Under rating threshold (hideshow)
why can't you leave a pairing in ranked match, but you can in quickmatch?? because i was paired with the same guy three times in a row. :(
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Short time playing:
Honestly, a good game, but I can already tell that it's going to get monotonous pretty quickly - I'd say as much even if I had an "ultimate combo" and I were winning constantly.
Gameplay is a bit slow for what it is. At least, it seems slow, because you keep constantly doing the same thing over and over - it feels like a really long, single battle.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
To me, throwing an opponnent out of battle being an effect on some attacks is just plain stupid. I weaken them with it and they get "Thrown out" (Which to them is an obvious advtantage. LIke switching without me even having a chance to intercept.) It's just pointless. At least give them some kind of penalty if that happens. Like maybe stunned for one turn when brought back into play, or can't heal while out of play or just ANYTHING.
It's absolutely POINTLESS.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
So far, it's fun, pretty straightforward, and I feel like I could be playing this for a while instead of getting the badges and leaving the game alone forever. Nice work.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
bane2000 Jun. 17, 2008
ever think of a setting where both players HAVE to do random?
+1000 Hopefully someone will get the message.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
it'd be nice if every time you won, the % of getting a card increases 2 more %, therefore you get a card 100% at 100 wins.... that'd be fairer :P
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
to filbert: if i am not wrong it is under a compound system and if you have won 100 times after the patch happened u should get a card
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Instead of a 2% chance to win a card, it should be a solid 1 card every 50 wins. I have 66 wins and already have won 2 cards, and earlier I heard someone saying that he had over 130 wins and still had won nothing.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
scionoflight there's already another set under development, they want to finish balancing and fixing bugs on this one before they start testing those though.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
So, let me get this straight, rare card supporters. You want the already only 46 cards to be split up into different rarities, meaning there'd be an even more limited number of rares. Plus, you think they should be stronger than other cards. The problem with this is that this very limited selection of these stronger cards would end up meaning that nearly all the best players would end up with nearly identical decks. This would be LAME. It's much better if they just keep doing balance changes to keep all the cards equal, so that any card can potentially be part of a great deck, so there'd be that much more strategy involved in picking a deck and that much more variety in the gameplay. And since Helene's damage increases from Enchant Blade don't stack, the game shouldn't show them stacking, so it is a bug. But it is a feature that they don't stack, since that'd make her too good unless they did something else to weaker her.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Tiger Frenzy Attack + Deadly Poison card give a horribly overpowered combo.
Basically all your deck gets poisoned for 2 damage per turn, which wouldn't be a problem except that it STACKS. So if a person uses it 4 times on either of your cards, you'll have all cards losing 8 health per turn (in addition to the normal damage itself).
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Many things don't stack that should, and do stack that shouldn't. Corny's bloodburn would be good if it worked on corny and stacked.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I'm sure someone brought this up before, but helene's light magic doesn't stack. it shows that it stacks, but the damage doesn't increase. bug or feature?
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
it's still a bug because beast feast should only increase damage of tiger attacks... and I don't think ambrosia has any of those
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
@wormeh
That is not a bug. Ambrosia was using the gem of souls which steals the innate ability of whoever she kills. She killed Zina and gained the Beast Feast ability which activated immediately because she just killed Zina.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
First major thing to do: increase de inteligency at practice games... they really don´t have any value besides be some kind of tutorial.
and i´m thinking that the game is actually kind of boring...
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Zina just got killed by spectral choke (while switching out) and the enemy (ambrosia ofcourse) got BEAST FEAST, nice bug
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I agree, this is my first day playing and I've already encountered sore losers who AFK when losing. Please set a limit to the timeouts per game.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
graphics:0/1 i will accept stunning graphics if they move marginally. shifting a immobile icon left and right is not good enough. sound: 1/1 good enough. at least they can get some that dont hurt. gameplay: 0/1 buggy, glitchy, characters sometimes star t partially off screen, but its a good game. another angle: get away from pokemone and ill award this point.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
highly fun in depth instructions. great gameplay. fun. the mutiplayer is fun. but could use a better navigation. plus sometimes your oppent takes forever make the time limt shorter nothing to lower a star though 5/5
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Bardblaster: "Phoebe is not the worst actually, she can kill Andromeda, one of my often used cards. Indeed, when Andromeda comes out she’ll be a good card to use!"
I'm sorry but Andromeda is probably the third worst character in the game (though, both she and phoebe are getting improved in the next patch and will be worth trying after the upcoming changes). I play her in one of my serious decks but pretty much everything has to go perfectly for her to work.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
fredrice you could not possibly be more wrong. There will always be players that have all the cards, leaving in blatant imbalances and making the better cards rare makes it HARDER to beat those players.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
friedrice8791 Jun. 16, 2008
Quit shooting down the idea of different ranked cards. There's obviously some cards in the game that are stronger than others, therefore they should be harder to get. Conversely, weaker cards should be easier to get. So, my suggestion is this: do not limit games to either 3 or 5 cards. Give each card a numeric value based on unanimous decision by us (the beta testers) and have a point value limitation on each game instead. This would lead to a larger variety in games and more interesting tactics. Of course, character cards would be worth much more than items. But can you imagine a hella buffed up character against a bunch of characters with no items? I think it would be interesting. Btw, no flaming and stuff. Suggestions are suggestions, not permanent changes to the game.that is a real good idea friedrice8791
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Haha, oh wow. I already got Juju as a starter, then I got him again when I beat this week's challenge. There should be a way to trade back your starter cards for other ones. This could also let the newer players try out more cards to see which ones they like and dislike.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
In a one game I experienced a repeat in the select range stage; so after we both choose ranges I selected my move then it repeated the range stage a few times skipping over the attack stage completely (allowing us to regain energy) and eventually disconneting me and giving me a loss
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Popo's low health and resistances make him an easy kill for a charachter with a big-damage attack.
All of the cards should, by themselves, be equal. No card should be 'better' then another card and no card should be 'rarer' than another card except maybe in the diference between a normal gem of souls and the valentine's day special one.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Quit shooting down the idea of different ranked cards. There's obviously some cards in the game that are stronger than others, therefore they should be harder to get. Conversely, weaker cards should be easier to get. So, my suggestion is this: do not limit games to either 3 or 5 cards. Give each card a numeric value based on unanimous decision by us (the beta testers) and have a point value limitation on each game instead. This would lead to a larger variety in games and more interesting tactics. Of course, character cards would be worth much more than items. But can you imagine a hella buffed up character against a bunch of characters with no items? I think it would be interesting. Btw, no flaming and stuff. Suggestions are suggestions, not permanent changes to the game.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I agree with no card trading because once this is public, people could abuse it really bad with multiple accounts. I also feel Onimaru is good, as I've felt like I was screwed against him no matter what I did a couple times before. Finally, do we really need the s at the end of debuffs in the instructions? http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4029/debuffsbf7.jpg
And last, but not least, there should absolutely NOT be unique cards. 2% chance of getting another of the cards people keep beating me with is low enough.