Jump to content

DarcReaver

Member
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by LEBOVIN in Inferno charges   
    He is obviously referring to me for the above and making this duplicated post with the Inferno here - wouldnt that be the same then?
    Secondly, you proposed this in the Warlock case:
    and I proposed this:
     Reduce cost from 65 to 60  Increase duration of the buff from 15 to 20 seconds  Change frequency of being able to cast from 5 to 4 seconds  Allow him to cast also on himself (Small QoL), still prioritize others first (if possible) I believe this is different enough to not call it stealing your idea. And even if it was not, it is not like one is obliged to give credit for balancing suggestions especially as plain as a cost reduction.
    Besides you cannot really steal something that might get applied as a balancing change for everyone ...no offense was intended... we are all for change!
    On Inferno, result here is the same as in discord ✓ 
  2. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Darian DelFord in Card Balancing and the Future of the Game   
    Ok I have been around BF since early Beta... and by that I mean 2008.  Love the game, love what its about and I hate Phenom for not doing more of a marketing campaign in the US  ( And Root Network Nerf! ). 
    With that said.....
    WTH are we waiting on in regards to implementing changes to some of the cards.  Those of us who have been around know damn well that SOMETHING needs to be done to cards.  This project has been going on what 4 or 5 years now and how many have been changed?
    I am sorry but I have a problem with this.  The community has come up with several ideas which honestly are GREAT.  Why are they not slowly being implemented.  One of the things that hurt this game is there were cards that flat out needed to be NERFED and many that needed to be buffed.  Having worked on a project I know that most of the changes are simple edits to the scripts that change the cards as well as an edit to the card itself if it is not an auto update based on the script.
    We are in Open Stress.... and have been....... for a long..... long ....... time now.  We need to start pushing changes to cards forward and get it done before we go live whenever the hell that will be.   I have seen the posts about a single person holding up card balance.  I do not know how true it is.  But we need to start implementing it.  Imagine just how many we could have done in 4 years. ....... And had time to get it right!
  3. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Ladadoos in Recent BFP Reward Changes are Bad for Daily Players   
    Which is what I already did. And using the data from the whole player base I have calculated and concluded that a 450BFP booster gives on average 450BFP worth in cards.
  4. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Mynoduesp in Analysis of the 25 Card Deck   
    Whenever it's time for bigger decksizes I'd suggest 24 card decks and place them in two layers of 12 cards. Second layer would be partially hidden behind the first (big enough to be accessible by mouse). The 12 card layers would perfectly correspond to the 12 f-keys which are the games default hotkeys.
    I already wish there would be small gabs between card 4 and 5 as well as 8 and 9 for visual clarity. 
  5. ImaginaryNumb3r liked a post in a topic by DarcReaver in Card Balancing and the Future of the Game   
    Statements like this are coming almost exclusively from people who want to shove their weight around. There are dozens of games that have ladders for multiplayer matching and are wiped every now and then. Yet people still play these games, even if they have to re-invest up to hundreds of hours. 
    The game requires a steady time of like 4-5 hours per week to receive boosters and manage to play a mission or two, or a couple of pvp matches. It's literally not much more than playing CS GO at this point.
    Considering this fact it's likely you won't start playing even after a wipe either. Just like all the tards from reddit who are talking about the "glorious days back then". They just talk about the game but won't play it anyways.
  6. Rivazar liked a post in a topic by DarcReaver in Monetization system   
    read the FAQ
     
  7. fiki574 liked a post in a topic by DarcReaver in Card Balancing and the Future of the Game   
    Statements like this are coming almost exclusively from people who want to shove their weight around. There are dozens of games that have ladders for multiplayer matching and are wiped every now and then. Yet people still play these games, even if they have to re-invest up to hundreds of hours. 
    The game requires a steady time of like 4-5 hours per week to receive boosters and manage to play a mission or two, or a couple of pvp matches. It's literally not much more than playing CS GO at this point.
    Considering this fact it's likely you won't start playing even after a wipe either. Just like all the tards from reddit who are talking about the "glorious days back then". They just talk about the game but won't play it anyways.
  8. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Kiwi in My Name   
    Your name was changed on our forums for being "UltraCock" not "BigTits" and your in game name was changed to "Bigs" from "BigTits" because many people reported it for being offensive. There is over 63,000 members in our community and staff work in their spare time, unfortunately we can't spend hours upon hours going through every single members details to make sure their names both in game and forums meet our community guidelines that is why we have an ingame reporting system for such a thing.
    As for tit not even being a word, there are six species of bird that all are classed as "tits". You can also see that tit has many different meanings in the English language at these following links:
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tit
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tit
  9. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Kubik in Announcement: Kubik's departure and progress going forward   
    `Why you leave?` Because I will not work with MrXLink anymore.
    `Come back pls` No
    `We know` who is we? I doubt most people even know I ever existed.
  10. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by synthc in The New Player Experience (Observations & Suggestions)   
    Totally agree here.  I talked about this and made some suggestions primarily from a returning player's perspective here: 
    I think that the solution is to have four main quest-lines that are available from the start - one for each color.  These quests would give account bound R and UR rewards for playing each color.
    A simplified example of rewards progression (in no particular order):
    Path of Fire:
    Firedancer Wildfire Juggernaut Batariel Cluster Explosion (Repeat rewards up to 4 times for charges) High level reward for like 1000 pure fire matches would be promo Juggernaut. Path of Nature:
    Spikeroot Parasite Swarm Shrine of Memory Mind Control Forest Elder (Repeat rewards up to 4 times for charges) High level reward for like 1000 pure nature matches would be promo Swamp Drake or Razorleaf. Path of Shadow:
    Shadow Mage Nether Warp (B) Harvester Soulshatter Grim Bahir/Shadow Worm (Repeat rewards up to 4 times for charges) High level reward for like 1000 pure shadow matches would be promo Harvester. Path of Frost:
    War Eagle Area Ice Shield Northstar (B) Dreadnought Worldbreaker Gun (Repeat rewards up to 4 times for charges) High level reward for like 1000 pure frost matches would be promo Lyrish Knight or Construct. It's important to give players ways to get pure cards early on, otherwise the meta will be completely dominated by splash decks which require fewer R/UR cards.  I also like the idea of allowing players to choose which cards they get as rewards.  As Eirias pointed out, getting some of these more rare, unique, and interesting cards will help a lot with new player retention.
    This would devalue these rares and ultra-rares, but that's really not a problem since we're not trying to make money off of boosters.  Effectively making these earnable basic cards opens up the possibility of playing pure decks early, which otherwise just wouldn't happen until people farmed up a lot of BFP to buy these cards.
    The requirements for these main questlines should be diverse and require players to play a variety of games modes (it would make sense to require people to play PvP to get the PvP cards and PvE for the PvE cards).
    The game has a lot to offer, and now that it's not pay to win we can give new players some of the many cool cards early on, rather than locking them behind a deprecated paywall.
  11. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Cocofang in Balance proposal: Amii Monument   
    "Amii is so OP and broken! People are using it to finish maps too fast! That is so bad for the game."
    "We should give Amii to the good players only to widen the gap between what options they have and what the rest does. Sounds good."
    Anyone else sees the disconnect in logic here?
  12. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by SunWu II. in nerf amii monument   
    How exactly does amii monument add variety in T4? If you want to say it makes 5 orb decks possible, this maybe the case but nobody does that, haven't seen it in hundred of rPVEs.
  13. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by synthc in Balance Proposal: Twilight Hag   
    I think that the card will still be useless after receiving a buff like this.  If we look at other T3 units with CC abilities, those abilities are always very aggressively costed when compared to spells, due to their more restrictive nature (in terms of positioning and bound power).  Examples being Fathom Lord, which has excellent stats, and a cheap paralyze (the strongest kind of CC); Swamp Drake, which has solid stats for a flying unit and what is essentially Oink for 30 power (with 2 fewer seconds to hit the affected unit without reverting CC); and Timeless One which is cheap and has a dirt cheap ability.
    Twilight Hag, on the other hand, has abysmal combat stats, and even at 50 power, the ability is still worse than Oink in most cases.  A few things to consider:
    You have to bind 75 power in order to use Twilight Hag's ability. The unit is occupied for the full duration of the ability, meaning that she doesn't do damage or knockback while using it. The ability only takes effect around the unit, unlike Swamp Drake and Timeless One where you have a decent bit of range to place the CC optimally.  Combined with her low HP, this makes getting her into position very difficult. If the Hag is CC'ed or teleported the ability is cancelled.  This means that the ability is completely countered by several spells that don't cost that much more (even after your proposed change) and are very likely to get more value by hitting other enemies. As a non-squad M unit, she can be completely locked down by knockback. The ability radius is actually much smaller than the aura would suggest (small enough for ranged units to hit her, charge units to charge at her, and Grigori to disintegrate her), so there is room to increase the AoE. The ability doesn't affect female enemies, as well as many beasts and some other units (mostly anything that doesn't have a male voice).  This may not be very significant right now, but as weak cards are buffed, many of those unused cards will be used and this downside will become more apparent. As far as the unit's combat abilities go, it's not even cost effective against units it should counter (e.g. Fathom Lord, Virtuoso, or even Fallen Skyelf). And the upsides:
    She can't be knocked back while using her ability. Her damage buff/healing is nice, but only really does much if you have a lot of units around her (which makes her even more vulnerable to CC). Her knockback radius is pretty big, making her good for locking down M and S units. I can understand wanting to be conservative with buffs in order to not break things, but I think that if we're going to make much progress we can't be afraid to be more aggressive with our buffs.  We should be putting units into a state that puts them on par with other good units; then if they end up being too strong, we can always dial them back after testing them on the test server.  A common and effective methodology for pre-release balance (which this is) is to push the unit to what you see as the reasonable limit (some designers would argue even beyond that limit) in order to find the unit's strengths and to get a good feel for its interactions, and then dial it back if necessary.
    My proposal:
    I think that buffing the ability and increasing the unit's HP for more survivability is the right approach, it just needs a LOT more:
    Increase HP from 785 to 1350. Decrease ability cost to 15. Increase ability radius by 5m. If CC hits more than 1 unit, it's still generally a cost effective way to counter the Hag's ability.  Pure fire has Wildfire, which easily kills her even at 1350 HP unless you cancel the ability and move her (and pure fire doesn't need any help in T3 anyway).  This is a huge HP buff, but it still doesn't put her in a normal stat per cost range for a T3 unit (Silverwinds have nearly double her current stats).
    A better alternative would be to give her damage resistance and CC immunity while using her ability, along with a moderate HP boost and ability cost reduction; but that would probably be a lot harder to implement - the above solution should suffice.
  14. mbored liked a post in a topic by DarcReaver in What kind of DAILY quests would you prefer as main BFP source?   
    Minorities are usually overpresent in any kind of public internet vote because they have a higher percentage of participants compared to other groups. Solely listening on thse votes is a bad idea because of that. 
    About the daily rewards: 
    Just as another option: How about adding the "get a free common card" for a "win of the day" quest? 
  15. Dallarian liked a post in a topic by DarcReaver in Synthc's Balance Proposal   
    If you don't change the overall meta the veterans will stomp the newer players and drive them away from the game, leaving the pvp community ultimatively dead for everyone but a couple of old day players.
    It's already almost impossible to catch up to all the abusive combos, micro tricks and other gameplay elements to even get on par with the "average joe" player who used to play Bforge before shutdown.
    Bugs need to be fixed, wombo combos should be harder to obtain and overall it would be nice to have a couple of equally available units for each unit role instead of a couple of no brainer cards that outclass every other card in one ore multiple areas.
    That's why SynthCs approach is good.
  16. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Fannabar in Balance changes to game   
    I doubt a lot of people remember it but there was a system in place in the original BF though it only got to implement a couple of changes.

    It was a sort of "player council" that would discuss balance changes with the developers following certain steps:

    1. Cards would be submitted to balance changes by community vote
    2. If the devs agreed that the card could use a change (based on the Database: Number of places \ Win Rate etc.) the "council" would be asked to submit arguments for certain changes in a secluded part of the Forum
    3. The Devs would collect theese changes and propose a certain change wich would be disscused in a Live Chat with the "council"

    That only happend about 4 Times in the time where i was on it. The major Problem was that the changes came to slow and that there was no way to reimburse players who spend a lot of BFP on a card only to have it nerved. The Devs were quite carefull with changes due to that fact.

    Overall i belive it would be a solid system if u introduce a regularity and now that the game is free to play

    And since my forum account has a different name (some1 took my old one) this is Feagul
  17. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Loriens in Balance changes to game   
    @Kubik
    I propose to rebalance Nightshade Plant - awful twilight version of Grimvine with worse stats and useless ability.
    It costs more than Abomination which has better stats and very decent ability;
    It has no Siege like Grimvine, it has no good ability.
    It requires 2 fire 2 nature orb.
    So - what's the purpose of this card?
    Decent idea.
    Btw, looks like it's not BUG on Soultree
    Moon says: summon 5 orbs. Orbs. Not monuments.
  18. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Deldrimor in Balance changes to game   
    /sign.
  19. Chibiterasu liked a post in a topic by DarcReaver in Balance changes to game   
    Separate balancing sounds good in theory but is impractical. Mostly because it confuses people even more than the game currently does. That's why it's better to keep the stats for both PVE and PVP the same. The good thing about PVE is that in theory you can buff underused cards to serve more of a purpose in PVE matches.
    Example: for some reason Master Archers are nerfed. Northguards on the other hand are never used in PVP, so they can be used by PVEs instead if necessary. This is just an example though.
    If the amii monument is doing exactly as intended answer following questions pls:
    Why is it that if you play a 4 player map in single player that the other starting locations have no orbs? And the other orbs on the map are usually guarded by L and XL creatures?
    Easy answer: because each tier gets exponentially more powerful. So gaining an easy way to get an additional tier level lowers the map difficulty. And on Soultree this even leads to winning the game instantly.
    The card should be reworked to require 4 neutral orbs to allow 5 multicolor splashes. This would indirectly buff pure color decks because you could mix in different 1-orb t4 abilities to support your pure color creatures instead of breaking map difficulty on several maps.
    Everybody stating stuff like this needs to be banned from development processes. This statement is utter ignorance.
    I doubt that there is a large number of people "waiting for reset". There are new players every now and then who try PVP, get smashed by the old school players and leave.
    The game has a very, very steep learning curve with all the different colors, splashes, XL units, tiers, void/power management and so on that only a small part actually stays and plays. 
    There are quite a few balance issues, and some stuff like counterplay against certain units is just so counter intuitive that I doubt it's healthy for the game. The whole stonekin faction is pure cancer for healthy gameplay as an example, at least if played with half a brain cell. 
    Indeed. The longer patches are absent the more repetitive strategies and abuse/exploits are found and used in matchmaking. This usually leads to most players who disagree with that leaving the game. This also applies to the stuff I wrote in the paragraph above.
    I do agree on these points - but I disagree on point 2 - I doubt there will be a large amount of people to increase the community for longer time.
    The issue with old games is that newcomers rarely have the chance to catch up on the old seasoned players skill wise. The longer a game is left unpatched, the more abusive the meta becomes and the more exploits are found and used to win.
    BF already suffers from its steep learning curve even before playing the first match (hundreds of cards of 4 different main colors + 3 splash decks + neutral cards, how to build a working PVP deck, how to manage power, how to manage units etc.) and then there is the fact that you need to upgrade your cards to even stand a chance in pvp matches at all.
    This leads to early frustration and makes people abandon the game. I encounter new players every now and then in matchmaking, and they're gone after quite short time from my impression. 
    The game was made by Phenomic, and Phenomic was widely known for making RTS games who were at the border of frustratingly hard to play. 
    About the card nerfs itself: 
    I do agree that some cards need buffs and some might need nerfs, but in general I would appreciate more variety in the viable core cards. The game has dozens of cards that could be used for the same role but aren't because some other card is stronger. Not a little bit stronger, but so strong that it hurts. Great examples were shown in RadicalX  underwhelming Top50 topic. 
    Having more alternatives automatically leads to a more healthy enviroment because 
    a) players have more options to choose from (more happy players because they can use their favorite unit X more frequently)
    b) games are more interesting to watch because you see more varied decks
    c) certain decks may get buffed because they can mix unit types more frequently
  20. Kilian Dermoth liked a post in a topic by DarcReaver in Balance changes to game   
    Separate balancing sounds good in theory but is impractical. Mostly because it confuses people even more than the game currently does. That's why it's better to keep the stats for both PVE and PVP the same. The good thing about PVE is that in theory you can buff underused cards to serve more of a purpose in PVE matches.
    Example: for some reason Master Archers are nerfed. Northguards on the other hand are never used in PVP, so they can be used by PVEs instead if necessary. This is just an example though.
    If the amii monument is doing exactly as intended answer following questions pls:
    Why is it that if you play a 4 player map in single player that the other starting locations have no orbs? And the other orbs on the map are usually guarded by L and XL creatures?
    Easy answer: because each tier gets exponentially more powerful. So gaining an easy way to get an additional tier level lowers the map difficulty. And on Soultree this even leads to winning the game instantly.
    The card should be reworked to require 4 neutral orbs to allow 5 multicolor splashes. This would indirectly buff pure color decks because you could mix in different 1-orb t4 abilities to support your pure color creatures instead of breaking map difficulty on several maps.
    Everybody stating stuff like this needs to be banned from development processes. This statement is utter ignorance.
    I doubt that there is a large number of people "waiting for reset". There are new players every now and then who try PVP, get smashed by the old school players and leave.
    The game has a very, very steep learning curve with all the different colors, splashes, XL units, tiers, void/power management and so on that only a small part actually stays and plays. 
    There are quite a few balance issues, and some stuff like counterplay against certain units is just so counter intuitive that I doubt it's healthy for the game. The whole stonekin faction is pure cancer for healthy gameplay as an example, at least if played with half a brain cell. 
    Indeed. The longer patches are absent the more repetitive strategies and abuse/exploits are found and used in matchmaking. This usually leads to most players who disagree with that leaving the game. This also applies to the stuff I wrote in the paragraph above.
    I do agree on these points - but I disagree on point 2 - I doubt there will be a large amount of people to increase the community for longer time.
    The issue with old games is that newcomers rarely have the chance to catch up on the old seasoned players skill wise. The longer a game is left unpatched, the more abusive the meta becomes and the more exploits are found and used to win.
    BF already suffers from its steep learning curve even before playing the first match (hundreds of cards of 4 different main colors + 3 splash decks + neutral cards, how to build a working PVP deck, how to manage power, how to manage units etc.) and then there is the fact that you need to upgrade your cards to even stand a chance in pvp matches at all.
    This leads to early frustration and makes people abandon the game. I encounter new players every now and then in matchmaking, and they're gone after quite short time from my impression. 
    The game was made by Phenomic, and Phenomic was widely known for making RTS games who were at the border of frustratingly hard to play. 
    About the card nerfs itself: 
    I do agree that some cards need buffs and some might need nerfs, but in general I would appreciate more variety in the viable core cards. The game has dozens of cards that could be used for the same role but aren't because some other card is stronger. Not a little bit stronger, but so strong that it hurts. Great examples were shown in RadicalX  underwhelming Top50 topic. 
    Having more alternatives automatically leads to a more healthy enviroment because 
    a) players have more options to choose from (more happy players because they can use their favorite unit X more frequently)
    b) games are more interesting to watch because you see more varied decks
    c) certain decks may get buffed because they can mix unit types more frequently
  21. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Kilian Dermoth in Balance changes to game   
    To the bug reporting thing:
    At first the whole thing is just to complicated (giant overcomplicated template, multiple forums, 1000s of bug reports and so on) and when the open stress test began there were already over 1000 bug reports from closed beta testers that just appeared at once for non closed beta testesters. So, especially at the beginning it was hard to tell (for non closed beta testers) if a bug was already reported or not while the reactions of the staff were sometimes totally unfriendlay to already reported bugs or there were even no reaction at all (did they read, will they do anything, is this report even appreciated?). Also the reactions I have seen to bug reports that didnt use the template were unfriendly, too.
    Thats why I thought: fuck it, there are others who will report the same bug, let them have the hassle with that overcomplicated template, searching the forum and the reactions of the staff.
    But sometimes I just felt, maybe its a not so common bug or its a new bug, so I just wrote a little bit on discord about it and got sometimes also a bad (aggressive looking) answer by the staff about why I am not writeing in the forum? No this reaction didnt made me to write in the forum because of some of the mentioned reasons and I even thought: fuck it, next time i think twice about even reporting on discord. This happend some times and every time my interest in reporting in any way got lower, especially because the game looks very stable for me now.
    Yeah thats critisism on the staff and how bug reports were handled, especially at the begin of the open stress test. I know you might have another opinion or another point of view but I am not interested in discussing this further, just take it as my (bad) experience and do with it what you want.
    Another reason for not reporting bugs is that most of the bugs I encountered were common bugs where I thought I couldnt provide that much of new information, because most of them just appeared of a sudden and werent possible to reproduce. Most of them also appered while interacting or playing with other people, so maybe they did something (while I did something?) so that its impossible to reproduce without knowing what the other person did. So I just could say, hey I had that bug, but really dont have a clue why and it often didnt happen again for a while.
    Other people might have other reasons for not reporting or are just lazy.
    And to the message with the bug reporting. I have seen that message but if it only apeared while a specific bug happend, I just didnt recognize that bug at all, just the message.
    And that discord has its own bug report section is completely new to me, I even had to check if it is really there after I have read it in this thread. Especially because of the reactions of the stuff I thought there wont be a simple way to report a bug. The section is  new, isnt it?
    To the balancing thing:
    PvP: should be the main aspect for balancing (until T3) because its most important here.
    PvE: should only be balanced in a way so that unused cards get also used. Further than that there shouldnt be much balancing, because its not necessary that the cards are all competitive to each other. Thats not how PvE works.
    Speedrunners: I wonder why they are even mentioned that much? You shouldnt care about them at all, because speedrunning is playing PvE in a (usually abusive) way to achieve lowest times. So if balancing for PvE doesnt matter that much why should it even matter for speedrunning? Especially because speedrunning is about abusing unabalanced cards. So balancing speedrunning would mean to remove that unabalance in some cards, speedrunners are using, and not to keep this unbalance in some cards. Also this would be more of a PvE and PvP balancing than a Speedrunning balance.
    Even if they are affected by balance changes there is really no reason to consider especially speedrunning while balancing cards. A good speedrunner should also be good with changed cards, also this could lead to new challenges to them.
  22. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Kubik in Balance changes to game   
    so you even agree that card that make even bigger difference that amii moument would be "compliant with the rules"
    "Why do u guys keep coming up with this exaggerated example" isn't that obvious? because amii monument on soultree do exactly the same
  23. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Kubik in Balance changes to game   
    So you would like us to create card that kill everything on the map so you can be first on leaderbors if you manage to play it fastest, because no one expecting that card to exist when they was creating the rules so it is fine to add it later, rules will be the same, and players that do not want to use that car will not be forced to, unles whey will want to get competitive times...
  24. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by WindHunter in Balance changes to game   
    This is a flawed reasoning, let me illustrate via two examples, one for PvP and one for PvE.
    (1) Imagine you are playing checkers. In checkers you can only move forward, until a piece is kinged, and you must jump a piece if it is possible. Now imagine you set up a nice 2 for 3 jump trap for your opponent but when he falls for it he refuses to execute the jump. He says that the rules of checkers violates his "freedom" and not only should he not have to jump, and thus give you a piece advantage, but he should also be allowed to move backwards at any time. You would rightfully think this absurd as the game isn't a game without rules and freedom in the game exists only because the rules exist. Your opponent checker nihilism/relativism in defense of his "freedom" would make the game itself unplayable. This is the PvP example.
    (2) Imagine you are running a 5K race. When you start the race you run the first 2 kilometers and are tied with a fellow runner. At this point your fellow runner stops, walks over to a car waiting on the side of the road, and decides to drive the next 2 kilometers. You run the fastest 5K time ever on that course, but your fellow runner unsurprisingly wins the race and "runs" faster then you, such that he know holds the course record. When you confront him afterwards that he violated the norms of the race and cheated/exploited the system by driving he tells you that "it doesn't sound fair to me to inhibit other runners' freedom by forcing them to only run in the slower way that you like". Now its obvious this person's appeal to freedom is absurd, because unless the norms of the race are enforced, then their is no reason for the competition in the first place. Additionally, his time should be stricken from the record for its exploitation to begin with. This is the PvE example, and I think its obvious to see how to fits the scenario with cards like Amii Monument in Soultree. 
  25. DarcReaver liked a post in a topic by Kubik in Balance changes to game   
    When the map was released that card did not exist so you skip part of map, just because single card check map next time you will be playing it it show you which monuments you should have Because of that I thin it is a bug, that they add card without checking for consequences (not to mention that you have the orb for only 250 instead of 300 power, that can aslos make big difference on some other maps, yes ability cost 160 power, but you get 100% of that back)
×
×
  • Create New...

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. Terms of Use