PDA

View Full Version : Dev diary 47



Vorbann
10-23-2013, 03:09 PM
Hello,

The survey about your game experience in the strategic worlds is now closed.
This week we’ll be talking about the survey results, and the consequences for the next strategic worlds that will be opening soon.

An overwhelming majority of you - 80% - are satisfied with the quality of the game experience.

Concerning the size of the world, 67% of you told us you think it was too small, and the rest believe it was the right size.

For the objects to remove from the store, the top four replies were:
- Destruction: 43%
- Transmutation: 36%
- Unchain: 36%
- No changes: 33%
The other replies had lower percentages.

As for items to add to the store, there was no real consensus, and most of you said you would prefer things to remain as they are.

And that’s it for the main results of the survey!

Consequently, we’ll be making the following changes to the next strategic worlds:
- The size of the world will be increased from 90 to 110 regions across (it’s a smaller increase for the European worlds, as they were already at 100 regions).
- The following items will be removed from the store:
o Destruction
o Transmutation
o Unchain
- No items will be added.
- There will be no change in the number of tickets and their price.

Strategic worlds that are already in play will not be affected by these changes. Only the new worlds being created soon will be governed by these new rules.

We’ll be opening these worlds in a week’s time, Monday October 28.

Vorbann

zamz
10-23-2013, 05:11 PM
No more TRANSMUTATION YES !! been a long time since any good dev journal and finally ! Ofcourse reassign would have been nice too, but you can't win them all :)

Co_Ban
10-24-2013, 02:50 PM
I am a little bit out of the loop here... but what stops seal abusers to destroy town, after they use 20 free squares for vestiges, or give it to one of their dummy account. Seem a lot cheaper than demolition.
Disabling unchain and transmutation looks like nice improvement.

ramborusina
10-24-2013, 06:09 PM
First good news since... I started playing the game... Finally some actual improvement for the game instead of pay-to-win "updates". You can't destroy the town in strategic worlds, but you can gift it to dummy account. There is no way to prevent this unless ubi starts enforcing the rules(of course they don't bother with such petty things, especially if rule violators spend tons of money!)

dre.maa
10-25-2013, 03:00 AM
Are there dummy accounts on strategic worlds? It does require 1000 seals to enter, it would seem odd to me to have dummy accounts on strategic worlds. It seems like many people who post want seal-LESS worlds, but I haven't heard any news of this from developers.

zamz
10-25-2013, 05:28 AM
lol :) you never seen a player in this game that spends money like it was dirt from his backyard, unlimit resources :) ? 1000 seals means nothing them to cheat :) people do the same thing with 50000 seals on normal worlds...

filipd81
10-31-2013, 12:59 PM
There are people who are ready to spend fortunes only to have those 100 legacy points more from a strategic world. The 25% legacy bonus was really a bad idea. Better remove it for the next worlds.

dre.maa
11-01-2013, 02:45 AM
Is there a reason that Legacy Points can't be bought? It would seem like something that would be reasonable-you can earn those through the game or you can buy them to put you on a more even playing field. The amount you could buy could even be capped by what the most possible points currently are available. And I don't think that the people were shelling out the money for legacy points, they were doing it for one of two reasons: 1. To win...2. To keep up with their neighbor who spent lots of money. I could be wrong though.

AndreanDW
11-01-2013, 11:26 AM
... To keep up with their neighbor who spent lots of money...
What is the difference whether you spent lots of money for legendary **** or for legacy points? This time you can buy artifacts that give each of your heroes the advantages of legacy

zamz
11-01-2013, 11:42 AM
Legacy bonus is reward for sticking around, if it would be able to buy them, it would cancel that bonus as well, so don't give them anymore ideas !

dre.maa
11-01-2013, 01:05 PM
What is the difference whether you spent lots of money for legendary **** or for legacy points? This time you can buy artifacts that give each of your heroes the advantages of legacy

You can't buy artifacts on strategic worlds. And you can't give those artifacts to you heir on any world.


Legacy bonus is reward for sticking around, if it would be able to buy them, it would cancel that bonus as well, so don't give them anymore ideas !

But it also penalizes people who weren't around before. There is no way to make up for that. If they opened "old season" worlds so that people could earn the legacy, that would be fine as well. As it stands now, since I didn't play the first two seasons I have 1000 less legacy points. This isn't giving anyone an unfair advantage if you cap it at the maximum you could have earned from the first two seasons, it is simply leveling the playing field. The way it should have worked is that you could earn more legacy points each season so that people who started later could earn points faster to close the gap between new people and veterans.

zamz
11-01-2013, 01:45 PM
Yeh well I agree that new people should have atlesat some legacy and the first seasons legacy were ridiculous as I only have S3 legacy as well. But still legacy hasn't stopped me, it's the yellow skills thats totally stopped my interrest in the game. Now go buy those damn tickets so we can play some more serious game ! :)

MartyAmodeo
11-01-2013, 07:05 PM
But it also penalizes people who weren't around before. There is no way to make up for that. If they opened "old season" worlds so that people could earn the legacy, that would be fine as well. As it stands now, since I didn't play the first two seasons I have 1000 less legacy points. This isn't giving anyone an unfair advantage if you cap it at the maximum you could have earned from the first two seasons, it is simply leveling the playing field. The way it should have worked is that you could earn more legacy points each season so that people who started later could earn points faster to close the gap between new people and veterans.

I still say the most fair way for people who joined later than others to catch up would be special catch-up worlds. Put them on an accelerated timeline and allow them to compete for the legacy points they missed in earlier seasons. Only let people join these worlds who don't have legacy in that particular season. Because if you just give everyone the max potential, then it penalizes the veterans who had to work their tails off to get close to that.

S3 legacy scores were a bad joke though. If the S3 max was the same as the S1 & S2 maxes, then I bet people who joined in S3 wouldn't complain quite so loudly. Even just a single installment of 500 points goes a good long way to being able to see what these abilities are like.

AndreanDW
11-01-2013, 07:26 PM
maybe if legacy points can be bought I make a break with playing and subscription one or two years, save a lot of time and money (for subscription, not for seals - I never buy seals), and buy the points when I come back...
or I never come back

Giving more legacy points for later seasons, or make a limit what can be spent is one way to make the legacy fair, but that is the case in an indirect way this time: you have to pay more for the same additional advantage if you have more legacy points: play one more season, and you can get the legacy advantage level 9 instead level 8 - and the limit is 10 - therefore additional legacy points are without advantage
play successful one season (not season 3), and you have a medium legacy - level 5 or 6 of some good skills; play another season, and you have a small additional advantage

Maybe it would be a good decision to make the legacy points accessible in the same season where you got it - in this way someone who played one server can use it on the next server, and must not wait til the next season; then he only should have the possibility to earn additional points on this server if he performs better than his last try, and gets only the best try per season

dre.maa
11-01-2013, 09:28 PM
I still say the most fair way for people who joined later than others to catch up would be special catch-up worlds. Put them on an accelerated timeline and allow them to compete for the legacy points they missed in earlier seasons. Only let people join these worlds who don't have legacy in that particular season. Because if you just give everyone the max potential, then it penalizes the veterans who had to work their tails off to get close to that.

S3 legacy scores were a bad joke though. If the S3 max was the same as the S1 & S2 maxes, then I bet people who joined in S3 wouldn't complain quite so loudly. Even just a single installment of 500 points goes a good long way to being able to see what these abilities are like.

i wasn't saying to give everyone, but let them purchase the max potential. You can already purchase some of the individual "abilities" on separate heroes using set artifacts. You only get one legacy hero though. I just don't understand how you are going to expand a game that has a steep learning curve if you penalize people for not playing the first 3 seasons (especially the first two). I realize all of the veterans see it as a reward, but it depends on your perspective. Having some of the abilities really helps early on in development, especially on the speed worlds. Since I wasn't playing this game in the first two seasons (I was playing a different MMO at the time), I have no chance to earn those points back. Not to mention the fact that the people who have lots of legacy tend to stick together (since they have likely been playing together for many years).

Making catch-up worlds for a game that has so few players that are new would be difficult. The worlds don't seem to have as many players on them as when I started playing about a year ago. Also, would you be able to start these worlds with the legacies you already have (that is the idea that you have one "line" of legacy)? So if you had an S2 + S3 Legacy, would you get those to start your S1 world? And would you only get 1 shot at getting a decent legacy? If people weren't happy with their S1/S2/S3 legacy, could they replay these worlds to get more legacy points?

I don't see many people complaining about S3 legacy anymore. This may have been the case when S3 came out, but now there are not many complaints about anything other than seal-related items. Honestly, I don't see many people in the forums at all. There are the people in this thread and LASTWARRIOR. Wulfgar1978 hasn't been very active lately (but he used to be very active). I am sure that there are "lurkers," but they are not "vocal."


maybe if legacy points can be bought I make a break with playing and subscription one or two years, save a lot of time and money (for subscription, not for seals - I never buy seals), and buy the points when I come back...
or I never come back

Giving more legacy points for later seasons, or make a limit what can be spent is one way to make the legacy fair, but that is the case in an indirect way this time: you have to pay more for the same additional advantage if you have more legacy points: play one more season, and you can get the legacy advantage level 9 instead level 8 - and the limit is 10 - therefore additional legacy points are without advantage
play successful one season (not season 3), and you have a medium legacy - level 5 or 6 of some good skills; play another season, and you have a small additional advantage

Maybe it would be a good decision to make the legacy points accessible in the same season where you got it - in this way someone who played one server can use it on the next server, and must not wait til the next season; then he only should have the possibility to earn additional points on this server if he performs better than his last try, and gets only the best try per season

I realize that the legacy skills are more and more expensive at higher levels, but it does max out at 2020 legacy points. 1200 is much closer than 200, which is much higher than 0. I like having legacy now and I feel like it gives me a large advantage compared to last season. Not only do I know what to do a bit better (from experience), but I now also have a "super" hero who has special abilities that can give me more skill/attribute points, increase effectiveness in battle, contribute gold to my kingdom, and gives me an artifact that has no level requirements. I feel like veterans should be able to get a reward that does not affect game outcomes. An example would be that you can change the way your avatar looks. The more "legacy" points you have, the more decked out your avatar can be.

If you have two equally skilled players and one has more legacy (and neither uses seals), the person with more legacy will be able to win more often than not. It is just like legendary skills, only these were "earned." I don't understand how people can be against an advantage that was bought, but not one that was earned. I just don't see the difference. I understand the fact that whoever spends the most money on the game will win now (usually), but before it was whoever has played the game longer would win (usually). The legacy points can no longer be earned, how else are people who don't have as much legacy supposed to compete without spending more money? That is why the seals will never go away. New players have to spend more money to compete at the same level as veteran players. It is a very good business model.

Also, I think there should be a base-line legacy of 40 points so that you can take level 1 of each "stele" (or however you wanted to distribute the points).

MartyAmodeo
11-01-2013, 11:13 PM
Making catch-up worlds for a game that has so few players that are new would be difficult. The worlds don't seem to have as many players on them as when I started playing about a year ago. Also, would you be able to start these worlds with the legacies you already have (that is the idea that you have one "line" of legacy)? So if you had an S2 + S3 Legacy, would you get those to start your S1 world? And would you only get 1 shot at getting a decent legacy? If people weren't happy with their S1/S2/S3 legacy, could they replay these worlds to get more legacy points?

They already have "strategy" worlds that have been set aside for players that aren't even running because there aren't enough players. If they pulled the plug on one of them and made a catch-up world that started no-matter-what at a given time, I doubt they'd see a problem. I think more people are interested in increasing their legacy scores significantly than the number of people willing to spend 1000 seals to join a world.

The way I would see it run is basically to run the worlds as they existed in that particular season. For example, if you lacked S1 legacy, join an S1 catch-up world with 0 legacy, and play an accelerated version of the War for Tears. If you join an S2 catch-up world, play with S1 legacy and play WFT. Then join a new S4 world and your new legacy total should be available instantly.

Should vets that already have legacy from the catch-up season be allowed to join? I'm on the fence about that, but we might need to allow it to fill the worlds. They should enter with the same legacy constraints that everyone else has though. No additional season legacies should be available to them.


I don't see many people complaining about S3 legacy anymore. This may have been the case when S3 came out, but now there are not many complaints about anything other than seal-related items. Honestly, I don't see many people in the forums at all. There are the people in this thread and LASTWARRIOR. Wulfgar1978 hasn't been very active lately (but he used to be very active). I am sure that there are "lurkers," but they are not "vocal."

Creating a much worse problem seems to have masked off the lesser cries of earning less legacy for S3. Doesn't mean it's a good situation though. I think I remember the most unrest about S3 legacy scores as S4 was starting though. People were thinking, "Finally! I can use legacy and be like those other guys!", but they were still getting pounded by vets with much higher legacy pools.


I realize that the legacy skills are more and more expensive at higher levels, but it does max out at 2020 legacy points. 1200 is much closer than 200, which is much higher than 0. I like having legacy now and I feel like it gives me a large advantage compared to last season. Not only do I know what to do a bit better (from experience), but I now also have a "super" hero who has special abilities that can give me more skill/attribute points, increase effectiveness in battle, contribute gold to my kingdom, and gives me an artifact that has no level requirements. I feel like veterans should be able to get a reward that does not affect game outcomes. An example would be that you can change the way your avatar looks. The more "legacy" points you have, the more decked out your avatar can be.

Meh... feels like much less of a motivation to win, at least from a personal standpoint. When the game heats up, it can be very invasive in your real life for a short period, and if it was just about a vanity icon or something, I'd have probably just let those critical moments slide instead of fighting through them.


If you have two equally skilled players and one has more legacy (and neither uses seals), the person with more legacy will be able to win more often than not. It is just like legendary skills, only these were "earned." I don't understand how people can be against an advantage that was bought, but not one that was earned. I just don't see the difference. I understand the fact that whoever spends the most money on the game will win now (usually), but before it was whoever has played the game longer would win (usually). The legacy points can no longer be earned, how else are people who don't have as much legacy supposed to compete without spending more money? That is why the seals will never go away. New players have to spend more money to compete at the same level as veteran players. It is a very good business model.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I have a real problem with this line of thinking ("what's the difference?"). YEARS of effort went into earning those legacy points: some missed dinners, getting incessantly nagged by the wife, sneaking around at work at critical times, long planning of strategy, etc. - but you don't see a difference between that and just swiping your credit card? Plus, not for nothing, the subscribers of those days are what kept the game around this long. To a user who just showed up, the effect on them is the same whether it's from legacy or purchased items. (Though you must admit that legacy abilities are generally less game-turning than legendary skills used in the "right" combination.) But really try jumping into any game 3 or 4 years after it came out and tell me how well you do. Have you found any game that gives you a real fair chance?

I think that catch-up worlds would satisfy both sides. New players would still have to put their time in to earn the legacy, so no complaints from vets. They would get the legacy that they could have earned in the given seasons they missed, so the new users should be happy too. And then the whole user community could join together and complain with one voice about the REAL problem with the game, the seal store.

dre.maa
11-02-2013, 06:49 AM
The way I would see it run is basically to run the worlds as they existed in that particular season. For example, if you lacked S1 legacy, join an S1 catch-up world with 0 legacy, and play an accelerated version of the War for Tears. If you join an S2 catch-up world, play with S1 legacy and play WFT. Then join a new S4 world and your new legacy total should be available instantly.
.

War for Tears? Is that like the "War of Tears" that was the WoT worlds at the end of S3? Sorry if they are the same and I look like I am just being nit-picky, I just wondered if the rules were the same.



Meh... feels like much less of a motivation to win, at least from a personal standpoint. When the game heats up, it can be very invasive in your real life for a short period, and if it was just about a vanity icon or something, I'd have probably just let those critical moments slide instead of fighting through them.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I have a real problem with this line of thinking ("what's the difference?"). YEARS of effort went into earning those legacy points: some missed dinners, getting incessantly nagged by the wife, sneaking around at work at critical times, long planning of strategy, etc. - but you don't see a difference between that and just swiping your credit card?
.

I understand that you made sacrifices in your real life to get the legacy points in the fantasy world and you "paid" with time (and perhaps an upset wife, empty stomach, and loss of productivity at work). That option isn't available to those of us who joined late, though. I also understand that you want to make it available. And I feel like paying with money is a viable alternative. I would make a sacrifice in my real life (money) to get the legacy points in the fantasy world (since the "time" payment is not currently available). This also allows people who don't (or didn't) have the time to put into the game a way to level the playing field. I don't feel like you should be able to buy anything that gets you something that you couldn't get by playing yourself (more on that below).



Plus, not for nothing, the subscribers of those days are what kept the game around this long. To a user who just showed up, the effect on them is the same whether it's from legacy or purchased items. (Though you must admit that legacy abilities are generally less game-turning than legendary skills used in the "right" combination.) But really try jumping into any game 3 or 4 years after it came out and tell me how well you do. Have you found any game that gives you a real fair chance?
.

I jumped into World of Warcraft a couple of years after it came out. I started at the end of the Burning Crusade expansion (right before the last raid instance was released) about 6 months before the Wrath of the Lich King became available to play. The learning curve was not as steep (it was much more of a twitch game) and the rules/objectives were clearly stated. I could read up on a subject much more easily than I can here. This community is very helpful, but really small.

At the end of the original game, certain "spells/abilities" were only available through getting a team of 10-40 players and going to kill certain bosses. For example, I played a mage and my top "nuke" spells were only found in raids. I didn't play during this time, and instead of making me go and complete the outdated raids (which required coordination and finding 9-39 other players who wanted to do the same thing) the trainer taught them to once you hit level 60 or so (the original level cap). The level cap was raised to 70 with the first expansion (so when I started the cap was 70), and once you got to level 70 an entire new set of "opportunities" awaited you. There were multiple types of PvP which were not as readily available at lower levels (including Arenas, which were 2, 3, or 5 player duels). When you first started doing PvP, you likely did not have PvP oriented gear (because you got that from doing PvP). Your gear became outdated every time there was a content patch, so everyone essentially started from the same playing field every 6 months or so.

PvE was different. In the Burning Crusade expansion, there was a very linear progression: You started in regular dungeons (that dropped we'll say level 1 items), then you went to heroic dungeons (that dropped level 2 items), then you went to a 10 man raid (which dropped level 3 items), and you could continue on getting higher level items. It was difficult to impossible to get level 3 items with a group of players that were wearing all level 1 items. As far as I know, there was no way to get level 3 items or higher other than running the raids (there was even a quest line that had to be completed in order to unlock the higher level raids). There ended up being about 6 levels of items and many people were stuck on level 4 or 5. From what I understand, the original game was much the same, just without the "heroic dungeon" step.

The next expansion changed that. What happened was you now had to get to level 80 (you could keep your same character who was at 70 or start fresh again like I did...this time I chose a druid since they could fill any role in a group), access normal dungeons, then heroic dungeons to "gear up." But, once you got past the heroic dungeons, you were able to equip yourself with the 2nd highest "raid" gear. For example, if level 5 was what you got from the current raid, you could get level 4 gear from the vendor. This allowed people who didn't start raiding at the start to gear up faster and get into the current raiding level instead of being stuck trying to find other people at the same level of gear as them and run raids that no one wanted to run anymore (because most people would have all of that gear already). There were also other incentives that came out to make the process easier and to encourage you to revisit older content (like achievements for fun and weekly raid quests to kill old bosses for points that could be spent on gear). The PvP process was still the same. Get to max level, get geared up, play for 6 months with that gear, then the gear would become outdated and you would start the process over again.

That was the MMO I started playing. The field was constantly reset every 6 months or so, which allowed you to "catch up" to the other players who had started before you. I feel like here, I will never catch up with the way the system is set up now. I also felt like it was a lot easier to get into a successful group (they were called guilds in WoW). I seem to see a lot of the same people in the top alliances all of the time.

P.S. I would love to still play that but the time requirements are too high. I would have to be able to commit at least 12 hours a week if I wanted to be able to raid (between research, the actual raid time, and the "farming" time where you acquire gold to pay for repairs and consumables...and that is after the "gearing" which typically takes 20-30 hours at least to do independently). I was never very good at PvP-I am not good with reaction time.



I think that catch-up worlds would satisfy both sides. New players would still have to put their time in to earn the legacy, so no complaints from vets. They would get the legacy that they could have earned in the given seasons they missed, so the new users should be happy too. And then the whole user community could join together and complain with one voice about the REAL problem with the game, the seal store.

I do think that the seal store/legendary skills create an imbalance in the game. I am all for being able to spend money to do things that you could otherwise get by putting the time in (such as legacy). I do not think it is fair to create a system where you can spend unlimited amounts of money to gain an advantage that your opponent cannot match unless they spend the same amount of money. I have no problem with the seal store being available for things like town/hero unlock and the change your picture items (metamorphosis/avatar items). Those don't give you an unfair advantage in the game. If you pay for a subscription, you get the town/hero unlock option included with your subscription. The other items are "vanity" items-what your hero/avatar look like are not affecting the game (as long as your hero has to be a member of your "faction"). I am also okay with introducing an item that allows you to unchain an artifact in 1 day if you are a non-subscriber (it takes 4 for free to play to unchain). Everything else in my opinion can be abused. Some of them have a far greater effect than others. For example, being able to change your mines is much more advantageous thing than being able to unchain an artifact earlier. I also agree that the legendary skills create a much longer lasting impact on the game as compared with the legacy skills. The legacy give a large boost to the start of your game, but in the long run they are not overpowered. You can't stack resurrections on your hero so that s/he only ever loses 3%.

Another real problem with the game I think is that the game takes too long to finish. I feel like the current PvP world I am on now has been taking way too long to finish (The Zombie Assembly4). One team has a 316,000 to 246,000 lead in tournament points (and the team that has the 246,000 I think got to 200,000 first) and a 20M to 16M lead in alliance points. The team that could possibly have caught them formed half way through the server and is at 234,000 tournament points (your team btw, Marty). The gap has closed of late, but still I think would take months to close all of the way. I am fairly certain that this world started in May. It is now November. Six months is a long time to be playing one game. Especially if you are not on one of the top teams (my team is 7th in tournament ranking and 10th in alliance ranking). The problem is that I can't really stop playing now, as I have invested so much time and I would like to get the meager legacy points. I should get 60 for my union, 60 for my alliance ranking, 40 for my player ranking, and 50 for my tournament of Asha ranking for a total of 210; this would more than double my current legacy amount. I figure in season 5 (if it ever happens) I might be able to get 3 or 4 level 5's for my legacy. Other players will be getting level 8's and 9's just because they have been playing longer. Why stick around if I can never catch up? That doesn't seem fair to me. I would love for the playing field to be leveled every once in a while. Something that is no longer available to all players should not be offered to some players. I feel like this creates a need for a seal store.

Again, thanks for reading.

MartyAmodeo
11-02-2013, 09:33 AM
War for Tears? Is that like the "War of Tears" that was the WoT worlds at the end of S3? Sorry if they are the same and I look like I am just being nit-picky, I just wondered if the rules were the same.

On the US side, we called it WFT in seasons 1 & 2 but that might not have been official. I've also seen "war over tears" (which sounds like an awkward translation).


I understand that you made sacrifices in your real life to get the legacy points in the fantasy world and you "paid" with time (and perhaps an upset wife, empty stomach, and loss of productivity at work). That option isn't available to those of us who joined late, though. I also understand that you want to make it available. And I feel like paying with money is a viable alternative. I would make a sacrifice in my real life (money) to get the legacy points in the fantasy world (since the "time" payment is not currently available). This also allows people who don't (or didn't) have the time to put into the game a way to level the playing field. I don't feel like you should be able to buy anything that gets you something that you couldn't get by playing yourself (more on that below).

Well it's more than just paying with time. To me, it's more about earning your proverbial stripes. Have you played well enough to have 1000+ legacy points? It's like when you spend the extra effort to go for all of the unlocks in some single player games. They make you more powerful but it's a prestige thing as well. If those things can be bought, then they no longer mean anything. And all of the effort we spent to get our 18 grails built before the end-game timer expired, while maintaining a top-10 finish in a player category, and still protecting all grails under incessant and increasingly feverish attacks was worthless. Even if it could be bought, I wouldn't say it was absolutely worthless, because the teamwork and camaraderie was amazing and worth the effort. But it still greatly cheapens the accomplishment.

To take things to extremes, if you could buy and be revered for having a Purple Heart medal, how would that make the guy who lost a leg rescuing a squad-mate feel? (No, I'm not comparing my struggles in S1&2 to a hero who received a Purple Heart, just extrapolating the concept).


I jumped into World of Warcraft a couple of years after it came out. I started at the end of the Burning Crusade expansion (right before the last raid instance was released) about 6 months before the Wrath of the Lich King became available to play. The learning curve was not as steep (it was much more of a twitch game) and the rules/objectives were clearly stated. I could read up on a subject much more easily than I can here. This community is very helpful, but really small.

At the end of the original game, certain "spells/abilities" were only available through getting a team of 10-40 players and going to kill certain bosses. For example, I played a mage and my top "nuke" spells were only found in raids. I didn't play during this time, and instead of making me go and complete the outdated raids (which required coordination and finding 9-39 other players who wanted to do the same thing) the trainer taught them to once you hit level 60 or so (the original level cap). The level cap was raised to 70 with the first expansion (so when I started the cap was 70), and once you got to level 70 an entire new set of "opportunities" awaited you. There were multiple types of PvP which were not as readily available at lower levels (including Arenas, which were 2, 3, or 5 player duels). When you first started doing PvP, you likely did not have PvP oriented gear (because you got that from doing PvP). Your gear became outdated every time there was a content patch, so everyone essentially started from the same playing field every 6 months or so.

PvE was different. In the Burning Crusade expansion, there was a very linear progression: You started in regular dungeons (that dropped we'll say level 1 items), then you went to heroic dungeons (that dropped level 2 items), then you went to a 10 man raid (which dropped level 3 items), and you could continue on getting higher level items. It was difficult to impossible to get level 3 items with a group of players that were wearing all level 1 items. As far as I know, there was no way to get level 3 items or higher other than running the raids (there was even a quest line that had to be completed in order to unlock the higher level raids). There ended up being about 6 levels of items and many people were stuck on level 4 or 5. From what I understand, the original game was much the same, just without the "heroic dungeon" step.

The next expansion changed that. What happened was you now had to get to level 80 (you could keep your same character who was at 70 or start fresh again like I did...this time I chose a druid since they could fill any role in a group), access normal dungeons, then heroic dungeons to "gear up." But, once you got past the heroic dungeons, you were able to equip yourself with the 2nd highest "raid" gear. For example, if level 5 was what you got from the current raid, you could get level 4 gear from the vendor. This allowed people who didn't start raiding at the start to gear up faster and get into the current raiding level instead of being stuck trying to find other people at the same level of gear as them and run raids that no one wanted to run anymore (because most people would have all of that gear already). There were also other incentives that came out to make the process easier and to encourage you to revisit older content (like achievements for fun and weekly raid quests to kill old bosses for points that could be spent on gear). The PvP process was still the same. Get to max level, get geared up, play for 6 months with that gear, then the gear would become outdated and you would start the process over again.

That was the MMO I started playing. The field was constantly reset every 6 months or so, which allowed you to "catch up" to the other players who had started before you. I feel like here, I will never catch up with the way the system is set up now. I also felt like it was a lot easier to get into a successful group (they were called guilds in WoW). I seem to see a lot of the same people in the top alliances all of the time.

P.S. I would love to still play that but the time requirements are too high. I would have to be able to commit at least 12 hours a week if I wanted to be able to raid (between research, the actual raid time, and the "farming" time where you acquire gold to pay for repairs and consumables...and that is after the "gearing" which typically takes 20-30 hours at least to do independently). I was never very good at PvP-I am not good with reaction time.

I think WOW is a fundamentally different game. Firstly it is subscription based as a primary source of revenue, correct? In order to keep subscribers, they need to keep providing new content, and they need to be all-inclusive. They keep users on an improvement treadmill where things which were once powerful become obsolete and worthless compared to newer things, so there's always motivation to go for the newer things. MMHK is not like that. Content is added from time to time, but it is never obsoleted. What was powerful before is still powerful today (give or take some balancing tweaks and bug fixes over the years). Artifacts are added once in a blue moon, but not even close to the rate that they are in WOW.

This game originated with a fundamentally different philosophy. Build yourself a legacy over time and become legendary. Subscription was the most powerful thing you could buy, and that was more about supporting the game itself than it was about purchasing power. Non-subscribers were basically thought of as "free trial" users, who, if they liked the game, would become subscribers. They really weren't supposed to be viable to play the game all the way through. Basically the longer you've been playing, the longer you've been a subscriber. So of course you should be entitled to a richer game experience moving forward. That's what keeps you coming back.


I do think that the seal store/legendary skills create an imbalance in the game. I am all for being able to spend money to do things that you could otherwise get by putting the time in (such as legacy).

I think we just have to agree to disagree on this point here.


I do not think it is fair to create a system where you can spend unlimited amounts of money to gain an advantage that your opponent cannot match unless they spend the same amount of money. I have no problem with the seal store being available for things like town/hero unlock and the change your picture items (metamorphosis/avatar items). Those don't give you an unfair advantage in the game. If you pay for a subscription, you get the town/hero unlock option included with your subscription. The other items are "vanity" items-what your hero/avatar look like are not affecting the game (as long as your hero has to be a member of your "faction"). I am also okay with introducing an item that allows you to unchain an artifact in 1 day if you are a non-subscriber (it takes 4 for free to play to unchain). Everything else in my opinion can be abused. Some of them have a far greater effect than others. For example, being able to change your mines is much more advantageous thing than being able to unchain an artifact earlier. I also agree that the legendary skills create a much longer lasting impact on the game as compared with the legacy skills. The legacy give a large boost to the start of your game, but in the long run they are not overpowered. You can't stack resurrections on your hero so that s/he only ever loses 3%.

100% agree with all of this.


Another real problem with the game I think is that the game takes too long to finish.

If you look back to "the old days" the pacing and expectation of the pacing was very different. In season 1, hiring a new hero took increasingly long amounts of time depending on how many you already had. Also learning a skill took... I forget... either 12 or 24 hours. Fights in your region took 30-45 minutes each. Halts occurred in ALL non-alliance territory.

What did all of that mean? Was it just really boring because of all the waiting? Actually no! It meant that not being able to log in for 3 or 4 hours didn't set your early development THAT much farther behind everyone else. It meant you really, REALLY had to plan things well. You had to weigh whether or not it was worth learning a skill at a given time to take the hero out of commission for so long. He could be improving a mine, moving an army, or defending your city instead of sitting there learning a skill which will make him more powerful and useful. You had to build bridges over to enemy territory to attack their grails, which meant the entire alliance had to work together to pool their available city slots and you had to PLAN AHEAD. The game was designed with a 7-8 month timeline per world. (Actually if I recall correctly, my S1 world took 9 months.) Recent additions are no longer consistent with that design, but it was the original intention of the game.

Another point about the pacing was that you could still be extremely effective even if you only logged in 3 times a day. The time demand on the player was considerably lower than it is now, and it was quite relaxing even while engaged in a hot war. I think the pacing of Season 3 brought more stress in my life than anything else to date (and yes, I recognize that is a personal problem of sorts. =) ). Border wars were grueling because an entire alliance could take a square, turn it into a double gold, move their entire army in, and take the next tile - piece by piece until your grail core was gutted. You could launch an attack on an empty border city, but find 1.5M in troops sitting there without any evidence that an army moved in because of vestige troop rewards. You could isolate your grail core with a 100 tile radius from your nearest enemy, but if there is a line running through neutral players who just refuse to unregister (so you can't siege their last town), your enemy can jump across them for a halt-free approach. None of those broken mechanics were envisioned by the original development team. They made an interesting strategy game that required teamwork and skill.


I feel like the current PvP world I am on now has been taking way too long to finish (The Zombie Assembly4). One team has a 316,000 to 246,000 lead in tournament points (and the team that has the 246,000 I think got to 200,000 first) and a 20M to 16M lead in alliance points. The team that could possibly have caught them formed half way through the server and is at 234,000 tournament points (your team btw, Marty). The gap has closed of late, but still I think would take months to close all of the way. I am fairly certain that this world started in May. It is now November. Six months is a long time to be playing one game. Especially if you are not on one of the top teams (my team is 7th in tournament ranking and 10th in alliance ranking). The problem is that I can't really stop playing now, as I have invested so much time and I would like to get the meager legacy points. I should get 60 for my union, 60 for my alliance ranking, 40 for my player ranking, and 50 for my tournament of Asha ranking for a total of 210; this would more than double my current legacy amount. I figure in season 5 (if it ever happens) I might be able to get 3 or 4 level 5's for my legacy. Other players will be getting level 8's and 9's just because they have been playing longer. Why stick around if I can never catch up? That doesn't seem fair to me. I would love for the playing field to be leveled every once in a while. Something that is no longer available to all players should not be offered to some players. I feel like this creates a need for a seal store.

Again, thanks for reading.

It does feel like that world has dragged on for too long. But the reason it feels that way is because much of that time was *exhausting*. If most of the time was logging in only a few times a day to keep things rolling, it wouldn't feel like such a big deal. But when you've got to wake up early every morning to make sure that your army hasn't been gutted, and sweat every time you get pulled into an hour long meeting at work, and make sure that nobody lands a siege on you just before night halt so they don't get all of those free countdown hours, etc., etc., it is a major drag.

All of the timing of the game just feels "off" as things stand now. Part of the game wants to have the original pacing from S1, and part of it wants to be a twitchy, glued to the screen kind of game. And the two just don't marry well.

ramborusina
11-02-2013, 10:47 PM
Honestly I was one of the loudmouths last season when it came to whining about legacy so I suppose it's good time to start again. The current situation is that s1 and s2 veterans do have a huge advantage compared to s4 and s3 players like myself. As it stands I buy legendary skills and other stuff to even the playing field, but of course I still can't close such a huge gap. If I could earn or buy s1 and/or s2 legacy I definately would do so. I really hate when I hear veterans whine about how they earned the points. You could get same amount and even higher legacy from first seasons with semi-active game compared to you needing to play active now to earn even old mediocre legacy. The way I see the current system is that ubi/devs want there to be a huge gap so people like me buy things to equalize the game, but it gets even worse when legacy players start buying things and once again new players are left with nothing.

Old legacy players do stick together, thus new players have even harder time competing. There are few options to even things up:

1. Catch-up worlds as previous suggested. This would be most fair option and it would require time rather than money

2. Buying legacy, of course unfair for those who earned it.(And unfair for new players that they have to pay for what others have gotten for free!)

3. Legacy price become progressive as whole. Currently price of skill goes up when you level it, but other skills aren't affected. If it cost same to take level 8 A or level 7 A and level 1B it would shorten the gap, but still new players would be clear underdogs.

4. Progressive legacy-earn with newest players getting best prize/multiplier for legacy. For example s3 players got 3x legacy from s3 and 2x legacy from s4. New s4 players would get 3x multiplier for s4 and 3x for s5. The numbers are just examples, I never calculated them, but the multipliers would make it so old players would still have advantage, while new players can catch-up and shorten the gap close to what old-timers will have.

I'm personally for the catch-up worlds, but anything to make the game more fair would be nice. The current strategy worlds are text-book example of where huge legacy makes all the difference really :nonchalance:

dre.maa
11-03-2013, 05:07 AM
Well it's more than just paying with time. To me, it's more about earning your proverbial stripes. Have you played well enough to have 1000+ legacy points? It's like when you spend the extra effort to go for all of the unlocks in some single player games. They make you more powerful but it's a prestige thing as well. If those things can be bought, then they no longer mean anything. And all of the effort we spent to get our 18 grails built before the end-game timer expired, while maintaining a top-10 finish in a player category, and still protecting all grails under incessant and increasingly feverish attacks was worthless. Even if it could be bought, I wouldn't say it was absolutely worthless, because the teamwork and camaraderie was amazing and worth the effort. But it still greatly cheapens the accomplishment.

To take things to extremes, if you could buy and be revered for having a Purple Heart medal, how would that make the guy who lost a leg rescuing a squad-mate feel? (No, I'm not comparing my struggles in S1&2 to a hero who received a Purple Heart, just extrapolating the concept).


Comparing a game to real life is not applicable in most circumstances. I am sure that there are people who have bought purple hearts and pretended that they earned them. Money is a powerful thing. Not saying it is right, but I am saying that it happens.

Here is what WoW did to show the stripes of old players: They made achievements. Instead of giving you an in-game advantage, you could earn achievements if you did something when it was available and difficult. You had all kinds of "server first" achievements (this was all PvE things-first one to level up a character or skill, first group to kill a boss, etc). You had achievements for PvP rankings (best PvP teams). There were also achievements for completing it eventually, and also typically vanity rewards in the forms of pets (which traveled along with you but didn't interact/help in the game) or mounts (which you could get without achievements, but cooler looking mounts required achievements).

The problem with wanting other players to earn their proverbial stripes sounds like wanting someone to walk both ways uphill in the snow to school because you had to do it. Just because you had to do something that was hard, doesn't mean that everyone should have to do the same thing. I walked uphill both ways to school (there was a valley between my house and the school) and in the snow (because we didn't get delays or cancellations since we were a city school and people either walked or used public transportation). I don't want my kids to have to go through the same thing. It sucked. It could also be considered akin to hazing.



I think WOW is a fundamentally different game. Firstly it is subscription based as a primary source of revenue, correct? In order to keep subscribers, they need to keep providing new content, and they need to be all-inclusive. They keep users on an improvement treadmill where things which were once powerful become obsolete and worthless compared to newer things, so there's always motivation to go for the newer things. MMHK is not like that. Content is added from time to time, but it is never obsoleted. What was powerful before is still powerful today (give or take some balancing tweaks and bug fixes over the years). Artifacts are added once in a blue moon, but not even close to the rate that they are in WOW.

This game originated with a fundamentally different philosophy. Build yourself a legacy over time and become legendary. Subscription was the most powerful thing you could buy, and that was more about supporting the game itself than it was about purchasing power. Non-subscribers were basically thought of as "free trial" users, who, if they liked the game, would become subscribers. They really weren't supposed to be viable to play the game all the way through. Basically the longer you've been playing, the longer you've been a subscriber. So of course you should be entitled to a richer game experience moving forward. That's what keeps you coming back.


I was under the impression that this game was meant to be funded primarily by subscriptions? WoW had two sources of income: Subscriptions and purchasing the game/expansions. The game itself usually cost $40 to start and each expansion was an additional $40 (but you usually got whatever expansions were already obsolete included in your first purchase). The game was also $12/month to continue playing (at the "cheap" rate when subbing for 6 months). Expansions came out about every 2 years, and each expansion had ~3 patches spread out about 6 months each after release. Each of these patches would reset the playing field so that you could get to where people were at the end of the previous patch and then start to get the new stuff. People who had already gotten the best PvE or PvP gear had an easier time getting the new PvE or PvP gear (because they didn't have to spend the time to get the old gear before trying to get the new gear), but the gap could be closed relatively quickly. If you wanted to continue to explore the new elements of the game, you did have to get the new items. If you didn't want to experience the new items of the game, then you could just keep your old stuff and do the same things over and over again. These characters were called "twinks." People often played level 19, 29, 39, etc characters that only did PvP. You didn't used to get experience in PvP, and when you did start to get experience from PvP you were able to turn it off and fight other players who had experience turned off (i.e., other twinks).

I would disagree that the MMHK content is never obsoleted. From what I have read, there used to be fortresses on PvP worlds. Seasons 1, 2, and 3 rules/worlds have been obsoleted. Unless you mean that what you achieve never goes away. In that case, I would agree with you. Which is part of the problem that I have with the game. It is a treadmill type game. The only difference is that some treadmills are way ahead of other treadmills. No matter how fast I run, I can't catch up to the S1 and S2 vets (unless they stop playing for 2 seasons and then come back for season 6 after I have had 2 seasons of decent legacy and they have had none). I agree that Free-to-Play players weren't intended to be able to compete with subscribers (unless you use seals to get the benefits of a subscription, which is how they were initially introduced from what I understand). If they were, then what would the point of subscribing be? I don't agree that since you have been subscribing longer than me that you deserve more of an advantage. If you say that you have paid more money than I have, then let me pay that money to buy my legacy. If it is just stripes that you are arguing about, then see above comments. You getting an advantage shouldn't be what keeps you coming back. You enjoying the game is what should keep you coming back. I realize that gaining an advantage is more enjoyable than being at a handicap, but I don't think that is a good incentive to make you to want to come back as it deters others from joining and having the handicap (and never being able to overcome said handicap).



I think we just have to agree to disagree on this point here.


I am guessing you mean the purchasing legacy thing. I would imagine that you agree with "I do think that the seal store/legendary skills create an imbalance in the game." Especially since:



100% agree with all of this.


:)




Another point about the pacing was that you could still be extremely effective even if you only logged in 3 times a day. The time demand on the player was considerably lower than it is now, and it was quite relaxing even while engaged in a hot war. I think the pacing of Season 3 brought more stress in my life than anything else to date (and yes, I recognize that is a personal problem of sorts. =) ). Border wars were grueling because an entire alliance could take a square, turn it into a double gold, move their entire army in, and take the next tile - piece by piece until your grail core was gutted. You could launch an attack on an empty border city, but find 1.5M in troops sitting there without any evidence that an army moved in because of vestige troop rewards. You could isolate your grail core with a 100 tile radius from your nearest enemy, but if there is a line running through neutral players who just refuse to unregister (so you can't siege their last town), your enemy can jump across them for a halt-free approach. None of those broken mechanics were envisioned by the original development team. They made an interesting strategy game that required teamwork and skill.


I like the sound of the original game. No one has any kind of advantage from either legacy or seals. As for the issues with S3, I thought you could siege the last town once the WoT started (unless you were talking about a different version or that was fixed later). I know now that you certainly can lose your last town, as it happened to me on two worlds :(. As for the vestige fix, here is what I think should happen with troops you get from a vestige. You get the troops in a hero-less army in the middle of your territory/cities (not your alliances, but yours) and then you have to move them to a city via a hero. They don't cost any maintenance while they are sitting out in the open, but they will require a hero to retrieve. While hanging out, they are able to be attacked, after a certain time period. Maybe even without a halt so that people can't just sit troops out there without paying maintenance on them. That would solve the troops magically appearing in a city out of nowhere problem. I can't think of a "fix" to the transmutation problem, except perhaps limiting the transmutations to core areas, like the move city option currently is. At the same time, I don't like that you can move all of your "good" cities to the same location as everyone else.



It does feel like that world has dragged on for too long. But the reason it feels that way is because much of that time was *exhausting*. If most of the time was logging in only a few times a day to keep things rolling, it wouldn't feel like such a big deal. But when you've got to wake up early every morning to make sure that your army hasn't been gutted, and sweat every time you get pulled into an hour long meeting at work, and make sure that nobody lands a siege on you just before night halt so they don't get all of those free countdown hours, etc., etc., it is a major drag.

All of the timing of the game just feels "off" as things stand now. Part of the game wants to have the original pacing from S1, and part of it wants to be a twitchy, glued to the screen kind of game. And the two just don't marry well.

I would feel better if they increased the time for a lot of the PvP action. And they disabled things during the night, like maintenance and siege timers going down. Removing the night maintenance would make it easier to support huge grail runs (as you wouldn't have to support the million dollar army during the night when no one is theoretically on doing stuff). Removing siege timer countdowns during the night would make it insignificant if someone started a siege on your town just before the night halt, as that time wouldn't be any more meaningful than the siege arriving just after "daybreak." A couple of minutes on an hours based siege timer isn't a big deal. I would be very much in favor of only needing to log in once a day (or every 12 hours or so) to make sure that things are getting done. I would also love to be able to "queue" actions that are building related. I think that once you spend the money in the queue (you will have to have it in order to set the queue), your actions should be non-reversible, else it would get abused (see the canceling an action thread). At least this way you wouldn't have to log on as much early on to be sure that you are building something most of the time. As far as canceling actions go, I am all for being able to cancel a building/recruiting action but make it so that you don't get the resources back (as of now, you do get the resources back when you cancel recruiting troops). Actions outside of the city shouldn't be able to be canceled (as you are affecting other people), and fights inside of the city don't take long enough to warrant being able to cancel them.

I am glad that the timing of the game is weird for someone who is experienced, not just someone who is new.


The current situation is that s1 and s2 veterans do have a huge advantage compared to s4 and s3 players like myself. As it stands I buy legendary skills and other stuff to even the playing field, but of course I still can't close such a huge gap. If I could earn or buy s1 and/or s2 legacy I definately would do so. I really hate when I hear veterans whine about how they earned the points. You could get same amount and even higher legacy from first seasons with semi-active game compared to you needing to play active now to earn even old mediocre legacy. The way I see the current system is that ubi/devs want there to be a huge gap so people like me buy things to equalize the game, but it gets even worse when legacy players start buying things and once again new players are left with nothing.

Old legacy players do stick together, thus new players have even harder time competing.



I agree with this. I also agree that veterans seem to think that they "deserve" the advantage, which doesn't make sense for an MMO. It severely handicaps new players who don't spend money on seals. Which is why the seal store exists, to at least allow players with less skill and experience to compete with players with more experience and skill. If I can't compete because I don't have as much experience (and thus legacy) and skill, why should I continue to play? So that veteran players can beat up on me? This is why my current PvP world will be my last for now. I have no desire to play on a strategic world that gives a large advantage to those who use seals to move cities to a core, and use legacy to get off to a good start. If you aren't part of a "pre-made" alliance, it is often hard to get into a decent alliance as a new player. Veterans want you to "prove your mettle" against them by using skill when you already are at a disadvantage because of a lack of legacy. The only viable way to overcome this is by spending seals to even the odds.



There are few options to even things up:

1. Catch-up worlds as previous suggested. This would be most fair option and it would require time rather than money

2. Buying legacy, of course unfair for those who earned it.(And unfair for new players that they have to pay for what others have gotten for free!)

3. Legacy price become progressive as whole. Currently price of skill goes up when you level it, but other skills aren't affected. If it cost same to take level 8 A or level 7 A and level 1B it would shorten the gap, but still new players would be clear underdogs.

4. Progressive legacy-earn with newest players getting best prize/multiplier for legacy. For example s3 players got 3x legacy from s3 and 2x legacy from s4. New s4 players would get 3x multiplier for s4 and 3x for s5. The numbers are just examples, I never calculated them, but the multipliers would make it so old players would still have advantage, while new players can catch-up and shorten the gap close to what old-timers will have.

I'm personally for the catch-up worlds, but anything to make the game more fair would be nice. The current strategy worlds are text-book example of where huge legacy makes all the difference really :nonchalance:

I am fine with #1 and #2. #3 does nothing to shorten the gap between high legacy players and low legacy players. The skills don't need to cost more points, new players already don't have enough legacy to get higher levels. #4 could be modified so that if you started in S3 or S4, your "legacy" from S1 and S2 (and S3 for S4 players) could be the same as your S3 or S4 score. But this again "cheapens" what the veterans have earned. The multiplier could also be applied to S3 legacies so that the maximums were closer to the S1 and S2 values (say 2.5?...210 x 2.5 = 525). I think most veterans would be alright with a multiplier on S3, as most of them agree that the values were too low to begin with that season.

AndreanDW
11-03-2013, 04:39 PM
you argue as every player got 500 legacy points in season 1 - but only the most active players of the best alliances got so much! maybe 10 players of the winning alliance on a server with 3000 players!
One of the best player of the 2nd alliance got 311 points in season 1.
A medium player of a medium alliance got maybe 100 or 200 points.

If you start now on a late PvE server you can make 280 points with one week playing...

ramborusina
11-03-2013, 05:25 PM
I never said that every player got 500 points... Simply that those who did, now have huge advantage. I did say that mediocre player got same as the best got from s3... From s3 you could get 210 so it's not very far from your 200 points or is it...? On my first 2 worlds on s3 I did meet people who had around 500 legacy-points and they logged in 2-3 times per day max... These guys "earned" the huge advantage?!?!? And what Andrean said about late joiner getting easy 280 legacy... what has changed since s1 or s2 in that regard? If you were late joiner on very uncrowded world there was very good chance of rising ranks in short time (and if you had friends maybe even getting in to empty spot of alliance for free)and get huge legacy compared to us(s3 players) especially since you can same legacy as we got + what you got before...

AndreanDW
11-03-2013, 06:08 PM
The problem of season 3 was that you did not get points for good playing - active and inactive players of an alliance got the same points; the mean points for all were nearly the same as in the seasons before
maybe the best solution would be if all get a basic legacy for each season (maybe 100 or 150 or 200 points) where they did not play, and no possibility to buy them

zamz
11-03-2013, 09:16 PM
Only pvp exp should give the extra points; is that "skill" if you can recruit 50M dom army and have 500k pvp exp in whole world and get max legacy ? or if you spend 200 euros on beams to gain 150M honor ? I think only pvp exp is the true indicator that you have truly PLAYED the game :) Max legacy should be anyway that u could take one maxed out skill or combine it among different skills. Maybe give new players 200 points or something straight away and rest you can earn.

ramborusina
11-03-2013, 09:40 PM
Couldn't agree with you more zamz on the honor thing. There should be completely seperate page for pvp-honor or replace the current one with that. Too often majority if not close to all exp ffor some top-players is only from vestiges/zones.

As for the legacy matter, I think it would be best that there would be basic legacy for past seasons rather than start-up legacy. The longer seasons go, the more difference would still grow if it was only start-up legacy.

AndreanDW
11-03-2013, 11:57 PM
...is that "skill" if you can recruit 50M dom army and have 500k pvp exp in whole world and get max legacy ? or if you spend 200 euros on beams to gain 150M honor ? I think only pvp exp is the true indicator that you have truly PLAYED the game :) ...

Is it skill if you pay 200 euros to buy a non-beatable hero and make 150M honor with PvP? Is it no skill if you loose your whole army within 2 days because you are attacked by a player with 5 heroes with 15 yellow 'skills' ? As long as you can buy your 'skill' 'PvP' XP gained in this way is worthless

zamz
11-04-2013, 06:48 AM
Yeh agreed, all this talk is useless as long as there are any superior skills :) legacy ain't nothing compared to dragon knight for example. That's 2 legacies in one skill: more attack, more implo power + enemy loses army enough to make you quit after one battle :)

MartyAmodeo
11-04-2013, 08:08 AM
I took some time to digest most of this, and I think there is the germ of a good idea here that should satisfy everyone without the need for extra effort.

Let's say there's a maximum pool of legacy points. For now, assume the highest legacy total available in s1+s2+s3. Everyone's legacy score should be scaled to the range of this maximum. If someone only played season 1 and is now playing season 4, their legacy should be the ratio of their s1 score to the highest possible s1 score, multiplied by the current maximum legacy for all seasons.

For example (keep the numbers easy):

If the highest possible legacy score for S1 is 500, S2 is 500, and S3 is 200,
if you played season 1 and got a score of 300, you would have a multiplier of 3/5 (300/500). Current total is 1200 and your multiplier is 3/5, so you can play S4 with 720 legacy points.
If you played season 1 and got a score of 100, and season 3 and got 100, you would have a multiplier of 2/7 (100+100 / 500 + 200). So you would play season 4 with 342ish legacy points.

Effectively it would take your previous results and interpolate values for any missing seasons. So your legacy score would still be performance-based, but it would not put any top performer from a single season behind any other top performer, nor would it put any average performer behind an average performer who played more seasons. And since the total max is ever-increasing, all people would eventually get to see some high level legacy abilities (at least one level 10 by now already).

Problem is newbies... what value is fair for them to start with? Do you start them with 50% of the max legacy? Is that fair to someone who struggled along through 3 seasons and couldn't get a value that high? Not sure myself.

ramborusina
11-04-2013, 11:56 AM
I really like your idea about multiplier marty. Only thing is, I think there should be a cap how much you can get. For example if you only played 1/3 first seasons you could get max 50% of prevous season legacies even if you did get max from the season you played(thus getting the best multiplier). If you played 2 seasons the max could be 2/3. This way those who played all seasons could have more than new players, but there would be smaller gap and game would be a whole lot more fair for everybody:cool:

AndreanDW
11-04-2013, 07:25 PM
@MartyAmodeo,
it's an idea, but it penalizes the real players of season 1 and 2
it was very easy to get the maximal legacy in season 3 (or nearly the max), and it is easy now - but it was hard in season 1; therefore for medium players of season 1 it would be better to make a new account, and start in season 4
but if you take the best performance of all seasons (and not the mean like you suggested) someone with maximal performance within one season would get the maximum within every season

MartyAmodeo
11-05-2013, 12:56 AM
Well in the scheme I set up, seasons 1 & 2 "weigh" more than 3, because the maximum for those seasons is higher than the maximum for S3. So it's not a true average, but rather a weighted average. However if a player only played S3, then their scores might be "artificially" high. Still, I think that would average out after they played S4. If the player really isn't that good, then the extra legacy probably won't help them that much. I see your point about it a mediocre S1 player starting over again. But we can tweak that by adjusting what a "clean slate" player comes in with.

Not sure I totally understand ramborusina (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/1412480-ramborusina)'s suggestion. Do you have an example?

dre.maa
11-05-2013, 01:44 AM
you argue as every player got 500 legacy points in season 1 - but only the most active players of the best alliances got so much! maybe 10 players of the winning alliance on a server with 3000 players!

I just don't like the idea that the game gives an advantage to the better players. It seems...unfair. Also, it seems like those 10 players stuck together over the years and now have an alliance with several players with high legacy. Just like spending seals, the more people you have in your alliance with this advantage, the more of an advantage you have over people without.


I took some time to digest most of this, and I think there is the germ of a good idea here that should satisfy everyone without the need for extra effort.

Let's say there's a maximum pool of legacy points. For now, assume the highest legacy total available in s1+s2+s3. Everyone's legacy score should be scaled to the range of this maximum. If someone only played season 1 and is now playing season 4, their legacy should be the ratio of their s1 score to the highest possible s1 score, multiplied by the current maximum legacy for all seasons.

For example (keep the numbers easy):

If the highest possible legacy score for S1 is 500, S2 is 500, and S3 is 200,
if you played season 1 and got a score of 300, you would have a multiplier of 3/5 (300/500). Current total is 1200 and your multiplier is 3/5, so you can play S4 with 720 legacy points.
If you played season 1 and got a score of 100, and season 3 and got 100, you would have a multiplier of 2/7 (100+100 / 500 + 200). So you would play season 4 with 342ish legacy points.

Effectively it would take your previous results and interpolate values for any missing seasons. So your legacy score would still be performance-based, but it would not put any top performer from a single season behind any other top performer, nor would it put any average performer behind an average performer who played more seasons. And since the total max is ever-increasing, all people would eventually get to see some high level legacy abilities (at least one level 10 by now already).

Problem is newbies... what value is fair for them to start with? Do you start them with 50% of the max legacy? Is that fair to someone who struggled along through 3 seasons and couldn't get a value that high? Not sure myself.

Why not just give everyone a minimum legacy from each season? Season 3, I think the minimum legacy should be 150 (90 for being in an alliance between the ranks of 4 and 10 and 60 for forming a union). Seasons 1 and 2, I think it would not have been hard to have 130 (70 for being in the top 51-100 and 60 for forming a union). This would give the minimum legacy as 130+130+150 = 410. If you have 1,000+ legacy points, would you be okay with others who didn't play a particular season to get a "minimum" amount? If you scored less than the minimum amount in a particular season, then perhaps you can "opt" to take the minimum. I also wouldn't be adverse to multiplying actual S3 legacies by 1.5-2.5 to make them more comparable to S1-S2. Feel free to adjust what the "minimum" values should be for each season (I only played S3 so I only know how easy it was to get the 150. I was even able to get 180 by joining a less populated world...).

AndreanDW
11-05-2013, 01:06 PM
it makes not a big difference, but in season 1 there were 3000 players on the server - more than 90% of the players never saw a top-100 result
if you give a player that did not play this minimal value, you should give it these 90% players too!

zamz
11-05-2013, 05:16 PM
I just don't like the idea that the game gives an advantage to the better players. It seems...unfair. Also, it seems like those 10 players stuck together over the years and now have an alliance with several players with high legacy. Just like spending seals, the more people you have in your alliance with this advantage, the more of an advantage you have over people without.

That's way different. Legacy bonuses aren't nothing compared to bonuses from seals. You can beat legacy bonus heroes easy, but legendary paladin or dragon knight heroes (+ bought arties), you can only fight against them with money and after that it's who has the most money wins...as I said before the legacy bonus system should be awarded according to people activity = pvp exp. This way only few would get the "max bonus". Only way to learn the game is fight another players and thus it could be rewarded...There are so many players that just play the game, and AVOID any pvp, still they play in nr. 1 alliances.

dre.maa
11-05-2013, 09:41 PM
it makes not a big difference, but in season 1 there were 3000 players on the server - more than 90% of the players never saw a top-100 result
if you give a player that did not play this minimal value, you should give it these 90% players too!



If you scored less than the minimum amount in a particular season, then perhaps you can "opt" to take the minimum.


and



Feel free to adjust what the "minimum" values should be for each season (I only played S3 so I only know how easy it was to get the 150. I was even able to get 180 by joining a less populated world...).

I finished 10th on one world with 1500 "players" (I don't know how many of the players of the S1 worlds were inactive, but I am fairly certain that there weren't 1500 active players on the world which I finished 10th).


That's way different. Legacy bonuses aren't nothing compared to bonuses from seals. You can beat legacy bonus heroes easy, but legendary paladin or dragon knight heroes (+ bought arties), you can only fight against them with money and after that it's who has the most money wins...as I said before the legacy bonus system should be awarded according to people activity = pvp exp. This way only few would get the "max bonus". Only way to learn the game is fight another players and thus it could be rewarded...There are so many players that just play the game, and AVOID any pvp, still they play in nr. 1 alliances.

What about people who play PvE? Also, in many of the better PvP alliances, the inner people focus on producing lots of resources to "push" the people who are doing the attacking. This allows one person to have a super army and siege cities, attack grails, etc. The farmers are just as important to the success of the number 1 alliance as the raiders are (those are the names that the French Alliance I have been playing with on the summer servers gave to the two roles).

I am not saying that Legacy is imbalanced, just that it is unfair. It is not game breaking, but it does deter me to pay for a game when I am starting at a disadvantage from other people. I just don't understand the logic that if you are better at the game, then you get an advantage. And if you are not good at the game, you start with a handicap. I am all for you getting something for being around for so long, I just don't think it should be an advantage in the game.

AndreanDW
11-05-2013, 11:27 PM
...I finished 10th on one world with 1500 "players" (I don't know how many of the players of the S1 worlds were inactive, but I am fairly certain that there weren't 1500 active players on the world which I finished 10th). ...
with or without buying seals, artifact sets, legendary heroes and skills?

zamz
11-06-2013, 04:40 PM
Yes, well I only referred to Dragon Knight because of the 12% more losses. So basicly what you are saying is, if you see a player with dragon knight, you better hope there is lvl 10 raise dead player in your alliance because without one you sure can't lay down sieges, to risk of losing 30%+ of total army in just one fight. Shouldn't it be then, that legendary skills can only be used against legacy heroes ? I wouldn't have problems with those skills, if the losses stayed the same, in either way. You can always be "lucky" with artifacts and have strong spells or strong attack or def, what ever but the loss-ratio is simply ******ed. It's more fun to live to fight another day, than to wait 1 month recruiting to fight another day...

I'm not even sure I've ever even seen lvl 10 raise dead on anybody, and I've played against / with people that have tons of legacy points, but I've seen 500 legendary skills :/

btw...if you want to compare skill points, ehm, legacy heroes can't wear set pieces and and I've seen plenty of "lucky" people around there that just happened to find themselves some legacy so it's kinda irrelevant if you can't max out all skills :)

As for legacy points, don't think it's a good idea you would be rewarded for playing 15 worlds / season, that is just showing that you got more time than others...There should be different seasons open also, it's boring to have the same end game for 2-3 years. For example WOT could be fun for the smaller strategic world map, because the zones are smaller ! You could actually fight on border more startegically, than just randomly trying to hammer enemy down !

AndreanDW
11-06-2013, 05:30 PM
The problem with the legendary skills versus legacy (and no legendary skills) is, that on one side there is ONE hero with legacy, that cannot use artefact sets, against 5 to 10 heroes with one or two legendary skills and an artifact set each; with one artifact set alone you can copy maybe half of the legacy bonus

dre.maa
11-06-2013, 06:02 PM
with or without buying seals, artifact sets, legendary heroes and skills?

I am actually free-to-play. I have never bought a subscription, let alone seals. I don't like the pay-to-win idea of the game as it is now, nor the way legacy works. I figured I would play for free until I had a competitive legacy, and then if the game was still around, I might buy a subscription.

I am against using legendary skills/heroes and buying artifacts in PvP, as it gives players who spend more an unfair advantage (just as legacy does). In PvE, I have no issue with it, because you are all supposed to be fighting the same enemy. I am also against using vestige beams/recall stones that were earned on another world in PvP. If there was a way to separate them based on what world you earned them on and be able to use those on that world (like, say, a strategic world), I would be fine with that.

zamz
11-06-2013, 07:03 PM
Well there are many of us that don't play with legendary skills or hardly use any seals. But for example there is a russian world where there are 100-200 players with about 10 legendary skills each, all 2-week heroes are in use, probably million beams bought and used, almost ALL DEFENDERS are light magic, legendary palading, legendary magician with about 120-130 def. Every attacker kills 50% of hero army. This is what brings the money to UBI and this is why DEVs don't care about us who want to play this game fairly. Otherwise they would give us a normal world where you simply cannot use seals. They make us pay to play in a world where you can still use some seals (lol?).

ramborusina
11-06-2013, 07:21 PM
Zamz don't you risk losing 30+% of your army in normal game(or you wait till you get at least 3% reduction from end-game till you use troops with 6% knight)? I mean barbarian is stronger than knight so you risk losing 30+% with no legendaries... and in the end it's ridiculous that you can lose only 24%. I mean it's crazy if there is no major risk when you go siege a town, it's not supposed to be a walk in the park!

In my mind it's ridiculous that you risk losing 30%, it should be 100% of troops that die, really die like in most games. That is minus for this game in my mind, but then again it's more forgiving this way. What one loves, another hates ;)

And for the raise dead thing... I have seen very few people use it and frankly that's their decision. They choose which bonus to take, what helps them the most in their mind. I'd say most used legacies are barrage fire, magic resistance, contribution and extra stats. I was simply putting that example up as many legacy players have whined that there is no way to battle against stuff like that loss increase. To me it was fast to find a solution, but when people wanna hang on to things they've gotten used to, they rather only see the others as thing that must be changed. Surely none of us can be wrong ourselves...

"As for legacy points, don't think it's a good idea you would be rewarded for playing 15 worlds / season, that is just showing that you got more time than others..."
that's actually my bad, I meant to say seasons, not worlds to give the penalty-multiplier.

LordBadFish
11-07-2013, 02:21 AM
Now defensive legendaries are a whole different thing. As defensive magician you can get using 2 legendaries almoast no-loss hero; 9%+9%=18% loss reduction from skill + 60% magic boost + whatever else there might be boosted. To add to that you get 9% from grails/tournament so total of 27%reduction, even more if you don't take magic school and take additional reduction of 6%=33% or 9%=36% which both mean that you won't take losses at all unless enemy uses at least barbarian or legendary skill that increases losses.

You seem to be forgetting one little detail... This allegedly "Overpowered" hero has next to zero fighting abilities, since he wasted 18 skill points (almost HALF of them!!!) in skills that DO NOT help him win the fight in ANY WAY. No matter what army he has, you should be able to destroy it out without taking much loss. How overpowered really is a hero who can't win a fight? There's actually one thing this build is good at: feeding massive XP/Alliance points to all your enemies. Quite frankly, I smile everytime I see an enemy with a hero like that.

Sure, this game has a lot of balance issues, but claiming that a hero who wastes half his points in non-fighting skills is overpowered is at best intellectually dishonest, and at worst barking mad.

dre.maa
11-07-2013, 10:45 AM
You seem to be forgetting one little detail... This allegedly "Overpowered" hero has next to zero fighting abilities, since he wasted 18 skill points (almost HALF of them!!!) in skills that DO NOT help him win the fight in ANY WAY. No matter what army he has, you should be able to destroy it out without taking much loss. How overpowered really is a hero who can't win a fight? There's actually one thing this build is good at: feeding massive XP/Alliance points to all your enemies. Quite frankly, I smile everytime I see an enemy with a hero like that.

Sure, this game has a lot of balance issues, but claiming that a hero who wastes half his points in non-fighting skills is overpowered is at best intellectually dishonest, and at worst barking mad.

If you take the three legendary skills, then the only fighting skills you can get are +12% to defense and +12% defense in city. If you take 2 legendary skills + light magic, then you can get +60% light spell effects and + 12% defense, along with only spending 12 points on loss reduction talents. If you take 30 to max out those 5, plus 3 to allow you to cast both deflect missile and bless (as a defensive hero I don't see the need to cast teleport, res, and word of light in any combination-or for an offensive hero for that matter), you still could have the +18% to light magic and +2 to light spells. That would only work if you had the +3 landlord skill, which if you are going all out, I am sure that you do. Otherwise, you would only be able to get +12% to light magic.

Part of the issue with the pure legendary hero being overpowered is that he won't lose any troops in a siege (after the initial attack). He also will likely have an attacker that has +50% losses so when he attacks you you lose half of your army. It is not the one hero in a vacuum that makes it overpowered, but the combination of multiple legendary skills/heroes that make it overpowered.

ramborusina
11-07-2013, 10:47 AM
You know, if you take 3 skills that reduce losses, buy best artis and take the defensive skills it's not all that bad hero, especially if you even got legacy to increase stats or other stuff like barrage fire or magic resistance. I mean even without these things hero like this gets 12% def, 12% fort increase, and knight skills for example. Add 3000 catas to that which never die and yes; you'll do ton of damage. If the player knows what he's doing he can always split the army, assuming he has huge stacks so he'll always cause losses. This guy can get 150 defence with good legacy and items so he most certainly is not just free exp... Well if you see this kinda guy and he's just free exp to, congratz to you.

zamz
11-07-2013, 11:19 AM
LordBadFish, have you ever tried to beat legendary paladin, legendary magician, light magic hero 130 def with normal hero with equal army size, GOOD LUCK :) without strong implosion the loss ratio becomes massive in advance of the defender and you need to send multiple armies to take it out...you can have all the legacies in the game to fight that and still see your army gone if he decides to siege daily...

MartyAmodeo
11-07-2013, 07:42 PM
You seem to be forgetting one little detail... This allegedly "Overpowered" hero has next to zero fighting abilities, since he wasted 18 skill points (almost HALF of them!!!) in skills that DO NOT help him win the fight in ANY WAY. No matter what army he has, you should be able to destroy it out without taking much loss. How overpowered really is a hero who can't win a fight? There's actually one thing this build is good at: feeding massive XP/Alliance points to all your enemies. Quite frankly, I smile everytime I see an enemy with a hero like that.

Sure, this game has a lot of balance issues, but claiming that a hero who wastes half his points in non-fighting skills is overpowered is at best intellectually dishonest, and at worst barking mad.

It really doesn't matter if you can "win" if you take no losses when you lose. Do you smile every time you see a victory banner where you took 3M in losses and the loser took none? All those guys have to do is continually siege idle cities on your border. You're obligated to knock them off, and they bomb you every time and take no losses. Lather, rinse, repeat, and your army is gone. No thanks, I'll stick to PVE.

LordBadFish
11-08-2013, 02:41 AM
It really doesn't matter if you can "win" if you take no losses when you lose. Do you smile every time you see a victory banner where you took 3M in losses and the loser took none? All those guys have to do is continually siege idle cities on your border. You're obligated to knock them off, and they bomb you every time and take no losses. Lather, rinse, repeat, and your army is gone. No thanks, I'll stick to PVE.

You're right, it really doesn't matter.... unless you're trying to win the game. If you know a way to destroy Grails and generate tons of Alliance points without actually winning fights, please let me know. But yeah, I guess it's a good build if your goal is to "siege idle cities"... But what isn't?

Now, am I playing devil's advocate to a certain extent? Yes, absolutely. Winning a fight without causing any loss sucks, there's no question about it. But do I think this marginally used build puts the game balance in jeopardy? Not at all. Thing is, when you play the game, you see many things that are absurd and beyond all enlightened reason, like a certain skill that can generate tens of millions of gold every single day without effort, etc. But then you visit the Forum, and the main game balance issue somehow becomes a so-so build that achieves next to nothing and that is never used by any good player that I ever heard of? Quite frankly, it's this disparity that I find the most amazing.


I'll stick to PVE.

Ahhhh, I thought you were "Marty A" on Zombie Assembly. Would have been a fun coincidence, because I destroyed that dude's Grail last round. Anyways, if you are, you undoubtedly have some very skilled players in your Alliance, and curiously enough, none of em are using that build... Maybe you should ask them why? Because I see alot of "Triple Leg Skills" heroes over there, but that particular build? Never.

MartyAmodeo
11-08-2013, 03:06 AM
You're right, it really doesn't matter.... unless you're trying to win the game. If you know a way to destroy Grails and generate tons of Alliance points without actually winning fights, please let me know. But yeah, I guess it's a good build if your goal is to "siege idle cities"... But what isn't?

The wins come from the artifact sets that you place on them to make the hero build more functional. They also come from attrition of your enemy. Killing enemy troops leaves fewer troops to defend grails or to launch against enemy grails. Send a grail attack, even with a "broken" build hero, and the alliance still has to try to swat it. They might not even have had the chance to scout it since grail attacks come from everywhere. They will dutifully send in their army and swat it, losing significant troops that could have been used in a future defense. But meanwhile the guy who should be suffering the most receives not one single scratch and can turn right back around as soon as he reaches home and do it again.


Now, am I playing devil's advocate to a certain extent? Yes, absolutely. Winning a fight without causing any loss sucks, there's no question about it. But do I think this marginally used build puts the game balance in jeopardy? Not at all. Thing is, when you play the game, you see many things that are absurd and beyond all enlightened reason, like a certain skill that can generate tens of millions of gold every single day without effort, etc. But then you visit the Forum, and the main game balance issue somehow becomes a so-so build that achieves next to nothing and that is never used by any good player that I ever heard of? Quite frankly, it's this disparity that I find the most amazing.

Don't get me wrong. That's all broken in my opinion too. But it's far more demoralizing to see battle reports like this than it is to see your opponent's wealth scores.


Ahhhh, I thought you were "Marty A" on Zombie Assembly. Would have been a fun coincidence, because I destroyed that dude's Grail last round. Anyways, if you are, you undoubtedly have some very skilled players in your Alliance, and curiously enough, none of em are using that build... Maybe you should ask them why? Because I see alot of "Triple Leg Skills" heroes over there, but that particular build? Never.

My start date on ZA4 was July 30. The world started on May 13. Are you really going to brag about losing 3.5M (versus 2M that I lost) to a non-subscriber who started 2 1/2 months late and only had a level 28 non-legacy non-legendary defender with no purchased artifacts? Congratulations on your accomplishment. LOL

Yes, I am not playing PVP. I joined to farm and got sucked in by dLow. Then there was nobody left to host a grail late in the world, so I had to make some kind of effort.

Beats me as to what everyone else in my alliance is using. I just see all the scout reports coming in from you guys, and I'm blinded by all the yellow and set artifacts. Heck I saw you guys with heroes that had 45% magic resist and a non-trivial barrage fire at the same time. I saw another guy with 4 infiltrators. What's the average dollar amount you guys put in to the season?

LordBadFish
11-08-2013, 03:47 AM
Basically, what you are saying is you value 3M troops more than the 10k Tournament points your team gets when you take down a Grail? Wow, now that is team spirit at its best. Dude, even if it costed me 5 or even 15M troops, I would do it again without hesitation. Once again, I know it's really really hard for you to understand, but I'll try again and repeat: more than often, losses are NOT your main concern. It's the same reason why a hero that gets 0 attrition is NOT an optimal choice in most cases.

But there we go again with the good old Joker: "QQ your alliance spends more seals than mine". Haha, it's not your fault, it never takes long for the typical Scrub to reveal his innermost nature. What's next? "My father is stronger than your's", I presume?

Look, throwing around claims that are both unsupported by evidence and devoid of any basis in reality might be your idea of game balance, but to me, it seems more like the intellectual equivalent of flinging your feces.

MartyAmodeo
11-08-2013, 10:08 AM
Basically what I'm saying is that you were bragging in a public place about defeating someone who was already severely handicapped while you paid for advantage to do so. No opinion there, and no emotion. Just facts. You want to boast about it, so let's set the context straight. Those facts seem to rub you the wrong way, to the point that you initiated a personal attack.

You go on to accuse me about not being a team player. Ask any of my alliance-mates how much resource this late-starting non-subscriber donated to their maintenance costs and army growth. The figure is well over 10M in value, and I did it at the expense of my own development. I also broke a few sieges and landed a few successful attacks from long range, against players with more than 2x my dominance score at the time, in spite of my handicaps. Furthermore even agreeing to host the grail in the first place was a giant sacrifice on my part, as I knew it would be futile for me to try defending it. Nevertheless my entire army sat there under the leadership of my level 28 defender, and was ready to stay there doing whatever he could as all 14 of you descended on the city. But I'm not a team player, right?

I agree that it's completely my fault that I play with integrity instead of buying power. It's a choice that I made, and I accept the limitations that choice brings with it. And by the current rules of the game, you beat me fairly. I have concluded in late season 3, that it is futile for me to play PVP anymore with these limitations, so I don't go into those worlds with any expectation other than to farm and pass some time. That losing battle report didn't break my heart. Quite the contrary, it gave me quite a chuckle to see just how close I came to winning.

No idea what you're talking about when you refer to unsupported claims on my part. You might want to support that claim (how ironic).

What you're not understanding is that a single battle is not the war. And wearing out a alliance's army strength, while taking little or no damage to your own, is an effective way create opportunities for larger future actions. I fully understand that sacrifice is often necessary for a win, but a broken mechanic is a broken mechanic. The other thing you seem to be breezing over is that these negligible-loss heroes are not completely flaccid in other areas. They often have mega boosts to magic along with them. So maybe that 0-loss hero has all of his skills used, but the 9% losses hero has plenty of room for other skills. And really light magic is all it takes to leverage that ever-widening gap in army power due to your ungodly low attrition.

Let me repeat this again, since you seem to think this is the only thing that I feel is broken: there are plenty of other yellow-skill builds that are completely game-breaking. So I really don't see your point in arguing other than granting yourself a soapbox for slinging more unfounded personal attacks.

dre.maa
11-11-2013, 01:42 AM
They might not even have had the chance to scout it since grail attacks come from everywhere.

You get a report automatically in your mailbox when using a portal (which you should use because there is only 1 halt, if any, from there).


Basically, what you are saying is you value 3M troops more than the 10k Tournament points your team gets when you take down a Grail? Wow, now that is team spirit at its best. Dude, even if it costed me 5 or even 15M troops, I would do it again without hesitation. Once again, I know it's really really hard for you to understand, but I'll try again and repeat: more than often, losses are NOT your main concern. It's the same reason why a hero that gets 0 attrition is NOT an optimal choice in most cases.

No one said that 3M troops was worth more than 10k Tournament points. And no one was saying to use the no loss hero to defend a grail.


But there we go again with the good old Joker: "QQ your alliance spends more seals than mine". Haha, it's not your fault, it never takes long for the typical Scrub to reveal his innermost nature. What's next? "My father is stronger than your's", I presume?

Look, throwing around claims that are both unsupported by evidence and devoid of any basis in reality might be your idea of game balance, but to me, it seems more like the intellectual equivalent of flinging your feces.

He didn't say that your alliance spent more than his, he said that your alliance spent seals and he didn't. He wanted to know what your alliance spent, but I am not sure how you are supposed to know how much anyone spent other than yourself. If you subscribe, I would imagine that it is easy to come across seals. I have accumulated something like 8,500 seals just from playing for free. If you subscribe, I am sure that you could have easily earned over a 100,000. Even if you thought that he meant that, I am not sure how that equates to a scrub. I thought a scrub was someone in the passenger seat of his best friend's car, trying to holler at TLC?

The claims are supported by evidence, as there have been posts in the forums that showed little-to-no-loss heroes thus they are based in reality. They may not be used by the best players, but they are used by some players which gives them the advantage of not losing troops, even after it seemed like the developers were going to "balance" the legendary skills. They did reduce the change the attrition by some % (I think it used to be 12% max for each legendary skill, and 15% extra losses which is down to 9/12% now. Don't quote me on those, as I don't remember exactly since I never used the skills and I only played on 4 worlds in season 3, one of which I joined super late to get better legacy...180 instead of 160...). He said that he saw scouting reports, so he has some knowledge of what your allies' heroes were like.

Just to make it clear, I already know that I am a below average player because I don't spend any money. I realize that limits me too much to be competitive in PvP. if I even get next to someone who just subscribes and spends no money on seals, eventually they will far outstrip me in power due to the limitations from me not subscribing. If I do subscribe, I have the possibility of spawning next to someone who spends money on seals, or who has lots of legacy. The fact that the game outcome is affected by bonuses that are not equally distributed makes me feel that it is unfair. Legacy isn't game breaking, but it does cause an imbalance-especially on strategic worlds (where seals can't be spent to counteract the lack of legacy) and speed worlds (where things like daily recruitment and population contribution make the heroes very strong, very fast). Buying unlimited vestiges, artifacts, and legendary anything (though heroes don't seem to be as popular on US worlds anymore) is game breaking, along with move city and transmutations allowing the settling of any area with (a minimum of) two gold mines. I even saw a player with three gold mines on one of the speed worlds.

In BadFish's defense, he does have 4 people arguing with him, and no one agreeing with him (not that I condone name calling or personal attacks). I am glad that ZA4 ended, though I was hoping it would go one more round so that I could get one more level of tournament ranking (for the extra 10 legacy!!!)

MartyAmodeo
11-11-2013, 04:27 AM
You get a report automatically in your mailbox when using a portal (which you should use because there is only 1 halt, if any, from there).

Side point, but this report does not include the hero skills, which was my point. You can't really tell who is coming at you with lossless or otherwise legendary heroes, because anyone could have launched. Unless you were lucky enough to have scouted this player in one of his own cities, you don't know which skills his heroes have.

Co_Ban
11-12-2013, 11:21 PM
I just cant believe what some of you people are saying about legacy. My first real server was Dragon Legacy S3 server. I never had problems with veteran guys and their legacy. Actually, i think not many of them are left in the game. And ok, i would probably have difficult time competing if i was not subscriber.
But I developed a tactics that kept me without legacy among top 10 players on every S3 server i played. I just spent more time in game and got more troops (recruited not vestiged) and it was more or less balanced. But than came artifact shop and the legendary heroes and skills, suddenly i find myself in situation where i cant compete any more.
So i quit playing PvP cos it was obvious that i would have to buy legendary skills and artifacts if i wanted to continue playing. For me it is normal to pay 5€ for subscription but it is not normal to spend money on thousands of seals.

And here you're whining 'oh it is not fair to us cos those veterans have sooo much advantage with legacy'.... and i ask you, how is it fair that in the attempt to even out with the veterans and their legacy, you gain such huge advantage over rest of us who also do not have legacy and do not have money to spend on seals? At least they earned that advantage. One would think that this is what this game, and any other, is all about.

I agree that we should get a chance to EARN, not buy, legacy. Some things in life you cant buy. And UBI should not make it a speed server, it should last as long as it takes. Maybe it should even have the same rules as they were on S1 and S2. And make it like strategic world, you have to pay 1000 seals to enter, or something.

dre.maa
11-13-2013, 03:35 AM
I just spent more time in game and got more troops (recruited not vestiged) and it was more or less balanced.


Not all of us have time to spend unlimited amounts of time in a game. When most of that legacy was earned, much less time was required to be "active." I shouldn't have to make sacrifices in my real life to get more points in a fantasy world.



And here you're whining 'oh it is not fair to us cos those veterans have sooo much advantage with legacy'.... and i ask you, how is it fair that in the attempt to even out with the veterans and their legacy, you gain such huge advantage over rest of us who also do not have legacy and do not have money to spend on seals? At least they earned that advantage. One would think that this is what this game, and any other, is all about.


You can "earn" seals by farming them on other worlds (with a subscription and unlimited time you could earn tens of thousands of seals). This game should be about having fun, and it should also be balanced. As it currently stands, it is not balanced. The legendary skills and heroes need fixed far more than the legacy imbalance.



I agree that we should get a chance to EARN, not buy, legacy. Some things in life you cant buy. And UBI should not make it a speed server, it should last as long as it takes. Maybe it should even have the same rules as they were on S1 and S2. And make it like strategic world, you have to pay 1000 seals to enter, or something.

It is unlikely that UBI will open "old server" worlds. They won't make nearly as much money as they would on current worlds if there is no store at all. That would cost them money devoting resources to something of which a small percentage of players would take advantage. There was all kinds of clamor for the strategic worlds, and they barely filled. Granted, people wanted seal-free worlds and they got seal-limited worlds.

Since we can't earn it, there should be some way for new players to level the playing field. I feel like the fairest way is to allow you to buy legacy points. These skills are balanced; they are not overpowered. If we can't buy them, then give us some legacy points from previous seasons. It doesn't have to be the same as the people who earned 1,000+ legacy points in seasons 1, 2 and 3; but 300 isn't unreasonable (100 for each season).

Part of the issue is that I just disagree with the whole concept of legacy as a reward for success in previous campaigns. It begets the good staying better. If you couldn't win when you didn't have an advantage, how are you supposed to win when you are at a disadvantage? The answer is obvious...spend more money...:(

filipd81
11-13-2013, 11:57 AM
I would ask just one more time to remove the legacy bonus from the strategic servers. These servers should be only for people who don't want to spend thousands of seals. I'm still convinced that the 25% legacy bonus is attracting players who do not belong to the skill2win world.

I did some calculations about what I can get more with 90 extra points (if we consider that I already have max legacy for S3 and S4). One more level on hero or army skill and one more for artifact, that's all. For a not top player whose ally won't win the strategic server the extra points will be much less since they can get around 300 LP by playing a PVE server in a mediocre alliance. In conclustion the extra legacy bonus only gives a false perception for stupid people with great ambitions and full wallets. The strategic server I play was ruined by a bunch of players like those. This bonus doesn't have reason to exist and it would be much better without it.