Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: My suggestions

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel General Discussion >> RE: My suggestions
Page 3 of 3<123
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
6/28/2018 13:48:26   
.Lord Ginger.
Member

About ranks - NPC armor and NPC crusher are ranks 81-100 and they don't count towards 1v1, so I don't know where you got that idea from.

Partners with 2v2 can be a good idea, yeah.


Voice chat
No. You're muted, suffer. It's your fault.

About +6s.

Yea it'll help low ranks be high ranks...
It'll help high ranks be even higher ranks...
I do want the permanent passive just so I don't have to keep buying it though.

Varium purchases for ranks...
No.. Devs are getting away from P2W aspect, so... since they're not rare stuff (like frostbite) I disagree completely.
Beating ranks higher is supposed to be challenging. They shouldn't really feel a chance if they're rank 1 against a rank 80 unless their build completely counters the rank 80s.


I do want a rank buff from 61-80 because ranks like 60-79 are better than 80 (as well as different builds with ranks 29-60) because ranks 61-80 are weak.


AQW Epic  Post #: 51
6/28/2018 13:54:15   
Mother1
Member

@ Cataleptic

Actually NPC ranks do have an effect in PVP match in the form of Juggernaut since Juggernaut wins even with NPC count as real wins. Especially if you get a human opponent and a NPC. This puts the opponents of the juggernaut at an even worse disadvantage due to their NPC partner not only getting hit harder fro 1 to up to 20 more damage (depending on what attack the jug uses and how many ranks the jug has) as well as do 1 - 20 damage less. Might not sound like much but in at least 2 cases in jug it actually made me and broke my opponents.

As for the 2 vs 2 suggestion I see this really breaking the mode even more unless you separate it so that linked players only battle other linked players and visa versa. Otherwise Linked players will have an unfair advantage over unlinked players which was the original reason why the staff was 100% against adding ally links for 2 vs 2 (which was also in the repeated suggestions list)

Epic  Post #: 52
6/28/2018 13:57:20   
.Hunter Boss.
Member

I agree with Cataleptic that the idea of choosing the partner for a 2v2 match would be very useful. And like he said, the 2 players would go together when they're linked, and when they aren't linked anymore, then they will get their partners randomly, like always.

And i would like to present some of my own ideas here as well. Did it ever happen to you that your inventory is full and you don't have the access to your items from the home bank ? You have to sell some of your items, or to buy more spaces in order to get those items from the bank. I think there needs to be an option to exchange the items from the inventory and the bank. It would be easier for players who don't have money for varium, and for people who don't want to sell their gear.

It would also be nice if there was a prize for the players who top the daily leaderboards. To keep the competition good, and to give a purpose for people to try to be the best in PvP. It would be like this:
1. First place in daily PvP would grant 10.000 credits and 10 tokens.
2. Second place would give 5.000 credits and 5 tokens.
3. The third player on the leaderboard would receive 2.500 credits and 3 tokens.

This is just an idea, and i think it would be nice to reward the players who have spent their time trying to achieve the top of the daily PvP.

And the last idea would be the improvement and enlargement of the faction size. I think it would be a great thing for competition if the factions could have 25 players. And a Co-Leader status would be also good. The Co-Leader could basically do everything as the leader, but he wouldn't have the power to demote or kick the leader himself. There would be 8 officers and 15 members.

That would be it for now !
Epic  Post #: 53
6/28/2018 14:01:54   
.Lord Ginger.
Member

^ The game is dead. If we have more people in our factions we'd have like 4 per alignment
AQW Epic  Post #: 54
6/28/2018 14:39:29   
Cataleptic
Member

@Ginger
quote:

About ranks - NPC armor and NPC crusher are ranks 81-100 and they don't count towards 1v1, so I don't know where you got that idea from


You misunderstood what I said. I said they shouldn't count towards as ranks because they provide nothing useful in a pvp mode, such as 1v1 and 2v2, thus your partner receives underdog, helping improve their stats when they don't need it. The rank 60 vs 80 was the example, I wasn't saying that's when they were unlocked.

quote:

Voice chat
No. You're muted, suffer. It's your fault.


That's the reason I'm suggesting the voice. You won't be talking to the enemy at all when you're muted, only your partner, for a plan to win the game. Chat box will still be disabled but the voice chat can be optional to only speak with your partner to devise a plan to win.

quote:

Varium purchases for ranks...
No.. Devs are getting away from P2W aspect, so... since they're not rare stuff (like frostbite) I disagree completely.


Again, you misunderstood what I said... When did the devs say they were moving from P2W aspect? I don't believe that's the case. I believe the game will continue to be P2W as it once was once the game becomes as good as it once did, full of fun, excited players!


quote:

Beating ranks higher is supposed to be challenging. They shouldn't really feel a chance if they're rank 1 against a rank 80 unless their build completely counters the rank 80s.


A rank one should feel like they have a chance to beat a rank 80, or else it'll encourage players to continue botting for ranks by doing jugg or NPC's instead. And if that's taken away and the players don't end up having a chance to stand up against a rank 80 I don't see much people playing or returning to the game. It'll remain as it is now.

@Mother1
quote:

Otherwise Linked players will have an unfair advantage over unlinked players


I already thought of a way to make the match fair if an event like this were to happen. Reread what I said to clearly understand my point. I would also like to see proof of the devs saying that was the reason they didn't allow for link 2v2 to happen.
Post #: 55
6/28/2018 15:17:16   
Mother1
Member

@ Cataleptic

The suggestions forum (where not only all the proof is, but also a thread for repeated suggestions that were rejected by the staff where Ally link for 2 vs 2 was one of them) is no longer in the forums. While you would have to dig in the thread to find the former you would be able to find the later quite easily due to it being on the front page of the suggestions thread if it were still here.

Also can you please highlight the part where you covered Unlinked players battling linked players cause I read it several times and I didn't see it.

But even so if this feature were even introduced to the game the very idea of there being an even 1% chance of an unlinked team battling a linked team is 100% unfair to the linked team and would put them at another unfair disadvantage. It is bad enough when you get a low level partner or someone with a bad build. But to have the possibility of this as well as being set up against a linked team which could be running OP builds or at the very least builds that complement each other purposely? This would effectively cause players who are unlinked to want to avoid 2 vs 2 even more especially with Juggernaut wreaking it for level 27 - 33.

Epic  Post #: 56
6/28/2018 15:29:22   
Cataleptic
Member

quote:

I'm also well aware of how bad it could be for 2 high ranks to team, so I've given the thought of one, they face high tankers themselves to even out the game, or their rank can't be the same and the difference between the person they want to team should be about 25-30 if their ranks are above, say 40, if not 50 or above?

This was my suggestion for if link 2v2 were to happen and keep matches fair.

I'm not digging in the forums to look for something you gave your opinion on whether or not the idea was initially rejected. You would have to do it yourself and show it to me as proof that it was rejected. I simply can't take your word for it.

quote:

But even so if this feature were even introduced to the game the very idea of there being an even 1% chance of an unlinked team battling a linked team is 100% unfair to the linked team and would put them at another unfair disadvantage.

How does that put them into a disadvantage? The players are asking for themselves to be linked. The blame is on them if their partner isn't good. If you're linking yourself with some, while being adapt with the game, I don't see why you would have the disadvantage against a unlinked team. You guys understand how to work your build as a team, meanwhile the other team does not.
Post #: 57
6/28/2018 15:53:47   
Mother1
Member

quote:

How does that put them into a disadvantage? The players are asking for themselves to be linked. The blame is on them if their partner isn't good. If you're linking yourself with some, while being adapt with the game, I don't see why you would have the disadvantage against a unlinked team. You guys understand how to work your build as a team, meanwhile the other team does not.


I am not talking about linked players going against unlinked players being at a disadvantage, but rather the unlinked players who are fighting against linked ones being at one. Did the unlinked players choose the partner they got in two vs two? No they did not. So why should Unlinked players who had 0 say in who their partner was be put up against a set of linked players who choose who their partners were?

It would be the unlinked team who would be at a disadvantage both tactically and possible level wise which would be unfair to the Unlinked players not the linked ones.

This was why in the past when this was suggested (back when we still had the suggestions forum) it was rejected by the staff and placed in the repeated suggestions thread of idea not to re-suggest.

Now if there was a way to break 2 vs 2 up to make it where linked players fought only other linked players and visa versa then by all means I would see no problem with the idea since everyone in the linked battles would be fighting against another linked team. But for linked players (players who willingly choose their partners) to go up against an unlinked team (once again a team who didn't choose their partners) would be unbalanced and unfair to the unlinked team which would cause 2 vs 2 to become even more unpopular seeing as Juggernaut already scares off the lower level 2 vs 2 who face them.

< Message edited by Mother1 -- 6/28/2018 15:55:12 >
Epic  Post #: 58
6/28/2018 20:31:20   
.Lord Ginger.
Member

@Cataleptic

Ranks 81-100 aren't counted at all in pvp as far as I know, and You don't get underdog for it either as the enemy.

Voice Chat - No, since you are muted. I can still yell at my partner even though I am muted, that's not cool, and difficult to implement.

Nah, rank 1 should have a really low chance to win against a smart rank 80, or else what's the point of being rank 80?

And devs are definitely against p2w now. They said it themselves that varium is now just supposed to be a quicker way to get stuff. In fact all the promos come back a year later for credits and stay as credits...



AQW Epic  Post #: 59
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel General Discussion >> RE: My suggestions
Page 3 of 3<123
Jump to:



Advertisement




Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition