Emperor Sidd

This aside, the effort put into the look of the recent updates is a joke to be honest. In other games, as things get more epic they get more flashy for the effort along with the stats. As ever Fallen Sword just goes backwards, adding some stats and putting a sticking plaster on it.

First with the new cow epics, then that new spider armour is basically a hot water bottle. Then you couldn't even be bothered to colour all the frames of the previous animated epics on the recent upgrades, you guys have the original artwork. Would it really have taken that much?

When players can create better looking avatars than the dev team you have to ask what's going on.

Milking it springs to mind.

Again with the not-quite-so-subtle dig at me.

So, how would having a buff that indicated if there was a chest either on the map or on a map within "x" level range require ANY more thought than the way it is currently - other than, of course, being an average player smart enough to actually cast the buff upon themself.

 

It just simplifies the process, exactly the same as it would have were it for the SE hunting instead. You want chests, look for them. You want SE's, look for them.

The system isn't broken ergo it doesn't need fixing.
 

Not sure why you keep bringing yourself into every argument. However we can agree to disagree here on some points. We both agree it is boring.

Less stamina per hour just means less time most people spend on FS, which likely leads to less $ spent on FS. Less upgrades mean less $ people end up spending on FS. Less upgrades also means less reason for people to continue playing FS.

Tried to say it slow.

Hello Fellow FSers. As we've seen, for the month of August, there's a "titan competition" for the roadmap. Here's some ideas on how I believe this competition could be handled to maximize participation and ensure a level playing field:

The competition can be one of two styles, either of which would be more ideal than the traditional Global Events:

1. All current titans killed would count, each kill equals points. For example: Kantec titan is roughly 4k kills to clear it so each kill is a point, so its a total of 4k points up for grab.

2. The competition should be titan based HP which would measure any titan kill and kills with titan doubler should count correctly.

• As a cherry on top, quest titans would count as well.

This method would encourage players to hunt from day 1 to the last day of the competition. This would also force players to clean (finish off) any remaining titans that are active. Overall, this competition would also benefit for the next upcoming roadmap update "New Epic Recipes."

I’d like to take a moment to proceed with laying out something of a change, or changes, to the way that GvG currently functions that isn’t a mentioned overhaul. In doing so, previous ideas to address GvG and its intricacies were taken into consideration when compiling ideas.

TL;DR:

• Updated RP Packs

• Notification System + Prep Time for Incoming Conflicts

• Offline Time for AFK Targets Reduced 7 Days -> 2 Days

• Level Ranges Expanded; +25 Levels Every 1,000 Levels Gained

• GvG “Seasons;” 3 Month Intervals with Achievement

I reached out to a few people in the GvG community to gather ideas and data to help with the way that GvG functions to come up with something that could inject some life into an otherwise stagnant aspect of FS.

The general consensus to GvG is that “whoever initiates is guaranteed AT LEAST a draw” because the idea is to rush the opposing guild and hit those targets who are offline in Epics and have zero or close to zero chance of fighting back. In doing this, the defending guild has to hit back into targets that are now buffed up after they’ve all utilized potions to nearly guarantee, at the very least, an unresolved combat.

The first proposed change to combat this would be a notification system; the game could send an “Admin Guild Mass” PM to all members notifying them of the incoming conflict. A separate idea could potentially be to enable notifications for incoming conflicts the way they are now for when opposing guilds take relics. Anything that helps notify individuals of incoming conflicts would be better than the way it currently functions. “The Guild ‘Minions of Mirkwood’ has initiated a conflict against you! You have X hours to prepare for incoming hits!” of which the “X” hours COULD count towards the 24 hour conflict timer, or it could be its own separate timer prior to the 24 hour window.

Another issue that was a general consensus is that if there’s a target who’s offline for a few days, then they were likely one of the prime targets. The idea here would be to decrease the inactivity timer for targets. It’s currently a seven day timer, however, most have said to decrease it to 48 hours and under.

The last general consensus idea was to have some GvG level ranges expanded more. Similar to how the PvP ladder scales and works now based on level, the idea would be to do something more in line with that as well. While leaving the lower brackets as they are (50-300, 301-699), the idea would be to have scalar level ranges to provide more activity. 700-1000 (+/- 100), 1001-2000 (+/- 125), 2001-3000 (+/- 150), 3001-4000 (+/- 175), 4001-5000 (+/- 200), 5001-6000 (+/- 225), etc. The minor change in level scaling would provide a boost in activity in the middling ranges that are barren at the moment provided the compression at the bottom at the “race to EoC” at the top.

The RP packs need to be updated, and there are other ideas that could inject more life than Epics currently do. Crystalline gear across all the levels available in FS, perhaps some niche potions that are distributed to each guild member at the time of purchase, etc. Having the items available as consumables that aren’t just a “one time purchase” here also helps with the demand of gaining RP as well.

The below are the RP Packs that have been brought up in discussion:

• Enchant Pack - 100 RP

  • Move Levels to 200; Change to Contain ALL Enchant Buffs (No Cursed)

• Fortune Pack = Stays Same

• Mastersmith Pack - 5 RP = Mastersmith 200

• Titan Pack - 300 RP

  • Titan Doubler 200

  • Light Foot 600

  • Avert Gaze 200

  • Teleport 200

• Leveling Pack - 300 RP

  • Stalker 400

  • Sacrifice 350

  • Overkill 350

  • Animal Magnetism 400

• Defense Pack - 300 RP

  • Avenger 300

  • Stalwart Heart 300

  • Healer 300

  • Fortitude 300

• Bounty Pack - 300 RP

  • Anti Deflect 400

  • Spell Breaker 300

  • Retaliate 300

  • Undermine 300

• Buff Provider Pack - 20 RP

  • Buff Master 250

  • Guild Buffer 250

  • Extend 250

  • Buff Enhancer 300

• Fighter Pack - 200 RP

  • Fist Fight 250

  • Critical Strike 250

  • Side Step 250

  • Riposte 250

  • Sharpen 250

In addition to the minor quality of life type changes mentioned above, another change mentioned would be the resetting of the GvG rating every three months or so akin to the PvP ladder with the reward being a simple guild achievement displaying “1st Place in a GvG Season” with the reward potentially being an additional relic slot, or base stamina gain so as to incentivize actively pursuing 1st place repeatedly to keep others from achieving the same.

The ability to provide individuals a competitive aspect to partake in while being rewarded for doing well, coupled with multiple opportunities, over time, to climb and attempt to make the most of a “fresh start” at the start of the three months will also help inject that liveliness into an otherwise humdrum aspect. We already have the resetting of rating present in the game, as mentioned, so transitioning that into the GvG area seems like a relatively easy and feasible way to go about helping bolster individuals’ pride in their ability to conduct themselves at the pinnacle of guild activities.

While there will be more feedback, I’m sure, from those who have a vested interest in the GvG aspect, hopefully this can serve as a basic backbone moving forward.

Hi EpicPiety,

 

Although this is a cool idea which will bring the app more in line with the browser, this change is a fairly large one and requires a number of core mechanics of the app to change in order to accommodate. With the app now out of beta and not long launched, we don't believe this is the time to be making a change as major as this. We continue to work on performance and on improving loading times so we hope these improvements help with your opinion of the app. Thank you for your feedback on this, it is a cool idea, but we don't believe it to be the right time to implement such a large change.

Appreciate the feedback, this would probably be pretty sizeable as it's a huge UI rewrite. However I do feel like going forward with the current way the app is configured is a huge waste and for nothing. As a long time player, Long time mobile gamer and somebody who interacts with a large majority of the game this design can't possibly sustain long term growth. It's extremely confusing and not user friendly. If people with tens of thousands of hours (I wish I was exaggerating on this number) in the game are having a hard time, I can't imagine someone whose new.

Just wanted to express my concern as it seems like a lot of the time is spent fixing bugs/tweaking the current design. If we did go this path later on it's just going to create problems again to deal with. When the backend stuff is solidified I highly recommend canvasing the player base on this.

The "action" hub is already accredited throughout many triple a mobile games, so if implemented correctly success is basically assured. This is also a huge benefit because mobile gamers switching over and trying out FS will already have a head start at understanding how to play the game because they are familiar with the Hub format (It's easier to digest information this way). 

If you don't understand how to play the game and it's not intuitive most people just leave.

Thanks for hearing my rant and hope it's not taken personally as we do appreciate your work.

King Siddy of the Mountain 

Hail the new King

4 more years!

I started taking a look at the breakdown of stats that epics have and their viability here in the last few months and had to ask, "why are the epics used in multiple aspects at lower levels, but neglected for anything aside from stamina gain past a certain threshold?" That caused me to investigate into what the reason behind that might be, and the results? Fairly shocking.

As seen by the above, the stat point allocation per level exponentially decreases until it eventually levels off to roughly 2 stat points per level of the epic item. But what if it's just the old epics bringing the average down?

Given this graph, we see the same general shape, and these are only epics with item numbers of 14000 or greater; that means items added to the game within the last four years or so.

Both of these show the decrease in stat point value for epic items, but that still doesn't show why they aren't necessarily used - let's take a deeper look into this as well.

Below are a series of graphs that show stat point allocation per level based on rarity of items across a select few levels. These levels were selected to show the variation in stat point allocation for the rarities, however, all levels where an epic is located were conducted.

Disclaimer: For items that belong to a set, the set bonus to the item was applied by taking the total number of stat points in the set bonus and distributing them equally across the number of items in the set. Why was this done? The use of Coordinated Buffs is too much for epics to make up for losing.

As seen by the graphs, at level 100, the epics are valued higher than even items with set bonuses, which greatly increases their viability in those other aspects outside of "stam gain use," however, at level 300, only 200 levels higher, that gap shrinks considerably. And at 1000? Epics have the same value as a Unique Set Item.

The later two levels provided then show just how skewed the stat points are away from epic items as Legendary set items have a full stat point extra per level at 3900 than an epic, and at 4500, our highest epic before the recent release of the Snorra Amulet is even slightly less than Unique Set Items.

What's the fix? Well, I would suggest making a flat Stat Point Allocation per Level to Epics at 4x the level and distributing them that way. This would immediately increase epic viability in arena, offline use (aside from stam gain), and add another variable to work around even in regular PvP or 1-Hit usage. Multiple +7 items in the same slot where players "don't necessarily care" about the upgrade because of the stam gain being the same now becomes a nearly "must-have" for other uses as well.

A simple fix in making them 4x would drastically improve the market demand for the items immediately, and circulation would be at an all time high; increased activity for these items is only good for the game.

You forgot to add the PvP event in the Roadmap

Jokes aside, good to see. Do the Cows have other thoughts on what to "rebalance" when it comes to the game? Or are you guys going to start a thread and ask for more player feedback?

So you've taken a PvE and PvP buff in the shape of Dark Curse that worked perfectly fine since its inception and halved it to compensate for the over powered pots that were created by yourselves rather than reducing the pot level rewards.

This makes no sense. Why can't you just remove the over powered Dark Curse from the pot rewards that were created like you did with the original Luxury Chest when it had Inventor II 500 in it?

You're now penalising the rest of the PvE to appease a problem you created yourselves in PvP.

Also, is Attack/Armour now blasphemy when it comes to set design? Surely you can see this?

 

" We also wish to protect players that do not partake in it". (Unquote) "it" being PvP.

 

Thank you!

 

~ Fallen Sword Team

"We" being HCS. That, to me, is rather concerning. I woudn't have thought it was up to HCS to protect players from PvP but rather the players themselves. Did you mean to word it in the manner that you did? If so it is a dangerous rhetoric in my opinion as many "non" pvpers will jump all over this statement. And some, nay many, will use it to strengthen their arguement for a total opt out option with regards to PvP. A truly horrendous thought I think you will all agree. This IS a PvP game. KitiaraLi has been good enough to post quotes from HCS hierarchy to confirm this. May I suggest you re-post with amendments to make this crystal clear because as it stands, for me at least, you have kinda.......muddied the waters.

As for alterations to PvP bands:

SilentS0ul's suggestion that GvG and PvP bands should be identical sounds good to me.

Cheers,

wil72

Good evening ladies and gentlemen of Erildath,
 

The recent Arena sets released sparked some discussions over the past week about the stat distributions and disparity of sets over the course of the game. We decided to analyze and compile some data to bring attention to some facts about.

 

Picture #1 - Total Sets per Stat Combo - Legendary, Super Elite & Crystalline (META) & Set Distribution per Stat Combo per Bracket - Legendary, Super Elite & Crystalline (META)
 

Picture #1 Observations

1.1 - Attack/Damage setups remain the most popular sets in terms of development at 71 total sets (31.84% of total sets).

1.2 - Armor/Defense setups are currently 13.45% of the total across the observed ranges. This is almost equal to the total number of Attack/Defense and Attack/Armor sets (14.35%).

1.3 - There is only 1 Attack/Armor set from level 3500 onwards.

1.4 - There are no Defense/Damage sets between 3500 and 4500. They are also the least developed set at 22 sets (9.87% of total).

1.5 Armor/Defense from level 2000 onwards have become more prevalent.

1.6  There are only 3 Defense/Damage sets from level 2000 to 3000.

Picture #2 - Total Sets - All Gear & Set Distribution per Stat Combo per Bracket

Picture #2 Observations:

2.1 - Attack/Damage sets are still the most popular after including rare and unique sets at 252 sets, but percentage-wise, drop (28.90%).

2.2 - Armor/Defense sets see an increase in overall percentage (16.06%) when including rare and unique sets, having only fewer than Armor/Damage and Attack/Damage.

2.3 - Only 1 Defense/Damage set at 3500-3999, and only 1 Attack/Defense set at 4500+ after including rare/unique sets.

2.4 - Defense sets see less development overall (188 between Defense/Damage and Attack/Defense) than Armor (292 between Armor/Damage and Attack/Armor); 21.56% have a defense stat tied to it whereas 33.49% have an armor stat tied to it (not including Defense/Armor).

Picture #3 - Gear Slot Distribution - Meta (LE/Crystal/SE)

3.1 - There is very little gear on the 4000-4499 range.

3.2 - When making Armor/Damage sets, the least used gear slots are Gloves, Ring and Rune.

3.3 - When making Defense/Damage sets, the least used gear slots Gloves, Weapon, Ring.

3.4 - When making Attack/Defense sets, the least used gear slots are Shield, Ring, and Boots.

3.5 - When making Attack/Damage sets, the least used gear slots are Ring, Boots, and Rune

3.6 - When making Attack/Armor sets, the least used gear slots are Weapon, Rune, and Boots.

3.7 - When making Armor/Defense sets, the least used gear slots are Gloves, Ring, and Rune. 

Disclaimer #1: We did not look at gear under level 1000 since those ranges are plentiful on gear

Disclaimer #2: We did not include any sets with HP as part of their Stat Distribution
Disclaimer #3: Sets from the 6/18 Arena Shop update are not included as they are not in the UFSG
 

There is more information that we could present but this was already an extensive time investment. For an album of all the images used in this post, please visit https://imgur.com/a/hPSHG7f

Much love to everybody who helped compile this information.

Yours truly,

SS

Slander? Havent you ever seen Spider Man??

https://image.slides...g?cb=1316472656