««« 1 2  3  4 ... 7 »»»
AdWarrior
Developer
on: 27 Apr 2011 [17:58]
updated: 28 Apr 2011 [17:26]
Translate»
Dear players, we would like to hear your opinion about the following changes in the game:

1. Limiting the maximum amount of places in an order to 20 (new servers only), on the current servers the maximum amount of places in an order will be equal to amount of places in the largest order on that server (as of right now)

2. On PvP servers new way of calculating and distributing mercenary points for order members will be introduced:
a) Points received by contracts and mercenary locations will be summed up and divided equally amongst all order members.
b) Free points received from obelisks and fountains will remain on that player’s balance.

3. On PvP servers, additional bonus for mercenary points received from fountains.

With each new fountain, the base amount of points received from each fountain will increase according to the following formula:
n+n*(k*0.1-0.1)

where k is the number of fountains in all player’s cities, n is the base amount of points for the specific fountain level.

For example, the player has 2 fountains, level 1 and 2.

As a result, the player will receive 300 + 300 * (2 * 0.1 - 0.1) = 300 + 300 * 0.1 = 330 for first fountain
And the second fountain will give 950 + 950 * ( 2 * 0.1 - 0.1) = 950 + 950 * 0.1 = 1045 points.

4. On PvP servers, additional loot for destroying enemy troops will be introduced - 20% of the resources spent on the destroyed army. The resources will be added to player’s city after their army successfully comes back from the campaign.

5. Number of free heroes will change as well:
For players without subscription – 1 hero
For silver subscribers – 2 heroes
For gold subscribers – 4 heroes.

Moreover, for each city starting from 8, the number of free heroes on your upkeep gets increased by 1.
For example, you have a silver subscription package and 8 cities – you can hire 3 free heroes.

6. For every 10 000 units in one cell morale of all armies (in the same cell) will be decreased by 1%, untill 25% of morale will be left. For example, if one cell has 100 000 units then morale drops by 10% to value of 90%, if 750 000 and more units are present, then morale drops by 75% to 25% level.
««« 1 2  3  4 ... 7 »»»
muminc
on: 28 Apr 2011 [14:59]
And, i like the point about free heroes,

but in this case You should think about the option, that a player can buy a 7 days gold subscription pack for diamonds.

in this case he will receive 4 free heroes. But what will happen after the end of the gold subscription pack expires? Those heroes should be lost then, or the player should be given an opportunity to keep them , each for 5 gold a day.

And what about the thing, if the heroes - received for the subscription packs and for each castle, starting from the 8th castle, are lost in battle?

In my opinion they should be revived as free heroes again. And if the gold subscription expires, then those 4 heroes should be hired 5 gold a day.
Cathexis
on: 28 Apr 2011 [15:32]
I believe paragraph 5 should work as such:

For each 1 city that you capture, you should be awarded with 1 free-until-death hero. So, active players that lose their heroes a lot will still be spending gold to maintain them or buying extra heroes from auction, but also, let us give the non-gold buyers a fighting chance. All heroes begin as free-until-death, and diamonds should be allowed to be used to resurrect them as well as gold. Heroes resurrected with diamonds are free-until-death again. I propose... 10 diamonds to resurrect 1 fallen hero. This will make resurrection of heroes by non-gold buyers a doable option while not making it so cheap as to not be beneficial to use gold.

Let us be realistic, unless you have 3+ heroes you can not survive in this game. I want to see tactics restored to this game, and that will only happen if having multiple heroes is an obtainable option by many players not just the few.
Billy_Talent
on: 28 Apr 2011 [23:30]
updated: 28 Apr 2011 [23:30]
Abouut the free heroes... If you have players that buy gold regularily, then they will have the option to have several free heroes. If you cap them at 4, then that means that people who buy gold will have less incentive to buy gold since they can not get very many free heroes.

6. I also hate this idea. I think it too is stupid. Although it is not as bad as others, I still don't like it.
RavensSeason
on: 29 Apr 2011 [00:09]
Mammal already pointed out that the cost of an annual gold subscription equals 20 gold per day and that's the same as 4 hero upkeep charges. Perhaps it would sound better to say FREE GOLD SUBSCRIPTION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE 4 PAID HEROES. Either way, it's the same thing and I like it.

6. (:s11:) I LOVE IT! This is a great way to make it more difficult for large orders who bring close to 1 million troops for an attack or defense. It will make you rely more on strategy. Do you stay at range 4 and attack from multiple sides or do you have your armies staggered at different ranges? What about when you capture? This will be a nice addition to the game.
heriks
on: 29 Apr 2011 [00:20]
updated: 29 Apr 2011 [00:31]
6 - another gold idea..

cuz with this idea we see much more rebuild in my opinion..
..try to think what happend in Druid Temple..a true swords holocaust..


..also during a real fight vs. another order players lost anyway more than now..so rebuild cost some gold if you want army back fast.. i prefer fountain idea than this point so .. (:s1:)

(and i hate fountain idea)

make something for the players...like 3 or 4 gold x day for one extra hero and not 5 .. or reducing the diamonds cost of the free hero.. not 150 but maybe 120 .. if you reducing something also you can make your fountain idea etc .. so you take some gold player bust also u reducing the cost of the life.. dont know if you understand what i mean.. You can't just take off our air with gold ideas... give us something (like 3 or 4 gold x day for one extra hero) and put a gold idea (like fountain or what u prefer)
RavensSeason
on: 29 Apr 2011 [00:33]
heriks, I'm trying to be objective here but how do you figure that #6 relates to gold players? If anything, it will slow the battles down. Many battles today take place at range 4 which already takes a long time. Now, with fewer norman archers shooting at once, those range 4 battles would last even longer unless you now attack from different squares or at different ranges. Whether the battle goes fast or slow, either way, both sides usually end up rebuilding. I fail to see how that relates to gold users. Sure, gold users can rebuild with more ease (autorob/faster production) but so what. Non-gold users can make up for that by spending more time farming. Perhaps you think gold users should just get a pretty little star next to their name and nothing else? (:s10:)
heriks
on: 29 Apr 2011 [00:37]
updated: 29 Apr 2011 [00:38]
.. i mean with more troops lost by ALL players in the battle they have ( devs ) more chance ( % ) to found a real money players..
..now for example if i lost a battle i lost all..and you lost for example just swordsmans...but with this change i lost all anyway..but u lost swordsmans and also other troops..cuz maybe you have more troops in the same cell (so less morale)..also read before what i have write about Druid Temple..
with this idea they have more chance to found gold players...u understand what i mean?
Billy_Talent
on: 29 Apr 2011 [00:42]
I don't know, I think I might like the faster passed battles. About the stategy part..I think I agree with that. It could change the fights, but I think that it would mostly be that the battles would be smaller. Overall, I am still against the 6th idea.

That is another point, heriks, it would make AH's much harder :(
chaucho
on: 29 Apr 2011 [01:53]
Very very constructive changes in my opinion. These proposed changes fix a lot of problems I think the game currently has.

1) I like the max of 20 order members, its unfortunate that you can't implement it on the current servers (but very understandable that you can't). This idea makes order's strength proportional to the order members' relative strength and activity, instead of an order getting its' strength from sheer size.

2) I could do without this change. It would be a very good change for new servers with a maximum of 20 members, but on current servers the inactive/weak order members will bring the whole order down; but I guess that is the point.

3) I personally don't like fountains as they are. This change makes them slightly better but the current cost of them right now makes them not worth it. 450 population for 300 merc points in a kick in the pants.

4) Awesome Idea. Resources for killing an army. I think this is a very good idea. Maybe we could loot a random un-used artifact from a killed hero too?

5) YES!!! FINALLY!!! Best idea EVER. I would actually get a subscription with this introduced, as long as the ridiculous cost of the subscriptions doesn't go up!

6) YES!!! Another excellent idea. Makes this game 100% more dynamic. Battles wont be one square against one square, lets see who has more heroes and meat slugfest.... boring! This will make smaller armies more effective and really make this a more balanced game.

That is my opinion. Great job AdWarrior/Devs (:s22:)
muminc
on: 29 Apr 2011 [02:09]
updated: 29 Apr 2011 [02:23]
At first i didn't like the 6th point, because i was SO used to the battles from 4 cell range and placing all the armies in one place, that i was skeptical.

But maybe it could bring something new in this game. It would finally earn it's name - strategy game, because until now, the armies just stood in one place with enormous number of units and that's it - "the big battle". But with this change everyone should think twice and think over and over the best ways to place their armies and what moves to make. And furthermore - it would be more realistic, as iof the battle happened in real life. With this i mean that there was no battle in history, where ~1 million or more troops stood so close to each other (this would mean - 1 cell in the game), that no one could move or breath. They had to make the best formation and placement, in other words - in the game the placement should be equal to a real battle (members of an order should place their armies in different cells)


Of course, this change would make a big battle very difficult to plan. because with many troops the planning is very difficult, and since the battles aren't very detailed and nuanced, then it would be over before i would come up with the best tactics. i just couldn't do it in time. and in addition, if there is no plan, and everyone is just standing in one cell, then the decrease of morale would be catastrophic.
This is thing with two sides.


But again, please, do not make the second point of changes real !!!

as chaucho already said - it would bring the whole order down.
Billy_Talent
on: 29 Apr 2011 [02:41]
chaucho why do you like the 5th? It diesn't mean you automatically get those free heroes, it would just mean that you have the ability to have up to 4 free heroes. Currently, you can have as many as you want.

As stated before by me, I do not like capping the order size since it heavily limits any new order since they would only be able to have 20 members while other orders could have 70 members. This greatly disadvantages new orders.
RavensSeason
on: 29 Apr 2011 [03:14]
Quote Billy_Talent:
it would just mean that you have the ability to have up to 4 free heroes.

I don't interpret it that way. I interpret #5 to mean you are automatically given 4 free heroes if you have a gold account. I don't think the rules on diamonds are changing but I suppose clarity is needed. This would just replace kingdom events, and it would also mean the heroes from your subscription are free forever (as opposed to just until death). Free heroes from diamonds would remain only free until death.

Quote Billy_Talent:
I do not like capping the order size since it heavily limits any new order since they would only be able to have 20 members while other orders could have 70 members

New orders would be able to get as many as the order with the most active slots as well.
Quote AdWarrior:
on the current servers the maximum amount of places in an order will be equal to amount of places in the largest order
chaucho
on: 29 Apr 2011 [06:58]
I agree with Raven on the interpretation. You would automatically have 4 free heroes with a gold account. There is no talk about the limit of diamond-bought free heroes in the topic. Perhaps you should ready a little more carefully before commenting (:s11:)
Vjaka
on: 29 Apr 2011 [09:24]
updated: 29 Apr 2011 [09:45]
Quote chaucho:
1) I like the max of 20 order members, its unfortunate that you can't implement it on the current servers (but very understandable that you can't). This idea makes order's strength proportional to the order members' relative strength and activity, instead of an order getting its' strength from sheer size.


Exactly. Plus it gives a high weight to hold active players in the order and throw out inactive/mults, since your order will become weaker.
And since we cannot just cut already running orders, new orders on the current servers would be capped by the maximal order places in other orders.

Quote chaucho:
2) I could do without this change. It would be a very good change for new servers with a maximum of 20 members, but on current servers the inactive/weak order members will bring the whole order down; but I guess that is the point.

This actually is addon to the first part. Making even more valuable having ACTIVE player, that will not just steal your points, but use them valuable in the battle so your Order will no longer depend on the only order member, but on a team play.

Quote chaucho:
3) I personally don't like fountains as they are. This change makes them slightly better but the current cost of them right now makes them not worth it. 450 population for 300 merc points in a kick in the pants.

Exactly. Currently fountains are much worse than obelisk and are built only if you need mercenary hiring in different cities / or by mults. However, with this change, person would be able to choose between obelisk and fountains in real competition.

Quote chaucho:
5) YES!!! FINALLY!!! Best idea EVER. I would actually get a subscription with this introduced, as long as the ridiculous cost of the subscriptions doesn't go up!

Exactly. This will not affect big players since they already have 15-30 heroes, however, smaller players would be able to have 1-2-3 extra free heroes in addition to the current one free plus those got by diamonds/events.

Quote chaucho:
6) YES!!! Another excellent idea. Makes this game 100% more dynamic. Battles wont be one square against one square, lets see who has more heroes and meat slugfest.... boring! This will make smaller armies more effective and really make this a more balanced game.

This is as well an addiction to the #1 and #2 change.

Anyhow, congrads, you are the first person who actually got the meaning of all changes. And shame on AdWarrior not describing good enough.
With some details more clear, let the discussion continue.

And one more note, the actual meaning of all these changes is:
Instead of fight campaign to depend on 1-3 players of an Order of 60 members, it should depend on 15-20 players of an Order of 20 players
crimson
on: 29 Apr 2011 [11:49]
Quote RavensSeason:
This is a great gesture so I don't understand why some are attacking the devs here. We should thank them for giving us the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes and then comment in a constructive way by giving reasons (perhaps pros and cons) for each item you wish to comment on. Perhaps even offer a variation to a proposed change.

Finally, I'm glad at least one person pointed this out. For starters, they are only asking 1100AD community for their response to these changes. no where did I see them say anything about their plans on implementing these ideas. Please stop bashing people, its pointless and just not needed...
Quote Billy_Talent:
I am "attacking" them since I think they are stupid ideas.

opinions aside, how exactly do you know the ideas are "stupid"? Do you know the whole picture? do you know what is in store for 1100AD in the future? "bad" would be a better word since it shows your opinions better than "stupid".
Quote Cathexis:
For each 1 city that you capture, you should be awarded with 1 free-until-death hero.

LOL, that brings back memories, where you here when this game started? That's how it was back in the old days, 1 free hero per town (besides the "death" part,they were free forever)...

1) This sounds a bit interesting but does not deny other orders from helping each other. Basically, all I see this doing is to create more of a "chain of command" where some orders are sub-sets of bigger orders... so this will not really limit much. But I digress, something needs to be done about limiting order powers, maybe test this idea on a new server to see how it goes, but for results it will take half a year...

2) Not a good idea. This is bad because the entire order is penalized if a member loses a vassal (the same can be said with camps but the penalty is quite small with the biggest impact being a total 1.2k merc being taken from the entire order). Maybe if only say 10% of the vassal agreement is added to the order, not the entire amount, and is then evenly distributed.

3) I really don't see any need for this. Merc are about 1.5X stronger than normal troops, why lower the exchange ratio? 1.5:1 (pop:merc). And besides, buying merc camps aside, I don't think it does the game any good to have an ability to by merc with gold... Yes it has a limit but when you take the ability to buy camps into account, you do not need to add any more ways to by pop with gold.

4) I think this is possibly a bad idea, helping the victor will only add a larger gap between the victor and the loser. Maybe if you lower the resources to 5%, the gap won't be as large. I can see this being very bad at the start of a server though. Once you start killing, your growth will become exponential compared with your surroundings. All in all, I think you should leave bonus resources from killing out of the game and let the players rob for themselves since robbing is a major part of the game's strategy.

5) A) Again, adding bigger bonuses to gold players is a bad idea. Gold players will buy heroes, regardless if they have free ones or not. I can see this just adding 4 heroes to an already 6+ hero army... Besides, they can use diamonds to hire free till death heroes... This might not affect the big gold spenders but it does help all gold spenders while leaving F2P players in the dust. I just don't think this idea is good for the entire community of players.

B) Now this is a OK idea, It won't be too much of an advantage over players owning 7 and 6 cities. Also, it gives incentive to keep on robbing! And further more, it supports all players, gold are not, equally.

6) I need this question answered before I reply to this idea; Is that total troops (enemy + ally) or just total ally troops? (I think the answer is obvious but I'm having ideas on both cases)


As for those who put in great responses and even greater alt idea, keep it up!
««« 1 2  3  4 ... 7 »»»
Topic is closed!