Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: [Feedback] Combat Survey

  1. #1
    Nifty
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    58
    World
    Newfoundland

    [Feedback] Combat Survey

    So BB want our views on combat systems...

    S4 by far the best in all ways in my book. Combat and otherwise. If only it would work on Windows 7!

  2. #2
    Forum Explorer Killste's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    331
    World
    Newfoundland
    I writed in fb, but i write it here too...

    Well, seems we can't give feedback on survey, so I give my own opinion here. I like Travian battle system, but it's only useful for pvp. You have different types of units, that also march with difference time. With those units, you can scout, make fake attacks, suicidal attacks, raid force or even chance to conquer another villages -> Force to you make choices. In settler, most of players will calculate battles in combat and use blocks, probably because they want minimal losses in adventures, so they can get optimal loot from adventure. Why anyone want to waste 3k recruits to adventure, since you can win it with 1k recruits and you can get same loot? Problem in this method is, that players won't think itself. They watch, "Oh there is guide for me, I try that". We guide creators have forced to calculate battles and choose right units(of course we stop, when we find optimal losses), but those how read our guides, will not learn, why? They don't need to. Edit. Only challenge right now is, that you need to watch game lag, so your blocks, will succeed.

  3. #3
    Committed Clicker
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    416
    World
    Northisle
    The survey, in my opinion did not really seem to offer avenues for real suggestions...
    I might have liked Travian ages ago, might have rated it higher than another suggestion, that does not mean I want TSO to become like Travian or any other game.

    The only 'future combat possibilities' question seemed to give just horrible options:
    Stay the same.
    Change some basic troop characteristics
    Allow changes to troop formation, changes to attack priorites etc
    Micro manage every single battle by allowing full control of every little trooper

    None of which seem to offer a realistic and playable PvP environment or even a better PvE experience.

    I hope BB aren't going to totally change the existing system.
    Surely the introduction of Military Skill Trees for generals (which should have been referenced in the above question) should allow enough extra 'variety' to the combat to make PvP feasible without having to change things like suggested.
    "Your general was a tortoise!" ... "He will now amble back to his garrison as slow as his short reptilian legs will manage"

  4. #4
    Ruler of the Land Fexno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,100
    World
    Sandycove
    I see people want to give feedback on the survey, so I "upgraded" this to a feedback thread.

  5. #5
    Nifty
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    61
    World
    Newfoundland
    I think there is an issue with question 1 on the survey - "how many times do you log in a week?" The options only went up to 7 but i have to log and re-log about 500 times a week

  6. #6
    Nifty
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    68
    World
    Northisle
    Without needing huge changes, I'll just repeat my suggestion I've made before and will keep making again: create adventure or two where all camps are on semi-random locations, containing semi-random amount of troops. In other words, adventure that is never the same, where needed troops are always different, camp placements always different, blocks always different, even the route to choose always different. Adventure that you can't just follow a guide blindly. Adventure that would be a challenge for your brain, not a challenge of producing 5000 troops that a guide calls for. I'm not saying every adventure should be like that. Lot of people like their guided tours and that's all fine. I just want an option for those of us who prefer facing something unexpected every time. It would be the way to increase adventure difficulty without making it just too expensive to be worth doing at all. We have too many adventures like that already.

  7. #7
    Keen Commentor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Above the arctic circle
    Posts
    153
    World
    Sandycove
    Feedback on your combat survey:

    There is no planning before combat, consideration of strategies, etc. Most players, probably nearly all above a certain level, are using guides. There are at least 3 very important reasons for this:

    1. Failure results in large losses, which means a huge waste of resources and a lot of time wasted to make new military units.
    2, There's no good way to determine which units to send. You *can* add random units to your garrison and do a test, but this would mostly be fumbling in the dark, with (for most players) a pretty small chance on finding what's the optimal combination.
    3. *If* we were about do do all sorts of test before sending the units against an enemy, it would require a much larger army on an adventure, compared to using a guide. For obvious reasons.

    We already know what to do, which units we need, and so on, before we're even starting an adventure. If that wasn't possible to do, I would have left this game a long time ago, because figuring all that out by myself every time I want to do an adventure, would be a nightmare. And don't you dare to change this - if you suddenly make enemy camps random in units amounts and types, adventures would pretty much be ruined, and so would the game be, since we need to succeed on adventures to progress.

    Conclusion: your survey is a waste of time, because you ask questions about stuff no one is doing.

  8. #8
    Pathfinder
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    3
    World
    Sandycove
    Quote Originally Posted by Borotaur View Post
    Without needing huge changes, I'll just repeat my suggestion I've made before and will keep making again: create adventure or two where all camps are on semi-random locations, containing semi-random amount of troops. In other words, adventure that is never the same, where needed troops are always different, camp placements always different, blocks always different, even the route to choose always different. Adventure that you can't just follow a guide blindly. Adventure that would be a challenge for your brain, not a challenge of producing 5000 troops that a guide calls for. I'm not saying every adventure should be like that. Lot of people like their guided tours and that's all fine. I just want an option for those of us who prefer facing something unexpected every time. It would be the way to increase adventure difficulty without making it just too expensive to be worth doing at all. We have too many adventures like that already.
    +1

    Just make sure that BB keep the 'adventure difficulty randomness' within reason, don't want to start an adventure and then find out I haven't got enough of correct troops to complete it. Also maybe randomise the loot more than now, update current possible loot tables on most adventures and spring a few surprises....the 'unknown' factor could make things interesting and fresh

  9. #9
    Nifty
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    68
    World
    Northisle
    Quote Originally Posted by AlienQueen View Post
    +1

    Just make sure that BB keep the 'adventure difficulty randomness' within reason, don't want to start an adventure and then find out I haven't got enough of correct troops to complete it. Also maybe randomise the loot more than now, update current possible loot tables on most adventures and spring a few surprises....the 'unknown' factor could make things interesting and fresh
    Thus the semi-random. What I'm thinking is that each camp would have a certain area where it's placed to, randomly. And those areas overlap. For the troops, there would be a budget, say a hard camp would have 700-1500 unit points worth of enemies. Which types and how many would be random, as long as their total internal magic value was 700-1500. If you got lucky, it would be 700 points of some easy-to-kill units. Or a really bad setup that'd cost so much you really don't have troops for it, so you'd have to avoid that camp altogether, or train more, or worst case scenario: fail the adventure and hope for better luck next time. Ever failed one? Me neither. Failing isn't a problem if reward matches the risk. Difference is, good player would be able to assess the adventure and choose to abandon it right away, instead of losing a whole army and then failing anyway. Part of difficulty.

  10. #10
    Ruler of the Land
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    2,854
    World
    Sandycove
    The fact that they have put up this survey and the basic kinds of questions it asks shows us that little or no progress on PvP has been made. This survey should have been made when BB first announced that PvP was on the road map a year or so ago.
    When it comes to Gene pools and shallow ends they can be found at the bar drinking pina colada's

Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Help with my Survey
    By BAAAHHHHHJJJAAA in forum Off-Topic & Small Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19.04.15, 17:18
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06.06.14, 08:41
  3. TSO Survey...
    By Ekonomista in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 19.07.13, 19:10
  4. [Survey] TSO Feedback Questionnaire
    By BB_Alpaca in forum News & Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12.07.13, 07:47
  5. Four Winds Quest Survey
    By Cinoche in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 21.03.13, 09:21

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Ubisoft uses cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our websites. By continuing to use this site you agree to accept these cookies. More info on our privacy.