Posts by FabianF

    Thank you all for the very constructive feedback! :)

    Your points make a lot of sense and some could indeed be brought to normal game worlds over time as well. In particular, we have identified the very limited catchup potential (that @Rashidix also described accurately) currently in the game as an issue for a while already. And we'll be trying to address it on the short game worlds via a couple new buildings. Those will unlock at specific points in time in the game (kind of like higher tier items) and boost troop production while reducing costs, so it gets easier to recover over time. This should punish more aggressive strategies way less and thus hopefully lead to a higher density of interesting conflicts.

    On top of that we will also take some first steps to make the game more accessible. As mentioned we will reduce the number of "filler" building levels. Also we're planning to not have the smithy anymore and make all academy research "global" (i.e. if you unlock a unit once it applies to all your villages). There will be some smaller changes in the same direction, in general to streamline the game and get rid of the kind of complexity that doesn't really add a lot of gameplay depth in itself.

    Interesting. Do you really view our Dry Season game worlds as "easier to manage"? Isn't it harder in a way, because you have to make reasonable trades constantly and can't just use the NPC trader for crop? I had the feeling they were in general seen as more "hardcore" than normal rounds.

    In any case, I see what you're getting at with your post and as mentioned above we might indeed end up bringing some ideas from short worlds to normal game worlds in the long run, should they turn out to work well (and with the necessary adjustments for the increased round length of course). For example the mentioned increased catchup potential is something we've been wanting to do on normal game worlds for a while.

    Concerning the "hard cutoff" after 6 weeks as opposed to the usual "reach World Wonder level X" rule, we'll just have to see how the rounds play out. One of the advantages of short worlds is they're short. So we can observe full-round (and normal-speed) results sooner and make adjustments based on those more regularly.

    As our blog post on the matter will tell you, a union is forever.


    A united kingdom may be twice as powerful, but the leaders will also commit to use this power for the well-being of the larger kingdom for the remainder of the game world.

    Any news on the project?

    Thanks for asking, @Mizrach. Indeed we've continued to work on the design of the "Short Worlds" as we're now calling them. Instead of relying on the idea of re-using the normal balancing and introducing new building boost items, we're currently going in the direction of properly re-balancing the game to be shorter overall (fewer building levels, less "filler", faster progress). As this affects many areas in the game (buildings, troops, research, quests etc.) it will take a while, but it's still on our roadmap as a new game mode for next year. :)

    in my opinion, those type of game worlds should give less prestige points than normal speed game worlds to be fair about players' prestige level

    Just as speed servers, those servers will award less bonus prestige at the end, simply due to them being shorter. The prestige bonuses at the end of a round are based on the amount of total weekly prestige you collected. So fewer weeks naturally result in less prestige.

    Hey @Polenoo, thank you very much for your constructive feedback and ideas! :)

    I will answer the issue of "too many changes" and "too little public testing" as one, since I believe they're strongly connected. Here's a bit of a story of how we got to where we are: In the past we had quite long stretches of time without any updates, which was certainly not ideal. It made people unsure of whether the game's development was even alive and ongoing still. Therefore we took on a new philosophy of having very regular updates, ideally every other week, at least every month. We were indeed able to deliver those, but at a cost (that you correctly identified). Very recently we've hence been changing our process again towards taking a bit more time between releases. We're basically trying to find a middleground between regular updates and still having enough time to test and giving players enough time to get used to new stuff. This should hopefully alleviate some of your concerns in the future. We're definitely aware of it.

    As far as the "huge kingdoms" problem goes, I definitely agree that it can make game rounds pretty boring due to one or very few kingdoms having basically no competition. It's usually neither fun for the winning kingdom due to lack of challenge nor for the other kingdoms due to having little to no chance to accomplish much. Now, we can't really prevent people from playing together in our game (even putting a limit on kingdom members will just create more "meta kingdoms" with more wings, as we've seen in the past that cooperation with their friends is usually more important to players than being part of the official winner's list in the end). What we certainly can do though, is try to reduce some of the snowballing factors you mentioned, have less of a "slippery slope", basically make the big ones not get bigger faster and faster as much as is currently the case. You've mentioned some possible approaches that we'll definitely take into account for future changes, and there are many more. The idea of making use of the Natars is particularly interesting as we've been discussing such a feature for a while. For example, Natar armies could regularly attack the kingdoms with the most treasures (cause they really want to have shiny golden thingies :D ), making life overall a bit harder for them. This whole aspect of bringing kingdoms somewhat closer together in power level by pushing smaller ones and challenging bigger ones is one of the next big topics on our "to do" list.

    In general I'm a big fan of (somewhat) randomized events occuring in games. They keep the game fresh between multiple playthroughs and force you to constantly adapt your strategy. One of my all-time favorites, King of Dragon Pass, immediately comes to mind. ;)

    However, in a competitive multiplayer environment you have to be much more careful with those things to not skew the game into someone's favor too much.

    What I could imagine having is something like "world events" that affect all players similarly. As we're currently already trying to tie more and more game mechanics to the different "eras" in the game with our upcoming short worlds, maybe such events could be another thing to try out in the future. Of course you still have to make sure players can plan ahead properly and aren't completely destroyed by some random thing happening that they couldn't see coming.

    Thanks for the feedback guys! So what I take from this is that many of you would prefer no pre-selected movement and thus having to make one more click in some cases, instead of having a more intelligent automatic pre-selection (which of course can't be perfect for everyone in every case). Right?

    When can we expect 6 weeks game worlds to start ? And will they be speeds too ?

    As we have yet to finalize the concept and there are a few other big features in the pipeline already, this will probably take a few more months.

    Thanks for all the feedback so far, and keep it coming! :)

    One thing we are currently considering is the fact that we want these short worlds to be an option for all players, including beginners (potentially it should even be the standard option for your first ever game world in the future). A boosted start (fully developed village etc.) would be a strong push into a more hardcore-oriented direction though.

    However, we obviously do need some form of boost to speed up progress that doesn't feel like you're playing a speed server. So instead we're thinking of boosting progress via quests. We could hand out quest rewards in the form of building levels as we already do in a few rare cases. Essentially a revamped quest system could replace the boosted start or a generally faster resource production, and still lead to much faster progress overall.

    On top of that, we'd like to decrease troop training times and costs over time, to make it possible to reach significant amounts of troops in the late-game even on these short servers. On top of that this would make it much easier to catch up later in the game and also to rebuild after losing a lot of troops, making it less devestating to take on a few more risky battles than usual.

    What do you think?

    We will activate the kingdom unions in an upcoming update as they're not quite ready yet. They will be properly announced and of course be available to any kingdom older than 30 days at the point of the feature's release. For future servers however, they'll instantly be available as soon as your kingdom reaches 30 days of age.

    Struggling to see how strategies would work on such a short server, as it usually takes that long for players to get the foundation of their villages prepared. Would be like "Bish, Bash, Bosh" done, next server.

    Are you going to make it that a player starts with fully developed villages and a certain amount of troops?

    As written, none of the details are set in stone yet, but this would certainly be a possibility. We'll have to speed up early, mid- and end-game alike. Basically shorten a lot of the long-term buildup aspects. I don't think making village development take as long as usual and then "suddenly" ending the world would work.

    So since we're still in the really early concept phase for this feature, keep your ideas coming. They'll make difference. :)

    35 Days bevore midgame starts would be cool to get a notification that midgame is starting soon. <--- is this possible?

    As said above we're currently not planning to have an exact "date" when the midgame starts for everyone. Instead both of the uniting kingdoms have to have existed for at least 30 days. Both of them will individually be informed in time via a major notification that kingdom unions "will be available soon" etc.

    Well if it's just about our announcements, they will always specify whether it's CEST or CET. You won't have to check yourselves. And apart from that if you manage to get your whole group to use UTC as a standard, you shouldn't have any problems.