So 10 per win and 100 per loss would mean you would need ten in eleven games to break even with xp so that it not really it either.
Shurdus
I have no clue what that means, but I thought the discussion was interesting enough to continue, so... bad dog! [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
This should be printed and then used in an anti-drug campaign. [e digicons]o_O[/e]
This potion comment is not really a good idea imo, since beyond level 7 or so nukes can really hit you hard. If you stop runnin for a mere potion you may very well get killed for stopping. Therefore stopping may not be the most wise thing you can do. At low level however it may be viable. It still remains a crappy tactic though. When the opposing DG flees you can just count rhe time you have gained in which you can do what you want as the reward.
I think it is just the amount of favor points you gather. I cannot really back that up though. My rank went to 1000ish after just 16 or so games. After that I would not know what other stuff gets into your rank. I think this xp is just favor points. Then again the rank would be a function of the number of games played if that were true, and I think it is not quite that simple... I don't know, good question!
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="19" id="2344282"] Quoting Shurdus, reply 18 Boodiebac, are you saying that regular units can not become regulars, veterans or elite units like they could in MoM? I don't think that was his intention. The screenie clearly shows these regulars can get XP. I guess his point is that these poor units dies so quickly that they seldom get the chance to advance to veteran levels...... [/q
[quote who="heretic613" reply="59" id="2344569"]What an angry thread. Jerry! Jerry! [/quote]Your comments are directed to the angry posts that only you can see? [e digicons]8|[/e]
The problem is not really the locking, but rather the inability of disorganised teams to prevent it. Disorganised teams should however not be the standard to which balanbce should be calibrated. Imo we can therefore not really complain about the locking per se.
Same here. Amen!
Or not, because good and evil is a manner of perspective and all...
The materials idea you propose is nice as an idea for the results of technological breakthroughs. Once you get tech X, you may add material A to your iron weapons, granting them one additional +1 bonus or something. Having the techs focussing on the matrials or something, or on schematics is just wrong imo. Maybe it could be so that you need to adjust the forges in order to make use of these special materials, but these adjustments are not as expensive as sompletely building a new bui
I agree that without closely monitoring games the stats will not really tell us much. We need to really see who does what and why people lose in order to make adjustments. Mee stats cannot provide this insight. Sure winning stats can give you some insight into what DGs are the most popular, but it cannot tell you how any DG should be buffed. Monitoring the vast majority of games would be a bad idea I think. Monitoring the tournaments that mean something would be a good idea. Balancing
Will pre-order when I get home. Can't say I am too excited about playing around with the cloth-map though...
Completely locking flags all the time requires quite an investment. Granted, later in the game the flag locks are not that expensive any more, but when the opposition invests thousands of gold in flag locks, then surely you can monitor enemy movement, buy yourself some shiney equipment with your gold instead and avert the capturing of your home portals? If the opposing team wants to run back and forth from play to go home and get more flaglocks to hold middle flags and such I would ju
[quote who="lifekatana" reply="30" id="2344170"]First armor is useless?! CELMARE, stop the elite I'm experienced talk. I know what im talking about. If you dont agree we can play a game where youplay all Rook/Tb/Queen/whatever and I take Sedna/Erebus/UB (and maybe Oak, depengdign on game size). You will see a trend develop that my team will win an afwul lot more than yours will. [/quote]Will you then please stop the 'bring it then you big mouth!' testosterone
DG being the most balanced game is a hollow statement. Some matchups on soe maps are pretty much horrible since on a large map it stands to reaosn that a slow rook is at a disadvantage simple because there is a lot of ground to cover and the opponent is always outriunning you. Also Starcraft and warcrasft 3 are both very well balanced with differences maybe showing in the absolute expert levels of play with players belonging to the top 10. On mortal levels of play however the balance
I think if you see the tower of time for the eighty-ninth time you really need to get out more. :P Maybe we are getting a little bit ahead of ourselves here. We are not sure how the lore of the game will be used in the sandbox game where the majority of the time will be spent - at least by me. Now I do not on principle object to there being events around landmarks that have a name, yet I do not want to see anything where the game pretty much forces me to do anything with this landmark
The problem is that Erebus - for example - can haras you with his minions all he wants while you cannot really do anything about it. Killing the minions is a waste of mana and time, and there is really no penalty for Erebus to harass you like this. Killing Erebus might get you an additional benefit, but you do not just kill Erebus like that, and thus your solution does really nothing in order to solve the problem. I think that adding xp to the kill of a minion is fair, and I do not re
[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="62" id="2328381"] As for "going gandalf" that point is silly. A: Ignoring city building to go learn flare is mind-numbingly stupid, B: Using your channeler in battle is risky and unnecessary, and C: You have heros to learn stuff in the field, your channeler should be safe at home. A: That's why I said you should have conventional research. Because giving up city-building to learn Flare is mind-numbingly stupid, and if that was the
That picture is funny! [e digicons]:grin:[/e] This idea of pulling people owards you seems not a bit engaging imo. I prefer management on my side being a major factor rather than safety. Also in reality rivaling kingdoms are prone to think highly of themselves and less about their neighbours. So even if the neighbour seems safer people are not very likely to leave their country. I prefer managing towns to be the major factor in growth. In the end, if you make the countryside s
AH well, I just hope the sandbox game will not have any story watsoever, that is I want to not be railroaded in any way there. I want to play however I want to without being forced to do this now and that later. I am sure Stardock will make this possible. I will probably not even look at the campaign beyond the first mission or so. Onc I understand the basic mechanics of this game I want to play sandbox. The campaign in GalCiv was so stupid and boring that I do not want to play anythi
Boodiebac, are you saying that regular units can not become regulars, veterans or elite units like they could in MoM?
On a sidenote, oes this mean that elemental has indeed been postponed until august 2010? [e digicons]:'([/e]
Maybe the game is not that complex, but balancing DG A, who got to spend 25k gold on gear against DG B, who had about the same gold but chose to spend it in an unwise manner can get rather tricky. Of course this is not really the fault of the programmers but it is rather the fault of the player who had poor vision.
[quote who="Kitkun" reply="43" id="2343706"] And if the opponent was busy smashing your citadel, then why on earth were you locking the portal flags for?Because locking portal flags is the single most powerful strategy in this game. The best players start with an occasional flag lock at level one. By level five, you don't leave the base without a flag lock. The whole goal is to get Giants, and then try to get portals. 9/10 games against decent players, the game is over a