Playing a couple games with the same people doesn't necessarily make them a premade. Just because they know roughly how good their teammates are, they a) likely still have roughly the same communication as a PuG and b) other than spec (if they even play the same DG), they likely don't really have a good understanding of their teammates' strategies. Having lunch with a person doesn't automatically make you close friends (or even friends for that matter). Playing a match (or
Primal Zed
I agree with the two posts above mine, which disagree with ItchyDustbin's post. Even if Dustbin's post were true, why would sucking up to devs or complaining about utilizing teamwork equal a worse community than one in which anyone who isn't 'pro' is ruthlessly insulted and ostrasized? (Hell, according to a friend of mine who really likes DotA, they are overall 'jerks' (censoring myself) to each other, too.) So...brown-nosers (who don't even get any benefits from the bro
Yours kidnaps 5 year old kids in a summer camp. Mine kidnaps sexy, nubile governors' daughters. (edit: just realized I already mentioned kidnapping daughters on this very same page of the thread. Forgot about that. Oh well..)
Alvaro - it's not that we were 'missing' your point that Towers become less effective at later levels, it's that no one agreed with your point or your solution. You also seem to grossly misunderstand how significant of a change this is (as others have pointed out). There will NOT be the "only" effect of preventing a DG from being chased down past his own towers and killed. It will also mean that attacking towers - even when no enemy DGs are around at the time - becomes sig
Let me start by saying that I do not agree with Alvaro's analysis that there is a problem with towers, nor with his initial solution to give them %-based damage. That said, he never indicated that he wants it "so that a bad team gets advantages to such a degree that it out weighs the skill level and items of the opposing team." Nor did he indicate there should be "complete and total protection from attack when they're at a single tower." I just don't see how changing how
I do not like _Shadow, but I think it was childish to ban him in that situation.
i will be logging in next time I play this game.
[quote]What if the towers scaled up in HP and damage with war rank? Keep the same citi upgrades, but with a higher base for the towers, those upgrades might actually become useful.....[/quote] In light of Alvaro's response (which I for the most part agree with), what about the inverse? Light team's towers' HP and damage increase depending on the Dark team's War Rank? Ostensibly, that doesn't make sense, but remember that: 1
I have never seen a IDE/SATA converter. I have seen an external USB device that can plug into IDE or SATA laptop HDD (it mighta had desktop SATA, but I don't think it had desktop IDE). I would suggest getting an external enclosure for your new SATA HDD (external enclosures use USB usually). Some of the newest motherboards have only 1 IDE drive, or none at all, relying on SATA instead. Not only is the narrower ribbon much easier to deal with in a case
While a very interesting concept, I don't think it'd work because of the camera being blocked when you go underneath a lane. That, and using an ability that has to be targetted on the ground will be impossible on the bottom lane. Perhaps (would require functionality on part of the developer, but if it's put in then the implications for future maps might make it worth it) having a large portal pairs that players and creep can go into to come out immediately on the other side. &nb
This sounds like it's more a complaint about the strength of a tank build over a damage build. The usefulness of BotF is a symptom of a greater issue.
That people get excited over the maps suggested by everyone's favorite foreign Scott really means that what the publishers need is a preview of upcoming maps and demigods. Even if it's something as simple as concept art. With few exceptions, there really isn't anything special about Alien's maps. It's simply the presentation and the notion of fresh content that many players like. alvaro: while yes, it in all likelihood does take a long time to cre
2) I kind of care about my win/lose ratio, and looking up the ratio of other players is a decent way of assessing how well they might play. (It's not end-all-be-all assessment, just a lose guess. If a player has a 10/50 win/lose ratio, his skill probably has something to do with it. I only use this assessment if there is a significant difference in the average team ratio.) That said, I still agree there should be a join as team option for both Pantheon/Skirmish and C
I wouldn't really be for a PuG VOIP system, simply because I don't want some nerd rager yelling through the VOIP. But then, I type quickly, and tend to communicate often with teammates.
[quote]I have a question - can we put up a vote for who would want/use a team ranked system?[/quote] Unless this vote is put into the actual game to pop up when a person logs in using their account (with agree/disagree/do not care options), the results will not be an accurate portrayal. There are undoubtedly many players who do not ever visit the forum.
[quote]Which is why they should only count if the default settings are not changed.[/quote] I think this should be limited to only if certain settings are changed from default. Things like high gold and war rank (either initial or rate) shouldn't be ranked, but I don't think changing grunt strength or tower strength should make the game unranked. I do think that if settings differ from default, the offending setting should be displayed in the lobby at all times. I
[quote]anyone quitting should lose favor for their pantheon quitters never win and all that..[/quote] What about honest disconnects, or if someone simply has to go because something else came up?
as a player who plays exclusively pantheon (mainly because I don't like some of the game modes, like Fortress), I would not like it if stats and especially favor only count in Pantheon/Skirmish. I don't premade (I've done maybe ~10 games with my lil brother in the couple months I've had this game). I tend to look up stats before the game starts, but only quit the lobby if the other team has a premade (and I don't feel like fighting a premade at that time), if there is a signific
it works fine
Last I heard, levels 1 and 2 of Shield remove existing debuffs, but don't make the player immune to new debuffs (i.e. stun, interrupt, spit). Levels 3 and 4 of Shield make the player immune to all debuffs for the duration. I'm not sure if Penetance works as an interrupt against a level 1 or 2 Shield, nor have I checked to see if the vamp stun works against a level 3 or 4 shield.
whats the name of the playres in this premade?
[quote]You want to 'fix' something by introducing a balancing nightmare.[/quote] My thoughts. I don't think HP stacking over other things is ok right now, but this kind of change to towers is far more significant than you seem to think it is.
have you tried opening an additional slot?
[quote]I will never play a game made by these companies for as long as I live, after my experience with DG.[/quote] Likewise. Though I still have fun playing DG, and I commend Frogboy on keeping up the Dev Journals, the apparent lack of promised support, especially after the rocky release, makes me very disastisfied with the companies involved.
I always thought having towers become easy to take down, or having their damage become of less consequence, was intended. The real control of how long a match lasts is how powerful the towers are in terms of damage and health. Making the damage % based heavily favors damage-based builds, since for the most part they will perform far better than a tank-build DG when trying to down a tower. Even if tank builds are currently a little better, this kind of change will be a mass