Recent posts by shm777 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [Dev] Universal Shard rate/cost poll

Number one. And this may be the closest decision to unanimous that I’ve ever seen on tyrant, so really hope this comes sooner rather than later

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [Dev] Conquest Poll

Yes

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by jfenz101:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by jfenz101:

so your faction is failing so we must change the system? makes sense. and regards to hurting a high level faction no one needs tokens it is more of a luxury everyone wants. why you would have even wanted 45 tiles is just a mystery especially when you were more of a problem with a stagnant map than a solution LOL

who want 45 tiles? this was just happening because tasw and noobs failed on their attack. we was already involved in a 2 to 5 war at the moment we get those tiles.
you are new to the real battles and I’m pretty sure you have no idea what 4-5 simultaneous defs and an invasion mean. hope you will find out that soon

sorry bro but im part of the faction’s that are going against you so i very much understant what 4-5 simultaneous defs is but that is part of the game. In case you havent been around for very long alliances have been part of top ten play long before conquest came about. And i still dont know why you would want 45 tiles so LOL

mariuca is part of warmongers which has 37 tiles, italians are the ones with 47 whom you are currrently helping, not sure why you keep mentioning 45 tiles

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

@insta1234 you are just wrong about evocati starting this. noobz and italian both attacked evo before evo attacked either of them. ask tasw, they will even admit to this because they believed evocati was planning an attack.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by OOHnirav:Can the rest of us just get along and berate him for that?

I have already done that and he is even in my faction.

Originally posted by p4n1q:

I don’t see what is inherently wrong about a faction with a large number of tiles facing wars on multiple fronts. Basically I do not understand the issue that is being addressed. What is the disaster scenario being avoided? An alliance of medium-sized factions preventing any one faction from controlling a very large portion of the map?

Any comparison to the infamy system is inapt.

First of all, the factions attacking us all had 31 tiles or more before they attacked us with the exception of tc, so it’s not like the tiles that evocati is losing are being used by anyone right now. And secondly, it is my belief that the devs made tokens so that good players that have been dedicated to this game can occasionally buy older packs (after horror, splicer, and conscript are bought). However, after being ganged up on by so many factions, the players i spoke about that happen to be in the evocati faction, are incapable of taking advantage of the devs generosity. Why should these players be punished for something that most of them have very little control over?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

ok but if the cap in faction wars was changed to something higher then ganging up on factions could still happen. the devs were very clear by making the cap 1 that they did not want it to be possible for any faction to be ganged up on, especially by lesser factions who are taking advantage of stronger factions. so why not install a system in conquest that helps prevent that too?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by p4n1q:

Infamy in faction wars is different because without it, there is no limit to how many defensive wars you can fight. There are a finite number of tiles, and no faction can be hit with more attacks than they have tiles.

so why was their solution for faction wars to make it so that you could only be attacked by one faction and not a certain number of factions based on how high level your faction is?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by p4n1q:

What the hell is this thread about? Some faction doesn’t want to lose tiles, and is losing tiles, therefore conquest is broken?

I thought a stagnant map was bad, but, now, it’s…good…?

I don’t understand this at all.

This thread is to implement somekind of system to prevent high level factions from getting ganged up on, similar to how they created infamy in faction wars. We’re not saying that we want the map to be stagnant. I’m not in favor of that at all. It would be incredibly boring if that were to happen.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by kevinexmx:

An advantage to defence would be nice. The problem with defence is that the defender is essentially blind to whatever the attacker is using, while the attackers have some insight, dont need many hits and can stall to make the final kill. Switching defense decks is also a lot more frustrating than switching attack decks; if you are defending multiple tiles you dont have the card pool to counter everything, especially things you cannot see.

yes kevin thats why they can do things like: prevent stalling, give more health to defense, or create more effects that benefit defense. Also defense may not be able to see what they are attacking with but if the defender switches the defense deck but has the same commander then the attacker doesnt know what the defense deck is either.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by ManuelDevil:

I proclame this the most QQ thread in the story of War Metal Tyrant.
Yes, this is a war game.
The original concept is declare wars on other factions.
And obviously, farming and give $ to $ynapticon

manueldevil this is a game about war yes, but in the past devs have created systems to prevent high activity high level players from being affected by other people ganging up on them. so why is it so wrong that we ask them to install a system in conquest that prevents that as well?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by DANzam111:

One other thing that is fundamentally broken with conquest is leveled tiles and faction reformation. Leveled tiles were designed to give low level faction a fighting chance at conquest. Those tiles were promptly exploited by faction like Lawr_And_Friends, Los Hijos De Puta, and Pendulum. These faction us leveled tiles as a barrier to easily keep themselves at max tiles. Despite the fact that they could probably go toe to toe with a lot of top factions.

For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a member of ZeroPhobia. Recently, we were attacked by both Los Hijos De Puta and Lawr_And_Friends. these attacks caused a result of -9 rating a piece. Although the tiles that they took were not level restricted, all of the other tiles bordering us were. In other words, we cant strike the problem by its root and those faction could continually attack and cause problems for us. Our only way to fight is to hope that they are unable to break our defenses. I’m here saying that if these factions are powerful enough to take tiles from top factions. They shouldn’t have a level restriction on every other tile they own.


Yes, danzam you are correct their has been exploitation by people of the lvl capped tiles which is why there should be separate maps for the low level factions. This is a simple suggestion and I hope the devs come out with it when they reset the map for the next season.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Clearly the problem is that the devs have made a system in faction wars where a faction can’t get ganged up on, but have not yet created a similar system in conquest. Infamy in conquest would not work in conquest though since many factions would just create alt factions or get allied factions to shield them from ever getting attacked in conquest.

I think the best solution would be to just make it so that the defending faction has a slightly bigger advantage than they do right now to allow factions with good players to have a chance at defending tiles against lesser factions. As it stands right now evocati hasnt lost a conquest in weeks now and has only defended successfully against either tasw/italian/noobz/shini once in that time period.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by ManuelDevil:
Originally posted by shm777:
Originally posted by Vagrant1985:
Originally posted by shm777:

@Philosopher what you don’t realize is that your giant alliance was the one that started this big war. We were content on having our tiles, but then italians left our alliance and attacked us at the same time as noobz and tasw and thats when this all started. Your big alliance was the one that was aggressive not us.

False, you were not content.
You tried to extort 7 tiles from Italian.

What i meant vagrant was that we were content after we got to 31 tiles. That whole mess about evocati demanding 7 tiles from italian was settled. We apologized many times for it and AdeBlackRune even agreed to graciously give us a tile to help us get back to 31 tiles.

We was out of the alliance evocati-aksala-italian when the italian attacked evocati. Now shut up and please zaraki or rudgutter, block this stupid thread full of QQ

P.s: where is tudordan or shadow for start a pyramid?

I’m not saying that your attack wasnt valid because you went against a pact manueldevil. I understand perfectly well that you were capable of attacking us, we were hoping that bringing warmongers down would deter you from doing that, but you did it anyway. I’m just mad that people from italians are using the “propo is a bad person” excuse to justify destroying a faction from the map, especially since your own leader excused his actions.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Vagrant1985:
Originally posted by shm777:

@Philosopher what you don’t realize is that your giant alliance was the one that started this big war. We were content on having our tiles, but then italians left our alliance and attacked us at the same time as noobz and tasw and thats when this all started. Your big alliance was the one that was aggressive not us.

False, you were not content.
You tried to extort 7 tiles from Italian.

What i meant vagrant was that we were content after we got to 31 tiles. That whole mess about evocati demanding 7 tiles from italian was settled. We apologized many times for it and AdeBlackRune even agreed to graciously give us a tile to help us get back to 31 tiles.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

@Philosopher what you don’t realize is that your giant alliance was the one that started this big war. We were content on having our tiles, but then italians left our alliance and attacked us at the same time as noobz and tasw and thats when this all started. Your big alliance was the one that was aggressive not us.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Post Active Raid Links Here

please help with this hydra, 1/3 time left and 1/3 health left
http://www.kongregate.com/games/synapticon/tyrant?kv_joinraid=279137

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Post Active Raid Links Here


The above image automatically updates every 4 minutes. How to add your own raid-tracking image!

Blightbloom #9923
Join this raid (get link)
See raid details on fansite
See suggested decks

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Post Active Raid Links Here


The above image automatically updates every 4 minutes. How to add your own raid-tracking image!

Miasma #9828
Join this raid (get link)
See raid details on fansite
See suggested decks

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / [DEV] 6/15/2012 Create your own Tyrant Card Contest

Name: Falconeye
Card Type: Unique Assault
Faction: Imperial
Delay: 1
Attack: 2
Health: 3
Skill 1: Anti-air 2
Skill 2: Burst 1
Skill 3: Protect 1 on Play

Description: This unique imperial can see the highest flying units and knows how to hit them where it hurts. With a quick shot and an unrelenting attack, Falconeye can take down entire armies of flying units.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Post Active Raid Links Here


The above image automatically updates every 4 minutes. How to add your own raid-tracking image!

Xeno Walker #6675
Join this raid (get link)
See raid details on fansite
See suggested decks

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Post Active Raid Links Here


Sentinel Reborn #4810
Join | Status | Suggested decks | ?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant: General Tyrant Discussion / Post Active Raid Links Here


Sentinel Reborn #4623
Join | Status | Suggested decks | ?