Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting May Cause Permabans! Read more... ×

Mak

Member
  • Content count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mak

  • Rank
    Fighter

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mak

    2 - Random PvE 10 1-player map

    Indeed, the balancing difficulties. It would be great if this work was done evntually, not left for next time like EA treated it. As a temporary solution, please see the screenshot, needs notepad++ and an hour of free time to identify, no idea how long to fix. I agree with all this highest difficulty stuff, extensive strategies, level 9 too easy, still lets agree T4 extra large artillery units basically shot away at 2nd orb isn't an obstacle but a misconduct of lazy EA staff. And then for years before BF got closed noone cared =] On the contrary, YOU guys are great, big THANK YOU for bringing this game back alive! Sorry for the off-topic.
  2. Mak

    2 - Random PvE 10 1-player map

    Let me clarify. Replay is 20 seconds long so you can grab the unit composition, same situations happens not ALWAYS. Other scenario T3 defender force spawns manageable defenders, nothing like 2 T4 XL units while player can't field anyithing but T1. The problem isn't new, it stands from original game. The enemy forces CAN'T be defeated using T1, or require landing more like 120 population cap, several times in a row, player will run out of charges or out of power. Then next game of same difficulty can go with normal enemy forces, perfectly solvable. I'm adding another level 10 rPvE map, compare unit composition and you will see what am i trying to tell, T3 is completely sane defender force. Both maps are rPvE level 10, 1st sample has 2 T4 XL, while 2nd sample has small 1-2T force without T4 towers to make things unmanageable. This huge uneven distribution INSIDE rPvE 10 map streak isn't normal. If you fix it, great, if not, i did what i could, thanks anyways. Taking a wild guess, there could be problem in unit IDs, or camp numeration on map. Unit ID can be read in attackwave.lua, but obviously i have no access to mathing ID and real unit type. BattleForge_possible.7z Atnother map, this time with problematic unit composition. Keep in mind that both maps are level 10, defender force is not comparable. Bandit Shaman + Bandit Tower vs Bandit Walker + Tortogun + Deepgorge. I can understand if you can't fix it, just don't tell its "perfectly normal, bit unlucky", no offense. BattleForge.7z
  3. Mak

    2 - Random PvE 10 1-player map

    Will these files do? Should the replay have T4 walkers attacking T2? Sorry, added wrong archive, see later post.
  4. NAME: 2 - Random PvE 10 1-player map SEVERITY: 2 LOCATION: Random PvE 10 solo map REPRODUCIBILITY: Frequently DESCRIPTION: Random PvE solo map is broken. After taking T2 next closest "node" (or whatever you call it, circle with stuctures) is VERY close AND contains Bandit Walker and Flying-paralysing-drakes. They will probably respawn (didn't check, couldn't kill), and even if they don't, there is no way they can be defeated using T1. Player has no time to build T2, ad even then hardly can do anything. Please don't "It's fine, learn to play/get better cards, move to Resolved" this post, Map-9 has perfectly capturable T3, even with common archers and some spells, and there should't be such ramp in difficulty from 9 to 10, from "common cards in numbers will do" to "omg T4 units will stomp your T2 orb in seconds" 2000/1650 Bandit Windhunters will fly straight to the T2 and walker can fire from where he stands, no way to even finish 2nd monument.
  5. Mak

    nerf amii monument

    Let me specify, when you take T4 you pay 300 power for T4 itself and 100 power for monument, you lose monument you lose 100 power, you build new one you pay 100 power. You have T3 and build monument, you bind 240 power. Then its 140 power for each switch, power going into void. You are still on T3, if you lose Amii monument and you want to get to T4, you have to pay 300. Its ofc stupid to place amii monument in a place where you can lose it. And I acually use Amii Monument for getting Shrine of War into 2 green 1 black 1 blue deck.
  6. Mak

    nerf amii monument

    I just wonder if the person is retarded or just had really bad day? So toxic. Glad you know smart words like power spike... On the topic, OP is wrong, normal T4 binds only 100 power + 300 is one-time payment for "breaking throught" to T4, comparing to Amii Monument binding 250 power and being limited to 1 per map. Keep in mind that its worth to be used only in PvE higher difficulties and offers nothing that can't be made by simply orb-switching without it. May be off-topic, but Enlightenment is limited rarity-price and power cost and occupying deck slot in order to summon small amount of units that are otherwise impossible to fit, this is actually great to see how it offers such versantility for mere 240 power and a slot in a deck. Batariel, Shadow Worm, Dreadnought, isn't it fun to use them in multi-colored decks? What's important, is that there are HUGE number of cards that are just not VALID for anything short of very specific strategies, while there are many working combos with Enlightenment or Amii Monument. Its not an option to remove working card combinations or rework them, while there are cards that are just unworthy to put in any deck at all. Also nerf juggernaut and harvester they are lame, and make thunder wagon into thunder zeppelin :)
  7. Mak

    nerf amii monument

    I would strongly recommend to stop whining about nerf-I-don't-like-it and actually BOOST cards that are alternative for this. Someone feels that T3 isn't enough for him, and can allow to spend 400 power to jump straight to T4? Take some useless T3 cards and actually boost them for at least matching their rarity (yes, sandstorm, corsair, oracle mask, twilight warfare, ALL twilights actually, I'm talking about them). It's so funny when feeling better getting uncommon shaman in booster, not some ultra-rare thrash.
  8. It would be nice if it was implemented SOMEDAY. I don't think it is so unreasonably DIFFICULT to implement the feature. You know, small blob of green/red colour somewhere in the launcher or something.
  9. When I try to log in, Launcher.exe crashes, following by usual "lost connection to server" etc. launcher.log reads following (16:13:01) main(): (I) Game started (16:13:01) Proxy::Run(): (S) Listening for local connection (16:13:06) SecureServerSocket::AcceptConnection(): (I) Connection from 16777343:29890 (16:13:07) Proxy::Run(): (S) Received local connection (16:13:07) Proxy::HandlePacket(): (I) Connecting to server: Borderline (16:13:07) Borderline: (S) Started listening (16:13:07) Borderline: (I) KeepAlive Request (16:13:07) Borderline: (I) Packet forwarded to the server (16:13:07) Borderline: (I) Server assign sessin ID 18828318 (16:13:08) Borderline: (I) Passed a packet to the game (16:13:08) Borderline: (I) Packet forwarded to the server (16:13:08) Borderline: (I) Passed a packet to the game (16:13:08) Proxy::HandlePacket(): (I) Connecting to server: PreGame (16:13:08) PreGame: (S) Started listening (16:13:08) PreGame: (I) KeepAlive Request (16:13:08) PreGame: (I) Packet forwarded to the server (16:13:09) PreGame: (I) Passed a packet to the game (16:13:09) PreGame: (I) Packet forwarded to the server (16:13:09) PreGame: (I) Passed a packet to the game (16:13:09) PreGame: (I) Packet forwarded to the server (16:13:10) PreGame: (I) Passed a packet to the game (16:13:10) PreGame: (I) Packet forwarded to the server (16:13:10) PreGame: (I) Passed a packet to the game (16:13:10) PreGame: (I) Packet forwarded to the server (16:13:10) PreGame: (I) Passed a packet to the game (16:13:11) Proxy::HandlePacket(): (I) Connecting to server: Matchmaking (16:13:11) Matchmaking: (S) Started listening (16:13:11) Matchmaking: (I) KeepAlive Request (16:13:11) Matchmaking: (I) Packet forwarded to the server (16:13:12) Matchmaking: (I) Passed a packet to the game (16:13:33) SecureStreamSocket::Init(): (E) Connection to server 3481910053:7403 failed (-1) (16:13:33) Proxy::InitServer(): (E) Socket connection failed (16:13:33) signal_error: (I) Memory usage peak: 8968.00 kB, current: 8968.00 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) Invalid memory segment access (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 18: - 0x0 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 17: - 0x0 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 16: - 0x0 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 15: - 0x0 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 14: - 0x0 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 13: - 0x0 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 12: RtlDecodePointer - 0x77BF8080 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 11: RtlUnwindEx - 0x77BE79A0 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 10: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 9: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 8: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 7: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 6: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 5: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 4: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 3: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 2: KiUserExceptionDispatcher - 0x77C1BC8A (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 1: BaseThreadInitThunk - 0x77AC59C0 (16:13:33) printStack(): (E) 0: RtlUserThreadStart - 0x77BFA540 (16:13:33) MySignalException: (I) Ready to be thrown
  10. Mak

    Open Stress Test - All you need to know!

    16.09.2018 04:43 GMT Game Server - DOWN Forge Server - OK I wish this was somewhere on the forum, preferably under nice green Open Stress Test thingy, updating every 10 minutes or so. Player count would be nice too.
  11. A bug from original game still counts i think, and the card description does not mention its recast time like literally all other arcane cards do. I mean its like "meh doesn't matter", but i think it should be fixed someday. 1. Description lacks recast number specified. 2. On some ocassions it restores more than 1 charge - use it on 1 charge T4 creature grants 2 extra charges. 3. Recast time takes too long - almost like [cooldown time with 0 charges] = [recast time with >0 charges] - it shouldn't be like this
  12. Point is that it goes on cooldown (or has reusable interval too big) instead of being reusable every 5-20 seconds like most Arcane cards. It should be several seconds reusable, not cooling down when it has charges >1. When it has 0 charges it goes on cooldown and then adds a single charge after cooldown if finished. It could be a bug from original game, this spell is quite buggy, like sometimes it adds 2 charges instead of just 1. The description has to mention how fast will it be reusable, then with upgrades the [reusable] interval shrinks, while [cooldown] stays the same.
  13. NAME: Offering (G) goes on cooldown with charges present SEVERITY: 3 LOCATION: Ingame REPRODUCIBILITY: ALWAYS (checked with 2 accounts 2 maps) DESCRIPTION: Offering Green (hasn't checked other version) goes on cooldown with charges >1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: None.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.