DeletedUser40
Guest
Please provide us with your feedback here.
DeletedUser7524
Guest
I really want to give my feedback on this.
This new feature was discussed multiple times in the German forum and there have always been two groups that didn't come to a real conclusion. The only conclusion made (that I could see) was that this is an extreme game changing feature.
One group, persisting manly of former Tribal Wars (1) players and I think the more active player base, had the opinion that this would destroy the strategic component of this game. Especially bigger tribes with only small fronts for each player could relocate troops nearly all the time and when two tribes do that while fighting against each other this would probably lead to a never ending fight without losing villages.
In my opinion it is currently possible to conquer villages in 3 ways while two good or big tribes (or two good or big players) fight each other (where big is of course not equivalent to good):
The other group was happy about this idea, because it would make it a lot easier to defend villages when other players attack. Also some said it could make the game faster, because they would easier have a full army to attack other players and this would lead to a more tactical gameplay. Although they agreed it would be possible that this is done by both sides of a fight which causes an endless loop, some again said this would be great and fair, because nobody could lose villages as fast as they now do.
I think this group persists of players that I just listet in my 1. and 3. way to lose a village. Otherwise I cannot see why one could think this is great.
As one might see, I am part of the first group. I don't want this feature.
In the world I play, I am part of a small tribe with around 7 players (5,4 mio points), fighting big tribes with at least 50 players (currently one with 50 mio points) and even players that have way more villages and points than every one of us has. And even though they are bigger, we never lost a village and took a few from them. Now with a new ally on our side we can start a counter-attack when we all got a bit more time to plan and execute this plan. This is only possible because they cannot relocate troops and they lose their villages because of one of the three ways I listed before. But when this feature is now added to the game, they constantly have full offs and deffs near our villages and can easily defend any attack we send them and send us more and more troops, even when we play the better fakes and they would lose at this moment.
So in my opinion this feature supports players that would normally lose villages and are
I hope this is not the player group Innogames tries to face this way. This would completely destroy my current gameplay and will likely make me stop playing (or at least playing seriously, I don't know yet). I would prefer other ways to teach such players instead of giving them this feature.
Comments welcome.
This new feature was discussed multiple times in the German forum and there have always been two groups that didn't come to a real conclusion. The only conclusion made (that I could see) was that this is an extreme game changing feature.
One group, persisting manly of former Tribal Wars (1) players and I think the more active player base, had the opinion that this would destroy the strategic component of this game. Especially bigger tribes with only small fronts for each player could relocate troops nearly all the time and when two tribes do that while fighting against each other this would probably lead to a never ending fight without losing villages.
In my opinion it is currently possible to conquer villages in 3 ways while two good or big tribes (or two good or big players) fight each other (where big is of course not equivalent to good):
- A player is not that active and didn't see that huge collected army running on this village (for example 50 attacks). Therefore he didn't send or ask for enough support. For me this is a way to inactive player who don't take this game serious enough.
- Attacker and defender play this game like a poker game. The defender loses this game because he got the fakes of the attacker wrong and loses a village with few troops in it (because the other troops are in other villages). This could also be a second player after the attacker faked the first player and the second send all troops and then got attacked too. This is one part of what most people call the "strategical component".
- The defender doesn't know that his army doesn't need to fight all the time. This is why he don't send his army back from a village with a huge attack wave without nobleman. He loses not only his wall but his hole defending army (possibly the nearest deff units he had) and cannot defend the later attacking nobleman. This is also part of the "strategical component".
The other group was happy about this idea, because it would make it a lot easier to defend villages when other players attack. Also some said it could make the game faster, because they would easier have a full army to attack other players and this would lead to a more tactical gameplay. Although they agreed it would be possible that this is done by both sides of a fight which causes an endless loop, some again said this would be great and fair, because nobody could lose villages as fast as they now do.
I think this group persists of players that I just listet in my 1. and 3. way to lose a village. Otherwise I cannot see why one could think this is great.
As one might see, I am part of the first group. I don't want this feature.
In the world I play, I am part of a small tribe with around 7 players (5,4 mio points), fighting big tribes with at least 50 players (currently one with 50 mio points) and even players that have way more villages and points than every one of us has. And even though they are bigger, we never lost a village and took a few from them. Now with a new ally on our side we can start a counter-attack when we all got a bit more time to plan and execute this plan. This is only possible because they cannot relocate troops and they lose their villages because of one of the three ways I listed before. But when this feature is now added to the game, they constantly have full offs and deffs near our villages and can easily defend any attack we send them and send us more and more troops, even when we play the better fakes and they would lose at this moment.
So in my opinion this feature supports players that would normally lose villages and are
- not as active as others or
- have a bad strategy or
- didn't yet understand the game enough to be successful.
I hope this is not the player group Innogames tries to face this way. This would completely destroy my current gameplay and will likely make me stop playing (or at least playing seriously, I don't know yet). I would prefer other ways to teach such players instead of giving them this feature.
Comments welcome.
DeletedUser117
Guest
I don't like the idea.
Jeez... Can't you finally introduce mass recruit/build instead of some unnecessary stuff? I played closed beta, open beta and pl servers since pl1. Now I'm top4 at pl10 and leader of top2 tribe... It is so time time-consuming. And now, we have to find another tactics, strategies because you decided it's better to introduce sth new than sth we all are waiting for.
Yes, yes. I know you are collecting ideas about mass build. But we told you about this need 1,5 year ago. I will win (or not) world I'm playing now and I won't play this game anymore.
Jeez... Can't you finally introduce mass recruit/build instead of some unnecessary stuff? I played closed beta, open beta and pl servers since pl1. Now I'm top4 at pl10 and leader of top2 tribe... It is so time time-consuming. And now, we have to find another tactics, strategies because you decided it's better to introduce sth new than sth we all are waiting for.
Yes, yes. I know you are collecting ideas about mass build. But we told you about this need 1,5 year ago. I will win (or not) world I'm playing now and I won't play this game anymore.
DeletedUser40
Guest
Thanks for the feedback guys.
We will forward it to our Developers / Game Designers
We will forward it to our Developers / Game Designers
DeletedUser138
Guest
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the feedback.
We are working on Mass Recruiting / Building as we speak.
Relocate Units is designed for new worlds, not to influence old strategis on old worlds and will only be available on select few new worlds in the beginning. On Beta, the feature is on old worlds, cause else we would not be able to test it properly.
Obviously the feature was designed to change the way you play the game a bit and to adapt new ways to play it. We will test it for a few weeks on 3 newly launched worlds and then, based on feedback and usage we will either introduce it on all new worlds in the future, or not at all. But we will not introduce it on older worlds.
Please test the feature out, maybe you change your mind.
Thanks for the feedback.
We are working on Mass Recruiting / Building as we speak.
Relocate Units is designed for new worlds, not to influence old strategis on old worlds and will only be available on select few new worlds in the beginning. On Beta, the feature is on old worlds, cause else we would not be able to test it properly.
Obviously the feature was designed to change the way you play the game a bit and to adapt new ways to play it. We will test it for a few weeks on 3 newly launched worlds and then, based on feedback and usage we will either introduce it on all new worlds in the future, or not at all. But we will not introduce it on older worlds.
Please test the feature out, maybe you change your mind.
DeletedUser7524
Guest
Hi @Nino,
I had time to relocate some units and test this idea. So I want to add some feedback to this.
I understand why some people might like it. I hope you could see (above) why I think this would slow down fights between big players. I am worried about the time when players got enough villages to send troops in waves from their safe to their front. Every time only few villages forward, so that there is always the next army waiting to move forward from the second line. The only way I see to handle such a player would be a big offensive with the help of the own tribe.
This of course would not be bad at first, because players have to play more together. But I think this feature is more helpful for defensive play as it is for offensive play. Offensive players can take advantage of killing bad placed defensive units or supporting units that cannot be send fast enough (maybe because they are currently on their way to the wrong village). When this player relocates defensive units to the front or to better positions, they are way more flexible in defending with smaller traveling time. In my opinion this is more valuable than sending offensive troops with small traveling times.
Maybe I am wrong, I don't play beta active enough to test this on another (big) player.
So am I against this idea?
A bit, but only because I would prefer to play on servers without this feature. I could imagine there are other players with a complete opposite opinion. So if you want to bring this feature, please don't bring it on old servers (as you already said) and on all future servers. When I want to play a new world, I would like to take one without this. Could be called "Classic Gameplay" or something
Maybe this would be a solution for the sabotage problem too. There could be worlds with sabotage and troop relocation and servers without both, for the (mostly) old TW1 players (I suppose) that don't want this. Just as an idea.
Something different on how it works right now:
I saw, that this is only usable when a village got 100 loyalty. I think this was a good idea and maybe this opens strategies for players to clear a village and send a few noblemen without conquering it, just to be sure the defending player cannot send new troops there. Also this is important, when someone gets a village inside a safe area. He could very fast send offensive troops there to do massive damage, even before others could react.
Since beginning of this month I am part of the German Support Team and I talked with Alma98/Tina about this feature. She told me the paladin can be relocated with other troops and makes them move with 6 hours, even if the normal relocation would take multiple days or even more.
I think you should change this. One could use the paladin to send troops from far away (as I said: days) twice a day (6 hours each way = 12 hours for one army). This is too powerful I think. I would suggest to say: The paladin has 6 hours travel time. The complete travel time of all units, is the slowest travel time of them. So if the paladin is faster, he gets slowed down by the other units. This would be the same as attacking or supporting with units. Even if you want to give him such a bonus, don't make it that strong, use a percentage or something.
Again, I couldn't test this by myself, this was part of the information Tina had.
I had time to relocate some units and test this idea. So I want to add some feedback to this.
I understand why some people might like it. I hope you could see (above) why I think this would slow down fights between big players. I am worried about the time when players got enough villages to send troops in waves from their safe to their front. Every time only few villages forward, so that there is always the next army waiting to move forward from the second line. The only way I see to handle such a player would be a big offensive with the help of the own tribe.
This of course would not be bad at first, because players have to play more together. But I think this feature is more helpful for defensive play as it is for offensive play. Offensive players can take advantage of killing bad placed defensive units or supporting units that cannot be send fast enough (maybe because they are currently on their way to the wrong village). When this player relocates defensive units to the front or to better positions, they are way more flexible in defending with smaller traveling time. In my opinion this is more valuable than sending offensive troops with small traveling times.
Maybe I am wrong, I don't play beta active enough to test this on another (big) player.
So am I against this idea?
A bit, but only because I would prefer to play on servers without this feature. I could imagine there are other players with a complete opposite opinion. So if you want to bring this feature, please don't bring it on old servers (as you already said) and on all future servers. When I want to play a new world, I would like to take one without this. Could be called "Classic Gameplay" or something
Maybe this would be a solution for the sabotage problem too. There could be worlds with sabotage and troop relocation and servers without both, for the (mostly) old TW1 players (I suppose) that don't want this. Just as an idea.Something different on how it works right now:
I saw, that this is only usable when a village got 100 loyalty. I think this was a good idea and maybe this opens strategies for players to clear a village and send a few noblemen without conquering it, just to be sure the defending player cannot send new troops there. Also this is important, when someone gets a village inside a safe area. He could very fast send offensive troops there to do massive damage, even before others could react.
Since beginning of this month I am part of the German Support Team and I talked with Alma98/Tina about this feature. She told me the paladin can be relocated with other troops and makes them move with 6 hours, even if the normal relocation would take multiple days or even more.
I think you should change this. One could use the paladin to send troops from far away (as I said: days) twice a day (6 hours each way = 12 hours for one army). This is too powerful I think. I would suggest to say: The paladin has 6 hours travel time. The complete travel time of all units, is the slowest travel time of them. So if the paladin is faster, he gets slowed down by the other units. This would be the same as attacking or supporting with units. Even if you want to give him such a bonus, don't make it that strong, use a percentage or something.
Again, I couldn't test this by myself, this was part of the information Tina had.