|
|
ChrisD1
Supreme Hero
|
posted September 19, 2014 12:13 PM |
|
Edited by ChrisD1 at 12:25, 19 Sep 2014.
|
Sleeping_Sun said:
I can play both styles – more aggressively, but also defensively.
so a dryad being a support unit, a deer that will have a support ability too(as described), a champion treant/sturdy dragon that can go both ways, is less defensive than half of a line up being entanglers? as you said entangling reads strategy. it's not ALWAYS defensive.
and how the defensive play in balance is any better with an elite treant with no support?
and the small,full of obstacles battlefield will make the enemies gather up to a narrower area, thus making the blade dancer more prominent.
everyday we discuss this i find more usefull things about fury and makes me believe that the real battle was intended to be "fury vs strength."
ubisoft made it that way, but it miscalcualted a lot of things, which i still don't understand, and i'm sure neither do they.
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 12:28 PM |
|
|
ChrisD1 said:
Sleeping_Sun said:
I can play both styles – more aggressively, but also defensively.
so a dryad being a support unit, a deer that will have a support ability too(as described), a champion treant/sturdy dragon that can go both ways, is less defensive than half of a line up being entanglers? as you said entangling does not read tank(hence defensive) but strategy.
and how the defensive play in balance is any better with an elite treant with no support?
and the small,full of obstacles battlefield will make the enemies gather up to a narrower area, thus making the blade dancer more prominent.
everyday we discuss this i find more usefull things about fury and makes me believe that the real battle was intended to be "fury vs strength."
ubisoft made it that way, but it miscalcualted a lot of things, which i still don't understand, and i'm sure neither do they.
I do not think support = defence. If that was the case we would tank with supporters, but we do not do that. And what is the use of a tank late game (Champion Treants and Dragons) if you lose a lot of your units early? What's the use of tank if you cannot do any damage or you do low damage with the rest of your army?
With Balance there are units meant to endure/absorb damage or at least to disable an enemy units, which will not influence your damage potential. If you lose several Treants (Elite) you lost a part of your protection, but you still have Hunters and the rest of the gang unaffected by the loss. But If you receive damage with Dancer or Deer, now you lose your damage potential. That is why Balance is better in my opinion.
If the area is dense with obstacles Dancer cannot shine. He needs to enter the mass and slaughter the units around/next to him and for that he needs space so that the targeted units will be next to each other. If you fight against one or two units, you cannot use Dancer's ability to its fullest potential. If the field is narrow than it is all 1 vs 1, or 2vs 2 at most.
If the discussion has strengthen your resolve, that means we are doing a great job here.  I am torn now between Strength and Balance, but I still lean towards Balance.
____________
"The age can be wicked to those who walk alone. When I look into the Mirror, I see myself as I might become..." -Freya
|
|
jhb
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 12:40 PM |
|
Edited by jhb at 13:04, 19 Sep 2014.
|
ChrisD1 said:
but i still wonder how strength comes to hate fury when the line up is about 80% the same!it's almost too impossible to grasp.
I absolutely agree with you. Strength is A LOT more similar to fury, yet some strength voters seems to be totally averse to fury line-up.
People who vote Strength emphasize about all the symbolism behind the presence of Unicorns in this faction, yet some of them seems to "hate" Stags/Deers, units which would bring a similar feeling to what Unicorns brings to this faction (look at the lotr Stag).
As I said before, Sylvan without neither of them - unicorns or stags, would feel incomplete, it would be missing something.
War-overlord said:
War-overlord said:
I ain't voting for tactics. I vote for lore and flavor.
Me too. Speculate tactics can be fun, but a single special ability can change a lot of things and the gameplay. And for me, units that fit better in the faction theme is a priority. 
alcibiades said:
Elvin said:
ChrisD1 said:
-emerald knight=blade dancer (same unit with different clothes literally. don't tell me about abilities they are not so far off too)
Disagree. One hit&runs, the other gets close and personal for splash damage. There's a world of difference in there.
That's not really the point however, at least not from my pov. I think people's objections to the Bladedancer in H5 was not so much its abilities, but the whole concept of a scantily clad melee elf unit with no armor which felt wrong for a whole number of reasons. And from what we've seen so far, that is exactly the same we'll get in the Emerald Knight. And then it doesn't matter too much whether it wields a sword and does splash damage or wields a spear and strikes-and-returns.
As much as i understand most of objections against the blade dancer, and I probably even agree with most of them. In my point of view, emerald knight seems a lot less elvish than blade dancers.
This word "knight" is already very "unelvish" for me, and then you have basically a green sword and board warrior. Put him on a mount and voilà: the green crusader of the forests. To make things more weird, we could add to lore that the green emerald knights were once Elrath worshippers that abandoned their faith in the light for a more sustainable and eco-friendly world, they made a new sacred oath for the green light and are now vegetarians. Their Grand Crusade is now against global warming.
Anyway, for me elven warriors are more about agility, dexterity, cunning, NOT strength and toughness. So, sword and board warriors would fit better among the humans, orcs and/or dwarves.
An unit that could fit this faction well would be a shapeshifter, or maybe the druid could get an special ability for this, alternative upgrade maybe? :S
|
|
ChrisD1
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 12:42 PM |
|
|
Sleeping_Sun said:
I do not think support = defence. If that was the case we would tank with supporters, but we do not do that. And what is the use of a tank late game (Champion Treants and Dragons) if you lose a lot of your units early?
With Balance there are units meant to endure/absorb damage or at least to disable an enemy units, which will not influence your damage potential. If you lose several Treants (Elite) you lost a part of your protection, but you still have Hunters and the rest of the gang unaffected by the loss. But If you receive damage with Dancer or Deer, now you lose your damage potential. That is why Balance is better in my opinion.
If the area is dense with obstacles Dancer cannot shine. He needs to enter the mass and slaughter the units around/next to him and for that he needs space so that the targeted units will be next to each other. If you fight against one or two units, you cannot use Dancer's ability to its fullest potential. If the field is narrow than it is all 1 vs 1, or 2vs 2 at most.
If the discussion has strengthen your resolve, that means we are doing a great job here. I am torn now between Strength and Balance, but I still lean towards Balance.
if entangling can be seen as a defensive ability, so does supporting a unit(because you can support its defence,not only its attack attribute)
why lose all of your untis early?is it dictated somewhere? you stll have an early game supporter and a shooter.
is it cheaper to buy two archers or two treants(elite)?
blade dancers and deers will surely take damage but way less since they will be fast and strike first most of the times. and if the enemy has many shooters, you want to reach them, not enangle them.
the way i see these battle fields,is that they will lead the enemy to certain and a restricted number of paths. your blade dancer will strike hard knowing where to stand(or not stand).
i still wonder how you consider strength without considering fury too. does the root snake make that much of a difference between these two? the strike and return knight? no one said no retaliation. the unicorn?
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 01:17 PM |
|
|
ChrisD1 said:
Sleeping_Sun said:
I do not think support = defence. If that was the case we would tank with supporters, but we do not do that. And what is the use of a tank late game (Champion Treants and Dragons) if you lose a lot of your units early?
With Balance there are units meant to endure/absorb damage or at least to disable an enemy units, which will not influence your damage potential. If you lose several Treants (Elite) you lost a part of your protection, but you still have Hunters and the rest of the gang unaffected by the loss. But If you receive damage with Dancer or Deer, now you lose your damage potential. That is why Balance is better in my opinion.
If the area is dense with obstacles Dancer cannot shine. He needs to enter the mass and slaughter the units around/next to him and for that he needs space so that the targeted units will be next to each other. If you fight against one or two units, you cannot use Dancer's ability to its fullest potential. If the field is narrow than it is all 1 vs 1, or 2vs 2 at most.
If the discussion has strengthen your resolve, that means we are doing a great job here. I am torn now between Strength and Balance, but I still lean towards Balance.
if entangling can be seen as a defensive ability, so does supporting a unit(because you can support its defence,not only its attack attribute)
why lose all of your untis early?is it dictated somewhere? you stll have an early game supporter and a shooter.
is it cheaper to buy two archers or two treants(elite)?
blade dancers and deers will surely take damage but way less since they will be fast and strike first most of the times. and if the enemy has many shooters, you want to reach them, not enangle them.
the way i see these battle fields,is that they will lead the enemy to certain and a restricted number of paths. your blade dancer will strike hard knowing where to stand(or not stand).
i still wonder how you consider strength without considering fury too. does the root snake make that much of a difference between these two? the strike and return knight? no one said no retaliation. the unicorn?
You can support unit by buffing its attack power, or defensive power, or it can be something else. Entangling can stop units in place, thus you can focus on that unit or on others, depending form case to case. This is why I believe entangling is better defence ability than a buff from a supportive unit, but this depends on what kind of support a supportive unit can offer.
If your only option is to charge at the enemy you can win a lot of battles, but what when you meet stronger opponents, like orcs, your units will suffer greatly. I think that Elvin wrote something about that:
Dedicated damage dealers is not a clear advantage but a matter of balancing. For instance try to attack H5 orcs with elves head on. If your first charge does not hit hard enough you will end up slaughtered. This works wonderfully against frail opponents but less so on tough enemies. The thing is, H5 sylvan could potentially charge with ALL units while this won't be the case this time. The damaging potential has been greatly diminished so their specials had better be worth it. I think he explained this perfectly.
I do not know which unit is cheaper, nothing was revealed about that. That would depend on the creature growth, stats, abilities, etc. But probably 2 archers would be cheaper. What does that have to do with our topic? You'll have to be careful with your gold whatever you choose to build/hire.
Yes, you want to reach the enemy archers, but you'll reach them faster with your flying units, not walkers.
If Fury wins, we'll find out if Blade dancer is that good or that bad on these battlefields.
I considered Fury at the beginning, but I ultimately decided in the favour of Balance. That doesn't mean I hate Fury or something like that, I just like to choose play style I want (which is possible in Balance and Strength in my opinion), rather than being forced to just play offensively in Fury build. Pure offence is Orc thing. Whatever option wins, I'm still happy 'cause I'll have Unicorns, Phoenix or Deer.
I am not sure if it has anything to do with units, because if we consider the units separately it would be a different story. Even though I defended Snake in Balance, I agree with someone who said that this unit is more suitable for swamp faction...
____________
"The age can be wicked to those who walk alone. When I look into the Mirror, I see myself as I might become..." -Freya
|
|
ChrisD1
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 01:48 PM |
|
Edited by ChrisD1 at 13:49, 19 Sep 2014.
|
Sleeping_Sun said:
You can support unit by buffing its attack power, or defensive power, or it can be something else. Entangling can stop units in place, thus you can focus on that unit or on others, depending form case to case. This is why I believe entangling is better defence ability than a buff from a supportive unit, but this depends on what kind of support a supportive unit can offer.
so both abilties are equally versatile,and can be either defensive or offensive. so the corresponding creatures (snake vs dryad) are actually more similar now.
Sleeping_Sun said:
If your only option is to charge at the enemy you can win a lot of battles, but what when you meet stronger opponents, like orcs, your units will suffer greatly. I think that Elvin wrote something about that:
Dedicated damage dealers is not a clear advantage but a matter of balancing. For instance try to attack H5 orcs with elves head on. If your first charge does not hit hard enough you will end up slaughtered. This works wonderfully against frail opponents but less so on tough enemies. The thing is, H5 sylvan could potentially charge with ALL units while this won't be the case this time. The damaging potential has been greatly diminished so their specials had better be worth it. I think he explained this perfectly.
we need to acknoledge the word "balance" outside of the polls. while you win more battles you gain exp and become stronger (and richer) resulting in a bigger army to deal with the "toughies".
every possible line-up will have weaknesses and strengths. none of them is PERFECT. since nothing in this world is perfect. everything has pros and cons.
and elvin wrote that having in mind "dedicated damage dealing" and although fury is described that way and it suits it,we did mention above the versatility of it. and he talked later about H5 sylvan which has little to do with the possible line-ups.
Sleeping_Sun said:
I do not know which unit is cheaper, nothing was revealed about that. That would depend on the creature growth, stats, abilities, etc. But probably 2 archers would be cheaper. What does that have to do with our topic? You'll have to be careful with your gold whatever you choose to build/hire.
I told you about that, because you said that even if your elite treants die you will still have your archers. well won't you need to buy those treants again? again balance comes into play. nothing is perfect.
Sleeping_Sun said:
Yes, you want to reach the enemy archers, but you'll reach them faster with your flying units, not walkers.
If Fury wins, we'll find out if Blade dancer is that good or that bad on these battlefields.
It's only A flying unit, only one, that you will get LATER on. what happens with shooting units before you get them?avoid them? cool. same way fury will avoid much stronger enemies on the field. so elvin's argument is not that valid here. if you see closely again balance is in all things.
Sleeping_Sun said:
I considered Fury at the beginning, but I ultimately decided in the favour of Balance. That doesn't mean I hate Fury or something like that, I just like to choose play style I want (which is possible in Balance and Strength in my opinion), rather than being forced to just play offensively in Fury build. Pure offence is Orc thing. Whatever option wins, I'm still happy 'cause I'll have Unicorns, Phoenix or Deer.
I am not sure if it has anything to do with units, because if we consider the units separately it would be a different story. Even though I defended Snake in Balance, I agree with someone who said that this unit is more suitable for swamp faction...
no one said you hate fury, but for the things we discussed above, strength seems closer to fury. so if you considered fury, you considered strength too, and vice-versa. but you chose balance in the end and that's cool.
but in my opinion it's too contradicting to want strength or balance equally(at least gameplay-wise) and loathe fury. it makes no sense.(i'm not talking about you obiviously).
i think i proved to you through the "support ability" argument that you can choose a playstyle in fury too. and actually the way you control your troops decides your playstyle.
It's just a matter of which line up makes it easier. choosing playstyle in a line-up is not impossible.
by the way answer me this sometime: collectivelly ,if you think long enough and read some arguments here and there about all three line ups, which of these three line ups are more similar? which stands out more? compare core/elite/champion tiers.
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 02:11 PM |
|
Edited by Raelag84 at 14:12, 19 Sep 2014.
|
War-overlord said:
Raelag84 said:
Why do you play video games now?
What kind of silly question is this?
(sighs) Never mind.
If I knew for sure that emerald knights would be ridding in on unicorns (or some equivalent forest herbivore mount) and if I knew the units of balance were going to look as pretty as the pictures I would find the lineup palatable.
In reality, since all the picture contain giant disclaimers, I have no idea what the units are going to look like, and special abilities are all that I have to go on. Strength and fury have the abilities I like best.
Besides, I can't stomach moonix in any faction, and our inside friend said it would be a moonix.
|
|
War-overlord
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Presidente of Isla del Tropico
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 02:15 PM |
|
|
Raelag84 said:
War-overlord said:
Raelag84 said:
Why do you play video games now?
What kind of silly question is this?
(sighs) Never mind.
I will not never mind. I want to know why you ask that question.
____________
Vote El Presidente! Or Else!
|
|
DarkLord
Supreme Hero
Fear me..
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 02:47 PM |
|
Edited by DarkLord at 14:49, 19 Sep 2014.
|
i am with War-Overlord on this one!
every person has his own taste and reason to play or not video games
its his personal choice!
and a question like "Why do you play video games now?" doesnt make any sence.
|
|
jhb
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 02:54 PM |
|
Edited by jhb at 05:10, 20 Sep 2014.
|
ChrisD1 said:
every possible line-up will have weaknesses and strengths. none of them is PERFECT. since nothing in this world is perfect. everything has pros and cons.
Again, I have to agree with you, ChrisD1. I think this magical word "balance" is confusing people a little bit. All faction will probably have pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. 
Sleeping_Sun said:
I considered Fury at the beginning, but I ultimately decided in the favour of Balance. That doesn't mean I hate Fury or something like that, I just like to choose play style I want (which is possible in Balance and Strength in my opinion), rather than being forced to just play offensively in Fury build. Pure offence is Orc thing. Whatever option wins, I'm still happy 'cause I'll have Unicorns, Phoenix or Deer.
I am not sure if it has anything to do with units, because if we consider the units separately it would be a different story. Even though I defended Snake in Balance, I agree with someone who said that this unit is more suitable for swamp faction...
I understand you way of thinking my friend, but if we consider that offence is a orc thing and defence is a heaven/human thing, what would be left for the rest of factions? 
Even if elves are more inclined to an offensive or defensive line, I doubt they will play like orcs or humans. I think one characteristic they will have, no matter which lineup wins, is an overall high initiative and good shooters.
In fact, I'm guessing the Fury line would have a lot of similarities to H6 sanctuary (w/ magic hero), which means strong shooters, high initiative, synergies and some battle field control.
And by the way, Sanctuary also had ZERO flyers and was one of my favorites from H6.
- Sanctuary had chilling and freezing abilities, Sylvan will have rooting.
- Sanctuary had 2 good shooters (1 core, 1 elite), Sylvan will have hunters and druids. The elite shooter had a chilling attack and Ice Shards, which was basically an ice trap for chilling and damage. Druid will be a saboteur with entangling abilities.
- Sanctuary had Spirit Bond and Lifeguard Membrane from water spirits, Sylvan (Fury or Strength) will have Symbiosis and something more I guess.
- Sanctuary had Trail of Clouds from Sacred Kirin, a very tactical ability which could carry the whole team or could block (root) enemy walkers. I don't think Sylvan will have something like this, the "carry everything" suits more a water theme, imo. But who knows. Deers will bring something.
As we can see, special abilities make a HUGE difference. I think Sylvan would follow the general lines of Sanctuary.
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 03:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so both abilties are equally versatile,and can be either defensive or offensive. so the corresponding creatures (snake vs dryad) are actually more similar now.
I am not so sure about that. You can strengthen your army with Dryad, but you cannot be aggressive with her. Snake is attacking unit with a sabotage ability. They cannot be that similar since their roles are different. With support you increase power of units or sabotage unit (H5 spell casting unit like Shadow Witch) if it has slow or something like that. But Snake is called a sabotage unit and not Dryad, thus they cannot be that similar the way you want them to be.
Quote:
we need to acknoledge the word "balance" outside of the polls. while you win more battles you gain exp and become stronger (and richer) resulting in a bigger army to deal with the "toughies".
every possible line-up will have weaknesses and strengths. none of them is PERFECT. since nothing in this world is perfect. everything has pros and cons.
and elvin wrote that having in mind "dedicated damage dealing" and although fury is described that way and it suits it,we did mention above the versatility of it. and he talked later about H5 sylvan which has little to do with the possible line-ups.
Gaining experience is beneficial for all line-ups. Fury is no special there. I agree that all line-ups are not perfect, but we are choosing the best of the given ones.
Quote:
I told you about that, because you said that even if your elite treants die you will still have your archers. well won't you need to buy those treants again? again balance comes into play. nothing is perfect.
Yes, but Treant could endure much more damage than Hunters or Dancers, thus you will lose less Treants than you would lose some other non-tanking unit. The loss is there, but the question is are you going to lose a lot or a little. I prefer to lose as little as possible.
Quote:
It's only A flying unit, only one, that you will get LATER on. what happens with shooting units before you get them?avoid them? cool. same way fury will avoid much stronger enemies on the field. so elvin's argument is not that valid here. if you see closely again balance is in all things.
I used Elvin's argument against pure charging on enemy units, I did not specified archers in particular. Phoenix and Pixie are two flying units. And who said about avoiding archers? Against archers Snake is pretty fast with an entangle ability so that archer will not be able to escape and is thus rendered useless in close combat. Emeralds could harass archers, staying out of their range with strike and return ability. Fury units must reach them or suffer the consequence of staying in their range.
Quote:
i think i proved to you through the "support ability" argument that you can choose a playstyle in fury too. and actually the way you control your troops decides your playstyle.
It's just a matter of which line up makes it easier. choosing playstyle in a line-up is not impossible.
by the way answer me this sometime: collectivelly ,if you think long enough and read some arguments here and there about all three line ups, which of these three line ups are more similar? which stands out more? compare core/elite/champion tiers.
No, you cannot play defensively with supporters. They support other units, that is their job. They cannot provide that big protection as a living meat/treeshield could. With supporters you can protect to a certain degree, but the best protection is if the unit cannot reach you or is disabled, or something else along this line. Did you protect your units with H5 Magi? Tank with H5 Magi? I don't thing so.
If your units are defensively oriented you cannot choose an aggressive style. Can you rush with H3 Dwarfs and H3 Dendroids? No, you can not.
The line-ups are similar since they share several units: Hunter, Druid, Treant, Dragon, etc. The Other variations offer a change whether to be attacker, defender or being capable of both, depending on on how the battle goes. If they were all the same, then why come up with different line-ups? Read line-up descriptions again, you'll see that they are not the same.
Core:
All are similar with each other, because 2 out of 3 units are the same between the line-ups.
Elite: Balance and Strength are similar (Druid and Emerald Warrior) Fury is different here, Because it has a Druid as a common unit.
Champion: Strength and Fury are similar, while Balance is different (flyer and synergy, but the role is essentially the same)
Mixed Tiers: Core and Champion synergy of Strength and Fury, while Balance can have its own combos in all three tiers.
|
|
adriancat
Famous Hero
Protector Of The Peace
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 03:18 PM |
|
|
jhb said:
ChrisD1 said:
every possible line-up will have weaknesses and strengths. none of them is PERFECT. since nothing in this world is perfect. everything has pros and cons.
Again, I have to agree with you, ChrisD1. I think this magical word "balance" is confunding people a little bit. All faction will probably have pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses.
I understand you way of thinking my friend, but if we consider that offence is a orc thing and defence is a heaven/human thing, what would be left for the rest of factions?
Even if elves are more inclined to an offensive or defensive line, I doubt they will play like orcs or humans. I think one characteristic they will have, no matter which lineup wins, is an overall high initiative and good shooters.
In fact, I'm guessing the Fury line would have a lot of similarities to H6 sanctuary (w/ magic hero), which means strong shooters, high initiative, synergies and some battle field control.
And by the way, Sanctuary also had ZERO flyers and was one of my favorites from H6.
- Sanctuary had chilling and freezing abilities, Sylvan will have rooting.
- Sanctuary had 2 good shooters (1 core, 1 elite), Sylvan will have hunters and druids. The elite shooter had a chilling attack and Ice Shards, which was basically an ice trap for chilling and damage. Druid will be a saboteur with entangling abilities.
- Sanctuary had Spirit Bond and Lifeguard Membrane from water spirits, Sylvan (Fury or Strength) will have Symbiosis and something more I guess.
- Sanctuary had Trail of Clouds from Sacred Kirin, a very tactical ability which could carry the whole team or could block (root) enemy walkers. I don't think Sylvan will have something like this, the "carry everything" suits more a water theme, imo. But who knows. Deers will bring something.
As we can see, special abilities make a HUGE difference. I think Sylvan would follow the general lines of Sanctuary.
This 
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 03:20 PM |
|
|
jhb said:
As we can see, special abilities make a HUGE difference.
True, but I think it was stated that H7 will not have so many abilities. Though, I'll have to check this.
|
|
Kronos1000
Promising
Supreme Hero
Fryslân Boppe
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 04:55 PM |
|
|
20%/40%/40% Balance and Fury are once again tied.
____________
Hwær cwom mearg? Hwær cwom mago?
Hwær cwom maþþumgyfa? - 'The Wanderer'
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 05:13 PM |
|
|
Sleeping_Sun said:
jhb said:
As we can see, special abilities make a HUGE difference.
True, but I think it was stated that H7 will not have so many abilities. Though, I'll have to check this.
Yup
Quote:
Xavier Penin: The motto for the battle system in H7 is less abilities, more tactics
Source
____________
|
|
Protolisk
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 05:22 PM |
|
|
Storm-Giant said:
Sleeping_Sun said:
jhb said:
As we can see, special abilities make a HUGE difference.
True, but I think it was stated that H7 will not have so many abilities. Though, I'll have to check this.
Yup
Quote:
Xavier Penin: The motto for the battle system in H7 is less abilities, more tactics
Source
My question is, how does less abilities = more tactics? Unless they mean less activated abilities, and in their place more passives and randoms, in which case I can understand, but, otherwise that seems odd. Less abilities would make creatures more homogenized, right?
|
|
lokdron
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 06:04 PM |
|
|
Kronos1000 said:
20%/40%/40% Balance and Fury are once again tied.
Yeah balance and fury is neck and neck I think the image of the blade dancer might turn the tide going by the comments on the website well that's what I think personally who knows what will happen at this point.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 06:10 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 18:11, 19 Sep 2014.
|
Have you guys seen this?
My God!!
This is more like it bros!
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 06:11 PM |
|
|
Man this voting was badly thought out...
Thanks to the Blade Dancer artwork people are swooning over fury and suddenly the Emerald warrior looks like s**t.
But still how is the deer
supposed to compete with the unicorn when it has this much detail?
Please Ubi! If you read this then the next time you put something up for voting, just take an extra week and get your artwork together for gods sake.
I mean could you not find some druid artwork that wasn't inspired by the imagination of a 5 year old girl?
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
Sandro400
Promising
Supreme Hero
Shadow of Death
|
|
posted September 19, 2014 06:20 PM |
|
|
fuChris said:
I mean could you not find some druid artwork that wasn't inspired by the imagination of a 5 year old girl?
Actually, it's created by Olivier Ledroit, one of the best French artists there is. He worked for H5 btw. And his artworks are stunning.
Tastes differ.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
