It definitely won't happen. It will not be good for our game balance. However, the issue is acknowledged, and devs will think how to resolve it :)
solution is:trade of few keys of lower class for 1 higher class key ^^
We're planning to implement a feature that will give certain Bonuses to all Coalitions, based on their activity, size, etc.My suggestion:
Create additional bonuses for top-ranked coalitions. Create more incentive, rather than just a more visible target on the back.
Top 3 coalitions should get a running bonus of some sort. What do you think?
>:(Tonaya said:It definitely won't happen. It will not be good for our game balance. However, the issue is acknowledged, and devs will think how to resolve it :)
solution is:trade of few keys of lower class for 1 higher class key ^^
Offer as reward experience boosters of 30 minutes, 1 hours & 4 hours.
Add more Skill levels to Amphitheater (Now has two : Elementary and Advance) and make it upgradeable like other buddings and add skills bonus to each level (lvl1 5%, lvl2 10%, lvl3 15%).
Give the ability to “higher” military buildings to train lower unit also when reach/sign Rome or and Cannes. Barracks can train light Infantry Units, Armory can train Heavy Infantry Units and Stables can train Phalanx Units.
I have spent a lot of time writing complex game improvement suggestions for SWOE and so far I have seen none implemented or even considered.
I have made strategy change suggestions, playability improvement suggestions, error/bug correction suggestions… maybe Plarium is just happy with mediocrity and not interested in making any changes?
Anyway this is the last time I waste my effort on a suggestion. I think this one is good and drastically improves an otherwise crummy feature.
Create an actual “General” Unit in the army of each city… this is a physical unit representing the General that currently is just another “building” containing equipment and accumulating standard bonuses (Like the Capital and Elixirs). The bonuses associated with the general would only be active active when the general is part of the forces that are committed to battle. You must decide whether you want to “risk” your general every time you raid, defend, besiege and attack PPs. The risk is that - if defeated - the general loses one of his pieces of equipment (randomly selected by the game). In battle against another player the equipment is “captured” and retained by the winning army. In PPs the equipment is just lost.
In addition the general is a powerful combat unit (off and def) that becomes more powerful every time he wins a battle (Based on XP points for example so he cannot be improved with small arranged battles) losing battles would degrade his strength based on XP points scored by the opponent. Since there is only one general this unit would/could not imbalance the game.
Finally when defeated the general reappears in the infirmary (revived for free) so he can only lose one piece of equipment each time he is left outside the Acropolis unattended.
The risk of equipment loss would make having spare equipment worthwhile and replacing best items with second best before a risky mission…
The addition of a player decision in using or not using the general would add more variability in battle outcome and make strategy more important.
IOANNIS TSIAMANTANIS said:
Offer as reward experience boosters of 30 minutes, 1 hours & 4 hours.
Add more Skill levels to Amphitheater (Now has two : Elementary and Advance) and make it upgradeable like other buddings and add skills bonus to each level (lvl1 5%, lvl2 10%, lvl3 15%).
Give the ability to “higher” military buildings to train lower unit also when reach/sign Rome or and Cannes. Barracks can train light Infantry Units, Armory can train Heavy Infantry Units and Stables can train Phalanx Units.
XP Boosters can be bought at the Market.
New Skill levels are not planned for now. however, we'll add more possibilities to receive bonuses.
As for the third one, I'm not sure I understood it. Can you give me more details?We're actually working on something similar. Right now it's just a concept, but I hope it won't take long to implement it ;)I have spent a lot of time writing complex game improvement suggestions for SWOE and so far I have seen none implemented or even considered.
I have made strategy change suggestions, playability improvement suggestions, error/bug correction suggestions… maybe Plarium is just happy with mediocrity and not interested in making any changes?
Anyway this is the last time I waste my effort on a suggestion. I think this one is good and drastically improves an otherwise crummy feature.
Create an actual “General” Unit in the army of each city… this is a physical unit representing the General that currently is just another “building” containing equipment and accumulating standard bonuses (Like the Capital and Elixirs). The bonuses associated with the general would only be active active when the general is part of the forces that are committed to battle. You must decide whether you want to “risk” your general every time you raid, defend, besiege and attack PPs. The risk is that - if defeated - the general loses one of his pieces of equipment (randomly selected by the game). In battle against another player the equipment is “captured” and retained by the winning army. In PPs the equipment is just lost.
In addition the general is a powerful combat unit (off and def) that becomes more powerful every time he wins a battle (Based on XP points for example so he cannot be improved with small arranged battles) losing battles would degrade his strength based on XP points scored by the opponent. Since there is only one general this unit would/could not imbalance the game.
Finally when defeated the general reappears in the infirmary (revived for free) so he can only lose one piece of equipment each time he is left outside the Acropolis unattended.
The risk of equipment loss would make having spare equipment worthwhile and replacing best items with second best before a risky mission…
The addition of a player decision in using or not using the general would add more variability in battle outcome and make strategy more important.
I suggest a spam filter not only for Pantheons and Capitals but for cities as well. Spamming someone's news feed in my opinion is considered harassment and not a war strategy. It affects multiple players if they have units in an individuals city. Here is my recommendation:
1. Limit the amount of single unit raids and sieges you can send to a player's city to 1 a day
2. To prevent a user from abusing suggestion number 1 by sending two units multiple times, I propose a minimum on how much offensive strength someone can send to any single player in a siege or raid. I suggest 10,000 in offense strength minimum.
3. If these measures cannot be implemented I suggest there be a block tab on a user from being able to send single units to a city multiple times a day. The fail safe for this feature is that anyone blocked from harassing you with news feed spamming, must send a minimum raid or siege with 10,000 in strength
The current TOS rules for SWOE's in game harassment only cover private messages and I believe single unit raids and sieges 10' 20' 100's of times daily should fall under that rule as well, if not, then it should be written as hindering another player's ability to enjoy the game to it's fullest potential.
Hi! Unfortunately, we will be unable to implement your suggestions. But maybe adding a filter similar to the one we have for Pantheons would work? How do you think? Would that be enough, or it would need some additional features?I suggest a spam filter not only for Pantheons and Capitals but for cities as well. Spamming someone's news feed in my opinion is considered harassment and not a war strategy. It affects multiple players if they have units in an individuals city. Here is my recommendation:
1. Limit the amount of single unit raids and sieges you can send to a player's city to 1 a day
2. To prevent a user from abusing suggestion number 1 by sending two units multiple times, I propose a minimum on how much offensive strength someone can send to any single player in a siege or raid. I suggest 10,000 in offense strength minimum.
3. If these measures cannot be implemented I suggest there be a block tab on a user from being able to send single units to a city multiple times a day. The fail safe for this feature is that anyone blocked from harassing you with news feed spamming, must send a minimum raid or siege with 10,000 in strength
The current TOS rules for SWOE's in game harassment only cover private messages and I believe single unit raids and sieges 10' 20' 100's of times daily should fall under that rule as well, if not, then it should be written as hindering another player's ability to enjoy the game to it's fullest potential.
I am not opposed to the capital filter but you need to implement features for our cities too. It is pointless if we cannot have these measures set in place. dozens if not hundreds of single unit sieges is NOT war strategy and is harassment and you need to protect your playersRIX said:Hi! Unfortunately, we will be unable to implement your suggestions. But maybe adding a filter similar to the one we have for Pantheons would work? How do you think? Would that be enough, or it would need some additional features?I suggest a spam filter not only for Pantheons and Capitals but for cities as well. Spamming someone's news feed in my opinion is considered harassment and not a war strategy. It affects multiple players if they have units in an individuals city. Here is my recommendation:
1. Limit the amount of single unit raids and sieges you can send to a player's city to 1 a day
2. To prevent a user from abusing suggestion number 1 by sending two units multiple times, I propose a minimum on how much offensive strength someone can send to any single player in a siege or raid. I suggest 10,000 in offense strength minimum.
3. If these measures cannot be implemented I suggest there be a block tab on a user from being able to send single units to a city multiple times a day. The fail safe for this feature is that anyone blocked from harassing you with news feed spamming, must send a minimum raid or siege with 10,000 in strength
The current TOS rules for SWOE's in game harassment only cover private messages and I believe single unit raids and sieges 10' 20' 100's of times daily should fall under that rule as well, if not, then it should be written as hindering another player's ability to enjoy the game to it's fullest potential.
RIX said:
I am not opposed to the capital filter but you need to implement features for our cities too. It is pointless if we cannot have these measures set in place. dozens if not hundreds of single unit sieges is NOT war strategy and is harassment and you need to protect your players
I totally agree that players should have an option to filter such reports. But how exactly? For Capitals and Pantheons it's more simple - if your losses are above a certain %, you get no report. And what about the Cities? Should it be the same?
There is something this game desperately needs, that most other battle games have.
Problem: When taking a attack, defend, reinforcement action, It is extremely annoying have to manually enter troop count or use the slider for every troop type.
Solution: The game needs 3-5 "custom" hot links for army groupings. These would go next to "all", "offense", "defenses". Each player can customize and name their 5 links to army groupings of their preference. For example.
1. You could set one for 1000 Phalanx as a go to attack. So, now you have a "one-click" and attack.
2. You could set one for troop type you like to use to attack Persians. (excluding the high value troops).
3. You could set one for the typical reinforcements that you give COA members.
4. You could set one for your typically raid army, say 100 Mackies, or 200 Mauraders.
5. You could create a few defensive sets, say one that is best vs Light infantry and another that is best vs Cavs. So, you can properly and quickly use the optimum defense, if you know your opponents tendencies.
Cost: Finally, as a programmer myself, and knowing how other games do this, and knowing that you already have the "offense" and "defensive" hot links, I know this is a very easy feature to add. And in reality, it is a bit of shame, it was not implemented from the start.
Problem. You are trying to trade in general or specifically with a friend or CoA member. And after you post the trade, some newbie accepts it from 8 hours away, that will tie your galley up for 16 hours.
Solution. When you create the trade there should be the following two filter options. First, a way to make the trade only available to Coa member or friends (faster speed time players only). Second, a way to set the maximum one-way travel time of the offer So, if you set one-hour, no player outside of one-hour will be able to accept your trade..
Development Cost. Rather low, this is just adding sorting filters to an existing game mechanic / function
Unfortunately, grouping features are hard to implement. However, our devs may consider such possibility in the future.There is something this game desperately needs, that most other battle games have.
Problem: When taking a attack, defend, reinforcement action, It is extremely annoying have to manually enter troop count or use the slider for every troop type.
Solution: The game needs 3-5 "custom" hot links for army groupings. These would go next to "all", "offense", "defenses". Each player can customize and name their 5 links to army groupings of their preference. For example.
1. You could set one for 1000 Phalanx as a go to attack. So, now you have a "one-click" and attack.
2. You could set one for troop type you like to use to attack Persians. (excluding the high value troops).
3. You could set one for the typical reinforcements that you give COA members.
4. You could set one for your typically raid army, say 100 Mackies, or 200 Mauraders.
5. You could create a few defensive sets, say one that is best vs Light infantry and another that is best vs Cavs. So, you can properly and quickly use the optimum defense, if you know your opponents tendencies.
Cost: Finally, as a programmer myself, and knowing how other games do this, and knowing that you already have the "offense" and "defensive" hot links, I know this is a very easy feature to add. And in reality, it is a bit of shame, it was not implemented from the start.
Our devs are considering such possibility.Problem. You are trying to trade in general or specifically with a friend or CoA member. And after you post the trade, some newbie accepts it from 8 hours away, that will tie your galley up for 16 hours.
Solution. When you create the trade there should be the following two filter options. First, a way to make the trade only available to Coa member or friends (faster speed time players only). Second, a way to set the maximum one-way travel time of the offer So, if you set one-hour, no player outside of one-hour will be able to accept your trade..
Development Cost. Rather low, this is just adding sorting filters to an existing game mechanic / function
suggestion:
give the player a warning msg when sending off troops to def position and vice versa.We're considering such possibility :)suggestion:
give the player a warning msg when sending off troops to def position and vice versa.
Suggestion of the year: Round up the daily purchase limit of Timber and Bronze resource packs from 15 to 16. Not quite sure what the logic was behind an odd number based off of an even pair. ;)We're planning to remove this limit :)
I like that!RIX said:Suggestion of the year: Round up the daily purchase limit of Timber and Bronze resource packs from 15 to 16. Not quite sure what the logic was behind an odd number based off of an even pair. ;)We're planning to remove this limit :)
