Game Suggestion/Ideas page 18

556 posts

Flag Post

More hero slots (in-active or active)

With some of the current competitions you give prizes to players who complete objectives with alot of speed. This can mean people send out many attacks against wilds at once, with so small hero storage available these slots fill up fast meaning hero’s after that are trashed and you can’t dismiss a hero until it arrives back from the wild raid. Meaning you may win a high rating hero that you want off a wild and then loose it.

Also with the Colosseum going up to 100 level now the number of hero slots isn’t enough. If you were to win lots of low level hero’s early on then were lucky enough to win a really good hero (maybe even a super since you advertise that you can) at level 95 or something you’d not even actually win it, he’d just be trashed straight away. I think this is almost more of a bug/bad planning than a suggestion.

Since you can only use 3 hero’s at once (without paying ALOT of money) I dont see the actual problem with being able to have lots of inactive hero slots, it gives no actual benifit to the player and no loss to the game, but prevents angry customers.

 
Flag Post

I agree with this suggestion. :)

 
Flag Post

Thank u for your suggestion, DieDaisuki.
It should be taken into account.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by DieDaisuki:

More hero slots (in-active or active)

With some of the current competitions you give prizes to players who complete objectives with alot of speed. This can mean people send out many attacks against wilds at once, with so small hero storage available these slots fill up fast meaning hero’s after that are trashed and you can’t dismiss a hero until it arrives back from the wild raid. Meaning you may win a high rating hero that you want off a wild and then loose it.

Also with the Colosseum going up to 100 level now the number of hero slots isn’t enough. If you were to win lots of low level hero’s early on then were lucky enough to win a really good hero (maybe even a super since you advertise that you can) at level 95 or something you’d not even actually win it, he’d just be trashed straight away. I think this is almost more of a bug/bad planning than a suggestion.

Since you can only use 3 hero’s at once (without paying ALOT of money) I dont see the actual problem with being able to have lots of inactive hero slots, it gives no actual benifit to the player and no loss to the game, but prevents angry customers.

Yeah, I agree that we should have more slots to inactive heroes.

 
Flag Post

To sort of answer one of your questions, I can “remove” my heroes that I’ve gotten from Colo by using the (minimise <— wrong spelling?) However, I can only do this once, doing it twice or more removes my try on the Colo and I need to restart from Floor 1 _
What they should do (The Devs) is increase the amount of heroes you can have (As in hold) instead of 8, make it 12, or 16, or some 2 digit number :)

 
Flag Post

What’s wrong with allowing market value to develop? As of now, nobody buys resources at the current prices. I send out 12 offers a day, every day, and my stuff has been bought once, that’s it. If I could make the goods cheaper, I’d have a much better chance of selling.

 
Flag Post

erm , normally the players need lumber more than other kind of resources. So u can try to sell lumber to make more profit.But if the goods can be cheaper ,it will be better :)

 
Flag Post

a_wise_fish’s idea is very good.

According to the current situation, the resource is enough, even excessive.
GoldenMuffin and lala1992, do you hope that the price of resource in the market is unlimited?
If so, I will forward your suggestion to our dev.

 
Flag Post

a_wise_fish’s idea is effective but not suitable as a long term fix, it doesn’t really solve the issue at all. As he states he can only do that once, and its not exactly the way things are supposed to work. I do use that strategy and it is good, I just want to be clear that I and others still think spare hero slots should be increased.

 
Flag Post

Well ,some player’s main city is far far away from everyone which means it is not worth for them to go and farm the inactive with their main city troops . In this case their main city have to depend on the market to get extra resources . At the same time, some other players want to sell their resources at lower rate (less than 0.05 per unit ) to attract others to buy from them and earn some coin. If the goods can be adjusted to lower price , both side will get the benefit. The price of resources should’t be unlimited too to avoid “Smart people” from cheating (get more coin from other ID or instant free resources from market) but can be lowered to around 0.02 per unit.

 
Flag Post

Sevenkan, if the general economy (balance in scarcity) of resources in the game would be IN ANY WAY healthy, then the market price could be just left to “whatever price” the normal ASK/BID process leads to.

However, because of …wait for it… the issue of inactive accounts massproducing free farmable resources, everything to do with those aspects is FUBAR.

So what would happen if you would “liberate” market prices?
They would drop to NEAR ZERO.
Why?
Because resources are pretty much worthless (NO SCARCITY).
Why?
You know why.

What to do?

Fix the root cause.

 
Flag Post

I agree with you that the root cause is excessive resource.
I think we should make some balance on the resource and the price in the marketplace.

 
Flag Post

GoldenMuffin ’s suggestion : “All inactive cities should either be deleted, or be restricted to one assault per day, just to stop excessive farming.”

I support this >restricted to one assault per day . Everyone can only invade the inactive’s city once per day instead of 3times per day and can get only 20% of the resources from that city.

This can prevent excessive resources and the players can still get something their farm .

 
Flag Post

At the same time , please try to figure out a way to stop the players from building fake population . Building fake population is a kind of cheating and it is not fair for everyone . Recruit the troops then cancel but still get 80%of the resources back . If everyone using the method , the rank (population) is pretty useless.

 
Flag Post

when you say one assault per day. Do you mean a singular player can assault a particular city only once per day or a city can only be assaulted once per day by anyone.

If a city can only be assaulted once per day this will cause alot of players to spread out alot more, at the moment I know alot of factions and players, move or make citys near to one another, for protection, fun and community. But this would put the advantage on moving to an area where most local cities were inactive, so that they can hit more citys. Not sure if thats good or bad, just something to consider.

I agree with something needing to be done though, I’m still in favour of Benedettos idea to restrict production of innactives until they reactivate. maybe tweak it so there is some production but on a limited scale, so farming is still possible but not as easy/rewarding as it is currently.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by lala1992:

At the same time , please try to figure out a way to stop the players from building fake population . Building fake population is a kind of cheating and it is not fair for everyone . Recruit the troops then cancel but still get 80%of the resources back . If everyone using the method , the rank (population) is pretty useless.

this doesn’t work. any cancelled population will also be 100 percent deducted, any troops not actually built yet.

they fixed that months ago, even before i started hypergrowth.
 
Flag Post

oh and by the way, sevenkan… seems that actually everybody in here including you considers excessive resources (inactive farms) a very important issue (problem) of the game….

look up: to agree.

 
Flag Post

“this doesn’t work. any cancelled population will also be 100 percent deducted, any troops not actually built yet.” lol sry I did’t know that.

 
Flag Post

The inactive player’s troops still feed on the food . If the production is limited or become 0 , Their troops start starving and die itself. So i think the idea “singular player can assault a particular city once per day” is the best. Then everyone will start fighting to protect their farm.

 
Flag Post

1) if it is a real “interesting” inactive (think: no secret warehouse, member of no/insignificant alliance, resource production surplus), the troops will not be there for very long… i assume pretty much everyone will be raped open or grinded open at some point… SO WHAT? you might ask….

this means: they have no more troops. this in turn means: Your point has only a very limited validity/application And then? without army consumption they reachh the end state: cracked open, defenseless, even bigger surplus of farms… GET IT?

look guys, ít is obvious what is the root issue.

solutions: PLENTY.

Example: why not set Secret Warehouse Coverage for all inactive accounts to 50 Million of each resource (pick any large number you like, duh.) It does not matter as long as we end the excessive resources…..

(i actuallly like my initial idea better, this is just to open up your mind and the discussion more…)

 
Flag Post

2) the only one attack per day kinda is possible as resource limiter, but it will not help to get more fighting going.

just looking at simple game theory and basic economics, it does not make sense to go to war over that in terms of cost/benefit.
hence the equilibrium will set at: “oh well, whatever. maybe tmrw.”

in effect, inactives will be sth. like other wilds (real attractive, permanent location wilds, that will be raped around reset time……

 
Flag Post

3) last point in an open question: why would we stop improving a game, because the insignificant troops of THOSE that decided to basically quit, might be affected (mind you, doing for example the secret warehouse thing would not)….

bottom line, my original proposal was not so bad, it gives reasonable but not exaggerated incentives to stay active and/or return to the game

 
Flag Post

Your opinions remind me of a player’s suggestion.
If the players’ cities can be damaged, and at last completely damaged, then the city will disappear in the map.
If a city can be damaged, then it cannot product resource for others.
What’s you opinion about this idea?

 
Flag Post

that would work too, as it would mean a player would have to log in to repair the damage. Any inactive players wouldn’t log in to repair so they couldn’t be farmed, while at the same time in the future they could log in again at any time and resume playing.

The only thing is repairs would have to be free, otherwise players who were fully damaged and fully farmed of resources would never be able to repair. Otherwise great idea.

 
Flag Post

I don’t agree with this>If the players’ cities can be damaged, and at last completely damaged, then the city will disappear in the map. just let them repair it if it is completely damaged , no point to let them start everything again .

I prefer this> if the city is completely damaged (no troops and fortified units left) ,u can’t farm anything from it. I start to think Benedetto is right , some of the players spend all their time farming the inactive lol .This is really meaningless.