Fog of War and Unit Volume

I tried to find the thread in this forum where you were complaining that Suicide was too easy. I couldn't find it though. So basically you complain when it's too easy and then complain when it's to hard?

Scaren wrote:

I tried to find the thread in this forum where you were complaining that Suicide was too easy. I couldn't find it though. So basically you complain when it's too easy and then complain when it's to hard?

So too weak UD, made too strong, and now is more balanced than ever.

Do the same here please, devs.

as ai doesnt care for fow - its not about tactics in pve at all...

maybe I am to old, but I end up in dbl checking where my 10 units run, after I gave the order to atk = no fun

hard to surround enemies, if they still come as a solid block. Ai doesnt need to spread-out and search for you.

To me it its - first you cant see and after you see...your lucky if your units follow you atk orders and do not stumble over their own feets   

I hate this FoW and unit volume... I can't win any suicide with my "full" ranged army now.

Cav should have its line of sight increased to act as a "scouting" unit, that would offset a lot of these tiny visual blocks.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Well, obviously we weren't expecting everybody to like the new changes, especially players who were so used to different mechanics.

Attack all on one unit, ball effect, no tactics, just rush in and hopefully you will win, no usage of the terrain, but only hide behind it so the ranged units can't shoot at you, knowing where the enemy is, etc. etc.......were not part of a strategy/tactical game...

Now, the tactical element has been increased and improved and the player who uses tactics (scout ahead, hide his units, protect his ranged units, lure his opponent to bottlenecks, etc.) will always have an advantage over his opponent.

Yes, it will need some time to get used to it, but in the end...it is for the good...The people participating in the testing phase had a very good time (PvPs) and we get to watch numerous battles in real time...Tactics, fast decision making, different army compositions, surprise attacks...all part of an interesting and challenging game.

Rankings...

Fame is called City Score now. In a game which never ends and never resets, the City Score (building lvls and tech lvls) shouldn't matter in Rankings, because simply the oldest active players will always be at the top. This IS a war game and what matters in Battle Conquest is CP. You want to be considered a veteran? Prove it on the battlefield. Building lvls and tech lvls are just the means towards unlocking new features, not the determinants of your Rankiing.

The more active you are, the higher the difficulty of the battles you choose to do, the more PvPs you do, the more CP you will generate and the higher your ranking.

With the old system, if I paid $1000 on one go, I could easily climb to the first page of the Rankings, paying my way up... Remember....We are not a Pay to Win game....and will never be.

It's your game after all but as long as there's a forum for feedback I will provide it.

Judging from your post I can clearly see how you envision your game but it is so far removed from how the game actually is and how people play it.

Unit volume would be ok if not for FOW (with more tweaks...). Fow adds nothing to strategy in a strategic game. Just adds more randomness. (of which we already have too much of). Ranged units have never been less useful than now. And bottlenecking actually is a bad idea now contrary to what you have said (can be fixed with tweaks though). But I'm sure you will totally disagree with these statement.

You said that omg people would ball up and just hide behind terrain = no tactics. Now don't get me wrong something had to be done about LIA balls but removing that from the game entirely was a mistake. Then you say oh yeah now people will hide behind terrain before they scout and thats so good but that just means that people will just basically camp. Whoop-dee-do. now it's a game about lurking, camping and chance. If youre lucky and go to some spot where the enemy will be in a bad position you will win if not you will lose. YAY STRATEGY >_> Not to mention that dwarves will be at a constant disadvantage due to their slow scouts. (also way to make the the troops that were basically tanks in medieval times doing peasant work as scouts.) What else... there are of course some cavalries who are extremely squishy so youll need more than one of the useless things to have a proper idea of the map wasting precious AP. Finding dark arti will be harder now too. More random BS and greater disbalance between the races and factions.

I hate FOW. Makes absolutely no sense that any kind of general would go into a battlefield without knowing who's he's going against. This FOW nonsense could only work in some ambush mode (both pvp and pve) but not in every battle without choice. give more options to players like randomized or non randomized maps, option to turn FOW off and on by selecting a mode (FOW mode obviously giving better rewards).

As far as rankings go... Passing people in rankings was very easy before even vs big players because all the big players are bored with the grind and hardly fight anymore. And this trend will not stop obviously by how things are going. But ok... fine. You don't want people to buy their way up the rankings with gems. Ok then remove the idiotic MONTHS AND MONTHS of buildings time for virtually nothing. If that stuff is purely for unlocking stuff then their resource prerequisites should be enough without having to wait for market to upgrade (that does NOTHING!!!!) so you could start your research. I played for almost a year now and it means nothing? I don't have the time to grind all day and everyday like before. So where's the fairness? There's some guy in like the second place with smth like 5k "city score". Absolutely makes no sense. Previous rankings were perfect for everybody. Look at any other city management game. Everything you do adds to your position in rankings. Every battle you do, every gear you craft, every building you build. EVERYTHING. Rankings being only 100% cp is just plain wrong. If this is such a battle game then remove the city building garbage all together and have an arena battle game. But we do have cities and we have other stuff. If we have to wait for a week for a building to finish how about you make that week be worth while? So in conclusion about rankings... you fixed what wasn't broken. yay.

And please don't patronize players who have played this game so long with your "want to be a veteran" and "good general" schticks. I got to be the first demigod in the game with almost 700k cp without buying any vip stuff or chests (I only got the dragonslayer thing just to support the game that I loved). I don't think I have anything to prove. Thanks.

Lastly, this post is obviously rage filled. Not because I'm not top of the ranks or anything ( I Couldn't care less. If people haven't noticed I have done like 10 battles in the past 2 months. I'm not delusional. I know I shouldn't be in the top). Post is rage filled because I am pissed. Because I see a game that i used to love and have spent so much time playing now basically being ruined. All the potential that the game had when I first joined being realized in all the wrong directions.

It appears to me, with the introduction of the unit volume & fow, there has been held no thought with the difference in gameplay between races, which bothers me, as a melee only capable race.

i think that visibility should be a new attribute to units and that you can get visibility in banners and articfacts

Piktas wrote:

It's your game after all but as long as there's a forum for feedback I will provide it.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. This IS what this place is all about, so all players can express their opinions and communicate with other players and the devs. You are saying it as if there is some kind of a communication control by us.

Piktas wrote:

Judging from your post I can clearly see how you envision your game but it is so far removed from how the game actually is and how people play it.

I agree completely. People were used to a certain gameplay and now with these changes it becomes different. Some people are willing to try the new mechanics and find their merits and some people will simply resist the change and react in all sorts of ways. (Eg. by saying that the game sux in the chat, or by making aggressive posts...etc.) In psychology there is a term "Resistance to Change"....we understand that...but we also understand that without change there is no progress...and we always want to evolve... Are all changes bulletproof? Of course not...changes are always needed "Everything changes, nothing remains the same..." Heraclitus
Are we willing to make changes? Haven't we already proven that?

Piktas wrote:

Unit volume would be ok if not for FOW (with more tweaks...). Fow adds nothing to strategy in a strategic game. Just adds more randomness. (of which we already have too much of). Ranged units have never been less useful than now. And bottlenecking actually is a bad idea now contrary to what you have said (can be fixed with tweaks though). But I'm sure you will totally disagree with these statement.

I fail to see the relation between FOW and volume of the units.

FOW is used so as to hide the army composition of the enemy army, so you don't just place your units and wait for the enemy to come....It is used in both PVE and PVP, so as to provide a challenging and fun to play game...and not a grinding game using the "Increase Battle Speed" button...

I can understand that you are frustrated, because you may not like this new feature, but I am expecting valid and logical arguments, than just saying that FOW adds nothing to strategy. You either haven't played enough strategy games in your life, or you allow your "rage" to blind you, if you can't see that FOW improves the battle experience by not allowing the player to feel "safe".
Is it good for PvP? MOST definitely...perhaps you could try some PvPs...I have personally watched lots and lots of PvPs played by the testers...and it was a very good experience.
Is it good for PvE? Perhaps it needs some tinkering with the AI. Tbh, we didn't expect so many complaints about it, but still....the Community has a strange way of showing how they love the game... It is also weird to receive such criticism and bashing when we never ever closed the communication channel with the Community. But hey...we are used to it...

Piktas wrote:

Now don't get me wrong something had to be done about LIA balls but removing that from the game entirely was a mistake.

It was a mistake? How so? Having zerg tactics is your way of playing a strategy/tactical game? You find that the "ball effect" has some slight tactical element, but not knowing your opponent's composition and movement, until you are actually able to see him is totally inappropriate for a tactical game?

Piktas wrote:

Then you say oh yeah now people will hide behind terrain before they scout and thats so good but that just means that people will just basically camp. Whoop-dee-do. now it's a game about lurking, camping and chance.

When did I say that? We provide the tools (FOW, Flanks, Positioning, Different archetypes of units, Morale, etc. etc.), and it is up to the players how they will use them. I have personally witnessed TREMENDOUS tactics by the testers on the Test Server...I assure you...they were not lurking..or camping...but they were using each unit in a way trying to gain the advantage...

Piktas wrote:

If youre lucky and go to some spot where the enemy will be in a bad position you will win if not you will lose. YAY STRATEGY

You are a General....You don't know where the enemy is, what its composition is...and you will go with full force without covering your flanks or without any plan of attack/defense? You will not try to scout ahead and see what/where the enemy is? As I said above...we provide the tools...it is up to the players how they will use them...

Charge ahead? Go ahead..

Scout and play defensively...? Sure...

Wait for the enemy...? No problem...

Each tactic has merits...and well..disadvantages...depends on your army and your tactics..

Piktas wrote:

Not to mention that dwarves will be at a constant disadvantage due to their slow scouts. (also way to make the the troops that were basically tanks in medieval times doing peasant work as scouts.)

The Dwarfs have the LIA and the Ironfort which received a new special bonus which grants a speed boost for a few secs, but that is not the point. Each race has advantages and disadvantages. It's up to the player to decide how to use them or prevent the opponent from taking advantage of their disadvantages.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand the connection between tanks in medieval times with our fantasy setting, unless of course you are planning to send HI to scout ahead. It's possible...but I doubt it is the best thing you could do.

Piktas wrote:

What else... there are of course some cavalries who are extremely squishy so youll need more than one of the useless things to have a proper idea of the map wasting precious AP. Finding dark arti will be harder now too. More random BS and greater disbalance between the races and factions.

I again fail to understand what you are saying here, but it is apparent, if not crystal clear, that you haven't played enough battles after the update and you definitely didn't give any chance to the new mechanics. Instead, you allow your rage to talk instead of logic... unless of course you are not looking for some result out of all of this and your only goal is rage...which I can also respect, but I won't be the one further fueling it by responding to it.

Piktas wrote:

I hate FOW. Makes absolutely no sense that any kind of general would go into a battlefield without knowing who's he's going against.

So, what you are trying to say here is that in all the battles of the past (RL battles), the Generals knew the exact composition of the enemy, where EXACTLY they are...where EXACTLY they are heading out...and a GRAND view of the WHOLE battle in REAL TIME so they can lead their armies to victory? I am sorry, but I do not see any logic to that...

Piktas wrote:

all the big players are bored with the grind and hardly fight anymore

You prove my words... provide a more interesting gameplay, add the element of surprise and then you have no grind any more.... Grind = Doing the same thing again and again with no change at all.

Piktas wrote:

Ok then remove the idiotic MONTHS AND MONTHS of buildings time for virtually nothing. If that stuff is purely for unlocking stuff then their resource prerequisites should be enough without having to wait for market to upgrade (that does NOTHING!!!!) so you could start your research. I played for almost a year now and it means nothing? I don't have the time to grind all day and everyday like before. So where's the fairness?

You have to earn your title "Demigod". You don't just earn it once and then you sit on your bench expecting everything to come to you. Just because a player has reached max levels of buildings/techs, that doesn't mean that other players should NOT get the chance to earn their rank as well. You don't want to fight all day and everyday, as you said, then the player who does WILL BE REWARDED. I cannot see why this makes no sense to you.

Piktas wrote:

Look at any other city management game

This is NOT a city management game. This is an MMORTS, which uses buildings and other stuff to unlock features in the game.

Piktas wrote:

And please don't patronize players who have played this game so long with your "want to be a veteran" and "good general" schticks

I respect the Community Piktas and I have shown it many times. Why don't you do the same for the devs who made a game for which they are working day and night, for a game which you enjoyed for 11 months, as you said, for the devs who have been close to the Community as no other dev team and who do not perceive their user database as a money machine?

The only reason I responded to this "rage post", is because I respect you as a veteran player. If however you respond in a way which will be similar to this post filled with mockery, with no valid arguments and just so you can unleash some more rage, then I swear to God, I will not respond...unless you "go overboard"...

However, if you would like us to discuss on how to improve the system, I will be  more than happy (and I assure you the rest of the team as well) to read your suggestions and points where you think that the system should need some tweaks AFTER you will have played enough battles to form an opinion.

I am here...and I am ready to listen...are you?

FOW
How possible would a LoS stat on units be? Maybe add LoS to artifacts as another possible stat?

Volume
Right now its quite difficult for players to use terrain bottlenecks since once combat starts, units behind others wander off to the side or all the way around trying to make contact. Would shrinking the volume upon contact be possible? IE two units engaged in combat have a smaller footprint than when they are moving.

As far as that ^ whole deal goes, everyone needs to take a step back and ease off the gas. The Devs put a substantial amount of work into this GIGANTIC update, whether or not we agree with the direction can be discussed in a more respectful polite manner.

Metalsiagon wrote:

FOW
How possible would a LoS stat on units be? Maybe add LoS to artifacts as another possible stat?

Definitely not a bad idea...

Metalsiagon wrote:

Volume
Right now its quite difficult for players to use terrain bottlenecks since once combat starts, units behind others wander off to the side or all the way around trying to make contact. Would shrinking the volume upon contact be possible? IE two units engaged in combat have a smaller footprint than when they are moving.

Well, as I mentioned in another post, we definitely don't want to hinder the player's movement on the battlefield. We will definitely try some more changes on the volume system on Monday. As I said, we could allow units passing though other units but under specific circumstances. Also, as suggested, certain penalties may apply...

RuneSlayer wrote:

Metalsiagon wrote:

FOW
How possible would a LoS stat on units be? Maybe add LoS to artifacts as another possible stat?

Definitely not a bad idea...

Metalsiagon wrote:

Volume
Right now its quite difficult for players to use terrain bottlenecks since once combat starts, units behind others wander off to the side or all the way around trying to make contact. Would shrinking the volume upon contact be possible? IE two units engaged in combat have a smaller footprint than when they are moving.

Well, as I mentioned in another post, we definitely don't want to hinder the player's movement on the battlefield. We will definitely try some more changes on the volume system on Monday. As I said, we could allow units passing though other units but under specific circumstances. Also, as suggested, certain penalties may apply...

I found this great article the other day about game balance as it pertains to making competitive games. I thought I'd share it, both the article and the comments on the article are extremely good.

http://www.insanedifficulty.com/index.php/index.html/_/news/get-over-your-game-balance-obsession-r114

I think the most important information to take out of that article is that the best way to deal with imbalance is not to nerf the offending thing into the ground, but to find ways to make it remain useful while not making it overpowered, or to provide answers to counter the offending thing. I really like the section on Emergent Gameplay. This is why I think removing ball tactics from the game entirely was a mistake, as they were a part of the fun and the strategy was not without risk or merit. The suggestion about units being "smaller" once they go into battle could be the solution the game needs. It would prevent full on ball tactics without discrediting the player's ability to get a reasonable number of flanks on stronger units that they might not be capable of beating any other way. And maybe, LI AP wouldn't need to be lowered in this case (or at least not very much), since their flank ability would be improved. Just some food for thought.

It's also made me think a bit more about the whole undead "issue". I think the answer is in allowing their LI and LIA to be very strong (about where they are now, probably). But as a tradeback, maybe their HI should only be average at best. Right now they still seem to have the strongest LI and HI which happen to be the two most important units. But I see the way undead play is quite differently because they can rely on their LI to do unique things and hold units that any other race's LI wouldn't be able to hold. I don't think that taking that unique ability away from them would be in the best interests of the game and tactics. So I think it's fair that undead should remain to have the best LI in the game, however it should be made up for in some other way that reasonably offsets it. Slightly weaker cav/archer isn't really enough when they have the best LI/HI. So weakening their HI a bit seems like the right answer. Anyone please feel free to disagree with me of course.

Piktas wrote:

Because I see a game that i used to love and have spent so much time playing now basically being ruined.

 
  
 
@Rune
 
I know that you want, that BC becomes an PVP game.
You stated or indicated it in several postings and in some PM's.
 
I personally dont like PVP's, i have only played ~30 of them..
Because i don't like them: I stopped.
 
For those who love to PVP, Fow is a great thing, i have no doubt about it!
But, as stated many times: I believe (please give us numbers!) that >95% of all players have an Pve/Pvp ratio like 99/1.
 
So why are you are trying to change the game, with all means, to the pvp direction?
95% of all players have been happy with the game already!
->
Yes, 5% not.
 
With Fow and Volume for PVP, you have changed it!
Now the 5% have maybe changed to 2%! Good job!
But you changed the 95% to <50%.
 
I cant believe that you are happy with this.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. This IS what this place is all about, so all players can express their opinions and communicate with other players and the devs. You are saying it as if there is some kind of a communication control by us.

This was merely a response to you saying that not everyone will like changes and that is completely true with almost every update. In no way did I intend to imply that there's some kind of communication control. Mostly pointing out that it's your call at the end of the day and how many people there are you'll find just as many opinions. Clearly the case on fow and there's lots more things I would do differently but then again i'm only a player and i'm only getting my opinions heard because BC devs listen to feedback I always held in high regard even though half the time I have to spam to get a response.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I agree completely. People were used to a certain gameplay and now with these changes it becomes different. Some people are willing to try the new mechanics and find their merits and some people will simply resist the change and react in all sorts of ways. (Eg. by saying that the game sux in the chat, or by making aggressive posts...etc.) In psychology there is a term "Resistance to Change"....we understand that...but we also understand that without change there is no progress...and we always want to evolve... Are all changes bulletproof? Of course not...changes are always needed "Everything changes, nothing remains the same..." Heraclitus
Are we willing to make changes? Haven't we already proven that?

Nothing wrong with change and I have stuck with different mechanics being implemented for long enough now to not have to see you imply that i'm afraid of change or smth. Unless it's you calming everyone who reads the post...in that case carry on.   

RuneSlayer wrote:

I fail to see the relation between FOW and volume of the units.

FOW is used so as to hide the army composition of the enemy army, so you don't just place your units and wait for the enemy to come....It is used in both PVE and PVP, so as to provide a challenging and fun to play game...and not a grinding game using the "Increase Battle Speed" button...

I can understand that you are frustrated, because you may not like this new feature, but I am expecting valid and logical arguments, than just saying that FOW adds nothing to strategy. You either haven't played enough strategy games in your life, or you allow your "rage" to blind you, if you can't see that FOW improves the battle experience by not allowing the player to feel "safe".
Is it good for PvP? MOST definitely...perhaps you could try some PvPs...I have personally watched lots and lots of PvPs played by the testers...and it was a very good experience.
Is it good for PvE? Perhaps it needs some tinkering with the AI. Tbh, we didn't expect so many complaints about it, but still....the Community has a strange way of showing how they love the game... It is also weird to receive such criticism and bashing when we never ever closed the communication channel with the Community. But hey...we are used to it...

The grind comes not from the battles It comes from the lvling and building and waiting endlessly and grinding endlessly to lvl up. The battles are fun until you realize that you have to do millions of em and people being goal oriented in general they want to get to their goal in the most efficient way that's why they get into certain patterns that allow them to finish the battles faster etc. Well the relation is that they came out at the same time. I'm Just saying that volume is a good idea for some units in some races (maybe all units in specific races) and additional tweaks to pathfinding and whatnot and whatever else people are suggesting about improving volume. FOW on the other hand I dislike completely. Aside from the illogical appearance of it which is whatever... Basically a non issue i suppose. Well aside from that IMO fow strains the already hard to balance races and will create more problems. You should have expected this btw because there already have been long threads about the upcoming FOW and peopel have voiced their concerns. From my point of view FOW could be a neat optional thing or some kind of randomized event... As it is right now it gives an advantage to some races and to some players depending on their setups.

That's what you should be doing. Providing options. Specific maps where certain rules apply. for example a completely empty field that would not allow any ranged units. Or just just specific maps that would give advantages and isadvantages to specific races and/or units. I'm sure if you made a contest for map designs the community would think of great non-randomised maps.

Oh and as far as me trying to pvp I would have started pvping a long time ago if not for some abhorrent features that we're implemented (most are fixed now thankfully though) but some are still there. Also I lag way too much so forgive me if i'd rather pass on giving free wins to my enemies for no rewards for myself. Entirely my problem mostly. I'll give you that.

RuneSlayer wrote:

It was a mistake? How so? Having zerg tactics is your way of playing a strategy/tactical game? You find that the "ball effect" has some slight tactical element, but not knowing your opponent's composition and movement, until you are actually able to see him is totally inappropriate for a tactical game?

Well for example what Wave has said. Race specificness. Zerg tactics are called tactics for a reason. They are weak but many. Undead are supposed to be like that for example. That's what I mean. As much as everyone hates undead balling up they are one of the races that should be doing it and some units of other races should have the ability to do it as well. It's either having truly different races or having them identical (but no one wants to play real time chess). This in between thing isn't working.

RuneSlayer wrote:

When did I say that? We provide the tools (FOW, Flanks, Positioning, Different archetypes of units, Morale, etc. etc.), and it is up to the players how they will use them. I have personally witnessed TREMENDOUS tactics by the testers on the Test Server...I assure you...they were not lurking..or camping...but they were using each unit in a way trying to gain the advantage...

That was a closed environment and most peopel in it were experienced pvpers who knew exactly what they were doing and they also had a limited time per day to do it so of course they didnt want to camp because they wanted to test volume and stuff like that. Also chances are some maps are horrible to camp in and some might be wonderful. Not to mention the dark arti advantage. Again... as an optional thing it would be great.

RuneSlayer wrote:

You are a General....You don't know where the enemy is, what its composition is...and you will go with full force without covering your flanks or without any plan of attack/defense? You will not try to scout ahead and see what/where the enemy is? As I said above...we provide the tools...it is up to the players how they will use them...

Charge ahead? Go ahead..

Scout and play defensively...? Sure...

Wait for the enemy...? No problem...

Each tactic has merits...and well..disadvantages...depends on your army and your tactics..

This was already happening without fow. FOW added nothing just the higher chance to get steamrolled badly.

RuneSlayer wrote:

The Dwarfs have the LIA and the Ironfort which received a new special bonus which grants a speed boost for a few secs, but that is not the point. Each race has advantages and disadvantages. It's up to the player to decide how to use them or prevent the opponent from taking advantage of their disadvantages.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand the connection between tanks in medieval times with our fantasy setting, unless of course you are planning to send HI to scout ahead. It's possible...but I doubt it is the best thing you could do.

Entirely personal... I don't know about other people but seeing a cavalry unit full in GL gear die vs archers in melee makes me cringe... And sure each race has advantages and disadvantages. I'm saying that FOW magnifies some advantages for one races and some disadvantages for others. also hinders playing styles but i guess one could argue that theyre stuck in their ways.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I again fail to understand what you are saying here, but it is apparent, if not crystal clear, that you haven't played enough battles after the update and you definitely didn't give any chance to the new mechanics. Instead, you allow your rage to talk instead of logic... unless of course you are not looking for some result out of all of this and your only goal is rage...which I can also respect, but I won't be the one further fueling it by responding to it.

This harkens back to cavalries being too weak in my opinion. But I guess now that dwarven cavs will be more useful that will not be the truth. Only some cavs will be weaksauce now. (I can see people saying dwarves are OP already btw)

RuneSlayer wrote:

So, what you are trying to say here is that in all the battles of the past (RL battles), the Generals knew the exact composition of the enemy, where EXACTLY they are...where EXACTLY they are heading out...and a GRAND view of the WHOLE battle in REAL TIME so they can lead their armies to victory? I am sorry, but I do not see any logic to that...

Not exact. But approximate. And let's be real here the battle sthat we're having are basically in open fields. No mystery. Again this can be argued in any way. I still don't like it and I think it's one of many features that are not casual player friendly and does not help the game. Not many hardcore gamers play flash games let's be real.

RuneSlayer wrote:

You prove my words... provide a more interesting gameplay, add the element of surprise and then you have no grind any more.... Grind = Doing the same thing again and again with no change at all.

Like I said before the battles are not the grindy part.

RuneSlayer wrote:

You have to earn your title "Demigod". You don't just earn it once and then you sit on your bench expecting everything to come to you. Just because a player has reached max levels of buildings/techs, that doesn't mean that other players should NOT get the chance to earn their rank as well. You don't want to fight all day and everyday, as you said, then the player who does WILL BE REWARDED. I cannot see why this makes no sense to you.

Uh yeah and i was steadily going down the ranks and rightly so since i hardly fight anymore. I never said said that just cuz I already got demigod I'm supposed to be demigod forever now without doing nothing. I had to work my way up the ranks building my buildings and doing it in a smart way (aka managing my time). Was part of my growth and now you basically just need enough buildings to do your research and then just max out heroes and barracks. Other building lvls are then completely useless. That's the problem. The problem is that with all the time building the city in the end there's nothing to show for it. Or for trying to get all the fame quests done to have an edge on people. Useless features annoy me.

RuneSlayer wrote:

This is NOT a city management game. This is an MMORTS, which uses buildings and other stuff to unlock features in the game.

Sure had me fooled with all the endless city management I had to do.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I respect the Community Piktas and I have shown it many times. Why don't you do the same for the devs who made a game for which they are working day and night, for a game which you enjoyed for 11 months, as you said, for the devs who have been close to the Community as no other dev team and who do not perceive their user database as a money machine?

The only reason I responded to this "rage post", is because I respect you as a veteran player. If however you respond in a way which will be similar to this post filled with mockery, with no valid arguments and just so you can unleash some more rage, then I swear to God, I will not respond...unless you "go overboard"...

However, if you would like us to discuss on how to improve the system, I will be  more than happy (and I assure you the rest of the team as well) to read your suggestions and points where you think that the system should need some tweaks AFTER you will have played enough battles to form an opinion.

I am here...and I am ready to listen...are you?

I always gave devs props about listening to feedback and being awesome in general. I have said exactly that to so many new players who have joined the game in kong and asked if the game is worth playing.

I appreciate you offering an ear to suggestions but the reason why I'm so all over the place and why it might seem like i'm just rambimg about thing that are completely unrelatedis because by now I would like so many things to be done differently that it might as well be called BC 2. So forgive me for being an asshole but after the point when I don't even remember when was the last time i was excited about an update in a game that i used to love and that had so much potential (and still does... sort of) in my eyes i might get tad bitchy   .

All in all I'll say it again. It's your game not mine and we clearly have different ideas about what constitutes a good strategy game.

P.S.: FYI I have played enough strategy games or otherwise to know that something in a game isn't working. You don't need to be a musician to know when a song is good or bad.

Piktas you mentioned in your PS at the very bottom. You said You don't need to be a musician to know when a song is good or bad. I agree with that except people have varying taste in music. So for example I may think Country is great but you think it's bad. Some people may think Fog is great and others think it's bad. Going by opinion is a tricky business.

Scaren wrote:

Piktas you mentioned in your PS at the very bottom. You said You don't need to be a musician to know when a song is good or bad. I agree with that except people have varying taste in music. So for example I may think Country is great but you think it's bad. Some people may think Fog is great and others think it's bad. Going by opinion is a tricky business.

If I ever want Country then I should be able to change the station...but I was still enjoying what I was listening to. (now it's Country music 24/7)   

ysosad wrote:

Scaren wrote:

Piktas you mentioned in your PS at the very bottom. You said You don't need to be a musician to know when a song is good or bad. I agree with that except people have varying taste in music. So for example I may think Country is great but you think it's bad. Some people may think Fog is great and others think it's bad. Going by opinion is a tricky business.

If I ever want Country then I should be able to change the station...but I was still enjoying what I was listening to. (now it's Country music 24/7)   

I'm more of a Rock person 70/80s rock

I do not like the new ranking criteria...a player's "fame" is based on everything he or she does...if someone pays their way to the top so be it. We all know Ronin when we see one.The management of your city and research, the cp's you generate, the pvp wins, all define your fame. In Erevos, the top players were players...not payers. And this is coming from someone who depended heavily on his cp production for fame and rank. But cp's alone? Completely discounts the planning and scrounging and discussion that went in to building our cites and doing our research. The old system made sense and was fair.

kqlkql wrote:

I do not like the new ranking criteria...a player's "fame" is based on everything he or she does...if someone pays their way to the top so be it. We all know Ronin when we see one.The management of your city and research, the cp's you generate, the pvp wins, all define your fame. In Erevos, the top players were players...not payers. And this is coming from someone who depended heavily on his cp production for fame and rank. But cp's alone?  Completely discounts the planning and scrounging and discussion that went in to building our cites and doing our research. The old system made sense and was fair.

Even if city score is less than half of CP or something else, but to ignore it completely seems odd.

ST

funny to call a less of information (FoW) a increase in tactical options  

so a great commander would lead ranged units (who need a LoS) into a battle at night?   

in games with FoW, we need at least a unit to clear a large area from the fog (scout unit)

and with tons of units on the field, I d really love to be able to give clear orders - really hate this running around like chickens with their head cut off.

In PVE the ai doesnt use any tactic, so whats the use of fog anyhow?
You know they are coming...just cant see them now - WoW great tactical task   
all it did is render some units almost useless, not excatly what i would call a increase in tactical options.

the less the information and the lower the means ... the closer you get to a simple gamble.

riding a motorcyle at full speed thru a forest at night time, nobody needs techne..but lots of luck. add 2 wheels and some light and its more based on the capabilities of the driver

Piktas...that was a nice post and definitely a post worth reading.

I won't go through each of the comments you made, as we could continue this debate forever. (Hey..in my youth I was listening to drum n base...coughstillamcough...Doesn't mean everybody enjoys it.. )

I believe that the solution is somewhere in the middle.

I am not against tweaking the "volume" of the units A LOT...

I am not totally against having City Score affect the Rankings once again, but definitely in a way that CP will still be dominant.

FOW....I am against changing it tbh... It adds to the game...in many levels... However, we will invest some time in it by tweaking the AI behavior and possibly add some new units as well...

Piktas wrote:

So forgive me for being an asshole but after the point when I don't even remember when was the last time i was excited about an update in a game that i used to love and that had so much potential (and still does... sort of) in my eyes i might get tad bitchy

In my eyes, you are no asshole Piktas...just remember that we are not machines either...


Truth be told... I never considered Battle Conquest a ....simple Flash game...

In a way... this whole thing...just paves the road for our grand announcement in a few weeks..

I did not have the time to actually test the new mechanics. I do not like the new ranking system.
(It made a lot more sense to reward the whole eternal building. Honestly Piktas is 100% right when he said that grinding is based on motivation to build the city, research stuff etc. Noone will keep grinding once he got that, and its good - because grinding is terrible. Here you need to understand that there are certain types of players - some LOVE repetitive battles because it helps them chill out after work, it helps them get resources to support young guild mates, it helps them get fragments for better items, and it is essencial to be able to build your city with all its huge longterm cost. And literally there is nothing wrong about giving ppl that option. Then we have players that HATE grinding and repetitive battles and want diversity. Which again does not mean they want the option to grind to be taken from them because .... it is essential to get what you need and sometimes you are in the mood. The "better" diversity would be other game modes - with fow, with other setups that 30-70, premade tiny campains, world quests, guild missions, premade coops and missions.
It is a hard hard ballance to have a fun, diverse game that is not favoring grind all the way. Currently you want ppl to grind under the cover of "this is battle game", sure it is about battle, but you are also trapped in a vicious cycle here. Grind gives you everything - aether, frags, resources, conquest, and once ppl get all that they just quit out of boredom. What you really need is an alternative to get the same with a different approach. Instead you want to have ppl keep grinding with more pseudo-diversity aka fow. Fow should not have as much to do with pve, i prefer the difficulty split to fow or no fow. And i am basing that statement on the sheer amount of ppl who belong to the chill out grind/coop after work and literally hate the mechanic and look for another games now. Ppl who are the community powerhorses filling coop queues and supporting others, as a opposite to bored solo generals who simply look for a challenge every now and then (like me). So thats a very simple truth you actually know already. And i do understand that it is a lot of work and a long way there to create new battle modes and story campaigns and so on .. but that is the way to suit the needs of veterans and not pseudo-difficulty. So yeah i didnt actually test it, but fow needs to be restricted or softened and differed between pvp and pve.

I still do not like the aether table (in fact now i like it even less
Because: aether items are not that amazing to limit their aquirement to literally none for casual players and very few even for the best ... 100k CP for a base fame ? maybe there is a 0 too much? going from 500 fame to 100k cp is a bit extreme. As far as i remember a player that had unlocked artillery barely scratched 22-25k CP which kinda already is 2 months of gameplay. At your rules he wont see any aether for a long time, and any items below 200 aether dont even look like worth purchasing. In fact i would prefer to really have only "amazing" stuff in the shop instead of epic equivalent with more dura that has to be reforged with a gl fragment Oo ... yeah that. I think the top 10 player on the losing side at the end of first erevos cycle had over 350k CP ... this is a HUGE time investment no matter how you turn it, and all he gets now is 45 aether ?!? Doesnt that apeear a little off ballance to you? Equivalent reward for winner is 150. From my perspective the proportion should be winner 3: loser 2. Also, you either need to make the aether items cheaper or reward more aether to make the good ones accessable. If i had to play a year to get one item, i dont know why i would even bother about it at all. I would just consider "yeah it exists .. not my league", basically not a motivator because too far away. You want a game with casuals that see goals instead of pro-veterans and broad rest that has far less chances.) If you want to reward aether by CP, then i would propose to do it properly and have many levels of "base" aether, going from 10k cp, 100k cp, 250k cp, 500k cp. And obviously change the proportion of win and lose to 3:2 from 3:1. The actual effort a certain player does is equivalent .. he should not be punished for his race choice being light or dark and have a weaker faction or anything.
Yeaah ill continue someday before you skip this post alltogether.

About ranking i have to disagree with you Tibr. Hades was created from merging Erevos and Olympus. Erevos is much older world than Olympus. In old ranking players from Erevos would have unfair advantage on new world, so i belive this ranking is much better for me. Maybe ranking should have option to filtr by fame (city score) but Aethers should be given only for CP gained on that world, so the most active players would get the prizes.

According to new rewards system i do not care, cause i do not belive that any side can win soon.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I believe that the solution is somewhere in the middle.

Totally agree.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I am not against tweaking the "volume" of the units A LOT...

It's a good mechanic just needs technical reworking... I still think that some units need to be allowed to ball up. Namely UD but they would probably need another nerf or other races a buff.

RuneSlayer wrote:

I am not totally against having City Score affect the Rankings once again, but definitely in a way that CP will still be dominant.

It seemed to me that CP was dominant in the previous system. Sure maybe a little nerf on the fame rewards from buildings was in order but not a complete disregard to the time invested building those buildings imo.

RuneSlayer wrote:

FOW....I am against changing it tbh... It adds to the game...in many levels... However, we will invest some time in it by tweaking the AI behavior and possibly add some new units as well...

I think having it as an option would solve all problems. The person going into a solo battle could check a box in army screen. Could be like a hardcore mode that would give additional loot and rewards as well as CP. Or a person that is "hosting" a pvp battle could tick a box that the pvp will be FOW or not in FOW. Coops could be automated like we have people cooping in GW and others cooping in regular coops but sometimes they both end up fighting a race of their own factions.

As far as new units are concerned I'd personally would prefer that the current units would get some new extra skills before new units being introduced.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Truth be told... I never considered Battle Conquest a ....simple Flash game...

It definitely isn't, however, people in kongregate and armor games are mostly kids or people that play simple flash games during work hours. The audience is the simple flash gamey type is what I'm getting at. Hardcore gamers are few and far between in these places imo.