• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Introduce Natural Disasters into gameplay -

Should Natural Disasters be introduce into the game for those who choose this option

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • No

    Votes: 7 63.6%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Total voters
    11

DeletedUser114342

  • What not to suggest:
In particular, please do not suggest the following ideas, as they will not be implemented:
  • Easier access to Diamonds (Diamonds are the lifeblood of the game. We need them bought to pay for servers and everything else. If we gave out easier diamonds then no one would buy them).

Thanks for your feedback. I did take the above into consideration and I don’t think what I have proposed can be classified as “easier access to diamonds.” My proposal gives you a chance of getting diamonds as compensation akin to an insurance payout.

I am under no illusions that if this idea actually made it to the developers that they would implement it without further adjustments and offer different rewards then what I have suggested.

I would rather start of at a high end then propose a low ball offer...and who knows they might just go for it (I admit it is a low chance of this happening).

If this idea got further than this, it would go through beta testing and based on feedback I’m sure there will be further adjustments.
 

Agent327

Overlord
Thanks for your feedback. I did take the above into consideration and I don’t think what I have proposed can be classified as “easier access to diamonds.” My proposal gives you a chance of getting diamonds as compensation akin to an insurance payout.

Do you get diamonds this way now? NO!!
Will your proposal result in getting access to diamonds? YES!!
Is that easier than it is now? YES!!

You are absoluitely right. A 50% chance at 1000 diamonds isn't easy. That is an amount you pick up all the time now!

If this idea got further than this, it would go through beta testing and based on feedback I’m sure there will be further adjustments.

You really have a grasp on things. Can you mention any other proposal this has happened to?
 

DeletedUser114342

The
Do you get diamonds this way now? NO!!
Will your proposal result in getting access to diamonds? YES!!
Is that easier than it is now? YES!!

You are absoluitely right. A 50% chance at 1000 diamonds isn't easy. That is an amount you pick up all the time now!



You really have a grasp on things. Can you mention any other proposal this has happened to?

Then what do you suggest diamonds can be replaced with? I am always open to suggestions to help make this idea better and more plausible.

I don’t know about other proposals that have been implemented and the process that occurred or the communications that have or not happened between Inno and the person proposing the idea. If you do, I would be glad for the information.
 

Agent327

Overlord
Then what do you suggest diamonds can be replaced with? I am always open to suggestions to help make this idea better and more plausible.

Nothing will make it more plausible. You are suggesting a major gamechange and in order for it to get support, you will allow players to turn it off. What you are saying to the devs is, hey, I want you to put a lot of time and effort into this, so players can ignore it and turn it off. Does that make sense to you?
 
Just what we all need - Our Arcs going Offline while we have 1000's of FP's in GB's - Does that sound like fun to anyone? If a gb get demolished it won't be producing anything or apply donation multipliers like the Arc!
 

DeletedUser114342

Nothing will make it more plausible. You are suggesting a major gamechange and in order for it to get support, you will allow players to turn it off. What you are saying to the devs is, hey, I want you to put a lot of time and effort into this, so players can ignore it and turn it off. Does that make sense to you?

I agree that this idea is asking a lot of the developers. But this is the ideas section where ideas can be discussed.

Again I am under no illusions that this idea will be implemented, but maybe it may give them an idea of their own that is more easily integrated with their existing platform.

After watching the inno interview prior to release of the Viking settlements, one of them did say that they were active in the forums.
 

DeletedUser114342

Just what we all need - Our Arcs going Offline while we have 1000's of FP's in GB's - Does that sound like fun to anyone? If a gb get demolished it won't be producing anything or apply donation multipliers like the Arc!

I’m sorry I don’t understand your post?
 

Agent327

Overlord
I agree that this idea is asking a lot of the developers. But this is the ideas section where ideas can be discussed.

Again I am under no illusions that this idea will be implemented, but maybe it may give them an idea of their own that is more easily integrated with their existing platform[

Ideas section is for ideas you would like to see implemented. If that is not the case you should not put it here. If all you want is an "what if" discussion, you are in the wrong place.

Whatever you post here does not reach the devs until it is forwarded. They do not get "ideas of their own", from your posts here.

After watching the inno interview prior to release of the Viking settlements, one of them did say that they were active in the forums.

Yeah right. They are watching 48 forums of which of most they do not speak the language. Makes perfect sense.

I’m sorry I don’t understand your post?

When you come up with proposals like this you should.
 

DeletedUser114342

Ideas section is for ideas you would like to see implemented. If that is not the case you should not put it here. If all you want is an "what if" discussion, you are in the wrong place.

Whatever you post here does not reach the devs until it is forwarded. They do not get "ideas of their own", from your posts here.



Yeah right. They are watching 48 forums of which of most they do not speak the language. Makes perfect sense.



When you come up with proposals like this you should.

I would like to see this idea implemented. Am I realistic about my expectations that this can be implemented, yes I am.

I don’t know which forums they monitor.

As for not understanding the post, there is nothing in my proposal about demolishing any buildings or why an arc wouldn’t work as per normal.
 

DeletedUser114342

I will fix it and add the changes when I am next on my laptop.
 

DeletedUser116854

it's a silly idea to even contemplate doing damage to building that cost 100's of thousands of FP (or diamonds) to get to the level they are at (level 80+ arc, in fact every building over level 40 or so) and maed even sillier to consdider someone would do that voluntarily
It will also not find implementation because the damage to Inno could be a multitide of times bigger than you even imagine.
 

DeletedUser110131

Do you get diamonds this way now? NO!!
Will your proposal result in getting access to diamonds? YES!!
Is that easier than it is now? YES!!

You are absoluitely right. A 50% chance at 1000 diamonds isn't easy. That is an amount you pick up all the time now!

I see you're still missing the point like no one else, Agent327!

If they had simply meant "do not propose anything regarding diamonds", then that's what they would have written, isn't it? What they mean is that any new way of getting diamonds must be at least as hard as any current way.

So, then, what about that 50% chance of getting 1000 diamonds? That sounds pretty sweet, right?

It absolutely does. Unfortunately, you're the only one to have suggested it (you have to be careful about that; it's against the rules, you know). The suggestion from @Xenophon the Prophet 576 was a 50% chance, out of a 1% chance, out of a 1% chance, per year. For the mathematically challenged, that's a chance of 1 in 20,000 per year. In other words, you only have to play the game for 10,000 years, in order to get the 50% chance you're talking about. If you keep going for 20,000 years, that'll rise to a whopping 75% chance. Sweet! You gotta eat your vitamins, though, to have a shot at that.

Anyway, over time, it should even out to 1 diamond every 20 years. To make it even out, though, you'd have to live sufficiently many 20,000 year periods to get a statistically significant result. So, just off the top of my head, not actually calculating it, about 20,000,001 years in total (statisticians like sticking that '1' at the end; it gives more decimal points to the results). Think how many diamonds you'd have, then! Of course, when you consider the cost of all those vitamins, it may be cheaper to just buy the diamonds...

Phew... Time to disentangle myself from Agent327's phantasms, and get back to the real world: If anything, a 1/20,000 chance at 1,000 diamonds is much too little. On the upside, Agent327's failure to comprehend the math demonstrates that it would still work as a powerful incentive, to some.


it's a silly idea to even contemplate doing damage to building that cost 100's of thousands of FP (or diamonds) to get to the level they are at (level 80+ arc, in fact every building over level 40 or so) and maed even sillier to consdider someone would do that voluntarily
It will also not find implementation because the damage to Inno could be a multitide of times bigger than you even imagine.

Yes, that would be really, really silly! So silly, in fact, that I think stronger words than "silly" would be appropriate. Fortunately, though, there's no need to use strong language, as no such thing has been suggested. While I understand that there has been some room for misinterpretation, I had no problem with it. More significantly, even Agent327 failed to misinterpret it!

The suggestion is, quite simply, that the GBs would become open for looting. Someone else would then be able to loot your Arc, for the benefit of their own guild. Extremely annoying, but hardly devastating.
 

DeletedUser116854

and you have how many high GB yourself, just out of interest of course, since you don't ,mind losing >500 FP in one of your mishaps, whilst for instance you're asleep?

Of course I don't mention yet the enormous amounts of goods that become available and what with multiplier GB like Kraken ? or Chateau, ot TA or BG or HC ?

you presented it nicely but have not for one second considered the consequences, which is a polite way of asking if you have any idea about highlevel GB.

Perhaps you should use strong language, because telling people they don't understand calls for comparisons with people you most likely don't want to be compared to.

Always consider the people you are addressing are smarter than you, it prevents sticking your foot in it.
 

Agent327

Overlord
The suggestion from @Xenophon the Prophet 576 was a 50% chance, out of a 1% chance, out of a 1% chance, per year.

Really???

Was that proposed, or do you know what was meant, so you interpret it your own way, which ofcourse is the solid thruth.

To help you out a bit

My apologies for not being clear. It is 1% chance everyday.

Now feel free to entangle yourself from my phantasms. Your obsession is becoming a bit unhealthy and your efforts trying to insult me are rather pathetic. If you want to have a discussion with me, try to do it as a grown-up. If not, don't bother anymore.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser110131

@Chronos5

I'm not the OP.

Presently, I don't think I have a single GB that can be levelled with less than 1500 FP. I have level 80 Arcs.

Nobody is talking about anything that will result in massive FP losses. For the most severe disasters, which will be spaced several years apart, the very most you'll loose, at the very most, the equivalent of one production cycle, and that only if your entire neighbourhood and FL decides to plunder you, rather than help you. If enough decide to help you, the damage may be fixed before you wake up in the morning, and before very many (or any) have discovered your vulnerability.

To make it clear: We're talking about plundering, with the differences from regular plundering being:
- All buildings, including GBs, are vulnerable
- No preceding battle is necessary
- FL'ers and guild-mates can plunder

In short: If you loose 500 FPs, you're in a lousy guild, you have lousy friends, and you have a city that can afford the loss. Also, with such guild mates, FL'ers, and sleep habits, you should most definitely not turn this function on. Not least, you should have a doctor look into your sleeping; it's not natural to sleep for that long.

For me, one daily collection involves about 150 FPs, on my main world. It would sting, but, when all comes to all, it's just one cycle, out of 365 in a year. One great thing about it is that it'll be proportional for everyone; no one will get off easy, and no one will loose more than they can afford.

You're right that, sometimes, it's wise to assume that other people may be more intelligent than oneself. However, considering that you somehow managed to imagine that we were talking about damaging GBs, it hardly applies to me in this instance. It does, however, apply to you. How on Earth could you believe we were talking about damaging GBs? In an astounding display of arrogance and hubris, you thought we were blithering idiots. Then you follow it up with complaints over what you perceive as a rude answer... It's almost impressive!

To help you out a bit
Thank you! You've successfully proved us both wrong. Well done.

This does, of course, change the math significantly. Re-calculating will be simple enough, though, as it's a matter of replacing a single constant: Instead of 1 in 20,000 per year, the chance will now be 1 in 20,000 per day, or, if you will, 1 in 55 per year. Reliably evening out the results will take 20,000,000 days, instead of 20,000,000 years. I'm still right about the vitamins, though. I'm also still right that the chances of rewards are far to low.

Your turn to admit to your mistake.

*re-disentangling myself from your phantasms*
 

DeletedUser

So, then, what about that 50% chance of getting 1000 diamonds? That sounds pretty sweet, right?

It absolutely does. Unfortunately, you're the only one to have suggested it (you have to be careful about that; it's against the rules, you know). The suggestion from @Xenophon the Prophet 576 was a 50% chance, out of a 1% chance, out of a 1% chance, per year. For the mathematically challenged, that's a chance of 1 in 20,000 per year. In other words, you only have to play the game for 10,000 years, in order to get the 50% chance you're talking about. If you keep going for 20,000 years, that'll rise to a whopping 75% chance. Sweet! You gotta eat your vitamins, though, to have a shot at that.

Actually it's a 0.01*0.01*0.5 chance per day, as disasters would have a chance of occurring once every day. 20,000 days is still almost 55 years, so it's quite a huge amount of time to average one expansion.

Precisely this is what makes me think that the currently proposed reward system isn't properly balanced.

There are about 7,000 active players on Arvahall according to ForgeDB. So that is 7,000 instances of the disaster thingie run every day (assuming everyone has it activated), which is 2,555,000 instances run every year. If, on average, 1 out of every 20,000 instances of a disaster gives you an expansion, 127 players out of 7,000 are getting an expansion every year. Basically, this becomes a reward only accessible to the lucky 1.8% who happen to get it that year. So you're turning something that everybody has equal access to (expansions) into something that very few randomly chosen players have better access. Granted, one single additional expansion to very few players will not destroy the game or give them any unfairly massive advantage, but you're still rewarding sheer luck with something that nobody else can attain in any other way. This makes opposing it a matter of principle for me.

This brings me to my next point, which is, I guess, my main problem with this idea. Other than expansions, there is really nothing that you can offer that isn't offered somewhere else in the game. You could think of new buildings, but those buildings will give stuff that other buildings also give. The game is already saturated with rewards (daily challenges, guild expedition, story/side/recurring quests, events, settlements). Most of what you get from them is just rubbish, but there's the actually useful, valuable thing here and there. In addition, there are plenty of buildings that give similar things (fps, goods, military units, et al.).

So it all comes down to adding an extra reward system that either doesn't really offer anything new or it offers something that I don't think it should offer.

If you ask me, 'Alright then, what kind of stuff would you want disasters to give as a reward?' then, if I be truly honest, I would answer, 'forge points.' Forge points are right at the top of my list of favourite things to get in the game. But there are already so many ways of getting fps (and Inno keeps adding more) that I'm already saturated with so much stuff to do, so I'd rather not add an extra one.

In short, I think it is a really cool idea you've got here. It is well presented and well thought. But I wouldn't want to play it. I simply don't want another thing that compels me to log in more often.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top