Feedback: Temple Shielding

Geisti

Cerberus
In short, Temple Shielding has not (even without considering the bugs we encountered) achieved what we hoped it would on ZZ21. With this in mind, we've decided to not release Temple Shielding on live at all. This is regrettable, as we did spend some time on the development, and at first wanted to try and return to the drawing board and use some of the design and development elements we'd invested time in making, but unfortunately, nothing really fits, and we don't want to introduce a reworked mechanic just for the sake of it.
I'm really sorry about that now..have now wasted unnecessary time doing something that nobody here wants..who develops this behind closed doors..without first involving the players..and now you are astonished that your developments are rejected..involve the players in your development process..then such absolute undesirable developments like temple shields are no longer possible..you can then devote yourself to meaningful tasks here..like troubleshooting say just senate jumps..You don't care about us players..true communication with you is not possible..for whatever reason..You don't want to talk to us players at all..



just have to see the date here..but then complain here..that you wasted time here ..

regards
Geisti
 
Last edited:
In short, Temple Shielding has not (even without considering the bugs we encountered) achieved what we hoped it would on ZZ21. With this in mind, we've decided to not release Temple Shielding on live at all. This is regrettable, as we did spend some time on the development, and at first wanted to try and return to the drawing board and use some of the design and development elements we'd invested time in making, but unfortunately, nothing really fits, and we don't want to introduce a reworked mechanic just for the sake of it.
Thanks for dismissing temple shielding. I can understand that it might be regrettable for the people who developed the feature but it really did not improve the game experience, and it was obvious from the start that it would not work for the Large Tempel stage at all - even before we knew that the shielded phases would last so long. It would be helpful for all (players and team) if you discussed planned developments with your players before implementing them.

I still think that Olympus worlds would be more attractive if the first temple stage did not start so early in the game. Of course small Beta worlds (and zz21 was a very small one) cannot be a benchmark for live worlds, but the increased defences of Large Temples and Olympus also cannot work towards more competition and a livelier gameplay. There are many small markets and worlds out there, and with NPC defenses that strong, alliances must focus on building (and sparing) their troops for that purpose only - and that´s boring. While the defenses of Olympus were decreased with each jump, the Large Temple defense stayed the same, thus excluding smaller alliances from even trying to take one. And even worse: Alliances seeing that they don´t have a chance to clear a Large Temple or Olympus might stop playing - and avoid playing on Olympus worlds in the future.

Considering that initially temple shielding was introduced in order to counterbalance (too) strong PvE elements in Olympus worlds, it made no sense to me that at the same time those PvE elements were strengthened even more on zz21.

Unfortunately, the announced "next batch of changes" will be implemented without prior presentation and discussion again, and that´s a pity.

The reason is we've been working on our next batch of changes, which we're sure you won't be revolted by :wink:.
If we interpret that sentence correctly and you are planning to introduce a revolt version of the Olympus endgame, the input of experienced revolt players would be even more valuable beforehand, since that´s no easy task, even under the best circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Geisti

Cerberus
And even worse: Alliances seeing that they don´t have a chance to clear a Large Temple or Olympus might stop playing - and avoid playing on Olympus worlds in the future.
They're about to erase..here should be something like opportunities equality..ut we can and talk our mouth fluffy here..Innogames is not interested in the opinion of the existing players..you prefer to cook your own soup behind a closed door..and then wonders that all the development work was for free..but involve old players in the decision-making process here..there is apparently a red cloth here..


regards
Geisti
 
I join in the outbursts. The Devblog should have the function of sharing the development phases with users, but each time you only get new implementations that are not the result of any comparison.

Years ago the Player Council was introduced and, personally, I found it an excellent solution and I would hope that it would be proposed again to give users the possibility of a representation able to confront the developers on the changes in a wider way than a feedback in the forum .
 

Geisti

Cerberus
Doesn't help either .. ask Draba Aspera here .. was a member of the Beta Focus Troop here .. had to do completely pointless tests there .. Test hero's speed with the stopwatch .. our many years of gaming experience .. 10 years and more .. Unfortunately, the company is not interested ..

regards
Geisti
 
The reason is we've been working on our next batch of changes, which we're sure you won't be revolted by :wink:.
I don't like that wink.

I totally agree with Michaela:
Still think that Olympus worlds would be more attractive if the first temple stage did not start so early in the game.
When you join the world, you have less than a month to prepare yourself for PvP and PvE. That way you restrict the PvP elements and the players are focusing on the Temples. This gameplay is losing its meaning and it's getting more boring and boring overtime. A good idea for Olympus is to restrict the number of the Small Temples that spawn in the start(That can be adjust with the speed of the world too). This will improve the fights between the players and will make the gameplay more intresting. Also each new world should have different Temple buffs (Small and Large) with adjustable percentages based on the speed of the world and the new buffs-extras every new world has.

I believe that the Temples should be of secondary importance. I know that the gameplay is about the Temples but there is no meaning if an alliance is left alone at the end of the world playing alone hitting Temples. If you want to keep the interest on the Temples, you should make the Olympus spawn on the center of the world, in the cross. Like domination, each alliance have the chance to dominate around this area. With this, if an alliance doesn't manage to stay at the cross, it could have the chance to stay on the game with a portal. (And the portal extra time should be reduced if this happens). Domination represents the purpose of this game very well.. It restricts the players and makes the gameplay more intresting. Now, with the current Olympus gameplay,an alliance can win the world only by hitting Temples and having a portal..

The game may be addictive for the old but it does not easily reach new players. You are supposed to make this game better, but with the last changes and the ignorance of the old player's opinions you can't achieve your goal. The game is dying slowly and you need to understand that.
 
Last edited:

Geisti

Cerberus
The game may be addictive for the old but it does not easily reach new players. You are supposed to make this game better, but with the last changes and the ignorance of the old player's opinions you can achieve your goal. The game is dying slowly and you need to understand that.
Unfortunately, nobody at this company's headquarters is interested in that .. one prefers to develop behind a closed door .. only to be able to get excited artificially .. why nobody praises your efforts ..

regards
Geisti