This topic is closed

Your Suggestions

800 Replies
sison
13 August, 2016, 10:37 AM UTC

Hello guys

I don't know if plarium has enough staff to read our suggestions.they should they are business and they should

my complalin is why big leagues or money leagues can do what they want

in this game those who spent the more do what they want why there is no limits

why the big leagues can have as much beacon they want and why you don't make a second map for the big leagues once they reach a specific amount of beacons on the main map they go on the elite map were is beacons only for the big leagues and there will be competition between big leagues for the first position at the same time they don't have the right to touch the beacon of the main map after they have taken a specific number of beacons(7 or 8 or 10 )on the main map(the map were is all the leagues small and big )

you can think about this second additional elite map so  we have a chance to play as a smaller leagues and we don't have the bullying or the fear of them


Hi! Yes, we do read each suggestion, and give our feedback to all players. This topic has been brought up before. Smaller Leagues have been asking us to create some kind of Beacons only for them. We came up with an idea to create League Fortresses so all leagues could have their own Fortress, protect it like a Beacon, and get some benefits from it (bonuses, territory, etc.). 


Unfortunately, we are unable to create different maps on the same server. And even if we could,  there would be stronger Leagues that would dominate over the map.

If you have any ideas what else could be done for smaller Leagues, let us know and we will consider your ideas.
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
13 August, 2016, 11:49 AM UTC

Find a better way to measure league ranking. You can have a league with a fewy few high level players and a league maxed with low, medium ranked players and they would prob end up higher in the rankings.

How about make league rankings based on the leagues total army strenght, or aprox. strenght. 


League Rankings are based on several things which indicate their power. I agree that some really powerful leagues can have no Beacons, no Fortress, be low-ranked, but have a huge army. I suppose you're talking more about Flags Tournament than the Rankings itself. I will pass it to our devs, but I cannot guarantee that they will accept your suggestion to set Tiers according to the strength. 
UTC +2:00
Unknown_Ranger
13 August, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

Suggestion : drop the freaking animations in flash or shockwave or whatever you use. IT'S KILLING THE GAME. Gamebility is reduced to almost nothing due to those animations, specially the one with the twinkling sapphire.

 
Our developers are aware of Flash player issues. They will find a way to increase our game performance.
UTC +2:00
FAILO
13 August, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

Heat tournaments

the way the heat tournament are currently displayed as 1 tourney box for each heat is distracting and gets in the way of other tournaments, so my suggestion is can you add all the heats for the heat tournaments to one tournament box and you can chose the heat you'd like to view from a main tournament box.


Heats will not stay here for long, so we are unlikely to make any changes to them right now.
UTC +0:00
vakonziko
14 August, 2016, 9:47 AM UTC

Someone already explained why I want limit removal on iron/gold packs. It will not hurt anyone, some people can't bother raiding so they want to buy them. I don't see why we should have limit on those since food does not have it. Also would like to see lower prices for those packs. Its very hard to keep your barracks busy and in the same time upgrade 4 buildings ( I have 4 craftsmans ) plus upgrade lost arts. Some lost arts like dragon/chimera take 100-200k ea, big buildings also insane ress prices and plus you have to build troops. Those limits like on raiding and ress packs are needless. Time consuming games never have limits on those, this is the only thing that makes you play more than 5 min per day those games if you have no limit( because you set up everything and go off again now ).


Passed to devs.
UTC +0:00
xyz-co-ordinates
14 August, 2016, 12:31 PM UTC

I need you to balance cheap farming and cheap sieging through eternity, by and through automaticly generating wraiths at left behind castles.


All and ever abandoned village, should have at least 1 wraith generated, that wraith being the wraith of Gaea itself, each addicional day 1 addicional wraith, accorded to the castle level (not player level), till a maximum is reached. (This can be accomplished in one day).


At the same time, wraiths being costless, all abandoned, left behind, or with no activity for more then 3 days, should have the wraiths removed from the crypt to roam the castle itself (also allows for checking if a wraith has been lost and can be regenerated).


Clearly enough, if I was the caretaker of a cementerial lot, then that would be proper


This wraith generation should be able to overcome cheap sieges and allow cementarial lot maintainers to place more.


Declined. We are not planning to change the mechanics of Sieges or create additional features to change Sieges.

UTC -4:00
Daisygirl
14 August, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

Lady Nerium KT-S2 said:


I don't think I've seen this as a suggestion before, but I apologize if it has come up already.


Can you make if possible to choose LORD or LADY on your profile, so people can tell which gender you are playing as? Many names are gender neutral and I am aware that the name isn't any real indicator of which you are in RL, since many choose to play otherwise, but it would make it easier to figure out how to address people on email or chat.  


But you have a Hero now to show your gender to everyone.

If you are suggesting the hero shows the gender you are playing as, the game should at least have equal options for male and female heroes, rather than two male options and only one female option! 


We are not planning to add more Heroes for now. However, we may reconsider this in the future.
UTC +6:00
Daisygirl
14 August, 2016, 7:22 PM UTC

Could you add the league icon to the players picture when you view the Garrisons in the keep?



Passed to devs.

UTC +6:00
Fortuneteller
14 August, 2016, 8:41 PM UTC

Gadheras said:


Find a better way to measure league ranking. You can have a league with a fewy few high level players and a league maxed with low, medium ranked players and they would prob end up higher in the rankings.

How about make league rankings based on the leagues total army strenght, or aprox. strenght. 

Hi there, I think it is a great idea to reconsider how rankings are calculated. However, I don't think solving the problem solely on troop strength is a good indicator. It poses a security risk to leagues. A higher rank basically would mean having larger army and with some clever thinking you could have an educated guess on the total size of the army a league possesses Also would Off or Def count more or the same? They are essentially different units and can't be compared based on their strengths. Then what about leagues with great Def power but significantly lower Off? would they be worth less or more in the rankings? ... lots of questions that need clarifying here i think. 

The only thing I miss in the achievement section is the notion of time. How fast a league can develop and grow? And subsequently how fast they decline. This achievement I have in mind would be flexible, changing according to the growth or decline of a league. This would move leagues around the table to their more likely place over time. What do you think?

FT
UTC +0:00
Gadheras
14 August, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

Fortuneteller said:


Gadheras said:


Find a better way to measure league ranking. You can have a league with a fewy few high level players and a league maxed with low, medium ranked players and they would prob end up higher in the rankings.

How about make league rankings based on the leagues total army strenght, or aprox. strenght. 

Hi there, I think it is a great idea to reconsider how rankings are calculated. However, I don't think solving the problem solely on troop strength is a good indicator. It poses a security risk to leagues. A higher rank basically would mean having larger army and with some clever thinking you could have an educated guess on the total size of the army a league possesses Also would Off or Def count more or the same? They are essentially different units and can't be compared based on their strengths. Then what about leagues with great Def power but significantly lower Off? would they be worth less or more in the rankings? ... lots of questions that need clarifying here i think. 

The only thing I miss in the achievement section is the notion of time. How fast a league can develop and grow? And subsequently how fast they decline. This achievement I have in mind would be flexible, changing according to the growth or decline of a league. This would move leagues around the table to their more likely place over time. What do you think?


Well you would never know the composition. but pitching leagues with heavy coiners up vs those that have little of that. Just not really that fair.
UTC +2:00
Ichezis
15 August, 2016, 8:44 AM UTC

Legion Expansion Tournament

In this Tournament, it's all about building units. Each unit built should give a specific amount of points.
As for the rewards, they could be similar to other tournaments, or something new perhaps (e.g Mainly (Legendary) Units, or boosters, etc.)! 

Take heed; Purchased units through the Black Market should NOT count! As for Battleground-earned units, feel free to discuss.


Why not? let's discuss all the details.

Plarium Global Moderator; "We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone."
UTC +2:00
Rodeo
15 August, 2016, 8:56 AM UTC
brunsonthomas said:

Reading other posts I came across an idea. Could we get something like Balur Outposts where leagues could practice league attacks or multiple players working together without having to cause a war by hitting Beacons or fortresses, something similar to BattleGrounds but for teams with comparable returns but no banks simply a score for completely destroying all units and multiple levels so that players can achieve not only experience but points as well by working as a team?


That's an interesting idea, and I will ask our devs if there's any chance we could do something like that. Until then, you can discuss this suggestion in Game Discussion thread with other players.
In fact this should be the Concept behind the Saga Quest in Battleground.
UTC +5:00
Rodeo
15 August, 2016, 12:55 PM UTC

Hamlets if already occupied by one player leave another player with only  3 option.


Option 1 -  Attack

Option 2 - Capture

Option 3 - Dispatch Spy


If any player choose to go for Option 1 - then there should be an indication like (incoming attack in XXX Sec)

If any player choose to go for Option 2 - then there should be an indication like (another player is capturing it  in XXX Sec)

If any player choose to go for Option 3 - then there should not be any indication.


Hope you consider this suggestion.


This will definitely not kill the thrill in the Game...

Actually we're working on one new feature that will give you something similar to this indication. 


UTC +5:00
Lord Mark
16 August, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

Lord Mark said:


Can we have Paragon 11? or sell the extra points above paragon 10 


Will be added with one of the future updates.

When we will have paragon 11 ? 


Our devs are working on it. But I doubt it will be implemented soon. They have a lot of new features to work on.
UTC +0:00
zach-rose11
16 August, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

Could it be possible for maybe, just maybe that the actual developers host a thread where the masses can ask them to implement changes and not have a middle man saying yes or no? No offense, but I see mostly declined and the answers you give are pretty blunt to why you think it would not work. Just a thought, since half of the ideas in this thread would greatly improve the game, and they just get shot down.


Unfortunately, no. Our developers have other tasks to do, so they don't read Forums. We have 8 games, 4 Forums in different languages for each one of them, groups on Facebook, in Russian social networks, Forums on other game portals. And it takes a lot of time to check all of them and answer players' suggestions daily.

I attend each meeting with our developers concerning players' suggestions. And most of the suggestions I see in Forums have been suggested before, in one game or another. Some of them are unique. If they are good enough, I always pass them. However, there are some points which our devs are pretty clear at. If your suggestion was discussed with our devs before, or it fits some criteria to decline it (like Flash or browser limitations, possibility to be abused by alts or sellers, going against our game mechanics, basic principles of the game, current plans, etc.), it is declined.

It's not my personal opinion. If I have any doubts and I don't know if we can do that, I always pass a suggestion. 
UTC +5:00
Court Jester
16 August, 2016, 9:56 PM UTC

how about on friends list the inactive ones get shown a different color like yellow then red , so we dont have to search through the whole league list looking   thanks in advance for accepting this great suggestion 


Do you mean they should be marked as "Long Ago" or something if you have them in your League? I've heard that we are planning some big changes to the UI and Friends bar. So it could be a good addition to the new look.
workingdog
UTC +6:00
djmoody
17 August, 2016, 1:17 AM UTC

vakonziko said:


Someone already explained why I want limit removal on iron/gold packs. It will not hurt anyone, some people can't bother raiding so they want to buy them. I don't see why we should have limit on those since food does not have it. Also would like to see lower prices for those packs. Its very hard to keep your barracks busy and in the same time upgrade 4 buildings ( I have 4 craftsmans ) plus upgrade lost arts. Some lost arts like dragon/chimera take 100-200k ea, big buildings also insane ress prices and plus you have to build troops. Those limits like on raiding and ress packs are needless. Time consuming games never have limits on those, this is the only thing that makes you play more than 5 min per day those games if you have no limit( because you set up everything and go off again now ).


Passed to devs.

Absolutely do not support this.

Pack limits prevent uncontrolled coining. Why any normal player would suggest this is beyond me.

No packs are required by someone actively playing the game and raiding properly.


Sorry, but, there's no reason to set such high limits. This suggestion was already accepted, and we will raise the limits or remove them. I'm not sure what will be the implementation.

What can coiners do with those packs? Add more Units to the queue? Upgrade their buildings? Is that so bad? As long as they can't attack you with Resource packs, it's ok.
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
djmoody
17 August, 2016, 1:25 AM UTC

Fortuneteller said:


Gadheras said:


Find a better way to measure league ranking. You can have a league with a fewy few high level players and a league maxed with low, medium ranked players and they would prob end up higher in the rankings.

How about make league rankings based on the leagues total army strenght, or aprox. strenght. 

Hi there, I think it is a great idea to reconsider how rankings are calculated. However, I don't think solving the problem solely on troop strength is a good indicator. It poses a security risk to leagues. A higher rank basically would mean having larger army and with some clever thinking you could have an educated guess on the total size of the army a league possesses Also would Off or Def count more or the same? They are essentially different units and can't be compared based on their strengths. Then what about leagues with great Def power but significantly lower Off? would they be worth less or more in the rankings? ... lots of questions that need clarifying here i think. 

The only thing I miss in the achievement section is the notion of time. How fast a league can develop and grow? And subsequently how fast they decline. This achievement I have in mind would be flexible, changing according to the growth or decline of a league. This would move leagues around the table to their more likely place over time. What do you think?

Horrible horrible horrible idea. Must not be considered for 1 second.

It's not having a big army that is an achievement it's what you do with it. This is a strategy game. 

I am still really worried by the suggestions forum format. Way too many really bad ideas being raised by players, rather than their threads being squashed by negative feedback from players, hidden on page xx of this thread and possible considered by Plarium. This format seems to require just 1 player to ask for something and at random they might get it regardless of what the rest of the player base feel of the idea.


You can always come here to discuss other players' ideas. The one you've mentioned above wasn't passed.
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
djmoody
17 August, 2016, 1:29 AM UTC

PS when are we getting the change to the ranking level that allows visibility of beacon defence?

We were told it was coming nearly a year ago.

Had 2 members complaining about ranks today. Very unhappy. Suicide to rank members above soldier and risk spies getting your beacon intel. SO just have to keep dealing with unhappy members who feel their contribution isn't being rewarded.

We tried ranks offline, communicated via our own forum but people want the a visible reward in game that all can see. As leaders we would like to encourage ppl to remain motivated and with the game by acknowledging progress and achievement.

From previous feedback it isn't going to be marshal definable (like the ability to see members off and def stats). Don;t know why that is, but if it is fixed please move the rank to captains.


Haven't heard any updates on that. But it has been added to the plans. Will remind about it when I have a chance.

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
Gadheras
17 August, 2016, 1:43 PM UTC
djmoody said:

vakonziko said:


Someone already explained why I want limit removal on iron/gold packs. It will not hurt anyone, some people can't bother raiding so they want to buy them. I don't see why we should have limit on those since food does not have it. Also would like to see lower prices for those packs. Its very hard to keep your barracks busy and in the same time upgrade 4 buildings ( I have 4 craftsmans ) plus upgrade lost arts. Some lost arts like dragon/chimera take 100-200k ea, big buildings also insane ress prices and plus you have to build troops. Those limits like on raiding and ress packs are needless. Time consuming games never have limits on those, this is the only thing that makes you play more than 5 min per day those games if you have no limit( because you set up everything and go off again now ).


Passed to devs.

Absolutely do not support this.

Pack limits prevent uncontrolled coining. Why any normal player would suggest this is beyond me.

No packs are required by someone actively playing the game and raiding properly.

coiners already spend a fortune on rev units, buy units and all kind of other stuff. To even make good use of resource packs, you would have to buy time boosters in addition.  With time being a factor and storage of resources. I dont really see a big issue with it compared to lot of other stuff.
UTC +2:00
1720641 users registered; 42307 topics; 270768 posts; our newest member:skuratvn72