• ArmorGaming

    @darshan Haha, I'm right there will you! I mostly do 1115, and 1116. I find 7s to be a good enough rune to be competitive. Especially since you can get them in the team shop - it makes swapping easy enough.

    posted in General Discussion read more
  • ArmorGaming

    This is what I've been telling people for years xD

    In the event where you are trying to craft a lv 9 rune - assuming the worst case scenario - all 4 of your lv 8 runes would downgrade to a level 7. I'd say that is more unlikely as getting at least one to upgrade to a lv 9.

    But even in that even where they would all downgrade to lv 7s, you'd simply still have a 25% chance to get one of those 7s, to an 8, and so in.

    In the long run, 111X is absolutely the best method to level runes, regardless of that emotional pain of seeing runes downgrade from time to time.

    I did a test of 113 crafts using 1112 to see if they would upgrade up to a 3, stay at a 2, or downgrade to a 1.
    The game shows 44% chance to upgrade.
    My results:
    56 upgrades - 42.1%
    42 same - 31.6%
    35 downgrades - 26.3%

    So based on that, I think its fair to say the games percentage chance to upgrade is fair.

    I forget if we can post links to outside videos, so if you're interested, the videos title on YT is "1-1-1 Rune Crafting Method | 113 Examples."

    posted in General Discussion read more
  • ArmorGaming


    Maybe I misunderstood, but in case I didn't, you can see the "warm-up" of each skill in the skill selection screen. Specifically, make sure you're looking at the tournament set, not the standard.
    You'll notice a new icon next the the CD icon. That icon will have a number which informs you of the "warm-up" period.

    posted in General Discussion read more
  • ArmorGaming

    I don't necessarily disagree about the value.

    Since the introduction of orbs, specifically the discount orbs, my gems have only gone towards purchasing orbs.
    They used to go towards X runes.

    So at the moment I stand at 8k orbs but 0 gems.

    Considering one of the few ways to get an X rune is to purchase outright with gems, it is somewhat nice to be able to use what is now a pile of orbs to purchase an X rune.

    There are still a few WMs I want, but at the same time X runes are needed.

    posted in General Discussion read more
  • ArmorGaming

    I think it's better to state that 990 Orbs cost 378 gems.

    And if you really wanted to purchase an extra 50 Orbs, to put you over the 1000 Orb mark, that would be an extra 20 gems for a total of 398 gems.

    But let's go with the first ratio, especially since we get 3 orbs per day through daily challenges.

    ~1000 orbs for 378 gems to get an X rune.
    But it's not just an X rune, you also get 4 other runes
    Node 1. lv 4-6
    Node 2. lv-4-6
    Node 3. lv 5-10
    Node 4. lv5-10

    Worst case scenario you are paying ~30 extra gems for 2 lv 4s and 2 lv 5s.
    But there is a chance to walk away with higher level runes, in which case it could very much be better than purchasing a single level X from the shop.

    posted in General Discussion read more
  • ArmorGaming

    I think what bothers me the most about the event, was the inclusion of a reward, which I believe absolutely ruins the purpose of having a beta version. Especially when the rewards included a brand new exclusive monster and brand new, powerful relics. More so, different teams had access to different rewards based on their team score. I have no idea why a beta version, which could potentially be full of issues, would include such exclusive rewards.

    But regardless, any reward automatically shifts the focus of the event itself. Instead of focusing on the event, player's main purpose became "how can I qualify for that reward." I think ideally beta should have been released with the mere premise of "try to get as many points of possible," and that would incentive teams to work on strategy alone. Then SP could have seen exactly how many points teams could accumulate when left to their own devices.
    Or if a reward was to be given in order to incentive participation, perhaps a simple 100 gems to all winning teams and 25 gems to all losing teams would suffice.

    I have no idea how the 113,000 qualification amount came to be.
    IF we assume that all of the slots on defense could be earned that would be 90,000 points, which leaves 23,000 left to be accumulated during offense.
    IF we assume that all the bonus points could be earned from offense that would be 60,000 points.
    However, it's unrealistic that most teams would be able to earn all the points from defense considering the different restrictions, and at the same time have enough monsters to use for offense to earn the additional points, once again because offense requires the same restrictions.

    So with that said, on to the different elements of the event itself.
    It certainly has a lot of potential and introduces a strategical element that no other mode in the game currently has.

    Revival Gem Cost
    I think this should be completely eliminated.
    Having revival - no matter the cost - places an emphasis on offense. Keep your strong monsters for offense, as you can simply pay to use them again.
    Though I will say, having a steep revival cost certainly makes people rethink if they want to pay to revive, so if there absolutely must be a cost, the higher the better.

    2 suggestions to replace revival cost

    1. Monster Usage Limit. Allow all monsters to be used a maximum number of times. Let's say 2. After those uses, they can no longer be used again. No way to revival them either. A player can decide to use them whenever they want. There would be no cool down period. This would allow for players to utilize different team comps against different defense bases.
    2. Cooldown. Have a high cooldown period to allow players to use the monsters again. Something like 12 hours. The reason for the high cost is to not place such a huge emphasis on offense. Also, no way to speed up the cooldown. This is essentially the same as the monster usage limit, except players would have to attack within the first half of attack phase, in order to be able to use the monsters again during the second half of offense phase.

    Bonus - Simply have no revivals. Once a monster is used, it's finished.
    (This is where have an appropriate amount of qualification pts really comes into play)

    Monsters used on defense cant be used for offense
    Monsters, Runes, Relics, are locked during attack phase
    Both of these are essentially similar enough and go hand-in-hand.
    Both are great mechanics that add to the strategic element that battlegrounds aims to have.
    Players have a finite amount of monsters, runes, and relics at their disposal.
    The strategy is to figure out if those different elements are better served for offense for defense, or a mixture of both.

    1. If players are allowed to use the same monsters on defense, as well as offense, the strategy is always to simply put your best monsters on defense. Since there is no offense restriction, why would any sane person not use their absolute best on defense.

    2. If players are allowed to remove runes and relics from defense monsters and move them to offense monsters during the offense phase - like how team wars currently works - then the strategy yet again is to put your best resources on defense and simply pay the gold to move relics and the gems to move runes.

    Not much strategy involved to simply have access to using the best for both defense and offense.

    This I find myself without a finalized opinion.
    Is 60 slots too much? Is it not enough? Is it just right? Should there be less slots? How much is the perfect amount?
    I think first of all , players need to get rid of the obsession to absolutely fill all the defense slots.
    The beauty in the event is the ability to use never-before used monsters that are simply walking around.
    Too few slots and the same monsters will begin to repeat soon enough.
    Too many slots and there are a bunch of "throw-away" monsters used.
    Though what's wrong with using all available monsters at your disposal?
    Do more slots increase or decrease strategy? What about less slots?

    posted in General Discussion read more
  • ArmorGaming

    I definitely miss the mountain trait. I would prefer it over his tough trait.
    Though some would argue that tough is better, as he now has some protection against torture status effects, as well as the other non-control negative aliments.

    I suspect the reason immunity to sudden death effects are not blocking Fatid's skills is because the trait blocks "Death Countdown," while Fatid gives "Cursed Countdown." So this is similar to Glitch's special possession skill "Corrupted" being able to bypass immunity to possession.

    As for his countdown skills, they can be cleansed. What you can't do is have a monster cleanse it's own 1 turn countdown. This is find really odd. Perhaps it's a game mechanic that needs to be update. This is the first monster, I think, to introduce a 1 turn countdown skill.
    I need to test what happens if you have the 2 turn countdown do down to 1 turn, and then you try to cleanse it.

    posted in Monster Discussion read more
  • ArmorGaming

    I'm inclined to say top teams jumped out of habit and due to a lack of understanding how the new system worked.
    They got lucky this time around IF they jumped early enough, even after the race started.

    At the start of the race there was an issue with the top 100 bracket. Even if you had a top 100 team in your bracket, the rewards were not properly adjusted. Instead it was showing top 5000 rewards. We had the #6 team in our bracket.

    It wasn't until maybe 1 day into the race, or a few hours before 1 day that the issue was fixed.
    This leads me to believe that brackets were cemented after the bug was fixed.

    Had it not been for that bug, I believe that team scores would be fixed at the start of the race, and even if you jumped your entire team within 1 minuted of the race starting, the team score of the race team would be unchanged.

    posted in Events read more
  • ArmorGaming

    @ Ekto-Gamat
    I don't understand the negative feedback of "quite a lot of team jumping."
    The reward for the #1 position was 80 elementium and 150 nature cells ONLY IF you happen to have a top 100 team in your bracket.

    If teams were jumping, they would most likely find themselves in a under 5000 bracket where the 1st place reward was 20 elementium and 20 nature cells.
    Even if they somehow ended up in a top 5000 race team, the reward would have been 50 elementium and 40 nature cells.

    posted in Events read more
  • ArmorGaming

    @Haka-Taka It's not obvious. I only discovered that because I accidentally clicked on the screen and that message poped up. In my opinion, it should be stated that they are getting 2 packs of 40.

    posted in General Discussion read more

Looks like your connection to Socialpoint Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.