Some New and Old Ideas

  • The most pressing issue right now is probably the requirement to talk talk talk. Everything what happens IG is decided in Discord and even people who enjoy diplomacy say that it is too much. Even for them.


    My idea to reduce this Discord-diplomacy-requirement:



    1.) there need to be a real IG "diplomacy system"
    2.) realms are only allowed to conquer towers from realms they have openly declared war upon (that is visible in the realm's profile whom you have declared war upon)
    3.) you can only declare war upon realms you have a border with

    4.) portals have to be in the same 'area' your ark is. (so you cannot conquer a tower from an ally and build a portal there because you presumably have no connection to the ark)


    (so you can still raid everybody, kill troops from everybody, but if you want to conquer, you need to declare war. And that only works on your neighbours.)




    That could still lead to the situation that you have 3-4 of your neighbours declaring war on you and if that happens you should still lose the war, even if you are individually stronger than any single realm that attacks you. But if you are significantly stronger than 2 of them they shouldn't be able to beat you.

    To address that problem I also have an idea:


    Make realm-ark-power count for something:


    1.) PVP-Battles now produce significant amounts of ark power.

    2.) At certain realm-levels you can now unlock additional warlords for the realm. Either "realm-Warlords" that you can only use defensively or you just get regular additional WL-slots for everyone in the realm.

    3.) Because PVP does now heavily influence your realm level realms actually become stronger by doing PVP.


    => Now you have created a PVP-incentive and you have made realm-levels meaningful. (At the moment there is no PVP incentive and realm-levels are utterly meaningless.)



    Discuss.

  • #4 I can see some disagreement with, and to add on, this can coordinate with my idea that modifiers should be added when a troop is travelling within your borders versus in neutral land versus in hostile land. This will influence towers and borders to be more road-like, and would deter these "satellite" operations that are done simply to assist another realm.


    The challenges that this faces questions the entire philosophy of what a portal even is. Since the entire point of the portal is it's portability and reduction in mobility for the "satellite" bases

  • The development of end-game to introduce Anvils instead of a single gate is i think good, however there is still the problem, especialy with the EG anvil, that early ascendants spike the area around the anvil with portals for themselves and their minion realms, making this out of reach of anybody else due to shorter travel time, allowing to have a minion realm clear competitors before attacking yourself.


    With all anvils appearing in random places at the start of end-game with a preset minimum distance to any tower, places them on the outskirts of the map, actually evening the odds for newcomers to make attempts IF you implement the suggestion of "TWELWE" that conquests only can be made against bordering realms. This would require the big minion owners to conquer and make portals in new territories before gaining any clear advantage. (I dont mind someone gaining advantage i respect to anvil access but I think it should require an effort and not be given for free).


    Another suggestion woud be to have anvil ACTIVATION IN PAIRS, maybe even random pairs so that only activation times are preset but not which anvils are activated. This would make it more difficult for one realm to conquer all the red orbs.

  • Двенадцать#II Such a system seems quite complex and can have a lot of "pitfalls". Obviously, it can be viable, but it requires a bunch of tests and checks to verify this.It is much easier to give active players the opportunity to manage a large number of heroes. Bonus heroes for the entire Kingdom are also a good idea. Another option is to allow you to further increase the capacity of the slots as you level up. (Via the talent tree). But the latter option is not so obvious, because in this game, the XP level is mainly raised through donations. Through PVP, you can only get the energy of souls, but the value of this is not so great.

  • For some time now I have thought about an idea. That one doesn't fix the multiple pressing problems that exist, but I want to present it anyway:


    In the lategame (and even sometimes in the mid-game) it (automatically) happens that you have so many units of one kind (for example petries with elves or LP with dwarves) that you cannot possibly use them up. It really is impossible. That is a waste and it is highly frustrating.


    So I suggest two paths:


    The obvious path is that you can level them up to the next tier.

    For example you take 3-4 petries, take a lot of res (maybe 3k per mantis) and viola: you created a mantis


    That only works into one direction (low tier to high tier) and you cannot reverse it.




    The second, much more interesting way would be:


    1.) You can now sacrifice units. Welcome to blood-magic, novice.

    2.) You can only sacrifice units once they are equipped to a warlord (all his/her slots must be full).

    3.) The sacrifice only works if you have all the available capacities for the specific warlord maxed out (slot1 capa, slot2 capa, slot3 capa and if you do with for example with Aurora, you need inf capa maxed as well).

    4.) Aurora now needs roughly 5000 sacrificial lambs. And an insane amount of res (probably more than the storage can store). And an insane amount of soul-energy (you'll really have to save up for this).

    5.) Press the "sacrifice" button.

    6.) Enjoy a rejuvenated Aurora. She now looks 10 years younger. Just kidding, she gained a fancy new ability. Either her capacity has grown, or her inherent ability has become stronger, or she has become faster, or you could add a second ability, or whatever.

    7.) Sacrificed units do not come back as fallen, your betrayal has lead to them breaking their oaths as well. Sorry.

    8.) You can sacrifice multiple times to increase the effect(s).

    [9.) Different sacrificed units could grant different bonuses.]

  • I like the first few points as I've had similar idea to have an official political display on a realm's profile similar to Travian but perhaps incentivize its use by increasing conqueror duration speed against official targets. Think of it like rallying your populations against a foreign nation, it makes sense for our troops to be more motivated for a cause. Similarly any realm engaging in unofficial conflicts experience increasing conquer timing, in order to subdue the local populations.


    Now with that in place you would be able to tackle "satellite" portals and conflicts by slightly reworking the tower system. Right now the only benefits you get is bigger storage/orb generation. Realms just upgrade the ones near their ARK in first few islands, by 4rth island it's useless. You can tweak that by making it so upgrading towers increase their health (and thus conquer time). So the only way for 2 warring realms to not have EG's super fast pace from war buffs is to beef up their towers by border realms. This can be pretty interesting because now all the suddenly all the orbs are going to be in the outskirts ripe for pillaging, just enough to ignite a war. Conquered towers should also drop levels after conquest. As for placing portals deep in ally territory you can either implement attrition penalties that will effectively kill off an army at increasing rate they don't touch any friendly territory, forcing portals to be a little more gradual. Alternatively only allow them near high enough tower levels and make it so that towers need to be upgraded, giving enemy realms more time to prepare for that fight by potentially sniping that tower out as it changes hands and weakened health+levels or with additional time from tower + portal can do other stuff.


    After all that I guess it's just a matter of balancing PvP to both discourage abuse and encourage incentive to fight. Buff the resource supplies to make them a little more juicer. Nerf donation XP and buff XP of fights between realms that have similar WP. Perhaps give ARK xp to realms who win costly wars and those who try to abuse with stalemates both suffer morale debuffs :D


    Probably harder to implement and even harder to balance for what its worth but there doesn't really seem a best-all solution yet outside of changing how game is played.

  • Another idea would be that you can "sacrifice" your overflowing low tier units by stationing them permanently into towers, now that defense bonus is gone? Maybe you sac 1k detonatress and get 1k 50% of detonatress fighting power in a tower of your choice? Not sure if that would make defensive stance yet to powerful, at least defensive bonus on other units will be gone with next patch? sacrificing a LOT of units by your rare supply or a crucial tower might increase the def value by 5-10 mil, doesn't sound to shabby imo.

  • Ohhh. I think that is a great idea.


    Modify it a bit like this:


    You can send any WL to any tower (or even portal) and sacrifice him or her there.

    The WL then becomes a NPC (you cannot control it any longer) and it stays exactly where you sacrificed your WL.

    The cool thing is, the sacrificed-WL will keep the units and the items. And they will help to defend the tower/portal where you sacrificed it.

    Of course, as I said before, sacrificing does cost a lot of res and SE. But that could lead to certain towers getting defended by 10 "Sacrificed Auroras" :D

    Only problem is, they are easily counted... but still... I like that a lot! It also helps a lot with the balancing problem we experience right now.

    That we have far too many units from one unit type and not enough of the other.

  • In general I agree with what is written here, but I would like to underline a fact that does not emerge: the unhealthy habit of blackmailing the weaker realms, demanding two towers in that realm, where a portal will be placed that allows expansion and blackmail, with the promise of NAP (which is generally not kept).

    This hateful practice is perpetuated by all those realms that behave like sharks towards the weakest, preventing them from learning the game and making them fall out of love.

    Points 3 and 4 are nonsense

  • You complain about the portal-building and the following blackmailing but you do not like point3 and 4 who are exactly designed to stop exactly that?

    Please make a better suggestion how to stop what you criticized then, I am honestly curious to learn about it :)

  • i love reading all the players opinions on how the game can be made better , how the large strong realms eat the weak ones, if a realm is weak how the large ones will blackmail you. the answer is easy if you do not like any of this tactics then you should not play on what is supposed to be a WAR game. the bottom line is that all the players in the beginning of the game try to join strong realms because we all would like to win. So please STOP crying and suggest better things on how the game can be made better and not of the unfair things that happen to you this things will happen over and over again. So how can the game become better, this easy also get players who are online often and have a desire to compete and not just SIMM. Leaders are very difficult to find ( i should say GOOD leaders) there are only maybe 4-5 of them in the game, we need more of them, so i thank all of does leaders for working so hard and putting so much time, please make this game better by not been in the same realm and compete against each. this is for the programmers STOP asking players for their opinion, what the players tell you is what they want not what will make the game better

  • STOP asking players for their opinion, what the players tell you is what they want

    you are hilarious :D


    By the way the initial idea of Arkheim solved this "bigger realms always beat smaller realms" because their initial idea was to make it a race who can advance to the next island fastest.

    That way the strong realms were next to other strong realms.

    Now they implemented doors and dozens realms are waiting until the stupid door finally opens, making it easy for strong realms to sit next to weak realms to extort.

    It's a problem of their own making, that is frustrating so many mid-tier realms.

  • i agree 100%, the programmers have to make a decision, a War game or a SIM game, you can't have both and have happy players, you can't prevent strong teams from feasting on the weak teams, you can't spec teams that have players show up twice every 24 hrs and compete with players that are going to check in every hour, so the crying and the fixing has to stop, as long as the game is equal for all the players, that is all you can ask for,

  • Small realms let out snot that they are eaten by big ones. But what do you think will happen if several large kingdoms fight each other instead of eating small kingdoms?


    Surprisingly, instead of taking a deep breath and competing with each other, these realms like a pack of jackals unite with one of the big realms and the whole pack will attack another big Kingdom.


    So the tactic of eating small realms, instead of fighting among themselves, is correct for large realms. ^^

  • You complain about the portal-building and the following blackmailing but you do not like point3 and 4 who are exactly designed to stop exactly that?

    Please make a better suggestion how to stop what you criticized then, I am honestly curious to learn about it :)

    it's a war game,ok: then let's have a limit to aggressions, eg. vs same strength realms/same amount of towers etc-------> fights should be better balanced

  • if it is a war game there can't be no limit to aggression, no limit to who is attacked, the strong will eat the weak, period! there is no way to control that and if any complain about that then they are not truthful to themselves as all players will do that if they have the chance. the only ones who can change that are the players and not the programmers by fixing the game, which is what has been happening since the first server. so what is the answer, wells lets look at what has been happening since the first server, when the game starts there has been a great happening, that is all the players try to go into the best team of the best players and the best leaders try to recruit the best players, making a very imbalance amount of teams. tell me how many of you who have played on most servers are not doing that. Is this wrong, i personally don't think so, that is the nature of the two "legged animals that inherit this earth" but that is okay since it is only a game and there is no harm to any of us, so my answer to all of this is let stop the whining and crying and lets suggest only great thing that can make this WAR game a better game so we all can spend some money and have some fun and have a happy time doing it, winning is not all as there can only be ONE winner, they should take second and third place out, so teams do not help one team win so they can take second or third place

  • Another idea would be that you can "sacrifice" your overflowing low tier units by stationing them permanently into towers, now that defense bonus is gone? Maybe you sac 1k detonatress and get 1k 50% of detonatress fighting power in a tower of your choice? Not sure if that would make defensive stance yet to powerful, at least defensive bonus on other units will be gone with next patch? sacrificing a LOT of units by your rare supply or a crucial tower might increase the def value by 5-10 mil, doesn't sound to shabby imo.

    defense advantage of smaller islands is already too much. We need more incentives to create war and pvp, not prevent it by simming and spamming trash troops in tower. It would drive the game farther into simming.


    though... I like the general concept behind it.


    forum.arkheim.com/index.php?attachment/787/

    Also... instead of double posting try this feature