Oceanic Future- Part 3 Feedback

[DeletedUser4770]

Thank you for your comments. I've passed along your feedback. We appreciate you taking the time to write us with your thoughts and concerns.

 

[ITown]

@ITown
In your following post, you illustrated that your 1 manta, 7 rogue army handily beat the 8 Eels they went up against.

And if I had used 8 mantas against 8 eels (rather than using 7 rogues), I would have lost all 8 units, even though my units had greater boosts. Why? Because 4 would be dead before I could deal any damage to the eels.

What's with your obsession with mantas anyway? Are you finding them really strong? Post some screenshots!

 

[terrymur2]

LAND !
We NEED the Availability of Gaining more Land.
What good are all these different ways of gaining new "things" (products, houses, military, cultural buildings, decorations
and GE rewards if I can not add them because I have no land or no way of getting more land ?
Can I trade my 31 Urban Houses, 10 Tribal squares or or my 8 fishing huts etc....)
Pleas let's keep the game growing or it gets boring just tending to the daily requirements of the game.

 

[terrymur2]

The oceanic expansion has so many flaws with advancing, military units and requirements that either players that are in that era are looking to go backwards since it is better or the next era needs to come out quickly to improve the game. At this point, the game has really ended at the Future age. the arctic and oceanic futures are poor at best and not worth the time to play. unfortunately many players have devoted significant amounts of time and resources to get to this point, they hope the next age will be better, only to be disappointed... again.
Items that need to be improved:
Military units: some will argue but I find myself using and beating most AF and OF battles with FA units. Why are units several ages older better than the advanced units? this is a Game Design flaw. The initial response on the latest OF unit Manta is again, poor at best.
Look at the different ages and the percentage of attack / defense increase of a unit from age to age. the last two ages, the units are not gaining a proportionate increase from the previous age making the OF units weak compared to units from 2 ages prior.
Technology advancing: Many of the OF advances require goods from 1 or 2 ages prior. when in the advanced ages, goods are made from goods of 3 ages back. by OF, this is several ages to build up to. Many of the goods are acquired through rewards or the made from unrefined goods that are from great buildings. To get the correct unrefined goods, would require 3 separate goods buildings so to produce one type of good would require 4 goods buildings (assuming you have the boost for each of the 4 building types). To get the previous era goods, you no longer have rewards giving you unrefined goods making the ability to make the goods significantly more difficult.
The other way to get goods is by trading. Up to future age, trading down is relatively easy. the higher age goods are typically worth more so to find trades is easy. With AF and OF, the demand for the goods is not there. Fewer players are in these ages, the great buildings needing the goods to be built are not that good (again, little demand) and the GvG does not need these goods so there is an unbalanced surplus of AF and OF goods. I am finding it hard to get Trades for FE goods when I offer 2 OF to get 1 FE good.
Another draw back in the technology advancing is the rewards are also getting worse. A mandatory quest to keep the tree going and the reward is only an avatar... this is just wasting time and/or lack of creativity.
The last 2 ages are long and drawn out with no good rewards in these ages, so why should a player keep playing when the last 3rd of the game is lame?

What needs to be fixed: A new age that has:
1) Better military units than the 3 ages below it. there needs to be a balance between each of the units within the same era, but not a balance for the era's below it (that is why it is a technology advancement).
2) Technology tree that has buildings and rewards that are worth getting (having avatars as a 2nd item or reward is fine). Also have the cost of the tech items within reason with relation goods (previous and current era's, although with the last few era,s there is a surplus so they might be abundant).
3) Goods buildings that help the later age players and have a desirable advancement or advantage.
4) Create a demand for the goods of the new era. The GvG area has created a demand for goods that stops as the Future... a new demand for goods needs to be created (demand for the player or the guild does not matter, but there needs to be the demand).
5) MOST IMPORTANT !!!! A reason or goal for a player in the advance ages to want to keep playing (a new avatar is NOT it).

 

[terrymur2]

LAND !
MORE AVAILABLE LAND
That's what we need most

 

[qaccy]

And if I had used 8 mantas against 8 eels (rather than using 7 rogues), I would have lost all 8 units, even though my units had greater boosts. Why? Because 4 would be dead before I could deal any damage to the eels.

What's with your obsession with mantas anyway? Are you finding them really strong? Post some screenshots!

As I pointed out, you were being biased. Against 8 eels, that '4 would be dead' argument applies to pretty much any 8-unit army because when it comes to GE boosts, an enemy unit in OF can take out just about any of your units in 2 shots unless they're armored or stealthed. What this means is that any unit you use against 8 eels you're liable to lose 4 of in the first round, with the exception of armored units. So I'll ask, how is 8 mantas any worse than 8 of any other unit in this regard? They actually stand the best chance of surviving two hits. Heck, even as one of your screenshots indicates, some of your transformed rogues only display as having taken as little as 2 damage which means that eels don't even reliably two- or even three-shot them. In this light, your claim that 4 would be dead in the first round is almost blatantly false.

Basically, I maintain that you're not being objective and arguing against biased subjective claims is almost certainly a waste of my time. You just want to keep saying that they're bad because 'you think' they are, not because you have any actual evidence to support it. And I'm sorry, but a single manta dying in an army alongside 7 rogues is not indicative of anything beyond the AI prioritizing attacks on the first unit to move after all the rogues are transformed.

 

[ITown]

As I pointed out, you were being biased. Against 8 eels, that '4 would be dead' argument applies to pretty much any 8-unit army because when it comes to GE boosts, an enemy unit in OF can take out just about any of your units in 2 shots unless they're armored or stealthed. What this means is that any unit you use against 8 eels you're liable to lose 4 of in the first round, with the exception of armored units. So I'll ask, how is 8 mantas any worse than 8 of any other unit in this regard? They actually stand the best chance of surviving two hits. Heck, even as one of your screenshots indicates, some of your transformed rogues only display as having taken as little as 2 damage which means that eels don't even reliably two- or even three-shot them. In this light, your claim that 4 would be dead in the first round is almost blatantly false.

Basically, I maintain that you're not being objective and arguing against biased subjective claims is almost certainly a waste of my time. You just want to keep saying that they're bad because 'you think' they are, not because you have any actual evidence to support it. And I'm sorry, but a single manta dying in an army alongside 7 rogues is not indicative of anything beyond the AI prioritizing attacks on the first unit to move after all the rogues are transformed.

Well, let's see. The difference between mantas and turturrets/sub cruisers is mantas are supposed to beat Eels, while artillery and ranged are supposed to lose. Yet sub cruisers will deal more damage to Eels than mantas will.
CRABs, meanwhile, have reactive armor which makes eels require 3 hits to kill one.

If you go down an age, battle fortresses & behemoths both outperform mantas (even though they have no bonus against them).

If you go down 2 ages, hover tanks also outperform mantas by a long shot.

 

[Zatrikon]

Probably too late to do anything about this now, but I think the solution for Mantas would be to give them the Flying ability. Then they can't be targeted with the Turturrets (though they can still take splash damage). Both the Mantas and Sub Cruisers *look* like they're flying, but somehow, they're not.

 

[DeletedUser26154]

Both the Mantas and Sub Cruisers *look* like they're flying, but somehow, they're not.

I agree.



It seems the Flyer was skipped for O.F, even though 2 units surely qualify.

 

[DeletedUser26965]

I agree.

View attachment 7605

It seems the Flyer was skipped for O.F, even though 2 units surely qualify.

I believe Sub originally had flying but it got changed due to Beta feedback.

 

[qaccy]

I believe Sub originally had flying but it got changed due to Beta feedback.

Unfortunately, the sub never had the flying ability despite several people trying to get Inno to give it to them.

Manta having it wouldn't make sense because Mantas are supposed to be weak against Turturrets (look at the unit bonuses). This could be adjusted but that's a lot more complicated than simply giving the ability to a unit that's already supposed to be strong against artillery (subs), at least artillery from the same age.

Anyway, Mantas are a fine unit as-is. I can fight my way through 31 out of 32 battles in level 3+4 of GE (these battles never change week-to-week so you can use the same units each time) and I use Mantas in three of those battles. I use subs twice, eels five times, and hovers four times (despite being a fairly 'outdated' unit now, hovers are still a great offensive complement with the rest of the OF units). Turturrets are by far the most useful OF unit, being used in more battles for me than all other OF units combined. Their damage output is simply unmatched in battles where they don't get hard-countered by a flying or stealth unit.

 

[DeletedUser26965]

Unfortunately, the sub never had the flying ability despite several people trying to get Inno to give it to them.

Manta having it wouldn't make sense because Mantas are supposed to be weak against Turturrets (look at the unit bonuses). This could be adjusted but that's a lot more complicated than simply giving the ability to a unit that's already supposed to be strong against artillery (subs), at least artillery from the same age.

Anyway, Mantas are a fine unit as-is. I can fight my way through 31 out of 32 battles in level 3+4 of GE (these battles never change week-to-week so you can use the same units each time) and I use Mantas in three of those battles. I use subs twice, eels five times, and hovers four times (despite being a fairly 'outdated' unit now, hovers are still a great offensive complement with the rest of the OF units). Turturrets are by far the most useful OF unit, being used in more battles for me than all other OF units combined. Their damage output is simply unmatched in battles where they don't get hard-countered by a flying or stealth unit.

Wasn't there one OF unit originally with flying? I could be mistaken and too lazy to look back at the comments.

edit: okay it was Manta that had flying originally, just had em confused
[Feedback] Oceanic Future Part 3

 

[DeletedUser26154]

I can fight my way through 31 out of 32 battles in level 3+4 of GE

I use 8 Hover tanks for Ocean Future G.E. maps.
I stopped using Rogues due to Turturrets using them as targeting anchors.
The last 2 battles of Level 3 OF G.E. are breathtakingly easy with 8 Hover tanks.
Only one unit can see through stealth, the C.R.A.B.s, and Hover tanks have them beat in the range department.



I can do all of G.E. through level 3 without Rogues or Negotiations.