Hozzászólások - Cruel01

Idézet: Miklos - 2011.06.17. 11:36:51
Now with the double ducats from Langrador, it might be a good time to rethink the reduction in the auction time from 5 to 3 days. I fully support it!!

Cruel.

eukar,
They probably save the SE you would make for every hunt and subtract the SE made from drakos on every fight.
For example, if you make an average of 2,000 SE per hunt and the drako gives you 1,000, the game will save 3,000 for each fight to give you at the end of the event.
And of course the 2,000 average considers SM, Trapping, Squeezing and Expert Hunt.

It is either this or something even better
They could also just save the number of hunts and calculate the payback at the end, when our levels will be higher.

Cruel.

Idézet: Phalanxii - 2011.08.26. 15:53:05

Now we are talking Miklos!!
We have the information and it is goooood

I take back all my whining from before

Thanks,
Cruel.

Honestly, I am VERY frustrated with this event.
And this is sad because I had so much expectation...

First, the lack of information is notable. I even asked my clan mates last night if the event was actually going to start today because it didn't seem like it.
All we know is that we have to use APs and SE to activate the pylons and that we might get some relics in the fights.
We also know that we will recover the SE spent in stats, but how? I get my stats at 43% discount. Will that be considered?
This is too little!!!!

Second, as soon as the event starts, we realize the SE/XP ratio is ridiculous, which indicates that whoever wants to be in the top 10 tables will need to sacrifice A LOT in character development. And by the way, we didn't even know there would be a top 10 table. And now that we know there is a top 10 table, we don't know if there will be a prize for being part of it.

I didn't participate in Zarknod (and maybe the people who did knew Langrador would be like this), but the 2 "big events" I participated (Zeno and Huckster Wars) were awesome. They didn't please in all aspects because this is not possible, but the balance was great. Nothing about Landragor has been pleasing so far and this is very disappointing.

Cruel.

Yeah.
It is really weird.
The SE/XP ratio is absolutely HORRIBLE!!!

Cruel.

Idézet: stekkos - 2011.08.24. 20:00:18

Yes stekkos. I figured it was pointless to fight the game mechanics. Items prioritize Defense and the "advantage" from Ruby is not enough to compensate the fact that Emeralds do thousands of extra spell damage. On top of that, there are very few Rubies in W2, which makes it very hard to create a competitive clan. Not to mention that I am 100% infected now and being an Emerald or Diamond makes more sense, since I gain immunity against people from the same horde. It was a definitely a waste to stay Ruby and not take advantage of this.

What about my 3 DG points? I haven't been credited yet.

Thanks,
Cruel.

C'mon Miklos. Tell us

What defines the chance to find the items? Is it Luck also?

Cruel.

Char - Cruel01 in W2.

Switched hordes and was kicked out of my clan. Had 3 DG points on me (yeah, I was very dumb not to use them all ). Joined new clan and had -3 DG points.
I don't know if it was a coincidence or not, but it went from 3 to -3.
In any case, I should have started with 0. Can I have the 3 points back (from 0 to -3)?

Thanks,
Cruel.

Valkyrie,

Not all players had the chance to participate in the Zarknod event. It is absolutely fair that they have access to the same items that others already possess. One way to compensate players from Zarknod would be to allow them sell doubled items for 10 ducats.

Cruel.

As I said, I have squeezed and saved the date for 90 squeezes. All from pets with no training. And the results vary from a Base SE of 459 for a base lvl 65 pet and 857 for a lvl 63 pet. Using the constant methodology, these figures are equivalent to 7.06 and 13.60 respectively.

Using the given formula for squeezing, your pet had a Base SE of 463, which is 22.03*Base lvl. This is clearly out of the 7-13 range, which indicates the formula doesn't apply.
I will make more tests anyway.

As per the squeezed pets having size, I am confused. It seems I have squeezed pets slightly smaller or bigger than normal, but I definitely have never squeezed a Gigantic or Huge creature.

Cruel.

SE from squeeze = Base SE * (1+0.2*Squeeze level + 0.5*Pet level).
It seems 0.5*Pet level is too low.

Cruel.

Your figures are music to my ears
For a lvl 41 pet with a base lvl of 21, a 15,500 Squeeze represents a constant of 22.03, which is way above the 7-13 I have been finding. I will do more tests, but it seems the formula really is wrong.

P.S. I remembered I had done a 500 hunts database and went to check. Using the basic formula (Base SE * constant), the constants I had found (and it is also easy to figure out the Base SE on regular hunts) was:
Tiny: 5-7
Lesser:7-9
Normal:9-11
Greater: 13-17
Huge: 18-22
Gigantic: 30-33
That left me completely confused regarding the constants for the squeeze...lol
Well, as long as higher level pets pay more, I don't really care. As a matter of fact, I do, as I believe the game formulas should be disclosed. But that is a different story.

Cruel.

eukar,
I have been gathering some data (I have 90 squeezes so far) with pets that have no level and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the squeezed pets also have sizes. I have been doing the following: every time I squeeze a pet, I reach the Base SE (SE from Squeeze/(1+0.2*60)), then I make the assumption that the formula for the Base SE is Pet level * constant. And the result is that this constant varies from 7 to 13. Even though the formula might be completely different, this is enough to evidence that squeezed pets have sizes. And it will also be enough to prove (hopefully) that pets with levels pay more than the proposed formula. I will start creating a database for that also in the hopes that the constant will be increased from 7-13, which would indicate the formula is wrong.
In any case, I am accepting any squeeze data you have and that you are willing to share. It would help me a lot.

Cruel.

Can anyone confirm if the Squeeze on trained pets actually uses the below formula?

SE = Base SE * (1+0.2*Squeeze Skill+0.5*Pet Level)

I am training a couple pets in the hopes that this formula is wrong because according to my calculation, if this formula is correct, the break even for doing it will only occur at very high levels (over 40 for the Gigantic creatures, over 50 for Huge creatures, ..., and over 80 for the Tiny creatures). It would be a shame to kill such an interesting option for char development by using such a senseless formula.

Cruel.

I doubt it stekkos.
No game allows multi player because it is quite simple to cheat with 2 chars.

Cruel.

@quint
The only category that can be won by a player without premium or/and without a clan is "Top stolen SE". All others will be won by a premium player in a clan.

@Miklos
I like the proposed mechanics and I believe it will be very interesting. But the prize doesn't make much sense. The vast majority of players in W4 already possesses chars in other worlds. I suggest an option is given at the end to transfer the char or to get some sort of prize depending on performance (and this will need to be defined because it seems there is winning or losing in this new W4) to a chosen char, as was done in previous W4. How about any of the available auction relics?

Cruel.

I don't agree stekkos.
The problem with eliminating the individual awards is the same as the Map Event. If you are unlucky and end up in a weak team, you will be doomed.
Outstanding players must be rewarded.

Cruel.

I actually think those are great ideas. Particularly the one about individual awards.
Replacing all the current dumb categories by a single fight at the end to determine the top 10 strongest players in W4 is great!!
As soon as the winning clan defeats the 50th Epic and possesses the ToP, the game will end and simply allow the players to fight a creature (Epic lvl 100 perhaps?) to determine who the 10 strongest are.

Cruel.

Thank you Sbart.
I actually don't have access to the spell yet. I was looking at it on a website that has other spells with Backlash and this one has Feedback instead. It is probably a translation error.

Cruel.

Thank you Sbart, but I don't think this is it.
I believe you are referring to Backlash.

Cruel