You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
You gave me an idea: Since many enjoy to play SF as RPG, with RTS as backup,
-it would be good if in next SF, kills by the Avatar get some extra experience points, to keep the Avatar at relevant levels for those that wish to play that way.
Post wasn't really on topic in the SF1 general tips thread so moved here.
IMO not a feasable idea. Even if that hadn't moved on to quest-based exp in SF2, how would it work? More importantly, why make not having an army a valid option when SF is mainly an RTS game (they approximate 75%) with RPG elements (approx 25%) blended in?
__________________
What is the first business of one who practises philosophy?
To get rid of self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he already knows.
--Epictetus.
Please note that game related questions should be asked via forum posting, not PMs. Thanks
If a monster kill adds 50 exp. points by any unit, it would add 60 (or whatever would make up) points if it was done by Avatar/Hero.
The reasoning is that i have the impression that >50% of SF fans like solo/hero strike group more then playing with an army, with army being the backup if the Avatar don't cut it.
An army would fill up the exp. quota anyway by virtue of it takes a long time to build one, when as it is RPG style doesn't add sufficient exp.
It would be interesting with a poll on RPG vs RTS popularity actually.
SpellForce - English Forum
