Alina Phoenix said:

Hello, Lords and Ladies.

I gathered your feedback and forwarded it to devs. I don't think that Fireballs will be completely removed, but devs will consider your feedback, and maybe some changes to their features will be added in the future.

For now, we're planning to implement a feature that will allow you to protect your Castle from Fireballs.

It's planned to implement it in the near future.

Again, didnt we already get this. in the BUY ALL YOUR CASTLE PROTECTION YOU NEED.....

Hello, Lords and Ladies.

I gathered your feedback and forwarded it to devs. I don't think that Fireballs will be completely removed, but devs will consider your feedback, and maybe some changes to their features will be added in the future.

For now, we're planning to implement a feature that will allow you to protect your Castle from Fireballs.

It's planned to implement it in the near future.

Fireballs as I call them are funny. Just a waste of sapphires for a one time deal. Anyone who uses them for attacks and not sending sending units is Joke not to be taken seriously.

I haven't been playing this game long so don't know what it was like prior to this item being on the menu.  There are ways it could be altered to make it an effective strategic tool.  

You could make it only effective against castle defense items instead of units.  

Set  a limit of 1 per castle per day instead of just a limit of 10 per day.  Better yet set a limit to how many times any one castle can be hit in a day.  A player would simply get a response that the limit had been reached if they tried to send one. 

Either both sides should earn points or neither of them should.  It's really bad game play to allow it to only go one way.

Games evolve and it's one thing to try a new item but it's another to see that the item has a negative effect on game play and do nothing to correct it.

roadstar Pitbull said:

Gadheras said:

Its a p2w game. Any p2w items have a negative inpact on the game.  There is a lot of games out ther ethat is f2p and have a monotize system, in form of ingame shops etc, where items you buy in the shop doesn't give the player a direct "PAY TO WIN" effect. 

But the issue arises, that this is not P2W game.

There is no winner' nor an end game.

 And P2W items are only to Plarium's benefit.

As to F2P, this is more of a beta trial (long term). Yes, you can play but not fully explore all aspects of the game.

of course this is a pay to win game. The win is over other players. not a endgame win. p2w is decided by the factor of being able to buy items that put you in a better position over the other players by gaining items players can't get through normal game play.

Pitch a guy that sink 1000 bucks into this game, up vs a guy that doesnt spend a single dime. They started play at the same time. Who would "win" there? Money talk, bullshit walks...

Barlow said:

I haven't been playing this game long so don't know what it was like prior to this item being on the menu.  There are ways it could be altered to make it an effective strategic tool.  

You could make it only effective against castle defense items instead of units.  

Set  a limit of 1 per castle per day instead of just a limit of 10 per day.  Better yet set a limit to how many times any one castle can be hit in a day.  A player would simply get a response that the limit had been reached if they tried to send one. 

Either both sides should earn points or neither of them should.  It's really bad game play to allow it to only go one way.

Games evolve and it's one thing to try a new item but it's another to see that the item has a negative effect on game play and do nothing to correct it.

Games are supposed to be fun and everyone hiding in catacombs creating an endless search for any kind of PVP point is boring not fun.  

Hello.

Regarding the current Fireball's limits or mechanics of its work, devs are not planning to change it.

But they are working on the Unit that can be used against Fireballs.

Oracle said:

Andromeda said:

Real warriors fight with troops.

Only players who cant play waste their money on mass FB attacks.

Real warriors fight to win. There is no honor in winning. Valor is for the timid. These is the truth. You can have 500 million offence, and have all those funny rules like I don't hit castles lower i level than mine, ect ect those are your imaginary rules. There is no fun in following rules.

Or you can have 100 FB and fight like a true Lord killing

My Dear Oracle,

Well, in server 3. The server you don't care about and know nothing about. The server YOU said we should all be "put in line" and server 3 is only a foot note to KT when kabam players first commented here. There's a league called "Great Fireballs".

It's made up of one player with 10+ alts. Yes, yes alts are a no no in Plariums eyes, but he spends hundreds of thousands of saphs on FBs. Spends money on each alt so Plarium ignores the "imaginary" rule. Now, players spend thousands of $$$ on castle walls and a strong defensive army. You leave them out over night because you are expecting a raid from a totally different player. Time zones often don't line up with many. You wake up the next day and...... 100 x10 fbs have been dropped on you from 10 different accounts. Over 1/2 your D is gone (very large numbers). All those saphs spent on walls were for nothing. Oh and bug.ger all pvp for losing your D. He's gone click click click and that's it. Real expert gameplay.

Eventually no-one even bothers "playing" against him because he has no troops and only FBs in extremely large numbers. It is proven here that players who only FB kill the game. Your ideas on FBs are game killers to say the least. I'm sure your perfect realm full of lords who do nothing but fb each others alter of weor all day would be very entertaining :/

True Lord you say?

Yeah, like you're a true mod who knows what he's talking about.

FB are spells, and I believe any kind of limitation or timbering with the nature of FBs will greatly upset the balance of the game, 

After all They 're Weors-Wrath, God-revenge. Its supposed to be like that, calamitous and not inimical. Otherwise they should just name it Oberon Blessings. 

We need more FB's like attacks. 

Like one that Kills Legendary units in catacombs, one you can send in the fort or beacon. 

Maybe group FB attacks. These game right now is, heading in the league-wide aspects of things, maybe we should have a league FB attack. With 40% of leagues having players with 250 mil + defense, I don't see why not. 

Oracle said:

FB are spells, and I believe any kind of limitation or timbering with the nature of FBs will greatly upset the balance of the game, 

After all They 're Weors-Wrath, God-revenge. Its supposed to be like that, calamitous and not inimical. Otherwise they should just name it Oberon Blessings. 

We need more FB's like attacks. 

Like one that Kills Legendary units in catacombs, one you can send in the fort or beacon. 

Maybe group FB attacks. These game right now is, heading in the league-wide aspects of things, maybe we should have a league FB attack. With 40% of leagues having players with 250 mil + defense, I don't see why not. 

So less stradegy in a stradegy game. Just when you think you have heard all the crazy Oracle has to offer, he replies again.

There are pluses and minuses to using FB's and to a low 40+ level user, a possible way of retaliation and to a high end level, the use of a strategic attack before a raid.... and so on.

I would however, like to suggest a compromise in that users can purchase FB's, but this is restricted to a fixed number of FB's purchased in a month. (The amount purchased IMO, would be relatively small and would need further discussions)  

This creates a purchasing cap and if a person eagerly uses their maximum FB purchases in a month, then they are unable to buy more until the next opportunity.

I would further suggest that people could bank these if they wished and if for example, a limit of 10 FB's a month was agreed on by whoever makes these decisions, then people could save them up and after 3 months, could send 30 FB's or whatever they had.

I personally don't like using FB's although confess to using them in attacks and therefore see some value to them but as mentioned in a previous comment, I would only buy them if they were reduced because of financial limitations.

Note: My suggestion has its flaws and accept comments both positive and negative, although I would appreciate feedback that is constructive either way.

Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking

Jezebel said:

Alina Phoenix said:

MENTAL said:

Current issue is that the only protection you get from FB limits your game play. Make it simple and add that protection to the smolderstone keep and give us a 30 day purchase option similar to 30 day paragon activation. If this feature is implemented the protection from FB should also turn off your ability to FB others while using, if not thought through you can create a very bad situation if someone is allowed to FB at will while being protected from them himself, that would make our current situation worse. There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. Whether that be a castle level a lost art or another clever way to stop a FB (alt) castle, right now if you have a handful of alts and cycle through them waiting to buy the largest discount package to get FB then move to next castle so the discount package has time to increase in value there is no control to such action. These castles never develop nor build troops they are useless to the rest of the game for raiding and they extend the map size so our travel times keep increasing and their only purpose is to buy FB and hide the true owners identity so they can FB anonymously. There is no fear of retaliation since there are no troops and no value to the person using them so they do not care about retaliation, the only way to curb this action is force that castle to achieve a certain level before allowing FB. Right now we have a section of hamlets only available to players under lvl 70 if I remember correctly for their protection from larger players but what is in place to stop the use of alt castles (low level non developing castles with no troops or actual game play stats) from being used as FB only castles which can FB any level even if they have never been attacked by that player. Certain hero items can't be used until you reach a level, same holds true with relics, why not FB??

 

Here is another thought, you don't get to use Weors protection immediately after attacking similar to having to wait between castle relocates. My suggestion would be a one hour cool down from your last attack before you can enable weors protection. Too many abuse the system of FB then hide immediately after the FB hits with weors, this is not playing a strategy game, this is people abusing a system and a game to irritate others because their real life is lacking

Hello.

The protection against FB was already added to Castle Skin on Facebook. In the future, devs can add this skin to plarium.com as well.

> There should also be a requirement of achieving a certain level before being allowed to use FB or another limiting factor to limit the use of alts to FB. 

This limit already exists. Only players with the level 40+ can purchase FB.

Weor's protection is a temporary Item and a player can hide behind it forever. You need just wait when the Item will get inactive and then attack this player back.

apparently this new castle skin is double the price of the current temporary one and will cost you $20 per week if you want it

can't see myself wasting my money on something like that

I can get 2 and a half month ESO+ for that, lol. fkn no... not worth it -)

Oracle said: "And FB are the best way of killing things."

Insanity Talisman said:

It's with good reason that I refer to sorcery spells as "Idiot's Fire" and have yet to fling even one. With all the more worthwhile items to spend sapphires on, I really don't understand the urge to use them.

There are many bullies in these game, who hides behind their leagues banners. Knowing very well that no matter how much offense you use against them their league will form a WOD big enough to kill your offense. 

I play the game alone. And I love FB, and with time have learned to use them well. 

People who argue against FB are more likely to be playing a lot with defense. I like marching out and killing things. And FB are the best way of killing things. 

FB can be used to hurt anyone (especially bullies). Taking that away from players is wrong, especially considering the level of bullying in the game. 

It's with good reason that I refer to sorcery spells as "Idiot's Fire" and have yet to fling even one. With all the more worthwhile items to spend sapphires on, I really don't understand the urge to use them.

FB are spells, and I believe any kind of limitation or timbering with the nature of FBs will greatly upset the balance of the game, 

After all They 're Weors-Wrath, God-revenge. Its supposed to be like that, calamitous and not inimical. Otherwise they should just name it Oberon Blessings. 

We need more FB's like attacks. 

Like one that Kills Legendary units in catacombs, one you can send in the fort or beacon. 

Maybe group FB attacks. These game right now is, heading in the league-wide aspects of things, maybe we should have a league FB attack. With 40% of leagues having players with 250 mil + defense, I don't see why not. 

Andromeda said:

Real warriors fight with troops.

Only players who cant play waste their money on mass FB attacks.

Real warriors fight to win. There is no honor in winning. Valor is for the timid. These is the truth. You can have 500 million offence, and have all those funny rules like I don't hit castles lower i level than mine, ect ect those are your imaginary rules. There is no fun in following rules.

Or you can have 100 FB and fight like a true Lord killing

Red said:

BiohazarD said:

Yep.  Of course you could always just continually run 24 hour auto catacomb items so it wouldn't matter if you get fireballed or not, or send out your fireballs then activate total protection as soon as they hit, this isn't really much different.  

It is different actually.  Auto cata protects your troops, but does not keep your altar from being downgraded if you get hit.  It also does not provide the option to extend it.  You have to wait for it to expire, then apply a new one, meaning there will be brief gaps where your stuff is exposed. Additionally, auto cata protects only troops that you generate; it offers no protection to troops or altar that are out, nor does it auto cata wraiths people raise when they visit.  

As the facebook version of the fireball skin is described, it sounds like a subscription.  Keep pumping money in and it never expires.  It gives total fireball protection to all troops and assets in your castle while allowing you to bombard others to your heart's content.  As described, that skin is very unbalanced.  

If Plarium wants to sell items like that, then why don't they just sell instant wins for sapphires?  Why should I risk my troops; instead I can pay X sapphires and instantly kill all defenders and downgrade the fort/beacon.  Naturally, for maximum unfairness, only the one who uses the item gets PvP for it, and units killed by it would not get resurrected if it happened during beacon massacre because the game would not recognize them as killed at a beacon.  =P  As an added bonus, if Plarium did offer such an item, they could shut down Master's new line of business =P

Hello.

While adding such features, we analyze what influence they have on the game and its balance. If after analyzing the results of adding this Skin, devs see that there are players who just purchase it all the time and Fireball other players from it, they can adjust the feature and, for example, forbid sending Fireballs while using this Skin, just like you suggested.

While adding the feature we take into account all consequences it can have for balance, and then check whether our suggestions regarding this or that consequence came true.

Also, devs are thinking about adding a new Unit that can be used against Fireballs, but I don't have any details regarding it at the moment.