Yet another strawman argument. Wow you're really good at this aren't you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

What makes you a douche fanboy is the way you are defending the system as it currently is. That you think having an upgrade which is more than likely going to lose you the game is a good thing and something that players should learn to not use, and that this in some way is learning "strategy", and that I should have to tell my teammates every game "dont push the red self desctruct button".

Sadly every PC game seems to have them. Been there done that with Hellgate. There were so many things that could have made that game better, so many simple fixes. yet the fanbois got on the forums and defended the way the game was, and well... the rest is hostory. RIP HGL. I dont want to see that happen here.

pfft

You think there is a problem, so do others, seems from this thread alone that more people think it's not as big of a deal.  You honestly think it's more than likely going to lose you the game?  I disagree.  I also didnt debase to these sorts of personal attacks against you, merely your tone of title, hope this clears it up for you.

So with your own use of the strawman definition, and litterally saying my defending the situation (i.e. disagreeing with you) makes me whatever,.... I don't even need to reiterate what I've said about your posting manners already, have fun with your thread.

Well that's kind of the problem of the internet right now, and certainlyl also on this forum. As soon as you disagree with someone that automatically makes you either a noob or an asshole, and if 80% of the people disagree with the OP than in their eyes that just means that 80% of the people are wrong.

• If you buy building health even though the enemy is not pushing hard enough to actually damage your tower - the upgrade hurts.
• If you buy building health even though you already los most of your towers - the upgrade hurts.
• If you buy Demigod exp boost even though the enemy does not allow you to gather exp much - the upgrade hurts.
• If you buy the currency upgrade even though the money spent would have helped you kill one or two demigods (which in turn would allow you to buy the upgrades again or other stuff) - the upgrade hurts.
• If you buy finger of god and it doesn't do enough damage to actually be of use - the upgrade hurts.
• etc.

It only helps the enemy, if used wrong. If you are able to put more pressure on the enemy with priests, then they definitely do not help the enemy. They help you with killing towers and killing or pushing back enemy Demigods.

Your example doesn't work.  Those upgrades provide no direct negative effect.  What you listed is opportunity cost which is completely different.  Priests, in addition to an opportunity cost, provide a very tangible benefit to the other team.  THAT is a direct negative effect of getting them.

If you buy any of those upgrades early game, they are huge boons - especially the level 1 upgrades.  They're cheap and in the case of building upgrade, provides a passive hp regen. They provide no direct negative effect.

Priests at early game are often disatrous unless the enemy team is very very bad at pushing.  Basically, you should only get priests early game if your team is completely dominating pushing.  However, if that's the case, you don't really need priests anyways.

Oh snap.

Priests + angels fixed tomorrow

Just a tad combative there, eh?  Anyway, most of the "defense", as you'll note, was centered around that while there are drawbacks to getting Priests and such, there are still tangible benefits.  The base relationship is not necessarily wrong, but instead the exact implementation of that relationship had some issues.  But caution is desirable in rectifying these so as not to change the basic relationship but rather to ensure that the relationship is only fine-tuned.

And, of course, in certain situations, the Priests' drawbacks can be absolutely irrlevant, so the issue of them *always* being an issue was also debated.

More or less, it is rather impossible to be dissappointed or upset atm when the exact details of the change remain unknown and none of us have yet played a game of Demigod with the change enacted yet.  Imo, the game in its current state is quite playable and getting Priests will not at all award the opposing team a victory, so if this change introduces such an actual impact then I do think some dissappointment will set in though I rather refuse to be upset with GPG experimenting a little bit with balance with the goal of improving the gameplay because they can always quickly revert if the change backfires somehow.

TerranUp summed it up nicely.  It wasn't so much that we were going to lengths to defend a blatant imbalance for nothing but the sake of it, just that a lot of us honestly didn't really see that much of an issue with where they were in the first place.  People learned to push with them, adapt to the situation etc etc.  When you look at a XP/gold table it shows a bit of a discrepancy between priests and minotaurs/archers though, so if they tweaked that to create a smoother balance between the tiers of grunts then that's a good thing anyway, regardless of whether some of us found it okay how it was to begin with.

You're confusing the upgrade hurting and the lost opportunity of the cost of the upgrade hurting.

In all your examples, all that hurts is the lost opportunity of the gold you spent on the upgrade. "You caould have done better spending it on something else" is what it amounts to.

With priests its not just the price of the upgreade, but the upgreade itself. Even if it were free it would hurd, because the upgrade itself hurts.

See the difference?