Printable View
Its a bad comparison, buffing a gold mine nets a profit. Only buildings you need to replace constantly are wells/wheatfields, nothing else comes to mind and those make no real world difference. Who builds stuff constantly anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by RubendePuben
As far as I could see, it is very difficult to obtain the soccer balls for both the frairy and the licences both. You only get balls in daily and the 6 adventure quests, which will just give you enough for the frairy, but not for both. It will take trading, or a choice between the two...Quote:
Originally Posted by Blebekblebek
Maybe the goldmine was a bad example. My point being, I dont want to spent more time on building necessary stuff than needed, hence my wish for extended building queu's.. :) It may save only seconds, but still, having 50+ wells, en 50+ farms, that adds up over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by PapiFiveNine
Any news on the date?
I have 17 wells and 30+ wheat fields. I would absolutely love to be able to build and rebuild them in groups of nine. I think it's a fantastic idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by caelis
But what I really want is a control panel showing building production rates and expiry times, including active buffs. Yes I know it's not the Settlers' way of doing things, because Settlers enforces an enormous amount of manual attention, but it would raise the quality of gameplay (and the appeal of the game) enormously for players like myself who are more interested in production and city building than in trade. And yes, I'm aware of the excellent spreadsheets which have been created, and I've used them and modified them for my own purposes, but what would be far more convenient (and impressive) would be an integrated online tool for production management. I also think a feature like that would pull in numerous new players.
I hope the moving buildings will not cost too much...
moving buildings :D ive already planed how i want my island to look like :D
Quick question about moving buildings, will it be in the same manner as you can move flowerbeds now? Otherwise it would be a painstaking process moving a building from sector 1, to sector 9...
Anybody got any information regarding this?
destroy it
it will be back in your star menu.
But what is the use of those arrows then, in the screens at the frontpage?
most of the new features seem great not to keen on the pvp tho i hope this is a choice and not part of the game
When I said that, I hadn't realised that the extra slots were only temporary, and would require blue gems (my mistake for not reading carefully).Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterset
I take my comment back. It was a poor idea, and has been implemented in a distasteful way. As a player that occasionally buys blue gems, and has also bought the starter pack, I'm starting to feel spammed and annoyed. There were too many blue gems on display before; now there are four when the building queue is visible, and the gem offer at the bottom of the queue looks tacky. If you must charge for a building queue slot, the upgrade should at least be permanent, and it should be handled in the trader.
the company needs a new product manager when it comes to setting Gems prices, especially considering its a retail box now...
There is no standard value for gems, some things are wildly inaccurate that anyone with half a business head could solve super speedy.
Being able to buy a general for £25 is a joke when the game costs £9.99, 10 building licence for 650 gems or 1 noble deed for 95.... not hard to figure out which is way way better value (just that it can't be gifted)
I'm very interested in numbers, or the amount of people that actually pay 20 euro's for just 1 building slot extension. Nobody's that crazy, right?
I also think that the devs are getting way, WAY out of line here. Settlersonline no longer feels like a free game - it just feels like one big advertisement to buy gems at near extortionate rates. Come on guys, 5000 gems for a single general ? 3000 gems for a single building slot?
The gem prices you guys are offering for things in the game seem to imply they are worth roughly 1 euro per 1000 gems. Which we all know is not the case. The current road of Settlers will alienate large parts of your customerbase - if you really want to base a business model of making a quick profit (near scam in my view) of new customers, before these hop to another game...well fine. But I think that if you look at the competition that you see that providing CHEAP...yes, CHEAP micro purchases that it's actually far more profitable. And people stay...for many years.
While I agree that extended slots are expensive there's no actual necessity to have them. You can play the game perfectly well without and therefor you have no real need to spend the gems. The general is expensive yes, but having him alters the mechanics of the game and is something you choose to have. Again - he's not needed to play the game. Anything available for gems is an optional extra. The extended building slots are expensive, but again, are an optional extra. I usually manage to get my fields/wells re built in less than half an hour. No big deal really
Besides the point that they are a luxurious addition to the game, which I agree with, the cost in gems is way too high for even this little 'bonus'. An extra slot is nice, not that game-breaking, but 20 euro's for 1. Pffft.
The irony is that if they had offered these new items at a more reasonable price, they would make more money overall. We will never know the exact figures of items sold, but from simply playing the game I know many would buy for 500 -1000 gems, where as it stands, the current prices are more of an in game joke than an attractive offer. If they reduce the price now, they will have a few unhappy customers who paid the current prices.
We have the choice to buy or not, so really i'm not too concerned about the prices. what I am concerned about is if this poor decision making carries over into other areas of the game.
i noticed something on the trade pics when the new system is introduced will we be able to directly sell nobles,parrots,watermills,silos through the system..if so does that include ones we already have and have no use for
Nice things to implement :) Hope it comes soon ;) Thx TSO
Sounds like quite the list of game changes. I'm looking forward to being able to relocate my buildings, and I'm interested to see what they will impliment the new pvp system. That is often where alot of games epically fail.
I wonder if it`s possible to make the game, be playable off-line for a day or so, then put back on-line to save the days progress, or doing needed trades etc.. would be very handy for persons such as myself who spend time away from home, (*looking after things whilsy my wife shows dogs*)...sometimes without internet connection,for several hours.
Hi Lordofdest,
No it's not possible to have an online/offline possibility.
Right now the way the game works is that you log into the game and it loads some very basic information onto your screen... But all the calculations and the graphics are on our servers (not on your computer).
In order to make it possible to play off-line we would have to code a whole new version of the game that players could install on their computer for the game to run independently from the servers.
Best,
BB_Azariel
Which would then leave the client open for hacks and cheats...Quote:
Originally Posted by BB_Azariel
can't wait for the new Trade system
Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rry
very fair comment... shame ,, but I see the point.
awesome!
I would LOVE to see this bug going away... As it was when I start to play this game.Quote:
Guild Function: Online display of members
The online display is connected to the chat system. The plan is to provide you with a fix when the first new guild feature is implemented (guild quests).
This a real BAD BUG, that stay here since months..... PLEASE CORRECT IT SOON !
I literally dreamed that some of the modifications were through. :D Maybe i shouldn't play so much. I like the move building feature and really looking forward to the new trade system. good luck on making things work.
Er are we going to have to wait X amount of time when moving a building? Or we can opt to rush move with gems, seems like a move to get players buy gems. I guess they could rip zones down and start them over.
Really not looking forward to PvP unless it's an opt in system.
Really not looking forwards to PvP unless the Veteran General is banned from use. It will put those of use who don't have the cash for gems at a constant disadvantage.
if you dont have gems to use and get your ways with banning the VET, then goodluck fighting guys with a lot of nobles and BH general.
True the VET will make it more intresting, but its not the only way to make a difference.
All that were around at the time of the event could have gotten the general with relatively little pain (maybe sacrifice a weeks production/progress in materials to sell off for eggs but thats about it)- If that is the way to make a "level playing field" then you need to ban the battlehardened general as well as it travels and recovers twice as fast- and oops, you need to limit the amount of generals you can use on pvp to the amount you can buy in the tavern else you disadvantage againQuote:
Originally Posted by Gytha_Ogg
so basically, where will it stop.
And in the end, incentives to buy gem are BB's bread and butter so it wouldnt make sense from that point of view either
Would it be possible to introduce a guild store house, excess resources could be placed in the store and lower level guild members could be gifted the spare resources the guild has accumulated. Could be a feature of the guild house?
1. Not all of us were around the time of the event.Quote:
Originally Posted by Qualan
2. Doesn't matter how fast the battle hardened general travels or recovers as all that means is that it will reach the PvP area quicker and have to wait for a normal general, then can be sent out in half the time after a battle.
3. I am assuming you will only be able to use 1 general per battle like the current system against bandit camps so it won't matter how many you have.
4. Yes BB and Ubi are in the market to make money, it drives every business but so does customer satisfaction, making PvP as even as possible will do this, it will also prevent elitism where the more experienced players are the only ones participating for for of getting mullered all the time. Ever started playing a FPS shooter months after it came out only to find yourself vastly out matched because every one else has better perks/guns despite skill level? It's very off putting for a lot of people. Also £25 to buy a general, if BB and Ubi really did want to make more money they would at least half that and probably get 3 times the sales.
I hope that BB try to implement researching into TSO, it appeared in previous settlers and many other RTS's and always added a new dynamic to the game, I have a thread going for Research Building suggestions here just because I've found little else on the subject.
also any news on whether moving buildings will come with the closing of the soccer event would be much appreciated.
1. The reality of life: if you're not around to obtain the benefits, you don't get to enjoy the benefits either (unless you're willing to use hard money to pave your way).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gytha_Ogg
In contrast, I'm assuming it'll be very much like the current adventures, where you can send in as many generals as you have and want and clear out the enemy camps one by one until no enemy camps are remaining (or you got killed instead). As we don't have any details about the PvP system and can't rule out either assumption, it's rather pointless to demand the veteran be banned from PvP because PvP is 1 general v.s. 1 general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gytha_Ogg
Besides, people who got one of the 'special' generals are most likely of a higher level than you, because they've been around longer, worked harder, paid real cash or any combination of the above. Odds are, they'll be able to use stronger troups. So what's next? Banning their LB and S, and whatever strong troups they've got, just because you haven't been around long enough to have those troups as well?
I can safely assure you that banning veterans will result in a very large group of very dissatisfied, or rather, extremely pissed customers. People don't play or pay to be told they can't use what they play or paid for. And since it wouldn't 'even out' PvP to begin with...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gytha_Ogg
Elitism. How so? The longer you work on something and the more effort you pour into it, the more advantages you'll enjoy. Claiming this should be changed is the same as claiming a colleague with ten times your experience should hand in his/her 'extra' salary just because you lack his/her experience. Sorry, but that sounds extremely unfair to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gytha_Ogg
Yes I have. Did it put me off? Sure. But how does that justify denying people something they've worked hard or paid for? No. Doing so would just screw the game up even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gytha_Ogg
On that, we agree. Though it's not like I have insight into BB's sales, so for all I know there could be hundreds of people willing (crazy enough) to spend that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gytha_Ogg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This doesn't mean that I believe high level players should be allowed to steamroll lower level players in PvP. I just don't think banning the veteran is the right way to prevent it. Rather than banning anything, why not allow players to see what they would be fighting against? We haven't been given any details on how the PvP system would work, but the way I envision it is like this:
1) Player 1 sends a PvP adventure request to player 2.
2) Player 2 'agrees' to the request.
3) Both player select generals and troups.
4) Both players get to see the generals and troups the other selected.
5) Both players have the option to either cancel or accept the PvP.
6) If accepted, both players, the selected generals and their troups are taken to the PvP zone and the PvP 'adventure' begins the moment all armies have arrived. Neither player can send in additional generals or troups.
7) The PvP adventure ends when either one player has lost all generals, either player quit the adventure or the adventure timed out.
This way everybody is allowed to use their full strength, everybody is allowed to use everything they worked hard or paid for, nobody is in for any nasty surprises and nobody is steamrolled by anybody.
Now this, is what I'd call fair for everybody.
Speculating and discussion over a system that we don’t really know anything about other then its coming along at some point seems pretty pointless….but that ain’t going to stop us it seems :D
If a 200 vs 250 gen situation is allowed to occur in pvp then I would like to think everyone would agree that is just unfair and I would hope BB have the sense to realise this and so its not even worth us talking about. Perhaps a simple system of only a 250 gen can attack a 250 gen might be best? That way if 2 players have them they can still use them against each other.
While this doesn’t seem too bad I don’t think many matches would actually get accepted. Player 1 sends in xxx troops, player 2 sends in yyy troops. Player 2 sees player 1’s troops are better at killing his troops so doesn’t accept. They do it again and this time player 2 puts up the troops needed for him to be better off and so forces player 1 to not accept this time. The battle will happen in a combat sim before either player accepts and if the player doesn’t win they won’t accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genbrua
To make the fights interesting the players either can’t know what’s attacking them or can know but are not allowed to just decline the attack.
Following the above way of play it should be more like: Player 1 selects a group of units they find strong and like for most situations. Player 2 does the same. They accept the match without knowing what each other has then do battle. Whoever comes out on top wins.
The other way I personally would prefer it was if adv maps for pvp were more then just player 1 sends army, player 2 sends army and they fight…but more in line with player 1 sends a special town hall building settler along with up to 400 troops in 2 generals and a max of xxxx res. Player 2 does the same. Then after that it is more like a standard rts game. You can build up a village, get some production going, build a barracks, decided to go for cheap recruits or save up for soldiers or even get another general from the tavern etc. The game play would need to be sped up a bit so a match could be played out within an hour or so and instead of relying on levels to allow access to newer units and buildings it would need to be changed for pvp so it is based more on traditional rts norms of building a building that allows access to the new units etc.
This to me would be far more enjoyable and interesting to play. To make it worth while for both players 10% of all resources produced can come back with them once the adv is over. The winner gets 20% or something like that. I’m not too sure about rewards and stuff but I’m sure there is something good that could get done to make pvp and winning rewarding and not just a massive waste of troops. But this is the kind of system I’m hoping for, if the adv took weeks or months and let more then 2 players on a massive map that would be even better but in this day and age of facebook and 5 minutes here and 5 minutes there game play, I fear that will never happen and even 1 hour battles is a stretch. I can still dream tho.
Games managed this long without Pvp. For a lot of us it can carry on without it and BB can put the time towards developing more adventures and challenges for us