http://i40.tinypic.com/sgrcs7.jpg
Won the battle :eek: So is this exploiting or not if people send attacks like this? That's gooooood hero experience and not so bad prestige
Printable View
http://i40.tinypic.com/sgrcs7.jpg
Won the battle :eek: So is this exploiting or not if people send attacks like this? That's gooooood hero experience and not so bad prestige
Looks cool to me but I am not doing it lol.
Nope not an exploit. You won the battle. Using troops with low cost to win battles is not an exploit.
Also sending a band of warriors once, or twice and they dying is not an exploit. It's the actual intention of earning prestige by sending wave-after-wave of suicide warrior just to get that number up.
Is it really that hard for people to use common sense into knowing what's exploitive or not?
How did you manage to get a battle that lasted longer than 10 rounds? I thought 10 was the limit . . .
I see no problem with it.
But hey, I think we can all admit it, the Prestige system is broke.
Edit: Pointless
100 rounds is the battle limit, not 10.
And since you lost over half your attacking force, it shouldn't be considered an exploit.
That would be an exploit if he lost the whole army and still gained prestige.
Note: in the to-do-list. Sending warriors only to NPC's even though they attack successfully will amount the player to lose prestige. :rolleyes:
not really... the setback with doing that is you lost all those warriors and have to make new ones... some people prefer to stick with 0 casualty armies and still get the same (and sometimes even better) results
its a matter of preference