Untamable (We Actually Play the Game)/ Don't Mention the Nautilus!
You could roll them other with Furhem, Inknatius and maybe even nautilus...
There you go, you need a VERY specific setup to counter teams like that. I guess you could counter Thalassa with a team of three Talos. You'd win as long as she doesn't get her special - so what's the problem with her
Sweeperion is my general problem solver. RV also used him in their 3 x epic war against POF. Some even at rank 0. Played a good part in their convincing victory if you look at the war logs. Does not help much when Nautilus carries strength though.
But yes, Nautilus needs to be fixed. He is not functioning as he should.
Thalassa on the other hand, just has an OP special, which unfortunately works as intended.
I am all for new game modes appearing in ML, but Battlegrounds was not the answer - it has been an unmitigated failure. Does anybody even understand the rules? What is the point?
You do know there is an info section in the game that explains the rules to you? Could have read the rules there instead of posting here and proclaiming that something is a failure just because you did not understand it after 2 minutes.
This is just another way to encourage gambling, no matter how 'nicely' this is advertised as some kind of adventure.
No odds are provided, but be sure it works something like this:
Chances of getting a trap in the early stages are very small. People start to feel confident and continue. Maybe it is their lucky day. Unfortunately, chances will increase with every cave you progress. And then ... boom , you lose it all.
The chance of getting one of the big prizes is probably astronomically small. Of course there will be a very limited number of lucky people who will share their luck online and indirectly encourage other people to try it as well.
If this kind of marketing did not work it would not exist. Unfortunately, the people who complain most about gambling chests also continue buying them.
After having had the pleasure of fighting Thalassa in a war against RV with long, drawn out battles it has become quite clear to me that Thalassa probably is the only monster that still will get any specials after the announced changes if she is not marked as an extra turner. So far I do not believe we received an explanation of what monsters qualify to be labelled for this. Nearly every time she gets a turn she takes 3 turns.
Although after re reading the post on the 'specials nerf', it is worded as if the new mechanism will apply to any monster having 2 consecutive turns, even if that just is a matter of superior speed., and has nothing to do with a monster being an extra turner or not:
"Finally, Extra Turners won't be able to have an outrageous number of Special Skills, because with each consecutive turn the chance will be smaller."
@Fox can you confirm?
@ekto-gamat That’s interesting. So each effect is a multiplier in the calculation and not additive?
Would you expect a 50% accurate effect, with precision (accuracy increased by 50%) against a monster with bulwark (50% reduction in effect landing), to have a roughly 37.5% chance of landing using the equation?
(base accuracy) x (1+increased accuracy effect) x (reduced accuracy effect) = 0.5 x (1+0.5) x 0.5 = 0.375 = 37.5%
And guard down bypasses the check entirely?
This is all easily testable, but I had generally assumed the effect to be additive, not multiplicative.
I would expect this is the case, yes. Never tested it because it really is not something you want to rely on unless you are desperate.
Much cheaper to move ix's and viii's
So pay 20 or 15 gems to move runes PER RUNE EACH WAR. That is also VERY expensive, even if you only swap 2 or 3! I do swap runes on occasion if I can make a significant difference and it's worth the effort, but it is impossible to do this every war. With the new close wars I often have to spend a lot of gems on recovering monsters anyway, if I move runes every war, my account would hardly progress as there'd be noting left!
Welcome to my life.
No, not that bad really. But yes, there needs to be balance at some point.
And sorry to say, but if your battles against evenly matched opponents last so long that half of them are decided by specials, then there is a structural problem with your attack plans.
They don't, not always, but most of the time when a battle drags on, it will be decided by a special at some point. And some of my plans actually let the enemy come first as I just can't be fast enough and I'd could win such battles, IF the enemy doesn't open with a special. It seems that periodically, I am just extremely unlucky and it happens far more often than one would expect with a 5% chance....
And if you read above I was totally OK with a special not being an option on the first turn.
It's generally a good plan to let the enemy go first if possible, since it leaves more room for strength and life runes instead of packing everything full with speed, miss and die.
@ekto-gamat Wouldn't negate precision? If the effect is 100%, and precision is a 50% boost to accuracy in general. It would make the effect 100% still due to bulwark being a 50% resistance to status effects? Since it would be a 150% chance of the effect landing.
Maybe it should, but it doesn't.
The accuracy of the effect is checked first (150%), then the bulwark trait comes into play reducing it by 50%.
@ekto-gamat Then what happens with a monster with no precision and no enemies with guard down and it uses a 50% move against a monster with a bulwark
PS check my post on monster discussion
Bulwark reduces the precison to 25%