide a steady income of new content.

BNW has been stalled for 4 months now. they obviously ran into some unexpected complications with it and had to pull it back. what we ended up with was just another carrot in form of a few new characters to shut the fanboys up.
I have a feeling that even PVP was just another rushed cover up for not having anything else functioning as intended(at least to me it seemed that Sparton was holding onto it like a drowning man onto a straw,not talking about anything else). and even with a "beta test" it ended up being released with major issues,imbalances and all it provides is a free ride to the easily earned rewards for those who don't need them anyway and frustration for the rest.
it's far from where i would like to see the game going and i hope that it isn't (as Slauki called it) the future of this game.

Im holding my breath till BNW gets released to see if we will see some solutions to the core problems, which have been around ever since the release (or have been added by NF taking over and chaotically nerfing stuff without putting any deeper though into it).
I want to see answers to my(by now prehistoric) questions like:
-What is the use of skilled,mystical,sorcery and co. talismans?
-what is the use of iron,ivory(please don't say Viking Eddie!) and co. talismans?
-why do we only have about 4-5 (mostly the dull main stat increasing) talisman sets which are a must and the rest either completely vanquished,have been nerfed beyond useful or just never had any use?
-why do skills have a misleading, confusing and sometimes even unfinished description which forces you to go and try it yourself if it hits 1,random or all targets?is there any difference between:damage..."increases the higher", "scales of", "is based on"...bla bla?(i dont see any)
-why do 2 different skills have the same picture? (fe. twist of fate&cast)
-useless slot colours which make a character do near to no damage
-aso,aso,aso

Im not even getting into discussing bugs,because that would be enough for a book (remember Witkacy? i loved reading your novels,polish brat &#128537.but i think that the devs should focus on sorting the basics out before adding more fancy stuff which gets boring after a week and makes this game almost a full time job.

[Metallion]

I've searched but haven't found the answer so I'm asking here. Hope it's the right area to discuss. Why does my team go into autoplay? Character turns and attacks are not often what I would choose and I can honestly say I'd have won at least one (read:lots more) close battle if not for something taking over. Why does this happen? Can I do something to stop or minimize it?
I love the arena BTW. It totally rocks.
Keep up the awesome work LOTB tream!

[Sag7272]

I've searched but haven't found the answer so I'm asking here. Hope it's the right area to discuss. Why does my team go into autoplay? Character turns and attacks are not often what I would choose and I can honestly say I'd have won at least one (read:lots more) close battle if not for something taking over. Why does this happen? Can I do something to stop or minimize it?
I love the arena BTW. It totally rocks.
Keep up the awesome work LOTB tream!

Been taunted by SSD & Mummy in a repeated way?
There's some occurences where it still a "Sit back & watch" kind of fight but believe me, it was Waaay worse before they adjust freeze tallisman..

[Nine]

I noticed an issue that is so big I am really suprised nobody noticed or at least mentioned it before - at least I didn't read about it anywhere.

In short: Buffs granted by Passives are ticking down too quickly if the player loses the coin toss and goes second.


In more detail: I'll put down the first two rounds of a given fight. Imagine the Passive is Accuracy, it lasts for two rounds, so in theory for the complete time shown now (issue is the same with buffs lasting for one round, but I think it is more clear this way).

Szenario A: Player wins the Coin toss
A.1 The Player uses the passive:
When the game starts the buff shows 2 rounds. I (=the player) attack and profit from the buff, the opponent attacks, the buff ticks down, the buff shows 1. I attack again profit from the buff, the buff ticks down, the opponent attacks, the buff expires, done.

A.2 The AI uses the passive:
When the game starts the buff shows 2 rounds. I attack, the enemy attacks and profits from the buff, the buff ticks down, the buff shows 1. I attack, the enemy attacks again profititing from the buff, the buff ticks down, the buff expires, done.

All right, so far so good.

Szenario B: The AI wins the coin toss.
B.1 The player uses the passive.
When the game starts the buff shows 2 rounds. The opponent attacks, the buff ticks down, the buff shows 1. I attack and profit from the buff, the opponent attacks, the buff ticks down and expires. I attack again.

B.2 The AI uses the passive.
When the game starts the buff shows 2 rounds. The opponent attacks and profits from the buff, the buff ticks down, the buff shows 1. I attack, the opponent attacks and profits from the buff, the buff ticks down and expires. I attack again.

So in all cases except B.1 the passive-user gets two attacks supported by the buff, which is inconsistant. The issue affects both offensive buffs and defensive ones. With a defensive one, the problem would be B.2, where it it helps the AI defending only one turn instead of two.
Actually it is even more more problematic with defensive Buffs since as a Player you miss those an own and an enemy turn more compared to a won coin toss. Which is worse since you can take damage and get CC'd even during you own turn.

One could argue that with the coin toss being hugely important due to the fact that the first round is hugely important the loser of the coin toss should not be punished further. But I don't even wanna get into any evaluating here, just pointing out that the way it is now is different from how it should be (at least by the logic that one round last one player and one AI turn).



Other bugs:
- the initital attack of Vampire Hunter Strike now does less damage than the triggered attacks
- the triggered attacks from Soldier Eddies Bullet Trace deal way less damage than the initial attack (although it might be kind of overpowered if it was otherwise...)
- Bleed (the debuff) does no damage although it should
- the damage from Vampire Hunter's Mark ability is calculated in a very strange way (the damage when applying the mark, not consuming it). It doesn't scale with magic or attack, it also does not scale with enemy HP, but it does scale with something I don't know from the enemy. I noticed it in PvE before where the damage of Mark with no Skill Shards fluctuates between 2.x and 3.2 k damage in GoD Madness, with higher numbers for enemies with less HP. The same Vampire Hunter deals 800 till around 2.5 k damage in PvP (the latter one rarely) on non-Gunner chars. Something is really off there
- the language of the new "news" is not the language you selected in settings (but rather the device language...?)
(- I got the feeling that Talisman Procs are not affected by accuracy, could anybody verify that they are? Or that they should?)

[Kamuz24z]

I noticed an issue that is so big I am really suprised nobody noticed or at least mentioned it before - at least I didn't read about it anywhere.

In short: Buffs granted by Passives are ticking down too quickly if the player loses the coin toss and goes second.


In more detail: I'll put down the first two rounds of a given fight. Imagine the Passive is Accuracy, it lasts for two rounds, so in theory for the complete time shown now (issue is the same with buffs lasting for one round, but I think it is more clear this way).

Szenario A: Player wins the Coin toss
A.1 The Player uses the passive:
When the game starts the buff shows 2 rounds. I (=the player) attack and profit from the buff, the opponent attacks, the buff ticks down, the buff shows 1. I attack again profit from the buff, the buff ticks down, the opponent attacks, the buff expires, done.

A.2 The AI uses the passive:
When the game starts the buff shows 2 rounds. I attack, the enemy attacks and profits from the buff, the buff ticks down, the buff shows 1. I attack, the enemy attacks again profititing from the buff, the buff ticks down, the buff expires, done.

All right, so far so good.

Szenario B: The AI wins the coin toss.
B.1 The player uses the passive.
When the game starts the buff shows 2 rounds. The opponent attacks, the buff ticks down, the buff shows 1. I attack and profit from the buff, the opponent attacks, the buff ticks down and expires. I attack again.

B.2 The AI uses the passive.
When the game starts the buff shows 2 rounds. The opponent attacks and profits from the buff, the buff ticks down, the buff shows 1. I attack, the opponent attacks and profits from the buff, the buff ticks down and expires. I attack again.

So in all cases except B.1 the passive-user gets two attacks supported by the buff, which is inconsistant. The issue affects both offensive buffs and defensive ones. With a defensive one, the problem would be B.2, where it it helps the AI defending only one turn instead of two.
Actually it is even more more problematic with defensive Buffs since as a Player you miss those an own and an enemy turn more compared to a won coin toss. Which is worse since you can take damage and get CC'd even during you own turn.

One could argue that with the coin toss being hugely important due to the fact that the first round is hugely important the loser of the coin toss should not be punished further. But I don't even wanna get into any evaluating here, just pointing out that the way it is now is different from how it should be (at least by the logic that one round last one player and one AI turn).



Other bugs:
- the initital attack of Vampire Hunter Strike now does less damage than the triggered attacks
- the triggered attacks from Soldier Eddies Bullet Trace deal way less damage than the initial attack (although it might be kind of overpowered if it was otherwise...)
- Bleed (the debuff) does no damage although it should
- the damage from Vampire Hunter's Mark ability is calculated in a very strange way (the damage when applying the mark, not consuming it). It doesn't scale with magic or attack, it also does not scale with enemy HP, but it does scale with something I don't know from the enemy. I noticed it in PvE before where the damage of Mark with no Skill Shards fluctuates between 2.x and 3.2 k damage in GoD Madness, with higher numbers for enemies with less HP. The same Vampire Hunter deals 800 till around 2.5 k damage in PvP (the latter one rarely) on non-Gunner chars. Something is really off there
- the language of the new "news" is not the language you selected in settings (but rather the device language...?)
(- I got the feeling that Talisman Procs are not affected by accuracy, could anybody verify that they are? Or that they should?)

I was also looking for info about this feature of pvp I think losing the coin toss is good enough when my team goes against a team that has a blue bat I'll keep the passives in some of the toons if I go first but if I go second the passive just disappear on every toon this feature makes the blue bat OP close to a prisoner

[Sparton_LOTB]

I noticed an issue that is so big I am really suprised nobody noticed or at least mentioned it before - at least I didn't read about it anywhere.

In short: Buffs granted by Passives are ticking down too quickly if the player loses the coin toss and goes second.

Ah, it sounds like the way that Accuracy Up is counting down is counting as though it were a defensive buff, not an offensive buff.

Things like Accuracy Up should be counting down after your character acts to use it (like Perfect Hits, or Attack Up) so that you'll get two turns out of it. This contrasts to defensive buffs (like the Warrior Troll's passive and power skills), which should count down based on the enemy team taking their turns.

I'll pass that along to get fixed.

Other bugs:
[Stuff]

I'll pass these along too.

One thing I can say is that Talisman Procs are not supposed to be affected by Accuracy Up or Accuracy Down. Talisman procs are not skill effects, and Accuracy Up/Down only affects chance-based effects that are directly from skills.

[Nine]

Ah, it sounds like the way that Accuracy Up is counting down is counting as though it were a defensive buff, not an offensive buff.

Things like Accuracy Up should be counting down after your character acts to use it (like Perfect Hits, or Attack Up) so that you'll get two turns out of it. This contrasts to defensive buffs (like the Warrior Troll's passive and power skills), which should count down based on the enemy team taking their turns.

I'll pass that along to get fixed.

Thanks for the quick response. If it is only Accuracy then that might explain why nobody else has mentioned it.

Now that you point out the difference (that I actually noticed before but kind of have forgotten about) I'll have to check again when exactly the defensive ones tick down and if case B.2 is affected as I thought or not.

Wouldn't it be easier though to have all buffs tick down once the player and the enemy have taken a turn? I guess it didn't matter without PvP, but now there is actually a difference.

Edit says: here was an example that didn't make sense, I come back to this later (which means tomorrow), I guess...


Also thank you for clearing up the Talisman thing! "Chance of effects" in the tooltip left some room for interpretation and maybe it was wishful thinking that it did affect Talismans


Oh, what I just remember: Your Arena Team doesn't get carried over from device to device (or at least nor reliably). I think this is true for the defensive one as well as for the offensive one.

[gmac]

Hi Sparton,

Could you help us on the number of attacks Issue?

I got attacked 290 times this week so far, that´s more than double last week´s numbers.

And last week I was attacked way less than anybody that shared theirs stats, any idea why? (I´m running the same defense)

Thanks for the help

Best
Gmac

[Rygone]

What is the average attack per week ? 290 seems normal to me, I've been attacked 314 times last week and 277 times this week and there's 2 days left.

[gmac]

Hi Rygone,

I don´t have a clue to what is normal. Trying to find out

Thing is last week I was attacked only 141 times and I attacked a lot, 638 times.

So, what´s the difference from last week to this week? My defense is the same.

Is it because I´m in lower division? Or was I lucky? Or maybe there was a bug? Is it that I´m not spending lots of Ironite? How does the system work?

Hope Devs help us answer these questions.

Best
Gmac