QuantumApocalypse

Members
  • Content count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Couldn't agree more on this one. There's no reason to have some wierd equation to display a completely meaningless number when you can just have a percentage or the actual number of increase/decrease
  2. In my opinion, that's an issue with alliance's communication. If someone doesn't listen, you kick them, like any of the top ranked clans. Each of these has an upside and a downside. You should be able to choose whatever you want or none of them for any given fief, just like champions or shields. You ask a general if you can be one of the ranks and he'll say yes or no, simple as that. Just like shields/champions. It's no different. All of the arguments above aren't really related to his idea. If we applied your logic there wouldn't be champs or shields either. Communication is an issue both with clans and the messaging system itself but it isn't a problem with this idea alone. If you want to solve those issues, look to the root cause of the problem instead of randomly applying them to whatever you feel isn't a good idea.
  3. Complicated or not, his idea adds more strategy to wars, which they badly need. I'm sure alliances will be able to figure it out..
  4. 1. Berserker should be 25%, I don't think they'd gain much over other players at just 15%. 2. Should be some good side to being a vanguard, such as boosted defenses. 3. Players in war don't give out much money anyway so 3x that still wouldnt be better than normal raiding. Up to 5x. Also for small alliances that don't need much to level this could quickly get overpowered. Instead, only a percentage would be given to the alliance, the percentage being the alliance tax rate. Otherwise great idea!
  5. Until it resurrects the beast. Let's not resurrect the beast. Please.
  6. Good idea but as others have mentioned it has a few fatal flaws. A high level alliance could simply rotate players in and out as they get pals to donate and then all rejoin when they're satisfied with the beasts they have.
  7. I think you're having other issues if the game takes that long to load.. would be pretty neat if it was on steam thoug
  8. My keyboard doesn't autocorrect ingame. Odd.
  9. That's a really senseless comment. It isn't in any way, shape or form his fault that this happens. And no, he can't just "figure it out" accurately because there isn't a percentage on the bar. Not to mention often times the spell is saving your ass and if you can't move it's totally wasted. There isn't any way around this; it was a very poor decision by flare and it should be remedied. Pretending that a problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.
  10. I'm guessing you're wondering where the waves start? Whoops, just saw the translation. He's saying the area the waves start should be marked as an overlay on the track at the castle view. Great idea actually
  11. I totally agree with spreading out weaknesses, that's why I thought poison would be the best because no tower is weak to it.
  12. Poison towers are weak to normal damage. And to all other towers it still does quite a bit of damage since nothing has a resistance to it.
  13. Ever played Crush the Castle? At the end you can get a very useful acidic projectile that corrodes buildings. Not quite the same but similar enough. Besides, banging a sword against a pile of rocks shaped like a snake shouldn't do much either, lol
  14. I still want a tower that's weak to poison, could that work here?