Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Feedback and Suggestions for Age 86 Proposed Changes

  1. #1
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    679

    Feedback and Suggestions for Age 86 Proposed Changes

    Proposed changes are here!

    Please use this thread to provide feedback (or other suggestions) on the currently posted changes (keep an eye on the change log at the bottom of the post for any changes that might be made to the post).

    You can find the announcement here: Age 86 Proposed Changes
    Please e-mail Utopia Support for any in-game related issues at UtopiaSupport@Utopia-Game.com

    Account Deleted or Inactive? Click here!

    Utopia Facebook Page <== Like us on Facebook and join the conversation!
    Follow us on Twitter @UtopiaClassic

    Come join the MUGA Community on Discord: https://discord.gg/NZ4KywF

  2. #2
    Forum Fanatic umajon911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    VA, US
    Posts
    2,024
    Add the benediction ritual and amethyst dragon
    “The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be.”
    Age 63-70- Fluffylicious
    Age 73-79- SYG

  3. #3
    Postaholic chalsdk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Greator Denmark
    Posts
    838
    The dragon add on, is like old times, but back then it was only farms.. but o well..

    The sceince decay, is that Total or each catagory? And how much it is, it might be seen an a big aggressive on sceince books..

    This
    "Science
    Will not generate while your province has less than 25 Defense Per Acre (excluding beginner protection)"
    is not going to be helpfull. not at all.

    And no reason to punish peaple who are getting ****ed up. We need to promote the game, so we can get new players, not tripple punishment for the feels good.


    The Heretic - ougt to have ET

    Undead is lost, might as well remove it from the game. its ****. Utter dogs****.

    Orc - -100% Honor Bonus - Well... If you win wars, you dont want to play orc, as that will make you loose wars to peaple with good war win rate..
    I dont know what the thinking on this was... perhaps thats the problem


    I Get the feeling that this age change has been done by to peaple with 2 diffent visions in mind.. I am not saying it is, just that it seams very spilt.

    It needs a lot of love.
    That said.

    Dragon change is nice, i like it. it might be better if it only burned farms(with some glorius text on it, and eat peasents)

    The game is about the 3 strong points and counters and how it play out with each other. Focus on that.
    PS bring back dun promotion, it was a Great idea.

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    94
    I agree with some points made above, namely the science penalization against provinces getting hit hard (although I'll agree that it's fairly small) and the fact that science decay, since it's based on books per acre, is going to hit the hardest those provinces that find themselves with less acreage all of a sudden. Granted, science won't decay during war, which is good – but you're still penalizing provinces that stay small or are made to be smaller by force and can't recoup their losses fast enough.

    The honor penalty on Orc seems too harsh. Granted, most orcs are attackers and so lose a lot of honor by being ganged upon (I'll reserve the sociological comment for later there) but even at their knightest they get a small boost alongside other provinces. Now they're losing even that. 20% gains is good (pretty good, actually) but I don't know if it makes up for that when you're already facing such disadvantages.

    I also agree with Undead being a bit pointless. I don't think they're utter crap, since +15% pop is a huge bonus, but the science penalty is huge and, given that you made Cleric so good, it indirectly lowers the stock of the plague-bearers. You also insist on taking away the prisoners-to-elite mechanic, which means undead can only get elites via a single type of attack instead of diversifying. In short, I don't get why people would bother with undead when Avian and Orc (even with the honor penalty) are better attackers and everybody else is better at the other stuff.

    Speaking of Cleric, -45% losses? Cleric was already good, now it's looking almost overpowered.

    And ambush immunity for Tactician? No. Giving them a percentage was alright because you still had the choice of ambushing to kill elites (looking at you, Undead) but now you don't even get that option.

    Rogue is also pretty powerful, even with better watchtowers. +2 stealth? That's a lot of ops going around, and it's going to make watchtowers a must, even for heretics.

  5. #5
    Post Fiend newatthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    261
    Remove science decay

  6. #6
    Forum Addict crease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Birmingham, England
    Posts
    1,177
    Quote Originally Posted by North Southland View Post
    I also agree with Undead being a bit pointless. I don't think they're utter crap, since +15% pop is a huge bonus, but the science penalty is huge and, given that you made Cleric so good, it indirectly lowers the stock of the plague-bearers. You also insist on taking away the prisoners-to-elite mechanic, which means undead can only get elites via a single type of attack instead of diversifying. In short, I don't get why people would bother with undead when Avian and Orc (even with the honor penalty) are better attackers and everybody else is better at the other stuff.
    Undeads were made stronger on the current changes if the sci decay means absolutely anything. As it stands if you want to keep sci every other race has to 4x in size in cf back to original size once chained else face what i only assume to be a horrid decay rate since a couple of provs lose 80% of their land on the losing side most wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by North Southland View Post
    And ambush immunity for Tactician? No. Giving them a percentage was alright because you still had the choice of ambushing to kill elites (looking at you, Undead) but now you don't even get that option.
    Im with you on that, giving -50% losses does allow some skill expression, aswell as allowing for people to **** up and ambush with a huge chunk of their off for next to no acres. - losses should remain.

    Quote Originally Posted by North Southland View Post
    Rogue is also pretty powerful, even with better watchtowers. +2 stealth? That's a lot of ops going around, and it's going to make watchtowers a must, even for heretics.
    Rogue was not improved much if any. Given that the majority of provs will run dwarf cleric on the above changes a 15% WT dwarf on 120 BE gains 18% damage reduction on last age. Rogue only gains 25% damage meaning the dwarf mentioned prior only takes 2.5% more damage from a rogue. Thats assuming the rogues dont burnout from having blizz up and dragons ripping down their dens in war making them lose alot because they magically have extra stealth and have to op into higher fail rates. This change realistically only made all other TM personalities worse and kept rogue more or less the same. Other personalities will do far less damage with thievery, and rogue was the weakest of the 3 TM options so it brings them back into line.
    Last edited by crease; 11-05-2020 at 18:46.
    - zilyana -
    -(ungodly) Chaos-

  7. #7
    Postaholic chalsdk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Greator Denmark
    Posts
    838
    -50% loose are not as wow as peaple think it is.

    yes it is usefull out of war.
    yes you loose less in war, but hey,, you saved 1k elites on that hit, but lost 250k OFF from being hit...

    Meeh..

  8. #8
    Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by crease View Post
    Undeads were made stronger on the current changes if the sci decay means absolutely anything. As it stands if you want to keep sci every other race has to 4x in size in cf back to original size once chained else face what i only assume to be a horrid decay rate since a couple of provs lose 80% of their land on the losing side most wars.
    Well, to be fair, I feel like nowadays it's a bit easier to gain your size back or so unless you were extremely deeply chained or it's the first war and you don't have the resources. As it should.

    Rogue was not improved much if any. Given that the majority of provs will run dwarf cleric on the above changes a 15% WT dwarf on 120 BE gains 18% damage reduction on last age. Rogue only gains 25% damage meaning the dwarf mentioned prior only takes 2.5% more damage from a rogue. Thats assuming the rogues dont burnout from having blizz up and dragons ripping down their dens in war making them lose alot because they magically have extra stealth and have to op into higher fail rates. This change realistically only made all other TM personalities worse and kept rogue more or less the same. Other personalities will do far less damage with thievery, and rogue was the weakest of the 3 TM options so it brings them back into line.
    It's a bit bold to assume dwarf/cleric will be the most popular combo. Yes, it's a very tough nut to crack, especially with watchtowers, but it also doesn't have any particular strengths - it's neither the stronger attacker, nor the best mage, nor the most effective thief, so I don't see *the majority* of provinces picking this unless there is an awful lot of rogues and people need thievery protection.

    As it stands, Rogue is better than Heretic - it can do 60% more ops, gets all the cool thievery ops, improves their TPA with thieves' dens, and arguably gets better spells - sure, Heretic has Blizzard and Nightmare, but they're also saddled with the worst spell in the entire game, while Rogue gets the very in-demand ET (especially against other rogues) and Invisibility to further their TPA and loss prevention. It's also better than Cleric as a T/M (big caveat there), once you make up for the 200 wizzies start. I don't really see them as falling back into line, really, as much as leaving behind other T/M personalities (Mystic excluded) by sheer brute force.

    Quote Originally Posted by chalsdk View Post
    -50% loose are not as wow as peaple think it is.

    yes it is usefull out of war.
    yes you loose less in war, but hey,, you saved 1k elites on that hit, but lost 250k OFF from being hit...
    Actually, -50% offensive casualties is a big bonus because it pushes further ahead the point where, on each attack, you lose more elites than you gain.

    With full casualties, you lose 7% of your offense (assuming no other factors in play) and you convert, ideally, 20% of your ospecs into elites. That means that, at best, you can only gain elites until your army reaches a 35/65 mix, at which point you start losing more elites than you're gaining no matter how good your conversion rate is.

    Now, with -50% casualties, you only lose 3.5% of your offense on each hit, which means both less dead elites (good!) and less dead ospecs that you can resend later on. This means that the point of equilibrium of your army lies much farther, around a 20/80 mix, before you start losing more elites than you gain. It also means that you accumulate more elites faster (since they're not dying).

    War has a -25% casualty bonus, which is not a lot. It's also kinda pointless when losses happen mostly due to desertions, as you correctly pointed out.

  9. #9
    Postaholic chalsdk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Greator Denmark
    Posts
    838
    Quote Originally Posted by North Southland View Post

    Actually, -50% offensive casualties is a big bonus because it pushes further ahead the point where, on each attack, you lose more elites than you gain.

    With full casualties, you lose 7% of your offense (assuming no other factors in play) and you convert, ideally, 20% of your ospecs into elites. That means that, at best, you can only gain elites until your army reaches a 35/65 mix, at which point you start losing more elites than you're gaining no matter how good your conversion rate is.

    Now, with -50% casualties, you only lose 3.5% of your offense on each hit, which means both less dead elites (good!) and less dead ospecs that you can resend later on. This means that the point of equilibrium of your army lies much farther, around a 20/80 mix, before you start losing more elites than you gain. It also means that you accumulate more elites faster (since they're not dying).

    War has a -25% casualty bonus, which is not a lot. It's also kinda pointless when losses happen mostly due to desertions, as you correctly pointed out.

    IF you play undead..
    but point still stands, you save some elites from hitting or getting bushed, but thats not where most looses are, they are in getting overpopped, where you easy loose over 100k mo.. Soo, i dont give much stock in saving 1k elites or whatever.. Just die off, I much prefer something i can use, instead of sometimes usefull.

    This game is not about making rainbows and unicorms, but stockpiling advanges, or get gutted by others who got the memo.

    PS your calcs seams spot on, and with old chain mecanics, YES YES YES!, but thats neither here nor there

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    44
    Ok time for my 2 cents:

    As has been stated, the sci decay / non-production stuff sucks, but you've said in discord that you're going to make sure that anyone who plays the game normally (I'd love a more detailed definition of "normally". Does running 20% labs with rev and fok the first half of the age count?) will rarely if ever experience decay, so great.

    That being said...sage is looking preeeetty nuts as written. With a sqrt-based science curve, +50% books is close to +22% sci. Add rev and fok for another, i dunno, 15% or so? Whatever it's somewhere around +40% sci effect. That's a LOT. With too much sci decay, sage is a dumpster fire. With none, it's crazy strong. Tone it down to something like what I had proposed with +25% book production, +25% scientist generation, but no rev, and...maybe some other flavory things like scientists keeping some # of produced books when changing categories to allow for better swapping around? They are kinda flavorless but strong right now.

    Avian: looks good, although I am a bit tilted that they and cleric both have fanat and gp. Remove GP from races and make cleric the way to get it (yes it's also a nerf to fae, so maybe fae would need a slight bump too). If fanat is gonna be a support spell, just let cleric have it too and maybe give avian TW instead of fanat/gp. That's a pretty sweet bonus for them. If that's too much, tweak them a little to have lower elite or something.

    DE: Feels reaaaaally underwhelming without the sabotage boost, which was the one thing that really helped it stand out. -50% rune cost is cool and all, but like, it's basically just a BE boost under the covers of not having to run as many towers, and with the BE penalty, this leaves them feeling VERY bland as a race. I can seem them maybe being good as early age mystics or heretics where runes are short, or a ritual *****, but...really not impressive at all.

    Dwarf: seems fine, as above with avian, drop the GP and give them +DME like in my proposal. Can cut back on the BE bonus if needed, though I do like leaning into that a lot :).

    Elf: seems fine too. Can go tanky mage or A/M.

    Faery: If GP is removed from races, fae may need a very slight boost. E.g. drop 5% from the pop penalty and lower the wpa and tower boost or something. But in general it's in an ok spot.

    Halfling: Also seems fine. Pretty much only a T/M or superthief though. It's pretty hard to use the homes bonus in a real hybrid a/t build, but maybe with the buff to the elite it's possible. Would have liked to see their horizons broadened some but it's definitely playable.

    Human: Good. Several options available to it. Really sage is the big question mark already addressed above.

    Orc: Seems pretty strong. Good mix of really strong attacking bonuses and some pretty severe penalties. I think it will fare quite well overall but is quite open to counterplay.

    Undead: What can I say, I still dislike the overall design of UD and how difficult it is to balance, and this age just pushes that even further. UD will absolutely steamroll the first half of the age and then fall off extremely hard as the sci penalty becomes debilitating. Overall will still be a strong attacker but hybrid is nerfed some, especially mage hybrid.

    Artisan: Really like the amplification of its power. Has some real punch with the huge building credit bonus letting attackers swap builds around at leisure (especially dwarf wow), and the flat rate bonuses feel meaningful at +50%. Real bank powerhouse or sold sturdy attacker.

    Cleric: Maybe a bit too strong? The casualties bonus is really quite good on top of all those spells and plague immunity. Either drop fanat to races or lower the casualty bonus just a bit to keep it in line with others.

    Heretic: only viable in a nightmare comp really. Heretics already got curb stomped by rogues and mystics, and this buff doesn't really deal with that fact. I would never run more than a single heretic for token blizzards and some early ops before they get eaten alive unless I could be confident my kd would be extremely coordinated to run NM chains throughout a war. Heretic needs some serious help, either in the form of a TD bonus to make them a bit more viable as thieves or a stronger push in the A/M direction to let them actually stand out there without being so one-dimensional.

    Mystic: Fine, the no rune decay is pretty much a non-buff. You'll always be low on runes if you're playing it right anyway, unless you're using this perhaps as some kind of bank strategy? Was strong last age, will still be strong although rogue is looking pretty nasty.

    Rogue: +2 stealth/tick is really a lot. Like holy crap it's gonna be rogue city out there. Yes WTs got a buff which is needed only in the context of this change (and also hurts heretics a lot....did I mention they need help?), but overall I think this is too much and even if there are answers to it, it will skew the meta too much. If rogues needed something, give them something a bit smaller like -30% thief cost or some kind of increased damage cap on sabotage ops by 10-15% (send more thieves for more damage, increase the risk reward possibilities).

    Sage: already discussed above

    Tact: Ambush immunity is too much. -50% was already really strong, and now sacred mist being short durations also super good. Just the sacred mist buff is enough for them, keep the ambush protection at 50% and it's still a really strong personality.

    WH: Still pretty weak. The switch to +5% ME from +1 ospec is much needed, but like, I still don't see a way for a WH to reliably hold honor, and until that happens, the fact that one of its main buffs is the honor bonus means it's way too unreliable of a personality to be worth picking unless you're a super top kd and can keep your attackers gaining honor. Would love to see it get conversions back and lose at least part of the honor bonus to focus more on fast reloading. HI isn't that big of a buff and WS is a noob trap. Would like to see WS on avian where it could actually be used strategically with fast army return times.

    Warrior: Kinda liked them with PF, but I suppose this is ok too.

    Can't disagree with any of the other changes really, except as already discussed. Overall some cool stuff here but some dangerous stuff in terms of balance as well.
    Last edited by AmrasArFeiniel; 11-05-2020 at 22:30.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    713
    Science Decay favors any kingdom aiming for growth and not staying smaller to war. The decay doesn't trigger in war so the longer you can grow and keep stacking acres the more science you will have. Once in war even getting chained you would see some serious benefits as you started with more science do to less decay. This seems like it will be a problem mid-age onward.

  12. #12
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    195
    Add a cost for buying scientists which would scale according to the number you have.Problem fixed with no dpa farms.Science given the fact that it rendered for most part in all ages best bonuses should NOT be a passive thing.Why reward inactivity instead of activity.Let ppl who put effort have sci , and those who dont , not.

    btw does every ages racial stuff have to be 99.9% the same ?:S When does the balancing stop and we get some interesting changes that would put our minds to a little more then "mehh this is kinda the same like the past 3490257809238 ages , not like its going to play much different"

  13. #13
    Post Demon Avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    1,873
    Sci decay is a needless complication that will just antagonize everyone in the end.
    Discord: Hex | IRC: Hextor / Avenger

  14. #14
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    234
    Okay.. Here's my opinion.

    Science decay SUCKS.. not just because my nice even numbers get destroyed the first tick we have oow, but it really starts to outpace science production quickly. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with science decay, but I can firmly say I hate it. I would also recommend making the 25 DPA rule only apply out of war. It can be REALLY hard to maintain defense once chained, and it would be really ****ty if you lose all your science production on top of that.

    Dragons destroying buildings is ROUGH, especially if you are offline for a while when you receive it, but I agree with this change overall, simply because I feel like dragons are less useful than putting that GC into pumping up a province instead. This change could tip it back to their favor.

    Okay, the fun part.. Race/Personalities

    Avian is powerful, but I don't see them being that popular outside of hardcore players/kingdoms. I would say leave them as they are. Avian/Cleric will be a powerful combo, but the dedication required to play them right might be more than most people are willing to give. I would rate them as the #1 attacker under the new changes.

    Dark Elf is almost good where it is I think. I would only recommend maybe dropping the -50% rune costs down a touch. Right now it's pretty ridiculous for ritual casting. Especially since rituals don't scale perfectly to land (it gets cheaper-per-acre as you grow) this makes DEs the undisputed ritual casting KING, even as they grow. A 2k acre DE will produce twice as many runes as a 1k acre anyone else, and it's ritual will cost LESS. You could balance this by giving them a slight boost in offense somewhere. Maybe +5% ME that dwarves lost. This will solidify them as a decent attacker to act as a core for any kingdom.

    Dwarf is.. interesting. The +35% BE essentially means that a dwarf can max out a building at 25% land, and it'll get about the same effect at 16% as anyone else would get at 25%, all other factors the same. They are a good flex attacker or hybrid, but not particularly strong. I would put them on-par with DEs as attackers. Their BE more than makes up for their slightly lower numbers (since DE is 9/12 Elite and 12/0 Ospec, vs dwarf 13/8 Elite and 0/10 Dspec)

    Elves are barely changed and don't really require much discussion. Dspec bonus makes them good at going UB, but potentially vulnerable to Prop. Low-NW T/M

    Faery is the same as Elf, barely changed and makes a good T/M. Pop nerf slows them down, but doesn't stop them from being formidable. High-NW T/M

    Halfling is weak. It doesn't have any decent defensive bonuses, it seems like it's supposed to revolve around being a hybrid A/T that uses homes? It can pump like no one else, but is otherwise pretty lack-luster except to help bust down other T/Ms in war, before they get chained.

    Human is nice, dropping their extra spell cost makes them much more attractive, but I wouldn't pick them myself unless my whole KD strategy revolved around humans. Pairs well with sage, and can make them quite powerful late-age.

    Orc is another race where I wouldn't choose them unless the whole KD strategy revolved around them. They are strong, able to steal all your land in no time, but they'll drop SOO hard if you have a decent T/M core there to take them down. No honor bonuses is also an interesting choice. Most attackers don't end up with much honor, so I doubt this would be noticeable in any kingdom that isn't a contender for the honor-crown. Pairs well with Tact and a few clerics casting IS to help protect from thieves.

    Undead is strong right out the gates. They have the potential to rule the first part of the age, but they will fall behind later in the age. Even with science decay, -50% science effect is SUPER harsh. +15% pop helps make up for that. I feel like they are a little weak overall right now, but they can still be effective. I see them being weak this next age though, largely because I suspect we will see a lot of Clerics.


    Speaking of personalities..

    Artisan - A gimmick personality. I don't see anyone picking this outside of ghetto/explorer kingdoms or the one bank in a super-kd (if there are any) Otherwise, it just doesn't do anything that is more useful than the other personalities, for any position.. Even Banks are probably better off with Sage. Might see a few dwarves grab this just for nostalgia from the old days, when building was free and fast.

    Cleric - Possibly the strongest personality choice right now. Offers support spells and -45% military losses, on top of plague immunity? It's a GREAT choice for an attacker. This pairs particularly well with Avian, who's attack times would otherwise make it hard to keep hospitals built up enough to protect their offense. As much as I hate to say it, they might need a slight nerf.

    Heretic - Extra sabotage damage is nice, I see them maintaining their current popularity.

    Mystic - Runes don't decay? Pretty sweet! but not super useful, I see them maintaining their current popularity.

    Rogue - +2 Stealth per tick might make them a bit too strong.. But otherwise nothing revolutionary here.

    Sage - A weak starting personality, it really shines mid-late age when your science ends up soo much better than everyone else. Being the only one with Amnesia is an interesting choice, I didn't get a chance to test out how effective that will be in wars in the future, I doubt we'll see it get used much. Otherwise pairs well with Humans

    The Tactician - Ambush immunity is nice. This is a strong choice for an attacker, especially one that uses low-defense elites for attacking. Pairs particularly well with Orc to help counter their weakness.

    War Hero - Very Lackluster, it might see an uptick in use this age due to dragons getting a boost, but otherwise it doesn't compete well with other choices. A honor-whoring kingdom might for a use for them.. maybe

    Warrior - A T/M buster, it's actually not a bad choice. I would actually pair this with Dwarf to help boost their offense. Extra casualties is nasty. Strong choice if all your wars are to be short, but Cleric is better for the long-haul.

  15. #15
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,522
    Cleric "last age" info doesn't match final changes - the -losses should be -30% I think.

    I noticed because cleric is op. I've been arguing, somewhat successfully, that it is the strongest attacking personality to my kingdom at -30%. Even bringing it up to -35% and it really starts to stand above any of the other options. Going crazy like that to -45% and I think we'll require all core attackers to take it. I'd push even for a dedicated breaker to take it and just build high TGs and GS. When it is the best option for max offense against the personality that's whole bonus is max offense (warrior)... balance has broken.


    Also UD remains trash. But people will pick it anyway and think they so leet cause they get chained first every time, never figuring out that running a 5:1 ratio isn't helping. I guess just keep nerfing it till you finally only get the 30 people who refuse to play anything else to drive the point home?
    I will admit I was surprised UD didn't fall further in the sim. I think if it had been about +7% more pop it'd have offset the extra sci loss, so 5% isn't that far wrong. But they were bad already, and this made them worse.


    Also - as the nag that said you have to decay building and even more spec credits (and we're getting some games with them creeping back in with def bombs in war, but not too bad yet)... I kinda have to point out no rune decay will be abused. Not a lot, and maybe you're fine with this... but you can store all your kingdom runes on your mystic in eowcf, pop your quick first two rituals at low(ish) counts, then grind up the first of the (next) war rituals on the back half of the eowcf. Finally, at the tick before exiting you pop the first war ritual, mystic aids out massive rune aid they'd been holding for the kingdom, and the attackers blast a *second* war ritual up to 80-100. And since you had no rune decay all war, you can still have whatever stockpile size you want for the T/Ms to light it up.

    I mean - I guess you do all that anyway, kinda. Mana is still a limiter. But no rune decay is going to make it a lot cheeper to do since you can time the casts instead of having to somewhat cast as they come in. The real problem is that the times the no decay bonus helps the most are exactly the times you can afford to play weird optimizations edge cases. (Also, every kingdom requires a mystic. But everyone runs a few already I think, at least unless they're doing something really precise and funky.)
    Last edited by Ethan; 14-05-2020 at 05:09. Reason: Holy whitespace batman! Fixed formatting.
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •