It is currently Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:30 pm 
Major
Major
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:14 pm
Posts: 2610
Location: in my happy place
Gender: female
I think we should go with a merge of the original and simmen's ideas. And I also think we should scrap the can only attack relics from relics idea.
I'm also wondering, do people continue to find fragments after all 10 relics are completed for the sake of giving them score? could keep players active throughout the era and I'd also like to suggest that each fragment held gives a small resource boost to the alliance so that people continue to have motive to go after fragments and stay active later into the era. maybe these things have already been said and I'm misinterpreting everything you said about fragments but that's everything I have to offer for this thread atm and it seemed to be dieing so yeah, bump.

_________________
Image

Image

free tokens!

Skype: bazinga124

-Baz


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:01 pm 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:51 am
Posts: 1236
Location: India
Gender: male
malice wat is this? suggestion or announcement?
if its a suggestion then plz add voting to it , ill vote yes without reading it but if its a new update which you are announcing then i will need to read it.

_________________
Image
^Credit goes to Andy! Thanks!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:23 am 
Head Moderator
Head Moderator
User avatar
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:35 am
Posts: 2011
Location: You see that mansion across the road? Yeah, there
Gender: male
This is a suggestion which we could like to put into the game it is quite a big change so i would highly recommend reading it and if you have any tweaks please feel free to post them

_________________
Best rank:1
Most Crystals:34
Most power:192
Best alliance finished:1st


Skype: ads126bd

The Silent Spammer.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:31 am 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:54 pm
Posts: 187
Location: Behind U!!
Gender: male
simmen wrote:
Ok, let me tell you my twist on this idea.

1. To increase spread (and the actual chance of anyone actually get fragments), I say to, in the start of the era give out fragments at a higher rate than 1/8. The plan is to base it off the spawningpool. How many fragments are left? The original idea is:
70+ left, 1/2 is a fragment
60+ left 1/3 is a fragment
50+ left 1/4 is a fragment
40+ left 1/5 is a gragment
30+ left 1/6 is a fragment
20+ left 1/7 is a fragment
Less than 20, 1/8 is a fragment

This is because in the lategame, the top alliances have a wastly better network than the other players. This way, we try to have many of the fragments spread out before that. With this idea, 60+ fragments are handed out before tick 300 when they start dissappearing. This is in theory more than enough to make all 10 relics.. but they will (hopefully) be spread out between more alliances than that, so, I'm thinking realistically 6-7 relics out by tick 300, the last hopefully out by tick 500. (Feel free to tweak the numbers)

2. Scrap the "can only attack relic from relic" rule and replace it with a killing rule. Only attack relic from relic excludes a lot of players both before they get a relic, but especially after all 10 have been taken. After that point there is no way to take a relic.

So, what's the killing rule? Well, inspired by the old client where the relic was attatched to your colony, to attack a relic. You would have to conquer half of the alliance holding it.

That way, handing over relics will be a much less plessant experience to say the least. That sure rank 2 is down the drain.

3. Instead of giving the leader a chance to fuse the fragments into a relic, it happens automatically once 5 are in the alliance. This is to make the relics spread out, and forcing batles. Simple as that.

4. The turrets would only make campwalls even more powerful, especially combined with no attacking from relics, which was one of the few ways people could deal with camp walls. I'd say scrap it.

5. Part of the reason the "only attack relic from relic" was added was to put relics into play. But really, it won't happen, not in any meaningful sense at least. What will happen is that one alliance will kill the other alliance and THEN bring in the relic.. then the defeated alliance will send away their relic at an eternal relic chase as they move at the same speed.. Anyone else see a flaw with this?

If you want to put relics into play, rather make them overpowered. Give them a gate, give them an ion cannon that can only fire at nukes that is heading for it, but make shots cost way less (I'm thinking 100 or even 50). I'd say a trainingbase, but if it's owned by the alliance, I'd say that anyone in the alliance can use the TB (owner of the units would be the one who start training them)


Agree on all of this especially the killing rule

_________________
Image

Iam just a LEGEND

Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:45 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 1:51 am
Posts: 1236
Location: India
Gender: male
What are fragments ads?
The only fragments ik is that spyrogyra reproduces asexually by breaking into fragments. In which way are you applying it here?

_________________
Image
^Credit goes to Andy! Thanks!


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:16 am 
Head Moderator
Head Moderator
User avatar
 YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:35 am
Posts: 2011
Location: You see that mansion across the road? Yeah, there
Gender: male
A fragment is a part of a relic and you need 5 of them. Like a jigsaw in a way.

You can get fragments randomly from wreckages.

When your alliance has 5 fragments you can make a relic.

Therefore no relics are ever released they are made by the players.

_________________
Best rank:1
Most Crystals:34
Most power:192
Best alliance finished:1st


Skype: ads126bd

The Silent Spammer.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:10 am 
Head Moderator
Head Moderator
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:02 pm
Posts: 1622
Hitmo, this is indeed a suggestion, but it's under announcement because this is a collective idea from some of our staff. It is the intention to bring this idea to fruition, but we want to make sure we work through any kinks along the way. So we are asking for opinions on this base idea as well as suggestions. Once we gather some more information, a new suggestions thread with the best of suggestions (outside of what we all unanimously agree to change to the overall idea) will be placed in a poll for what we would like to see.

Now, with that being explained, I have some more info to provide as well!
So obviously, a lot of people are upset with the relic can only attack relic idea. Simen came up with his "killing rule" which has some mixed opinions. So myself and a few others have come up with a potential idea and we'd like to see what ya'll think on it.

So, the idea is to include the turret OP. It was created in the first place to deal with relics in a sense, so we decided why not just up the anty with them and make them the avenue for alliances to deal with relics. Our idea is this:
We still have 80 fragments showing up around the world at all times that players can collect. Why not put those to more use, and why not make our new turret OP idea more useful? If you have a fragment, you can use it to upgrade an OP to a turret (temporarily as fragments disappear, your turret will auto downgrade after a certain amount of time. We believe it should not be the full 300 ticks as a fragment, I'm personally thinking 50 ticks, but this is up for discussion). This turret OP will "use up" your fragment (your fragment is necessary to upgrade a turret OP) and thus, the fragment disappears and 1 more fragment is opened up to be spawned again. You can now go and hunt for more fragments. So essentially, you give up your fragment (which means the score and resource boost) for a turret OP, but now you can go find another fragment. Now, why would you want to do this? Your turret OP will be the feature that allow's you to hit relics without one of your own! For those of you wondering "but why would turret OPs allow you to hit a relic?!" Well... we could only think of 1 decent "logical" reason for this. Relics are high up in the air, so your turret OP allows you to "launch" your squads up to it :lol: Yes, seems a bit silly, but if you're gonna nitpick the reason, I just gave you one :D

But the overall idea here is that you use our new fragment feature along with our new turret addition together in order be able to attack a relic without a relic. If an enemy takes your turret OP, it will automatically downgrade, they do not get it. You can have as many turret OPs as you want, but they will expire based on whatever parameter's we deem are fair and suitable (want to hear from you on what you think that number is!). What do you think? I'd love to hear feedback on this.

Some people are still a bit upset with the "relic can't attack everything else" idea as well. I do not have a solution for this, but I honestly think a relic should be able to hit whatever it wants. With my above idea, I think the 2 done in combination should work fine. This puts more incentive for alliances to try to find fragments and fight for them. Otherwise, an alliance with a relic will have a huge advantage. The only exception I would like to add for the "can't attack relics" idea would be that nukes and spies be the exception here. I think nukes and spies should be able to reach regardless. Forces those with relics to not simply sit on the relic as some sort of unhittable fortress, but at the same time, any active team with a relic SHOULD be able to dodge a 6 ETA or further incoming nuke.

_________________
Image
Gettin' real tired of your shi...


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:36 am 
Moderator
Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:13 pm
Posts: 2047
Alright, my whole take on this. Warning, this might be a long post but since most posts here appear to be in favor and I've only argued against it on Skype, I feel like this should have a place too. So a quick summary of this post, I do not think this is a good idea, and I have some suggestions ( see bottom ) that WOULD be good for Battledawn.

First of all, I am assuming in this post that this idea is intended to lower the amount of battlehugs/sub using relative to what we are seeing right now.

I do not see how this should in any way help combat battlehugs/sub abuse. The whole point of battlehugs and sub abuse is that people want to get off easy without fighting. Now imagine a small alliance manages to collect 5 fragments and fuses these fragments (more on this later since I doubt this will even happen). What is different from when a relic with 0 units on them would spawn close to them? In both cases, they have a relic but will be unable to defend it and in both cases, those that do not want to fight will simply hand over the relic. Same idea with subs, not even taking into account the fact that subs are not likely to get enough fragments to even create a single relic, if they were to get a relic it would not be different from them getting a relic in the normal fashion. So I do not see how the basis of this idea would combat battlehugs or sub using.

Rather, I think this will actually empower the top alliances. With the old relic release system relics were released randomly, either with units or without units. Alliances can choose to go for the relic, perhaps a 3rd rank alliance manages to get enough players online to go for one of the relics, or a 4th rank alliance. I doubt it, but they might. If the relics are empty then there is a bigger chance of this happening as only one in the alliance needs to be online. In this proposed system however, a 3rd rank alliance would need to have 5 different members take a fragment within 400? ticks (off the top of my head). Even in a best-case scenario where it's early era and like Simmen proposed half the wreckages contain a fragment, this would mean they would need 5 players active enough to actually get 2 wreckages each, on average. Not just would these players need to be active, they would also need to have a good enough network to not have all the wreckages be snatched away by the top alliances. Which brings me to my next point, I think aside from the first 100-300 ticks or so, the top alliance(s) will have an infinitely better network than any rank 3-12 will have. So even if rank 3 happened to have 5 active players, those active players would need to compete with a rank 1 alliance that is most likely rank 1 because they are better players or more active and that also would have a better network.

Of course rank 1 does not necessarily have a better network. So let's say rank 1 is less active than rank 3, for some extremely odd reason. Rank 3 has a better network and therefore a better chance to find fragments, you'd say. However, in the old system they would also have a better chance to grab the relics if the relics were empty because of that same better network. I therefore do not see how this proposed idea would help against that.

Concluding on this part, I believe it a given that the top alliances have a better network than the lower ranked alliances. In the old system these lower ranked alliances had at least a small chance of getting a relic if it happened to spawn close to them and they could maybe take it. In the new system this would require constant activity which these non-top ranked alliances do not have. So I believe top alliances will actually get MORE relics this way. Which leads me to the next part...

Whichever way we want to put it, relics will become overpowered. Allow relics to only be allowed from relics or turret towers and you make it close to impossible for small alliances to assault relics. This idea however is of course meant to make relics a valuable offensive weapon that you sail into war to take your opponent's relics. Thinking this through, that is NOT what I would do at all. Based on relics not being able to be attacked except from a relic, I would not sail my relic past the defenses of my enemy. I would just keep it behind my army and fight a conventional war, then eventually when it is safe I would bring my relic. Sailing my relic past their defences would just mean I leave my defenses very vulnerable, and for what reason?

Well.. Part of the idea is also that you can't attack anything from your relic except for another relic. What? So before, when someone would find a good hive spot behind a camp wall or in New Zealand or some hard to reach place, you could always use your relic to sail to ETA 3 of their colonies and safely launch at their colonies like that. This new system would force us to launch for example an ETA 12 attack into New Zealand, which no one in their right mind would do.

In short, the whole not being able to attack from relic/not attacking from relic would, in my opinion, lead to yet more drawn out wars because this makes a camp wall an even more tempting idea. I see nothing positive offensively from this update, because one would still not just sit on their relic and sail into enemy territory.

Furthermore, not being able to attack a relic except from a relic or turret makes backstabs harder. If a relic is conveniently sailing by your army it could be tempting to attack it. But now as a small alliance you might not even be able to attack it because you don't have a relic or turret. Less backstabs = less fighting, which I believe is the opposite of what we want. One suggestion to fix this was to make it so that relics could ONLY be attacked if at least half the team owning the relic was conquered. Now again, that might sound great in theory, but what this would mean is that it just became easy and legal to transfer crystals from brothers/subs to the main. Oh, sub took a relic? ****, gonna have to conquer half of them and take their crystals just to take the relic.. Such a shame, oops.

Therefore, I am against this idea, even the very basic version of this idea. I believe it will worsen Battledawn rather than make it better by causing the relics to be spread between LESS alliances rather than more, INCREASING sub abuse, INCREASING camp walls, LESS backstabs because it might not be possible to attack a relic for a small alliance and will not increase battlehugging.

So with all that said, I am sorry but I can't agree with this idea in any facet EXCEPT that I think it would be prudent to increase the usefulness of relics. Simen made a good suggestion for this before, by for example giving relics a gate, a training base, and a cheaper ion for incoming nukes on the relic. I think Simen's idea is a good one as it actually increases the usefulness of relics, and at the same time is not detrimental to gameplay. Rather, it would lead to more alliances wanting to have a relic as they are now actually USEFUL.

Furthermore I do have some ideas to add that sadly aren't about relics, but that I will put here anyway because I think these would be better improvements than this whole relic idea would be.

- Crystals at 20 power again. More crystals spawning randomly means more crystals to compete over. This might piss off alliances as other will be trying to snipe the crystals that are spawning. More people pissed off = more war = good.

- Increase conquer income. Again, much the same as the crystal idea. Conquer income used to be higher in the past, I believe lowering it was a mistake. Higher conquer income makes conquers more wanted and again leads to more strife between alliances.

- Most importantly by far... A SIDEBAR CHAT. I have suggested this before, see https://www.battledawn.com/forum/viewto ... 75&t=24746. We want to increase the amount of people talking about BD, fighting in chat, we want to increase the amount of newbs that stick around rather than becoming disillusioned by the incredibly bad global chat we have currently. On Kongregate we had a sidebar chat, it kept the game active. People would be talking in chat, would sometimes get pissed off leading to wars, other times they would forge pacts in chat simply because it was such a low threshold to communicate. Newbs would come into the chat if they didn't know how to do something because it was so easy to ask in chat and there would always be someone around who could help or at least attempt to help. It also allowed players to connect, meaning more alliances are formed and more competition is created.

So here you have it. I did warn that this would be a big post.

_________________
Won both Championship Eras as rank 1.. Waiting to make it 3 out of 3.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:57 am 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:41 am
Posts: 4629
Location: The Netherlands
Gender: male
Milanos wrote:
Alright, my whole take on this. Warning, this might be a long post but since most posts here appear to be in favor and I've only argued against it on Skype, I feel like this should have a place too. So a quick summary of this post, I do not think this is a good idea, and I have some suggestions ( see bottom ) that WOULD be good for Battledawn.

First of all, I am assuming in this post that this idea is intended to lower the amount of battlehugs/sub using relative to what we are seeing right now.

I do not see how this should in any way help combat battlehugs/sub abuse. The whole point of battlehugs and sub abuse is that people want to get off easy without fighting. Now imagine a small alliance manages to collect 5 fragments and fuses these fragments (more on this later since I doubt this will even happen). What is different from when a relic with 0 units on them would spawn close to them? In both cases, they have a relic but will be unable to defend it and in both cases, those that do not want to fight will simply hand over the relic. Same idea with subs, not even taking into account the fact that subs are not likely to get enough fragments to even create a single relic, if they were to get a relic it would not be different from them getting a relic in the normal fashion. So I do not see how the basis of this idea would combat battlehugs or sub using.


At the start of eras, many teams get wrecks. There are suggestions in here to increase the fragment spread further - I personally am in favor of them.

I'd like to note though, fragment spread is a variable that can (and will have to be) balanced based on gameplay. You can not accurately predict the best numbers for systems like that.

There's a few more benefits here - making relics gradually appear (due fragments) would add a dynamic from the beginning to the end of an era, opposed to the current wave based system. It's rather boring to wait for relics. I've seen more than one team simply go inactive and wish to end the world because of it.

While spawning them all with 0 units on them at the start, would mean a team could potentially mass boost and win before anyone else gets a chance.

Relics are profitable - they cause friction between teams even when allied (E.G. teams insisting to let them have it for at least a while, to raise production, causing parannoia in the other team) and can otherwise lead to full scale war (being a fairly big deal to anyone who wants to win).

By putting them in this position - with a foot in the door of a possible victory and a loss of resources if they choose not to - some will decide to simply go for it.

The more teams consider the option - the more interesting the option becomes. If 3 weak teams have a relic, they may be tempted to gang up on the strong team. Something that hasn't been happening in a while, now.

Quote:
Rather, I think this will actually empower the top alliances. With the old relic release system relics were released randomly, either with units or without units. Alliances can choose to go for the relic, perhaps a 3rd rank alliance manages to get enough players online to go for one of the relics, or a 4th rank alliance. I doubt it, but they might. If the relics are empty then there is a bigger chance of this happening as only one in the alliance needs to be online. In this proposed system however, a 3rd rank alliance would need to have 5 different members take a fragment within 400? ticks (off the top of my head). Even in a best-case scenario where it's early era and like Simmen proposed half the wreckages contain a fragment, this would mean they would need 5 players active enough to actually get 2 wreckages each, on average. Not just would these players need to be active, they would also need to have a good enough network to not have all the wreckages be snatched away by the top alliances. Which brings me to my next point, I think aside from the first 100-300 ticks or so, the top alliance(s) will have an infinitely better network than any rank 3-12 will have. So even if rank 3 happened to have 5 active players, those active players would need to compete with a rank 1 alliance that is most likely rank 1 because they are better players or more active and that also would have a better network.


Rank 1 these days is not nearly always the most active alliance anymore - especially later in the round. Further more, with fragments clearly standing out, smaller alliances will be more tempted to recruit players with fragments. Even right now - say, the #23 alliance on E1 has an average of 2 wreckages per member. The #12 even has a member with 38 wreckages... But again, the amount of fragments spawned could be adjusted quite a bit.

Quote:
Of course rank 1 does not necessarily have a better network. So let's say rank 1 is less active than rank 3, for some extremely odd reason. Rank 3 has a better network and therefore a better chance to find fragments, you'd say. However, in the old system they would also have a better chance to grab the relics if the relics were empty because of that same better network. I therefore do not see how this proposed idea would help against that.


Fragments do more than just make relics - they give score, resources.. They help gradually build up for that relic. Further, by limiting the amount of fragments held by one per player, the advantage of rank 1 alliances (which often tend to be carried by a couple of hyperactive players) is decreased.

Quote:
Concluding on this part, I believe it a given that the top alliances have a better network than the lower ranked alliances. In the old system these lower ranked alliances had at least a small chance of getting a relic if it happened to spawn close to them and they could maybe take it. In the new system this would require constant activity which these non-top ranked alliances do not have. So I believe top alliances will actually get MORE relics this way. Which leads me to the next part...


Besides that this is not a given (many top alliances are simply not that "top" anymore).

But there IS activity in lower alliances - and for wreckages, not all that much activity is needed (outside of worlds like CE, where resources are very limited considering the amount of teams). But if you feel it is a problem - what would you consider an acceptable alternative method of getting fragments?

Quote:
Whichever way we want to put it, relics will become overpowered. Allow relics to only be allowed from relics or turret towers and you make it close to impossible for small alliances to assault relics. This idea however is of course meant to make relics a valuable offensive weapon that you sail into war to take your opponent's relics. Thinking this through, that is NOT what I would do at all. Based on relics not being able to be attacked except from a relic, I would not sail my relic past the defenses of my enemy. I would just keep it behind my army and fight a conventional war, then eventually when it is safe I would bring my relic. Sailing my relic past their defences would just mean I leave my defenses very vulnerable, and for what reason?


Not what you would do - but can you speak for others? There's multiple tweaks suggested to enhance this ability, Strategy gaming isn't about making one best strategy everyone will choose discovered by you, myself or anything else. It's about creating options that may be the best in particular scenarios.

Quote:
Well.. Part of the idea is also that you can't attack anything from your relic except for another relic. What? So before, when someone would find a good hive spot behind a camp wall or in New Zealand or some hard to reach place, you could always use your relic to sail to ETA 3 of their colonies and safely launch at their colonies like that. This new system would force us to launch for example an ETA 12 attack into New Zealand, which no one in their right mind would do.


There's a suggestion to enhance this going on internally, basically to make colonies function as a turret with the turret building, I believe that solves that problem. :)

Quote:
In short, the whole not being able to attack from relic/not attacking from relic would, in my opinion, lead to yet more drawn out wars because this makes a camp wall an even more tempting idea. I see nothing positive offensively from this update, because one would still not just sit on their relic and sail into enemy territory.


Making relics faster I think will make it far more tempting to do so, than now, when showered with nukes on an incredibly slow rock.

Quote:
Furthermore, not being able to attack a relic except from a relic or turret makes backstabs harder. If a relic is conveniently sailing by your army it could be tempting to attack it. But now as a small alliance you might not even be able to attack it because you don't have a relic or turret. Less backstabs = less fighting, which I believe is the opposite of what we want. One suggestion to fix this was to make it so that relics could ONLY be attacked if at least half the team owning the relic was conquered. Now again, that might sound great in theory, but what this would mean is that it just became easy and legal to transfer crystals from brothers/subs to the main. Oh, sub took a relic? ****, gonna have to conquer half of them and take their crystals just to take the relic.. Such a shame, oops.


They could simply turn an OP into a turret, or use a colony, with that suggestion.

I don't think many brothers/subs would agree to that at all. But that is hard to predict.
Quote:
- Crystals at 20 power again. More crystals spawning randomly means more crystals to compete over. This might piss off alliances as other will be trying to snipe the crystals that are spawning. More people pissed off = more war = good.

- Increase conquer income. Again, much the same as the crystal idea. Conquer income used to be higher in the past, I believe lowering it was a mistake. Higher conquer income makes conquers more wanted and again leads to more strife between alliances.

- Most importantly by far... A SIDEBAR CHAT. I have suggested this before, see https://www.battledawn.com/forum/viewto ... 75&t=24746. We want to increase the amount of people talking about BD, fighting in chat, we want to increase the amount of newbs that stick around rather than becoming disillusioned by the incredibly bad global chat we have currently. On Kongregate we had a sidebar chat, it kept the game active. People would be talking in chat, would sometimes get pissed off leading to wars, other times they would forge pacts in chat simply because it was such a low threshold to communicate. Newbs would come into the chat if they didn't know how to do something because it was so easy to ask in chat and there would always be someone around who could help or at least attempt to help. It also allowed players to connect, meaning more alliances are formed and more competition is created.

So here you have it. I did warn that this would be a big post.


I don't think spawning more crystals on colonies is a good idea. We encourage people to kill newbs too much as it is, in my opinion. Personally I would rather like randomly spawning, small, garrisons, but that's a suggestion for a different topic.

Feel the same about conquer production - I would really like to see less incentive in game to conquer newbs, kill their armies and so on. I'd really prefer alternative, new, sources...

I would personally like a different chat - you know I do.

Either way, I suggest we discuss those things somewhere else. :)

_________________
Best Regards,

Alexander
Product Manager
Battle Dawn

Skype: dreamerofdestruction


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Improved Relic Suggestion!
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:08 am 
Private
Private
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 1
Location: belgium
when any has a relic he can attak evrything what he want from it , and no one can attak the relic back , becouse they can only attak it from another relic , haha this is a joke!


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Copyright Tacticsoft Ltd. 2008   
Updated By phpBBservice.nl