Cisz

Am I right that "chief complaint" means "1 random guy"? In my opinion the chief complaint is "damn thats too hard". We could lower the shield time in that case, if we agree on mech beeing to hard. I don't agree so far. But maybe there are good reasons to convince me?

Well, some spells only make sense in a combination. Why would I want to spy upon my enemies elements if I'm not sending the creeps? But those mode specific spells could just pop up if both modes are selected, that doesn't have to be an extra mode.

Yes, "normal or harder" is very much needed imo.

Have you played Mindmaster TD? It combines super weapons and tower wars. The important idea is: You send the creeps, but you don't know what towers your oponent has, as there is fog of war. Spells like "spy enemies water level" or a small map reveal help you to find out what you should send. In Mindmaster you choose fron 3 different creeps every wave, and those 3 choices are the same for every game. So in Mindmaster there are sort of "3 waveorders" (you get the picture). No need to copy that ofc. >> Mindmaster TD <<

PunKZ is right, your map naming/path is annoying. Here are my suggestions: -More dual support. I think most of the time you had to few wells and no trickery at all. I would build 1 well and 1 trickery per 4 dmg towers. -I guess you should build your second pure earlier. You didn't use your second essence until 59. -Try to micro your impulse. Impulse does great dmg, but only if the target is far away. So select all your impulses and keep right clicking at far away creeps. Those three things should give you +30% dmg if you manage to master them all. I would use slightly different placement, but that's no big deal. And most important: Get better elements. You had only one maxed triple and one lv.2 dual support. You can't expect to win normal with that. And yes, I know you played random. So just keep trying, and hope for great elements.

Nice ruleset. Good luck with the tourney, you'll probably find out why I demand outomated tourney all the time.

Is there a min dmg? Let's see if I get this right: 1 target, 100% dmg. 2 targets, 2 x 90% = 180% dmg. 3 targets, 3 x 80% = 240% dmg. 4 targets, 4 x 70% = 280% dmg. 5 targets, 5 x 60% = 300% dmg. 6 targets, 6 x 50% = 300% dmg. 7 targets, 7 x 40% = 280% dmg. 8 targets, 8 x 30% = 240% dmg. 9 targets, 9 x 20% = 180% dmg. 10 targets, 10 x 10% = 100% dmg. 11 targets, 10 x 0% = 0% dmg? Lag? What are the restrictions? Infinite dmg with each shoot? Interesting, esp. with long range (=placement problems). Is there a max dmg (max charge time)? Mine tower - Allways does full dmg (a constand dmg/time)? So weak in a fast game? Portal tower - thats a stun, so we can't use it. Bloons td, nice one. SC2 ftw. In sc2 it increases in 3 steps. Punishes fast gaming (aka weak vs rushers)? SC" again (collossus), I like it. Where is the difference to old hail? I like the returning bit. But doubling dmg? O_o And more dmg vs close range is allready in laser. About the spear - knockback = stun?

Tft just got patched, so a replay will be hard. To play rnd, you need to know all towers and how and when to uses them, so it's the hard mode. And even with all the knowledge there is, you are not guaranteed to finish. Random is cruel. So to finish on random, play a lot of games. Really a lot. Even more. And sometimes you are lucky. That beeing said, there is ofc a lot to be learned. You should upload a replay of yours, and we can comment. Please tell us which tft version you are using.

I saw it in the clan channel.

I released them into the wild, where they can continue to eat all those annoying insects.

Nono, you have a different version.

And in case you don't understand the description (I didn't) and can't watch that replay (I couldn't), try this one: 1828 Etd_41_ building on greens path.w3g

I spoke to hacker and the bot got banned. He suspects code errors to have caused this (as in he failed to properly emulate the handshake with the cheat protection system). So he needs to fix code and try again afaik.

I know such a bug in the 4.0, but we fixed that, didn't we? Please show us how this bug works.

Um, we are out of beta, 4.0 and 4.1 are release. The main change is: Lv.1 triple support towers are much weaker now. They suck as dmg towers and do less suport. So you should not try to build them before you have a decent amount of dmg towerts going on, like maybe 4 lv.2 triples or 5 lv.3 duals.

I haven't heard a mouse since my last post. Seems I got them all, or they are outside enyoing the sun and the cats.

Good luck with the new job/flat. I'm still concerned about the ending clause of your deal with kara/us. Maybe you should halt developing for a moment and work on the deal instead. I have a bad feeling about you guys putting your time into a project that has no working agreement yet. And we all (xen? Karawasa?) agree upon the deal needing legit ways to entirely end it for both sides, right?

Please stick to the naming rules, so people can watch your replays.

Very interesting replay. I didn't expect life to be so strong.

If you don't use the latest tft version (1.23), please let us know, which version you use.

No support on singles, and that rules out any slow, armor red, and similiar things which boost other towers. Dot basically makes the tower worse, and speed up towers allready exist. Speed up on random makes the tower worse. Sounds like you are suggesting to weaken them in a cool way. I suggested keeping the dmg/gold/sec. Your "twice as powerful for a bit more money" sounds like you want to change the ballance a lot. I suggest "1.5 as much dmg AND 1.5 as much cost", and thats for refed ans focused only, amped and pure stay unchanged imo. Maybe amped can have a boost to, but I guess we should not touch pures.

Agreed.

You are only waiting 15s if the others finish first. Oh, and if they finish first, you don't wait 15s.

Has a bot.

That's not how a challenge works. People cheat. What you are talking about is a test, done by trusted beta testers. This challenge is trickier than I thought. How do we define 6 ele? Is summoning them but not using them enough? And what considers using them? As to your "..but we could..", I say "sadly that won't work because..".