Xenthos2007-04-18 21:18:23
They're still far too frequent.
Is this going to be reviewed at any point, please?
Is this going to be reviewed at any point, please?
Krellan2007-04-18 21:37:51
QUOTE(Xenthos @ Apr 18 2007, 04:18 PM) 399637
They're still far too frequent.
Is this going to be reviewed at any point, please?
Is this going to be reviewed at any point, please?
really? usually nothing happens between the communes for lack of people on both sides. Seren has like one druid who's always busy cause she has a guild to run
Forren2007-04-18 21:39:23
QUOTE(Xenthos @ Apr 18 2007, 05:18 PM) 399637
They're still far too frequent.
Is this going to be reviewed at any point, please?
Is this going to be reviewed at any point, please?
I disagree. I like how it is right now.
Diamondais2007-04-18 21:40:01
QUOTE(Krellan @ Apr 18 2007, 05:37 PM) 399640
really? usually nothing happens between the communes for lack of people on both sides. Seren has like one druid who's always busy cause she has a guild to run
Or she'd rather be doing something else at the time, but I like that excuse!
Krellan2007-04-18 21:44:48
QUOTE(diamondais @ Apr 18 2007, 04:40 PM) 399642
Or she'd rather be doing something else at the time, but I like that excuse!
yeah that too I thought it would suit you better than saying you didn't want to!
Krellan2007-04-18 21:45:29
QUOTE(Forren @ Apr 18 2007, 04:39 PM) 399641
I disagree. I like how it is right now.
and I'm inclined to agree with Forren since I get anxious waiting for them...just to be disappointed by another cancelled attack.
there is something that needs changing. Failure to activate a colossus should not destroy the damn thing!
Seren's have destroyed two out of three colossus now and I just lost my security status from the whole being kicked out and rejoining thing so I can't make sure it doesn't happen again
Catarin2007-04-18 21:50:24
QUOTE(Krellan @ Apr 18 2007, 03:45 PM) 399644
and I'm inclined to agree with Forren since I get anxious waiting for them...just to be disappointed by another cancelled attack.
there is something that needs changing. Failure to activate a colossus should not destroy the damn thing!
Seren's have destroyed two out of three colossus now and I just lost my security status from the whole being kicked out and rejoining thing so I can't make sure it doesn't happen again
there is something that needs changing. Failure to activate a colossus should not destroy the damn thing!
Seren's have destroyed two out of three colossus now and I just lost my security status from the whole being kicked out and rejoining thing so I can't make sure it doesn't happen again
It should destroy it really. It's another possible avenue of defense for the defenders if they're alert. It's also not hard to avoid as long as you're careful.
They do feel like they're happening too often. It tends to take up a lot of attention.
Shayle2007-04-18 22:28:56
I also think they're too frequent.
It's a lot of work for a one-hour battle every 48 hours. I can see it getting old fast.
Edit: but they are fun! (just too often!)
It's a lot of work for a one-hour battle every 48 hours. I can see it getting old fast.
Edit: but they are fun! (just too often!)
Xanon2007-04-18 22:31:57
I also agree with Xenthos and Shayle. They're too frequent, already getting old quickly. They were fun at first, but now they seem old and a hassle. Maybe, though, that's because we keep losing heh.
Aiakon2007-04-18 22:46:33
Agreed. They are too frequent.
Unknown2007-04-18 22:51:36
... I think they are far too frequent too. Considering how much a construct costs to raise it can fall again very quickly. And if you constantly lose those bottle, I can see how much of an annoyance it becomes fighting them roughly every second day.
Unknown2007-04-18 22:55:59
QUOTE(Forren @ Apr 18 2007, 11:39 PM) 399641
I disagree. I like how it is right now.
I see two main reasons for this:
A) You do hardly anything else anymore but log in and raid, one way or another. So for you it fits because you play the game for these battles. Not everyone does this though, and especially those in Magnagora will be drawn into these battles whether they want or not. Oocly just give them a chance to relax and do something else for a bit. If you have to defend pretty much each time you log in.. eh..
B.) You're in Celest and you're winning. If your own home doesn't burn every few days I can imagine it being much more pleasant. Likewise, I can imagine it being much much less pleasant for Magnagora. I remember when at least one Supernal fell every other day, or when Celest lost ~20 guards each rl day.. it got old very fast too.
Unknown2007-04-18 22:58:27
I have to say yes, too often, since Celest can't seem to control itself as usual.
Rakor2007-04-18 23:24:55
Just going to chime in and agree with the majority. They are too frequent, and that makes them feel like work rather than fun. They would be fun, if they didn't happen so often.
Nico2007-04-19 00:03:09
QUOTE(Archer2 @ Apr 18 2007, 06:58 PM) 399660
I have to say yes, too often, since Celest can't seem to control itself as usual.
Oh enough already. It's not like Magnagora would ever back off each weakening out of good sportsmanship. Heck, they had an opportunity today to ignore the nexus worlds since they don't have any constructs up. Guess what? They tried to attack us.
Sometimes I wish the Seren - Celest war were back on. Annoying little buggers, really.
Though, to be on topic, I agree. Too frequent.
Shamarah2007-04-19 00:05:49
We destroyed the construct in probably about half the length of the weakening (we got there late and we left early). Isn't it supposed to, like, take multiple attacks...?
Xenthos2007-04-19 00:07:50
QUOTE(Shamarah @ Apr 18 2007, 08:05 PM) 399667
We destroyed the construct in probably about half the length of the weakening (we got there late and we left early). Isn't it supposed to, like, take multiple attacks...?
A lot of that was Serenwilde operator error that I took advantage of... but yeah. It was a bit too easy.
Catarin2007-04-19 00:08:11
QUOTE(Shamarah @ Apr 18 2007, 06:05 PM) 399667
We destroyed the construct in probably about half the length of the weakening (we got there late and we left early). Isn't it supposed to, like, take multiple attacks...?
Kind of depends on how many people you had focused on your colossi and how upgraded your colossi was vs. their construct but yes, it's supposed to take longer.
Unknown2007-04-19 00:12:08
Wasn't the point of these battles that you weren't required to fight if you didn't want to? People seem to want it all, with no down sides.
These constructs have some nice benefits, a nation should have to fight almost constantly to keep them, which is what, in part, keeps them balanced.
If a nation's fighters get worn out, well that's covered as well, ignore the weakening, take down your constructs yourself, and suddenly there is nothing to worry about. There's no point for an enemy to be in a nexus world other then to possibly explore it one time, to… deprive a nation of an extremely small possible source of power (about 6 power for all creatures together, you'll lose about that much flying there and back on an aethership, so it's not worth it), or for the weakening.
These constructs have some nice benefits, a nation should have to fight almost constantly to keep them, which is what, in part, keeps them balanced.
If a nation's fighters get worn out, well that's covered as well, ignore the weakening, take down your constructs yourself, and suddenly there is nothing to worry about. There's no point for an enemy to be in a nexus world other then to possibly explore it one time, to… deprive a nation of an extremely small possible source of power (about 6 power for all creatures together, you'll lose about that much flying there and back on an aethership, so it's not worth it), or for the weakening.
Xenthos2007-04-19 00:15:00
QUOTE(Xenthos @ Apr 18 2007, 08:07 PM) 399668
A lot of that was Serenwilde operator error that I took advantage of... but yeah. It was a bit too easy.
I have since found out that it was not Serenwilde operator error, but something a bit more ludicrous.
I apologize for this misleading statement.