This topic is closed

Restore Balance to the Game

75 Replies
Oracle
4 May, 2017, 1:11 PM UTC

Jezebel said:


The revival of the old thread "Units will not be dismissed" has gotten me thinking - I will probably get murdered for suggesting this but why not change this back to the old system where if you did not have food you would lose units - with all the game updates one could still potentially have a big army but balance could be restored to the game


Before this change units in catacombs were not lost, units in people's castles for WOD's and on beacons were not lost - the only time units were lost was if they were sitting in your castle or travelling on a mission


WAIT!!! before you all get up in arms about this suggestion .... you can upgrade your farms to Level 25 which you could not before, you can buy 25% boosts and also 50% food consumption reductions, you can also upgrade your catacombs to level 26 so you will not lose new builds - you can use teleports and spells to speed up your units on their missions so there is no need for them to be outside of your castle for a long time - THIS is the only way to create any type of game balance - it would take 6 months to a year but eventually the people with massive armies would be brought down to scale a bit and then there may be more incentive for others to spend MODERATELY on this game

the MODERATE spending would come from the need to upgrade farms and catacombs and the spells and teleports etc


There would be fewer league stacked castles as one could potentially defend on their own without losing everything


Just food for thought - I know many will be opposed but how else can balance be restored?

A level 1 player can't do all that. Unless he spend a great deal of money and time. And most food problems are at lower levels. when you have 15K archers and 10K pikes, and a negative food production. Unless you spend then you are more likely to have BIG problems with deserting army. You can stay for years with the same amount of army, because whatever you will be building you will have high chance to lose in the next battle you engage on.

but with Big players they have 30% relic, many 50% food consumption reduction items, many food production boost, and benefits from league achievements, and fort food consumption reduction, hero abilities, an dragon arts food production arts ect. 

If All players have those when they start, then food won't be a problem. But if you consider that they don't, you will realize its a bad idea. small players will progress at a lower rate than players who came before them, that is if they are given a chance to progress of all. 

The will likely be no boost in game activity, but rather a decrease. many player depend on the upgrade. So those with more than 100K units will likely do less PvP and just catacomb their troops. 
Biohazard has killed the forum.
UTC +2:00
0
Gadheras
4 May, 2017, 4:13 PM UTC
Oracle said:

Gadheras said:


Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


It has already been discussed on forum. We will not reverse the update which happened 2 years ago :) It's a step forward for our game, and we want to see more epic battles.

its nothing epic about get bashed by far larger players you cant do anything about you know. Kinda like Russia Vs Ukraine, you know?


its not always that bigger players win. We have learned a lot of that in real life, USA vs Vietnam, USA vs Ethiopia. it depend on strategy and the end goal. With many other things being put into play. Espionage,Time , Leadership , Military doctrine and Moral influence are also involved. 

In one post a mod go after me for compare game elements to real life. And here you bring forth horrible real world wars as example? lol. If you small in stormfall you are little more than food and a plaything for the larger. Force Vs Force the bigger wins. And if you by chance catch some biggger dude in the open, and you are much smaller. The aftermath that come is not fun.
UTC +2:00
2
Jezebel
5 May, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

Oracle said:


Jezebel said:


The revival of the old thread "Units will not be dismissed" has gotten me thinking - I will probably get murdered for suggesting this but why not change this back to the old system where if you did not have food you would lose units - with all the game updates one could still potentially have a big army but balance could be restored to the game


Before this change units in catacombs were not lost, units in people's castles for WOD's and on beacons were not lost - the only time units were lost was if they were sitting in your castle or travelling on a mission


WAIT!!! before you all get up in arms about this suggestion .... you can upgrade your farms to Level 25 which you could not before, you can buy 25% boosts and also 50% food consumption reductions, you can also upgrade your catacombs to level 26 so you will not lose new builds - you can use teleports and spells to speed up your units on their missions so there is no need for them to be outside of your castle for a long time - THIS is the only way to create any type of game balance - it would take 6 months to a year but eventually the people with massive armies would be brought down to scale a bit and then there may be more incentive for others to spend MODERATELY on this game

the MODERATE spending would come from the need to upgrade farms and catacombs and the spells and teleports etc


There would be fewer league stacked castles as one could potentially defend on their own without losing everything


Just food for thought - I know many will be opposed but how else can balance be restored?

A level 1 player can't do all that. Unless he spend a great deal of money and time. And most food problems are at lower levels. when you have 15K archers and 10K pikes, and a negative food production. Unless you spend then you are more likely to have BIG problems with deserting army. You can stay for years with the same amount of army, because whatever you will be building you will have high chance to lose in the next battle you engage on.

but with Big players they have 30% relic, many 50% food consumption reduction items, many food production boost, and benefits from league achievements, and fort food consumption reduction, hero abilities, an dragon arts food production arts ect. 

If All players have those when they start, then food won't be a problem. But if you consider that they don't, you will realize its a bad idea. small players will progress at a lower rate than players who came before them, that is if they are given a chance to progress of all. 

The will likely be no boost in game activity, but rather a decrease. many player depend on the upgrade. So those with more than 100K units will likely do less PvP and just catacomb their troops. 

 a lower level player SHOULD have all these buildings to level 20 within 6 months - if they are participating in the tournaments that offer sketches as rewards by the time they get to level 20 they should have enough sketches to start the upgrades to higher levels - in addition the other items i spoke of are also given as rewards in tourneys - resource boosts, auto unit hiders, etc etc can all be earned without spending


no one should be ACCUMULATING that many archers and pikes they are only good to trade up for better units so kill the bastards!!  It does not take long to get to the occult lost arts if you join the RIGHT league that has an extensive scroll bank ;-)


Also if you RAID for resources you can accumulate enough food to hold  your castle for at least 8 - 12 hours while you are away from the game - before they changed things in the game I used to do a few food raids before I left for work and would still have food in my barns when i logged in the evening


The amount of troops i would lose from using my army at a high negative is already building in my Sentry House http://prntscr.com/f4lxng


YES Oracle I play the game I am one of those players that runs over -100k in food production

UTC +0:00
2
BeastMaster
6 May, 2017, 3:26 AM UTC

Providing a solution to balance that requires people to level multiple building to lvl 25 is a bit of a contradiction, surely?


It might be normal for you but it's not for the rest of us.
UTC +0:00
2
rguarrera
6 May, 2017, 1:04 PM UTC

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


Gadheras said:


Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


It has already been discussed on forum. We will not reverse the update which happened 2 years ago :) It's a step forward for our game, and we want to see more epic battles.

its nothing epic about get bashed by far larger players you cant do anything about you know. Kinda like Russia Vs Ukraine, you know?


Life isn't fair, so why would games be? :) There's always someone stronger, faster, or richer than you. Same in the game - there are players with bigger armies, more Resources, better equipment. You can't do anything about that. You can only learn how to deal with that and continue enjoying your game.

It reminds me of the good old days in Aika 2, where the enchantment could make you, that average players (as me at that time), couldn't deal you more than 1 dmg (not 1k, just 1 point). And imagine such a player running with a relic, surrounded by the crowd of a hundred people that can't even scratch him. And he also fights back killing most of them with a single AoE hit.

You could say that it was unfair that one player that used in-app purchases could be that strong. But nobody was crying or whining. We were training to work in teams to control him, so his allies couldn't actually benefit from his strength as they used to.

Strategic games are different, I agree. But there's always an option. 

This part of your post worries me.  The lack of balance in this game is staggering, and if this is the prevailing attitude then the game will be unplayable as time goes on.  Influx of new players requires a sense that you can actually play at higher levels - it is what motivates people to play in the first place.  Allowing this continually growing gap in gameplay can and likely will prevent new players from even trying.  New players are the lifeblood of any game.  


As an aside there is nothing "epic" about seeing these tremendous, coined armies.  The irrational spending actually looks ridiculous to any sane person. 
UTC +4:00
4
DrFondles
6 May, 2017, 7:32 PM UTC
Jezebel I'm one for jealous of your extensive beast and occ que buildup. I'm nowhere near that high of them
Josh/Synergy S3
UTC +0:00
0
Jezebel
7 May, 2017, 12:13 AM UTC
BeastMaster said:

Providing a solution to balance that requires people to level multiple building to lvl 25 is a bit of a contradiction, surely?


It might be normal for you but it's not for the rest of us.
This can be done without coining so yes its a better solution than continuing to let the big spenders control the game
UTC +0:00
2
Jezebel
7 May, 2017, 12:15 AM UTC

DrFondles said:


Jezebel I'm one for jealous of your extensive beast and occ que buildup. I'm nowhere near that high of them

daily raiding every day - all raids - for over two years 


until recently there was nothing else to spend resources on :)
UTC +0:00
0
DrFondles
7 May, 2017, 3:06 AM UTC
Jezebel said:

DrFondles said:


Jezebel I'm one for jealous of your extensive beast and occ que buildup. I'm nowhere near that high of them

daily raiding every day - all raids - for over two years 


until recently there was nothing else to spend resources on :)
Haha very true  I got lazy on my raids after 2015ish. Once they allowed to buy res, I was done for the most part of it hehe
Josh/Synergy S3
UTC +0:00
0
cannedam
7 May, 2017, 5:23 AM UTC

Jezebel said:


that was my point - most people cannot defend against these massive armies



Entire LEAGUES cannot defend against the massive armies.  And this is why so many people actually ARE leaving the game now.  (The threats fly all the time but NOW with massive defensive losses due to beacon and fortress hits done by a single player, leagues are losing players altogether because they're quitting the game in the face of such opposition that cannot be countered.)  This is not going to encourage people to spend more or play harder -- it's too much to compete with.  One person spending more than many people's annual incomes on the game = most of the rest of the players are ready to give up altogether.  If Plarium doesn't do something to counter this, they'll likely lose most of server 2.  I'm sure the combined spending of the moderates outstrips the spending of that one player and that player's spouse.    
UTC +5:00
3
cannedam
7 May, 2017, 5:28 AM UTC
Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

It has already been discussed on forum. We will not reverse the update which happened 2 years ago :) It's a step forward for our game, and we want to see more epic battles.
What you're going to see is more epic exoduses.  
UTC +5:00
4
djmoody
7 May, 2017, 9:18 PM UTC
Jezebel said:

BeastMaster said:

Providing a solution to balance that requires people to level multiple building to lvl 25 is a bit of a contradiction, surely?


It might be normal for you but it's not for the rest of us.
This can be done without coining so yes its a better solution than continuing to let the big spenders control the game
We should run a poll for that - see how many non-coiners have lvl 25 farms and catacombs. I would be expecting slighly different results than you I think.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
0
Oracle
8 May, 2017, 10:42 AM UTC

djmoody said:



We should run a poll for that - see how many non-coiners have lvl 25 farms and catacombs. I would be expecting slighly different results than you I think.

Zero, as a casual spender, I can honestly say I am still struggling to get to 21. With nothing no hope of getting resources to upgrade, my craftsmen have long retired. 

If it was in RL I would have hired them out for 10K sapphires

Biohazard has killed the forum.
UTC +2:00
0
Gadheras
8 May, 2017, 11:56 AM UTC
djmoody said:

Jezebel said:

BeastMaster said:

Providing a solution to balance that requires people to level multiple building to lvl 25 is a bit of a contradiction, surely?


It might be normal for you but it's not for the rest of us.
This can be done without coining so yes its a better solution than continuing to let the big spenders control the game
We should run a poll for that - see how many non-coiners have lvl 25 farms and catacombs. I would be expecting slighly different results than you I think.
think I got one farm at 21. :p
UTC +2:00
0
BiohazarD
Moderator
8 May, 2017, 1:56 PM UTC
rguarrera said:

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


Gadheras said:


Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


It has already been discussed on forum. We will not reverse the update which happened 2 years ago :) It's a step forward for our game, and we want to see more epic battles.

its nothing epic about get bashed by far larger players you cant do anything about you know. Kinda like Russia Vs Ukraine, you know?


Life isn't fair, so why would games be? :) There's always someone stronger, faster, or richer than you. Same in the game - there are players with bigger armies, more Resources, better equipment. You can't do anything about that. You can only learn how to deal with that and continue enjoying your game.

It reminds me of the good old days in Aika 2, where the enchantment could make you, that average players (as me at that time), couldn't deal you more than 1 dmg (not 1k, just 1 point). And imagine such a player running with a relic, surrounded by the crowd of a hundred people that can't even scratch him. And he also fights back killing most of them with a single AoE hit.

You could say that it was unfair that one player that used in-app purchases could be that strong. But nobody was crying or whining. We were training to work in teams to control him, so his allies couldn't actually benefit from his strength as they used to.

Strategic games are different, I agree. But there's always an option. 

This part of your post worries me.  The lack of balance in this game is staggering, and if this is the prevailing attitude then the game will be unplayable as time goes on.  Influx of new players requires a sense that you can actually play at higher levels - it is what motivates people to play in the first place.  Allowing this continually growing gap in gameplay can and likely will prevent new players from even trying.  New players are the lifeblood of any game.  


As an aside there is nothing "epic" about seeing these tremendous, coined armies.  The irrational spending actually looks ridiculous to any sane person. 
I don't know about epic, but it's certainly amusing seeing a 1 billion+ hammer hit a 10 million def beacon and only lose a few units...
Any opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of or constitute official statements by Plarium.
UTC +0:00
0
Gadheras
8 May, 2017, 2:06 PM UTC

BiohazarD said:


rguarrera said:


Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


Gadheras said:


Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


It has already been discussed on forum. We will not reverse the update which happened 2 years ago :) It's a step forward for our game, and we want to see more epic battles.

its nothing epic about get bashed by far larger players you cant do anything about you know. Kinda like Russia Vs Ukraine, you know?


Life isn't fair, so why would games be? :) There's always someone stronger, faster, or richer than you. Same in the game - there are players with bigger armies, more Resources, better equipment. You can't do anything about that. You can only learn how to deal with that and continue enjoying your game.

It reminds me of the good old days in Aika 2, where the enchantment could make you, that average players (as me at that time), couldn't deal you more than 1 dmg (not 1k, just 1 point). And imagine such a player running with a relic, surrounded by the crowd of a hundred people that can't even scratch him. And he also fights back killing most of them with a single AoE hit.

You could say that it was unfair that one player that used in-app purchases could be that strong. But nobody was crying or whining. We were training to work in teams to control him, so his allies couldn't actually benefit from his strength as they used to.

Strategic games are different, I agree. But there's always an option. 

This part of your post worries me.  The lack of balance in this game is staggering, and if this is the prevailing attitude then the game will be unplayable as time goes on.  Influx of new players requires a sense that you can actually play at higher levels - it is what motivates people to play in the first place.  Allowing this continually growing gap in gameplay can and likely will prevent new players from even trying.  New players are the lifeblood of any game.  


As an aside there is nothing "epic" about seeing these tremendous, coined armies.  The irrational spending actually looks ridiculous to any sane person. 
I don't know about epic, but it's certainly amusing seeing a 1 billion+ hammer hit a 10 million def beacon and only lose a few units...

Maybe the solution is to put a cap on the force multiplier. Lets face it, real world, fantasy whatever, there is only so much room for troops on the field of battle.  So rather than send a 1 billion hammer at anything, its just to big, and would need to be splitt, and rather have several attacks, because, attacking entrenched defenders should be costly. And we can find MANY historical battles as reference to this. Just look at recent days battle of and retake of Mosul. 


One thing Stormfall lack big time is siege equipment. Balistas, Trebuches. Siege towers, ladders, all you need to take fortified places. Imho the number of troops you can use to take a fortified position should been related to such equipment. Units climbing walls with bare hands is bad mojo.
UTC +2:00
1
rguarrera
8 May, 2017, 4:42 PM UTC

BiohazarD said:



I don't know about epic, but it's certainly amusing seeing a 1 billion+ hammer hit a 10 million def beacon and only lose a few units...

Which further increases the divide.  I can absolutely envision a scenario where the big hammers manage to discourage people from playing at all. It has happened and will continue to do so.  Without targets, said hammers can conceivably get bored enough to stop playing as well.  I doubt that the developers planned to facilitate this but it is incumbent upon them to address it if they intend to continue supporting this game.  Perhaps they do not - if so that would be good for players to know.  I will reiterate - new players are the lifeblood of any game. However if new players are never given the chance to compete, why would they play at all?
UTC +4:00
1
IronApex Turok
8 May, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

Gadheras said:




Maybe the solution is to put a cap on the force multiplier. Lets face it, real world, fantasy whatever, there is only so much room for troops on the field of battle.  So rather than send a 1 billion hammer at anything, its just to big, and would need to be splitt, and rather have several attacks, because, attacking entrenched defenders should be costly. And we can find MANY historical battles as reference to this. Just look at recent days battle of and retake of Mosul. 


One thing Stormfall lack big time is siege equipment. Balistas, Trebuches. Siege towers, ladders, all you need to take fortified places. Imho the number of troops you can use to take a fortified position should been related to such equipment. Units climbing walls with bare hands is bad mojo.

i used to play a game where you had to hire heros and you had to have a hero to send an attack under. each hero could lead so much power offense defending on his skills and power ups. 


of course, plarium would just let coiners buy the top level hero, so i guess it doesnt matter. 
UTC +0:00
0
Jezebel
8 May, 2017, 8:48 PM UTC

djmoody said:


Jezebel said:


BeastMaster said:


Providing a solution to balance that requires people to level multiple building to lvl 25 is a bit of a contradiction, surely?


It might be normal for you but it's not for the rest of us.
This can be done without coining so yes its a better solution than continuing to let the big spenders control the game
We should run a poll for that - see how many non-coiners have lvl 25 farms and catacombs. I would be expecting slighly different results than you I think.

Farms can easily be upgraded without coining they aren't expensive - if people are playing and earning saphs they CAN get the upgrades without coining - I suppose it would be a priority thing for most just like the craftsman when you first start playing you save your saphs for them - Catacombs are quite a bit more pricey but again I suppose it would all depend on what you think is a priority in your castle


Level 25 farm upgrade = 800 sketches 


I personally don't have all farms to level 21 yet as I don't have to and chose to upgrade my catacombs instead
UTC +0:00
0
Gadheras
8 May, 2017, 10:20 PM UTC
Jezebel said:

djmoody said:


Jezebel said:


BeastMaster said:


Providing a solution to balance that requires people to level multiple building to lvl 25 is a bit of a contradiction, surely?


It might be normal for you but it's not for the rest of us.
This can be done without coining so yes its a better solution than continuing to let the big spenders control the game
We should run a poll for that - see how many non-coiners have lvl 25 farms and catacombs. I would be expecting slighly different results than you I think.

Farms can easily be upgraded without coining they aren't expensive - if people are playing and earning saphs they CAN get the upgrades without coining - I suppose it would be a priority thing for most just like the craftsman when you first start playing you save your saphs for them - Catacombs are quite a bit more pricey but again I suppose it would all depend on what you think is a priority in your castle


Level 25 farm upgrade = 800 sketches 


I personally don't have all farms to level 21 yet as I don't have to and chose to upgrade my catacombs instead
Problem is, you can get sapphires from tournaments etc. but tbh, the rewards to bad. Why would I even want to do those awfull things when I get set back weeks and more in troop numbers, due to the god awfull time it take to train units. Faster unit training would help close the gap between big coiners and the rest. Issue is, Plarium doesn't want too, because it would make us able to take part in more tournaments more often. But they doesn't benefit from us win more sapphires do they?
UTC +2:00
0
1777018 users registered; 47942 topics; 285768 posts; our newest member:dhrjanssen