State of the game - Long term vs short term

Comments

10 comments

  • Avatar
    WB Gamer
    Great post, good points. I'd love a WB reaction on this. Kudos!
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    The amount of money that's put at risk every night is staggering. While some progress was made with the Seat of Power changes, player keeps remain a problem. I've seen some people come back from being zeroed, but very few. And, to be blunt, the majority of those were during the time period where the CSRs were giving millions of gold away to people who -- ahem -- "didn't get notifications." I don't know if the level will go up that much more than it is now; the highest I've heard of getting successfully attacked was 32M. The troop number limits and the way casualties scale as the defender/attacker ratio goes up makes it a little unlikely to go that much higher, but everything does point to power inflation, so you never know.

     

    I confess I don't agree with you on the events, especially the leaderboard events. As you noted people already spend -- significantly -- to get their name high up. They do this knowing that the rewards are rarely, if ever, worth it. I don't think that the game needs to further reward these players, i.e. further increase the distance between them and other players. At least with the way the rewards are distributed, mostly halving every drop, making them bigger is just going to lead to greater inequality, which is already a significant issue.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    It's quite astonishing, when you start to think about it.
    If 10 25-million players gets zeroed, that is $13.000 lost and who knows how much future income is lost.

    I do believe the level will go up some though, after dragons are fully out and developed, but eventually you will get stuck with kingdoms where no one can afford to attack other players, because the cost-to-fun ratio will be too high and if you do it, you might move yourself down to a level where you can get attacked.


    I do have to confess myself, that I did not see your view point of it, when I wrote this post. It is a very good point, but those at the top will still be at the top, no matter what. If you increase the rewards all the way from #1 - #250, it will benefit everyone though.

     

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    I would say that what you describe is already basically happening on mature kingdoms. Between the costs to attack and the numbers requirement there has been very little happening over the last few weeks. Outside of the usual "go around and crush smaller keeps because PvP," of course. It's why I've been pretty vociferous in defending the existing attack limitations because increasing those is just going to cause more problems, IMHO. The inability to organically grow is another big issue that's somewhat related as well. Those costs are also a significant driver of consolidation, which only accelerates the problems.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer
    It may be time for WB to implement defender caps. What this means is that if your keep is attacked, only a certain number of troops defend. This can do a couple of things. It can limit the losses of a 20 million player. It can also add unhittable players back on the menu. The max amount of defenders can be controlled by a building or research that limits the cap and you can develop it to increase, similar to the great hall or rookery.

    We’re basically sitting around picking our noses during the week because so many players are unhittable or bubbled. These 100 million power players no longer have to play the game.

    Defender caps put everyone in play but also help mitigate what Heimdallrr is talking about.

    If implemented correctly, this feature can make what has become a boring game fun again.

    Those 100 million and up players will need to defend again and those 25-30 million players don’t have to lose everything in a matter of 10-20 minutes.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    All that will do is make it possible to zero even higher power people. So now you can zero someone who is 100 million power, it just takes time. That isn't an improvement that's an even greater problem. If someone is 100 million power they've spent likely somewhere over $15k USD. Quite frankly there aren't that many people who are going to do that and due to sunk costs they are considerably more likely to continue to play and continue to spend. But they're unlikely to do so if they lose large amounts -- all? -- of their troops. 

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer
    Shields exist.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    That's why Seats of Power are the future, I think. Shields do exist, but they are not reliable. Let me give you an example, post merge several folks were unable to login into the game. I know people who have had that happen on at least four occasions in the last few months. In some cases this was for a few hours, in some it was for multiple days. Since only 24 hour shields can be purchased even a few hours can result in you getting zeroed. What I'm hearing you say is you are okay with people -- including you and your friends -- losing the equivalent of months of effort and thousands of dollars US due to circumstances beyond your control? Oh, and without any sort of recompense because, you know, people abused it the last time.

     

    To be blunt, due to the costs of troops, the number of troops that people have and the limitations of the medic tents the game mechanics don't work when everyone is vulnerable. If we were talking about a few days to a few weeks or, at most, or a few hundreds of dollars US then maybe. PvP is an integral part of the game, it is vital since there is relatively little PvE content. But asking, requiring even, people to swallow that amount of risk is unsustainable. Because people will miss their timer, they will click the wrong shield, they will be locked out of the game. And then they will quit.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    Hey everyone,

     

    There is quite a lot to unpack here! I first want to thank you all for putting so much time into this discussion.

     

    Stagnation can happen throughout the game at multiple levels, and finding the solution wont come down to a single answer - it would have to be multiple adjustments.

     

    It can be argued that the main core of the game is PVP. We also received a lot of feedback from players last month that more PVE raids would be welcome. Other features such as resource sharing and the ability to send gifts in general have also been brought up to the team. Its just a matter of balancing priorities and deciding what features or fixes are in the best interest of the game as a whole. 

     

    Finding answers to the issues revolving stagnation will always be an ongoing process, and we really appreciate everyone's suggestions for resolving it.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    WB Gamer

    Bro you said this 11 months ago and I haven't seen squat change tbh

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.