Changes to DNSL feedback.

dpghost

Active Member
Now it sounds better Stephen, we have indeed made progress
I do recall that when Captain Cook reached New Zealand in 1796, he reported the taboo's that prohibited the Maori population to efficiently defend their independence. Consequently around 1840 Brittain transformed New Zealand into a colony.
Now I wonder if we can talk - why not be able to rally a call for a vote?
In the end, we all are free people gathered here because of our desire to play the game.
Ignoring our desire - if it's shared by a lot of players - will render the game less entertaining for all of us
So why not state that in the past the issue was examined by the forum members, failed to get support and abandoned for lack of support
If it has support, popular support, then it has its merits and the proposal should be presented to the game developers.
pure democracy at work, lol
 

xivarmy

Well-Known Member
Now it sounds better Stephen, we have indeed made progress
I do recall that when Captain Cook reached New Zealand in 1796, he reported the taboo's that prohibited the Maori population to efficiently defend their independence. Consequently around 1840 Brittain transformed New Zealand into a colony.
Now I wonder if we can talk - why not be able to rally a call for a vote?
In the end, we all are free people gathered here because of our desire to play the game.
Ignoring our desire - if it's shared by a lot of players - will render the game less entertaining for all of us
So why not state that in the past the issue was examined by the forum members, failed to get support and abandoned for lack of support
If it has support, popular support, then it has its merits and the proposal should be presented to the game developers.
pure democracy at work, lol
There's actually a case to be made for 'players don't know what they want' - and a lot of the problems with the game today are explicitly from giving players what they want ;)

Players tend to want progress, things to make them stronger.

But if they're stronger that makes existing content too easy for them.

Which means new content is needed which takes development hours.

Which they'll then complain if it's not sufficiently rewarding.

And the majority will also complain if they feel blocked from accessing it because it's 'too hard'.

Which tends to mean new content isn't challenging either (GE4 is the only time in recent history they attempted to cater to the 'not everyone is expected to be able to do this' crowd - and by now that crowd has GE4 on farm by one means or another and is bored and unimpressed with it for the most part).

As such it's the role of the developer to as much as possible give the illusion of progress without actually giving progress and to give content that feels like it's challenging, even though it's not. Not that inno has done a particularly good job of that. Their illusions have been paper-thin when they've tried to create them and then they cave and give real progress for trivially easy content.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Which tends to mean new content isn't challenging either (GE4 is the only time in recent history they attempted to cater to the 'not everyone is expected to be able to do this' crowd - and by now that crowd has GE4 on farm by one means or another and is bored and unimpressed with it for the most part).
I think they need to find more ways of making the competition difficult instead of just buffs. I think introducing new types of terrain, new enemy-only units and abilities, or dynamic terrain (the combat map is changed during the battle with obstacles thrown in the players way) can achieve this.

I've been wanting a GE5 for some time now... But I can see the problem in introducing it. Hard to provide a challenge that is a challenge while being feasible to everyone and not just those who've managed to stack ungodly amounts of attack boost. One way might be to have the condition that in GE5, your combat bonuses are removed as a condition for playing- making it a purely skill-based challenge.
 

Clara Osgood

Well-Known Member
DNSL still only has "bringing computer functions to mobile". I think it should also include "bringing mobile functions to computer devices".

Every so often such a proposal is made regarding that latter situation. But the same reasoning always given for computer-to-mobile not being allowed for proposals -- that it should be assumed Inno is working on equalizing the two platforms' features/etc wherever technically feasible -- does apply equally for mobile-to-computer.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Well-Known Member
DNSL still only has "bringing computer functions to mobile". I think it should also include "bringing mobile functions to computer devices".
I don't disagree with you. However, as merely a ground level mod I can't just make up rules because I think they should be there. I mean, I'd like to, but I'm sure there are a significant number of players that wouldn't be happy with what I might come up with. ;)
 

Emberguard

Senior Ingame Moderator
I don't disagree with you. However, as merely a ground level mod I can't just make up rules because I think they should be there. I mean, I'd like to, but I'm sure there are a significant number of players that wouldn't be happy with what I might come up with. ;)
xD

Everyone must give Steph 1 FP a day ;D mwahahaha


On a serious note though, yeah I’m sure what you (or me, agent, Algona, etc) consider balanced a lot of players wouldn’t want to be a dnsl rule
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
you (or me, agent, Algona, etc)
Hey! I resmble that remark! I want you to know that I have been recently addressed as a VIP right here in these forums. If it hadn't been tucker doing so, I'd let it go to my head...

Always kind of considered myself more of a VMP. Very Mediocre Poster. Although I may be kidding my self. Delusions of mediocrity?

Anyway, I'm fine with the rules as is. For now. After SLs upcoming coup d'etat, we'll see.

Viva la revolucion!