Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: More difficulty is inevitable

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    85
    Monde
    Prestaging

    More difficulty is inevitable

    I see a common complaint about the new combat system is that it leads to much higher losses than currently. While it seems to be true, I would argue that it must happen one way or another to keep the game alive.

    If you look back how adventures were a few years ago, you'll notice that they've actually become a great deal easier since then. Playing an adventure with only normal and BHG was quite expensive and often required the loss of cavalry and soldiers on harder camps. However, the game has introduced the Veteran general, allowing lower losses and changing expensive soldiers to affordable recruits as cannon fodder, followed by the Major general carrying an even bigger army. Then we recently got the MMA general who can be used as a suicide hit in place of losing a great number of cavalry in certain situations. Finally, if a camp really seems like an unreasonably big troop sink, you have the combat buffs like catapult or assassin that you can use. They may save hundreds of troops on a single camp (you should actually only use one when it saves much troops, like on bosses or in Fairytale adventures).

    That's why I would like to remind everyone that the nerfing of the ally troops and the strengthening of the enemy troops is by no means something that will hold forever. I bet at some point we'll see a general who can command 300 troops; The skill tree for generals should include various skills to specialize our generals to battle more effectively; And who knows, maybe new ally troops will be introduced in the future that will be stronger than any other unit currently available. The point is that adventures must be made more difficult so that they can be made easier again. The system of merely introducing harder adventures (Fairytales 2.0 etc) does not work because the easy adventures will end up practically free to play. It's already possible to play Dark Priests close to no losses if you have 2x MMA and a Major general, something I personally took great advantage of during the last easter event.

    I welcome criticism to the new combat system, because the quality and depth of strategy will ultimately determine if TSO is a game worth playing also in the future. Finding faults and balance problems and suggesting improvements for them will help to forge a system that we all will be happy with. Please, fellow testers, try to see beyond mere numbers of lost troops when testing the new combat system. Don't just look how many troops you lost. Instead, ask yourself these questions:

    -Is some unit too weak?
    -Is some unit too strong?
    -Is some unit too dominant?
    -Is some unit left unused?
    -Is there room for alternative strategies?
    -Is something clearly working in a way that it wasn't intended?

    If all of the above is developed to perfection, balancing costs should be a piece of cake. So let's not start the race from the finishing line and focus on the costs, but let's rather figure out what we want the system to be like so that it has variety, strategical depth, balance, and is fun and interesting to play.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    17
    Monde
    Prestaging
    so what you basically saying if i may is BB made the adventures easier because the introduce the vet/major/mma....which they did i might add to increase gems sales...
    now they goner change this so these general bought with gems are less effective and the adventure made harder with more loses...and then they will again release more better generals yet again for gems to increase gems sales to make it easier again....so this then becomes less about balancing and more of a mechanism for BB to find a away to increase gems sales....

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11
    Monde
    Prestaging
    Quote Originally Posted by aththemaniac View Post
    so what you basically saying if i may is BB made the adventures easier because the introduce the vet/major/mma....which they did i might add to increase gems sales...
    now they goner change this so these general bought with gems are less effective and the adventure made harder with more loses...and then they will again release more better generals yet again for gems to increase gems sales to make it easier again....so this then becomes less about balancing and more of a mechanism for BB to find a away to increase gems sales....
    only the 2 new generals are exclusively available for gems and the major does not cost gems at all

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    81
    Monde
    Prestaging
    making it harder just so they can make it easier again? thats just about the dumbest idea ive ever heard.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    7
    Monde
    Prestaging
    I would argue that it must happen one way or another to keep the game alive.

    If this statement was any further from the truth it would need a compass to get home.
    I have heard a lot of talk about, “The game is too easy it this battle thing is a good thing as it will make it harder”, when harder is not the really correct word. What it will do is make it limiting, which is what BB want, and with that limitation comes a lack of stability that this game relies on.

    This new system will jeopardise the game in a way we have not yet seen, on several levels. By implementing it BB have pressed the button on the doomsday clock, and here is why:

    The iron mine speed will not increase, therefore the level of production will be irrelevant as the base ore required to obtain the amount needed to adventure regularly won't be attainable, in other words you will bottle neck production, with the constant searches and building, and you will need MORE iron than before to make a sword, yes less swords per 25 M, but you can’t make then with out the base resource.
    After a while players will get feed up of logging on just to build a mine and eventually leave.
    Yes a lot of players currently do that but copper searches are shorter, copper is a more affluent resource, due to how the market is structured and the running time of all the buildings involved is half that of Iron.

    With no weapons in loot there will be no reason for many players to participate in adventures, players will either not want the building resources & refills and as a result the price of the loot spot will decrease (as it will be worth less as there will be less) as well as the number that are traded. In short there will be less players adventuring. Adventures are the life blood of TSO, They are the preverbal Honey Bees, if you remove life will cease.

    Here is a screen shot of some loot I received from a IotP on the test server

    http://prntscr.com/4kr761

    You are telling me that you will do adventures JUST for granite ? a lot of players don’t need granite, they don’t need hwp and they don’t need sausage/bread. Weapons provide a turn over, players will always need them as they are a disposable entity. There is also no refill, idk if this is a permanent change but if that is removed too then why play at all ?

    The issue that has not been raise, well not much, is the limit this will put on new players joining the game. If you have current top end players that can do 1 adventure per day then you will find mid and lower level players will be doing 1 every 3 maybe even a week. This will result in level 50 players getting bored of waiting around, and then leaving, Mid level players getting frustrated that progression is taking longer than before, and leaving and lower level players finding it near impossible to progress and, you’ve guessed it, leaving.

    And here is the REAL crunch factor:

    The adventures are NOT new content, how many times have you done BK, RB etc the only difference now is it now takes longer to finish, for a worst reward. Is that going to hold you ?

    If BB were to introduce new Generals and an Endless Iron Mine are players really going to buy them when they see little point investing in a game that changes the long term plan at the drop of a hat ? No they won’t.
    This also posses the question: if you are too decrease troop time and resource amounts and add generals that work in the same way the previous ones did before the battle system came along, then why change it at all in the first place?

    The thing that angers me at the top of all this is that BB fail to recognise the long term negative implications that will occur. At the end of the day I can leave this game but it is their job, its one thing to close a game because your funds fall to bits but another to have a game that is prospering well and then having it go belly up because of your own accord. It’s my social time but it’s your job.

    I have heard a lot of talk about, “The game is too easy it this battle thing is a good thing as it will make it harder”, when harder is not the really correct word. What it will do is make it limiting, which is what BB want, and with a limited game comes the inevitable failure that comes with its ceiling.

    I have been saying it on every post, the solution is new adventures with more camps similar to the Taylor adventures that require either more troops or introduce new enemies that require certain troops to defeat them.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    81
    Monde
    Prestaging
    amen

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    209
    Monde
    Prestaging
    Quote Originally Posted by BAAAHHHHJAAH View Post
    With no weapons in loot there will be no reason for many players to participate in adventures, players will either not want the building resources & refills and as a result the price of the loot spot will decrease (as it will be worth less as there will be less) as well as the number that are traded. In short there will be less players adventuring. Adventures are the life blood of TSO, They are the preverbal Honey Bees, if you remove life will cease.
    I'm level 50. I have all of the fairytale stuff that I worked for with the guild members and a well-established production that I built in 1-2 years. I completed the achievements adventures in about a week. Fast, yes, but I had lots of fun doing it at level 50 and receiving loot. Otherwise, the only reason I still adventure is for the loot. Without it, why bother. I'll just login to help the newer players for a while.

    What would be more helpful imo would be to have the ability to beef up the generals to travel to/from faster and give them some shields and other special weapons that are earned via quests, which could vary in difficulty and time required to complete, depending on the ability desired.

    Have new adventure series to work on. Perhaps in those series you'd need special units to defeat the very difficult camps and/or special gems generals since you need some gems sales after all.

    Login every day for 7 days, receive 100 gems. PLAY the game every day for 30-60 minutes day for 7 days, receive 200 would ensure players are clicking, building, completing quests.

    Guilds play an important role in helping new players to grow and succeed. Instead of bombarding the larger guilds with daily adventure guild quests that feels more like punishment, create a real group work guild quest where guild members build a useful building such as a colorful noble residence that guild members can display on their islands. This group activity would address your need for teamwork.

    On that note, lower level players already have a hard time as it is. Many of them might start alt accounts just to get by. If they are in guilds, they don't stay if caught, and I'm not condoning it, but the point is the system may as well be an invitation to multi-account with its impossible starting difficulty level, which is in contradiction with your policies.

    Blocking- this brings some challenge and variation to the game, but since you must eliminate it, lock the camps/paths.

    I'm sure there are more suggestions that others can provide, and I'm in no way looking to do your jobs for you, devs. In general, follow the K.I.S.S. principle or Keep It Simple Stupid - a very common business principle.

    If on the other hand you still insist on creating a new game, that's your right, but that's not what I sighed up for. My guess is you already knew that.

    Cheers.
    Last edited by Moonbeam; 08.09.14 at 08:55. Reason: some spelling

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    46
    Monde
    Prestaging
    Not sure if this has been mentioned before and I am sorry if it has, but with all these changes and limiting the amount of adventures we can do what good will premium be.... I know some people who invested GEMS in a years worth of premium what happens to them when this goes live ?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    85
    Monde
    Prestaging
    Quote Originally Posted by BAAAHHHHJAAH View Post
    If this statement was any further from the truth it would need a compass to get home.
    Sorry that you feel this way, because I'm not really disagreeing with anything that you posted in your response. Running a heavy iron chain is more bothersome than currently with copper, and if you can only play one adventure a day, it will be a blow to the dedicated players who are used to spending a great deal of their leisure time in TSO. I know some who seem to never sleep and are selling RB lootspots in trade chat once an hour like clockwork

    I'd like to remind you about some of the things I mentioned in my original post, because I think you have possibly misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. Here are two passages from the end of the post:

    I welcome criticism to the new combat system, because the quality and depth of strategy will ultimately determine if TSO is a game worth playing also in the future. Finding faults and balance problems and suggesting improvements for them will help to forge a system that we all will be happy with. Please, fellow testers, try to see beyond mere numbers of lost troops when testing the new combat system.

    let's not start the race from the finishing line and focus on the costs, but let's rather figure out what we want the system to be like so that it has variety, strategical depth, balance, and is fun and interesting to play


    To clarify, I don't mean to say that simply increasing costs is the way to make the game better. I wanted to remind people that we've dealt with much higher adventuring costs in the past, and we still did it because it felt fun and rewarding. So if reworking the combat system into an enjoyable one involves raising costs or increasing enemy strength, we will get over that. That is a different thing than arguing that increasing costs and enemy strength will make the combat system more enjoyable. I hope you can agree to this thought a bit more than in your initial response.

Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Ubisoft uses cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our websites. By continuing to use this site you agree to accept these cookies. More info on our privacy.