This topic is closed

Your Suggestions - 2

492 Replies
Alina Bright
Community Manager
23 February, 2017, 2:49 PM UTC

How to submit your suggestion

You can share your ideas and suggestions in this topic. Please follow these simple rules:

1. Check the thread with declined suggestions here.

If your suggestion has already been declined by our developers, please do not post it.

2. Check this topic for similar suggestions.

If you find that your suggestion has already been expressed by another player and the Community Manager responded, please do not post it.

3. Write a short summary of your suggestion in 5-20 words. Next, add any details to give us a better understanding of what you would like to see in the game.

4. Be precise and concise.

5. You are welcome to discuss other players’ suggestions, but please follow our Forum rules and be polite.

Our Community Managers will comment on your suggestions in this topic.

Please do not create new topics for your suggestions in other threads.

UTC +2:00
Jezebel
23 February, 2017, 8:21 PM UTC

please bring soul stones back to the bg tournaments - newer players have a hard time acquiring them now since they are only given with pvp tourneys - new players do not play pvp as much and tend to gravitate to bgs to better their armies


in order to be able to build amulet troops they need the soul stones to buy the scrolls for those troop types
UTC +0:00
ttedtedted
23 February, 2017, 11:04 PM UTC

Suggestion: Ability to add a short message to League resource requests.

So there are three 'urgent help' requests that we are able to create using the embassy; reinforcement, attack , and resource. The first two requests we are able to add short messages. example "incoming attack 55 min need reinforcements" or "player raids me every day let's teach him a lesson", or anything else you would like to say.

I believe the ability to also add comments to resource requests would improve league play without causing an unbalance benefit to anyone.

Why is this necessary? Well there are numerous reasons to create resource requests. when multiple requests are posted knowing what the resources are intended to be used for is a way to prioritize who to help first. If one teammate is trying to upgrade their mine while another is trying to send resources to a new beacon, I want to be able to know that before I send help. As this is just one example and there are many ways to use resources, being able to prioritize would be helpful.

UTC +8:00
db dbomb
24 February, 2017, 1:13 AM UTC
Give us 1k free sketches.
UTC +5:00
Barrett Southworth
24 February, 2017, 4:30 PM UTC

This suggestion is for the Facebook version of the game I have not seen this problem in the plarium version, there are a variety of ways I could think of to fix a certain problem.

Suggestion 1: Limit Sieges to 3 only per player.

Suggestion 2: Only allow Sieges of active players, players that haven't logged in within a certain amount of time causes the siege to end.

Suggestion 3: Eliminate raiding of inactive Castles, players that haven't logged in within a certain amount of time can't be raided.

This is a war game not a don't run a foul of our dozens of alliances and non aggression pacts nor is it a consolidate power to those playing the longest.


There are thousands if not tens of thousands of inactive level 40+ castles that can give 100k resources when raided with the push trick.  A single player can siege 10, 20, 30 or whatever the limit is on sieges of these types of castles, if there are limits other players from a guild can siege more inactive castles.  They are then used to ensure only said guild raids those castles, if a non guild member raids the castle not only do they get hit heavily by the entire league itself they suffer in other ways too.  Thanks to large alliances and non-aggression pacts it also immediately gets the player booted from their own league, leaving even a high level player to deal with attacks from an entire league.


This has the effect of consolidating raid resources into just a handful of already powerful leagues/players, as well as stopping a large chunk of pvp.  Preventing newer players from being able to Raid.  I think limiting/eliminating the siege count or eliminating raid's of inactive players would force players into more pvp events and stop already powerful players/leagues from gaining unearned resources.


Thinking on it this might be easy to implement, players who return after a long time away get a period of protection.  Simply activate that protection on players who have been away for x amount of time.   If that's a week, 2 weeks, a month whatever is best for the game.

UTC +8:00
brunsonthomas
Moderator
24 February, 2017, 6:15 PM UTC
Barrett Southworth said:

This suggestion is for the Facebook version of the game I have not seen this problem in the plarium version, there are a variety of ways I could think of to fix a certain problem.

Suggestion 1: Limit Sieges to 3 only per player.

Suggestion 2: Only allow Sieges of active players, players that haven't logged in within a certain amount of time causes the siege to end.

Suggestion 3: Eliminate raiding of inactive Castles, players that haven't logged in within a certain amount of time can't be raided.

This is a war game not a don't run a foul of our dozens of alliances and non aggression pacts nor is it a consolidate power to those playing the longest.


There are thousands if not tens of thousands of inactive level 40+ castles that can give 100k resources when raided with the push trick.  A single player can siege 10, 20, 30 or whatever the limit is on sieges of these types of castles, if there are limits other players from a guild can siege more inactive castles.  They are then used to ensure only said guild raids those castles, if a non guild member raids the castle not only do they get hit heavily by the entire league itself they suffer in other ways too.  Thanks to large alliances and non-aggression pacts it also immediately gets the player booted from their own league, leaving even a high level player to deal with attacks from an entire league.


This has the effect of consolidating raid resources into just a handful of already powerful leagues/players, as well as stopping a large chunk of pvp.  Preventing newer players from being able to Raid.  I think limiting/eliminating the siege count or eliminating raid's of inactive players would force players into more pvp events and stop already powerful players/leagues from gaining unearned resources.


Thinking on it this might be easy to implement, players who return after a long time away get a period of protection.  Simply activate that protection on players who have been away for x amount of time.   If that's a week, 2 weeks, a month whatever is best for the game.

What are you suggesting take the place of the weekly siege event or have you even seen it and realize that you are trying to eliminate a source of Sapphires for many players?
UTC +5:00
Barrett Southworth
24 February, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

I think suggestion 2 and 3 are the most important.  Basically:

Only players that have been active within x amount of time can be raided/sieged.  It would force people to search more and cause greater risk of retaliation for sieging a castle.  

I'm suggesting that only active players be siegeable/raidable.  if a player hasn't been logged in for 3 or more months, again the amount of time would be up to the devs for best game balance, then they shouldn't be a free target of siege or raids.  The facebook version of the game has (tens of) thousands of lvl 40+ of raidable targets that haven't logged in for 3+ months (I found about 200 in a 1600 sq mile area. The Facebook version is 1.4 million sq miles).  Tens of thousands of Castles that are free to siege with no resistance because there is no defense/spys to them and they haven't logged in for 3+ months.  This is all because there is a huge player base of players that try it out for a week then quit on facebook.



Note: I'm talking about a problem I see in the version that is logged into when logging into facebook and type in stormfall.  Not the version that is played on the plarium site itself.   Though I'm checking out the plarium version and there are a lot of bots here that would be potential targets and if they went inactive (due to resources no longer being an issue) would cease to be targets.  


UTC +8:00
sison
25 February, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

you could make an extra auto hidder whith smaller duration ,for example for 2 hour ,of course it would be nice if we could take it by spending soulstones


i say this cause sometimes i dont need an autohider of 4 hours it is too much some times


an additional smaller autohider would be great add :-)
UTC +0:00
sison
25 February, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

you could also increase a little bit the number of soulstne tournaments gives,,a little bit i say,


i say this cause we are many times in need of items we can buy whith soulstones and tournaments gives 70 soulstone although you have lost serious troop http://prntscr.com/edaukn


why a player who take 10k points should take only 70 soulstone (look my screenshoot)

is it serious to be the maximum reward 70 soulstone and at the same time one offence bonus  cost 125 soulstones?


it is too low i hope you understand we can do some changes here whithout hurt the company,the only way to feel what i say is to play the game, to become part of the game ,thats the only ay to understand me


dont  forget that this is a pvp game and  that items like autohidder or offense bonus is main part of the action players love it and it makes the game more interactive,it makes the war more intresting thats why i  insist about that update,you could think it


thanks in addition :-)



UTC +0:00
djmoody
26 February, 2017, 12:01 PM UTC

Barrett Southworth said:


Suggestion 3: Eliminate raiding of inactive Castles, players that haven't logged in within a certain amount of time can't be raided.

You win the Award for dumbest suggestion of the month.

THIS WOULD END RAIDING. It would end the free production of troops. The only armies would be coined ones. Don't you think the game is unbalanced enough as it is.

1. There are hardly any actives in the game

2. Even if there were, raiding actives regularly would be completely loss making (you understand the 1 for 1 nature of the siege mechanic right?)

Oh and they are called "leagues" in this game not guilds (a mistake that probably shows your level of experience and time in game I suspect).

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
Jezebel
26 February, 2017, 3:31 PM UTC

we just completed our first league challenge we made 4 achievements the next achievement was only 18k away but we did not know this as the achievements are not added to your embassy as you earn them - we could have easily made the next achievement we quit playing the challenge days ago as we had a good lead on our opponents.


achievements earned during a challenge should be added to the embassy as you earn them or there should be some kind of indicator that tells you how many points to the next achievement so the league can decide if the effort is worth it or not
UTC +0:00
Jezebel
26 February, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC
ttedtedted said:

Suggestion: Ability to add a short message to League resource requests.

So there are three 'urgent help' requests that we are able to create using the embassy; reinforcement, attack , and resource. The first two requests we are able to add short messages. example "incoming attack 55 min need reinforcements" or "player raids me every day let's teach him a lesson", or anything else you would like to say.

I believe the ability to also add comments to resource requests would improve league play without causing an unbalance benefit to anyone.

Why is this necessary? Well there are numerous reasons to create resource requests. when multiple requests are posted knowing what the resources are intended to be used for is a way to prioritize who to help first. If one teammate is trying to upgrade their mine while another is trying to send resources to a new beacon, I want to be able to know that before I send help. As this is just one example and there are many ways to use resources, being able to prioritize would be helpful.

makes sense I am always willing to send resources to my members - we don't have many requests for resources though i guess my members are raiders or patient enough to wait for the res to build up for what they need
UTC +0:00
brunsonthomas
Moderator
26 February, 2017, 6:17 PM UTC
Jezebel said:

we just completed our first league challenge we made 4 achievements the next achievement was only 18k away but we did not know this as the achievements are not added to your embassy as you earn them - we could have easily made the next achievement we quit playing the challenge days ago as we had a good lead on our opponents.


achievements earned during a challenge should be added to the embassy as you earn them or there should be some kind of indicator that tells you how many points to the next achievement so the league can decide if the effort is worth it or not
Great idea. I am currently in a Challenge. We far surpassed the level that we wanted to achieve but have no idea how many points are required for each Challenge Achievement.
UTC +5:00
sison
27 February, 2017, 12:52 PM UTC

djmoody said:


Barrett Southworth said:


Suggestion 3: Eliminate raiding of inactive Castles, players that haven't logged in within a certain amount of time can't be raided.

You win the Award for dumbest suggestion of the month.


of the year i would say lol


i could never think a better way to end raids,already what plarium do for the inactive castles is enough,free protection for 3 days in case of they return in the game

---------------

be protected and at the same time be inactive????who will use these recourses? what suggestion is this?


the best way to end raids,

i think he is sent from another game company and is here to suggest the destruction of the game ,i cant explain it in another way,sorry barett again but it is the end of the game your suggestion ,mody is right


(i am jokking about this i said that you are sent from another company barret :) )
UTC +0:00
duck.duck
28 February, 2017, 5:10 AM UTC

1. Make legendary units easier to get aside from Battlegrounds, sapphires and Tournaments,there should be a system where you sacrifice other units to create a legendary unit, those would be what the legendary unit improves the offence or defence of. Im not talking about a few troops, I meant thousands of troops, It would overall make the game better and easier for newer players to get legendarys. Another way might be making them a very rare find when you successfully attack or defend a battleground.


2. Increase soulstones given at tournaments, right now there is a pvp tournament taking place that gives only 5 soulstones at 150 points, thats not nearly enough
UTC +4:00
Jezebel
28 February, 2017, 10:05 AM UTC

duck.duck said:


1. Make legendary units easier to get aside from Battlegrounds, sapphires and Tournaments,there should be a system where you sacrifice other units to create a legendary unit, those would be what the legendary unit improves the offence or defence of. Im not talking about a few troops, I meant thousands of troops, It would overall make the game better and easier for newer players to get legendarys. Another way might be making them a very rare find when you successfully attack or defend a battleground.


2. Increase soulstones given at tournaments, right now there is a pvp tournament taking place that gives only 5 soulstones at 150 points, thats not nearly enough

In the black market a Great Western Dragon costs 1950 and a dragon cost 167 so 11.67 dragons are the equivalent - if this option were added what percentage would you add to increase the number of dragons to obtain a Great Western Dragon - or would you make it so you could use any troop type?  So the coiners that have far too many thieves could trade them for GWD to make their armies even bigger?  A knight in the black market costs 34 saphs so 57.35 knights is the equivalent so how many knights would you build to trade for a GWD? I would just keep 1000 knights and forget about the GWD.


Yes soul stones should be given in all tournaments like it used to be and more than a handful or the scrolls for amulet troops should just be given with the daily log ins like other scrolls 
UTC +0:00
carolpringle59
28 February, 2017, 12:29 PM UTC

My suggestion is to allow Marshals to assign who can and can not make attack request. This will limit the effect Spies have to undermine the Leadership of a league.


Please Like this post if you agree :
UTC +4:00
nobody
28 February, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

Jezebel said:


duck.duck said:


1. Make legendary units easier to get aside from Battlegrounds, sapphires and Tournaments,there should be a system where you sacrifice other units to create a legendary unit, those would be what the legendary unit improves the offence or defence of. Im not talking about a few troops, I meant thousands of troops, It would overall make the game better and easier for newer players to get legendarys. Another way might be making them a very rare find when you successfully attack or defend a battleground.


2. Increase soulstones given at tournaments, right now there is a pvp tournament taking place that gives only 5 soulstones at 150 points, thats not nearly enough

In the black market a Great Western Dragon costs 1950 and a dragon cost 167 so 11.67 dragons are the equivalent - if this option were added what percentage would you add to increase the number of dragons to obtain a Great Western Dragon - or would you make it so you could use any troop type?  So the coiners that have far too many thieves could trade them for GWD to make their armies even bigger?  A knight in the black market costs 34 saphs so 57.35 knights is the equivalent so how many knights would you build to trade for a GWD? I would just keep 1000 knights and forget about the GWD.


Yes soul stones should be given in all tournaments like it used to be and more than a handful or the scrolls for amulet troops should just be given with the daily log ins like other scrolls 

maybe a pve content using your method, double the cost in the specific unit, such as 23 dragons for a gwd, that would be a cost of 4x the 50% off epic price.  but also have other loot available such as x/x/x resources and a random chance at x amount of sketches.  with it being pve, it would not be stacked with pvp tourneys.  that may be deemed too much value according to plarium vision and direction.  especially for gwd that isn't even available in current tourneys.  increasing rewards or going back to past rewards such as eldritch golem/necro with hydra/fallen legendaries have been shot down or at least have been extremely sparse.

i do like the direction of these two suggestions.
UTC +0:00
Alina Bright
Community Manager
1 March, 2017, 1:10 PM UTC

Jezebel said:


please bring soul stones back to the bg tournaments - newer players have a hard time acquiring them now since they are only given with pvp tourneys - new players do not play pvp as much and tend to gravitate to bgs to better their armies


in order to be able to build amulet troops they need the soul stones to buy the scrolls for those troop types

Hi! Jezebel, several departments work on their balance and they rely on specific data and analytics. Unfortunately, it’s not a part of the game our players can affect directly or pass suggestions about some changes to it. 

UTC +2:00
Alina Bright
Community Manager
1 March, 2017, 1:11 PM UTC
ttedtedted said:

Suggestion: Ability to add a short message to League resource requests.

So there are three 'urgent help' requests that we are able to create using the embassy; reinforcement, attack , and resource. The first two requests we are able to add short messages. example "incoming attack 55 min need reinforcements" or "player raids me every day let's teach him a lesson", or anything else you would like to say.

I believe the ability to also add comments to resource requests would improve league play without causing an unbalance benefit to anyone.

Why is this necessary? Well there are numerous reasons to create resource requests. when multiple requests are posted knowing what the resources are intended to be used for is a way to prioritize who to help first. If one teammate is trying to upgrade their mine while another is trying to send resources to a new beacon, I want to be able to know that before I send help. As this is just one example and there are many ways to use resources, being able to prioritize would be helpful.

Hi! Thank you for your suggestion, I'll forward it to our developers.
UTC +2:00
1665848 users registered; 33913 topics; 253260 posts; our newest member:buposhi1973