Shape your future! - 4.0 special contest.

Hello victims!

As you may know, version 4.0 aims to improve one of the most popular activities in OR - Alliance Wars. As it is usually the case with patches though, there is more to them than a single feature, and this time one of the accompanying “changes” is a forum contest. Do not draw your pens out just yet though, as this time it is not a usual writing/screenshooting contest, but instead something new and experimental. This time you may have a chance to shape the way 4.0 would look like by suggesting something that might be implemented for the upcoming version! Here’s the breakdown of it:

 

Rules:

  1. Identify an area of Alliance Wars that can and should be improved.

  2. Come up with a single entry, and only include  one suggestion per entry. If an entry has multiple suggestions, only the first suggestion will be used for the contest.

  3. Post your wicked perfect plan of ameliorating Wars in this thread using  at least 25 words,  whilst trying your absolute hardest to  keep it below 200 words. This is not a writing contest after all, and the more time the dev team spends reading, the less time they spend improving wars!

  4. You have until 18th of March to submit your idea. Please make sure it is in by the deadline; otherwise CaptainMorgan and his cyclops would not have the time to forge it into the patch.

5) Please, please and please, include your IGN (In-Game Name) somewhere within your post. So far there has not been a single contest with all of the members including it. Lets change this daunting statistic.

6) Edited posts will be disqualified, so make sure you are satisfied with your entry before posting.

 

Prizes:

Pericles - goes to the author of the simplest implemented improvement. (2000 Gems)

Alexander the Great - goes to the author of the most impactful implemented improvement, based on its simplicity and effect.  (2000 Gems)

Oracle  - goes to the author of the best suggestion that is nevertheless not feasible for implementation in 4.0. (2000 Gems)

Chris 2.0  - goes to any author who makes a suggestion which is already planned to be included in the patch. (500 Gems)

 

Notes:

This is an experimental contest. It has a potential of being very useful both for the community and staff and relies heavily on the acknowledgment of some vital facts:

  1. There are limitations to what can be implemented. It takes time and resources to make even the slightest of changes to such a gentle system as an online-based game, so please, think how feasible your suggestions are

  2. At least one suggestion will be included in Version 4.0,  as long as there is at least one viable solution  which can be implemented by the team. This also does not mean that the suggestion will be implemented word-for-word, the improvement may only be inspired by the suggestion (This will be made clear when announcing winners).

  3. The choice of winners is  entirely at Gala’s, Morgans’ and other FG staffs’ discretion , and if they feel that no suggestions are viable, then no winners will be announced in those categories.

  4. It is in your best interest to make your idea unique, as  any duplicated ideas will share the prize Gems  (if any are won), meaning the more people post the same idea, the fewer Gems they will each get. Note, deciding whether two ideas are the same is also  entirely at our discretion. You can use this thread (https://forums.flaregames.com/topic/42246-40-companion-thread/) as a source of inspiration and guidance on what things have already been brought to the team. Also, all of the ideas already confirmed (by a direct mention from CaptainMorgan) to be within 4.0 are automatically disqualified, while anything posted on forums but not confirmed to be making it into 4.0 is not eligible for anything but Chris 2.0.

  5. Development takes some time and so would the rewards. This time the contest prizes are tied to the update; therefore the results will be released some time before it is deployed, which will be  at least   one month  away. This time you may very well have to exercise your patience for a bit.

  6. There is a way to edit things in case of emergency without being disqualified and this involves contacting me or Gala (preferably me, I will be able to answer fast in most cases). Now, this is strictly in case of things such as adding your IGN. If this is ever the case, please use a personal message and specify exactly what kind of edits you want to make and why do you need to make them. Do not edit anything yourself, as this would result in a disqualification!

Ever thought you could do a better job of coming up with a good Alliance War system? Here is your chance!

Regards,

Infamous & The OR team.

 

P.S.

Have a question? Check this thread out: https://forums.flaregames.com/topic/32538-challenges-questions/?do=findComment&comment=193993.

 

As all we know “war blessings” automaticly changes every week; my suggestion is if its possible alliances could choose blessings they want. Which brings more conversations and communication inside of alliance. Alliances could choose 3 war blessings, if they won gold take all, if they get secondplace they can take only their second and third options.

 

ign: JesusChr4st

Hello 
Dear Infamous,

I have a quick question, proposals from users must be written in English or we can also write at Russian language to?

BR, Alexey

IGN: Deragous 

 

I would recommend  an alliance earned and distributed reward for specific players in a war.  The war blessings are effective to reward the team and chests from VP to reward activity but perhaps a third reward granted by the alliance to a handful of its members critical to its victory.  Perhaps one reward per torch earned in the war with an increase in value as more torches are earned.

Laurels are what drove commanders and Imperators to participate in campaigns.  It was both prestige and reward for ones victorious efforts. 

Some rewards distributed by the officers and others voted to a worthy alliance member/s

They can be simple like gems, specific prestige blessing/s doubled for a duration (IE 40% gold boost instead of 20 etc), or a single use instant construction competition.

IGN Deragous 

Alliance size/Player balance

Alliances

A: 43 players

B: 36

C: 34

D: 29

Alliance A has a clear advantage while D a severe disadvantage with B/C in the middle.

Balance through fury modifiers.  The avg player count is 35.5.

Alliance A will maintain its advantage through numbers with no penalty multiplier to reduce fury.  B will not notice any real difference, C will get a slight increase in fury recharge up to the avg of 35.5 and D will at least be on the same level as the other two and not just easy pickings.

 

Team C will get a 4% fury recharge boost, 34/35.5 = 96%

Team D will get 18% recharge boost, 29/35.5 = 82%  

This will bring Team D up to the avg amount of fury while not taking away team A’s number advantage but not squandering any shred of hope Team D had.  It helps balance the scales while still being realistic with the fact that greater numbers still have an impact in war.   

 

Hello. Slinks here currently general of the infamous dorsetshire alliance, saviour of the forest creatures and protector of the daft.

My thought is to have a set amount of fury per island.

Lets say 4 per hero, so 8 or 12 strikes on an island. This way each strike counts, motivate players to burn some gems at the same time.

And there is an 12h-18h time window to launch your attacks in. This way all get a fair chance to score points. And no more middle of the night being online to steal/defend an island.

Con: little more boring maybe.

Pro: do your attacks and get peace of mind for that island.(maybe even sleep) Nothing more to do anyways untill the next strike?

I didnt count the words so ill add another sentence to ensure ill be more efficient in using up the amount of words given to complete this post in.

Just to be an arse?

 

Most kind regards though?

Slinks.

For not killing a statue, points less for a victory
 

 

challenge to a duel of another alliance
 

 

alliances are betting on the war for chrisstals (better a duel), and the winner gets everything.
 

 

my nickname in the game avi55

From gbs9293. On war map, let officers highlight island they want attacked. Consider two colors. 1 for all out. 2. Attack if going to max. Eliminates need to check chats, etc. 

I believe that war, alliances should be paired. I suggest that alliances should be forced to include low-level members in their ranks … it would be an “inclusion” in the game. Sincerely: Edufrancia

I’m leaving one last suggestion in here: what if the last titan box could contain only cursed items in it? Don’t you think ppl will be more motivated to reach it even spending gems just to make the points…? I’m saying this coz I’ve seen strong accounts playing and enjoying half of the points per each fury rather than spending gems to win the battle.

IGN: Neptune24 

The area I would like to address is the ability to be able to attack the alliance diagonally positioned from one’s respective alliance. It has become common during war that an alliance gets flanked from both sides by two attacking alliances and sometimes the two are stronger than the one being attacked. It would be a welcome sight to be able to attack diagonally against the fourth alliance on the other side of the map. One good reason for this is for the members of the flanked alliance to at least have a chance of gaining islands, points and not to come last at the end of the war. This will also motivate the members of the flanked alliance to not leave during the war because they might think something along the lines of “we won’t win an island anyway” or “why does it matter, they are too strong for us”. Who knows, the alliance on the other side of the map might be an even match for them hence giving them a breath of life to actually try and play during wartime.

 

IGN - Doomsday, Alliance: ST. KENSINGTON

Why the one day war cancelled ?

What is the basis on which the difference is made against each other?

Problem: players constant mass migration alliances during wars

 

Proposed solution: small bonus on stars in war battles based on permanence in the same alliance - ex. +1% weekly up to a max of 5%

 

Expectations: small bonus should not impact low level alliances much, but on top alliances with similar values could make a difference and make weekly migrations happen less

 

Arte_mus©IS

ign=Shezra

improve player search tool so its easier to find players not in alliance. 

ign=Shezra

add the ability to friend players not in my alliance

ign=Shezra

please add insta-troop donations from alliance members

Teams A, B, C, D appear on the map. A (0h) attacks B (3h). At that exact moment a defensive shield activates for team B, so if C (6h) decides to attack B, they would have to score more VPs to conquer B’s island compared to the score if A has not attacked B earlier. However, team A doesn’t have such troubles, because they attacked B first.

In other words, the more defensive strikes a team has at some point, the harder it would be for the next attacker to take their island.

IGN: Areisp

Hi~ my IGN is “isjerryhuang1”. I would say the biggest problem of current war is when you are attacked by both alliances beside you, or all the 3 other alliances together. You will be suffered and it’s difficult to maintain your torch number.

To resolve this without too much change (which may cause unexpected side effect), my idea is to introduce a “castle mode” to help you protect yourself from multi-attackers.

“Castle mode” allows you to increase the skulls number of your islands at a certain time point while the attack is still in process, but you may need to sacrifice something.

It will work especially at the battlefront, you could trigger “castle mode” on 1 skull island, like any time before 2 hours to the end, to turn it into 5 skulls, at the cost of extend 4 hours to your cool-down time of next strike, or turn into 6 skulls which costs you 6 hours cool-down.

Rules could be discussed before introduce this “castle mode”, such as timing allowed to trigger “castle mode”, options of skulls number could be added, and islands allowed to trigger its “castle mode”.

Name: M-gr

viewable battle log for each attack separate like: hero death, invocations,…

Hi FG/Olympus Rising team,

I’d like to suggest something very useful : “LOCK FEATURE” so we could make an island unattackable for our members by locking it, that way Generals/Officers/Captains can enforce Law & Order, something more powerful than just our words. Demoting / kicking people is not a solution for wrong island attacker, but this is. i believe olympus rising has become a very complex game, with people around the globe in it i think it deserves more complex responsibility & attitude from all of us, especially the players.

Thank You,

IGN : Lithgow