Making more units available for battle

8 Replies
db dbomb
10 July, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

  It seems kinda pointless to me that players can build , quit the game and than can have units just stuck in the catacombs in limbo...not doing anything...not benefiting anyone. Seems like a big waste of stored data.


What if...............

  After a certain amount of time of players inactivity..units left the cats and were moved into the keep (i know players come back to the game regularly) the amount of time is arbitrary....could be 30 , 60 or more days??

  I know that troops will not desert even if there is no food available for them , but what if....after not being fed for X amount of days any troops in the catacombs would be moved into the keep??


  Just some ideas that could benefit active players, cut down on the amount of storage needed for the servers and maybe encourage players to either maintain some level of activity or risk losing what they have accumulated.

UTC +5:00
Nickname
11 July, 2016, 7:38 AM UTC

If what you suggesting was implemented people would start storing theirs troops in beacons, active leaguemates castles or level 2 castle next to them.

What Plarium should do is to work on player retention, because right know, with each update introducing changes requiring more money to be competitive, i see more and more inactive castles around me.

I used to spent at least hour a day playing this game, now i just log in for the scroll and i am on my merry way out of here.

UTC +2:00
Snowgoon
11 July, 2016, 9:53 AM UTC

Most players have learnt that solo defense is suicide - why bother?

Defenders do not get the same rewards as attackers, and will always lose a high percentage of their units when they choose to defend. A defender will lose more than 50% even when they win against identical strength.
Building huge castle walls is expensive and is a tax on defenders.


The imbalance between offense and defense is the culprit here, and I would urge all players to keep defense in their catacombs until rewards are improved (and casualties reduced)

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way - Pink Floyd - http://prnt.sc/dv923b
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
11 July, 2016, 3:01 PM UTC

Tony Hobson said:


Most players have learnt that solo defense is suicide - why bother?

Defenders do not get the same rewards as attackers, and will always lose a high percentage of their units when they choose to defend. A defender will lose more than 50% even when they win against identical strength.
Building huge castle walls is expensive and is a tax on defenders.


The imbalance between offense and defense is the culprit here, and I would urge all players to keep defense in their catacombs until rewards are improved (and casualties reduced)


Strenght of DEF should been increased quite a bit. A defending part for most part got the benefit of being entrenched. And if an attacking party get penalized due to defender got walls and such, well that should be the cost of attacking other players.
UTC +2:00
IronApex Turok
11 July, 2016, 4:07 PM UTC

"entrenched"


nailed it.


this game has become more of trench warfare game.  everyone digs a whole, and from time to time, lobs  grenade (fireball) out. 



if  you arent a beacon league theres no point in even building defense.
UTC +0:00
db dbomb
12 July, 2016, 3:15 AM UTC

That was kinda my logic with this...no one really wants to defend...which makes raiding seiging less interesting (and obtaining these talked about "free sapphires" all that more difficult) you guys said it....its just not worth it to defend.

If i could see what was incoming i may be more inclined to   A) decide to defend against certain hits    B) if I did decide to defend at least I could select the proper defending units to minimize my losses thereby slightly reducing the huge bias thats in favor or the attacker.

UTC +5:00
db dbomb
12 July, 2016, 3:26 AM UTC
Nickname said:

If what you suggesting was implemented people would start storing theirs troops in beacons, active leaguemates castles or level 2 castle next to them.

What Plarium should do is to work on player retention, because right know, with each update introducing changes requiring more money to be competitive, i see more and more inactive castles around me.

I used to spent at least hour a day playing this game, now i just log in for the scroll and i am on my merry way out of here.

Agreed...Im sure thats what would end up happening...however if they did , at least they would be "in play" and accessible to anyone hitting their locations.
UTC +5:00
brunsonthomas
Moderator
12 July, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC
db dbomb said:

Nickname said:

If what you suggesting was implemented people would start storing theirs troops in beacons, active leaguemates castles or level 2 castle next to them.

What Plarium should do is to work on player retention, because right know, with each update introducing changes requiring more money to be competitive, i see more and more inactive castles around me.

I used to spent at least hour a day playing this game, now i just log in for the scroll and i am on my merry way out of here.

Agreed...Im sure thats what would end up happening...however if they did , at least they would be "in play" and accessible to anyone hitting their locations.
I agree that players should be encouraged to play more. Not so that other players can hit them but so that there are more active players to take part in events.
UTC +5:00
IronApex Turok
12 July, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

brunsonthomas said:



I agree that players should be encouraged to play more. Not so that other players can hit them but so that there are more active players to take part in events.

as of right now, its pointless to take defense out of the catacombs, rendering events pointless.


what to you think plarium should do to remedy this?
UTC +0:00
1664831 users registered; 34025 topics; 253229 posts; our newest member:sheima004