Vous n'êtes pas identifié(e).
Eredan iTCG forums move. You can find them at this adress: http://forums.eredan.com/index.php.
Eredan GT forums stay here, the same for the old Eredan iTCG forums who pass in read only.
Les forums d'Eredan iTCG ont déménagés. Retrouvez-les à cette adresse : http://forums.eredan.com/index.php.
Les forums d'Eredan GT restent ici, ainsi que les anciens forums d'Eredan iTCG qui y seront toujours en lecture seule.
ledeir a écrit :Caitlyn a écrit :some people quit when they know they wont match your deck. i actually appreciate that rather than going more than a turn and then quitting, it wastes my time since i dont get anything.
I always fight to the death regardless of how outmatched I am... Granted that has resulted in several 3 turn games... Which do you prefer, a person quitting when horribly outmatched before playing any cards or playing a game in which you slaughter them without challenge? I am curious...
of course its the latter >_> but if they want to quit on me, its fine so long as they do it at the start when i already have yet to invest time in our game..
playing a couple of minutes for no crystal is annoying
Hehe.. So to use a metaphore - You'd rather be punched in the eye then stabbed in the eye when there is a third option: not get hit at all.
Well, if you ask me. I'd rather not get hit at all.
Sereaphim a écrit :Why not make it that you only can vote if you have played at least 1000 games ?
(and only games count where you not leave or time out)
This way multis would be pretty useless.That's a good idea...
How about instead of a minimum number of games require a minimum number of completed games per week? (again, not counting leaving or time outs)That way accounts have to consistently be active to keep their votes.
Also, to help encourage sales, give people an extra vote if they bought cards that week. (but only 1 extra vote regardless of purchase)
I like the ideas so far excep buying a vote. That's like a slap in the face to those who don't spend a lot of cash on the game. That's not good for bussiness. It inspires people to whine and clutter up the forum with trash.
Amber: The problem is that it's a complicated way of writing that. The wording "a single guild" is more correct. How it's written now makes me wonder if I've missed some game mechanics. I'm not trying to be a douchbag I honestly have some trouble deciphering the cards and trophies sometimes.
Zurga: Sorry mate but thats not what the text says really.
It says "...an additional point if..." which impiles that it is dependant on getting a point for winning with at least one courtesan and one character with one single guild. The part with "one single guild" is not only incorrect but it is also pretty hard to understand. Even for me and I'm a fairly bright guy.
No, this trophy was pretty poorly written (or poorly translated).
I've had 4 players quit on me in the level-rooms within the last hour. It usually ain't that often, but today was just horrible. I need to vent as well...
Two were lost Perfects, which the players just wanted to deny me. The other two just up and quit the second I one hit killed a character.
It's just tiny little wankers who won't bother with words like "sportsmanship", "integrity" and "not being a god damned ass".
No, it's not a big deal for me really. Yet. The more people who do it the more will think it to be "okey" to do.
These guys wasn't no accidently closed tabs or powerdrops. If you could flip someone off with a quit - these guys did.
Oh, uhm.. Yeah. Interesting choice to go with nomads again.
Though it's cool new card that [card]Cheksathet's Vision[/card].
I'm playing a pack-deck with Bloodsword, Wild and Dark. I have no idea if that's a viable option in Elo. My gut instincts tells me it ain't goin' too far. It's lacking punch. Dark is pretty weak but she ain't got no competition in a "all marauder pack deck". Got two Lunations in it and I feel that two is good enough really a third would just bog the deck down.
My point is that only marauders for a pack-deck don't seem to be good enough. Anyone care to disagree? I'd love to be wrong!
So the eclipse cards were broken and eveyone knew it. Even me, and I've never played a tournament. They were banned for pete's sake! That's a dead giveaway. It was so broken that Mel Gibson seems collected and sane in comparison.
About the Brothers in Arms - c'mon it was broken as well. Just because your deck got hit with the big ol' nerfstick it doesen't mean that the cards were balanced.
The new meta game will decide if the nerf was too harsh. Most often the dev-teams have full comprehension of the meta game and can make changes on a level not obvious to regular players.
The Whiners are those who ain't givin' no constructive criticism, they just whine. There will ALWAYS be Whiners. Yeah, you know what, Whiners? Yes, it is a god damned shame that YOUR decks where nerfed. But something had to change obviously.
Great job, dev-team: Your goal should be that no cards are banned.