Seems like that hard mode is now useless for vets.

Posts : 1043 Join date : 2013-07-09 Age : 42

Before the AI difficulty update I would do hard with 5 cav because it was fast, lots of gold, low casualties, and I would rarely ever face a HI or Cav and never artillery. Now in hard and even normal mode I can face HI,cav and artillery. They might be lower level but it seems now that NM is the best for gold profit. I do miss the old hard mode because I could end up doing it a lot. With the new NM I get to face Merc units who their abilities are incredible at level 9. The healing times have made the game boring to me. And yes I do have 2 armies that I use. But my LI get damaged so much that they end up to be around 20 minutes and usually one HI gets decimated so at least 25 minutes and up depending on level.

Posts : 63 Join date : 2013-09-11

Finally registered, now people have to read my two cents.

I have done purely NM and co-op since the difficulty reduction. Before the recent update I would do Hard mode non-stop alternating two armies. Now, I do two NM and wait 10+ minutes for the first army to finish healing before doing another two.

Posts : 1043 Join date : 2013-07-09 Age : 42

Broodzero wrote:: Finally registered, now people have to read my two cents.

I have done purely NM and co-op since the difficulty reduction. Before the recent update I would do Hard mode non-stop alternating two armies. Now, I do two NM and wait 10+ minutes for the first army to finish healing before doing another two.

The waiting has gotten extremely boring for me. I have no problem with building upgrades being long. Makes perfect sense. But I do not like how hard was changed at all. The point of NM was conquest points before and hard was for the most gold profit.

Posts : 12 Join date : 2013-08-31

Yea, they completely screwed the game up. Their fix helped slightly, but not enough.

I just don't see what the point was. Higher risk of losing, fewer rewards for winning, greatly increased healing times either way...

And after fighting quite a few battles today I've realized that somewhere along the line they nerfed CP's earned from battle as well.

My only conclusion is regret for ever giving these devs a dime of my money in the first place. Just the idea that they would throw that many changes in to the combat system at once shows that they're fuck ups. I don't know why I ever expect more from people working on money-grab web games. They never, ever have the best interest of the game or the customer in mind.

Posts : 782 Join date : 2013-07-19

jellybiscuit wrote:: Yea, they completely screwed the game up. Their fix helped slightly, but not enough.

I just don't see what the point was. Higher risk of losing, fewer rewards for winning, greatly increased healing times either way...

And after fighting quite a few battles today I've realized that somewhere along the line they nerfed CP's earned from battle as well.

My only conclusion is regret for ever giving these devs a dime of my money in the first place. Just the idea that they would throw that many changes in to the combat system at once shows that they're fuck ups. I don't know why I ever expect more from people working on money-grab web games. They never, ever have the best interest of the game or the customer in mind.

Okay a few things: Devs said next update will include healing time reduction. Don't know how much of a reduction, but it sounds promising. Also, the CP reduction as you called it is not a real change made, it's been in the game for a long time. It's a modifier (+15%?) to CP for a faction if they are particularly undermanned (low number of active players + CPs). So it wasn't a reduction but our CP going back to the normal 100% because of greater activity.

I do still think that hard and normal (and easy?) could still be made a little easier. Nightmare is fine, I think. Also, the reduced healing times in the next patch should help people handle the new challenge. I don't think the devs are trying to steal your money... unlike most free games with premium features, it's not too hard to be successful without paying (with a possible exception to GL drops being so insanely rare =P ). But since we can still get the frags by buying from other players, it's still possible to gear up just as well as paying players in time.

jellybiscuit wrote:: Just the idea that they would throw that many changes in to the combat system at once shows that they're fuck ups

I fail to see how attempting to improve the game proves that their "*&$% ups". Just because not all the changes panned out perfectly doesn't mean they did it on purpose or that things are beyond repair. I'd like to see you make an MMO with a small team and actually keep players happy and interested. Unlike most MMO developers, they really are trying to make the game better and are constantly working hard on new features. If they weren't adding features then the game would be less buggy and more balanced (like you seem to want). But it would also be less fun, and honestly I'd probably quit because there would be nothing to look forward to. One thing that was lacking before was challenges for higher level players. So it's not like they failed to address any issues with the new updates.

Sorry you feel so bummed out that you paid for gems, and that you think devs are only after your wallet. I have put no money into this game, and guess what, I'm actually happy playing it. I don't feel like I can't compete due to having not paid for gems. Almost any other MMO, I would.

The Unyielding Posts : 802 Join date : 2013-05-31

Jellybiscuit wrote:: They never, ever have the best interest of the game or the customer in mind.

Even the most horrible devs sometimes accidentally end up doing something to the best interest of players :p

You paying noobs again with your CUSTOMER talk. You're not customers, not in this game!!

And devs usually fix things. Later then intended, so we wait a few days, but it gets fixed.

Stop effing WHINING. Instead of offering something you go on about how risky it's to lose (!) and how devs effectively robbed you. HA.

Posts : 82 Join date : 2013-05-17

To get back on topic, I find myself in complete agreement with Scaren. Even reduced healing times haven't resolved the issue in my book. Before I used to log in, use up my CPs on hard mode battles, which were only slightly challenging, but still fun and in doing so would make enough profit to progress and make a considerable contribution to the war effort. On the odd occasion when I wanted a challenge and had time to really concentrate on a battle, there was always NM.

Now, however, there is no mode in which I can trot off a few quick, relatively easy battles, make a profit and contribute a meaningful amount to the war effort. I find that even on normal mode, I'm losing entire units so that every battle becomes a challenge and is too time consuming.

One of the attractions of this game is that it can be played in a variety of ways. For some it's PvP, for others it's city building, for me it's the war effort and earning CPs. If I can't contribute in a meaningful way efficiently and without being online 24/7, I'm likely to lose interest in playing the game in an engaged way and, if things stay as they are, I'm likely to become a casual player who only logs in to do the odd NM.

I appreciate I may be in a minority of one but thought I should still air my views as the devs have so far proved very responsive to comments.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

Gorlak, why do you feel that you cannot contribute in a meaningful way by doing a Hard battle?

You go in, you win, you earn Gold, you earn CP/Influence and then with healing times at around 4-5 mins you can go in and do the same again.

The battles are somehow more interesting and challenging now and the rewards are probably more now (as you can do more battles in the same time period like before, due to the healing times).

Posts : 82 Join date : 2013-05-17

RuneSlayer wrote:: Gorlak, why do you feel that you cannot contribute in a meaningful way by doing a Hard battle?

You go in, you win, you earn Gold, you earn CP/Influence and then with healing times at around 4-5 mins you can go in and do the same again.

The battles are somehow more interesting and challenging now and the rewards are probably more now (as you can do more battles in the same time period like before, due to the healing times).

It has nothing to do with healing times. With two or three teams, I wasn't affected by healing times before and with the new shortened times, I don't expect it to be an issue now either. The reason I don't feel I can contribute as much CPs as I used to is precisely because the battles are more challenging. Before I could run hard solos on fast forward and shoot through several matches using two or three teams in a relatively short online session, earning close to the CP cap each time This is no longer possible because each battle, even on normal, is too challenging. To do the same number of battles now requires a longer time online. Time that I don't feel I can spare. The game has thus become less rewarding to me because I don't have the time to rack up as many CPs as before and cannot therefore influence the war enough to make it worth trying. I just don't get why the normal and hard battles were made more difficult. If I wanted a challenge, I'd do NM.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

I disagree, because these changes affect everyone, not just you. So if your effectiveness has dropped by a certain percentage, as you are arguing, then the same is valid for the rest of the players and therefore the effectiveness of a player compared to another hasn't dropped.

Posts : 82 Join date : 2013-05-17

I appreciate I may be in a minority and it's obviously important that the game suits people as a whole. However, it was difficult enough before the changes to visibly affect the balance of power in a region due to the size of the container and the CP cap. It was only by battling many times as quickly as possible that I could make a difference. Now, it's virtually impossible for me to make much difference to a region. For me, that makes the game less satisfying. The fact that everyone is handicapped in the same way doesn't negate this. Like I said though, it's just my opinion.

All of that said though, there is no longer enough distinction between difficulties. Normal, hard and NM all offer pretty much the same experience now.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

Gorlak wrote:: All of that said though, there is no longer enough distinction between difficulties. Normal, hard and NM all offer pretty much the same experience now.

I have to disagree yet again.

I will use facts to prove to you that you are wrong:

Normal Difficulty

Range of AI levels: Min 2 / Max 10 (Random level depending on the level of the player's highest unit level ranging from -2 to 0)

Gear Score Modifier: 0.30 of player's GS (Random range -0.20 to +0.10)

No enemy Mercenary Units

Hard Difficulty

Range of AI levels: Min 5 / Max 15 (Random level depending on the level of the player's highest unit level ranging from -2 to +1)

Gear Score Modifier: 0.60 of player's GS (Random range -0.15 to +0.15)

Max 1 enemy Mercenary Unit allowed

Nightmare Difficulty

Range of AI levels: Min 9 / Max 20 (Random level depending on the level of the player's highest unit level ranging from +1 to +2)

Gear Score Modifier: 0.80 of player's GS (Random range -0.05 to +0.15)

Max 2 enemy Mercenary Units allowed

Still think they are the same?

Posts : 82 Join date : 2013-05-17

Perhaps I haven't battled enough with the new settings to be able to judge properly but the gaming experience I've had so far has been pretty much the same whatever the difficulty. I've been badly mauled on normal, just as I have on NM. I win on both settings but also usually take heavy casualties on both settings. It may well be true that the settings are different but in my experience so far, they're not different enough to affect the battling experience.

I don't necessarily expect you, or anyone else to agree with me and you can say that I'm wrong but what it all comes down to is the gaming experience and that's a very subjective thing. What I'm trying to get across is that that experience has deteriorated for me since the changes and I've tried to explain why. It's up to you the developers whether you want to take any of what I've said on board.

Posts : 782 Join date : 2013-07-19

Gorlak wrote:: Perhaps I haven't battled enough with the new settings to be able to judge properly but the gaming experience I've had so far has been pretty much the same whatever the difficulty. I've been badly mauled on normal, just as I have on NM. I win on both settings but also usually take heavy casualties on both settings. It may well be true that the settings are different but in my experience so far, they're not different enough to affect the battling experience.

I don't necessarily expect you, or anyone else to agree with me and you can say that I'm wrong but what it all comes down to is the gaming experience and that's a very subjective thing. What I'm trying to get across is that that experience has deteriorated for me since the changes and I've tried to explain why. It's up to you the developers whether you want to take any of what I've said on board.

I agree with you Gorlak.

Here's a print screen of Normal mode. I'm naked and yet I'm facing against 12 units vs my 10. 2 HI, 1 Cav, 1 Artillery... This is practically the enemy composition of the old nightmares... on normal...
http://prntscr.com/1quss9

I fought in NM geared up in about 200 AP of equipment and guess what I fight. 10 units, including 2 HI, 1 troll, and 1 ogre. The only reason the NM was harder is because of the difficulty of the mercs. But normal was still nearly enough to wipe out one my units, which should not be the case considering it has less than half the reward of Nightmare when taking frags into consideration. The same principles apply to hard mode. You can't get godlike frags in hard, and resource reward is about 3/4 that of nightmare, so logically there should be a noticable drop in difficulty. But it's actually possible to have a hard that is much harder than a Nightmare, if the enemy composition is right. For example, let's say a hard mode has 10 units including 1 cave giant, 1 artillery, 2 HI. Then you get a Nightmare, with 10-11 units including 2 spider swarms and 2 HI. The hard one would be significantly more difficult than the nightmare one, but with much less reward. Not fun.

I still enjoy the difficulty level of nightmare though, and things are getting closer to how they should be I think. Heal times helped, and hard/normal have gotten a bit easier with the reduction of mercs for those difficulties. Now I think it should be taken one step further: no cavs/artillery on normal, and no artillery on hard, or if there is an artillery on hard, maybe count it as the 1 merc. because artillery plus certain mercs can be a very dangerous combo that is more suited to nightmare difficulty.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

And we are definitely always welcome all opinions expressed in the Forums. However, as "Resistance to Change" is a human "merit", I would suggest playing a few days with the recent changes and then come back with an open mind and express your feelings about them. We will definitely be here to listen again...

Posts : 331 Join date : 2013-05-02

RuneSlayer wrote:: Hard Difficulty

Range of AI levels: Min 5 / Max 15 (Random level depending on the level of the player's highest unit level ranging from -2 to +1)

Gear Score Modifier: 0.60 of player's GS (Random range -0.15 to +0.15)

Max 1 enemy Mercenary Unit allowed

Just made an hard solo:
Seems like that hard mode is now useless for vets. Cp8p10

Posts : 782 Join date : 2013-07-19

Oh my, that merc is level 9 too. Ouch.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

Blame Xargos for that, not me. Smile

Posts : 331 Join date : 2013-05-02

I blame nobody. Smile

But maybe, my guess, that Hard and NM have switched, could find affirmation.

Ps.: Higher casualties, but won. Smile

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

No, Hard should spawn max 1 Mercenary unit.

However, we may change it so Nightmare also spawns max 1 Mercenary unit, to nerf the difficulty even more.

Posts : 289 Join date : 2013-06-21

RuneSlayer wrote:: No, Hard should spawn max 1 Mercenary unit.

However, we may change it so Nightmare also spawns max 1 Mercenary unit, to nerf the difficulty even more.

mercs now should be max level 3, at least until ourselfs get mercs....

Posts : 331 Join date : 2013-05-02

Rune, i have not an problem with the difficulty, but it still seems, that Hard and NM are switched.

Playing the hard (screenie above) i received 69 casualities, without AI Arti.
I made just an NM: 39 casualties, with one AI Arti, which normally kills my units easily.

Posts : 289 Join date : 2013-06-21

RuneSlayer wrote:

Gorlak wrote:: All of that said though, there is no longer enough distinction between difficulties. Normal, hard and NM all offer pretty much the same experience now.

I have to disagree yet again.

I will use facts to prove to you that you are wrong:

Normal Difficulty

Range of AI levels: Min 2 / Max 10 (Random level depending on the level of the player's highest unit level ranging from -2 to 0)

Gear Score Modifier: 0.30 of player's GS (Random range -0.20 to +0.10)

No enemy Mercenary Units

Hard Difficulty

Range of AI levels: Min 5 / Max 15 (Random level depending on the level of the player's highest unit level ranging from -2 to +1)

Gear Score Modifier: 0.60 of player's GS (Random range -0.15 to +0.15)

Max 1 enemy Mercenary Unit allowed

Nightmare Difficulty

Range of AI levels: Min 9 / Max 20 (Random level depending on the level of the player's highest unit level ranging from +1 to +2)

Gear Score Modifier: 0.80 of player's GS (Random range -0.05 to +0.15)

Max 2 enemy Mercenary Units allowed

Still think they are the same?

what is the gear score modifier? if we bring gear the fight gets harder?!?

you said in another thread:

rune wrote:

Quote :: nathor wrote:
1) does bringing on heroes generate more enemies?
2) does bringing on gear generate more enemies?
3)do tech levels that give armor or melee bonus, generate more enemies?

No in all 3.

Posts : 698 Join date : 2013-08-21

Obviously bringing gear makes enemy stronger, it doesnt generate more enemies.

Posts : 289 Join date : 2013-06-21

Tibr wrote:: Obviously bringing gear makes enemy stronger, it doesnt generate more enemies.

the full post:

nathor wrote:: still questions remain... before the Friday update, heroes gear and i guess tech levels, would not increase the difficulty level of enemy armies. that meant that heroes and gear would help us defeat the enemy and make the battle easier although more expensive due repair costs. if this changed, then gear might not be a good option... questions:
1) does bringing on heroes generate more enemies?
2) does bringing on gear generate more enemies?
3)do tech levels that give armor or melee bonus, generate more enemies?

in context, my question was about anything we add(gear, heroes, tech level), could it increase the difficulty of the battle? if it does, that it kinda sucks to bring items, and having drops rate set sucks very hard. it also disables incentive to actually bring gear to battle. you make the same cash as it depends on the base army alone and spend more to fix the gear. same to heroes and for tech levels, its not nice to get a tech level and having the battles at the same difficulty, why did i do the research them? for the fame?