Prepare Your Castle For Revolutionary New Features!

123 Replies
WaterVirtue
3 January, 2016, 7:56 PM UTC

I like to make the following 2 suggestions that will make this game more dynamic and exciting:

1) Troop building speed is way too slow => Make troop building speed across the board for all troops to be 3 times faster than the existing programming. If troop building is substantially faster, the game will see a lot more action and more fun to play.

2) When spies are sent for spying mission, large number of spies should kill opponent's spies based on the overall number/strength of the spies involved as well as castle sentry bonus points. The existing version give all the advantage to the defender with large number of spies, so the attacker who sends spies is at a huge disadvantage. The programming logic should be changed so fighting of spies should be more balanced. Again, this will dramatically change the dynamic of the game, and it will be much more fun to play. Using assassins to aid spy killing is not an effective game design. 
UTC +0:00
jacquescock
3 January, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

I'd like to see them just make what's on the board work!!!.  upgrade the servers to help eliminate such drag and delay!!!  We cannot legitimately recommend more players when it's deathly slow for those we already have.


FIXS

Can't they fix the friends line for gods sack?   

We should be able to see when our sieges are being attacked!! Sieges are an extension of our castle and should be on our attack radar!!

Can they get rid of those idiotic messages about allowing full screen and press esc to leave?  Maybe a don't show again check box after first time?

Fix the boosts!!  it takes the points but doesn't give the boost.  This happens all the time!!

The times required to complete tasks are toooooo long.  I understand the reason for this it to get or keep the player engaged for longer times but it is self defeating and boring spending sooooo much time waiting!!!

We should be able to cut and paste into the letter area!  There are multiple nationalities and languages so it would be extremely useful to be able to cut and past translations into letters.


Get rid a upgrades for items that have little or nominal value.  What good is upgrading the catacombs to 20?  Answer 0


Make BGs more straight forward.  Most players do not understand the arbitrage nature of the BGs  it takes to long to build expendable troops to really make it work that well.  Rethink this entire strategy.


Well that's my rant for today.  i'll be back soon with more.


Cheers

Jacques





UTC +5:00
ThatGuy
4 January, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

WaterVirtue said:


I like to make the following 2 suggestions that will make this game more dynamic and exciting:

1) Troop building speed is way too slow => Make troop building speed across the board for all troops to be 3 times faster than the existing programming. If troop building is substantially faster, the game will see a lot more action and more fun to play.

2) When spies are sent for spying mission, large number of spies should kill opponent's spies based on the overall number/strength of the spies involved as well as castle sentry bonus points. The existing version give all the advantage to the defender with large number of spies, so the attacker who sends spies is at a huge disadvantage. The programming logic should be changed so fighting of spies should be more balanced. Again, this will dramatically change the dynamic of the game, and it will be much more fun to play. Using assassins to aid spy killing is not an effective game design. 

What puzzles me in the game logic for spies:  If a spy mission is successful, how would the loser know?  Spies are supposed to be stealth, aren't they?  I can have no spies at all out and still know I've been spied on...what is the logic in that?

Attacker has a bigger advantage with the attack units though, so it sort of balances out.  You can spy first to avoid hitting blind, but its going to cost you.  I've seen plenty relegate spies to beacons only and just use fireballs to spy.  Its effective if you know how to estimate the def based on what you kill (and if you don't mind spending sapphires to spy).  

Personally, I think fireballs are one of the more unfair things in the game.  There is no defense; someone fireballs you and your troops get killed, or altar if not enough troops out to soak it up.  It does not seem like castle def bonus has any effect on damage from fireballs; if it did, many players with tons of guards and lvl 5 fortifications would take no damage from fireballs at all.

My suggestions for making game more dynamic:

1) faster troop build times

2) lower the resource cost of defense troops to balance out the current massive imbalance in off vs def

3) Fireballs do a set amount of damage that cannot be blocked; that is a rather unfair advantage.  Def boosts should count vs fireballs.

4) Hamlets are too risk free for attackers; do away with the auto recall of offensive units.  I'd also suggest that dominion give a defense boost along with the resource boost.  

5) Extend defense bonus to all def units regardless of location; def is at a huge disadvantage in most of the game.  If you want people to expose their def for PvP, make def more effective.

6) Reduce cost of reviving units or significantly increase tournament rewards.  99% of the time, the rewards are nowhere near what you lose to earn them.  

7) Fix the lag.  Certain times of the day are unplayable due to the lag.  When a league mate gets fireballed and I try to send reinforcement or revive guards, the game freezes until the animation loads.  When the lag is really bad, I also can't attack or reinforce because the menu when you hover over refuses to come up.

UTC +6:00
shewuvsyou
4 January, 2016, 8:54 AM UTC
I want to see faster troop training times so badly. It's really stupid in its current state, like laughably ridiculous.
I'll drown when I see you.
UTC -7:00
Mehnslayer
4 January, 2016, 8:58 AM UTC
shewuvsyou said:

I want to see faster troop training times so badly. It's really stupid in its current state, like laughably ridiculous.
Agreed
E 'n la sua volontade è nostra pace
UTC +10:00
Lord Oberon
Administrator
4 January, 2016, 12:06 PM UTC
With faster build times everyone would just have proportionally bigger armies. What purpose does that serve?
Oberon, Heir of Veyon, Scion of the Firstborn, Lord Regent of Stormfall
UTC +2:00
Mehnslayer
4 January, 2016, 12:18 PM UTC

Lord Oberon said:


With faster build times everyone would just have proportionally bigger armies. What purpose does that serve?

It wouldn't work on a 1:1 scale,

Lets assume that you make 50 archers per day now and 200 tomorrow, I would be much more willing to lose 100 archers then 25 (half of production) because I gain more out of it, those extra 75 archers can help towards hamlet production, or more power points for pvp...

Hamlets attempted to fix the issue of defending with 1 archer... but everyone defends with 1 archer because 2 archers takes 5 minutes which will never (with the new system) be worth it. Player's are not willing to lose what they have because the que times are so incredibly long and torturous. I have seen people with ques for 2+ years. 

Plarium wants to incentivize PvP, because units cost sapphires to buy/revive... Player's dont want to use/lose units because they cost excessive amounts of time/sapphires to reproduce. For 99% of the SF population, no one can risk units outside of PvP tournaments because they will take so long to earn back what they lost.

If player A makes 1 knight at 40 minutes and Player B makes 2 nomads at 40 minutes vs if they make them at 15 minutes... or less, they will be more likely to use them, because it wasn't such a huge grind to get them to begin with. 

E 'n la sua volontade è nostra pace
UTC +10:00
Gadheras
4 January, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

Lord Oberon said:


With faster build times everyone would just have proportionally bigger armies. What purpose does that serve?

The size of your army would deppend on your resources to build from. Eventually you reach the point where your food production can't keep up, and you need to raid for food to be able to build units at all. Bigger armies means bigger fights too, but fast build times, mean people can recover fast and get back into the fray again at some level. If you lose a few mill offense in a fight it's not like you will have the army recovered by next day regardless unless you coin, because the number of resources it take to build such an army.


I don't want to compare this game to Age of Empires (the old rts game), but, that is still one of my favourite PVP games playing it in multiplayer. You could battle back and forth but the key to success was your resources and production of. You could lay down lots of barracks and they would keep churn out unit after unit every second as long as you had resources to keep up the production.


Lets say the unit proudction was near instant. Means I can go raid, pvp right off the bat. I would be more inclined to take higher risks attacking and defending. So what if I lose? I can faster rebuild by raiding for resources, or god forbid, I spend sapphires on resources to help rebuild as I find myself need one kind of resource more than another.


Those that already spending on rev and buy units straight would still do so. Not like they get magical more resources than anyone else.


You want bigger and more fights? you want to see Stormfall burn? Up the unit production and you see blood running. Losing big shouldn't set you back weeks even months. A few days, a week? Sure...  an active player can claw himself back up fast. It gives incentive to keep hang around and play the game after get a solid kick in the nads...



UTC +2:00
Lord Oberon
Administrator
4 January, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

While all that may sound good in theory it is impossible to predict what would actually happen if we lower the build times. As of now we have a balance that most players seem to be comfortable with and we simply do not want to fix what isn't broken. 


This would be a huge change and we don't have any actual evidence that it would work the way you described it, and right now we don't have the ability to test it and to collect data that would convince us this change is a much needed one. 
Oberon, Heir of Veyon, Scion of the Firstborn, Lord Regent of Stormfall
UTC +2:00
Gadheras
4 January, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

Lord Oberon said:


While all that may sound good in theory it is impossible to predict what would actually happen if we lower the build times. As of now we have a balance that most players seem to be comfortable with and we simply do not want to fix what isn't broken. 


This would be a huge change and we don't have any actual evidence that it would work the way you described it, and right now we don't have the ability to test it and to collect data that would convince us this change is a much needed one. 

How about spawn a test server, and see what happens then to collect data. Because what you have to day is not a very emergent gameplay. You want to be a pvp game, but the players reluctant to take fights and high risks. Because, lack of rewards to justify the time it take to build units and recover.


I have very much the feeling, no one at Plarium actually gamers at all, its just a bunch of suits that do business, and got no clue why therer doesnt happen more pvp with big fights in their products. What games do you play on your leisure time? Im just trying to relate here...


All these dead and abandoned castles around in Stormfall just help proves something not right, People doesn't come back for more over and over, which should be the very draw for a pvp game. With other mmo's and multiplayer pvp games I play. I can logon have a blast for 2 hours, I can get my teeth kicked in and still have a laugh and next day I might be back for more. I get my teeth kicked in, in stormfall and Im out for a very long time, if can even bother come back deppending on how severe.

Delete any castles in the game that havent been logged into the last 30 days, how many would we be left with ?

What is the average playing time for someone before they stop log in and what is the most common reason for stop log in ? This should all be data you guys sitting on and could fetch easily. You can't really look at all the inactive castles out there and say, things working perfect, you already got a broken game.



UTC +2:00
shewuvsyou
4 January, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

Lord Oberon said:


While all that may sound good in theory it is impossible to predict what would actually happen if we lower the build times. As of now we have a balance that most players seem to be comfortable with and we simply do not want to fix what isn't broken. 


This would be a huge change and we don't have any actual evidence that it would work the way you described it, and right now we don't have the ability to test it and to collect data that would convince us this change is a much needed one. 

That's such a disgusting point-of-view and excuse. "Most players" even though out of the few people that actually use the forum have voted yes to changing the actual speed of training units. But no, you'll keep saying the majority feel otherwise.


The queue times are YEARS long. LITERALLY YEARS. And you sit there telling people that, "Oh, we're not sure if it would be a good idea to change it." Any change at this point towards faster build times would be an improvement. The reason you feed us this garbage is because you know as well as we do that if you do that, you'll lose short-term profit.


What a joke.

I'll drown when I see you.
UTC -7:00
Mehnslayer
4 January, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

shewuvsyou said:


Lord Oberon said:


While all that may sound good in theory it is impossible to predict what would actually happen if we lower the build times. As of now we have a balance that most players seem to be comfortable with and we simply do not want to fix what isn't broken. 


This would be a huge change and we don't have any actual evidence that it would work the way you described it, and right now we don't have the ability to test it and to collect data that would convince us this change is a much needed one. 

That's such a disgusting point-of-view and excuse. "Most players" even though out of the few people that actually use the forum have voted yes to changing the actual speed of training units. But no, you'll keep saying the majority feel otherwise.


The queue times are YEARS long. LITERALLY YEARS. And you sit there telling people that, "Oh, we're not sure if it would be a good idea to change it." Any change at this point towards faster build times would be an improvement. The reason you feed us this garbage is because you know as well as we do that if you do that, you'll lose short-term profit.


What a joke.

I have no doubt Plarium could change this today and it would have "undesired" effects, however the extent of said effects might be very minimal. I have said 100 times before that providing directly for the customer will always be a better payout then providing for a company. That said, good updates coming  

E 'n la sua volontade è nostra pace
UTC +10:00
Gadheras
4 January, 2016, 11:25 PM UTC

Mehnslayer said:


shewuvsyou said:


Lord Oberon said:


While all that may sound good in theory it is impossible to predict what would actually happen if we lower the build times. As of now we have a balance that most players seem to be comfortable with and we simply do not want to fix what isn't broken. 


This would be a huge change and we don't have any actual evidence that it would work the way you described it, and right now we don't have the ability to test it and to collect data that would convince us this change is a much needed one. 

That's such a disgusting point-of-view and excuse. "Most players" even though out of the few people that actually use the forum have voted yes to changing the actual speed of training units. But no, you'll keep saying the majority feel otherwise.


The queue times are YEARS long. LITERALLY YEARS. And you sit there telling people that, "Oh, we're not sure if it would be a good idea to change it." Any change at this point towards faster build times would be an improvement. The reason you feed us this garbage is because you know as well as we do that if you do that, you'll lose short-term profit.


What a joke.

I have no doubt Plarium could change this today and it would have "undesired" effects, however the extent of said effects might be very minimal. I have said 100 times before that providing directly for the customer will always be a better payout then providing for a company. That said, good updates coming  


There is not really anything they can come up with that will make this game so much better, if you still have to wait forever to recover from a loss. That particular problem will remain regardless of how much frosting they put on top of the cake, regardless its free or not.


There is a saying, you can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig....  :p





UTC +2:00
Invokers
5 January, 2016, 12:55 AM UTC

Lord Oberon said:


While all that may sound good in theory it is impossible to predict what would actually happen if we lower the build times. As of now we have a balance that most players seem to be comfortable with and we simply do not want to fix what isn't broken. 

What about fixing all that is broken?

Invokers
UTC +1:00
Lord Oberon
Administrator
5 January, 2016, 9:34 AM UTC

Like what, Lord Invokers? We have a list of bugs that need to be fixed. If you know some bugs that we don't know about, we'd gladly investigate and fix them if possible. 


That's such a disgusting point-of-view and excuse. "Most players" even though out of the few people that actually use the forum have voted yes to changing the actual speed of training units. But no, you'll keep saying the majority feel otherwise.

By simply playing and supporting the game in its current state the players confirm they are being comfortable with the rules of the game. Right now we have enough active players to not consider any drastic changes to the rules or to not consider any changes the effect of which we aren't able to predict.

Oberon, Heir of Veyon, Scion of the Firstborn, Lord Regent of Stormfall
UTC +2:00
Mehnslayer
5 January, 2016, 9:36 AM UTC
Lord Oberon said:


By simply playing and supporting the game in it's current state the players confirm they are being comfortable with rules of the game. Right now we have enough active players to not consider any drastic changes to the rules or to not consider any changes the effect of which we aren't able to predict.

Hence why battlegrounds were changed... Right 
E 'n la sua volontade è nostra pace
UTC +10:00
Lord Oberon
Administrator
5 January, 2016, 9:40 AM UTC
Battlegrounds were changed because there were numerous complaints saying "I haven't been receiving any payouts for a while, the system must be broken". 
Oberon, Heir of Veyon, Scion of the Firstborn, Lord Regent of Stormfall
UTC +2:00
Mehnslayer
5 January, 2016, 9:45 AM UTC
Lord Oberon said:

Battlegrounds were changed because there were numerous complaints saying "I haven't been receiving any payouts for a while, the system must be broken". 
"System must be broken" Nah, its just a glitch in the matrix... Maybe they sent some pikes and they disappeared into the sunset.
E 'n la sua volontade è nostra pace
UTC +10:00
Gadheras
5 January, 2016, 9:46 AM UTC

Lord Oberon said:


Like what, Lord Invokers? We have a list of bugs that need to be fixed. If you know some bugs that we don't know about, we'd gladly investigate and fix them if possible. 


That's such a disgusting point-of-view and excuse. "Most players" even though out of the few people that actually use the forum have voted yes to changing the actual speed of training units. But no, you'll keep saying the majority feel otherwise.

By simply playing and supporting the game in it's current state the players confirm they are being comfortable with rules of the game. Right now we have enough active players to not consider any drastic changes to the rules or to not consider any changes the effect of which we aren't able to predict.


What about the players left and stopped play the game, does those count as negative votes, or not regarded at all? If I get a total loss tomorrow and think its not worth the hassle go on anylonger because I dont want to spend the next 2 months rebuild. I guess you would be happy because one less poster on the forum that would like to see changes?


How about, at current time Im playing the game, but it's not because I support Plarium, but its because I support my league. How many players do you think find themself in the same situation.  I dare you to put in place a proper feedback system in the game, where the players can state how they feel about certain aspects of the game.

How manty people do we have to get to flood the forums with request for a change for Plarium to consider it? If I would start contact every fracking marshall in the game, and start a campaign for such a change, what would be the magic number? 100, 1000? 10000 ? You have a minority of your players using the forum and posting on it, and still most of them is of the same opinion of the active posters. Doesn't that count for anything?


What is your favourite passtime Oberon is it waiting? Please tell me.

UTC +2:00
Gadheras
5 January, 2016, 9:48 AM UTC

Lord Oberon said:


Battlegrounds were changed because there were numerous complaints saying "I haven't been receiving any payouts for a while, the system must be broken". 

I can't really seem to remember seen those numberous complaints. I seen a lot of complaints about the current state though....



UTC +2:00
1665662 users registered; 33893 topics; 253509 posts; our newest member:slayer117