This topic is closed

Offer offensive and defensive development paths for military buildings.

20 Replies
Astyanax
5 May, 2016, 4:45 PM UTC
The idea to level military buildings has been suggested on this forum before, and somehow I believe that  Plarium will surely implement this at some point. When that happens, I propose to introduce some variety for players, and make them choose to either pursue a defensive or an offensive path of buildings development. Depending on which path one chooses, the buildings would give different bonuses and be either green (defense) or red (offense) in roof color. By visiting one's city enemies would see the players building specialization and adjust accordingly. This would give a whole new level of depth to the game and strategy. Coalitions would now try to balance between the two types of players among their members.
UTC -4:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
6 May, 2016, 10:07 AM UTC

Thank you for this suggestion. I would like to know if other players support this idea. 

We are planning to create a major feature which will allow you to specialize in some way, but your idea is also interesting.

Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
Master Triton
6 May, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC
Astyanax said:

The idea to level military buildings has been suggested on this forum before, and somehow I believe that  Plarium will surely implement this at some point. When that happens, I propose to implement some variety for players, and make them choose to either pursue a defensive or an offensive path of buildings development. Depending on which path one chooses, the buildings would give different bonuses and be either green (defense) or red (offense) in roof color. By visiting one's city enemies would see the players building specialization and adjust accordingly. This would give a whole new level of depth to the game and strategy. Coalitions would now try to balance between the two types of players among their members.
Nice! I remember of saying something similar to you, about players specializing to deff or to off, since it is impossible to be good at all points... then the specialization would be nice, to economize time... but I doubt plarium would change the roof color this way, green is already used to change the root when you apply sketches...
UTC +3:00
Astyanax
7 May, 2016, 5:58 AM UTC
Hi mas, regarding the roofs, green was something I threw out there...they can be any color or have some other visual difference. The key here is for players to be able to recognize one's specialization visually.
UTC -4:00
loochy
7 May, 2016, 8:09 AM UTC
sounds awesome, it gives options to the players preference. Player = happy=$
UTC +8:00
Master Triton
7 May, 2016, 8:12 AM UTC
I vote 1+ for asty idea! ;-)
UTC +3:00
Turbotounge
7 May, 2016, 8:37 AM UTC
It seems it would add something to the game for sure. I'd like to see it happen :)
UTC +13:00
Kakos
7 May, 2016, 9:12 AM UTC
Unless is very VERY finely tuned is going to be really bad..
Vae victis
UTC +9:00
Astyanax
7 May, 2016, 9:16 AM UTC
Kakos said:

Unless is very VERY finely tuned is going to be really bad..
Put some faith in Plarium Kakos ;)
UTC -4:00
Kakos
7 May, 2016, 9:22 AM UTC
Astyanax said:

Put some faith in Plarium Kakos ;)
You must have a great sense of humor!!
Vae victis
UTC +9:00
RagnarLothbrok
8 May, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

i've a;

lways advocated a balance of player types in a coal - defense, offense, persian killers, seigers, builders, resource producers. but the game as it stands is weighted in favor of offensive supercoiners -- and that tends to foster a lot of unpleasant in-game just-plain-ugly attitudes and behavior, I think this is a great idea - and one that adds a lot more realism to the game. 
UTC +0:00
bolank
9 May, 2016, 3:55 AM UTC

good idea


but give the different color for offense/defense is not good at all since every player must have same right to change the path (offense or defense) 
UTC +0:00
Greed oft o'er reaches itself
9 May, 2016, 3:26 PM UTC

Good idea, but as it stands already, if you wanted to follow a def or offense path, you could just simply train more troop in the favor of the path you chose, trade resources that way and use def/off elixirs etc.

With this idea, I can see coals pan dodgers take offensive path so they don't have to submit troop to pans.

I too would worry about changes. When I see community manager say 'we are planning to create a major feature' I shudder. Plarium can't even do regular things without screwing the server up!



UTC +0:00
Astyanax
9 May, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

necab15-games said:


Good idea, but as it stands already, if you wanted to follow a def or offense path, you could just simply train more troop in the favor of the path you chose, trade resources that way and use def/off elixirs etc.

Don't see the logic here Neca...its like saying there is no point of having any bonuses at all, including the elexirs, because you can always just build more troops. No, considering two players have same amount of troops and all conventional bonuses maxed out,  one who chooses defensive building will have an advantage in defense a priory, because an offensive builder will now be unable to match his total defensive bonuses.  There will now be actual decisions making involved (something that's not there atm at all) -- a permanent choice  to make, weather to get an additional "endgame" advantage in defensive potency and thus become less competitive in offense, or vice versa. Perhaps a purchasable tool to reverse the path can also be added, returning all military buildings back to level 1, and the military path building be available only once all other buildings reach lvl 20... but these are all details and balancing problems for Plarium to work out.

"With this idea, I can see coals pan dodgers take offensive path so they don't have to submit troop to pans."

So people in your coalition who use only offensive elixirs are exempt from submitting pantheon or capital troops? I don't see why getting an additional advantage in offense, for instance, will give you the right to "dodge" defensive contribution...

"I too would worry about changes. When I see community manager say 'we are planning to create a major feature' I shudder. Plarium can't even do  regular things without screwing the server up!"

If Plarium screws up at times, there should never be any new content at all? I don't see many active players contributing here on the forums...people mostly complain, instead of trying to make the game better.


UTC -4:00
Greed oft o'er reaches itself
9 May, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

Your suggestion is just complexity of what already can be done. Plus I don't like the idea of a 'purchasable tool', everything now is suggested to be upgraded by the use of drachma like with sketches.


Where in my post did I suggest that using offense elixirs would make people exempt from submitting pantheon troop? 


There are people who dodge submitting troop to pan.  Giving an option for people to take offense priority further than it already is, just gives them more excuse not to grow team defence and instead grow offense for their own use while others do the defending.


Maybe you are a  plarium staffer designed to submit ideas, for then 'community manager' to appear and post to say they have something like that in pipeline, so it looks like they are doing something that is popular.  Not many genuine players would suggest more buyable items.


People complain because plarium are greedy, and performance of game is shabby. Crapitals and emporiums are same old stuff.


Thumbs down totally, since you suggest buying something to reverse path, seems similar to gold caduceus.



UTC +0:00
Astyanax
10 May, 2016, 9:07 AM UTC

1.  If I was a Plarium employee, I wouldn't be wasting my time on these God forgotten forums...

2. I don't spend real money on pixel horses, and i don't plan to in the future. I use drachmas I earn from tournaments...

3. Spending money has nothing to do with my original idea. I merely suggested a tool to reverse the process, because I felt that some people might be put off by the irreversibility of the process...but I would personally not care for this myself at all. I just want the building specialization feature realized, and understand that if it is to have a chance in this obviously money-based product, Plarium needs to have an interest in this as well. And as long as the building leveling itself is not completely coin based (and so far nothing except for sketches is)...I couldn't care less.

4. Still don't see how this will give offensive players "more excuse" to not contribute defensively... most coals (though admittedly not my own) have requirements for  defensive contributions that every member (offensive or defensive oriented) needs to meet, aka contribute said amount or get booted. So your point is mute.

5. Plarium can get greedy all they want...I play this game and if I waste time on it, I'll at least try to improve it to my liking. You, as I take it play it too, and if you take the time to comment on the forums, it'd be more productive if you use your voice to contribute on how to make a new idea better/work, instead of wasting your time on cutting down the few initiatives players attempt to start in these already deserted forums.

UTC -4:00
Greed oft o'er reaches itself
10 May, 2016, 10:06 AM UTC

1.  Well coming up with same ideas as plarium want, and getting your panties in a bunch  if someone doesn't support it, isnt exactly not wasting your time on forums.

2.  LOL, theres the classic plarium staff spiel  'earn drachmas from tournaments'.  Drachmas rewards are chicken feed compared to cost of things.

3.  Reversing offense/def process for cost, is to me another complex way of fleecing money in a way like gold caduceus.  Every upgrade to this game is a complex/costly extention to what is already there.  Then the free changes are always unnecessary things of no benefit like the troop training block or different log out.

4. If people have more excuse not to grow def, then as you say they can be booted if requirements not met, more hassle to monitor and get rid of the passengers while they consider themself 'offensive archon' with red roofs.  Some players keep their def just above minimum req so they can obtain orich, while adding as little troop as possible.  Being tagged as an offense archon will be touted as an excuse.

5. Make your report back plarium towers.  You make suggestion, 'community manager' just happens to mention plarium are going to do similar, then people just happen to make their first posts in community section in support of your thread, lol.  Alternatives...before anything else... fix bugs, stop the massive influx of pay items, improve server performance, then adding complicated ideas similar to what already is here can not further expand the dreadful performance.


Just accept that someone doesn't like your idea, instead of pedantically defending it. Toilet flush to your idea, good day.

UTC +0:00
Astyanax
10 May, 2016, 3:22 PM UTC

1. By proposing an idea I at least have a goal in mind. You propose nothing...you just run your mouth for the sake of running it. I'll let others decide who wastes time here.

2. People like you whine and complain about the cost of things, but it is exactly the whiners like you who spend the coin in games. Plarium takes your money - hence you whine. Players who don't spend by default never whine, because we just play with what the game gives us.

3. Already answered this above. I mentioned reversing process only once to make amends with those who are against permanent decision making. I really don't care for it and it holds no importance for my original proposal. The only reason you keep holding on to it is because your other points hold no water, so you exploit this irrelevant nuance.

4. The whole argument is pulled out of your behind.  No matter how you try to stretch it, the point is plain demagogy.

5. Your implication that I work for Plarium requires no comment, it merely further illustrates the quality of your "argumentation". As for fixing bugs, you seem to've gotten lost in the wrong forum section. Proposing new ideas and fixing bugs are only mutually exclusive in your head. There is a section dedicated to bug reports, this post is in the Suggestions section. Too much for your logic?

6. "Just accept that someone doesn't like your idea, instead of pedantically defending it."

a) There's nothing to defend against, you've  yet to provide anything but empty statements. Not to mention that I merely gave a raw suggestion.

b) I hate to break it to you, but hardly me or anyone else here cares what "Necab15" likes or not. People look for ideas/conversation on how to give some purpose to the game beyond just clicking on build troops, not your endorsements.


7. "Toilet flush to your idea, good day"

I hope you understand how bitter and salty this comes off. It seems you have some internal insecurities, which frankly, I have no interest in finding out about.


UTC -4:00
Hellas45
10 May, 2016, 3:45 PM UTC
Hey if this comes to life I personally won't complain.
UTC +3:00
morteeee
Moderator
10 May, 2016, 10:44 PM UTC

Seriously people? Personal insults?


Necab15-games, first warning, I see anymore personal insults from you and you will earn some time off


the rest of you PLEASE rise above stuff like this and alert a moderator in future 


/edit - and stay on topic! 


thank you 

History is written by the victors
UTC +1:00
1659244 users registered; 33236 topics; 251882 posts; our newest member:tsy5stru