hi guys n sc.. I have a info.. plz verify

Printable View

February 17th, 2015
NrNair

hi guys n sc.. I have a info.. plz verify

I guess it will be nice idea to give ppl to defend against lighting at least for any one building, by using a lighting rod graphics or something like that... For now I just have a wireframe... Nothing much... Get me back if u find my idea nice.. Thanks for ur time..
Nair
CEO, TechRK
February 17th, 2015
trooperc007

No. I thought they stopped complaining about this!
February 17th, 2015
12lthLvLIntellect

Quote:

Originally Posted by NrNair

I guess it will be nice idea to give ppl to defend against lighting at least for any one building, by using a lighting rod graphics or something like that... For now I just have a wireframe... Nothing much... Get me back if u find my idea nice.. Thanks for ur time..
Nair
CEO, TechRK

i swear this idea is like said 100000000000 times each year :confused:. This idea is ruled out. In other words "Never Gonna Happen."
February 17th, 2015
chrispeterson

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12lthLvLIntellect

i swear this idea is like said 100000000000 times each year :confused:. This idea is ruled out. In other words "Never Gonna Happen."

Quote:

Originally Posted by trooperc007

No. I thought they stopped complaining about this!

obviously he's new to the forums so you could just report the thread for being a ruled out idea and simply say it's ruled out
February 17th, 2015
trooperc007

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrispeterson

obviously he's new to the forums so you could just report the thread for being a ruled out idea and simply say it's ruled out

Uhh ok. It's not ruled out though but it is annoying.
February 17th, 2015
Bockerijder

Quote:

Originally Posted by trooperc007

Uhh ok. It's not ruled out though but it is annoying.

Its ruled out and annoying, and its annoying that ppl think its not ruled although it is ruled out
February 17th, 2015
iceageg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bockerijder

Its ruled out and annoying, and its annoying that ppl think its not ruled although it is ruled out

Anti-zapping is not officially ruled out (although tesla's absorbing lightning is), but SC has stated that they have no plans to change it. Link to their quote in my sig below. Zapping is good for the game and bad for the person who does it. It is self punishing. No need to waste time on it.
February 17th, 2015
Bockerijder

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceageg

Zapping is good for the game and bad for the person who does it. It is self punishing. No need to waste time on it.

Sorry I dont agree completely, Im a pesky zapper, but only when I take revenge. Those who are dumb enough to attack my DE with lightning, get lightning back on their DE, and there village will be most likely flattened with the ground
Thats the only way to tell a zapper DONT ZAP MY DE Tank
February 17th, 2015
iceageg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bockerijder

Sorry I dont agree completely, Im a pesky zapper, but only when I take revenge. Those who are dumb enough to attack my DE with lightning, get lightning back on their DE, and there village will be most likely flattened with the ground
Thats the only way to tell a zapper DONT ZAP MY DE Tank

I was just trying to condense it down into a sentence or two. Zapping is good for the game for a few reasons, one of which is revenge. Trading 2 hours and 80,000 elixir for a few hundred DE is a pretty horrible tradeoff (compared to how much you could get with better spells and use of time), unless you are TH7 hunting slacker TH9-10 down in gold/silver.

It's the TH10's that loose out the most. I had a TH10 down in gold drop 5 lightning spells on my DE last night. Looking at his base and troops he should have been able to steamroll me. Instead he dropped 2.5 hours and 120,000 elixir to get 1200DE. Considering what he could have done with that time and elixir, he just ripped himself off. Then again, if that is an indication of his playing skill he probably would have failed miserably if he tried a genuine attack.