IRONHIDE COMMUNITY FORUM

Thanks, Aeris.

@Simmonds91: Like it was said above, looking cool doesn't make you cool. Now, having said that, it's totally fine for you to like him because he looks cool, just don't use that as an argument for him.

Also, guys, like BBB said, why do you act like you don't want Wilbur to become better? He's obviously sub-par compared to at least some heroes, and therefore should be fixed.

Ok people, enough is enough. I don't think Wilbur is badly designed. One thing for sure is he's pretty vulnerable and I don't know how much damage he deals but seriously I wasn't a huge fan of the dragons (well except for Boneheart wich looks cool and a good abilities but normal damage uh . ) or that Fenix. The only thing why I like him because I miss the artillery towers and rockets. He isn't badly designed to me and he looks cool and fun to use. He is pretty much the inventor of the dwarven technologies and also I don't think his stats or abilities are that bad but I haven't owned the origin and I haven't tried him out but I'm gonna try my 3 favorite heroes, Vez'nan, Lynn and of course Wilbur.

If you haven't tried him out, then I don't really see how you could argue his design at all. He has a crappy stat boost, and his other abilities are slowly recharging. And on top of that, they aren't even worth the recharge. The only things he has going for him are looks (which is completely subjective) and DPS. He is definitely poorly designed.

Ninja wrote:Thanks, Aeris.

Hey, I was the one who split the topics.

You're welcome, even though I only suggested it.

Big Bad Bug wrote:

Ninja wrote:Thanks, Aeris.

Hey, I was the one who split the topics.

OK, well then thank you.

[+] SPOILER

Wow, me thanking you for splitting really means that much?

Ninja wrote:No, FT was objectively terrible because of its glitchy, generically named enemies; poorly designed hero; and boringly designed levels. Also, she meant that you shouldn't use your opinions as your points, but rather, that you should use valid points to reinforce your opinions. If no one argued for their opinions, then arguing wouldn't even be a thing.

I you are going to argue that, use valid points. I don't see you backing up how it's glitchy, or it has poorly named enemies, or a bad hero, or boring levels.

Sinque Productions wrote:

Ninja wrote:No, FT was objectively terrible because of its glitchy, generically named enemies; poorly designed hero; and boringly designed levels. Also, she meant that you shouldn't use your opinions as your points, but rather, that you should use valid points to reinforce your opinions. If no one argued for their opinions, then arguing wouldn't even be a thing.

I you are going to argue that, use valid points. I don't see you backing up how it's glitchy, or it has poorly named enemies, or a bad hero, or boring levels.

No, actually. FT is horrendously made from a design perspective.

Ninja's wrong when he says FT is bad because of "generically named enemies" and "boringly designed levels," though. You can't argue something's name is generic or if a level is boring, since that's entirely up to you to decide.

FT, though, is very badly designed. As a whole update, it attempted to introduce new enemy types but didn't hesitate to recycle old enemies, and those enemies don't even make sense in the campaign. Why are there Sword Spiders? Why are there Screecher Bats? Those are Twilight Elven mutations and have nothing to do with the dwarves. Furthermore, FT throws balance out the window by completely discouraging the usage of Barracks. You literally have no reason to use Barracks because everything just annihilates them--the basic enemies have horrendously high damage but are also very spammy, Dark Spitters literally turn your troops against you, Devourers benefit from them, Shadow Champions are too slow and too high-damaging to even need Barracks stalling, and--actually, even the environment kills off your Barracks. Literally everything is anti-barracks. Atleast in other levels you had enemies that sort of required the usage of troops--Bandersnatch, Blood Gnoll, etc--but in FT, it's kill-all-Elves-galore.

That in itself is more than enough reason not to play FT. Ironhide literally created a scenario where the usage of an entire tower family is completely discouraged. That's bad design in its own right.

Juice Box wrote:

Sinque Productions wrote:

Ninja wrote:No, FT was objectively terrible because of its glitchy, generically named enemies; poorly designed hero; and boringly designed levels. Also, she meant that you shouldn't use your opinions as your points, but rather, that you should use valid points to reinforce your opinions. If no one argued for their opinions, then arguing wouldn't even be a thing.

I you are going to argue that, use valid points. I don't see you backing up how it's glitchy, or it has poorly named enemies, or a bad hero, or boring levels.

No, actually. FT is horrendously made from a design perspective.

Ninja's wrong when he says FT is bad because of "generically named enemies" and "boringly designed levels," though. You can't argue something's name is generic or if a level is boring, since that's entirely up to you to decide.

FT, though, is very badly designed. As a whole update, it attempted to introduce new enemy types but didn't hesitate to recycle old enemies, and those enemies don't even make sense in the campaign. Why are there Sword Spiders? Why are there Screecher Bats? Those are Twilight Elven mutations and have nothing to do with the dwarves. Furthermore, FT throws balance out the window by completely discouraging the usage of Barracks. You literally have no reason to use Barracks because everything just annihilates them--the basic enemies have horrendously high damage but are also very spammy, Dark Spitters literally turn your troops against you, Devourers benefit from them, Shadow Champions are too slow and too high-damaging to even need Barracks stalling, and--actually, even the environment kills off your Barracks. Literally everything is anti-barracks. Atleast in other levels you had enemies that sort of required the usage of troops--Bandersnatch, Blood Gnoll, etc--but in FT, it's kill-all-Elves-galore.

That in itself is more than enough reason not to play FT. Ironhide literally created a scenario where the usage of an entire tower family is completely discouraged. That's bad design in its own right.

I guess Wilbur was made for it but the only range enemies there are in FT are Dark Spitters. All the new enemies have armor in FT so pretty much use for Arivan, Vez'nan or Wilbur. I have to say but Devourers and Dark spitters are different enemies. Shadow Champions are the same lame enemies that die and if we didn't have enough enemies with dead deals damage. I wonder what's with the false telling about they can regenerate but they can't.Also what's with the Wilbur nerf, before he dealt 60-90 true damage, now 20-30 true damage? You're right he is UP but he looks cool and has some uses

His damage in the hero room is false (it's meant to be the damage of each bullet since he very rapidly fires about 3 bullets but it's so fast that it doesn't matter. Plus, players have no way of knowing that until they buy him, which they won't since he has such terrible damage) since he actually deals 63-96 True Damage, which is displayed as magic damage but isn't, just like Faustus. There are plenty of cases of misinformation, from Reg'son's Eldritch Blade dealing only 70 instead of 77 per hit, Lynn's Fate Sealed deals 690 instead of 700, Bravebark's Branchball only being usable on enemies with 1500 HP or less instead of any amount, Durax's Sapphire Fangs dealing 1200 instead of 960, and now Wilbur's damage output. I may be forgetting more, but the point is that there are lots of unreliable numbers given in KRO for heroes.

I like Wilbur. He's like my 3rd favirote hero in KRO. I don't care how powerful he is, I think he's fun to use, and he's the only technology inclined hero in the game. I think he's pretty good. He has a really high DPS.

Anorak wrote:I like Wilbur. He's like my 3rd favirote hero in KRO. I don't care how powerful he is, I think he's fun to use, and he's the only technology inclined hero in the game. I think he's pretty good. He has a really high DPS.

I agree with that, he´s one of my favorite hero despite i havent played the game

Big Bad Bug wrote:His damage in the hero room is false (it's meant to be the damage of each bullet since he very rapidly fires about 3 bullets but it's so fast that it doesn't matter. Plus, players have no way of knowing that until they buy him, which they won't since he has such terrible damage) since he actually deals 63-96 True Damage, which is displayed as magic damage but isn't, just like Faustus. There are plenty of cases of misinformation, from Reg'son's Eldritch Blade dealing only 70 instead of 77 per hit, Lynn's Fate Sealed deals 690 instead of 700, Bravebark's Branchball only being usable on enemies with 1500 HP or less instead of any amount, Durax's Sapphire Fangs dealing 1200 instead of 960, and now Wilbur's damage output. I may be forgetting more, but the point is that there are lots of unreliable numbers given in KRO for heroes.

Well, i guess youre right BBB. I dont know if he deals that much damage or he deals little damage but i was afraid if he got nerfed like Phoenix. Yeah there are allot of errors and i think they should fix it.

My first thought