Forums-->General game forum-->
1|2|3
| Author | Motivation for enchantments |
|---|
Artifacts. Talent selection. Troop selection. Tavern drinks. Faction and faction level. Combat level. Guild skill levels. Enchantments.
All these are various factors affecting the outcome of any given group battle. Some may be set through the system (number in each team, combat level) some are left to the battle creator's discretion (say, AP limit), and the politeness of players choosing to join. Unsurprisingly, many a player will define restrictions maximizing their chance of victory.
Among these, Enchantments are an easy target for "power control" because
1. they are quite rare
2. it's very easy to check if one respected the limitation. | I think it's cowardliness of a GB creator not to allow enchantments, same as "No wizzard" description etc.
i wouldn't put it that way. if there's 5 of us without enchants, and you join with enchants (no battle description at all), think again who's the coward :)
If a player does his best, enrolls, does quests, fights, and after a months and months of effort get to be able to afford enchantment, I think he deserves this advantage
1. people can rent enchants for few thousands for one GB without months of enrolls, quests etc.
2. i fit in your story, i earned 120% bonus damage the hard way, but i feel that i don't deserve that advantage in a GB. if you think that you do, go ahead and use enchants, but...
.. they will be very important for some events (like dwarf war, a 3 week event). so i suggest you better think twice before wasting them on a GB.
.. there are many posts here on how useful can they be in other ways. ancient wisdom of no lifers all over this thread :P | many a player will define restrictions maximizing their chance of victory
thats quite harsh definition why there are restrictions especialy from someone who doesnt have much PvP experience.
If u find given restrictons in battle desription to be unreasonable (which happens) u can always decide by not joining.
I can also understand why there are many min AP battles ppl have usualy no gold or little gold after lvlup or change of faction and min AP battle is better for them no battle at all. | 18: You cannot compare arts with enchants. From arts you have only physical damage and physical defense (except few items with bonus stats), no elemental damage or defense. All units have physical attack and defense (few of them have spells) so arts only improve their stats. In battles is always compared attack and defense of units. Wizard with his spells is exception, but his spells are "substitution" for less damage from wizard units.
Enchants will give you bonus elemental damage and this is no any value of attack against any value of defense, but strong attack vs 0 defense. Very big advantage for units, who will attack first.
Min app battles are less fair and less balanced than full arts battles. For almost all min ap battles you can see high attack and low defense for might factions, what is big advantage for fast factions. Slow factions are worse here, especially wizards, because they have to survive first damage. But if opponents will kill almost half of your units in first round, you cannnot do a lot.
Better arts, we can say about the best arts available for level, bring balance here. Fast factions will still attack first, but slow faction can better survive. Fast faction have advantage from full arts too, because they have more attack and in next rounds more defense when slow factions will attack. So, as i said, pretty much balanced. I cannot see any balance, or other good thing, what enchants bring to pvp ...
I understand people, who prefer min ap battles. They want save money, or they want advantage because they are playing fast faction, or they want make some training in pvp with not much money. Doesnt matter. PvP (especially group battles) should be mostly about fun, not about "omg, i have to destroy my opponents at all cost". In PvP is not possible still win and sometimes is better nice loss, then bad victory.
Everyone should respect others. If i want play full arts battles, i will make my own with full arts in description and will not join to min ap battle and own you all. The same is for enchants. I saw few battles with enchants, so people can enjoy this type of battles too. But dont be rude and dont destroy fun of other people who want to play in other way. | Fast faction have advantage from full arts too, because they have more attack
Not right becoz most ppl use only 1 weapon which u must have in min AP also and while in full u have armor 4 pieces of armor+ shield so def stat goes much higher while off stays basicly same. What fast faction can take more benefit from is actualy higher ini,luck or morale but clearly not off. | | [Post deleted by moderator Kotrin // double post] | "many a player will define restrictions maximizing their chance of victory"
thats quite harsh definition why there are restrictions especialy from someone who doesnt have much PvP experience.
If u find given restrictons in battle desription to be unreasonable (which happens) u can always decide by not joining.
I can also understand why there are many min AP battles ppl have usualy no gold or little gold after lvlup or change of faction and min AP battle is better for them no battle at all.
Ahh yes, PvP experience, the good ol' excuse... That's another factor to throw in the mix. But I'm sorry, except for real players around not afraid to play without restrictions of any kind - kudos to them - I've never seen anyone setting up restrictions higher than what the player wears.
A guy has 12 AP on him and no Enchantments? Then he creates an "max 12 AP, no ench" group battle. How surprising! I've even seen worse - people asking MORE restriction than what they field, like asking to play with min AP while wearing 25 AP worth of artifacts! Lame, but all too common.
As for people just leveling up without having the required resources, broken by roulette or just enrolling once a day - can they blame anyone but themselves?
Of course, people can choose not to join. And there are people not respecting battle restrictions as well - your mileage may vary. Only someone properly equipped and ready to face any opponent is safe from these interferences. Setting limit of any kind, including no enchantment, is putting your victories in the hands of your opponents.
I'm sure Chuck Norris is not afraid of enchanted gear. ^_^ | @24
In fact Wizards can be super in minart battles if they dont take mithryl staff but def+5 att+2 and one of the 2AP skills.
-> Big def and medium att scored + good magic | Especially funny is when a lame defensive knight level 11 makes a description:
15 AP max, no wizard, no enchants, no diamond upgrade.
You could as well write please, please let me win. | 25: I mean attack bonus from rings 2x +3 attack and necklase +3 attack, what is +9 attack more. In min ap is usually used Sword of might (+5 attack) and cheap shield, amulet of luck, or any other cheap art. In full arted battle i can use mithril sword (+6 attack) or for highier levels Ruby gladius (+7 attack). With ruby gladius and rings + necklase is attack highier by +11. Yes of course as you wrote, defense will be raised more, what is good thing for balance.
I am really dont afraid enchants, because my income is enough for buy some enchants, but i hate disbalance in pvp. Combat mechanic in LoWM is quite good balanced, but not "perfect". Is really anoying, if someone with +2 luck have 3-4 times luck in a row. It can change easy win to loss and its not about "skill" of this player, but only about luck. But ok, it happens and if we would remove luck mechanic from the game, we can remove elves too (joking :)). Almost the same thing is initiative with random moves for units with the same initiative. For example, duel de vs de with the same initiative. If all of shrews from one player will go first and will kill all of opponents shrews, is this figh about skill of players ?
Maybe only one thing what can help here with these random mechanics is better surviability of units. I mean, that players who will go first will have advantage, but will not kill almost half of enemy units in forst turn. Opponent then can still win with good tactics.
Enchants bring disbalance to pvp too in this way. More killing power on start of fight = pvp ruined to massacre, because opponents dont have time for make any tactics. Against "brute force" of enchants on weapons i can fight only with "brute force" of enchants on armor. This is reason, why i dont like enchants in pvp. | | 28: Wizard can be good in min app battle, but in general he isnt. Miniarts will give wizard little more surviability, but still "attack power" is missing. I did a lot of battle in min ap and a lot of in full, and really in full arts is wizard much stronger. I wrote a lot of words about this in other topics, so i dont want write here too much about it. It is like neverending discussion. | Ahh yes, PvP experience, the good ol' excuse...
I seriously doubt u ever been in gb where both sides had over 80+% weapon enchants ur wouldnt write that... and i dont write that becoz it puts me in disandvantage as i played very fast factions (DE,demon) at that time... | 30 not all wear + 3 atack rings some DE prefer morale rings or even thief ring and same with necklace most popular is thiefs amulet which add no atack. some prefer SoM for min ap some use ruby. Same with armor fast faction prefer more ini and less def (light mithrill). :)
Suprising luck or morale is also part of game thx to it even team with lower racial can beat higher racial team otherwise it would be clear from start who wins :)
Enchants up to some point actualy are just minor advantage/disadvantage for players but after that point ( 40+% ) they are clearly unbalanced and lead to onesided massacres. (who is faster wins) | I seriously doubt u ever been in gb where both sides had over 80+% weapon enchants ur wouldnt write that...
Do you really think I don't have any enchanted gear? ^_^ | Do you really think I don't have any enchanted gear? ^_^
thats just 1 side... ^_^ | for Valgard: Enchants will give you bonus elemental damage and this is no any value of attack against any value of defense, but strong attack vs 0 defense. Very big advantage for units, who will attack first.
That's wrong. Enchants add damage, but it's a bonus to the damage already dealt, thus taking into account Atk and Def of creatures.
Examples:
20 Att vs 20 Def, no enchants:
Full 100% damage.
20 Att vs 20 Def, 30% enchant:
130% damage (100% normal and 30% elemental).
20 Att vs 40 Def, no enchants:
50% damage.
20 Att vs 40 Def, 30% enchant:
65% damage (50% normal and 15% elemental).
As you can see, enchantment doesn't bypass defence of troops. | As you can see, enchantment doesn't bypass defence of troops.
You cant imagine how stingy can shrews become with +80% enchants :-) | | Don't need to worry about anyone who wear heavy enchants breaks the rule you set for the game. You can simply go afk and let him waste time and enchants. | | which enchanted item is the best? | 36: Only what i can see is your bad math for damage done. But nevermind, you are my eternal antagonist, so doesnt matter :).
39: The most people have enchanted their weapon, because bonus from enchants on weapon give huge bonus to damage done. Enchants on armor are not so universal and give you "only" resist against elemental damage. And in pve is elemental damage only from few units (and for pvp of course). You can add enchants on rings and necklase too, what makes your spell stronger. You are wizard currently, so for you will be maybe better enchants on rings and necklase, because your units are not your main damage. Armor enchants are the worst alternative for you, because you as wizard have a lor of units with good resist / immunity. |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
1|2|3Back to topics list
|
