This is suppose to be a game for fun, entertainment, which it does for me. I wish you all to have fun and enjoy your selves, and if u are not... there are other options out there
I think your point has been made over and over again. We have done much to encourage participation, now we are trying to give the best possible experience to those that do join.
I would rather have a "no match" EB. Sitting on another clan, fighting over KOs OR being pinned...BOTH are lame. I would rather have my 12 mith and get back to EBs rather than hoping the matchups are fair... more than 3 is very tough to overcome if everyone is active. I will do my best and not "complain"...
Wow, a response (first one ever and i had to stoop as low as being mocking) I am amazed, well now we can get a little serious. I Love the game and just want to better it (just like many other feedbackers) I brought up the issue of participation and have given a suggestion to fix a part of it (285 supporters) and since then others have realized the issue and created other suggestion threads discussing it. I believe that making players play a very specific way is turning off a already turned off crowd. You state that u have done alot to encourage it but thats only half of the puzzle. Your making benefits high but if cost is even higher than it til wont work. Costs need to be lowered, this means making it easier to war. This can be done through various ways but when talking about participation u need to talk both costs and benefits (simple economics) and with mant clans (ei worms) finding out that lvl50 rancor is almost going to be impossible to achieve the benefit lowers more. The only thing i can say u did was change times to fit others wants but even then it has a negative backlash as well because that means that it is spread out clans. Its a tricky issue but I believe going the regulation route isnt going to be the key.
Hey I'm not complaining about my war or anything I believe it was a fair match up based on that we had more numbers and our strengths were similar but there BFA skyrockets our anyway we could see that?.....also I noticed an explicit with ally buying before a war. weather it has to do with dropping allies or buying mass allies right before war you are able to jump spots I'm the clan so something needs to be done with that I believe thx for listen
Anytime you offer to give out "more", everyone jumps on board. It's a easy thing to sell. Everyone gets more money! Who wants In? Of course everyone says yes. However, when you look at the long term effects, it's not good for the game. We do agree that making war more accessible is an admirable goal, and we have some longer term plans to address that. However, the immediate concern is giving the best experience possible to the players that do sign up. We haven't discussed what these long term plans are because they are a bit further into the future. We are still looking at the overal impact of those changes, and also the amount of time it would take to implement it.
To get the best possible experience for the clans that do sign up give them a wider variety of opponents. Clans shouldn't be facing each other 5+ times in a row, and losing/winning every single one of them. To give a wider variety of opponents and therefor a better match up, you need to work on increasing clan participation. There have been many legitimate suggestions that would do this.
I dont ask for a "free lunch", there are many ideas that have nothing to do with "more" that deal with making it easier or less "costly" to war (ei val's idea on bounty). I suggested the war crystal, i believe that this a a fair way to appeal to both developer wanting to sell and players wanting to play. I understand that this game (just like every other online game) is a business. I tried to create an idea (as well as others) that attempted to be a "win-win". (just an example) If KaW sold war xstals than 1. It force players war 2. At reduced price it will enable more to buy 3. Although lower income per unit, it should be exspected to increase total units. In addition to that I said make it avaiable thru regulated in-game purchase of a very high amount and only 2 a week. This is not entirely to give "free lunchs" to the non-payers but it is also to make the ppl that actually buy the product to use it properly. Right now, xstal buyers (for purposes of only war) arent fully getting what they intende on purchasing. I think that by giving everyone a chance to war at least once it will enable fairer matchs to the buyers as much,much more will war. Plus this "sample" of a war a week will fuel more desire to purchase the real-deal with rl currency. I can go on and on with the dea but u get the point. If this has no future at all post it on the threads, let people ditch the idea and innovate more. I mean i'd be glad to move on if i knew i failed but from my perspective I am successful. I dont want false success/hope (and so dont many others). Sorry for the wall of text (on phone) and I thank you for a response. A discussion like this SHOULD happen because both parties can debate and talk about what can happen to better both sides.
You have to understand that something like the war crystal falls exactly into the "long development goal" category I had just described.
Oh and to look up the specs go look at the War Crystal thread in the war section (cant link because on phone) While your at it look at some other people's ideas and comment on its future (success,flop, etc.) I dont expect you to browse every tread idea but when supporters exceed 150 I think they deserve a look. Either put the idea to rest, criticise it, or use it.
They have all been looked at, but they were too long term for us to directly comment on it. It is definitely not a change that will occur in Season 1.
I agree some things should be kept secret to excite the base BUT the war crystal (and some other ideas) dont take an extremely long time to develop. Coding for a crystal that can only be used in war is not hard if you have a code for an crystal. I agree that maybe the "bounty hunting" idea (by val) requires much coding and long term thought (which is why it probably wont happen) but simple coding/changes shouldnt take a long time. When i think of "long term development" i think of a month work on a brand new thing (ei new scorpion ebs). Those require much time and effort for art work, coding, marketing, features, etc. The community asks sometimes for very little tweaks and fixes, they dont have to be "long term" (although many do, which is why they wont be practical).
Well this is the first i have ever heard of it. I thank you, again, for a response. But a simple comment to some of these threads would make a world of difference. Like i said, if there is a huge following make sure they get s response of the future of the concept. Note i have tried commenting on other admin threads and have emailed support, with no answer. This is my first clear response
Actually, your assumptions on time cost is a bit off, but that isn't really what we should be discussing. The bounty hunter idea we do love, and we did comment on it. We typically do not comment on any idea threads because it sets up a false sense of expectation. Please see a new thread I just started to encourage participation.
The "estoc's edge" is another great way to encourage participation. However, this just brings the benefits higher. It does nothing to make it easier to war or lower "costs". I appreciate it still, hopefully it will make more want to war but this is just a minor solution to a complex issue. There is no right way and there isnt only one way. I dont expect to have all issues solved just enough to not affect a large group of players.In regards to my assumptions on time-costs, I do not claim to be a game dev or coder. However i am good friends with many activision and viacom game coders and devs. So i know some second-hand knowledge (minor editing to an already scripted code doesnt cost much time or labor, if i have my facts correct). The production time an cost are relavant because they are what contribute to things actually being done and what make companies adopt feedback (costly and time extensive=risky and not worth doing). Also, commenting doesnt give false expectations. As long as the comment is accurate it should give true expectations. If you comment "Staff at AThinkingApe believes that this idea is not worth pursuing because _____" it gives the expectation that it isnt that good (which it isnt). I dont ask for it to be done everywhere as they takes ALOT of time and labor. However if there is a big gathering, say something. Make sure people dont have false hopes on ideas that wont work. Once again thanks for the response, I appreciate the feedback to our feedback. I believe the complainers get more attention than the people sending nice feedback. Heck, I didnt get a response from you until I was commenting a little rudely. There are many that nicely phrase a suggestion and never get a response but there are many that rudely phrase a complaint and get a response. Maybe it is just me, however many others hae noticed this trend. (once again sorry for wall of text, on phone and cant properly space)
Oh and you essentially said that "more" has negatice log term effects. The Estoc's edge is "more" for the losers. The loser could get a smaller percentage than the winner? Might be more fair than being equal. Ei, each lost still ads a 2% bonus to plunder and a win is a 5%. the edge can ad up to max of 50% (or more if you'd like).
Respect to LR players. Outnumbered and still fought to the last seconds... You have my respect. I hope the member that previously posted, rethinks respect. Bad matches happen. But great fighters like LR are hard to beat, even when outnumbered - THAT deserves respect. Again, respect for a great war LR! ;-)