inofficial Feedbackthread for casual world

[Arci]

Well, that looks like linear math to me.
If the 20% is calculated using the attacker's points only, it's clear to me that if A > D also (20% A) > (20% D), hence bigger player's attack range will be wider.

I'm gonna put this to the attention of the devs, if that's the case it's indeed a design issue that needs to be tackled.


On a side note, thanks for the discovery, that's exactly the purpose of Beta. I really appreciate this kind of feedbacks

 

[DeletedUser4186]

another and possible easier solution would:

not saying of percentage but using a Factor by which you either multiply or divide your points.

Example:
Factor 1,2
Player A has 12500 Points
Player B has 15000 Points
Player C has 18000 Points

Range from Player A is from 12500/1,2=10417 (rounded) to 1250*1,2=15000 so he could attack Player B
Range from Player B is from 15000/1,2=12500 to 15000*1,2=18000 which means he can attack player A and C
Range from Player C is 18000/1,2=15000 to 18000*1,2=21600 which means he can attack player C

so in this case both player can attack each other because their ranges have no overlapping
and its more simply to explain to beginners because of just using ONE Number not two like in Noris solution

but all this inno could know if they asked us BEFORE bringing Casual an Beta^^

 

[Arci]

but all this inno could know if they asked us BEFORE bringing Casual an Beta^^

Nope as this was confirmed only by actively testing the game

 

[DeletedUser4186]

Nope as this was confirmed only by actively testing the game

ok you missunderstand me^^

i said if inno have asked us BEFORE Casual startet, than we from GPC would have surely been able to say inno some or lots of the Problems

for example that 20% gap an the mistake that a bigger player can attack a smaller but the smaller not back and that this is the opposite of which is written in the Wiki

because my brother who is not playing grepo, visited me as i was just reading wiki and her read that too and his first sentence was:

oh thats wrong that 20% helps the bigger player more and that happen about 20 seconds after he read that^^

so if inno would ask more and READ more the answers to the questions lots of bad things or faults could have been avoided ^^

 

[DeletedUser4511]

I agree with AnWePe. A simple maths check would have found the imbalance. The reason it got tested in-game was because the mathematical conclusion was denied / confused, so the testing was to provide proof.

It would have been nice to at least have forewarning on this. Not only would it have helped identify some fairly obvious issues before it was released, but it may have improved the GPC's standing. (The GPC being left in the dark for extended periods of time while Inno are preparing and releasing major changes has caused a number of players to wonder what the staff attitude towards the GPC project actually is.)

 

[DeletedUser4186]

i am not sure if that all now is written here before, so when it is sorry for double posting (some of that is already on german forum)

some problems we found because of that testing to proof our conclussion:

its extremely annoying that you must always calculate if you can attack or not (a symbol or something like that, that shows immidiatelly if you can attack or not would be helpful)

by ouor tests you where able to attack players where we normally not be able to do that and sometimes we cant attack but we shouldn´t (for example Bull spirit dancer was at 777 Points, i was at 850 but she can´t attack me for about more than an hour i think) nori was at 1047 Points and that means i shouldn´t be able to attack her but i was able to do that and so on). We think the reason is perhaps any server actualisation or synchronisation (oh by the way F5 or closing Grepo and reoping it dont help). With this problem, the first problem is more bad than before (calcing and all things ok but its not working so wasting of time)

next problem is that you always must check possible targets (if they still are attackable) so lot mor work by a reservation of a town

and in times of spamming und flashing attacks its REALLY REALLY bad that you must flash an attack too, just to make sure that you can attack target town, and doing this a little time later again and again. So this will lead into more flash atts

oh and the most annyoing thing in that test was:

that reading of that damn banner that you can´t attack that town because you are to weak or to strong for that. after reading this a few times is really was angry about that and i don´t think this helps new players to enjoy the game and if they didn´t enjoy the game they will not stay long in that game

@bogdy 95

how das it feel if you can attack no player, because all players in Reach are Ally?^^

 

[bogdy 95]

@bogdy 95

how das it feel if you can attack no player, because all players in Reach are Ally?^^

Nobody is forced to be in an Ally. Everyone has his own right to play as he wish.
And also you said above that the points condition is annoing and you can't attack all players, that is active even if you are enemies or allied.

 

[Mim le Fay]

Nobody is forced to be in an Ally.

The old Grepolis is always a team game.

If I understand you right you mean, the Casual Worlds are created for single playing to have as much opposer as you could, right?

 

[DeletedUser4186]

lol Mim thats true^^

 

[Arci]

Casual worlds are created to provide a different way of playing the same game. As repeated several times for example, it's not a world where you're supposed to make mass attacks to a single player.

Some may enjoy it, some may not

Now that you expressed your negative feedback, there's not need to keep repeating it again and again without adding constructive content.

 

[Bullspirit Dancer]

Casual worlds are created to provide a different way of playing the same game. As repeated several times for example, it's not a world where you're supposed to make mass attacks to a single player.

Some may enjoy it, some may not

Now that you expressed your negative feedback, there's not need to keep repeating it again and again without adding constructive content.

So it's a new concept that is presented as a world that give new players the change to learn the game but one of the most important parts of playing, in/with an alliance is not one of them?

Just to be clear, mass attack is impossible but mass defence is the keyword?

What is to learn about stacking defence and not experence how you work together offence?

 

[Arci]

Who said joining an alliance is not recommended?

 

[Mim le Fay]

Hmmm, this are more peace worlds than a wargame; something like the Switzerland, if you understand what I mean with a lot of building and settlements on Island without farming villages. I am really curious to listen to all of the enthusiastic player.

 

[DeletedUser4511]

Now that you expressed your negative feedback, there's not need to keep repeating it again and again without adding constructive content.

Would it be possible to get an update on how close the developers are to fixing the attackability points range issue? Or at least know how soon they intend to tackle it? Because I'm sure there are plenty of us willing to keep bringing up this simple (and foreseeable if the GPC had been given any sort of warning/voice on this) issue until the developer team fixes it to make this world into the fair experience that it is supposed to be.

 

[DeletedUser4186]

Who said joining an alliance is not recommended?

Nobody is forced to be in an Ally. Everyone has his own right to play as he wish.

Any Questions?^^ feel free to ask more, we are glad if we can help^^

 

[DeletedUser2458]

Now that you expressed your negative feedback, there's not need to keep repeating it again and again without adding constructive content.

They're maybe repeating their opinions because of some Grepo Staff people who still need to oppose using silly arguments. Huh.

 

[Arci]

Any Questions?^^ feel free to ask more, we are glad if we can help^^

He didn't say that it's not recommended, he said that everyone can choose whether they want to stay in an alliance or play alone. Please don't try to give different weights to every single word just to have an argument.

Kind reminder: all the discussions should have the purpose of improving the game, not being battles with winners and losers.

 

[Draba Aspera]

Kind reminder: all the discussions should have the purpose of improving the game, not being battles with winners and losers.

I agree. But on the other hand, also all updates and new concepts should have the purpose of improving the game, and it´s only human to feel some frustration when they so obviously fail to do so.

Many (but not all, unfortunately) of the issues introduced with the new casual concept could be remedied if the 20% rule did not apply for player interactions within an alliance and between pact members. That simple change would make the concept suitable even for conquest words, allowing unlimited harbour checks after trips have fallen, and unlimited attacks on sieges (where the currrent restrictions allow unlimited support for the siege by all members of one party, but only very limited attack capacities for the other, causing a severe disbalance - and that´s impossible in a game that has always granted mass bonus advantages to the defending party and its accumulated support, even without further limitations on the offensive capacities of its counterpart). That simple change would also eliminate all the obvious issues regarding internal conquests and the transferring of cities from bigger players to smaller alliance members.

I had elaborated on this suggestion and the issues it could resolve in more detail in the German forums, and I hope it is worth some consideration.

 

[Arci]

Many (but not all, unfortunately) of the issues introduced with the new casual concept could be remedied if the 20% rule did not apply for player interactions within an alliance and between pact members. That simple change would make the concept suitable even for conquest words, allowing unlimited harbour checks after trips have fallen, and unlimited attacks on sieges (where the currrent restrictions allow unlimited support for the siege by all members of one party, but only very limited attack capacities for the other, causing a severe disbalance - and that´s impossible in a game that has always granted mass bonus advantages to the defending party and its accumulated support, even without further limitations on the offensive capacities of its counterpart). That simple change would also eliminate all the obvious issues regarding internal conquests and the transferring of cities from bigger players to smaller alliance members.

That's indeed a valid point, thanks

 

[Draba Aspera]

Just for information: It has just been confirmed that there are issues concerning the city transfer (on live markets, at least). Although this feature had been testet on internal Beta test worlds as we had been told, it does not (or not always) work on live markets. German CoMa Gaius Iulius Caesar could reproduce the bug and has forwarded it to the devs. Players willing to test the account transfer on live markets should wait until the problem is solved.

https://de.forum.grepolis.com/index.php?threads/feedback-casual-welten.36114/page-9#post-587743