Increase number of city members

Share your ideas on how to improve Shop Heroes.
Forum rules
Please check other threads before posting a suggestion or providing feedback to make sure that there are no duplicate threads on the same subject. We value your feedback and suggestions and will prioritize those with the most demand, however, please be patient with us as we already have a very packed pipeline for new content delivery. Any feedback that has already been taken into account will result in the thread being locked as further discussions are no longer necessary.
User avatar
Malric
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:16 am

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Malric » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:29 am

I agree with the OP about City limit upgrade for several reasons:

1: Everything the OP said.
2: Keeping chat active with 25 people on a mobile game is not easy.
3: It offsets the increases to cap raids as well as to level city.
(Keep in mind to total offset you'd need to double)
4: It would reduce the number of cities and increase city size.
5: Less pressure to kick under performers that are still learning.
6: Gives some reward for leveling TH to 55, currently I'd have rather locked ours at 50 if possible because there was no benefit to the increase.

I'm not thinking huge, but with the TH level raised I'd have liked to seen the city limit raised by at least 5, 1 more person per level,
As of 03/22/17 - Level 56, 250.29G Net Worth, 551 Blueprints

#CashCade #CashShopHeroes #Re-Balance #Surcharged #EnergeticConspiracy #SupportIsSafe

User avatar
Shiroe
"Legendary" Mastery Member
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:05 am
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Shiroe » Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:32 am

Malric wrote:.4: It would reduce the number of cities and increase city size.

I don't think that's true. The number of cities is high because of the delusion there's a "my" in city...
In other words, other than probably at the top, too many mayors refuse to aknowledge that the mayor's job has more annoyances than perks, so would rather hold on to "their" half-full city than merge with another half-full city to create a full city and maybe lose mayor position.
as of 2016-09-11: Player level: 44, City: Eolythes, Blueprints: 517, Mastered: 419, Crafted: 78.61K
(except for tier 1 and some tier 2 artifacts mostly running my shop/gearing self sufficient)

User avatar
Malric
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:16 am

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Malric » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:21 am

Shiroe wrote:
Malric wrote:.4: It would reduce the number of cities and increase city size.

I don't think that's true. The number of cities is high because of the delusion there's a "my" in city...
In other words, other than probably at the top, too many mayors refuse to aknowledge that the mayor's job has more annoyances than perks, so would rather hold on to "their" half-full city than merge with another half-full city to create a full city and maybe lose mayor position.


Well regardless, if you took had a 20% increase in city size from 25 to 30 that would remove all of those players from other cities. I think a lot would consolidate or at the very least reduce more from being created. The game's population won't change because of this, just the working room cities have. Even with bigger cities it gives more room to kick inactives with less fear over their lost contributions downgrading the city.

I personally think 25 is very small for a game like this. Especially being primarily mobile were most people aren't just sitting on the game.
(maybe partially because of battery drain lol)

I also thing the raid burden of one person's "fair share" being 1200 is too much for a mobile platform and while for some cities that's pretty easy I know for most it's not which greatly hurts lower cities ability to retain members. I'd more suggest better rewards for cities doing endless raids than raising the completion burden. Even at 30 players the burden is still 1000 per player. Pretty extreme for a mobile game.
As of 03/22/17 - Level 56, 250.29G Net Worth, 551 Blueprints

#CashCade #CashShopHeroes #Re-Balance #Surcharged #EnergeticConspiracy #SupportIsSafe

User avatar
Shiroe
"Legendary" Mastery Member
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:05 am
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Shiroe » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:27 pm

You don't have to scroll too far down (about 200-250 networth) to get about a 50-50 split of 24-25 and 23 and below inhabitant cities.
My guess would be that bumping city size to 30 would probably move that 50-50 point up to something like the 150-200 range, give 200-250 even more 15-19 inhabitant cities than is has now etc. If 200-250 can't manage to get better than about 50% "full-ish" rate, why do you think ranges like 200-250 and 150-200 would do any better at consolidating once the top starts grabbing away 5 extra people per top city from those below them?
More empty spaces, newbies and retained dead accounts (as long as a city isn't over-maxed, a 3-month-dead account is better than an empty spot) seems more likely for those not at the top in that case.

I would rather have them add some kind of decent in-game "cities looking for players/players looking for cities/cities looking for merger" advertising so more cities can be filled with 24-25 actives than bump up city size to 30.

Also: raiding on the phone would seem easier than for ex. on Steam to me. You can get a notification on your phone when the heroes get back from raid, can quickly log in over wifi or mobile data, re-send them and log out again, while for Steam you either need to checkin at the right time to a fixed location (desktop) or at best need to find wifi then (laptop). (tablet would be similar to laptop, though lighter, but with the option of notifications)
as of 2016-09-11: Player level: 44, City: Eolythes, Blueprints: 517, Mastered: 419, Crafted: 78.61K
(except for tier 1 and some tier 2 artifacts mostly running my shop/gearing self sufficient)

internetz
"Great" Mastery Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 1:22 pm

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby internetz » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:30 pm

every tablet i've tried with this game chokes when it tries to allocate a gig of ram to the game... you're lucky if the keyboard doesn't crash everytime you try to say anything in chat :/

User avatar
Malric
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:16 am

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Malric » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:41 am

Shiroe wrote:You don't have to scroll too far down (about 200-250 networth) to get about a 50-50 split of 24-25 and 23 and below inhabitant cities.
My guess would be that bumping city size to 30 would probably move that 50-50 point up to something like the 150-200 range, give 200-250 even more 15-19 inhabitant cities than is has now etc. If 200-250 can't manage to get better than about 50% "full-ish" rate, why do you think ranges like 200-250 and 150-200 would do any better at consolidating once the top starts grabbing away 5 extra people per top city from those below them?
More empty spaces, newbies and retained dead accounts (as long as a city isn't over-maxed, a 3-month-dead account is better than an empty spot) seems more likely for those not at the top in that case.


You totally disregard that most of those cities are dead. You think those are actual cities with people playing in them? I've surfed those looking for players to recruit. Most of those cities are entire groups of people that have gone inactive and if you're lucky scrolling through the cities you find ones here and there that have one or two decent people you can recruit.

Of the ones that are 20-25 members and active. Have you seen the amount of people going inactive lately? The amount of cities lowering their recruiting requirements and accepting members they never would have before? We went through an entire raid with 21 people because we couldn't find halfway decent replacements and we're a max city that completes raids and has more than 70% of the upgrades in the game. I would bet many of those cities are just trying to replace turnover.

Besides all that not having your city at max members is totally normal! Do you have any idea how many or even what percentage of games that your average city/guild/clan/what ever is not full? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's part of the job of leading to fill their groups and succeeding at that is a mark of successful leadership. Most full scale MMOs have insanely high limits on guild sizes like 50-100 and more. Some don't even have limits, at least that the players reach.

In reality this game is backwards compared to many games. I'll use a game I used to play "Aion" as an example but most games are along these lines. The top league on our server was Clarity, they were probably the only top raiding league on our server that was always full, especially with their requirements. Most of the high end leagues maintained 50-80% capacity where there were plenty of lower ones with lower requirements that were full. The goal of most top leagues was to be like Clarity, however of course with their own "better less elitist" (as they would put it) theme. Most other leagues just had to have more people to even fall in line. **Yes, I had to edit and put the word "league" in there to replace the fact that I kept putting "city"... and they don't call them that.**

Having your city full with all active players which have to put in a vacation request before they can take a weekend off so that every one of them can do an extremely good job during a raid or the entire city suffers is not where the baseline should be. I personally would like to be able to ease some of the load off the top players in our city without having to tell our lower members to step up faster or get out but for some of these less developed cities that's the difference between them being viable at all.

Shiroe wrote:I would rather have them add some kind of decent in-game "cities looking for players/players looking for cities/cities looking for merger" advertising so more cities can be filled with 24-25 actives than bump up city size to 30.


With 25 people there really isn't very many viable "city mergers" and when there are there's always displaced citizens that aren't even inactive. I was in your city during the merger, many perfectly active players got kicked simply because they were weaker links and there wasn't nearly enough room. If you had real mergers without losses it would have to be what 13 players in one city and 12 in another? If that's the case then they're both probably dead. If it's a city with 3 people left and an almost full city making room for them that's not a merger, that's cannibalizing a dead city. I would rather have real city mergers where two cities combine to make one big city than the merger like we had where the top players from one city make room for the top players from another city where basically one city is kicking people and the other is abandoning them.

Having a system to make it easier for higher cities to cherry pick members from lower ones to the contrary makes the problem even worse. It would take a messed up situation for developing cities and make it even more messed up from them. I'm sure being in a higher city when you hace someone go inactive you'd love to have an easier time pulling someone from another city but if you look at the OP's plights (which clearly you're not) and the reasoning behind this you're basically saying "Well fixing your problem doesn't help me, I'd rather have them make my problem easier even if in the end it will make your problem worse".

Ability to recruit and city viability are not even related issues. With developing cities struggling to be viable and losing members to rapid vacancies in higher cities what you suggest is like saying instead of helping make cities that are not top cities viable, we should just help the top cities finish you off.

Shiroe wrote:Also: raiding on the phone would seem easier than for ex. on Steam to me. You can get a notification on your phone when the heroes get back from raid, can quickly log in over wifi or mobile data, re-send them and log out again, while for Steam you either need to checkin at the right time to a fixed location (desktop) or at best need to find wifi then (laptop). (tablet would be similar to laptop, though lighter, but with the option of notifications)


You are making an assumption that players who are strictly playing a game on their phone are anything like players on platforms like steam and that assumption is not remotely true. Most people who play mobile only games are not even really hard core gamers. Many of them have several mobile games they bounce around between during breaks in their day and a lot of them don't even log on every day. While there are many in every game, this included, more devoted hard core players, we are not the majority. This is why there's so much turnover because of raid requirements. We just make up the largest "active presence" in the game. We're the ones in chat every day, on the forums, playing every day. The rest are logging in the background here & there.

Gaming, especially this one eats battery life in a world where people are mobile and depend on their phone for almost everything. This game's app notifications in the background with their facebook notifications, reminders, advertisements from free apps, and the 10 other free game's they're playing also sending them is not going to make them suddenly a better raider than someone on steam.

People on steam are "on the game". That is what we're doing. We don't need a notification, we see things happen right in front of us. Even if we're doing other things too we tab back and look at the game so often we're anticipating what's going to happen and don't need to be told. I would be willing to bet money the most active players logged in "mobile" on here are using bluestacks.

Just like me, you are a top 1%er in this game. The biggest problem 1%ers have is the realization that they are the exception, not the rule. Top cities/guilds/clans/etc. in any game are formed when groups of 1%ers decide they want to only play with others like them. They usually in reality end up competing for the top 10% of players and the "best of the best" usually are the ones that achieve a full team of 1%ers. Their plights are not the plights of the rest of the game and the reality is that when you try to cater to them you usually end up ruining the game for everyone.

There's quite a few cities that have single members that can complete the raid. Would that mean we should lower the city size? No, because that would just exclude even more people.

Raising the city limit isn't about cities like yours or mine, (yes, I know it's extreme, a problem in the game that the solution will not benefit the top 10% at all) it's about the many, many, many cities like the OPs that are active, trying to grow, and struggling to meet all these new limits in the game while top cities cherry pick their members so easily because they can't compete. You may not "need" more than 25 people to accomplish your goals but when you have level 35's that won't join a city unless the castle is max and they're completing raids while on the other side you've got a level 40 fairly active player that not one of the 10 recruiters spamming in chat will touch him because he says he's more casual and only gets about 300 raid points a week that's a sign of a problem in city structure. Not everyone in every city should have to be a 1200+ raider or stop playing the game. That is the result of catering to the top 10% too much and I would bet is contributing to the vast amounts of people going inactive and quitting. If cities like the OPs can't become viable and it's either hardcore or quit then well, that's not going to work out good for anyone because players like us won't be the top 10% or 1%, we'll be all that's left.
As of 03/22/17 - Level 56, 250.29G Net Worth, 551 Blueprints

#CashCade #CashShopHeroes #Re-Balance #Surcharged #EnergeticConspiracy #SupportIsSafe

User avatar
Shiroe
"Legendary" Mastery Member
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:05 am
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Shiroe » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:38 am

Malric wrote:Having a system to make it easier for higher cities to cherry pick members from lower ones to the contrary makes the problem even worse. It would take a messed up situation for developing cities and make it even more messed up from them. I'm sure being in a higher city when you hace someone go inactive you'd love to have an easier time pulling someone from another city but if you look at the OP's plights (which clearly you're not) and the reasoning behind this you're basically saying "Well fixing your problem doesn't help me, I'd rather have them make my problem easier even if in the end it will make your problem worse".

Because cities are mostly just investment containers, "developing cities" haven't really existed much, even from the start. The structure of the combined cities has mostly resembled a building with floors. A player jumping up a floor [to a higher city] happens way, way more often than a city as a whole jumping up a floor to a higher category of cities. I wouldn't be surprised if a city falling down a floor because of a rank S/A player leaving actually happens at least as often as a city going up a floor. If a new sub-top city appears, it's probably more likely to be the result of a 100+G investment player leaving a top city to make his/her own city than a city growing up to sub-top from below.
tl;dr: the whole city setup isn't designed for city progress.

Ability to recruit and city viability are not even related issues. With developing cities struggling to be viable and losing members to rapid vacancies in higher cities what you suggest is like saying instead of helping make cities that are not top cities viable, we should just help the top cities finish you off.

No. I'm saying bigger city size would finish them off, since top cities would need to canabalize them harder.

Shiroe wrote:Also: raiding on the phone would seem easier than for ex. on Steam to me. You can get a notification on your phone when the heroes get back from raid, can quickly log in over wifi or mobile data, re-send them and log out again, while for Steam you either need to checkin at the right time to a fixed location (desktop) or at best need to find wifi then (laptop). (tablet would be similar to laptop, though lighter, but with the option of notifications)

You are making an assumption that players who are strictly playing a game on their phone are anything like players on platforms like steam and that assumption is not remotely true.
.
.
.
People on steam are "on the game". That is what we're doing. We don't need a notification, we see things happen right in front of us. Even if we're doing other things too we tab back and look at the game so often we're anticipating what's going to happen and don't need to be told.

And you're assuming things too... My Steam Shop Heroes constantly falls into "you've been logged out for inactivity" because of being too busy with other stuff. I guess you were talking about the even smaller percentage of people that have the time etc. to do things like tradehouse sniping?

Just like me, you are a top 1%er in this game. The biggest problem 1%ers have is the realization that they are the exception, not the rule. Top cities/guilds/clans/etc. in any game are formed when groups of 1%ers decide they want to only play with others like them. They usually in reality end up competing for the top 10% of players and the "best of the best" usually are the ones that achieve a full team of 1%ers. Their plights are not the plights of the rest of the game and the reality is that when you try to cater to them you usually end up ruining the game for everyone.

rank 1873 networth after 1 1/2 years of play: no where near "1%", rank 141 item discovery: might be "1%", but mostly through mastery, not chest blueprints owned...

There's quite a few cities that have single members that can complete the raid. Would that mean we should lower the city size? No, because that would just exclude even more people.

Nope, they added 15000 extra drops for those people to have a tiny bit of a challenge. Other than tradehouse prices of shards and horns dropping like a brick, the new raid levels haven't changed it greatly for lower cities that raid. (blueprint/primal chest stayed at milestone 25/15000 drops)

Raising the city limit isn't about cities like yours or mine, (yes, I know it's extreme, a problem in the game that the solution will not benefit the top 10% at all) it's about the many, many, many cities like the OPs that are active, trying to grow, and struggling to meet all these new limits in the game while top cities cherry pick their members so easily because they can't compete. You may not "need" more than 25 people to accomplish your goals but when you have level 35's that won't join a city unless the castle is max and they're completing raids while on the other side you've got a level 40 fairly active player that not one of the 10 recruiters spamming in chat will touch him because he says he's more casual and only gets about 300 raid points a week that's a sign of a problem in city structure. Not everyone in every city should have to be a 1200+ raider or stop playing the game. That is the result of catering to the top 10% too much and I would bet is contributing to the vast amounts of people going inactive and quitting. If cities like the OPs can't become viable and it's either hardcore or quit then well, that's not going to work out good for anyone because players like us won't be the top 10% or 1%, we'll be all that's left.


- if everybody gets to finish all raid rewards each week, there's nothing to strive for for anyone (should we have world championships with 150+ countries participating instead of wittling it down to 32-64 left after regionals first?)
- tell those level 35s they are idiots, since the last 5 raid milestones won't unlock for them until they are lvl 37/39/41/43/45 (spreadsheet lists 4 of those, so I inferred the 5th), so maxed castle is pointless to them.
- my lvl 28(?) authorised alt did I think 362 raid drops last weekend, which is with only legendary Lion Boots as skilled item, 3 teams at medium difficulty, downtime for crafting replacement items for those that broke and questing the artifacts needed for those, probably allowing me to send out the heroes on raid 3-4 times per day. I'd expect a casual level 40 to be farther along than an alt that other than on weekends I maybe login once or twice a day. Even with just "0%" epics, a level 40 player should be able to send 3-4 teams to "hard" raid, allowing them to get 150+ drops per run of 4 teams, so assuming no upgraded quest slots, that would be 4 logins during a 72 hour raid to send and rest the teams to get 300 drops.
- to be blunt, part of the quitting after the december patch is probably people that only made it past the first week because the playerbase had pushed average gameplay speed way beyond the speed Cloudcade intended, using things like key flipping etc. (my alt is saving up for a shop size upgrade. At the same time it's doing a furniture upgrade now and then (without town hall boosts). Progress towards the size upgrade is maybe 10M/week for it (50% crafts are break replacement, 50% are to sell to customers), which for me is acceptable, but I'd guess is too slow a game for plenty.)
Maybe the game should have a "warning: don't download if you don't like progress grinding!" label at the stores... :roll:
as of 2016-09-11: Player level: 44, City: Eolythes, Blueprints: 517, Mastered: 419, Crafted: 78.61K
(except for tier 1 and some tier 2 artifacts mostly running my shop/gearing self sufficient)

User avatar
Malric
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:16 am

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Malric » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:58 pm

Shiroe wrote:The post above.


Wow, I just wrote this long post, a really good one, then clicked submit and it brought me back to the login page and deleted all of it... (ugh so frustrating, I was on a roll)

When you play an online game it's about doing what others are doing. The main focus of the game, the shiny things that pop up that everyone in chat is talking about, that's the standard day to day game play and yes, everyone should be able to do that. If they want to add something that's purpose is to present a challenge to end game players they should add something separate that is only accessible to end game players.

Cities are essentially guilds/leagues/etc. They are groups of people that play together. The system as of now is broken and the concept is distorted so that players have no real clear image of the developers intent. Frankly it's chaotic and I can not say confidently the developers even know their intent anymore, thus it's not really expressed in game. I seriously doubt however that their intent was every time a group of people gets together, starts working towards unlocking crown rewards, and gets some momentum that their higher level players leave to join higher ranking cities and watch the rest of the city crumble beneath them.

I would bet your average player is closer to your alt than anything but even in that they do not possess nearly your game knowledge so even your alt is beyond most of them. This is a 90/9/1 game yet at it's current state it is very much join the top 10% or quit. To be blunt, the players are quitting now because low level play sucks, it's boring, frustrating and the only community event in the game has become only about the high rank high level cities. If you're not paying there is little viable way for a new F2P player to find stable progress. Imagine you're in your teens or 20's, trying to build and unlock. You do as the game says, join a city, listen to players and even join one your own level. Then you log in one day, the highest level in your city just split because he's now high enough level to benefit from stuff your city can't provide. Suddenly because they left your heroes are locked so some of them you can't even use, some of your workers now can't level. You feel like your progress has been destroyed by your city so you go to WC and try to look for a better one where basically you're ignored because you have no idea how to hit 1200+ raid points in a game where you just learned what raiding is and don't even have gear on half your heroes yet. Things like this are destructive not just to a city, but to maintaining the player base. People quite games over less than this sort of thing all day long because there is a million other games out there that they can progress in and feel like they're getting somewhere. So yes, unlocking the "potential" in every city is 100% something EVERY city should be able to do reasonably. Since the majority can't do that with their existing members, they should be able to have more members.

You can't fairly compare players like you or me to 90% of people coming into the game and despite any damage it does to the ego of a veteran player the new players coming into a game are the life of the game and far more vital than keeping them happy. You lose new players your game is dead, period. Their impression is far more important than that of a player that's already been playing for years.

Increased rapid progression through lower levels is a natural part of ANY MMO's development and always happens with age. I've seen you mention this like it's a problem many times but there's not a dang thing wrong with players getting through lower levels now faster than they did before when the game was new. In fact, most games promote it since most of their development eventually goes to creating new end game content that they want players to be able to experience. People measure reasonable progress as the time it takes to get from point A (the start) to point B (the destination). If my game has X amount of content and I want to experience that content how long will it take me. Now during that time they will develop more content, which I will then strive to achieve. A new player coming in should NEVER be expected to take the same time it took a long playing vet to get there, EVER. Imagine how ridiculous that would look 5 years from now... One high ranking vet city left in the game with players telling people in WC about content that if they stick with the game they'll experience in 6 or 7 years? How bad of a concept is that? The developers would be basically only updating the game for them and as they eventually die off they'd have no reason to develop anymore because no one would be in the game that's gotten that far.

When I first played WoW back in the day it took me a year to get to the level cap of 60. I was the leader of the biggest raiding guild on Shadowsong and we used to have a guild fund to save money to help players hitting level 40 pay the massive 100 gold to get a mount. Today the level cap is 110 and paying players can start much higher than the level cap when I started and 100 gold is nothing, you can get more than that in a few hours selling entry level ore on the auction house. What once took me a year to accomplish isn't even a weekend and a case of red bull today. To keep players going, they develop new content, and that's what the current players all work towards. It's not just a bunch of old timers running legion telling new players "I've been playing this game for over 12 years, you people are leveling too fast". Those players are trying to boost new people so they have players to do stuff with (the very purpose of an MMO). This game has tons of things like BP's (including exclusive ones), and has done several things (like lowering proc rates, drop rates, rewards, etc.) that already alienate new players from being part of the game with more established players. The limit of small city sizes should not be another barrier for new players and new cities that keep them from achieving everyday team based content.

In terms of real life travel. Way way way back in the day people traveled by foot and rarely went more than a few miles from their home. Then we used horses and increased that range a lot. Then trains, cars, planes, jets, and eventually space ships. Now it's not uncommon for people to travel thousands of miles from their home, sometimes more than 10,000 miles. Yet we do don't go telling young adults entering the work force you gotta walk to work like I did. We travel much further now only because we find ways to get there faster. The point being No one cares how long it took the 1st player to get to current end game play, they were still writing the game and didn't have the content. If the destination is further away you expect to get there faster, otherwise you won't make the trip at all. I consider my progress in this game to be reasonable (not over the top by averages of the literally hundreds of other MMO's I've played). That's considering I'm a 1%er myself and have contributed financially significantly more than I'd ever expect 99% of the game to do. I've got a long way from the top, but still feel I'm "up there". That's after over 6 months and countless dollars. So to get where I am a F2P player should expect it to take longer, but how much? A year, 2 years, 3? If I've got twice your net worth in 1/3 the time and you're not a F2P player, should it take a new F2P person coming in 4 years to get where I am now? No, of course not. 6 months is decent to get where I am considering my contributions in this type of game. A fair gauge would be to say of a 90/9/1 game the 1% should progress like I have, the 9% should be able to do that in maybe 9 months instead of 6 with maybe some limitations. A F2P person, maybe a year would be reasonable but not more than that. I can see some limitations, maybe perks they might not have because of being F2P that make them work a little harder, but they should be viably able to play at my level. That is however personal progression, not city progression. A city leader should be able to take in new people, teach them, help them, and yes, even boost them somewhat. Not say "well we can only have 25 people and we need X amount to finish a raid so sorry, if you don't do this many points a week you can't be with us". The raid is the only freaking community even in this game. It's not some high level thing that exists only for the elite... it's literally all there is in the entire game that gives us something we do "with" other people! Everything else in this game could be done solo. I'm not totally far off from being a max city by myself. If not for the raid I'd have no reason not to just say eff it and play the game solo.

So I stress again, with investments being so vital to a city and with that requirement being raised so high, while at the same time player profit being hit with a nerf bat, and the raid requirement being increased yes, I feel it's more needed now than ever before that city size be increased. Personally I'd increase it to like 50, let top cities cannibalize each other and consolidate, let lower cities become way more viable, and put something else in that is not "city investment related" at all in for higher levels to compete over or feel challenged. Maybe a 2nd raid that doesn't even show up unless you're X level or add more tiers to the current raid that give less raid points but have better rewards and make a real challenge. Like Tier 4 of the raid that gives only 1 artifact per party member but you can get a primal key out of it or a bag like the 4000+ PvP bag and more experience to level your heroes. Maybe even a 5th tier that has things like "minimal rest time" or has a higher start timer (so you can't boost it down to like just minutes) that has really crappy raid item rewards but rare chances at things like a "Premium" BP.

Think of a game like a building that you start at the entrance and your goal is to get to the top floor where sure, there's a penthouse that might be harder to get into but you're at least on the same floor as them. Early on you have 1 or 2 stories and having stairs is perfectly fine. Since you're always adding stories once you get to about the 10th floor I'm sorry, it's past time to put in an elevator. Continuing on when you get to say a 100th floor that means it's time to put in a faster elevator not have some old vet sitting in the lobby shaking his fist at people who are frustrated and leaving shouting "back in my day we used to take the stairs!". (by the way the Christmas patch broke the elevator)
As of 03/22/17 - Level 56, 250.29G Net Worth, 551 Blueprints

#CashCade #CashShopHeroes #Re-Balance #Surcharged #EnergeticConspiracy #SupportIsSafe

Fluffy
"Great" Mastery Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:20 pm
Location: Asia

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Fluffy » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:38 pm

I personally dont think that raid is meant to be a competition among cities.
I thought raid was an extra event where you get to enjoy another part of the game. Thus, its not very nice of an idea to think that not everyone can enjoy it based on how hard they work for it. On the other hand, having oneself worked out weekly just burns out people faster.

As Ive stated per OP, my goal for suggesting an increase is to lessen raid burden.
For a high end city which has no problem finishing raid, it wouldn't have any problems with the increase in city roster. Why would you even want to gather more members if you're already self sufficient? Member grabbing despite being "good" already is just despicable. Thus, I dont agree that increasing rosters will increase member grabbing from higher cities.
What I see is that little people gathering more little people so they can get farther. But I guess, this game and a lot more wouldn't probably allow such, which is a shame.
Whether you think of it as something which decreases city investments burden or not, that is nowhere near my purpose.
It is a great reality that a lot of cities have died. You can make sure that advertisments for city recruitment is present in any chat channel nowadays...a merger sounds nice, but I do agree that you can't have such with as little as 25 max.
Image <-- Know more about us ^_^

User avatar
Shiroe
"Legendary" Mastery Member
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 11:05 am
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Increase number of city members

Postby Shiroe » Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:15 am

Fluffy wrote:As Ive stated per OP, my goal for suggesting an increase is to lessen raid burden.
For a high end city which has no problem finishing raid, it wouldn't have any problems with the increase in city roster. Why would you even want to gather more members if you're already self sufficient? Member grabbing despite being "good" already is just despicable. Thus, I dont agree that increasing rosters will increase member grabbing from higher cities.

- more members == more crown jewels/city fame
- more members == less investments per member to keep the city boosted 24/7

If it's more efficient, it will happen.
Just like farming away gems from newbies through key flipping actually isn't very nice, but did happen on a large scale, since it was the most efficient way for late game players to get gems to open chests etc.
(cities also still request a certain number of G of investment from new recruits, even if every building is already way, way over its lvl 55/50 cap and losing a few players wouldn't even downgrade any buildings)

What I see is that little people gathering more little people so they can get farther. But I guess, this game and a lot more wouldn't probably allow such, which is a shame.
Whether you think of it as something which decreases city investments burden or not, that is nowhere near my purpose.
It is a great reality that a lot of cities have died. You can make sure that advertisments for city recruitment is present in any chat channel nowadays...a merger sounds nice, but I do agree that you can't have such with as little as 25 max.

What I'd like to see:
- a set of 3 in-game notice boards, "player looking for city", "city looking for player" and "city looking for merger" (with for the latter 2, max 1 note per city), notes that haven't been touched by the submitter for "N" time auto-expire/disappear.
- some kind of server wide events with better prizes the more active cities join in, so there's a bit of incentive for top cities to leave healthy cities below them. (though could also lead to top cities splitting in 2 or 3 to game the system if prizes would be good enough compared to raid endless rewards and city boost costs... :roll: )
as of 2016-09-11: Player level: 44, City: Eolythes, Blueprints: 517, Mastered: 419, Crafted: 78.61K
(except for tier 1 and some tier 2 artifacts mostly running my shop/gearing self sufficient)


Return to “Suggestions & Feedback”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

©2015 Cloudcade, Inc. All Rights Reserved.