Great Ideas for Great Buildings

[DeletedUser]

Just log in online and I'm on the top 5 of my Colonial hood all the time. If the game is indeed very balanced and I'm a weaker FoE player like what @Algona said, I should be on the bottom half of my Colonial hood, however my Arc defied his well-thought plans.

You're in the top 5 because you've been camped in Colonial for months (at least, according to your posts you have). That's why many of us discount most of what you post here. Almost anyone who camps in a lower age like Colonial that long would be at least top 5 in their hood just from logging in and playing daily. Wouldn't matter if they played well or badly, just that they played consistently. Now, if you were to move up in age occasionally and were still in the top 5 all the time, that might mean something. But if you're spending longer than 6 months in the same lower age, then being top 5 means nothing.

DNSL!!

A) You're not a moderator.
B) This isn't a proposal thread.

 

[Algona]

If the game is indeed very balanced and I'm a weaker FoE player like what @Algona said, I should be on the bottom half of my Colonial hood, however my Arc defied his well-thought plans.

I specifically deny that I said the following:

That you are a weaker player in any post in this thread.

That you should be in the bottom half of your hood.

That this game is very well balanced.

Please don't try to put words in my mouth.

 

[qaccy]

Your argument for adding GBs to CS boils down to saying that because current GBs heavily influence / warp / change game play in most aspects of the game that we should have GBs everywhere.

I can;t even begin to understand the desire to introduce GBs into Cultural Settlements.

As they stand the CS is isolated, it;s just you and the CS, your abilities to plan, remodel, produce versus limited time and limited area. Either you can do it or you can't, it's all on you.

Oh. Wait. Now I get it. I understand why you might want GBs sticking their nose into CS.

Nevermind.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to say that settlements should have some sort of GB bonus related to them, and I didn't think my post came off that way. What I was actually saying was that there isn't really a reason, other than word of Inno, why there can't be a GB that has an effect on settlements someday. Is there a reason you're seemingly so against it that you misinterpreted what I was saying?

 

[Algona]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to say that settlements should have some sort of GB bonus related to them...What I was actually saying was that there isn't really a reason, other than word of Inno, why there can't be a GB that has an effect on settlements someday.

I'm brain damaged. What's the difference?

----------

Why am I against GBs affecting CS?

I don;t like what Arc does to the game. Introducing a GB that directly affects any aspect of the game means Arc will warp that aspect.

Now don't get me wrong! I'm not agitating for INNO to change their game. Even if i don't like something, I do my best to work with or around, or ignore whatever it is. I'm not whining for change, I'm not sniveling about changes INNO makes, but I do reserve the right to not like it. If INNO introduces GBs that affect CS so be it, I'll deal with it. I'm just not a fan of players suggesting INNO introduce such. Fair enough?

Here. whether by design pr by accident we have an aspect of the game that GBs don't directly influence. It's not a major aspect, many players skip CS entirely. But it is an aspect that there are no short cuts for. You wanna get Yggy with it (na-na-nana-na-na!) or have that full blown Shinto Temple you gotta put months of effort into it with no short cuts. Well, aside from Diamonding, but INNO deserves their tithe. Having either or both of those says something good about that player.

Anyway, I like having things that folk can't shortcut, that require clever thinking or perseverance. I'd like to see INNO add more aspects of the game that demonstrate that instead of fewer or none.

Unfortunately for me, I realize that I may be a minority of one in that

That answer your question, qaccy?.

----------

About Arc... Some days it strikes me as the curse that keeps on giving. I've pretty much convinced myself that while I don't like what Arc did to the game, I'm not sure the game could have survived without it. Other days, I'm not sure about that at all. Alternate realities are slippery things.

---------

Meanwhile back on topic: How about a GB that err, ummm, heck, I can't think of anything right now. Glad folk out there have imaginations.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Reverse TA. Gives attack boost to defending army, defense boost to attacking.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

Reverse TA. Gives attack boost to defending army, defense boost to attacking.

TA already gives attack boost to defending army and defense boost to attacking army.

 

[Mustapha00]

TA already gives attack boost to defending army and defense boost to attacking army.

Not only that- which you're absolutely right about- but it's also unnecessary.

Plenty of ways- I'd argue way too many- to boost the ATT and DEF of an Attacking Army; still not enough ways to boost ATT and DEF of Defending Armies.

 

[qaccy]

@Algona Fair enough points. More to what I was getting at, though, was that I don't consider it unreasonable to expect GBs to be able to affect just about anything. As an example, prior to the Progressive Era, players didn't have Alcatraz. This GB has had probably the second-largest impact on the game behind the Arc (though a lot of it since then has been BECAUSE of the Arc). Prior to its release, players had to fight stritctly using barracks and extremely limited units from quests. Fighting had to be a lot more strategic back then, a lot more 'skillful' if you prefer, because units for many players were a lot more valuable, instead of just bullets fired from a near-limitless magazine like they are today.

Consider settlements right now to be like fighting before Alcatraz was released. Now, whether 'before' or 'after' is better is up for debate (anyone else remember caring about terrain bonuses?), but my point is that I don't think anything really is, or should be, off the table regarding GBs. Much like how combat is still a core feature of the game even after Alcatraz, and the game's design has grown to include features which benefit from it, a hypothetical GB that interacts with settlements (or anything else) can do much the same. Imagine if settlements introduced 'recurring quests' that allowed a player to reap additional rewards before marking the settlement as completed, if they had time/chose to do so. Distinct rewards from what is otherwise obtained from the settlements, so it can be an actual choice instead of a cut and dry 'more efficient' non-choice. A settlement GB would allow more of these rewards to be obtained in a way similar to how Alcatraz allows one to participate more in combat and reap whatever rewards come from that. Does it reduce the challenge of settlements if it makes them easier/faster to get through? It does, but you still do have to go through the actions required to play them, much like how Alcatraz doesn't automatically win fights for you.

@Mustapha00 I dunno, I don't think 'more boost' is a good answer anymore, especially in regards to city defense. That arena needs something that can deal with Rogues and more % ain't it. Mortar fills that role for players in OF and VF, but once you get to SAM it's back to the same ol' 'Rogues beat everything' again.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

A GB like CF that increased Settlement quest rewards would be okay with me. Even if it were to apply to the fragments received, but not needed. That's much more preferable than a GB that increased settlement specific resources to make settlement completion faster. To me, the latter messes up the balance of settlements too much.

Such a GB would make it so you ignore settlements until you build and level the GB then fly though all the settlements in half the time. That to me breaks settlements. No thanks.

 

[Super Catanian]

Such a GB would make it so you ignore settlements until you build and level the GB then fly though all the settlements in half the time. That to me breaks settlements. No thanks.

Agreed. As mentioned, Cultural Settlements are something that requires raw player strategy to complete, independent of any other aspects and boosts of the game, except of course, the little Coins, Supplies, and, if you are stupid enough, Diamonds spent to complete them.
Let's keep and maintain the Cultural Settlements' purity and innocence by not adding aspects to make them significantly easier.

 

[Dr. Smite]

Yes. I want the Eiffeltower. A 2x2 GB that gives 50 diamonds on level 1 and 10 more each level. As a second bonus it should give fp's. Also 50 on lvl 1 and 10 more each level.

If this actually became a GB, then Inno Games would run out of buisness.

 

[Dr. Smite]

If this actually became a GB, then Inno Games would run out of buisness.

Imagine they do this as an April fools joke.

 

[Super Catanian]

Imagine they do this as an April fools joke.

They did an April fool's joke in the EN Forum; Changelog 2.0
Will link It soon when I get the chance.

 

[Algona]

my point is that I don't think anything really is, or should be, off the table regarding GBs.

I'm confused by this also. I've gotten the impression you don't like the effects Arc has on the game. Am I wrong on that?

 

[Mustapha00]

If Inno took the nerfbat to Arc, the only question would be, Did they lose ALL of their player base or just the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of it.

Some of you old-timers here might recall that Crystal Villas had some sort of unintended exploit associated with it. Inno discovered the exploit and fixed it, and I distantly remember seeing tons of those "I'll never play again!" messages here on the Forums. No doubt a few did leave, but obviously not enough for Inno to close up shop.

 

[DeletedUser]

If Inno took the nerfbat to Arc, the only question would be, Did they lose ALL of their player base or just the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of it.

The real question is, "Why would players leave a suddenly much better game?"

 

[DeletedUser38368]

The real question is, "Why would players leave a suddenly much better game?"

Because new players would quit?

 

[Sheriff Of Rottingham]

Since we're on Forge Hall and not the proposal forum....

• International Space Station (SA?) passive-Science Breakthrough (reduces research costs in main city and settlements), production-supplies
• Eiffel Tower (IA or Progressive) passive-happiness boost, production-FPs
• Statue of Liberty (IA) passive-pop boost, production-units
• Tower of London (LMA) passive-advanced tactics
• The Forbidden City (CA) passive-coordinated counter-attack (defending units gain attack%), production-guild goods production
• The Vatican including St Peter's square/basilica, and Sistine chapel (CA) passive-happiness, production-FPs
• Sydney Opera House (Progressive) passive-High Property Value (coins AND supplies boost), production-goods production
• One World Trade Center (CE or T) passive-coin boost, production-FPs
• Golden Gate bridge (ME) passive-quest reward boost, production-supplies
• Angkor Wat (HMA) passive-Extra Turn (first x-number of negotiations), production-goods production
• Leaning Tower of Pisa (HMA) production-personal and guild goods production
• Everest Base Camp (ME) passive-High Altitude Defense (defending units gain attack%), production-medals

Note - Edited based on feedback. Change to be passive/production. Added some possible names for the new passives.

 

[DeletedUser37581]

Since we're on Forge Hall and not the proposal forum....

• International Space Station (SA?) primary-reduces research costs, secondary-reduces SETTLEMENT research costs
• Eiffel Tower (IA or Progressive) primary-FP pruduction, secondary-happiness boost
• Statue of Liberty (IA) primary-unit production, secondary-pop boost
• Tower of London (LMA) primary-critical hit, secondary-advanced tactics
• The Forbidden City (CA) primary-guild goods production, secondary-personal goods production
• The Vatican including St Peter's square/basilica, and Sistine chapel (CA) primary-FP production, secondary-happiness boost
• Sydney Opera House (Progressive) primary-coin/prod % boost, secondary-goods production
• One World Trade Center (CE or T) primary-guild goods production, secondary-FP production
• Golden Gate bridge (ME) primary-quest reward boost, secondary-supplies production
• Angkor Wat (HMA) primary-Extra Turn (first x-number of negotiations), secondary-goods production
• Leaning Tower of Pisa (HMA) primary-guild goods production, secondary-personal goods production
• Everest Base Camp (ME) primary-High Altitude Defense (defending units gain attack%)

Interesting list, but GBs don't have primary and secondary bonuses; they have passive and production bonuses. So, for example, your International Space Station is listed with 2 passive bonuses. That won't work. One of those passive bonuses needs to be changed to a production bonus.

 

[Mustapha00]

@Mustapha00 I dunno, I don't think 'more boost' is a good answer anymore, especially in regards to city defense. That arena needs something that can deal with Rogues and more % ain't it. Mortar fills that role for players in OF and VF, but once you get to SAM it's back to the same ol' 'Rogues beat everything' again.

I don't disagree with you at all.

In fact, I have long called for Inno to simply change the City Defense AL to that of the Continent Map AI so as to reduce the chance that your defending units will target Rogues rather than "real units" in an attacking Army.

It seems a rather simple change to make, as the AI is already a part of the game and need not be written from scratch, but I've been told that such a change is "impossible". I suspect the opposition is based more on certain players losing their "Easy Button" rather that on the intricacies of coding. All I can tell you is that almost every single successful attack by other players is by them employing one "real unit" and seven Rogues, moving the "real unit" to the upper left hand corner and sending forth the Rogues.