Heroes of Might and Magic Community
please log in.! Register | Today's Posts | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Heroes 1 (Heroes 2 (Heroes 3 (Heroes 4 (Heroes 5 (Heroes 6 ()

Login:     Username:     Password:    
Heroes Community > Heroes 7+ Altar of Wishes > Thread: New Faction&Town Concept
Thread: New Faction&Town Concept [ This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 (3) 4 ]
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 20, 2012 05:48 AM

Quote:

Quote:
...I could point out how completely ridiculous that statement is and explain how an Ao Oni is in fact an Ogre and that the D&D Ogre Magi is quite obviously a pull from Japanese mythology...
'Ogre' is a word with a load of connotations,, if you use it you'd better be damn well talking about 'Ogres' and not 'Oni'.


I didn't want to have to do this, but you leave me no choice:



THAT IS THE ORIGINAL AD&D OGRE MAGE PICTURE!

Any Ogre whose upgraded version is called "Ogre Mage" or something similar, that is their ultimate inspiration. That is the connotations, that is the context. It's frickin Japanese. It's always been Japanese.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 20, 2012 06:57 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Any Ogre whose upgraded version is called "Ogre Mage" or something similar, that is their ultimate inspiration. That is the connotations, that is the context. It's frickin Japanese. It's always been Japanese.
Immaterial, the terms 'Orge' and 'Magi' have cultural meanings, so while 'Ogre Magi' may be descended thematically from a Japanese mythical beast, they are no longer purely Japanese. And if you don't like it, change th damned name, you had enough Japanese names in there anyway that one more would hardly be noticed.


You're insane. You just argued seriously that Ogre Mages were not from Japanese mythology, and then when you were called on it, you doubled down? Just eat your crow. Eat it all up. Ogre Mages are a Japanese monster. The source material is Japanese. The word "Ogre" is the English translation of a Japanese monster, and the Ogre Mage specifically was brought into the gaming community as a direct nod to Japanese lore. This is a simple fact. And if you argue against it, you're wrong. Provably, historically, absolutely wrong.

And now that we're into it, let's go back to your complaint that the Hideout didn't make sense because Barbary Pirates and Mummies did not live at the same time! Yes, you've had literally months to think of how incredibly ridiculous that point is, and by extension how ridiculous you are for making it. Mummies are, wait for it... not alive. They are a unit of the ancient dead. And like any unit of ancient dead, the other units in the army who aren't ancient dead would presumably be dressed in clothing associated with a different time period. Because unlike the Mummies, they haven't been in a sarcophagus for several thousand years.

If Barbary Pirates are to have ancient monsters or ancient dead among their units, those units would come from the things that were, you know, ancient to the people of the Barbary Coast. That's how time works. For the pirates of the Barbary Coast, "the ancients" were Carthaginians and Egyptians. I could have used ancient Phoenician stuff for them just as easily, I just happened not to because I figured that people wouldn't be so incredibly thick skulled as to not understand that Ancient Egypt was in fact both in North Africa and in the past. Apparently I was wrong, at least as regards this forum.

And that is what demotivated me so thoroughly that I stopped working on that project. Between one guy hounding me because the literally millennia old Magogs were too recent of a creation and another guy hounding me that people from the North African Coast had no plausible reason to have Mummies buried in their territory and there was no mythological connection for Ogres in Japan - I just couldn't deal.

I can deal with people disagreeing with me about what they think is "cool", I can handle people disagreeing with me about what they think is "fun", but I really just can't handle completely obviously ignorant people lecturing me about actual history that they could jolly well look up on wikipedia before that made a fool of themselves. Sorry, I just can't.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 20, 2012 07:47 AM

Quote:
Except that the Barbary coast doesn't really include the Nile Delta since the Berbers didn't get that far. Yes, Ptolemic Egypt hel territory in areas the Berbers moved into later, but pretty much all of the Pharaohs were buried at Giza. And traditionally pyramids were supposed to curse the people who broke into them, so how you not only get the mummies out, but fighting on your side is questionable.


Just. Stop. Talking.

There are lots of mummies that are buried in all kinds of places other than Giza. Lots. The Libyans were mummifying their dead for thousands of years, and there is good scientific evidence that mummification started in Libya and spread to Egypt and not the other way around.

Please, please stop talking. Because every time you get your ignorance all over this conversation it hurts me. Or heck, this is the internet and you could just Look Things Up before you started spouting off historical inaccuracies. Before you even think about telling someone that there aren't any Mummies lying around in Libya, don't you think you should maybe check to see if there actually were. Because it's super painful to even try to hold a conversation with you when your basic position is that you appear to be wildly ignorant of many things about mythology and history and then claiming that things you are ignorant of don't exist.

At the very least go ahead and check Wikipedia for Berber mythology before you start telling me what isn't in it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 20, 2012 11:16 AM

Quote:
You called the upgrade a Mummy "Pharaoh", which swings it right back into Egyptian Mummies. The rest of the lineup's still a mess too.




Did you even bother to read the wiki entry? Or maybe Google your point before looking like an idiot? Again? Libyan mummies are indeed part of the same tradition as Egyptian mummies.

Here, I'll do it for you: Libyan Pharaohs. Yes, the ancient kings of Libya were called Pharaohs. There were multiple periods when Libya and Egypt were the same country. There are Egyptian Pharaohs buried in modern Libya. The line between those two places is completely arbitrary and has not existed several times during history.

Before you spout off your next master point, LOOK IT UP ON GOOGLE FIRST! to make sure you're not making a fool out of yourself. Some more. There is more than one Libyan dynasty in Egyptian History. Aargh.

Everything you say is wrong. Every. Single. Thing.

Just stop talking. You are embarrassing me with your lack of grasp of history and mythology. It wouldn't even be a problem except that you won't shut up about how things that clearly did in fact occur never did.

The simple arrogance of your position is offensive and baffling. If you had asked from the beginning why I put those things together, I would have simply politely told you. But you didn't. You decided to go the full history denial, and that's offensive. You're lucky that there's no one around from the Third Intermediate Period to slap you in the face for repeatedly stating that their people never existed.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 20, 2012 06:06 PM

Quote:
Libyan blood but Egyptian culture, it's not the same as the Nile Delta being ruled from Tripoli. Also, the argument falls short because your Tier 4 creature was Ammut, distinctly and Egyptian mythical creature

Besides, as with all your arguments, you're trying to make somewhat obscure historical facts triumph over cultural expectations, but it's not going to work, especially not as the history isn't going to be the same here.

And you still haven't answered up to the in-game points, like there are going to be a limited number of mummies, so how are you actually recruiting them?


I'm going to need more face palms.



That's better.

OK, so you have been thoroughly spanked on the whole "facts" part of this discussion, and now you are making the emotional appeal that Barbary Pirates don't "feel" like they come from a land that has hordes of mummies buried all over it to people who don't know any history. Which I'm guessing in this case means you, because you've made it abundantly clear that you don't know any history.

But here's the thing: if we're going to go by what ignorant people think and don't think: Africa (or at the very least North Africa) might as well be a country. The set of people who know where the Barbary Coast even is is pretty small. The set of people who simultaneously know that the Barbary Pirates came from an area that isn't in Egypt right now but simultaneously don't know that the entire Barbary Coast was part of Egypt repeatedly throughout history as both vassal and liege is incredibly small. Basically I'm saying it's just you. Because everyone else is either going to think that Hyena Men and Anubis is "close enough", or they're going to be up on the fact that Libya and Egypt are both part of the same Arab Spring right now because they are literally right next to each other, or they're going to be all up on the fact that Libyan Kings were literally called Pharaohs for thousands of years.

Now as for the amount of mummies available being a finite number... that again demonstrates that you can't be bothered to even google a point before inserting your foot directly into your mouth. Mummies are available by the truckload. There are millions of mummies. Several cultures spanning multiple empires throughout the region mummified everyone they could for thousands of years. The number of mummies available to unearth is one of the least limited quantities in the game. You might as well ask how your gold mine never runs out of gold during a scenario or how recruiting Elven archers never runs the town out of civilians. Actually, asking either of those questions would make way more sense, because there are more mummies in the ground than there were people living in Medieval London  by one thousand to one. The whole objection is amazingly ridiculous.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 21, 2012 04:35 AM

Quote:
The "facts" don't matter worth a damn


Then why are you still on about it? If your argument is seriously that you are totally unswayed by any actual information about real-world history or mythology, why should I accept anything you say as valid? If you're going to go all-in for the full relativism argument, where "reality" doesn't matter and only "perception" matters, then your "perception" is worth precisely the same as anyone else's and by extension your disagreement with any other person is so of no consequence.

Even if you're right, you're still wrong. Because if you're right that facts don't matter, then your opinion doesn't matter either. After all, it's "just a fact". A fact about what one person (you) happens to think. In the world of facts and reality, that's a vanishingly small data point and doesn't mean much in the face of actual historical realities, but if you reject facts entirely - it isn't even that.

Quote:
Quote:
Mummies are available by the truckload. There are millions of mummies. Several cultures spanning multiple empires throughout the region mummified everyone they could for thousands of years.
So you're always sitting your towns on old graveyards? Because that's about what it amounts to. Besides, after thousands of years only the best-preserved mummies would still be usable, which, unless your 'Ancient Egyptians' were fabulously wealthy would cut you down by a couple of orders of magnitude, especially as most of those who got mummified in this world were animals, not people. And this makes it all the more difficult to explain, since the people who would be rich enough to be able to afford embalming, would be rich enough to afford to put curses on their tombs (actual ones in this fantasy world) and I don't see any shamans or could conceivably overcome that. There's also the question of, unless you're limiting your towns by terrain, how you're supposed to find the local equivalent of pyramids in your world's equivalent of the Himalayas or Northern France.


Do you ever get tired of backing up your completely ridiculous assertions with even more ridiculous assertions?

Mummies are very light and extremely portable and literally come in the millions. There are hundreds of dynasties of royals to choose from. You can ship them anywhere and they are converted from dusty piles of bones to high powered warrior mages through "magic". They are one of the few things in the game where it actually makes sense for you to be able to put up a pile of rocks somewhere and start making troops. Furthermore, they are one of the few things in the game where it actually makes sense for you to be able to pull hundreds of royals out of a single city.

Seriously, your complaint would make more sense if it was about any other troop in the entire Heroes series! Where are you going to round up hundreds of minotaur kings from? Shouldn't they be one per city (at most)? How are you planning to start producing ancient behemoths this week? Shouldn't it take at least a few years to get your behemoths ancient by any standards? With mummy pharaohs, you actually do have thousands to choose from, and you could plausibly have them shipped somewhere to be revived on site. You know, like they do in every single Mummy movie set in the United States or Britain (of which there are many).

I don't know what your actual beef is with mummies, but everything you've said has been laughably absurd. I can only assume you're trolling.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jiriki9
Jiriki9


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
posted July 21, 2012 12:00 PM
Edited by Jiriki9 at 12:03, 21 Jul 2012.

Quote:
So if you have a level 1 district of one town you can build a level 2 district of an allied town rather than having to stick to the same town type as the level 1 district was of?

No, that's not what I was thinking, it owuld indeed bring the flaws that hobo2 pointed out.

Quote:
Here's my thought: rather than working out what factions don't work together, you should work out what 3 and 4 faction combos you want to have available. The actual armies are going to by definition be defined by what factions you can stick together. If you want people to play around with Lich/Mummy synergy, then whatever faction the Mummy is in has to be able to work with whatever the faction the Lich is in. And so on.

Really what you should do is to draw up a list of all the alliances that you want to support lore-wise. If the Infernalists show up alone or not at all because they are the big villains of the piece, then they should appear on the potential alliance tray of none of the other factions. If, on the other hand, you're doing a Succession Wars scenario, then all the "evil" factions should be able to ally and all the "good" factions should be able to ally.

Hmm, also an idea, and quite helpfull thoughts! Yet, I wanted to go for slightly different way, (assuming I understood you right, which I may have not) a bit leaned on the alliances/oppositions in MTG or HoMM4 Magic Schools, where one school/colour works with 2 and opposes 2 others, but you have no groups working together, like "good vs. evil would be. Rather, for example, I see Haven would see it fine to work with academy, and Academy would be power-hungry enough to work with inferno, but haven and inferno is a no-go. With 5 factions, this can be done relatively easy, with 9 it takes quite much more thinking, and then I think there should be more than 2 collaborateurs...however maybe finding 2 other factions for each working together may be helpful.
What also makes me htink is your idea of ignoring the "Equality" I desire and go for a more-lore-approach, so some factions may be able to work with more than others. It is a bit contradictory to my way of approaching this, but I'll think about it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 21, 2012 04:14 PM

Quote:

Hmm, also an idea, and quite helpfull thoughts! Yet, I wanted to go for slightly different way, (assuming I understood you right, which I may have not) a bit leaned on the alliances/oppositions in MTG or HoMM4 Magic Schools, where one school/colour works with 2 and opposes 2 others, but you have no groups working together, like "good vs. evil would be. Rather, for example, I see Haven would see it fine to work with academy, and Academy would be power-hungry enough to work with inferno, but haven and inferno is a no-go. With 5 factions, this can be done relatively easy, with 9 it takes quite much more thinking, and then I think there should be more than 2 collaborateurs...however maybe finding 2 other factions for each working together may be helpful.
What also makes me htink is your idea of ignoring the "Equality" I desire and go for a more-lore-approach, so some factions may be able to work with more than others. It is a bit contradictory to my way of approaching this, but I'll think about it.


The thing to keep an eye on is that there really isn't any advantage per se to having things be symmetrical. Factional symmetry may make it easier to fill in unit lists or easier to balance multiplayer, but it doesn't have any advantage in play. Symmetry is frankly pretty boring for the player - if one faction is just the same as another faction but with different colored hats, that faction loses its novelty factor as soon as the hat color becomes routine. Having factions that have long lists of potential allies (maybe the mercenary Bastion or the impartial Conflux) and factions with short lists of potential allies (maybe the secretive Asylum or the anti-social Necropolis) is a good way to make a faction feel distinct without really changing the balance of playing it all that much.

The other way to look at it is that you're justifying people taking alliance armies into battle on the grounds that there is some synergy there. Your claim is that people aren't just going to cherry pick seven awesome units from however many factions they are allowed and call that an army - but instead to craft an army that is justified by inter-factional unit synergies. Which means that you're going to have to actually design in those unit synergies, and then have testers go through and make sure they really work. And whatever those alliances actually are, you should probably have those be the only alliances in the game - after all any alliance that you make available for use that you don't intend for people to actually use is going to either be a trap option (if, as intended, it sucks) or an exploit (if you overlooked something and players find a way to make it good anyway).

Remember that once you open up a two faction alliance, that's 16 potential unit layouts. Opening up a three faction alliance is 81 potential unit layouts. Exhaustive testing is going to be incredibly difficult, but of course players (and developers) are generally better than trial and error at finding optimal combinations. Players are more likely to combine the druid who gives bonuses to plant creatures with the carnivorous plant that receives those bonuses than to combine the unicorn with the serpent fly. Nevertheless, chances of some combination of troops you hadn't given any thought to being dramatically better or worse than you expected is fairly large.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
MattII
MattII


Supreme Hero
posted July 21, 2012 04:28 PM

Quote:
No, that's not what I was thinking, it owuld indeed bring the flaws that hobo2 pointed out.
So compatibility is basically just the factions whose armies can be spliced without a morale penalty then?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted July 22, 2012 01:18 AM

Quote:
And therein are limited in number, which means they shouldn't be recruitable in a normal town. That same complaint goes for all the undead, where the hell are you recruiting from?

Yes.

Now stop spamming the thread and take this to the messenger, please. I, for one, want to read about Jir's game design, not a resurrected argument.
____________
"GNOMES GET OUT OF MY BRAIN"
-Adrius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
MattII
MattII


Supreme Hero
posted July 22, 2012 04:58 AM

My apologies for disrupting the thread. I have now deleted all the off-topic material I posted.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
LizardWarrior
LizardWarrior


Promising
Supreme Hero
HC's avatar uploader
posted July 22, 2012 07:52 AM

I suggest that factions diplomacies to be also related to terrain districts they can build.For example if Haven can build Sylvan districts it should be able to build also district for Sylvan's native terrain(let's say forest floor) and if Haven can't build Inferno districts it shouldn't be able to build lava/volcanic district.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jiriki9
Jiriki9


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
posted July 22, 2012 09:28 AM

Quote:
Quote:
No, that's not what I was thinking, it owuld indeed bring the flaws that hobo2 pointed out.
So compatibility is basically just the factions whose armies can be spliced without a morale penalty then?

ehm, no. What I was thinking about was something like you can build special cross-faction districts when you have both Level 1 districts. Like let's say you have a Rural District (Haven Level 1) and a Treetop District (Sylvan Level 1), then you can maybe build a Garden District, offering you, lets say, Pegasus-Knights (Elite) and maybe Dragon-Riders (Champion). That way, the decision is either getting the full lineup of one faction or the combined of 2, and the main general change would be having a 2-2-1-1 lineup (cross-faction) instead of a 1-2-2-1 lineup.

Quote:
Your claim is that people aren't just going to cherry pick seven awesome units from however many factions they are allowed and call that an army - but instead to craft an army that is justified by inter-factional unit synergies. Which means that you're going to have to actually design in those unit synergies, and then have testers go through and make sure they really work. And whatever those alliances actually are, you should probably have those be the only alliances in the game - after all any alliance that you make available for use that you don't intend for people to actually use is going to either be a trap option (if, as intended, it sucks) or an exploit (if you overlooked something and players find a way to make it good anyway).

My claim is people cannot do the cherry-picking, especially not with the system slightly changed now (only 3 districts, mainly). And I want people to make an army that fits their current situation, as far as possible - so, I want all possible alliances to be used.

Quote:
Remember that once you open up a two faction alliance, that's 16 potential unit layouts.

I think it are only 3 per alliance: Either the player goes for a "clean" lineup, or for the cross-faction-district.

Quote:
I suggest that factions diplomacies to be also related to terrain districts they can build.For example if Haven can build Sylvan districts it should be able to build also district for Sylvan's native terrain(let's say forest floor) and if Haven can't build Inferno districts it shouldn't be able to build lava/volcanic district.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Terrain-Districts are never built. Rather the Inner-District is Terrain-specific.

By the way, since most of you seem to mistake me at that point: You still get morale penaltys for armies with troops of different factions!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
LizardWarrior
LizardWarrior


Promising
Supreme Hero
HC's avatar uploader
posted July 22, 2012 09:53 AM

I want to say that the terrain district isn't available for factions that aren't allied with the faction that has that native terrain.For example Haven can't have volcanic district because it's the Inferno's native terrain and Haven can't build Inferno districts.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jiriki9
Jiriki9


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
posted July 22, 2012 09:56 AM

That would make the whole alliance thing futile, since the terrain-restriction would allready prevent any other than allies to be combined.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 22, 2012 09:59 AM

I must admit that things seem fairly incoherent now. At first I was under the impression that you had 4 levels of districts and each one made one level of troops and could come from one lineup - thereby giving 14 ways to make a two-faction city (because each of the creature levels would come with two choices and 2*2*2*2 = 16, but two of those choices are really single faction cities). But now you have four levels of troops and only three districts and you're limited to taking districts that you have lower level versions of. And then the districts themselves are mixtures of creatures of different levels.

1. How are the creatures who are in the level 3 District different? You have one listed as another Elite and the other as a Champion, but it really seems like a 3 tier system that happens to have two creatures in the third tier.

2. If people mix their cities aren't they losing access to level 3 creatures in exchange for getting twice as many level 1 creatures?

I can think of few versions of Heroes where I would voluntarily choose to trade in my two highest levels of critters for the bottom two critters from another faction.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jiriki9
Jiriki9


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
posted July 22, 2012 10:09 AM
Edited by Jiriki9 at 10:47, 22 Jul 2012.

I am sorry thign seem incoherent now. It's probably because there where many comments sounding reasonable and I decided to change some things.

Quote:
1. How are the creatures who are in the level 3 District different? You have one listed as another Elite and the other as a Champion, but it really seems like a 3 tier system that happens to have two creatures in the third tier.

Why does it seem so to you? The whole system is 4-tier: Common, Core, Elite and Champion. Any Outer district gives access to 2 units of different tiers.
Level 1 District: Common and Core
Level 2 District: Core and Elite
Level 3 District: Elite and Champion

Quote:
2. If people mix their cities aren't they losing access to level 3 creatures in exchange for getting twice as many level 1 creatures?

Pretty much. You loose 1 Elite and have 1 more Common. On the other hand, you pay less to get to the cross-Faction L3 district, because you need two level 1 districts and no L2 District.

Quote:
I can think of few versions of Heroes where I would voluntarily choose to trade in my two highest levels of critters for the bottom two critters from another faction.

Well, you get other creatures for that! And of course the Mix-Faction creatures would be highly synergetic, that's the plan. Also, as said, you trade 1 high for 1 low, tier-wise.


EDIT:

HEre, some ideas on possible alliances

Free City Possible Allies: All except Haven. The Free Cities are a really Open-Minded society, which allows them to ally with anyone. The conservative Haven however sees that as aiding heresy, thus declines to ally with a Free city.

Haven Possible Allies: Academy, Fortress, Sylvan and Temple. The Havens decline all Factions they deem Evil and shun the Free Cities because they, though not evil themselves, are willing to support the Evil factions.
Note: Questionable are Temple and Academy here, I think, especially if one allows Academy to ally with inferno and/or necropolis, which I deem quite possible.

Inferno Possible Allies: Only Necropolis - and only because both get shunned by most others.

Necropolis Possible Allies: Academy, Dungeon and Inferno. Most Living fear the Undead and decline alliance with them. Only the Wizards and the Warlocks deem the Power of the Undead more important than some talk about 'Heresy'.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
hobo2
hobo2


Known Hero
posted July 22, 2012 10:33 AM

Quote:
Why does it seem so to you? The whole system is 4-tier: Common, Core, Elite and Champion. Any Outer district gives access to 2 units of different tiers.
Level 1 District: Common and Core
Level 2 District: Core and Elite
Level 3 District: Elite and Champion


How is this different from:

Level 1 District: Core and Core
Level 2 District: Elite and Elite
Level 3 District: Champion and Champion

-?

I mean, I got that you titled one of the units in the Level 1 District "Common" and the other "Core", but how is that game mechanically distinct from them being both Core Units?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
MattII
MattII


Supreme Hero
posted July 22, 2012 03:43 PM

So, what purpose does a Level 2 District serve?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted July 22, 2012 08:23 PM

Common would be the core level unit from H6, Core would be in between H6 core and elite, elite would be in between H6 elite and champion, and Champion = Champion. It staggers the growth of power between the creature levels.
____________
"GNOMES GET OUT OF MY BRAIN"
-Adrius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 4 pages long: 1 2 (3) 4 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1266 seconds