BOISDEJUSTICE

welcome on a board

5 month i write letters for:

fortification must we build when we produce bronze, timber

2. political attack never exist in sparta, that is coward attack, i was baned for that because i react after 30 political attacks in one night and lost 41 champ

3. why we must return after all attack home, why dont we not continue to the other city if we have army? if in past all return from battle home, like Alexander the Great, he will never see India

4. persian position , like example, i spend 45 k army with dominion 9 and elixir 8, for only 5 promo, and 100 points , with 45 k in other case i will take 1000 points when dont have tournament.

5. why he increase points on pvp? before with 250 k army u have 10 k points, now with 700 k, my friend attacked me and he take 7.7k points and also i didnt take 10 k. 

and of last, from great game he make coiner, and lost players. yes is bored every day raid, train, raid , train.

in pvp we lost almost milion army for 75 gps, who need, and poor 150 promachos, and 480 drahma, with that drahma u cant buy 2 agema regiular price, but u must lost 500 agema to take 10 k.

and other ideas i give, but he start with offers and that box, in all is or 50% or 60%, im not mad to spend in one game 1000 eur, if other like to spend free, but plarium will lost and last players, 

in this moment on pvp i have 4k points and 800 place, thats never hapen, before i make 15 k for 25 min, but i finished far from 1000 place

poor and tragic, great game but hungry for money and destroy it

Moved to Suggestions and Feedback.

Deleted the duplicate thread.

Thanks for your suggestions. I'll try to give my feedback on them. Keep in mind that I'm not a dev, but I can communicate with them.

1. Fortifications are powerful, but they're optional. Certain players can opt to specialize in defense and provoke others into attacking them, which makes the most out of towers. In contrast, good diplomacy can avoid city raids altogether. Players have the option to avoid the attack or to fight an incoming raid. Other buildings cost resources because they're more tied to basic gameplay and are practically mandatory to have. You won't see anything like the "Stables" requiring drachmas.

2. Part of the appeal of the game is that casualties stick. If you get a good hit in, you can expect the damage to stay a while. Being on the receiving end isn't so great, but the infirmary helps you get back into the game if you suffer a really bad hit. Changing them to your sanatorium changes their intended function and makes them apply to all battles (Emporia, pantheons, other cities), which significantly buffs offensive players and nerfs defensive players. Defensive units need the boost more than offensive units.

3. Persian positions offer a break from the mechanics of PVP combat. Changing them be the same might make things bland. They're also ridiculously fine-tuned. You can't make a major change like that to their basic gameplay.

4. It would be a terrible feeling to shell out the drachmas to buy political assassins, only to be the victim of an arbitrary 10% failure rate. Part of the cost is their reliability for doing damage. If Plarium did add a failure rate, they would have to make them a lot cheaper to compensate. 

5. Seeing enemy attacks is a very basic principle of the game. Is there a particular reason you want to gate the ability via a building?

6. Trading isn't really the focus of the game. You trade extra resources you have for resources you need and everyone trades at different ratios.

Moved back to game discussion.

I meant that there was a problem with section visibility.

It's fixed now, since you brought it to our attention.

My core point of view is that of a player who likes the game and would like to see it get better and have more followers.  Strategy games and empire building games need at the core to be fair and balanced otherwise they fail.  Casino games are luck-based.  Luck-based elements need to be removed from true strategy games.  But far worse than pure luck games are pay-to-win games that allow money to defeat skill & strategy.  If Sparta is heading there I won’t be along for the ride.

Don’t take this the wrong way but you sound like an apologist for Plarium trying to justify bad elements in the game with bad arguments.  I can easily afford to play the game so spending money on a game is not my issue.  I have spent over $100 in under a month just to see if the game is worth pursuing.  I just don’t think there is any honor or fun in racing against people in rowboats by purchasing a 1000HP speedboat!

Here are my counterpoints to your reponses:

1. With your reasoning the harbor, the lighthouse, the infirmary, the sanctum and the oracle could be considered optional since they are tied to a specific aspect of the game that you may or may not use… with good diplomacy you don’t need any military units and then you don’t need any military buildings either.  In my view the reason the fortifications are pay-to-play is because there are many of them and they can provide more revenue because you have to buy them one piece and one level at time.

I feel that there is no logical justification in the game for making them purchased items when every other buildings take workmen and resources.

2. I agree that the defenders need the boost. But the sanatorium idea could still provide this advantage: Casualties die when being transported back to the city for treatment therefore less casualties come back the further away the battle takes place and most come back from defending the city wall.  The idea of not reviving them immediately is also good.  If you really think that casualties should stick why let money players revive such a high percentage of them?  If anything I think purchased units should be 10 x more expensive to make it more difficult to “buy” victory.

Why add this feature? Because it increase the skill required to manage your city.  If you mount a big attack while your sanatorium is full of wounded you will not be able to save as many of your new wounded units.  Any feature that makes it more difficult to play the game well reduces the edge that money players get and increases the feeling of actually being able to control your fate in the game.  Features that can be bought or are chance-driven don't enhance the appeal of any game.  It is a strategy game and the player with the best strategy should win.

3. Who asked for a "break" from the strategy of PVP battles?  It's like a TV broadcaster putting up a very bad program to give viewers a break from all the good programs... Only a person who enjoys losing to slot machines in Vegas would appreciate the way Persian Positions are programmed.  You kill a certain number of your units and get 90% of the units back when you hit the jackpot.   Make the Persian positions less predictable by not revealing exactly what level they are, let them succumb to overwhelming attacks without inflicting casualties but don't give huge payouts either.  Put a few true "jackpots" in the mix so archons will continue to play the PPs.

4.Having a PA fail is no more terrible feeling than the player who just bought 50 new Agemas only to see them wiped away by a PA. 

The PAs are a pure "buy-to-win" tool.  They have no real purpose other than to make players - who cannot master the strategy of the game - "buy" at no risk a whole bunch of PVP and Challenge points. 

In a current challenge the opposing coalition throws dozens of PA units at our cities... why because they score big from casualties on our side while we get a measly 50 pts per shot.  We are sieging and raiding their cities but their PAs are beating us hands down.

If the fundamental of the PA was sound why not offer players with 500,000 Drachmas a "nuclear bomb unit" that just deletes the opposing player's city and account. This is exactly what a PA does on a smaller scale. Can't fail, requires no strategy, poses no risk to user, denies defender casualty bonus that all other attacks provide AND can only be bought.  

It is of course a huge money grab feature for Plarium because it is expensive and destroys a lot that needs to be rebuilt.

5. As I said above adding features that makes the game more difficult to master but making them player-controlled adds to the balance that gives money less impact and gives a sound strategy more. 

Why the watchtower?  Because attacking from 2-3 hours away is very risky.  The defender can bring in coalition defenders/allies much faster than your force can advance on the city. By the time you get there you are likely to be met by 50,000 defenders.  You could visit the city and from the watchtower level/graphic estimate how far away the enemy will be able to see you coming and decide if a raid is worth the risk.  This would again add another dimension to the strategy.  Right now you just have to bet/hope that your opponent is not online when you launch the attack.

6. I agree with your argument: the trade part of the game stinks and therefore it is intended to stink and it should continue to stink... Great argument!

I'm not sure what you consider a good argument is when you're exaggerating so much.

I agree that the game ought to be fair. It's only fair that people who put more into the game get more out of it, whether it's money and/or activity. 

1. There is a baseline experience that everyone should have access to. Not having them would mean new players would only be able to play a fraction of the actual game. This includes Persian positions, trading, unit production facilities, resource generators, elixirs and agreements. Free players may not have access to fortifications, but the infirmary plays a similar role and allows their defensive units to remain competitive with offensive units.

Fortifications do the same thing as the infirmary (providing an advantage to defensive units), but simply do more of it. If there weren't an infirmary, then fortifications would probably be resource-based. Understand the difference now?

2. The problem is that you're extending the boost to both offensive units and defensive units. You can't change a specialized defensive structure to give a parallel bonus to offensive units without making additional changes to compensate for the imbalance. 

I think it'd make the game more of a waiting game instead of adding more strategy. Is my sanatorium full? No? Great, let's go! Yes? Darn, better wait a week. It's a yes/no decision with little thought necessary. Instead you get situations like "I really need to raid this guy, but my sanatorium is full. Ugh, I'll take the losses and go anyway." Nobody is going to look at an empty sanatorium and say "Awesome! This is so much fun!" There's a discrepancy in the amount of fun you can have with a sanatorium compared to the bad feelings it makes.

3. Persian positions are 90% investment and 10% gamble. Play them well and you will be rewarded. If you complete each position haphazardly without paying attention to its finer mechanics, then you won't make as much as someone who is more skilled. They're also a long term mechanic. You shouldn't judge it based on a month of play.

4. Hitting someone's offensive units with an assassin seems just as possible as doing it with a normal raid. It's the defender's fault if he leaves his offensive units out for hours at a time. 

There is the risk that the defender is hiding all their units in the acropolis, so that the assassin ends up dealing little to no damage, which is a waste of drachmas. If they could damage units in the acropolis, then they're absolutely pay-to-win. They don't, and there's free-to-play counterplay available.

5. Well, the final level of the watchtower would have to give everybody global sight range, unless you want to nerf the function and give people less to work with. Forcing people to upgrade a building =/= strategy. It adds another wall to go through before you can get to the strategy part. People already calculate their risks and rewards. The risks will be there regardless of sight changes. You're not adding another strategic dimension, you're changing the one we already have by removing information available.

It's more of a question of whether or not the person you're attacking is active enough and has reliable allies.

Long travel times do have their uses. You can psych people out pretty hard.

6. It does its job. Do you see any problems that make it "stink"?

I want to respond back on every comment you made but I will tackle it one issue at a time:

6. The trade feature.  Why do I dislike the current implementation?  

As currently implemented it is much too restrictive even if we start from the premise that only articles and resources should be traded.  Why can’t articles be traded for resources? Why is there a limit of 0.5 to 2 on the resource exchange rates?

I think that is a no-brainer that only the restricted mechanics of the game prevent implementing those features as they would be useful and only make the game more user friendly (You can still make the trades I suggest but you have to do it through message exchanges and the honor system).

Why not expand the player trade market to use Drachmas?  I think this would greatly enhance the game, and every player would probably agree.  

I don’t see it threatening Plarium’s monopoly on Drachmas since every Drachma that enters the game is still sold (or given out) by Plarium and eventually comes back to Plarium through market purchases. The one concern would be if players started creating duplicate accounts to collect early/easy “award” Drachmas for their main account. By making Drachma trading unavailable to players below a high level through agreements this problem would be eliminated. It would provide a opportunity for players that have no/little money to invest to trade a portion of their resources to other players for those very hard to come by Drachmas so they would not be excluded from that aspect of the game. I believe it would add a new dimension to the game and would be beneficial to Plarium as it would keep more players involved longer.

The idea of Plarium run “trader” cities?  Right now the trade system is used to allow players to exchange duplicate articles for missing articles and abundant resources for scarce ones.  Both are “problems” engineered by Plarium to create a need for trade.  If Plarium never gave out duplicate articles or didn’t stagger the production development unevenly there would be no need for trade nor the three structures connected to trade. The trade feature is only there to add another dimension to the game.  Arguing that Sparta is not intended to be a trade game is ludicrous.

If Plarium added trader cities (Like Emporiums) that have a slight incentive (Like offering a limited number of trades at a 10% loss) but are located far away it would add another small feature to the game.  All idle galleys would be sent on long journeys to make a small profit.  

Why make such changes? Because a game that doesn’t continuously evolve and improve is just waiting to die…

4. Regarding the Assassin Unit.  I consider the effect of this unit on the balance of the game as catastrophic. Every player in my coalition I have discussed this with agrees and all wish they were removed.  They create an imbalance that can only be rectified by using PA ourselves, which we try not to do because it dumbs down the game to a match of throwing grenades over the fence at each other.  The minimal risk of wasting a cheap PA unit if you find no units in the city is dwarfed by the effects of the unit in scoring PVP points and challenge points when it hits…

I feel it is a “rich coward’s weapon” that absolutely does not enhance the game. The only reason it still exists is because Plarium cannot let go of such a good source of real Drachmas.  I think it may ultimately destroy the game if enough people start feeling that they have to use it to stay competitive.

If nothing else you should not score any XP, PVP points or Challenge points when using it (You should score a bunch Shame and Dishonor Points if anything).  The effects are bad enough as is don’t reward the bastard for using the weapon!!

6. It's bad enough to trade grain at 0.5 ratios, but it would be worse if you were forced to trade them at 0.25 ratios to get any business.

Articles can't be traded for resources because of alt account issues. We could restrict article trade to higher levels, but by then most players already have their articles.

There's nothing worthwhile to sell for drachmas. Resource packs are already pretty cheap. Competing with them would entail insane ratios such as maybe 660,000 resources for 50 drachmas, but then people far into the game have all the resources they could possibly need. 

Duplicate articles and the ability to trade them encourages activity. An active player should never have any leftover duplicates. You really aren't supposed to trade them up or down. You can sell them at the ephorate for the compensatory resource prize. The daily limit is also there to gate access to advanced units. It would be a terrible feeling to unlock all these awesome units without having the infrastructure to support their training.

There's only so much you can do with 3 basic resources. Overflowing with grain? Trade with other people trying to max out their agreements for bronze/timber so you can train units. Prefer defense? Trade your excess bronze for timber. Need resources as soon as possible? Offer a 0.5 trade. Can you afford to wait a while? Offer a 2.0 trade. That is the extent of trading necessary to support the game. There's no framework to specialize into gathering or manufacturing luxury resources dedicated for trade so you can generate a meaningful profit.

What makes you think the game isn't changing at all? There have been plenty.

I get the feeling that no matter how good a point I make you’re not going to admit there is anything that can be improved in the game… are you a “moderator” or a paid Plarium mouth piece?

You make a point that if exchange rates were widened you might have to sell your grain at a 4-to-1 ratio… But you can just as easily argue that since the exchange rate is limited to 2-to-1 lower level players (who are really starving for grain) have to give away their valuable bronze production to the rich high level players at below market rates. So the exchange rate limit is to give higher level players an advantage over lower level players?  What is wrong with letting the “market” set the exchange rate?

You also invoke the ALT player accounts as a reason not to allow articles-for-resources trading… Really?  A player with an ALT account can simply send articles to his main account for free… he doesn’t need a trade feature to do that. Look at how many players are trying to trade leftover articles for higher level ones... of course you can sell them at the Ephorate at the Plarium rate that is less than 1/10th of what they are really worth to other players that need them.

You argue that there are changes being made in the game… OK I concede there are changes being made.  I try to provide ideas to steer the changes towards a more enjoyable game (More players that stay on longer) rather than more money consuming features (Less players that spend more money) or same old stuff features (Appearance of change but just cosmetic rearranging of the same features)

I have to say after 50 days of playing the game that it is starting to get boring.  Too many repeatable, tedious “tasks” and not enough real strategy and thinking.  I have played a lot of computer war games over the years so I do have some first person insight into this.  This one needs some “fresh” features not re-hashed old stuff.  The recent addition of capitals for example seems lame.  I have no interest in the feature as it looks like another way just to collect stuff for a virtual “trophy board” (not unlike the coalition awards which I consider completely irrelevant) and gain some small % advantages that barely matter in the overall game.  You need to give players a feeling of controlling their destiny and impacting the game.  Right now I feel that I am sitting in the 134th row, 7th seat, on the starboard side rowing a galley!

A 1:2 ratio is much more manageable upper/lower bound. It kinda bites to trade at 0.5 ratios, but with enough resources overflowing, you can still make a meaningful exchange. Trading at a 1:4 ratio is rather pitiful. Galley capacities aren't designed to handle 1:4 exchanges.

So let's say a player has multiple accounts. He sends all his Ithaca articles to his main. Then what happens? His main starts to need Athens articles, but all his alts are producing Ithaca articles, which are pretty useless to him. So he has to upgrade all his alts to Ithaca just so he can get Athens articles, but by then he needs Maroneia articles, which his alts are pretty far off from writing. 

But wait, all his alts generate resources! They don't need to write his articles. He can just buy whatever he needs!

See the difference between your point and mine?

Since you seem to prefer that I act like a moderator, I'll give you the standard moderator response that my coworkers use.

Thank you for your suggestions. Have a nice day.

I can understand that there are always issues and unforeseen consequences anytime you make a change to a program but these latest objections do not seem very difficult to resolve:

1.    Double galley capacity for grain only so 4-to-1 exchange ratio is possible.  I don’t know at which ratio the market would naturally stabilize but right now high level players have too much grain and low level players not enough, which forces both parties to trade. At some point a balance would be reached where a market price would be established.  Maybe 3-to-1?  Right now such balance exists between Timber and Bronze.  Offer one for the other at anything but a nearly even ratio and you won’t make any trades.
2.    The risk you envision of having ALT accounts buy articles for their main account is non-existent in my view.  If a trade of “articles-for-resources” was opened it would be limited by the number of articles Plarium issues every day (One per city) and would only really encompass those articles that you get stuck with by mistake… A few Alt players would compete with 100’s of legitimate buyers for these articles. Alt players already send their resources to their main account to buy units and buildings so would it be any worse if they could occasionally be lucky and buy an article? The real winners would be the sellers of unwanted articles who would probably get a very good price for them. I also see new interesting decisions, where you have a player with a starving army choosing to sell his 2 Eleusis articles for grain for a short term relief, or players focusing on unit development and unwilling to pay Drachmas for towers and walls, selling their Stymphalos articles for extra bronze/timber.
3.    Alt players are a problem but the trading I propose would not aggravate the problem as far as I can see.  Maybe the real solution is to allow only one account per IP address?  Or place multiple accounts from same IP address on different servers so they cannot “work together”?  It seems like there should be better ways to police cheating than to cripple the game mechanics to limit it.

Hello Archon,

If I may dare answering as a player, I'd say it's evolving too much already. With too many unwanted features.

Since some of your suggestions would be really unwanted, all we can fear is they adopt your ideas and bring even more unwanted features...

* Shivers *

HI THATBLOKE

I was wondering which features I suggested are really unwanted and why you think they are?

Maybe implementing a forum section for suggestions is one of those unwanted features you shiver about?  Obviously if all change is diminishing a game that used to be perfect I think that a section for suggesting changes was a very bad idea...

I suggest removing the suggestion topic since all suggestions can do is lead to changes that we all fear may damage the perfect game SWOE is. 

OK, Unlike some other suggestions, the ones you made on this topic are actually interesting.

I was mostly afraid we got another storm of crazy changes... ;)

Of course every idea thrown on this forum should be subject to debates anyway.

Thank you, Thatbloke... I appreciate the fact that you read my suggestions.

I have played board war games for years and worked on upgrading mechanics for some of them.  I also helped design and beta test some PC-based war games.  I understand that most ideas won't work because a game like SWOE has a very delicate balance and changes can rock the boat to the point of tipping it or open cheat loopholes you couldn't even think of.  So I don't expect to ever see any of my suggestions implemented.

I just look at the game and see what is good and fun and what is not.  What would I like to see more of and what would I like to see go away.

Just a question for anyone who reads this thread:

Do you have any idea of what is on your coalition accomplishment/award board?  Do you care?

Has any part of your game changed since Coalition Capitals were introduced? Do you know what Capitals do? Do you care?

Do you still play the Persian Positions?  Is it a fun part of your game?

Do you still visit all your coalition member's cities and revive heroes, rebuild towers and collect tribute?

Do you still execute all the quests?

1. I don't think fortifications are much of a problem because they're really an optional feature. They're by no means game breaking, and don't interfere with normal gameplay.

That said, it would still be nice to have the ability to build them with normal resources just to give players more alternative defensive options. Maybe compromise by having the basic walls and towers cost wood and bronze and keep the drachma cost to upgrades, or make it possible to buy them with normal resources but make the cost very high?

2. I like the idea that some units should be injured and gradually healed by the sanatorium. It's more realistic and sounds like it would also be more enjoyable.

3. I don't mind the "slot machine" aspect of fighting persians, but I agree that combat should be balanced to make overwhelmingly larger forces more effective.

4. Yes, assassins should be subject to failure. I think it may be best to be able to hire some sort of "bodyguard" unit that increases your chance of survival against them, and to compensate for the chance of failure by making the assassins reusable if they survive. The way assassins are now is just an irritating pay-to-win mechanic.

5. Seems a little pointless to add watchtowers. It's not a bad mechanic, but taking away part of the game and making us build something to unlock it would probably annoy a lot of people.

6. I don't like this idea. It could add more to the trading, but trading isn't the point of this game, and people still trade a lot anyway. A way to get drachmas for resources would be nice, but a simpler and more enjoyable way of doing this could be to just allow players to buy and sell with drachmas at the port (though this may cause long term balance issues).