n0rf

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #213262

    n0rf
    Member

    @blackwhisper

    Well if you agree to toss, I may not be the one who grumble about it. So let the Great random dispense justice.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #213247

    n0rf
    Member

    @BBB

    About ExNihil and Blackwhisper game. I don’t know all details of their schedule. But I am the person who played with Blackwhisper on this tourney and who waited long time for game of ExNihil and SeeR. So there are my observations: it was easiely to find convinient time for my and Blackwhisper game, so I think it should be easy for others. We saw that SeeR and ExNihil game was the last game of Round1 on this tourney. And as I know it was ExNihil fault. Also very tight timing was caused by the fact that ExNihil played his first game too late.
    That is why I think there shouldn’t be any random for determine who should be DQ if they can’t schedule their game, ExNihil should be DQ.

    All what I said is just my humble opinion. ExNihil, sorry for my insult, but I think you are only one who slows tourney.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #210839

    n0rf
    Member

    @seer @exnihil who won?
    Whoever it was, please contact me asap (here or in steam) so we can talk about time of our game. I think we won’t be able to play ths weekends already, so we have to play at workday. I can play at workday after 20:00 for my timezone (which is UTC+3). Tell me if it works for you.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #209540

    n0rf
    Member

    Hey! Why did Gab moved to another cell?
    I was encouraging myself to fight him by listening “Eye of the tiger” for weaks. And now when I’m ready you move him away. It’s not honest!

    Actually I’m just grambling. And I don’t think that it is foul. But I’d be happy to fight Gab at this weekends

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #207324

    n0rf
    Member

    Blackwhisper, I can’t found you in steamgroup.
    I want to talk about date/time of our match. Pls, contact with me (steam name N0rF). Or at least join steam tournament group and tell me your nickname in steam.

    Btw, does anyone have his contacts?

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #207092

    n0rf
    Member

    @BBB

    I noticed that default map type is random instead of land or continent. Is it just a misprint? Or we really going to to see many island games?

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #207048

    n0rf
    Member

    Also I don’t think that playing in scheme Deus_Mortis offers is necessary. First encounter happens after 10-15 turns. So there won’t be too much difference. But you need to rehost. Sometimes there could be problems with rehosting. Gab described his. I also saw sometimes that some players couldn’t reload their saves. So I suggest playing pure classic turns by default. And if both opponents agree, they could use only synchro turns or scheme Deus_Mortis described.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #207046

    n0rf
    Member

    I was against. But I have to agree, that classic turn are really more appropriate for tourney. Because everyone has his own definition of “splitstack”. For example for me it is not preventing opponent to move several stacks of his forces when he try to does it simmultaneous. For Gab it is no attacking his forces if they COULD fight together. For someone even 4 stacks shouldn’t be splitstacked.

    So as I said I suggest use classic turns by default. And use synchro turns only when both opponents are agree.
    BBB please notice that there are already many players who want it. What is more there are many really good players, who played lot of games and understand that chance of abusing rules is pretty high. Actually the best 3 players from previous tourney (Ayenara, Abed, Gab) said that they would prefer classic turns.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #206760

    n0rf
    Member

    1) 5+1 heroes is too much. It will lead to herospam, also allowing some crappy not class-race based strats. I think 2+1 or 3+1 is totally fine

    Totally agree, that number of heroes must be reduced. I prefer 1+2. But 1+3 is ok too.

    2) I feel like normal starting skills bring more imbalance in game… there will be more often chance to one start with scout summon and other not, which will give one player 3 turns extra to take pickups/whatever. And it can be about 300 gold advantage, which is massive. (not talking about earlier founded cities to get quest earlier, or much earlier find oponent to give oportunity for rush, when starting distance happen close)

    I don’t think this is necessary. We play on medium maps. It already helps to reduce difference in starting positions. But I don’t have strong objections against it.

    3) Seals and beacons are not default, but lategame it can be regular way to victory. I think there should be at least small opportunity to take other win than defeat enemy by force. Like setup: 50 seals to victory, 2 beacons.

    I don’t think seals or bacon victory is a reliable strategy to win duel. Even with default number of 31. Don’t see any good reason to increase it. Btw 2 beacons is already a default setup.


    n0rf
    Member

    I agree that punishment of critical success or failure is too much. Especisally in combat. Seriously it is too much. Half of hp, stun for 2 turns and the worst thing is drawing all cp. If it were just stun and hp it would be ok. Also it would be ok if draws SOME additional cp (twice more than usual for example)
    But lost all of your cp after first attempt is really what can do 100% won battle to 100% lost battle.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #204840

    n0rf
    Member

    I don’t think this could happen in real game. But if it happened, you always could win by seals victory.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #204804

    n0rf
    Member

    Btw what starting distances were set? I just don’t understand how could you not find your opponent for 47! turns. My last duel on medium map was over at 25-30th turn.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #204800

    n0rf
    Member

    I don’t really like to play duels on medium maps.
    But I’m agree that game depends on starting army too much in this case. And yes you still don’t have enough time to counter rush if you haven’t know about it before the game started.
    Also some races like orcs or dwarves are so good at rushing that it would be a big problem for you to stop them on small map even if you had known about rush before the game.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #204538

    n0rf
    Member

    Oh, I just looked at table http://challonge.com/aow3summer and as I can see my thoughts already had been taken in account. It looks really nice

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #204537

    n0rf
    Member

    As a player who starts in a round1 I don’t feel that I’m in much worse position. Anyway if you think you are one of the best you must be ready to beat anyone.

    BBB, I really happy that you chose double elimination. I also have one suggestion. I think it would be nice to randomize loozer’s position in their brakets. I mean situation when player1 won player2 in first round and was defeated in second round by player3. In such situation it’s not good if in second loosers round player1 and player2 would fight again.
    It’s bad for player2 cause he probably would be kicked twice by one person. Ofc if player1 and player2 play well they would met each other sooner or later, but I suggest to minimize chance of situation I described earlier.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #204496

    n0rf
    Member

    BBB, I think you should set strong players as those ones who starts in 2nd round. There are already 4 best from previous tourney. But if you need more set there anyone who you feel is stronger than average.
    It will guarantee that not very strong player won’t met super strong player like Ayenara or Gab in first round.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #204256

    n0rf
    Member

    I think I may have a solution to this. Each group to have 5 people, but still the top 2 go through.

    That puts an extra 8 people in the tournament, but still gets us down to 16,8,4,2.

    Wow, it’s sounds awesome!



    wait! I’m 10th in reserve list…
    Can we have 6 people in every group? *blink* *blink*

    Also, BBB, I didn’t find an answer for Seer’s question. Could you explain what are you going to do in such case?

    Question is

    say its their second match in Stage one Group stage …. i am entering the tournament credited already with their lost game in standings ?

    or will i still get the chance to play all players in the group ?

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #203721

    n0rf
    Member

    and then have a dozen people not show up for their matches.

    Actually I can’t understand how limitting number of players solves this problem. If there were 32 most responsible players in the world, I’d understand. But there are just 32 players that were first who’d seen this topic.

    Btw, I didn’t participate in previous tournament, so I don’t really understand what’s bad if someone leaves earlier? Just count him technical defeat. I believe after second round most or nonresponsible players will have left tourney. Also I think responsible players would not be dissapointed if they go further for free in such case.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #203633

    n0rf
    Member

    Any chance to extend the amount of players to 40 with all the new requests? Had my heart broken when i had to read that I dropped out of the tourney! :-)

    I agree with Castaneda. It’s not cool to miss tourney, just because you learn about it after several days when it was anounced.

    in reply to: (Possible) new tournament #203226

    n0rf
    Member

    Is it still possible to participate in this tournament?


    n0rf
    Member

    I think problem is not that many units have true sight. Problem is that it has the most effective ones. Racial supports are too effective not to have em. Usually they are most available source of nonphysical effect, they usually have nice buffs/debuffs, their cost is small and what is the most important EVERY(!) building which you need for them has very good usage (Actually you want to build temple and lab even if you don’t want to build racial supports). There are so many benefits that everyone has lot of priests.

    But, I totally agree with that

    Every race and class must have a buildable unit that comes with true sight at the very least or else stealth would become too annoying or overpowered.

    Just because if you weren’t be prepared or lost battle, you won’t have any chances to level up your supports (most of nearby mobs are already dead, there maybe an enemy with stealth).

    So what I suggest instead? I have some options:
    1) Nerfing priests, so they would be usefull for specific purpose (no more full support army). But actually I don’t think devs would do it
    2) Adding specific building which would grant true sight for priests. This would allow to counter stealth, but it won’t be free.

    Also I agree that sorc has too many units with true sight. Some of them could be nerfed.

    in reply to: Cannon balance question #192222

    n0rf
    Member

    I think the problem is that there were no units who could kite without taking ANY damage (Actually ships can kite transported units, but we should discuss it in another topic). It is not possible because shooting range is not more than move distance. Except hurling boulders but you can’t kite with it.
    Other units can shoot without risk of being attacked in melee only if opponent units were slowed somehow. But there are no fully reliable and free slows. You must pay for it by your cp or there is a chance that slow won’t work.

    But cannons really can make several reliable shots without any risk. What is more they do full damage, while kiting. Why on earth cannons can do this? Cannons are machines. I think they supposed to be an artillery. Slow but powerfull.
    Btw it’s not a problem for dread to defend it. Golems are still insane defenders (18 def + reinforced + tireless). It’s much more than most of t3 units. And right now, even if you killed golems you won’t be able to catch cannons for several turns.

    in reply to: Ram Buffs #191207

    n0rf
    Member

    They already do, somewhat. 2 rams cost the price of a golem, and two rams should be able to kill a golem. one ram will die, but still.

    You are wrong. 2 rams won’t kill 1 golem. What is more it is very cheap skill for dread which allow reduce price for golems. But his opponent still would build rams for 50g. What is more both rams and golems are t2 units, so 2 rams cost twice more to maintain.

    When you are talking about cheap armies you don’t take into account that it’s much harder to level up them, cause they die like a flies in autobattles. Also it’s harder to buff big army of cheap warriors by your heroes buffs. And ofc it’s hard to have more than 2-3 stacks cause it would be splitstacked.

    in reply to: Ram Buffs #191008

    n0rf
    Member

    I could change ram to do base 16 damage against obstacles, and then give the ram demolisher x6. The only issue is that the ram would then become a crazy powerful machine killer. I think it might be quite fun that way, but I think a lot of people would get upset about it.

    I think it’s good idea to have counter for machines. Of course you exaggerate when say demolisher x6. But you know it’s ok when you have race/class that have forces with good counter against machines (elves, sorcs or rouge for example). But what if you are playing goblin warlord for example. Every second unit has poison attack which machines are immune. And it’s good to have anything that you can use against dreadnought.

    Of course rams shouldn’t kill every machine. But it would be nice if rams would be a threat for army that is full of golems for example.

    in reply to: Exalted and Stunning Touch #190100

    n0rf
    Member

    I agree with topic starter.
    Stuning touch (and any other touch) is ridiculous ability when we talk about gold medal for T3 unit. If I want to use pure cc I can always use T2 units (storm sisters) or even some T1(cheetahs). It is completely waste to use cc without dealing any damage by my elite T3 units.

    in reply to: Repair Machine, Healing, and Mend magic being #170922

    n0rf
    Member

    I also never could understand why repair machine relies on dreadnought heroes so much instead of engineers. Imo it would be much better if repair machine has big cooldown (3 turn or even once per battle), but be available for engineers at start. Afterall I think it is main role of engineer – to support his machines, not to throw flashbangs and stuff on battlefield.

    in reply to: I Require another type of hero #169789

    n0rf
    Member

    I didn’t catch what do you want? To get 10 dreadnought heroes? Why it should be easier to get 10 heroes of one class on XL map than 3 heroes of one class on small map?

    in reply to: Starting forces balance #169759

    n0rf
    Member

    I’m happy to see many people who agree that T3 unit at start is a bad idea.
    kugi, it’s a good idea to have class units at starting pack, but I see some weak spots. At first scout unit is much more valuable at start of the game. So I think if we talk about class unit in starting stack ut must be always a scout or always a nonflying usual nonflying unit (btw sorcerer doesn’t have one).

    +2 T1 or +1 T2 racial-class unit (which fits to the choiced race+class theme)

    I also think it’s not a best idea, cause t2 unit at start is better than 2 t1 units. It is because more expensive units are less likely to die in autobattle, so they can be leveled up easier.

    I also think class T2 units are not so good idea. Just because they usually are much stronger than race units (golem is much stronger than warg rider in your example). And they usually can’t be getting in early game.

    in reply to: Starting forces balance #169704

    n0rf
    Member

    With a medium starting army every player has an equal chance to get lucky with the units.

    Of course luck should have some impact on gameplay. But not too much. It’s a tbs not a game of dice.
    I don’t object to random starting forces, all I want to is fair starting forces in every game for every player. And current random alghorithm has too much dispersion to provide these fair conditions.

    There are so many variables.
    Finding resources can give you a shrine or a wooden wall.
    From a brigand hut you can gain a tier I unit or a tier II unit.
    Your first hero can come with Total Awareness, a Gold Wyvern mount, or night vision on a map without caverns.
    You can have a nice area around you with some nice towns, or be stuck on a peninsula with little space.
    Your first cartographer’s tent can immediately reveal the throne city of your opponent, which is huge in multiplayer.

    I agree with you that there are some other problems with random. First of all starting skills and building by founeded resources (and I’ll try to decribe my thoughts in another topic). But problem with t3 unit in starting forces can ruin game much more.

    in reply to: Starting forces balance #169524

    n0rf
    Member

    About having a priest. I meant that it must be for some races. If orcs don’t have it, it is ok.
    Actually I wanted that my suggestion with balancing starting forces per race would be approved, but I don’t really believe in it (it may take too much time for gamedesigners). But if it won’t be approved, imo, one guaranteed priest is much better option than situation when humans or hobbits don’t have one.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 35 total)