Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ProzaicMuze

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Game Rules / Re: Initiative - is it right or wrong
« on: March 17, 2013, 09:41:19 AM »
I'm really enjoying the assumptions you make in this post. I'll illustrate how silly they are and then I'm done replying to you because we've derailed this thread enough as it is.

Arguing for current system (Inititative unchanged, new mechanics interacting with it coming later) is not hypocritical at all. Your suggestion was "old news" because your "suggestion" was to add new mechanics that interact with Initiative. This would be like adding a suggestion to add more "Sleepers of Avarrach" cards or to add new factions. All of these things were already known to be in the works in Alpha...long before this thread even existed.
Let's ignore the fact that I wasn't here during the alpha and that many posters other than myself are continuously posting iterative versions of the same ideas. Provide a link proving that someone suggested a system that overrides Initiative with cards that can only be played when you DON'T have initiative as illustrated in the example card Ambush.

Wrong. You only logged in to shadow the game after you were shadowing the forum. You saw my post, saw that I pointed out the fact you shadow and not actually play anymore, then you logged into the game, did nothing, played with no other players, left the game, then made this post.
So you have special powers allowing you to see exactly what I did for the HOUR that I was logged in? Then you should know that I spent that entire time playing games against the AI while I showed my brother (who is in town for a while) how to play while he sat next to me. He then played several more games on his own with several of my decks. I just happened to read chat while he was playing and noticed your discussion before I checked the forums after he got off.

Downrating multiple people dozens of times then going to their youtube channels to downrate every video on their channel is not cool. Hypocrisy in its' purest form is here. Also like to point out that the system was thrown out before I made those bug reports, so stop playing the anonymous card.
Now I'm stalking YouTube channels as well? Your magical powers let you see through the anonymity of the internet to prove that it was me? I wish I had these powers, maybe then I'd know what you're talking about.

And you're mistaken regarding the timeline:

March 1st: first round of bug reports associated with desync
March 10th: second round of bug reports

March 9th: Koey asks about disabling applaud/smite
March 12: Teremus mentions he removed said feature

Even if he posted 2 days after removing it, that's still at the same time you posted your reports and NOT before.

You smited MULTIPLE people, specifically, over and over again. You are (and are currently) aiming to damage the community as much as one person can. And if you can't do it on the forums (such as the system being removed), you'll do it outside of the forums.
You read minds too?! I'm actively attempting to destroy the community!? Gosh, I sound like a real awful person! Oh wait, that's not true at all and you can't read my mind so you have no idea what I am "aiming" to do.

You suffer from Diablo 3 Syndrome. Let me lay it out for you...You think the game is completely and totally broken and unplayable. You drop a massive truckload of huge game-redesigning suggestions and demand they be implemented. Anyone disagreeing (more than one person btw), got massively attacked on and off the forums.

This sounds like you can't shake off D3 forum-itis now can you?
I honestly think you couldn't have picked a worst game to use as an example. Here's why:

My Diablo 3 Build Guide playlist from my YouTube Channel

I don't just play Diablo 3, I have 8 L60's characters and I actively seek out new and enjoyable ways to play the game. I then create guides for these "suboptimal builds" and share them with the community. A basic google search would turn up my name on Battle.net, DiabloFans and reddit where I participated in numerous discussions for these builds. I answered questions, gave advice and generally fostered a POSITIVE environment for playing Diablo 3. I don't even need to pull up the Diablo podcast I took part in before the host moved onto other things or the fact that I streamed D3 for several months before health related issues prevented such a time commitment.

I am so glad you attempted this line of discussion because you literally couldn't have referenced an instance where you are more wrong. Thank you for that :)

The fact that you've "gotten bored" of playing the game and faded back to "trolling the forum" as your endgame is only lingering proof of D3 syndrome. The community and everyone around it does not need you.
I am certainly not bored and the fact that I have contributed hundreds of dollars to this game to set aside cards/decks for good friends to use come launch further illustrates the fact that I enjoy this game very much. Whether or not I spend hours and hours each day playing the game does not change this fact. As for trolling the forums, you seem to think you're speaking for everyone. Others have disagreed with my suggestions, but never has it reached the point where they feel the need to take it upon themselves to attempt to force me out of the community as you are doing here.

That is neither your job nor your responsibility. If the people whose job it IS to do that felt I was a problem, they would have taken the appropriate steps to fix the problem. Given that this hasn't happened, you are overreacting and being needlessly dramatic.

I am done with you. I encourage you to move on as well as I won't be entertaining anymore of your confrontational antics.

I apologize to everyone unfortunate enough to have to read this.

2
Game Rules / Re: Initiative - is it right or wrong
« on: March 17, 2013, 08:42:03 AM »
That has nothing to do with the devs bringing up these mechanics in Alpha (just saving them for another faction). Not sure what my posts....or even myself has anything to do with what you just said. It's just old news, in fact...it may even be "Last Year" old, just throwing that out there. Last I heard, common sense doesn't require time travel.

Also, you can't add to the 26 smites you solo added to my account because the broken system was taken down. (Thanks to you!)

I also heard you haven't actually played the game for 1-2 weeks and you only shadow it like the D3 forums.
You posted in this thread before I did, but when I join the conversation discussing the same topic, you isolate my posts as outdated. It's not worth labeling it "old news" when you bring it up, but is when I do? I consider that hypocritical behavior. Why would you even bother other than to cause drama? You didn't posts links supporting your statement or even further the discussion. You just dismissed my posts entirely.

I'm not sure where you got 2 weeks from, but you heard wrong. I am still playing the game (I was just online; you mentioned CV's fog/shield is a waste of resources among other things) and log in at least once every 1-3 days, especially after updates as evident by my posts regarding the IP system (still not working as intended). I could play the game for hours every day, but there isn't much of a point to it right now. Most of the features aren't in, the IP bugs prevent me from ever reaching the cap and I've played each of the factions enough to carry a conversation on the forums. This is a beta and, as such, everything is going to be in flux. Once the new UI lands (mentioned as coming very soon), I'll be testing it thoroughly. This isn't the only game I play let alone the only beta I'm in and I do have a real life to attend to. Whatever you're trying to suggest by pointing to my play time is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

You can blame me for whatever you'd like, but that doesn't make it true. I actively gave people positive/negative rep based on the merit of their posts. If there is a system in place, I'm going to use it. If you want to assume that every one of your smites was me, that's fine, I won't lose any sleep over it. The funny thing is I actually upvoted numerous times when you posted your earlier bug reports about desync issues.

But hey, clearly I'm a vindictive egotist so easily offended by people disagreeing with me that I'll smite you, specifically, over and over again.

How Diablo 3 has anything to do with this, however, is beyond me. . . apparently grasping at straws is a popular way for derailing threads.

3
Game Rules / Re: Initiative - is it right or wrong
« on: March 17, 2013, 07:11:55 AM »
Someone is about 3 weeks behind on news.

My bad, lemme get in my time machine *boop boop bedoop!*

Oh hey! Look what I found. . .

Posted by: Zinqf
« on: March 09, 2013, 02:58:47 PM »

Posted by: ProzaicMuze
« on: March 10, 2013, 11:42:08 PM »

I think you just hit 88mph 'cause your pants are on fire!

4
Game Rules / Re: Initiative - is it right or wrong
« on: March 11, 2013, 07:42:08 AM »
Any cards from my suggestion would occur before everything else.

New Suggested Stack Order:
  • New Card Type (Ambush)
  • Player with Initiative
  • Player without Initiative
By restricting these cards to the player who lacks initiative, it prevents the confusion you described and helps promote the theme that Initiative is a strong offensive tool while the new card type is a strong defensive tool.

5
Game Rules / Re: Initiative - is it right or wrong
« on: March 11, 2013, 06:33:08 AM »
I do disagree that cards that ignore initiative in the future as otherwise if both players have your suggested Ambush ability how does that resolve?? Would they just end up killing each other ?? (Cause this sounds like it would cause huge confusion and doesn't allow the animation to act throughly to indicate to the player whats happening)

My suggestion doesn't allow that to happen:

One idea I'd love to see is a system that ignores Initiative. This would allow for specific cards (or even an entire faction) that trigger before your opponent's, but can only be played when you lack initiative:

Ambush [7]: 1 Damage to Enemy Attack Zone Characters for every two Characters in your Defense Zone (Can't have initiative)

You could only play Ambush when you DON'T have initiative and this card type can only be played by one player at a time.

6
Game Rules / Re: Thoughts on Game Modes?
« on: March 11, 2013, 06:26:36 AM »
If you feel Epic is too long, that tells me you prefer shorter games. My understanding was that non-standard modes are optional for those who prefer longer/shorter games. I support this and don't see a need to change them. Epic is a great mode for those who have been wanting to use high-cost cards that they can't reasonably play otherwise.

I don't like Merged deck, though, and will never play it simply because I hate the idea of building a deck only to have it diluted by another. I don't assume it's a bad mode, though, as some folks will enjoy it. I'm just not one of those people.

(BTW, it's Hyper and Epic, not Epic and Epic ;P)

7
I don't think she needs to be changed at all.
  • Infected Pack leader is a 5/5 for 3
  • Balanced Warrior is a 3/3 for 3 that becomes a 5/5+ with Sage 1 (Spell)
  • One of Many is a 4/5 for 3 that becomes a 6/7 with Pack Leader
  • Kali is a 5/5 for 3, has Immolate at the cost of being Unique
FD has always struck me as a Character based faction with cheap grunts that lead to named "generals"
  • 1 Cost: Aspirants/Footmen
  • 2 Cost: Knights/Paladins
  • 3 Cost: Ransackers/Commandos
  • 4 Cost: Flame Ram
If you could have multiple in play, then Kali would become problematic. Until that happens, I am against nerfing her.

The only reason I'd support Kali having lower health is her card art (leather buttflaps?). She should should be a 3/1 if you take her depiction seriously.

8
Game Rules / Re: Initiative - is it right or wrong
« on: March 11, 2013, 05:44:09 AM »
Initiative is the perfect way to handle simultaneous turns.

50/50 on turn one is not as bad as you make it sound. It just means that one player gets it for odd number turns and another player gets it for even numbered turns. Truthfully, initiative doesn't really matter on turn 1 and turn 2 has limited benefits from initiative. Not to mention, thinking 1-3 turns ahead completely exists with the current system.

TLDR - There are benefits with the system you propose, but there are more benefits with the current system.

Initiative is actually VERY important on turn 1/2/3 and often dictates how certain matchups will unfold.

Some examples:
  • CV or DD Morale vs Sage 1 (kill turn 3 vs waiting for assassinate)
  • Death Ray vs Fiery Resolve Pump (kill turn 3 vs 4+)
  • CV Aleta vs FD Paladin (kill turn 4 vs 5+)
  • Heat Wave vs GI Drones + Constructor (kill all drones turn 3 vs kill none)
Initiative is a cool concept in general, but it creates some rather frustrating scenarios that you can't do anything about. Starting with initiative SHOULD come with a trade off like being unable to draw a card or even starting with 1 less card in your hand. This allows for a player to choose who starts with initiative.

Initiative lasts the entire game and can completely throw off your deployment pattern by forcing you to wait. Eventually people will realize various ways of abusing the initiative system to prevent their opponent from countering certain plays like Call of the Crusade without initiative. I'm all for taking a closer look at Initiative to make it less of a platform for unmitigated RNG.

One idea I'd love to see is a system that ignores Initiative. This would allow for specific cards (or even an entire faction) that trigger before your opponent's, but can only be played when you lack initiative:

Ambush [7]: 1 Damage to Enemy Attack Zone Characters for every two Characters in your Defense Zone (Can't have initiative)

This allows you to prepare card combos for both offensive (have initiative) and defensive (lack initiative) plays.

9
General Game Discussion / Re: Bugs with new IP system
« on: March 11, 2013, 05:33:44 AM »
Just wanted to follow up after the 0.77 update.

As far as I can tell, nothing was really fixed . I still only get 60 IP per game, but now it decrements by 1 per win, draw or loss. The lobby counter showing 120 also only loses 4 on wins and 2 on draws/losses.

10
General Game Discussion / Re: Lost cards from client crashes
« on: March 08, 2013, 09:00:37 AM »
*steps forward*

I lost roughly 1,336 packs worth of cards. The 1,337th (opened after this fix) worked splendidly!

I can haz cards?

*stares at ground while shuffling feet*

11
General Discussion / Re: Card Discussion: Direct Damage Abilities
« on: March 08, 2013, 08:53:54 AM »
The way I see this game playing out, each faction will have a handful of themes for winning. At the moment, the equivalent for "Burn" is Morale. By killing Characters you are deal direct damage to their Morale. Until counterspells and fortress healing cards come into play, direct fortress damage would be impossible to deal with. I suspect we'll see this type of card come around the same time their counter cards arrive.

12
General Discussion / Re: Genesis Industry Beta Discussion
« on: March 08, 2013, 08:43:33 AM »
My suggestions from another thread:

    (1P) Air Strike [4]: 2 Damage to all Non-Flying Battlefield Characters

Genesis has a strong Flying theme and this fits right in with Cannon Fire and Anti Air Missile. It adds value to Flying Characters while Non-Flying Characters are usually pumped by Constructor to shrug off the damage.

    (3P) Scrap for Parts [3]: Destroy Artificial Character, Add Power/Health to your Artificial Character

Genesis doesn't have any 3 Purity Cards. On par with Death Ray, gives Full Faction Genesis an edge over Split Faction and becomes emergency replacement for Constructor if killed.

13
I agree that it is a rather lackluster milestone reward, but not just because it's a common. Characters make better rewards regardless of rarity as they represent identities or themes players can latch onto. Mechborn Coyle? Go dragons! Patient Zero? Go zombies! Firebolt? Go. . . um. . . fire? To me, Characters represent the best choices for advertisement/marketing purposes.

That aside, I think this card will quickly become a staple. A LOT of decks lack 1 or 2 drop cards and being able to snipe specific cards before they ramp out of control is important. Just think of FD Paladin.

14
My best was a Legendary, 2 Epics, 2 Rares and 5 Uncommons. Apparently EVERYTHING can upgrade. It's strangely common to get 3 or more Rare+ cards in a pack.

15
Game Rules / Returning Character's to Hand
« on: March 05, 2013, 07:37:19 PM »
If you return a Character to a player's hand, the following happens:
  • Tokens can be redeployed for 0 cost
  • Abilities targeting the Character still resolve
  • The Character retains stats changes while in the hand
I was playing against the Genesis AI and used Stumble to bounce a Genesis Construct (4/4) while I had initiative. I followed up with a Heat Wave to wipe several Unending drones. There was a Bad-Bot in play and I figured the AI would sac it to pump the Genesis Construct. I was exactly right and as far as I could tell, it went straight to the graveyard. The next turn, a 14/13 Genesis Construct entered play. This means that Aleta pumped it (+1/+1) and the Constructor was able to successfully sac the Bad-Bot (then a 8/7) to give it +9/+8.

Part of purpose for bouncing creatures in MTG is to reset creatures with attachments or kill creature tokens, but IW seems to preserve them. Is this intentional or a bug?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4