actually , 3 people lvl 50 give up the game for a while because of the barracks system ,and we haven t seen them for weeks now and i think they are gone, sad really
actually , 3 people lvl 50 give up the game for a while because of the barracks system ,and we haven t seen them for weeks now and i think they are gone, sad really
if BB can t realise it s a big issue , and it does actually spoil the pleasure for players to play the game , what the point to play , i m downloading a game at the moment, if i m happy with it that is where my time and money will go, they change the bookbinder system , witch wasn t a big issue really, but still nothing for the barracks, not even a word from BB to let us know what they intend to do about the barracks, fix that awfull system , it should have been done ages ago when you introduce the epics adventures
+1 but i think you should be allowed to build any number of units as long as you have the population and resources available.
However instead of doing everything as a massive stack which you can't cancel once its started, give players the option for creating multiple stacks... ie if you want 1000 recruits, choose 40 stacks of 25 recruits and if circumstances or needs change, you can cancel the remaining stacks easily and prioritise the units needed most.
Same goes for the normal and rare provision house and trade office.
Negative: I shouldn't have to pay to avoid RSI.Originally Posted by Loki_cz
Should simply be available to everyone in the game for free.
+ Significantly more happy players
+ More people willing to do adventures losing tons of troops
+ More engagement of players
+ More chance engaged players will actually spend gems
- BB can't laugh at all of those idiots who consider clicking 80 times "Recruit-25-OK" and then 100 times "Bowman-25-OK" for a single fairytale adventure to be "entertainment".
+1!! just queued up 2k rec and now my wrist is killing me !
Here are some thoughts on WHY they didn't implement this most useful thing, despite being over a year since this thread started.
1) The more time you spend in the game, the more you're tempted to spend money in it. The time spent in making troops in stacks of 25, while not entertaining, accomplishes the goal above. It's a bad policy, however, to force people to spend more time doing menial tasks than being, well, entertained by your product.
2) The game has a huge span of age-groups to cater for. While the more experienced find practical solutions far more valuable, younger players do like the "brand-new-shiny-<building, resource, skill, whatever>". The younger players, despite usually not making any money on their own, can nag those that are responsible (i.e. parents) to death to spend just a few bucks to get that shiny and usually not that practical, new item. I'd even suggest that a significant portion of BB income from this game, belongs to this age group. The problem with catering to this age group is that they usually don't stay around for long, especially due to the fact that this game does not grant immediate satisfaction and can be quite demanding on a child / teen to learn everything and get enjoyment out of it. There are no gory scenes or ships exploding, after all. It's like speculative capital: it's there if the interests are great, but goes for greener pastures as soon as better offers arise.
3) That being said, BB, like everyone else, go for what is most profitable. If they haven't implemented this feature yet, which they obviously can but don't, is because they feel that their time and investment is best spent elsewhere - designing shining brand new thingies for example. I don't think this is a good policy as it goes counter to what the game actually is - designing efficient production chains, time planning, optimal building placement, etc. But that is my opinion. What age group they cater for is part of their business plan, we can only be sad that some are getting far more attention than others.
Ultimately folks, there is no such thing as a free lunch; they have to pay their bills too. If the older players were to represent a bigger slice of what they earn I'm positive this feature would be implemented, pronto.
so much text typed on it - BB a lot of us want this, please just tell us if it is possible and that you are considering it?
I just tested a program called MouseController which will record mouse movements and clicks. I recorded the movements of one set of 25 recruits to be made, set the repeat to the desired amount 10x in my case and sat back and watched the automated magic. Maybe BB will frown upon this but it's an idea that i thought i would look into that saves your hand/wrist from RSI after reading some of the posts here.
I think this is just another proof that the developers do not in fact play this game themselves. The current design is just frustrating and nothing else and if you design a game to frustrate your players, then you are doing it wrong. Increasing the overall stack size to 100, 250, 500 or 1000 would have no negative effects at all. It does not in any way interfere with the business model. It's just laziness.
It's time they spent some time on quality of life improvements because that's just as important as new content to keep people playing and that's what the aim is, to keep people playing.
The feature where you can put loot and similar things directly to storage instead of the star is a great example of a quality of life improvement. It reduced some unnecessarily tedious work which made the game better. So please make this the next big feature. The more high level players you get, the more important it gets.
they have completely ignored it for so long it must be business model thing.
probably something absolutely ridiculous like hurrying for gems which does not have any reasonable tie to stack size.
or maybe in a year they gonna come out with rarity barracks costing million gems and until then we can just sod off
Was fighting windmills from Aug 2012 to Oct 2019.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote