Some tips for newbie warrior?

[t0nedude]

Originally Posted by Ryastar

Actually, it doesn't quite work that way. You can't just look at it from "what does it give me right now" standpoint. Let's put it this way: sure, at level 2, the 120 leadership is probably about 10-20% of your current leadership, even more than that, even. However, when you are level 30, your leadership will probably be around 25k, meaning that the 120 leadership is now only 0.48% of your leadership, where as the +1 attack is still an increase of 3.33% damage, better by a factor of 6. Attack and other stat upgrades (with the possible exception of mana and, less likely, int) are vastly better choices for the first 10-15 levels, mathematically. Assuming an average ending leadership of 25k, the first time leadership is more valuable than attack is level 14, where the 840 leadership becomes 3.36% of your ending leadership, only a narrow advantage over attack. Beyond that, go for leadership without question.

Actually you are incorrect and my original post still stands. Not being funny, but have you actually played the game and got offered +120 leadership at high levels?

For a start and from experience, the leadership bonus you are offered at level up increases as your level increases. So you will NEVER be offered +120 leadership if you are level 30 (from your post) if you were then your math would be correct, but you're not offered 120 at higher levels, it's always much higher.

I can't remember the exact level up, but as an example when I went from level 15 to 16 I was offered 840 or 960 leadership, I can't remember exactly. It has always been much higher than +120, and increases every time. As a comparison I have never been offered more than attack+1 at any level up.

Tony.

[Ryastar]

Originally Posted by t0nedude

Actually you are incorrect and my original post still stands. Not being funny, but have you actually played the game and got offered +120 leadership at high levels?

For a start and from experience, the leadership bonus you are offered at level up increases as your level increases. So you will NEVER be offered +120 leadership if you are level 30 (from your post) if you were then your math would be correct, but you're not offered 120 at higher levels, it's always much higher.

I can't remember the exact level up, but as an example when I went from level 15 to 16 I was offered 840 or 960 leadership, I can't remember exactly. It has always been much higher than +120, and increases every time. As a comparison I have never been offered more than attack+1 at any level up.

Tony.

Dude, did you even READ MY POST? Much less, notice the fact that i have been active on the boards since october, and have played the game through completely 3.5 times? Where do you get off saying that with your three posts, and complete inattention to what i actually said?

Let me just clarify all of what i said, because you are clearly terminally brain impaired. The leadership offered at a level up is (60, 50, 40)*your level, with those three numbers corresponding to warrior, paladin, and mage, respectively. I know that i didn't say that part in my post, because i assumed you already knew that. Now that we have established that baseline, let's look again at what i said:

At level 2, the leadership option, for a warrior, will be 120 leadership. That looks nice when you are level 2, because your leadership is ~400, and the 120 is therefore 30% of your leadership. HOWEVER, ONCE YOU ARE LEVEL THIRTY, THAT SAME 120 LEADERSHIP FROM LEVEL TWO IS ONLY 0.48% OF YOUR 25000 LEADERSHIP. I am NOT saying that at level 30, you will get the opportunity to gain 120 leadership, i am saying that the 120 leadership that you got back at level 2 is no longer as valuable as it once was. What i was saying is that you can't just look at the here and now, cause the leadership you take now will lose its value later, because it won't form as significant a portion of your leadership. Attack is therefore more valuable until level 14, when (assuming a final leadership of 25k) the leadership offered is 3.36% of your ending leadership, which is slightly more than the 3.33% damage increase from +1 attack (of course, this is assuming that a % more leadership will increase your damage by that %, which is likely not far from the truth, but is difficult to prove mathematically).

Please excuse my excessive use of caps. Your answer REALLY annoyed me.

[jwallstone]

Yeah, it annoyed me too, and I wasn't even involved in the discussion. No need for the smugness either, especially when he's got it wrong.

[t0nedude]

Originally Posted by Ryastar

Dude, did you even READ MY POST? Much less, notice the fact that i have been active on the boards since october, and have played the game through completely 3.5 times? Where do you get off saying that with your three posts, and complete inattention to what i actually said?

Let me just clarify all of what i said, because you are clearly terminally brain impaired. The leadership offered at a level up is (60, 50, 40)*your level, with those three numbers corresponding to warrior, paladin, and mage, respectively. I know that i didn't say that part in my post, because i assumed you already knew that. Now that we have established that baseline, let's look again at what i said:

At level 2, the leadership option, for a warrior, will be 120 leadership. That looks nice when you are level 2, because your leadership is ~400, and the 120 is therefore 30% of your leadership. HOWEVER, ONCE YOU ARE LEVEL THIRTY, THAT SAME 120 LEADERSHIP FROM LEVEL TWO IS ONLY 0.48% OF YOUR 25000 LEADERSHIP. I am NOT saying that at level 30, you will get the opportunity to gain 120 leadership, i am saying that the 120 leadership that you got back at level 2 is no longer as valuable as it once was. What i was saying is that you can't just look at the here and now, cause the leadership you take now will lose its value later, because it won't form as significant a portion of your leadership. Attack is therefore more valuable until level 14, when (assuming a final leadership of 25k) the leadership offered is 3.36% of your ending leadership, which is slightly more than the 3.33% damage increase from +1 attack (of course, this is assuming that a % more leadership will increase your damage by that %, which is likely not far from the truth, but is difficult to prove mathematically).

Please excuse my excessive use of caps. Your answer REALLY annoyed me.

I did read your ******* post.

I understand what you are saying now, and if you had mentioned this earlier in the terms above things might have been stayed civil, and not degenerated as they have done.

My original posts were only ever meant to help, however looking at your logic I can't argue with it and stand corrected.

But I will NOT accept being insulted before a genuine discussion has taken place.

Excuse me for thinking this board was populated by patient and intelligent people who love an intelligent game, great game. I won't be making that mistake twice.

Adios. I'm out of here.

[Ryastar]

Originally Posted by t0nedude

I did read your ******* post.

I understand what you are saying now, and if you had mentioned this earlier in the terms above things might have been stayed civil, and not degenerated as they have done.

My original posts were only ever meant to help, however looking at your logic I can't argue with it and stand corrected.

But I will NOT accept being insulted before a genuine discussion has taken place.

Excuse me for thinking this board was populated by patient and intelligent people who love an intelligent game, great game. I won't be making that mistake twice.

Adios. I'm out of here.

It is populated by such, however, we (well, I) do tend to get touchy when we (I) ourselves (myself) are (am) insulted first. I am sorry that i reacted so strongly, but this is not the first time (and likely will not be the last) that i took the time and trouble to write a well-reasoned and reasonably articulate post, only to be met with insults. I see that I over-reacted in this case, that you did not mean to be offensive, but i found the first line of your response to be highly insulting, and so i responded in kind. Again, I apologize for my words. I would also highly appreciate an apology from you.

[SeomanCC]

Originally Posted by t0nedude

Actually you are incorrect and my original post still stands. Not being funny, but have you actually played the game and got offered +120 leadership at high levels?

For a start and from experience, the leadership bonus you are offered at level up increases as your level increases. So you will NEVER be offered +120 leadership if you are level 30 (from your post) if you were then your math would be correct, but you're not offered 120 at higher levels, it's always much higher.

I can't remember the exact level up, but as an example when I went from level 15 to 16 I was offered 840 or 960 leadership, I can't remember exactly. It has always been much higher than +120, and increases every time. As a comparison I have never been offered more than attack+1 at any level up.

Tony.

Dude, what he is saying, is that the 120 leadership you were offered at level 2 (which amounted to 10% army strength at level 2) only amounts to like .4% army strength when you are looking back at level 30. The +1 attack remains a 3.3% damage increase whether you are level 2 or level 30.

He is absolutely correct and when balancing your level-up picks over 30 levels, you should ABSOLUTELY favor leadership more strongly in the later levels. The benefits of +1 str/def/int diminish with every level as the amount of leadership offered increases proportionally.