Community Feedback

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Farms are still the issue at hand.
If you add spells to deal with forms, that's even greater reason to farm. You now need more Fury to sling spells at forms.
Any balance it brings in will likely only be temporary and have mild mitigating effects in the long run.
My honest opinion here is to have UI enforced NAPs, more spells for forms, increased lesser strength vs forms, and more uses for T, and possibly new ways to generate T.
It is basically a mix of updates and minor overhauls to the whole system, but a much needed one I think.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: The farms aren't really the issue per se...I think it's more a matter of so many spells affecting lessers and very little spells to stop forms. You only have 2(sometimes 3) options to stop a form with spells - 1. Slappy bomb(if you cast right); 2. Terraform(If it's not a dragon); 3. BB(if you have that option).
Even then, option one isn't too efficient if you don't have forces nearby to kill it.
Option 2 isn't very efficient either, as you have to either cast multiple terraforms or continue next cycle casting a neural so they can't reterraform.
Option 3 you have to cast in the correct spot. And thats only if you don't already have that BB cast.
Add on top of that that (most) forms are much stronger than lessers, and it's easy to see why the game has turned into having so many farms...
ducky
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: Forced NAPs just leads to more leopard fighters in adjacent regions...
When I first started, fury farms were not seen near as often as they are now. As far as I'm aware, nothing in the game mechanics has changed that. It's the players who have.
-------Original Message-------
Zoldar wrote: Spot on summation and it's one of the reasons there's more crickets in here than players.
Z
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: wow its really quiet in here Temptations...
Another thing i think really needs to be fixed is farming. I am on the record on this, fury farms were not in the thinking of the game designers and they have tilted the game completely to the point where it is impossible to use a Lesser strategy. In my opinion farms made the games balance disappear and the snowball affect becomes much easier to achieve. Choose the right farming partner at the game start and the players with the best early expansion will almost certainly win if they are at all competent.
Farms need to be abolished and it has to happen gradually and by force of habit. The game rules should be such that programatically you can enter into a non-agression pact. You should be able to set in the UI a termination length. Once this happens you should function as an Alliance currently does (not that that setting is ever used anymore) so that farming is not possible.
Anyone entering into a peace agreement outside of the UI should not be able to complain about NAP breaches. Enter a NAP agreement in email only and your partner storms your borders... tough.
Using the UI system for NAPs would stop any NAP partner being able to jump the NAP as the system would only terminate the "Alliance" after the correct number of ticks...
This will correct the game play and also have the added bonus of bringing back feuds when some shifty characters try to bend the rules. Lies and Sighs will be a happening place again.
Without this change gameplay is one dimensional. Lots of Woodens and lots of Demons. Very few dragons and almost no Collossa until nearer the endgame, very few Lessor battles.
Mandos
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
Actually, yes, something along these lines is on the drawing board and will be implemented.
Whether or not 2-way communication will be supported is in question, but an option to turn on 1-way outbound forwarding is a short list item for early implementation.

-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: on a simialr train of thought... i always thought it would be nice to get in game and lobby emails CCd to your personal email. Just a thought and should be really easy to do.
M
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: Hello everyone,
I finally have a home laptop and a little bit more time on my hands (kids are now 4 and 7). How is the game doing since the new management took over?
Why have I never recieved any emails from Evernight? my emeil was up to date and subscribed to newsletters etc. The easiest way to contact old players would be to send a group email to all addresses in the database... was that done?
Anyway, I might just join a game...
Mandos

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Lunar Savage wrote: Farms are still the issue at hand.
If you add spells to deal with forms, that's even greater reason to farm. You now need more Fury to sling spells at forms.
Any balance it brings in will likely only be temporary and have mild mitigating effects in the long run.
My honest opinion here is to have UI enforced NAPs, more spells for forms, increased lesser strength vs forms, and more uses for T, and possibly new ways to generate T.
It is basically a mix of updates and minor overhauls to the whole system, but a much needed one I think.
Lunar Savage
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: The farms aren't really the issue per se...I think it's more a matter of so many spells affecting lessers and very little spells to stop forms. You only have 2(sometimes 3) options to stop a form with spells - 1. Slappy bomb(if you cast right); 2. Terraform(If it's not a dragon); 3. BB(if you have that option).
Even then, option one isn't too efficient if you don't have forces nearby to kill it.
Option 2 isn't very efficient either, as you have to either cast multiple terraforms or continue next cycle casting a neural so they can't reterraform.
Option 3 you have to cast in the correct spot. And thats only if you don't already have that BB cast.
Add on top of that that (most) forms are much stronger than lessers, and it's easy to see why the game has turned into having so many farms...
ducky
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: Forced NAPs just leads to more leopard fighters in adjacent regions...
When I first started, fury farms were not seen near as often as they are now. As far as I'm aware, nothing in the game mechanics has changed that. It's the players who have.
-------Original Message-------
Zoldar wrote: Spot on summation and it's one of the reasons there's more crickets in here than players.
Z
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: wow its really quiet in here Temptations...
Another thing i think really needs to be fixed is farming. I am on the record on this, fury farms were not in the thinking of the game designers and they have tilted the game completely to the point where it is impossible to use a Lesser strategy. In my opinion farms made the games balance disappear and the snowball affect becomes much easier to achieve. Choose the right farming partner at the game start and the players with the best early expansion will almost certainly win if they are at all competent.
Farms need to be abolished and it has to happen gradually and by force of habit. The game rules should be such that programatically you can enter into a non-agression pact. You should be able to set in the UI a termination length. Once this happens you should function as an Alliance currently does (not that that setting is ever used anymore) so that farming is not possible.
Anyone entering into a peace agreement outside of the UI should not be able to complain about NAP breaches. Enter a NAP agreement in email only and your partner storms your borders... tough.
Using the UI system for NAPs would stop any NAP partner being able to jump the NAP as the system would only terminate the "Alliance" after the correct number of ticks...
This will correct the game play and also have the added bonus of bringing back feuds when some shifty characters try to bend the rules. Lies and Sighs will be a happening place again.
Without this change gameplay is one dimensional. Lots of Woodens and lots of Demons. Very few dragons and almost no Collossa until nearer the endgame, very few Lessor battles.
Mandos
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
Actually, yes, something along these lines is on the drawing board and will be implemented.
Whether or not 2-way communication will be supported is in question, but an option to turn on 1-way outbound forwarding is a short list item for early implementation.

-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: on a simialr train of thought... i always thought it would be nice to get in game and lobby emails CCd to your personal email. Just a thought and should be really easy to do.
M
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: Hello everyone,
I finally have a home laptop and a little bit more time on my hands (kids are now 4 and 7). How is the game doing since the new management took over?
Why have I never recieved any emails from Evernight? my emeil was up to date and subscribed to newsletters etc. The easiest way to contact old players would be to send a group email to all addresses in the database... was that done?
Anyway, I might just join a game...
Mandos

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: Well some things haven't changed. The Duck still has the brain of a... well duck
now i guess i should duck
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: The farms aren't really the issue per se...I think it's more a matter of so many spells affecting lessers and very little spells to stop forms. You only have 2(sometimes 3) options to stop a form with spells - 1. Slappy bomb(if you cast right); 2. Terraform(If it's not a dragon); 3. BB(if you have that option).
Even then, option one isn't too efficient if you don't have forces nearby to kill it.
Option 2 isn't very efficient either, as you have to either cast multiple terraforms or continue next cycle casting a neural so they can't reterraform.
Option 3 you have to cast in the correct spot. And thats only if you don't already have that BB cast.
Add on top of that that (most) forms are much stronger than lessers, and it's easy to see why the game has turned into having so many farms...
ducky
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: Forced NAPs just leads to more leopard fighters in adjacent regions...
When I first started, fury farms were not seen near as often as they are now. As far as I'm aware, nothing in the game mechanics has changed that. It's the players who have.
-------Original Message-------
Zoldar wrote: Spot on summation and it's one of the reasons there's more crickets in here than players.
Z
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: wow its really quiet in here Temptations...
Another thing i think really needs to be fixed is farming. I am on the record on this, fury farms were not in the thinking of the game designers and they have tilted the game completely to the point where it is impossible to use a Lesser strategy. In my opinion farms made the games balance disappear and the snowball affect becomes much easier to achieve. Choose the right farming partner at the game start and the players with the best early expansion will almost certainly win if they are at all competent.
Farms need to be abolished and it has to happen gradually and by force of habit. The game rules should be such that programatically you can enter into a non-agression pact. You should be able to set in the UI a termination length. Once this happens you should function as an Alliance currently does (not that that setting is ever used anymore) so that farming is not possible.
Anyone entering into a peace agreement outside of the UI should not be able to complain about NAP breaches. Enter a NAP agreement in email only and your partner storms your borders... tough.
Using the UI system for NAPs would stop any NAP partner being able to jump the NAP as the system would only terminate the "Alliance" after the correct number of ticks...
This will correct the game play and also have the added bonus of bringing back feuds when some shifty characters try to bend the rules. Lies and Sighs will be a happening place again.
Without this change gameplay is one dimensional. Lots of Woodens and lots of Demons. Very few dragons and almost no Collossa until nearer the endgame, very few Lessor battles.
Mandos
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
Actually, yes, something along these lines is on the drawing board and will be implemented.
Whether or not 2-way communication will be supported is in question, but an option to turn on 1-way outbound forwarding is a short list item for early implementation.

-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: on a simialr train of thought... i always thought it would be nice to get in game and lobby emails CCd to your personal email. Just a thought and should be really easy to do.
M
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: Hello everyone,
I finally have a home laptop and a little bit more time on my hands (kids are now 4 and 7). How is the game doing since the new management took over?
Why have I never recieved any emails from Evernight? my emeil was up to date and subscribed to newsletters etc. The easiest way to contact old players would be to send a group email to all addresses in the database... was that done?
Anyway, I might just join a game...
Mandos

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: Well some things haven't changed. The Duck still has the brain of a... well duck
now i guess i should duck
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: The farms aren't really the issue per se...I think it's more a matter of so many spells affecting lessers and very little spells to stop forms. You only have 2(sometimes 3) options to stop a form with spells - 1. Slappy bomb(if you cast right); 2. Terraform(If it's not a dragon); 3. BB(if you have that option).
Even then, option one isn't too efficient if you don't have forces nearby to kill it.
Option 2 isn't very efficient either, as you have to either cast multiple terraforms or continue next cycle casting a neural so they can't reterraform.
Option 3 you have to cast in the correct spot. And thats only if you don't already have that BB cast.
Add on top of that that (most) forms are much stronger than lessers, and it's easy to see why the game has turned into having so many farms...
ducky
-------Original Message-------
ducky004 wrote: Forced NAPs just leads to more leopard fighters in adjacent regions...
When I first started, fury farms were not seen near as often as they are now. As far as I'm aware, nothing in the game mechanics has changed that. It's the players who have.
-------Original Message-------
Zoldar wrote: Spot on summation and it's one of the reasons there's more crickets in here than players.
Z
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: wow its really quiet in here Temptations...
Another thing i think really needs to be fixed is farming. I am on the record on this, fury farms were not in the thinking of the game designers and they have tilted the game completely to the point where it is impossible to use a Lesser strategy. In my opinion farms made the games balance disappear and the snowball affect becomes much easier to achieve. Choose the right farming partner at the game start and the players with the best early expansion will almost certainly win if they are at all competent.
Farms need to be abolished and it has to happen gradually and by force of habit. The game rules should be such that programatically you can enter into a non-agression pact. You should be able to set in the UI a termination length. Once this happens you should function as an Alliance currently does (not that that setting is ever used anymore) so that farming is not possible.
Anyone entering into a peace agreement outside of the UI should not be able to complain about NAP breaches. Enter a NAP agreement in email only and your partner storms your borders... tough.
Using the UI system for NAPs would stop any NAP partner being able to jump the NAP as the system would only terminate the "Alliance" after the correct number of ticks...
This will correct the game play and also have the added bonus of bringing back feuds when some shifty characters try to bend the rules. Lies and Sighs will be a happening place again.
Without this change gameplay is one dimensional. Lots of Woodens and lots of Demons. Very few dragons and almost no Collossa until nearer the endgame, very few Lessor battles.
Mandos
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
Actually, yes, something along these lines is on the drawing board and will be implemented.
Whether or not 2-way communication will be supported is in question, but an option to turn on 1-way outbound forwarding is a short list item for early implementation.

-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: on a simialr train of thought... i always thought it would be nice to get in game and lobby emails CCd to your personal email. Just a thought and should be really easy to do.
M
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: Hello everyone,
I finally have a home laptop and a little bit more time on my hands (kids are now 4 and 7). How is the game doing since the new management took over?
Why have I never recieved any emails from Evernight? my emeil was up to date and subscribed to newsletters etc. The easiest way to contact old players would be to send a group email to all addresses in the database... was that done?
Anyway, I might just join a game...
Mandos

Show quoted comments

-------Original Message-------
Narsham wrote: I really like the idea of giving lessors resistance to spell effects. Increasing the resistance with lessor upgrades makes a BB-lessor strategy functional again. Allow the lessor upgrading from Magma Demons and forts to factor into resistance and I could even see players sprinting to Mud Wretches so that their lessors in forts could be mostly/entirely immune to Sucker/OT.
That would also revitalize the ELIM-style games, which are even more about the forms than the regular games.
Narsham

-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
Shifting the balance of the entire game, at least in regards T&F balance, is the intended result.
The objective being that given players of comparable skill level and comparable empire size, some could choose a T-centric strategy, some could choose an F-centric strategy, some could choose a blended T/F strategy, and it would be an even fight between any of them.
As part of the quest to better balance T vs F, we're thinking along the lines of 3 major themes:
1) More uses for T.
Additional structure types. Upgrades for structures. Additional entity types. Upgrades for same. Lessor upgrades.
2) Spell modifications.
Multiple spells allowed in effect on a region. Let the various spell effects interact. Overbidding no longer cancels out lower cost F spells. Although cases of contradictory effects, overbidding will bias the resolution of the effects.
Major modification of movement spells:
Change how competing movement spells are processed so they aren't all or nothing deals. Make the various effects "interact" with one another.
Limit the total number of lessors affected proportional with fury spent.
Make them "leaky" by giving lessors a resistance factor which is augmentable by spell (F), purchased upgrade (T) or structures.
I think a little bit of nerfing of the all or nothing certainty of Sucker/OT/HoN/TS will go a long way towards restoring the viability of using lessors in battle.
3) Changes to how fury is generated.

I have to say, adding a third resource is certainly an interesting idea that never even crossed my mind. My initial gut feeling is that there is probably a lot of potential down that path.


-------Original Message-------
Narsham wrote: Hmm.
There are some additional issues with the T/F balance as well. Both T and F and particular threshold levels of utility. With F and regular spell costs, 100 F/125 F/160 F are major break-points, as are the costs for various forms. T is a bit trickier, as theoretically the break-points for killing forms of various sorts are important but in practice, one rarely sees lessers used for that purpose as a big stack is simply a handy source of F or form experience unless it's covered by lots of defensive magic. Spending 200-300 F to protect a stack of lessers is almost never going to be better than Sacrificing the stack or simply never putting that big a stack out there to begin with.
Income is another issue. Mid-game, you're pretty certain to have another 200-300 T next cycle even if things go poorly. If your fights all go wrong and someone misses a tick on a fury farm, you could have little or no F come in, which is a catastrophe. The big advantage of farming is to create an effectively steady F income.
So, just to throw out some ideas, many of which have been aired before: 1. Change things so lessers do not generate fury except from the Sacrifice spell. You generate new fury from damaging forms, from fighting battles and from winning battles. If you want to encourage large armies, have battles generate more fury the more lessers are engaged.
2. Have regions or structures which generate F instead of T.
3. Track the source of all F and make it a matter of diminishing returns. This could work in terms of combat size--maybe a 50 lesser farm returns 100% T in F, but a 200 lesser farm returns only 50% F for the T investment--but it might work better in terms of total F earned from a given player. In other words, I earn 100% F from combats with Mandos until I've earned 200 F total. Then I earn 95% F, then 90%, down to some minimum. You could run an early farm with one player but would then have to switch. You'd also create strong incentive for a player who's losing a war to hang in there, as the winning player will fall behind in F income for taking too long.
4. Add a third resource, say, Anguish. You earn Fury through Sacrifice spells or through structures built with T. You earn Anguish from damaging forms and killing lessers or from losing regions. Fury can be spent to summon and fuel forms and on some spells. Anguish can be spend on other spells. Fury is mainly about sustaining offensives; Anguish is mainly about defending against attack.
Farming would only yield Anguish. Early in the game, you'd rather spend T on structures which generate F as you need the F to win wars. Later in the game, you can either generate Anguish but don't really need it, or are forced to choose between spending T on lessers or on Anguish for defense. (You'd probably want small stacks of lessers and Anguish for the rest.)
Heck, you could allow Anguish to conjure up some form equivalent that is immobile.
In any event, I don't see a fix for fury farming that won't shift the balance of the entire game, aside from an agreement amongst the players not to do it. And the fewer players who farm, the greater the benefit from farming, so those agreements aren't likely to do the job, either.
Narsham
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
Hey Mandos,
Yeah, we agree, fury farming is an issue that needs fixing.
Thing is though, there isn't really any simply or obvious, let alone easy solution.
We don't see trying to implement an escalating technical whack-a-mole solution as being practical for a number of reasons.
The fundamental issue is the imbalance between T & F. In almost all circumstances, a point of F is way more valuable than a point of T.
Under such conditions, you can hardly blame players for wanting to convert major portions of their T into F in the easiest most reliable means available.
We are leaning towards thinking the most practical idea to address this is along the idea of adding to the game more uses of T to increase the value/utility of T to the point where the decision to convert it to F is no longer an automatic preference.
At the moment we are far from anything being set in stone, but the idea of implementing some sort of UI/Game Engine enforced NAP mechanism is certainly on the table.
There are significant pros & cons to this kind of idea, but we are more certain than not that it's an idea we want to roll out at a minimum at least for testing.
-Temptations


-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: wow its really quiet in here Temptations...
Another thing i think really needs to be fixed is farming. I am on the record on this, fury farms were not in the thinking of the game designers and they have tilted the game completely to the point where it is impossible to use a Lesser strategy. In my opinion farms made the games balance disappear and the snowball affect becomes much easier to achieve. Choose the right farming partner at the game start and the players with the best early expansion will almost certainly win if they are at all competent.
Farms need to be abolished and it has to happen gradually and by force of habit. The game rules should be such that programatically you can enter into a non-agression pact. You should be able to set in the UI a termination length. Once this happens you should function as an Alliance currently does (not that that setting is ever used anymore) so that farming is not possible.
Anyone entering into a peace agreement outside of the UI should not be able to complain about NAP breaches. Enter a NAP agreement in email only and your partner storms your borders... tough.
Using the UI system for NAPs would stop any NAP partner being able to jump the NAP as the system would only terminate the "Alliance" after the correct number of ticks...
This will correct the game play and also have the added bonus of bringing back feuds when some shifty characters try to bend the rules. Lies and Sighs will be a happening place again.
Without this change gameplay is one dimensional. Lots of Woodens and lots of Demons. Very few dragons and almost no Collossa until nearer the endgame, very few Lessor battles.
Mandos
-------Original Message-------
Temptations wrote:
Actually, yes, something along these lines is on the drawing board and will be implemented.
Whether or not 2-way communication will be supported is in question, but an option to turn on 1-way outbound forwarding is a short list item for early implementation.

-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: on a simialr train of thought... i always thought it would be nice to get in game and lobby emails CCd to your personal email. Just a thought and should be really easy to do.
M
-------Original Message-------
Mandos wrote: Hello everyone,
I finally have a home laptop and a little bit more time on my hands (kids are now 4 and 7). How is the game doing since the new management took over?
Why have I never received any emails from Evernight? my email was up to date and subscribed to newsletters etc. The easiest way to contact old players would be to send a group email to all addresses in the database... was that done?
Anyway, I might just join a game...
Mandos