Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MarcusozInception last won the day on March 24 2018

MarcusozInception had the most liked content!

About MarcusozInception

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I see you say you cannot stop the war - by now even if you fix it those of us affected have lost valuable playing time and rewards - so I sincerely hope you are planning on suitable compensation
  2. This war should be cancelled - it's completely screwed. Not only do I have a missing hero but I can't attack at all - I have 3 heroes showing on the on the war map but only two showing on the attack enemies screen - when I try to attack the "missing" hero gets auto selected and the app disconnects. It's a joke and a complete waste of time. And it has taken my three best heroes off the map for regular fighting. Have logged a support request but lack of any response on the forums is very disappointing. This a game where many of us pay for play - sick of reading excuses for the devs - they are supposed to be professionals who provide service
  3. This war should be abandoned. I cannot attack anyone - as many of my alliance members cannot also. Despite having 3 heroes nominated only two show as available on the "Attack Enemies" screen. When I try to attack the missing hero shows as the one selected and the app crashes
  4. In your responses to the November Q&A you addressed the issue of Perseus as a Gate Keeper/Statue and that some are very hard to kill (due in part to high Life on Hit). I presume you recognise that it is also due to a good stat Mirror Shield (if possessed) as well as high attack speed. It's the combination that does the job (incidentally partially nullified with a hero who has good stun which is why Artermis remains such a good statue neutraliser). I understand the need to address this but please don't nerf Perseus too much in doing so? Perhaps a cap on Life on Hit (but still moderately generous)? With due respect Flare has a history of nerfing good heroes in over reaction to concerns - and It's really annoying to players who have invested a lot in building their hero up. We all respect and appreciate modest adjustment to maintain some sort of game balance but I would ask you to tread carefully at first - if changes are not enough you can make more later but it is really upsetting when you overdo it (and that has happened a lot in the past)
  5. Can you make dominance useful again? I understand its use to set levels for access to unlock islands in the early days - but it's been so long since then for me I've forgotten the details of how it worked. Once you hit 300,000 it's currently an entirely useless and redundant indicator - even though each and every island you occupy gains you "more". I'm not sure what it could be used for - but if you put your creativity to it I'm sure you could up with something?
  6. There are two areas I would like answers on for future development. Both involves random outcomes that can be very frustrating for many players - and I'd like to see some reduction in this randomness (or even elimination) 1) Cursed Uniques. The process of cursing uniques is extremely costly and time consuming. Currently the outcome is random and as a result a very good chance you get a different unique that is the same as one you already possess (indeed that happened to me the 3x I bothered). I don't know anyone who can be bothered doing this anymore - we are sick of the waste of effort (Is suspect if you reviewed your developer logs you would find this "feature" is increasingly rarely used?). I understand the need to not have an entirely predictable outcome but it would be a HUGE improvement if it could be guaranteed (or at least a high likelihood) that the result of the cursed unique would be an item not yet possessed by the player 2) Rolling for masteries I understand that once you select a chosen mastery from the two options given the likelihood of getting a high increase improves the more times you roll - that's fair (though sometimes still VERY expensive in gold). But the wisdom expenditure to get an option you would like gets really high very fast and it is entirely random. I'd like to see some sort of ability to influence that outcome (e.g. advising whether or not you want the probability of options to be weighted TOWARD what you are already using or AWAY from it) It seems to me both these changes would still be in the spirit of the game but would increase player enjoyment
  7. Sorry @Philstar but you have really not understood my points at all (especially the one about enjoyment). As for point 4 it IS a red herring. This not a football league despite your desire to make it so. If you want enjoyment for all teams it's really quite simple. Just ensure teams play other teams within their league within a reasonable level range. It's not that hard to understand but you have to make the effort to step out of your box and look at it from the point of view of those who suffer to get it. AS for your point about "casual" versus "expert" gamer - that's just fluff and snobbery. The aim should be to make the game enjoyable for all - a point you apparently cannot comprehend. And your argument that "They got it worse than you" is not even an argument - in fact it proves my point. It's not a competition as to got it worse - it's a point about game enjoy-ability for all (again you apparently cannot grasp this). Instead of the fluff response supporting the status quo if you want me to take you seriously tell me that player enjoyment ISN'T an issue or explain why such a huge mismatch won't cause a lack of it (when the evidence from many is the opposite) and then set out (with evidence) why a system that limits the degree of difference in levels between alliances in a war shouldn't sensibly have a limit (I suggested 10 but would happily listen to arguments it should be bigger - like 20) and explain why having such a limit would damage the league system (good luck)
  8. WTF Flare - you did it again - why did you sneakily nerf Artemis Spells @CaptainMorgan ?? Just one example Piercing Venom L6 used to be worth over 100,000 - now its just over 50,000 - a 50% reduction!! Why do you do this?? Repeatedly - it violates trust AGAIN! Didn't you learn anything from the Athena debacle?
  9. @dumpster Sigh - if you cannot understand that the comment "Don't match those at the top a ;league with those toward the bottom" is NOT the same thing as "the top half of a league should fight against the top half and the bottom half of the league should fight against the bottom half" then I cannot help you. My comment "Don't match those at the top a league with those toward the bottom" has nothing to with halves - that is an invention entirely of your own making (that's why it's a strawman). My comment IS however entirely consistent with my suggestion "set up an algorithm within each league to ensure that teams were matched against alliances within their league where the level differed by no more than (say) 8 to 10 levels." which you have chosen to completely ignore and instead go off on a tangent about statistical likelihood as to who gets what place and "equal strength distribution within a league " (about which I never commented or suggested). I really cannot help it that you keep bring up these red herrings but it doesn;t speak well to your grasp of the point If you take the time to think about this issue (about which I note you chose to involve yourself even though it has nothing to do with you and you are unaffected) it is really simple. You can continue to ignore my comment about enjoyment and go off on unrelated tangents (like you did above) or you can try to grasp the issue (big mismatches are unfair and unpleasant) and the solution suggested (keep matches within a league within a reasonable number of levels) or even make a positive suggestion of your own instead of just defending the status quo and pointing out what you think (erroneously) are problems with suggestions offered
  10. Actually - I think it's rude to continually mis-represent what other people say (which you have done on every reply to me here) in order to force fit things into a narrative you want to run. It's clear I did NOT say what you claim (and it's transparently obvious you wanted to claim that I did so you could then run the argument that you did before that it was a matter of being in the wrong league). It's really not that hard. Flare could easily set up an algorithm within each league to ensure that teams were matched against alliances within their league where the level differed by no more than (say) 8 to 10 levels. This would still allow the leagues to work, and allainces to progress up or down within them. I can't help it if you continually misunderstand and misquote what other's post and then get upset when others point this out. If that offends you to be corrected that way then I'm sorry to hear it but it is really an issue for you not me
  11. No - read my post more carefully and stop straw-manning me. That is NOT what I said - I am simply suggesting that teams should be more closely matched as this provides better player enjoyment all round - it's not really hard to understand if you make a mental effort
  12. @CaptainMorgan and @dumpster and @Philstar let me try and put this in a way you can understand (though you have to first have the capability of looking at things from a perspective other than your own) 1)This game will only flourish if players enjoy playing - especially in war 2) No one enjoys playing if they experience nothing but miserable defeat in a war because they are vastly over-matched (most don't mind losing a fair fight) 3) Teams don't decide what leagues and alliances they are matched against - Flare does. So Flare has the responsibility here not the team (despite your attempt to argue otherwise dumpster) to ensure matches are challenging but fair 4) The analogy with football leagues is a red-herring. The objective there is to give fans watching teams play (and so thrashings and mismatches are part of the spectacle) - Player enjoyment is not an objective. The object here is to give all teams and all players and enjoyable game experience and good (but fair) competition (if that's not the case let me know now and I'll tell my team and we can disband, quit the game and find a game where the developers objectives IS to give a good experience) 5) It is abundantly clear that there are several cases where the algorithm that Flare uses leads to to the sort of mismatches that are not even close to being a fair fight It's that simple -and all your other arguments amount to nothing against those points. So, please either make some mods or deal with player loss consequences - your choice Flare
  13. Don't match those at the top a ;league with those toward the bottom - simple for anyone with half a brain
  14. Spot on @TheEpicous1 exactly analogous to our situation
  15. Seriously?? @dumpster again your post shows you have no idea WTF you are talking about - yes indeed we scored the lowest VP - why? Because we were matched against alliances that outranked us by miles Our normal average VP is 48.8K - this war it was less than half - 23.5k - but more revealing (if you understand statistics) is that our Median score dropped from 51.5K to 7.4K!! so half our players scored less than 7.4k when they usually score more than 51k! It was because they could not win a battle. They are completely demoralised. I will be lucky if it doesn't destroy our alliance. Honestly - don't bother replying to me again - I'm not interested in your self serving ill informed BS when clearly you actually have no idea of what happened. Make comments about your own alliance and don;t stick your nose in where it isn;t welcome and you have no idea
  • Create New...