• Announcements

    • Alysea

      Titan Chests and Invitation Codes   03/08/2017

      Hey everyone, Please take a look at this topic to find more information about the Titan Chests and Invitation Codes: You also can share your Invitation Code here:
         
    • GalaMorgane

      Captain Morgan's Challenge   04/05/2018

      Hello dear Olympians, Captain Morgan is back at it with another epic challenge! Follow the link for information. You might win some awesome rewards! Many thanks, Gala
Infamous

4.0 Anticipated Features

Recommended Posts

On 2018/4/5 at 5:24 PM, dumpster said:

Also, I’m nervous about the idea of an increased fury pool if it just means more fury. That was the solution to the problem in the past and it just equates to too much time in front of the screen. 70 battles over a Friday and Saturday night is already too much (skirmish sucks) and just adding more fury doesn’t solve that problem, it makes it worse.

If you really hate to play this game, why not just leave??

On 2018/4/5 at 9:44 PM, dumpster said:

Idk, schedule is the most important thing to 99% of my customers.

I'm not the 99% this time for this game in this case. Better changes and minimized bug are much more important to me. So do my customers, schedule is like 50% important, it's always not like "better than nothing" case, worse products are worse than not have them as they will destroy the reputation.

On 2018/4/11 at 6:09 AM, Infamous said:

Because hey, why should one be the bottom of the better league if you can be the top of the lower one and get easy wars + nice rewards?

Is it possible to make the rewards to the bottom of a higher league always better than the top of a lower league? For example, how about totally separate the type of league award from position reward? Such as the reward to higher league is always more powerful buff than lower leagues, and the reward to being the top 1 is always like gold/wisdom/extra ambrosia storage or faster generation?

On 2018/4/16 at 4:01 PM, HADESv2 said:

indicators gives nothing to top team war managements absolutely nothing!

Not agree at all. If you have players that don't even care about your instructions, then you WON'T and you SHOULD NOT be treated as a "top team", you are definitely not deserve it...........

On 2018/4/16 at 4:01 PM, HADESv2 said:

while the idea of extra rewards for extraordinary vps sounds good but also notice it can easily lead to point chasing than playing for team, it's is actually rewarding point chasing!

When now you need point to get the last war chest, there ARE players chase points more than play for the team. So, the key is communication and how you work together. There's always conflict that you need to deal with.

On 2018/4/17 at 12:49 PM, Prometheus said:

Any "intra-alliance-competition-reward" (e.g., some sort of reward for "highest war VP" etc.) should be done utilizing VP re-scaled to "all one skulls", i.e., each player should collect points for such a competition on a level playing field, regardless of whether fights are happening on 1 skulls or 5 skulls. This could easily be done by scaling all player VP to 1 skull for the running totals of various MVP awards.

This is a really good point and great suggestion.

On 2018/4/17 at 9:09 PM, Hellslord said:

So best option to reward players not according to war points. According to STRIKE NUMBER will be best.So in team peace can be made and participation would be more.

Strike number won't work at all.................as EVERY player with 3 lvl 20 heroes can only do the SAME number, if they don't miss any fury by full without spending........

On 2018/4/17 at 9:23 PM, dumpster said:

Fast fury regen did a lot more to balance the playing field

It's weird seeing this when you are always saying the game design should be changed to have players need to spend less time for playing this game.

On 2018/4/17 at 9:23 PM, dumpster said:

The system where only the highest score for each hero counted was brilliant in hindsight. It gave every player the opportunity to be an active contributor on every island. The only flaw was the dumb race to collect stars at the end of the strikes. And back then you could hit the same target over and over, which was also fairly bad.

I think there could be a lot of potential to revisit those ideas and make war much more casual and fun. Reduce fury overall, rebalance rewards, implement a system where a strike is won by the team who successfully defeats the best defenses on the opposing team.

How about then the highest lvl players are NOT welcome by most of the alliances, because they are giving the best targets to the enemy? If I want to win, I will only allow players lower than lvl 110 in my team, so my enemy CAN'T score higher than our team any way, while we're attacking their players at lvl 125 to 130, and got higher scores than them for sure.

On 2018/4/19 at 5:44 AM, choka said:

Make raiding tougher again

Please don't, as it's already painful enough for raiding.

On 2018/4/19 at 7:31 AM, Philstar said:

for most of us we haven't got that far or have that time to have all 5 star titan items....most players still have a % of players on their islands that are unbeatable at their current ascension lvl

Totally agree.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, here are my ideas:

1. Free level up to alliance level, so winner could increase member numbers for free, and keep growing without worry about alliance gold being not enough for blessing after level up. But this is basically only for lower leagues, and it works similar to reward with alliance.

2. Damage and Resistance buff to ENTIRE alliance member at certain %, but ONLY applied to when the players raid islands and Odyssey, WON'T have buff  in the next war (to prevent the winner alliances are easier always the winners because of the buff).

3. Add a place in player info. where people can see how much contribution the player had/have to the alliance he/she stayed or staying, so the info. could be also a reference when a general try to consider recruit a particular player or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Isjerryhuang it is always a quest of balancing. You make the leagues too far from eachother and you get an incentive for a collective bullying of lower alliances by a bunch of high end teams, sharing the top league rewards. You make the leagues too close and you get the thing I described. I dont think there is THE way without going 1v1 and taking out the multialliance concept entirely, but I hope thrre is A way to minimize the effect.

Edited by Infamous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Infamous said:

@Isjerryhuang it is always a quest of balancing. You make the leagues too far from eachother and you get an incentive for a collective bullying of lower alliances by a bunch of high end teams, sharing the top league rewards. You make the leagues too close and you get the thing I described. I dont think there is THE way without going 1v1 and taking out the multialliance concept entirely, but I hope thrre is A way to minimize the effect.

No, it is not easy. I think my hope is to achieve 2 things at the same time, if possible. First, make sure there's motivation to players/alliances climbing up to higher leagues, and second, prevent alliance being more and more powerful. The worst case is when an alliance stays at top, the system makes it stronger and stronger, and when time passed the accumulated rewards make it invincible or very tough to take it down.

However,  although giving permanent buff as rewards is concerned as it may make the strong alliance being even stronger, but I have to admit it also increases the value of the alliance. Think about alliances are like houses players could stay, right now the best house is only useful on 2 things: space for 50 members and the alliance gold. When the gold is used up, the house then becomes only a place which can allow 50 players to stay. It can be given up easily when there're other houses the same with space for 50 people, and it's not very rare, there're alliances upgraded to the max and now just a place has no big difference with others, and there's even a feature in the game you can change the name now.

If the league rewards in wars could be something like decorations of a house, and it will be better if it's useful decorations like permanent buffs, it may be cool. Then the alliances will be different from each other, with their achievement made during wars.

13 hours ago, Warriornator said:

Can't wait any longer lol. 1 month its very long. I'm glad that I have a tons of thing to do before 4.0. I rush fast to up my stuffs. I want to be ready for 4.0

Welcome back to the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Isjerryhuang said:

No, it is not easy. I think my hope is to achieve 2 things at the same time, if possible. First, make sure there's motivation to players/alliances climbing up to higher leagues, and second, prevent alliance being more and more powerful. The worst case is when an alliance stays at top, the system makes it stronger and stronger, and when time passed the accumulated rewards make it invincible or very tough to take it down.

However,  although giving permanent buff as rewards is concerned as it may make the strong alliance being even stronger, but I have to admit it also increases the value of the alliance. Think about alliances are like houses players could stay, right now the best house is only useful on 2 things: space for 50 members and the alliance gold. When the gold is used up, the house then becomes only a place which can allow 50 players to stay. It can be given up easily when there're other houses the same with space for 50 people, and it's not very rare, there're alliances upgraded to the max and now just a place has no big difference with others, and there's even a feature in the game you can change the name now.

If the league rewards in wars could be something like decorations of a house, and it will be better if it's useful decorations like permanent buffs, it may be cool. Then the alliances will be different from each other, with their achievement made during wars.

Welcome back to the game!

If the uniqueness of alliance is a concern, I would much rather go for something else than the league rewards. There is a beautiful system of alliance masteries proposed a year(ish) ago in Suggestions, where VPs would be converted into skill points and those can, in turn, be used to level a number of masteries from the wheel-like structured list. This wouldnt be nearly as op as something along the lines of Cartel gangbanging everyone out of the top league to get the rewards all the time, cause there can be no cooperation to get such masteries. The result would be the same- different alliances. At a much lower cost and virtually no downsides except the usual “the longer the alliance stands - the more masteries it has”. But well, thats an issue of balancing again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's the original skill-tree/wheel suggestion, for anyone who's interested. This pre-dated masteries by quite a while, too.

If this was implemented exactly, there could just be more "coins" given out based upon what league you were playing in. A win in the major league might be worth 5 coins, while a lower league might just give one coin.

Edited by dumpster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dumpster said:

 

Here's the original skill-tree/wheel suggestion, for anyone who's interested. This pre-dated masteries by quite a while, too.

If this was implemented exactly, there could just be more "coins" given out based upon what league you were playing in. A win in the major league might be worth 5 coins, while a lower league might just give one coin.

We don't plan something like this for 4.0 because that + leagues would be too much of a change at once, and we would most likely end up with an unstable game. However (!), we do have plans for something similar later on (but not straight away, so don't hold your breath).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

We don't plan something like this for 4.0 because that + leagues would be too much of a change at once, and we would most likely end up with an unstable game. However (!), we do have plans for something similar later on (but not straight away, so don't hold your breath).

Yeah, I didn't think that was in the immediate pipeline, I was just posting it for people interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now