I have been running into an interesting problem lately. I am about to kill the enemy when they kill me.
I think you should make same round kills and they make it so that if you are about to kill the enemy that round and they kill you, you still get credit for winning.
I have been running into an interesting problem lately. I am about to kill the enemy when they kill me.
I think you should make same round kills and they make it so that if you are about to kill the enemy that round and they kill you, you still get credit for winning.
I REALLY hope you do this
Thanks!
Angela Gem
Why would they make this change? You didn't defeat it so you shouldn't get credit for it? Adapt and change what you are doing...and pay closer attention to your health. That is how you win.
I have been running into an interesting problem lately. I am about to kill the enemy when they kill me.
I think you should make same round kills and they make it so that if you are about to kill the enemy that round and they kill you, you still get credit for winning.
I REALLY hope you do this
Thanks!
Angela Gem
First off, saying things like "I REALLY hope you do this" makes you look pathetic and probably ruins your chances of KI implementing your idea. Second off, what is this? This idea will just dumb down the game. Third off, it just makes no sense to add this. You're supposed to kill the enemy. If an entire army of soldiers die, will the enemy somehow be defeated?
This idea will never work. If you get defeated, you never cast that spell that will kill them. This is why you have to notice how much health you have. Should you heal, or should you attack? If you no for sure from experience, you should attack. If your not sure, you should heal. If this was added, the fun of the game would go away.
-Nick "When the battle gets deadly, summon a Death Shield"
As the proud owner of an almost-promethean storm wizard, I know exactly how this feels. I hate spending what feels like an eternity in some dungeon, only to get killed over and over again. It doesn't matter how many times you heal yourself, or how well you prepare... unless your cards come up in the exact order you need them to, you *will* die.
That all said, I don't agree that we should get credit for something we haven't completed. What would help, though, would be the ability to restart the fight where you left off. Like, if you already killed the minion, having to do so again and again does get rather tedious... especially if you are storm. Just saying.
I have been running into an interesting problem lately. I am about to kill the enemy when they kill me.
I think you should make same round kills and they make it so that if you are about to kill the enemy that round and they kill you, you still get credit for winning.
I REALLY hope you do this
Thanks!
Angela Gem
I disagree with this entirely, and here's why: Think of it this way. 2 cars and racing down some area for a gold cup. A red car is winning, a blue car is losing. The red car is close to the finish line, but the blue speeds up right before he crosses and wins. Should the red get the gold cup? No, he shouldn't, so why should someone get the credit for being defeated when close to winning? Maybe if you and the enemy were defeated, it would be okay (I did that once in Waterworks when i used basilisk with no blades), but you never won.
I disagree with this entirely, and here's why: Think of it this way. 2 cars and racing down some area for a gold cup. A red car is winning, a blue car is losing. The red car is close to the finish line, but the blue speeds up right before he crosses and wins. Should the red get the gold cup? No, he shouldn't, so why should someone get the credit for being defeated when close to winning? Maybe if you and the enemy were defeated, it would be okay (I did that once in Waterworks when i used basilisk with no blades), but you never won.
Try thinking of this in a different perspective. 2 warriors fighting with swords. They both swing their sword in a killing blow at about the same time, but 1 is slightly before the other. The one who was hit first's sword still reaches the other. Does the first hit warrior not still gain credit of defeating the other in battle? Now, with wizard101, it's more like suddenly the first hit warrior crumples to the ground without finishing the swing. Totally against Ghost Dog's philosophy. "If a warrior's head were to be suddenly cut off, he should still be able to perform one more action with certainty." Hmm ... perhaps if this were to happen, the wizard would be returned to the commons area of the world, but still gain credit for the quest. Although perhaps that would only happen when the enemy and wizard were killed at the same time. Hmm ...
Try thinking of this in a different perspective. 2 warriors fighting with swords. They both swing their sword in a killing blow at about the same time, but 1 is slightly before the other. The one who was hit first's sword still reaches the other. Does the first hit warrior not still gain credit of defeating the other in battle? Now, with wizard101, it's more like suddenly the first hit warrior crumples to the ground without finishing the swing. Totally against Ghost Dog's philosophy. "If a warrior's head were to be suddenly cut off, he should still be able to perform one more action with certainty." Hmm ... perhaps if this were to happen, the wizard would be returned to the commons area of the world, but still gain credit for the quest. Although perhaps that would only happen when the enemy and wizard were killed at the same time. Hmm ...
-Jasmine Owltalon, level 95 myth
well wizard101 we use cards so think of it in this perspective in crazy 8's if someone gets rid of their last card and then the next player only has one card and they can play it does the person who got rid of their cards first lose?
well wizard101 we use cards so think of it in this perspective in crazy 8's if someone gets rid of their last card and then the next player only has one card and they can play it does the person who got rid of their cards first lose?
Hmm ... I've never played crazy 8's. (I know, sad.) Interesting how we're wizards and yet we still have swords and spears like warriors. Interesting. In the case of this, both monster and wizard would "lose" as they would both be defeated. But, the wizard and monster would still retain credit for defeating each other. (If monsters had quests where they needed to defeat wizards. Haha that would be weird.) Hmm ... I do not, however, think the wizard should still get drops from the monster, as the wizard was defeated as well and can't go around stealing the monster's wallet or whatever. Lol. Mmmm kay, bye.
Try thinking of this in a different perspective. 2 warriors fighting with swords. They both swing their sword in a killing blow at about the same time, but 1 is slightly before the other. The one who was hit first's sword still reaches the other. Does the first hit warrior not still gain credit of defeating the other in battle? Now, with wizard101, it's more like suddenly the first hit warrior crumples to the ground without finishing the swing. Totally against Ghost Dog's philosophy. "If a warrior's head were to be suddenly cut off, he should still be able to perform one more action with certainty." Hmm ... perhaps if this were to happen, the wizard would be returned to the commons area of the world, but still gain credit for the quest. Although perhaps that would only happen when the enemy and wizard were killed at the same time. Hmm ...
-Jasmine Owltalon, level 95 myth
Wizard101 is based on turns, so the warriors would have to take turns attacking the other, so the first hit wins. Even with you're idea, who wins? If both die, they both lose, they both win? What will happen in wizad101 with this? Defeat is defeat, if two archers are about to shoot at each other, and one fires and hits his opponent first, but the other was about to fire, do people go, 'Oh, you were about to do it, so you technically win'? What if the enemy is about to kill you, but you beat it to the punch? Do they get the chance?
First off, saying things like "I REALLY hope you do this" makes you look pathetic and probably ruins your chances of KI implementing your idea. Second off, what is this? This idea will just dumb down the game. Third off, it just makes no sense to add this. You're supposed to kill the enemy. If an entire army of soldiers die, will the enemy somehow be defeated?
