Game Update v1.89
#21
Posted 05 May 2011 - 19:23
#22
Posted 05 May 2011 - 19:56
the single stat relics should be double the maintenance cost as the multi stat relics as they are more powerful. also there probably should be a luxury tax imposed on guilds that have more than 1 empowered relic.
Btw, I see 1 relic with attack, 1 with defense, 1 with damage, 2 with HP and 3 with armor. Why did you choose that specific selection of stats? 8)
i think these relics will be more geared towards pvp than leveling. am glad to see it like this, there should be more of a challenge to leveling, would have rather seen no damage based relic at all, but seems this ratio is good as well.
#23
Posted 05 May 2011 - 21:19
I think with the 2% relics, the upkeep costs should be a little higher or the same price for upkeep than say a 2-3 stat 5% relic.
The single-stat 2% relics are indeed a bit more useful than the multi-stat 1% relics if you take a relic that has the right stat for your guild play style. Most would like to have the 2% damage relic I presume. It would be kind of odd if a 10% damage relic is twice to three times as cheap as a multi-stat relic that gives less of the most useful stat bonus: damage.
lmao the more powerfull relics are cheaper to maintain?
the single stat relics should be double the maintenance cost as the multi stat relics as they are more powerful
Couldn't agree more - for a single stat relic, the upkeep and empowerment should be at least double that of a multi-stat relic. Most guilds (I know some don't ..) will only really want DAMAGE as a relic bonus and thus, under this scheme, they're getting double whammy for 1/2 the bucks. From what I believe, there's only 1 relic that has just damage, but i can pretty much bet on which guild will end up holding it LOL.
#24
Posted 05 May 2011 - 22:01
#25
Posted 05 May 2011 - 22:10
#26
fs_mattf
Posted 05 May 2011 - 22:33
#27
Posted 05 May 2011 - 22:48
I think the tickbox should be unchecked at every reset. If you want to play you have to manually opt-in before each one starts.
that could work 8)
#28
Posted 05 May 2011 - 22:51
I think the tickbox should be unchecked at every reset. If you want to play you have to manually opt-in before each one starts.
that could work 8)
Meaning you would have to be online at the time of reset...
I'm sure not everyone is going to be online at time of reset, as it being an unpredictable time you can't just pop on at that time to opt back in... Other than that, it sounds like a good idea.
#29
fs_mashene
Posted 05 May 2011 - 22:52
(yes, single stat, but still)
#30
Posted 05 May 2011 - 23:13
Meaning you would have to be online at the time of reset...
I'm sure not everyone is going to be online at time of reset, as it being an unpredictable time you can't just pop on at that time to opt back in... Other than that, it sounds like a good idea.
If your offline and it resets.As long as the box is checked, then you keep playing the ladder. As of now..the check box is permanent until you opt out.
Example: someone is opted in,they have to re check the box for the next ladder to continue playing. The ladder then resets(box becomes unchecked at a reset) they then have 24 - 48 hours to re check the box..for the next ladder. etc. Make sense?
#31
Posted 05 May 2011 - 23:20
Meaning you would have to be online at the time of reset...
I'm sure not everyone is going to be online at time of reset, as it being an unpredictable time you can't just pop on at that time to opt back in... Other than that, it sounds like a good idea.
If your offline and it resets.As long as the box is checked, then you keep playing the ladder. As of now..the check box is permanent until you opt out.
Example: someone is opted in,they have to re check the box for the next ladder to continue playing. The ladder then resets(box becomes unchecked at a reset) they then have 24 - 48 hours to re check the box..for the next ladder. etc. Make sense?
Ah, yes. It now makes sence- and seems a very good idea!
The "If you want to play you have to manually opt-in before each one starts." is the part that misled me.I think the tickbox should be unchecked at every reset. If you want to play you have to manually opt-in before each one starts.
#32
fs_mattf
Posted 06 May 2011 - 00:06
#33
Posted 06 May 2011 - 00:09
if relics are unfair in pvp then so is the use of guild tagged gear in pvp, yet i havent heard any pvper complain about it
*chuckles* - put another record on, n get over it
#34
Posted 06 May 2011 - 00:20
imo, remove guild tagging altogether. Bring value back to gear!if relics are unfair in pvp then so is the use of guild tagged gear in pvp, yet i havent heard any pvper complain about it
#35
Posted 06 May 2011 - 00:20
if relics are unfair in pvp then so is the use of guild tagged gear in pvp, yet i havent heard any pvper complain about it
Someone who truly excels in pvp shouldn't care if they have relics or not, and should be able to adapt, adjust and overcome their opponents
#36
fs_ubiknoby
Posted 06 May 2011 - 07:43
#37
Posted 06 May 2011 - 12:53
Could you change the calculation of the upkeep costs by ignoring players if they have been inactive for 30 days?
On 04 May 2011 01:11 in Post subject: Game Update v1.871 you have asked:
"Maybe it could ignore the guild member in regards to the upkeep multiplier if they have been inactive for say 30 days?"
I totaly agree with that. Inactive players should not be counted to the upkeep costs. Our guild have a lot of inactive people but we don't want to trim inactives, because always some of them are comming back to game . We don't throw them away only because they are not active. This is only a game and not everyone have enough time to play.
#38
Posted 06 May 2011 - 13:36
Hi Hoof,
Could you change the calculation of the upkeep costs by ignoring players if they have been inactive for 30 days?
On 04 May 2011 01:11 in Post subject: Game Update v1.871 you have asked:
"Maybe it could ignore the guild member in regards to the upkeep multiplier if they have been inactive for say 30 days?"
I totaly agree with that. Inactive players should not be counted to the upkeep costs. Our guild have a lot of inactive people but we don't want to trim inactives, because always some of them are comming back to game . We don't throw them away only because they are not active. This is only a game and not everyone have enough time to play.
I'm not sure about this, if so they probably shouldn't be allowed to be used to carry guild gear.
#39
Posted 06 May 2011 - 13:47
+1 for manual opt in
Removing the ability to Bounty a PvP Ladder attack is something I've been thinking about. If enough people want it, I don't see why not. It might be a relatively easy tweak, unlike the rest of the suggestions.
#40
Posted 06 May 2011 - 23:29
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

