Suggestions to make the game more player friendly

1. Let the movement speed reduced by 20% when fleeing,
so make it possible to flee only when someone brings up the rear. and players dont need to watch the boring chasing movie every battle. as support, players may force ONE unit per battle to stop their fleeing and bring up the rear for others' life.

2. shorten some waiting time.
i know this is a point that you earn money, but i guess u know very few people really use gems to speed up the process. i dont mind buildings and research has a long waiting time, but at least dont give healing and such a too long waiting time so that player dont need to find something to do or just sit there and waste their time waiting.
earning a few hundred gems and let players boring that may make them find another game to play during waiting time and may loss some players and thus reduce your income of buying VIP or such in returns.

3. dont make it pay to win.
give a limitation of buying resources and speeding up buildings.
for example, 3-5 times a day, to make it impossible to pay to win, and make strategy a room to stand.
purely pay to win games loss players fastest...

4. give late joiners a bonus
the game is not opening servers from days to days, make a lot late joiners,
i think its fair to give them some EXP, RESOURCES bonus
for example, players
ranked 100-200 :+20% exp, resources
ranked 200-500: +50% exp, resources
ranked 500-1000: +100% exp, resources
ranked 1000 or behind: +150% exp, resources
to give late joiners a chance to catch up/

Not a member of staff, but I'd like to put my 2 cents in on these suggestions

1. The fleeing - I'd actually disagree with this, as it would make morale a little bit overpowered. fleeing's already a matter of chance, so I'd feel that some players, myself included, would end up feeling a bit gypped if our battalions had more units than our opponents, the opponent division got lucky enough to win their morale checks, only for ours to fail first, and then get quickly slaughtered by our opponent's division, who until now had been losing the exchange, in a very short period. moreover, it'd make it impossible to lose a PvP with less than total loss of troops unless you were fighting next to the map's edge. I'd rather not see this.

3. there's nothing in the game you can buy you can't simply earn with effort, as well, and that does make it easier. Moreover, given that encounters in PvE AND PVP are scaled, all someone can do by attempting to Pay to win is to get to the late game quicker, while having less experience than those who worked for it. In other words, the guy who spent more money on the game is still not guaranteed to win every time, or even have a real advantage.

4. I do partially understand your point about late joiners, but at the same time, it'd take away some from the people who worked for their position. if a system like this existed, I'd say that at the least it shouldn't be based on ranking. something that gave you a bit of a boost for a limited period upon joining would make more sense than making getting a positive ranking detrimental to the person.


2 I'd personally not want, but not for any other reason than I specifically don't like it, so I won't argue against that

pay to win not only means u cant get something by effort,
but u can get unreasonable, unlimited resources and such by paying.

for example, if u pay a few thousand USD, i guess u can finished all kind of buildings and research in one day. thats pay to win.
if paying only gives 20% extra income, buying resources has a limit of 20% of production of 24 HRs, these maybe able to be overcome by effort,
but if u can buy 100 million in a day..., AgentAAA, please show me how can u get this by effort. i will be very happy to see your strategy.


and ya, based on ranking is not that appropiate. based on time may make more sense.

further suggestion, let PvP not lossing EXP to encourage more PvP.

Actually "pay to win" generally refers to what is perceived as an unfair advantage that non paying players can not achieve. What we have here is more of a "pay to be lazy" system where yes resources and some other things can be purchased but it's nothing an active non paying player couldn't achieve on their own.

I think the "late join" bonus will be done to a degree when the faction balancing things are implemented.

Finally as to your 2nd point, which seems to be focused on unit heal times. Effective planning on the part of players can pretty much eliminate the majority of downtime between battles, it's up to them to figure out how to do so.

ttsa wrote:

3. dont make it pay to win.
give a limitation of buying resources and speeding up buildings.
for example, 3-5 times a day, to make it impossible to pay to win, and make strategy a room to stand.
purely pay to win games loss players fastest...

4. give late joiners a bonus
the game is not opening servers from days to days, make a lot late joiners,
i think its fair to give them some EXP, RESOURCES bonus
for example, players
ranked 100-200 :+20% exp, resources
ranked 200-500: +50% exp, resources
ranked 500-1000: +100% exp, resources
ranked 1000 or behind: +150% exp, resources
to give late joiners a chance to catch up/

1. I disagree with reduced speed on fleeing. In fact, I think there should be an option to flee off the map completely at an increased speed. There should be XP distributed to the winning side for units who flee in this manner.

2. Once you can field two sets of armies, there really is no downtime if you do not want there to be any downtime. Even with a single army, it is not difficult to have very minimal downtime.

3. This game is not p2w at all and from what I've seen from the devs, they are being very careful to avoid it. There are no incombat advantages that gems can buy. They also intend to allow a gem income through gameplay. Overall, theyre going for a good F2P model here.

4. I think not shutting out new players is important, but there are many ways to do so. Bonus/boosted resource income would not be the best way in my eyes. Firstly, XP does not need to be boosted because there is a hard cap on unit levels/XP.

Secondly, aside from unlocking new units, resources offer minimal advantages in combat. Within 1-2 weeks of play, you can earn most of those combat advantages through research.

Thirdly, the devs plan to release new units. Once more units are available, the progression will not have to be purely vertical. More units can mean more horizontal progression that gives players more choices. Once this happens, new players will be able to reach a "high" level of power quickly, but will have less choices than a veteran player who has unlocked more units.

Compare it to League of Legends - a new player may only have access to a few champions, but in combat, those champions are close to the same power as the champions that a veteran LOL player would have. Unlocking more champions gives you more choice in how you want to play, but it doesnt really increase your power.

There is certainly more vertical progression in this game than LOL, but creating a plateau of that power and providing more horizontal endgame growth will allow new players to catch up while offering veteran players more options in the endgame.

Hegorn wrote:

1. I disagree with reduced speed on fleeing. In fact, I think there should be an option to flee off the map completely at an increased speed. There should be XP distributed to the winning side for units who flee in this manner.
.

Only if you CANT CANCEL it, then i'd be okay with that option, atm in pvp you cant run, only die. But retreat? Dwarves just cant catch almost anything that retreats, while any unit with more speed will overrun a retreating army guaranteed. As you can imagine thats a pain in the ass for a slow race, sometimes adding minutes per match just chasing. This seems like an unattended side effect of retreating, since it can sometimes work in the favor of someone for fleeing, and cripples slow units to the point where retreat guarantees death. Think about it, if elves get attacked by 'anything', they can retreat, run, and take maybe a couple losses, no problem. If a dwarf is intercepted they HAVE to finish the fight until the enemy flees. Retreating seems like a weird thing to not be universally appealing.

Khor wrote:

Hegorn wrote:

1. I disagree with reduced speed on fleeing. In fact, I think there should be an option to flee off the map completely at an increased speed. There should be XP distributed to the winning side for units who flee in this manner.
.

Only if you CANT CANCEL it.

Yes. That suggestion was for a full retreat/escape from battle entirely. No cancelling.

I've seen another suggestion mentioned before and that is to DISENGAGE from combat. The difference from FLEE being that you maintain your facing to avoid flanking and are guaranteed to regain control after a fixed amount of time or fixed amount of distance. If that is implemented, then that should be at a movement penalty as the intention would be that one unit is disengaging while another unit is engaging.

More options for how we engage in battle would build more tactics for sure. Would open the door for designing new abilities to take advantage of those various tactics too.

Exactly, strategically tying up units in battle will probably play a big roll. Im wondering if each race should have unique 'flee' mechanics, given that speed can make such MASSIVE differences in the success of these.