Eredan's World

kilcosu · 13-05-2012 00:06:02

Concerning the Newest addition to adventure mode.

(if you read this please take the time to vote, thank you)

Which campaign would you honestly rather have

The "Beat me if you can" permanent campaign
A new version of "lost in the forest" challenge campaign

Votes totaux: 28

Les résultats du sondage sont masqués pour les invités

MrLordi92 · 13-05-2012 04:43:45

This new 'Beat Me If You Can' thing offers nothing to anyone who isn't the winner, which is where it fails. At least in the 'Lost In the Forest' campaign you could get all of the cards if you grinded enough.

blackwaltz · 13-05-2012 15:43:52

MrLordi92 a écrit :

This new 'Beat Me If You Can' thing offers nothing to anyone who isn't the winner, which is where it fails. At least in the 'Lost In the Forest' campaign you could get all of the cards if you grinded enough.

+1 to this. like Mrlordi said, it offers no reward to other players that have tried the mountain man campaign.

Nurvus · 13-05-2012 16:26:01

Actually, it seems like a way to bait fools into wasting Energy (thus losing their chance at uncommons/rares in other campaign Bosses).

Unless you find a broken deck (current record is over 700 kills), you're screwed.

skadooosh · 13-05-2012 18:19:02

you seriously thing the forest thing was better...
seriously did you think it through?
the forest campaing made you pay with energy for each mob you kill...
where does it lead to?
it leads just to a "buy your way in" campain...

seriously THINK before posting...!

I really prefer this kind of gameplay, even if it nees to be tuned, and don't woory about the rewards, I'm pretty sure it'll be changed...

Santuros · 13-05-2012 20:34:48

skadooosh a écrit :

you seriously thing the forest thing was better...
seriously did you think it through?
the forest campaing made you pay with energy for each mob you kill...
where does it lead to?
it leads just to a "buy your way in" campain...
seriously THINK before posting...!
I really prefer this kind of gameplay, even if it nees to be tuned, and don't woory about the rewards, I'm pretty sure it'll be changed...

nha, but you could get come nice cards in the way. Plus everyone could get the final prize, not just one. If you are too greedy you would pay, not really necesary.

skadooosh · 13-05-2012 21:33:36

I think the question was about how the campain works?
they both are survival...
=> forest. you need to pay each turn.
=> king of the hill: you pay once and try to survive the longest possible

then I understand the reward problem... but as I already said, I'm pretty confident, they will change it...(with something like for the elo, like reward for 10/50/100 kills)
and I must say, I got only a few common cards for the phenix campaign...

kilcosu · 13-05-2012 22:42:19

Edit moderation : Unnecessary comment.

Dernière modification par Zurga (14-05-2012 10:51:26)

skadooosh · 13-05-2012 23:56:50

Edit moderation : Unnecessary comment.

Dernière modification par Zurga (14-05-2012 10:51:49)

Satyrox · 14-05-2012 00:14:39

^Relax bro.

Ontopic: I had more fun on the forest one and I'd preffer a forest-like campaign better than the new one but bleh...

Also a option may be something like the forest, but just paying one time and of course with a "final boss" or something like that, or just a survival getting harder each time ( with a low chance of dropping cards each fight ) until becoming impossible to continue

Nurvus · 14-05-2012 02:14:43

Well, when I answered the poll (I voted for lost in the forest), I wasn't thinkint about the energy part.

I was talking about:
1 - increasingly difficult enemy
2 - lots of monsters coming in, each having a chance to give you something.

I liked the "gauntlet" better. Specially with different types of random enemies you could face (some reduced defense to 0, some reduced spirit to 0, etc).

I agree the cost "per" enemy was too high in Lost in the Forest.
It should've been initial cost + 1 energy per enemy.

The loot quality/chances could start minimal, and increase as you beat more and more, until it reached a maximum, after like 20 enemies = 20 energy.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (14-05-2012 02:15:36)

Sapphon · 14-05-2012 11:23:32

Nurvus a écrit :

I agree the cost "per" enemy was too high in Lost in the Forest.
It should've been initial cost + 1 energy per enemy.

You mean : first enemy you buy costs 1 PE, the 100th enemy you buy costs 100 ?

skadooosh · 14-05-2012 11:54:14

no, I think he meant each monster costs 1 PE

kilcosu · 14-05-2012 12:06:50

I wonder if any moderators have participated in the poll? lol cause it seems like everyone would more or less kill animals all day

Stormholt · 14-05-2012 13:18:29

Wow, 24/0 really, this new quest was a big Fail from feerik...Shame on you guys, why always do this uhm? [card]Living Nature[/card] remember u from something? Well becuz you guys done again >.<

Nurvus · 14-05-2012 15:35:22

Sapphon a écrit :

Nurvus a écrit :
I agree the cost "per" enemy was too high in Lost in the Forest.
It should've been initial cost + 1 energy per enemy.
You mean : first enemy you buy costs 1 PE, the 100th enemy you buy costs 100 ?

I mean you pay X to start the fight, then additional enemies cost 1 energy each.

Even better, it could simply have a high starting cost (like 60 Energy), and additional enemies would cost no Energy.

Dernière modification par Nurvus (14-05-2012 15:38:15)

Sapphon · 14-05-2012 15:41:16

Kk, I see. I don't think there's anything like that coming in a near future, but I'll ask.

Eredan's World

Annonce

#1 13-05-2012 00:06:02

which would you rather have?

#2 13-05-2012 04:43:45

Re : which would you rather have?

#3 13-05-2012 15:43:52

Re : which would you rather have?

#4 13-05-2012 16:26:01

Re : which would you rather have?

#5 13-05-2012 18:19:02

Re : which would you rather have?

#6 13-05-2012 20:34:48

Re : which would you rather have?

#7 13-05-2012 21:33:36

Re : which would you rather have?

#8 13-05-2012 22:42:19

Re : which would you rather have?

#9 13-05-2012 23:56:50

Re : which would you rather have?

#10 14-05-2012 00:14:39

Re : which would you rather have?

#11 14-05-2012 02:14:43

Re : which would you rather have?

#12 14-05-2012 11:23:32

Re : which would you rather have?

#13 14-05-2012 11:54:14

Re : which would you rather have?

#14 14-05-2012 12:06:50

Re : which would you rather have?

#15 14-05-2012 13:18:29

Re : which would you rather have?

#16 14-05-2012 15:35:22

Re : which would you rather have?

#17 14-05-2012 15:41:16

Re : which would you rather have?

Pied de page des forums