Rejected Parallel construction idea

DeletedUser2103

Guest
Hi,

So a standard village has 2 construction 'queue' slots. What I would like to see is that these slots are parallel construction channels i.e the buildings in these slots both build at the same time. This would speed up construction, provided you have the resources to queue them of course. It would allow players to build some of the very long duration buildings, like headquarters and wall, at the same time as building up the shorter duration buildings at the start. Of course, later on, building two long duration buildings would be beneficial also. A rule could be that you can't build two levels of the same building at the same time i.e it must be a different building in each channel at any one time (eg can't put wall in both channels at once).

For players who buy a 3rd, 4th or 5th slot, this would give them more parallel construction channels to utilise. This would be a bigger premium benefit than the current 3rd queue slot and would therefore sell more of them but at the same time this would be self limiting, because of the resource requirement of continual parallel construction. I would see a maximum of 5 channels being reasonable.

I'd like to see the same thing in the barracks, so you can have 2 parallel troop slots and the troops in these slots build simultaneously.


The above is the core idea, but I'd like to take it a little further also:

Currently a standard city has one building channel, consisting of one live build and one queued build. The second construction channel suggested above could also consist of one live and one queued build. So basically with 2 construction channels operating simultaneously, you could have one live build and one queued build in each channel. Buying a 3rd channel (premium), gives you another live slot and another queued slot. Again this is self limiting because of resource needs. So people can visualise, id see it working something like this:

2q84qqv.jpg




The same thing applies in the barracks. Currently there is one channel but you can queue however many you like. I'd like to see 2 simultaneous channels as standard, but maybe restrict the number queued to 5. Premium players can then add a 3rd, 4th and 5th simultaneous channel. So in the barracks you would get 2 channels each with 5 slots as standard, and premium can give you up to 5 channels, each with 5 slots.


This would have the advantage of speeding up the game for everyone, allowing more flexibility in how you queue and build, and would give premium players a very attractive feature to purchase.

Looking forward to comments.

Dan
 

DeletedUser2103

Guest
Fundamentally, this suggestion is about making the game faster, and I'm convinced that it needs it to be honest. But I'm trying to suggest doing it in a way that would add to the options a player has in game to add more depth to it, and trying to think about how Inno could benefit from this through a stronger premium feature.
 

Jariid

Member
I think that would make things even more pay4headstart. I think it is semi-balanced as is, with late-game being the end for pay2win. I think honestly that this would be a negative influencer of the game, as you'd maybe have double wall building, and then even bugs to be dealt with. If you got the building secured bug/tricking the system wise, then it would have a chance of working.

I have to admit that the premium/crown feature seems to be a replacement for inactivity, in that active players have the advantage of farming 24/7 or at least more than the once-a-dayers. The crowns let you catch up by instantly finishing buildings, but doesn't let you get more resources easily, which I approve of not being in the game.

Inno benefitting from another premium feature? Are you trying to get a headstart in a single village and convincing them by dangling money in their face? What do they care what people spend the crowns on, having more to buy will just put more people off, and the crowns are already bought anyway, so innogames doesn't benefit much at all, tbh.
 

DeletedUser2103

Guest
Jariid;n27494 said:
I think that would make things even more pay4headstart. I think it is semi-balanced as is, with late-game being the end for pay2win. I think honestly that this would be a negative influencer of the game, as you'd maybe have double wall building, and then even bugs to be dealt with. If you got the building secured bug/tricking the system wise, then it would have a chance of working.

I have to admit that the premium/crown feature seems to be a replacement for inactivity, in that active players have the advantage of farming 24/7 or at least more than the once-a-dayers. The crowns let you catch up by instantly finishing buildings, but doesn't let you get more resources easily, which I approve of not being in the game.

Inno benefitting from another premium feature? Are you trying to get a headstart in a single village and convincing them by dangling money in their face? What do they care what people spend the crowns on, having more to buy will just put more people off, and the crowns are already bought anyway, so innogames doesn't benefit much at all, tbh.


I mentioned the double building thing in my original post. I'd suggested that you can only add a building once to a channel and then its not available in the other build channels.

Re the premium. Currently the 3rd building queue slot is pretty useless. If non-paying players were to get a parallel channel, as im suggesting, and premium players could get a 3rd/4th - whatever - then this would be fine by me. I'm not a paying player btw, but its obvious Inno needs to make money off premium features so they need to be attractive to players.
 

Jariid

Member
DangerousDan;n27565 said:
I mentioned the double building thing in my original post. I'd suggested that you can only add a building once to a channel and then its not available in the other build channels.

Re the premium. Currently the 3rd building queue slot is pretty useless. If non-paying players were to get a parallel channel, as im suggesting, and premium players could get a 3rd/4th - whatever - then this would be fine by me. I'm not a paying player btw, but its obvious Inno needs to make money off premium features so they need to be attractive to players.


The time it takes to build a building is meant to represent the resources available at that HQ's organisation level (or building level) as you wouldn't be able to fully focus on multiple building plans at the same time, whilst maintaining the same progress. Singlequeueing is just the best way of showing how long it'd take to build anything. Realistically you'd have to double the time on both buildings while having two in queue. Otherwise you're just suggesting a time-booster for free-players.
 

DeletedUser2103

Guest
I'm suggesting a way of speeding up the game I'm not trying to hide that, because I feel buildings and troops build too slow. Im trying to do it in a way that provides a more dynamic feature than simply halving the construction time would.
 

Jariid

Member
DangerousDan;n27604 said:
I'm suggesting a way of speeding up the game I'm not trying to hide that, because I feel buildings and troops build too slow. Im trying to do it in a way that provides a more dynamic feature than simply halving the construction time would.
That defeats the purpose of the tribble wizzles. It's a long game. If you want to play a fast-paced game try the speed rounds on original TW.
 

DeletedUser2103

Guest
Jariid;n27609 said:
That defeats the purpose of the tribble wizzles. It's a long game. If you want to play a fast-paced game try the speed rounds on original TW.

Those were too fast. Its a full time job playing on those speed worlds.

What is needed is a game that is a little faster but not too much. My suggestion would approximately double the speed, which would give you a nuke in 1.5 to 2 weeks instead of 3 to 4, provided you can resource it. Is that not a reasonable speed for a game like this? Do you like only having a nuke every 4 weeks?
 

Jariid

Member
DangerousDan;n27814 said:
Those were too fast. Its a full time job playing on those speed worlds.

What is needed is a game that is a little faster but not too much. My suggestion would approximately double the speed, which would give you a nuke in 1.5 to 2 weeks instead of 3 to 4, provided you can resource it. Is that not a reasonable speed for a game like this? Do you like only having a nuke every 4 weeks?


It creates strategies, not just zerg rushing over a few weeks. I like it how it is.
 

Jariid

Member
Fatal_Error;n27864 said:
Please come back to the idea, guys.

I don't think it's in the style of TW, and shouldn't be put in. There are enough speed-ups with crowns, despite them being so expensive. I think multiple building lines would not benefit anyone tbh, as you can't farm enough to make that mean much in the first place.

I don't like the idea. :D
 

DeletedUser924

Guest
You do know this won't speed up the game right? This will speed up th beginning and the wall construction but in th long run it'll slow down the game. Think late game when you have fully built buildings you are only going to give people the ability to build walls and barracks faster when recovering from a cat run which means they take more nukes to clear and more nukes to noble it thus making wars take way to long and now you'v turned a 4-7 year game into a 30 year game here it all about who will stick through it at the expense of their social and work lives than who will fight better. The end game strategy would become make the other guy quit through real world conflicts while avoiding them myself and I win.
 

DeletedUser1587

Guest
Honestly I love the idea, but what I would love even more, is some idea to make troops train faster :)
Either that or introducing some speed worlds, but either way using pay2win features makes no sense after 20th village IMO
 
Top