I agreed with you, but that does not mean it is the right conclusion. All it means is that you an I reached the same conclusion. We could both be wrong.Originally Posted by effeminate_1999125
I agreed with you, but that does not mean it is the right conclusion. All it means is that you an I reached the same conclusion. We could both be wrong.
The opinions expressed on this post are my own as a player, not as a Moderator.
FAMOUS TIGER QUOTE: "All my conclusions, are right conclusions!"
ANDY'S QUOTE: "I agree with this suggestion. Both Stars and Saints had the same mechanics before the Sanctification change, so both should have been changed to keep them the same."
FACT: "You did come to "the right conclusion". "Both should have been changed..." At the same time. But uCool did not do that, so that is why I posted this Thread, so that other people can see, "What uCool should have done.", and, "To provide people with a way to succeed at this game without as much frustration." I did not want them feeling like they were wasting their time and money. I wanted them to enjoy they game.
Last edited by effeminate_1999125; 03-13-2014 at 12:48 AM.
Its fine the way it is. They already took away the mechanic where you could lose 1-2 stars at some places and they already balanced it with added medal cost as you gained stars, but also reduced star costs at lower levels. Its a good system now. Please don't have them change/tamper with it any further.
To Yelsha: I always appreciate an Honest reply. Let's address, and answer your various questions.
1.) "It is fine the way that it is."
Answer: That is debatable.2.) "They already took away the mechanic[s] where you could lose 1-2 stars..."
Answer: If you can't lose any stars, then that is "a good thing". (I wouldn't complain.)3.) ..."they balanced it with "added medal costs" as you gain stars."
Answer: I am proposing increasing medal costs too. But, the "big advantage" is... you will be guaranteed "100%" success. (And you will not lose any Stars.)4.) "It is a good system now. Please don't have them change/tamper with it any further."
Answer: I am glad that you like the system now, but The Real Question for you to ask is, "Can we make it a better system?"
FACT: The major complaint over the last several months, (from lots of people), has been... "The high degree of Star Failure." I myself have lost about 20 stars at one time, for basically "zero" net gain.
That equates to "an unfair system". Therefore, I will state, "Yes, we can have a better system, and enjoy it more!" With that stated, and true, then the next question becomes, "Then what would be required to have a better system?" The answer is, "While Tynon has succeeded in preventing "Star Failure", it has failed in accomplishing, "Successful Star Attempts"." So the solution would be to do with Stars, the same that has been done with Leadercards, in that, to raise the percentages of success, you have to apply more than one leadercard, then the same thing can be accomplished with Stars, in that, as your percentages for success drop, then to increase the percentages, you have to use more than one Star. Therefore, "You will "always" be guaranteed Successful Star Attempts."
In closing, "I believe that this would make it a better system, than the one that you currently enjoy."
Last edited by effeminate_1999125; 03-14-2014 at 01:55 AM.
You need to attempt sainting a gold hero to dom 5 and learn that not all saints have a 100% success rate no matter how many cards you stack
then you need to realize the star system and saint system are not working on the same principle
then you can let this drop
Tynon is a game of chance, it is stated in the game from the beginning. Stars is part of the chance. If you don't like it, find another game.
Those who would oppose this idea, probably have a higher level character, and would not gain much benefit from the suggestion.
If you have higher level hero's, why would you want the game to be fair? those that came in late or do not have time to play 24-7, cannot ever have the competitive edge...
So of course there will be opposition to a decent idea... can't have a fair game you know... because then players would not try to outspend each other for top player.
pathetic when money, not skill, creates a winning edge. it is no longer a game when you can buy the top position.
it is only a money dump.... if you accept it as it is, you'll enjoy it more... if you seriously are trying to be competitive... find another game.
Yah Thats why i've got 25 stars and just 1 time of it is upgraded ok the rest of 21 star Banish just like falling star u never know where it goes
1. The statement that the systems are similar is incorrect. There are several differences and always have been. For instance one can get 30 saints on a main hero and only 18 stars. Also stars give stats on 6 attributes, while a saint only upgrades 1 attribute. From a certain point all the stats added by a star upgrade are bigger then any saint could give you.
2. The difference of the amount of medals needed to gain a star is huge between heroes. Some need 6 medals, others need 150. If all would need similar medals, it would not be in our advantage, since Tynon would split the difference and the amount needed would be around 50-100 medals for each star/moon. In the end this won't matter, since it will be balanced out. However during game play this will mean no successful surprise heroes that walk up easily to a certain point regarding stars. I like that some walk up easily and some don't.
~ You are just jealous 'cause the voices only talk to me..~
~ There is a crack in everything, that is where the light comes in~
~<3~
The improvement in hero development between stars and saints can't be compared and therefore the ease in upgrading them are rightfully different. Truth be told, discussions like this tend to irritate the hell out of me, but I won't go further down that road...
Last edited by Scorn; 07-15-2014 at 12:43 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
