I agree with the minion experience sentiment, summoned units in Warcraft 3 gave exp and you still saw plenty of water elementals and spirit wolves running around. The amount would just need to be reasonably small so that minions wouldn't be a disadvantage.
This is one of the reasons why I think the devs need to proceed carefully if they're going to rebalance items. Currently item balance is such that being behind a few kills isn't a game breaker early because everyone can still afford to get their characters up to par in a reasonable amount of time. If gloves were buffed the way people want it would amplify the momentum issue, as would a nerf to the moderately priced items which everyone gets or a buff to the more expensive ones.<
I don't see how this could possibly be worth getting. Look at Blade of the Serpent. +400 mana +25 weapon damage There are no downsides to this item stat-wise. Now lets take your Rain of Ice rank I example. It deals 200 damage and there's what, 6'ish creeps in a standard wave? So say you activate the blade, hit 5 creeps and one DG with it, you'll deal 1200 damage, returning 900 mana. This can be done every 45 seconds withou
Diablo isn't an RTS, this game isn't an RTS.
Hey just out of curiousity what's the internet backbone like down there? I never really thought about it. Also what's your ping? Most north americans I've played with will tolerate 250'ish, but the euros will kick most anyone over 100.
It was a solid game, not sure if you looked up the premade, but two of those three we beat had 90% win rates and were top 50. That being said one of the three looked like a new guy they were teaching to play. Still, not too shabby on our end for a pug, it was a fun game. :)
I just think that it'd be hard to get to that point as rook. I'd be worried about getting too far behind on gold before level 4 when she would have free run of the gold mine and celerity flag since two towers isn't enough to drive her off and rook would lack the HP to stand up to pounce/autoattack damage out of range of base towers. Also getting the exp flag wouldn't be especially feasible for rook early game.
[quote]any DECENT sedna will pounce your hammer slam, and the towers just tickle her[/quote]Propsed Sedna has about 35% damage reduction, the towers do around 120 damage at rank 3, meaning they'll hit for 80'ish a pop and I believe their attack speed is once every two seconds. Rank 3 pounce does 800 damage, which is less than two hits from six towers, and two hits is a reasonable expectation if she enters melee range. Therefore pounce tickles? Sedna can't in
I much prefer the Staff of Renewal on TB and Rook.
[quote]In Starcraft it used to be poor form to say GG[/quote]Yup. It's polite nowadays on Left 4 Dead and DG, but I'm still accustomed to the old SC days.
I'd go Erebus or Rook. With Rook at that point I would have Archers Tower of Light Siege Hat Power of the Tower III Hammer Slam II Staff of Renewal Nimoth's Banded Plenor Vlemish Priests (Citadel Upgrade) I'd just push up with towers, and boulder if she gets too brave. Seems oversimplified,
[quote]if youre playing 2 oak vs 2 rook theyre going to rape your face till about lvl 7, but then youre going to take off like a bat out of hell.[/quote]Which one will? I would think that rook would start to really get good at 7.
[quote]The sad part is that the above argument actually holds more water than the one for disallowing doubles.[/quote]Yeah, the thing about most people's objection to doubles is that there's no evaluation of what exactly makes them so unreasonable. There's many abilities which are actually less effective in pairs. Take something like Mass Charm, double MC doesn't work, you can't chain them together without waiting on stun immunity to pass, and I definitely fear spit+snipe more tha
I'm still stuck in the SC days when GG was purely sarcastic, so I have a hard time stifling my rage when people say it at the end of a match or round of l4d, so I'm afraid I can't help you.
I'm surprised you guys would care about double spit as much as you would double grasp. Four seconds of stun while Spit and Ooze tick along with one of the UB's autoattacks (since you can't AA while grasping) is pretty much a guaranteed kill unless you have an Oak shield or Sedna's spamming heals into you, not to mention you're not going to be able to escape the followup damage. There's just a handful of annoying doubles setups that people aren't going to let you do. Double
[quote]3) stats - hard to accurately match when stats are fubared All three of these are intertwined and fixing one without the other three does not get you anywhere.[/quote]Most games show up currently, enough so that players would be paired with appropriate opponents, it'll just take longer than if there were a 100% accurate record, so long as custom games aren't part of the equation.
Here's a neat paper that this discussion reminded me of: http://www.masscomm.loyno.edu/~dmyers/F99%20classes/Myers_PlayPunishment_031508.doc Not sure how old it is, but a friend sent it to me a few days ago. It's a different scenario but it's about a professor who saw what happened when he broke the social rules of a video game while still adhering to the game rules, in his cas
[quote]The moment players can choose their own opponents they can ensure that they never/rarely lose by refusing to play good opponents. Sure, it will take longer to gain "xp" by doing it that way, you can still climb the ladder with an immaculate (but meaningless) record. [/quote]On warcraft the top players hovered around 2500 (depending on the season, I think it's inflated a bit now), the average player was around 1500, and playing anyone with 300 or so less points than you awarded lit
[quote]C&C is just not about strategy, which is a major flaw in a strategy game. This has become a franchise that I could not care less about.[/quote]C&C3 had a fair amount of counter units. Nothing as extreme as four firebats, a bunker, and an SCV taking out 100 zerglings, but it had a good counter system nonetheless. I really think that saying CnC3 had no strategy is like saying SC had no strategy because it was all zergling rushes. I would say that CnC
[post-lock comment removed]
[quote]We went through this shit with my granddad. He was convinced they actually knew what they were doing, even after they weakened his legs by not taking him off a muscle deteriorating drug when the side effects kicked in. When we finally got him to go to another hospital for his irregular heartbeat, he ended up with an emergency surgery after they took one look at his arteries, his supposedly fine arteries. Quintuple bypass for the win. He went and had a heart atta
Btw. I like the idea of the randomize teams feature, but ONLY if this is relatively easy to do. Honestly I think that promoting skirmish play would be a simpler way of doing this. What if you just renamed skirmish to something like 'quick match' or something that sounds more serious than skirmish, and restricted the game type to conquest?
[quote]I'm not AGAINST stats per se, but I am against it being any kind of a priority when the fundamental requirements to make it work aren't even in the game at a basic level.[/quote]I REALLY hope these kind of posts resonate because it's true. There's no system in place which would make 100% accurate stats meaningful. In fact stats really just reinforce the worst of current behavior. They promote pub stomping, then they make pub stomping visible to normal players who then
[quote who="WickedBear" reply="9" id="2297162"]It is right. There is no accurate way to measure how good a player is by the games hes played because it cannot take into account all factors, especially if were counting "custom games" in the ranks. The moment you start letting people choose their opponents stats mean nothing. And no, they mean nothing in wc3. The best players of WC3 don't hardly even log into battle.net, same with starcraft. There is NO better way to determine top ra
Well your name is I web lili, so clearly you can't be trusted.
Demigod Forums