Dev-Diary: War & Peace

  • Discussion of article Dev-Diary: War & Peace


    Dear ascendants,


    once again we wish to share with you what is currently happening behind the scenes.

    Please take a close look at the concept "War & Peace" and let us know your thoughts and questions about it in this thread!


    Early next week, we will have a live Dev-Talk on Discord about this concept and we invite everyone to join the discussion. The Dev-Talk will be on Wednesday, October 21st, at 4PM CEST.

  • I understand this will give some of the smaller realms a chance instead of being smashed by the big realms but they can do that already by just staying one island down, casual realms should not be able to get to Island 4.


    the system with declaring war and notice period and victory conditions is interesting and planning before a war starts would be a lot more important. when you attack you will want to hit the victory condition as quickly as possible to end the war and move onto the next one. it might be that will need to run 2 servers,one hardcore and one war&peace to give options


    The war totals with max people fighting and wp needs a bit more thought. it can be used defensively so for example 6 small realm just declare war on each other if one of them thinks they will be attacked and no-one can declare war on them for 5 days so all their towers are safe from conquer


    at moment on the server with the limit on 2x wp ITF can only declare war on 9 realms and most of them are not close, without being able to conquer towers between ITF and the enemy that we want to attack because we cant conquer any towers from smaller realm enroute could make it very difficult to get some wars going. simmilar you cant give your ally a tower in your realm to place a portal to get their troops into the war which limits planning a lot, might have to set it so with alliance status you can build a portal in your allies area of influence

  • If you implement this, you will loose a lot of players like myself who spend money here. It's supposed to be a war game, and the description was what attracted me to it.

    "UNITE IN A REALM WITH PLAYERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD AND LEAD IT TO WAR OVER TERRITORIAL CONTROL AND POWERFUL ORBS."


    Well that's not what the game will be is it?

    I and many others will not play Sim City and Farmville for 8 weeks just for 2 weeks of war.


    Why bother with troops? May as well toss a coin for any wars before Endgame to decide who wins and shake hands after.


    Quite simply, you will manage to destroy what is a perfectly good game as it is.

  • Well. I am carefully optimistic about this change.

    I don't think it's a change like the introduction of Soul Energy where everyone knew it would make the game better. But it is also not something like the moonphases.



    Negative points:


    - It feels restrictive, especially when you are used to have "unlimited" options

    To be fair, any solution that tackle the "diplomacy rules"-problem would have been restrictive in one shape or form. Still, it DOES feel restrictive. Maybe we get used to it.


    - The WP-protection is doing nothing positive but is highly abusable.

    You already made a ton of rules to protect realms who lose a war. This additional "safety-net" is overkill and can too easily be used to circumvent the entire system.


    - As usual you overnerfed when you limited the number wars a realm can have to ONE and additionally significantly weakened the portals. Both actions have the same target and the same result, so as usual they will compound each other. Now you are again in a situation that you changed two very significant parts of the game, making it very hard to determine which nerf was better and potentially you have changed the game into the exact opposite from what it was before.



    Positive points:


    - It will (heavily) reduce teaming up on good realms.

    I know that's not be the intention, but it will be a result. And that's something I like because getting beaten by a bunch of noobs is frustrating.


    - Losing a war doesn't mean total annihilation as it does now.

    That's probably the main intention behind the change. That you can now lose a war but barely get hurt by it (only losing ~15% of your towers, if you have as many as your opponent).


    - It COULD lead to less diplomacy.

    It's less important than before to talk to all your neighbors all the time. Since teaming up becomes significantly less profitable the need to do it all the time diminishes.

    Another reason diplomacy could get reduced is that a realm might attack 3-4 different realms per island now, instead of 1-2. If you plan on attacking all your neighbors anyway, you don't need to bother talking with them beforehand.


    - Formalized war gets rewarded

    I like the idea of the treasure chest. Increase the basic-XP of all the units though, I don't like that the acc-level is to 90% determined by your economy. Having good, individual fights should be WAY more rewarding. Maybe instead (or additionally) of using the WP as a multiplier, use the win/loss ratio of the destroyed res and the res you lost in the fight. For example if you lose 10k res and destroy 30k with it, it should be worth A LOT more than losing 60k res and killing 30k res.



    Neutral points:


    - Endgame is still FFA

    Maybe it's good that way. Especilly with the new Endgame you don't necessarily need many towers/supplies you need Fallen, so ... I guess keeping that open is neither good nor bad, probably more on the good side. 1 week diplo instead of 8 is palatable.


    - "Tower wars" might become a problem

    I'm not looking forward to all neighboring realms trying to steal us supplies by stupidly building towers at our border which we cannot retaliate/deny to. But since your system does allow for attacking/conquering towers that are under construction, I think it's a workable solution. We have to actually play with the new rules to judge that.



    Points that would make those changes "even" better:


    - Additional statistics

    We need a static in which we can see at one glance all the current wars that are fought on this island AND how the wars are going. That means the current progress and how many troops (in res) each side killed the other side.


    - Getting additional Ark Power and SE is nice but it needs to have a significantly bigger impact.

    To make ark power matter you need to invent intelligent, impactful and fun rewards if you realm is actually ahead of the others. You could either go with the current system that every realm-level gives you a (more impactful) bonus or you change is slightly that being #1 in ark power gives you a certain bonus, #2 and #3 a different (weaker) bonus, #4-10 again another bonus, #10-20 something, etc.

    Also: Make the freaking runes WAY stronger and add additional useful uses for SE.



    - Tower slots

    Since your new system severely reduces the amount of towers a realm can realistically conquer, I think it is time to make a "little" change regarding those tower-slots. Conquered towers should not count towards the already limited towers a realm can place.

    For example on island2 you can build 45 towers. Add 15 towers (1 slot per member) that can only be filled by conquering.


    First argument against that innovation:

    Could be used for pushing

    Counterargument 1: Working together is a way "bigger push" than getting 7 towers. And that is and was always allowed.

    Counterargument 2: You only have 15 conquer-slots, you don't win much by getting 7 of those slots without fighting.

    Counterargument 3: The realm who offers those towers must be really really dedicated to see that other realm win to give those towers away for free, considering how cramped the Arkheim map is. It's not guaranteed that they have the space to re-build them on the other side of their realm.

    Counterargument 4: At least it's in the open, everyone can see you embarrass yourself and you therefore lose reputation. Not sure it's worth it ~ (I'm sure some realms will do so anyway, but as I said, the advantage they get is manageable)


    Second argument against:

    What happens if you lose 7 towers in a war and then manage to re-conquer some of them?

    Answer: As the original owner of the tower you can choose to either claim them with the conquer-slots or with the regular tower slots.




    /edit: I doubt this change will lead to less wars. It's far more likely it will lead to more wars which are less fatal. It does take away that you are able to completely destroy your opposition - but many people disliked that anyway (not me though).


    /edit2: The 12 hour timer during a war-declaration is key. Otherwise your opponent gets ready, pre-plans his attack for the night, conquers the towers before you opponent wakes up (half conquering time) and the victim lost the war without ever having the opportunity to even use their troops. Taking the 12h away would undermine the 'expressed' intent of this update - to have fair 1on1 fights.

  • Golden words! I would frame it and put it somewhere on the homepage as the best review ever. But you know what the problem is? In thinking. The people who make this game have a very peculiar mindset!


    There are games like Starborne where the first thing developers do is think: how to make the game more interesting and exciting, and of course more convenient for the player. Make more different tactics and strategies. This is the first and main idea with which they start any changes. And that is why the active audience in this game is 10 times more, because there are really few such games now.


    What is the main idea of Arnheim developers? So that no one can stick their head out of the crowd. To make the game as casual as possible. So that players have the same opportunities regardless of their skill level and the time they spend on the game. To make it impossible to win and lose here. So that a more active and experienced player does not in any case have the opportunity to somehow dominate. (The same goes for Alliances)


    Therefore, I have long said - gentlemen, do not mislead the players. You are making a 100% casual farm, please remove any mention that this is a war game.

  • Twelve I agree with you in many ways, but not now. The problem of the need for excessive diplomacy could be solved. To do this, you could remove at least half of the restrictions that are everywhere. Yes, more active players would have dominated, but this is the element of competition. And we could easily fight against multiple realms at the same time.


    The last change that was made successfully is the forge of souls. At one point, I even thought that the developers finally heard the players and changed the concept. But - no, it was rather an exception to the rule. All they do now is remove any competitive elements from the game.

  • Another server - another change in the wrong direction. Guess thats another round i'll skip.

    Sadly i dont think the devs understand what made this game unique in the first place, because if they developed those areas some of the problems would have solved themselves. Oh well.

  • Good morning everyone,


    a quick reminder that the Dev-Diaries are not Patch Notes.


    It is a first concept to attempt diminishing the issues that have occured several times in the past of which many also were pointed out by the community:

    • Unfair wars / ("6 vs 1 setups")
    • Lack of incentives to start wars
    • Continuous 'bullying' of weaker Realms over a long period of time
    • No diplomacy system in the game leading to players having to discuss diplomatic statuses outside the game
    • Pittfall of Realms that arrange killing units from each other just for getting the reward


    The reason we are sharing these Dev-Diaries is to discuss the solutions with you and/or other proposals for change you may have that might solve the above listed issues in a better way.


    Of course everyone is free to say whether they like or dislike the current concept, but it would be also very fruitful to hear your suggestions on what you would change about it, why you would change it, and how the change would potentially contribute to a better outcome.


    That being said, there have been some really good contributions in this thread already. Thanks for that and please keep them coming until the Dev-Talk (Wednesday, 4 PM CEST).


    Have a good weekend.


    C.

  • - "unfairs" wars, unfair to whom?


    fairness is a matter of perspective in this case, several smaller realms bonding together to defeat a larger realm is a self regulating system


    - lack of incentives to start wars

    this system provides even less incentive to start a war as the potential gain is a joke


    - Continuous 'bullying' of weaker Realms over a long period of time

    artificially created problem


    - No diplomacy system in the game leading to players having to discuss diplomatic statuses outside the game

    will still be the case afterwards, as naps are limited to 3, while providing next to none customizations options, have any of you played any MP x4 games at all? its a common thing to offer up towers in this case, for a nap agreement for example, not possible in this system


    - Pittfall of Realms that arrange killing units from each other just for getting the reward

    never saw someone doing that last server, literally


    i feel like i am wasting time writing an answer

  • i feel like i am wasting time writing an answer

    Agreed. Cerus already told you that your "everything sucks" attitude without offering any suggestion how to make it better, isn't useful. I don't say that you should stop complaining, but being just a tiny little bit more constructive in your criticism might be an idea.

  • If you were not constantly thinking about how to make sure that a stronger Kingdom, God forbid, does not conquer a weaker Kingdom, then your words probably would have some meaning. ^^

    If they add the rule that conquered towers do not count to the tower-limit, the new change would be significantly better. With this war&peace system they have essentially made sure that you can only attack an enemy realm once per island. That you can only steal/destroy 15% of their towers (So maybe ~8% of their production)

    I don't see a problem if you at least ADD those winnings to your economy instead of just taking it away from your opponent.


    /edit for Violet: That's how you criticize AND make a suggestion to improve the problem at the same time. I hope you are taking notes, try it yourself now :p

  • If they add the rule that conquered towers do not count to the tower-limit, the new change would be significantly better. With this war&peace system they have essentially made sure that you can only attack an enemy realm once per island. That you can only steal/destroy 15% of their towers (So maybe ~8% of their production)

    I don't see a problem if you at least ADD those winnings to your economy instead of just taking it away from your opponent.


    /edit for Violet: That's how you criticize AND make a suggestion to improve the problem at the same time. I hope you are taking notes, try it yourself now :p

    the system is flawed on a fundamental level, making it better, wont make it good, it will just make it less bad, it seems you are happy with that, personally i am not


    you state obvious suggestions, i only read that devs do not play their own game, from the s4 patch notes to this, its not our job to design the game, many feedback has been given out for months via the forum, surveys and the suggestion channel, nothing seem to have made it into the game from various decent ideas


    you are easily content if someone throws you a bone, thats great for you, sadly in a world where good games are abundant, i am not

  • Twelve, you see what's going on... imagine that you came to a ballet school as a football coach and start giving advice on how to score goals better.


    Do you see what I'm getting at?

    Your comments about Violet unfair .

    The forum is full of suggestions on how to make the game better, but if the developer has a "ballet" in his head, then he simply will not perceive what you say. So it really feels like a waste of time.;)


    And this applies not only to the war-peace system. the system itself can be either good or bad. It all depends on which coordinate system, in which game concept it will be implemented. What is the main goal of the developer - whether he wants to make a military MMO strategy, or he wants to make the most simple game-farm. That's the main thing.

  • I like some ideas here - most importantly:

    Portal nerf !!! This is one way to tackle the way to strong factor of a portal once it stands and I like it. Your entire highway to the portal is now fragile and can cause do some devastation in realms infrastructure. Big thumbs up on this change.


    I hate people only complaining. Give us your viable inputs on Wednesday, that will make this game more enjoyable for beginners, mediocre players and tryhards (which is not that easily done!). I think war chest seems solid, no idea how much war is worth it (more or less than before) but I guess we will figure out eventually. 12 hours advance before starting a war seemed a little horrible on first sight, but a little thought I think it can work, so the team that gets war declared on can find some allies who then declare war on the initiate war-starter. Think that can work.

    Overall I'm looking forward to Wednesday and if a few of these changed get implemented (maybe with some tweaking) I guess we are fine.

  • Well , I guess the Devs must like big knockers , cause the udder on this cash-cow just seems to be getting bigger and bigger. It should be an obvious warning sign , if even the spreadshietters begin to have a problem with it. The strange thing is , I start to wonder , if it actually was the devs and not the players , that ruined Travian. Kinda odd if game programmers makes really good games , but don't actually understand themselves , why it is good. And then slowly ruin it. It was the same thing , that happened to WoW. Too much chinese thinking. Anyways - I am out. I can see , where this is going. Not just boycotting it for a round. But totally. Moving on to a new game , whatever it may be. As long as it is not jumping on the un-boxing train , I am fine.