Jump to content
Domination: Earth

Олег Поленин

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Олег Поленин last won the day on April 21 2021

Олег Поленин had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Олег Поленин's Achievements



  1. If both features are implemented as above, I believe the second feature (hiding inactive lands, incl. enemy lands) should allow you switch the default of the first feature to actually show other player's lands. Most of enemy lands will be invisible anyways (players will not have their screens full of flags), yet players WILL do see enemy towers and launchers once they attack. Otherwise, I'm afraid new players will get confused, not understanding where the enemy fire comes from. But nonetheless, they will still be confused why enemy flags/towers keep appearing so quickly, overwhelming them a lot. Perhaps another solution: always show all flags of enemies that are at war with you - and when at war, show all your own flags too.
  2. Imagine player having specific setup of characters of his liking (like: commando, medic, spy) of ordinary rarity, advanced to a high level (let's say 10). Currently, finding even a rare/unique/legendary character - of a class within the desired setup - makes it a very difficult choice for our player. Would it be better to keep going with invested character, or replace him and grind from zero? No idea how high the legendary/unique bonuses are, but based on the items, I'd say noone would really choose a high-rarity fresh character to start from scratch; given the present experience with characters appearing on the map, I'd also doubt a really good character of a desired rarity appearing early on. With most player having limited number of bases and perhaps no resources or will to store that many reserve characters (nor training them for other base, because this hampers the training of the main group), finding the new, rare character hardly seems fun. I'd say more of the disappointment because of the dilemmas involved and no really good use for such character - unless you are lucky enough to pick him up very early on. What about implementing a scheme that would allow player to "sacrifice" any current character to transfer it's experience to another character of the same class? Some restrictions should apply to prevent abuse (like, training 3x same type of characters to then "bind them all"). With above in mind, I would say that the resulting experience of the target character should be capped (not exceed) the experience of the source character (eg. only the difference should be added).
  3. @Mr. D, you said on discord about an item trading feature: So let's dwell on that idea a bit more: Imagine a "Trade Market" structure that you could build in any of your bases (real bases only, not the drone-based outposts!). Any player who wishes to trade with you must physically get to your base location (thus must be your ally to see it) and only then can interact with your offers. Multiple trade mechanics may be implemented, but I'd assume a simple one: first party (owner or visitor) might initiate with an offering ("I want to sell item X"), thus visitor might already see some offers from the owner or might just start a new one; second party must then make a return offer ("I offer item Y in return"); first party reviews the offer and either accepts or discards it. An interaction should require a single visit of one party on the Market physical premise of the other party; all further actions would not require a re-visit, eg.: player A visits the base/market of player B and places an offer, then gets home, player B sends a return offer, player A accepts the offer from home; or: player B publishes his offer (from home), player A visits the base/market of player B and places a return offer, player B accepts the offer from home. This could be used to trade items as well as resources (I believe these are still tradeable via land exchange, thus why not?). A scheme like above would promote getting of the couch. Even if in the same city, you still need to get to other player's base. And still, there is a risk of player travelling 2000km to another player to set his base exactly upon the other players home, but hey, then it did promote travel, yup? and still, the benefit of having the other players trade outpost in your home ain't such a benefit, and there are still much bigger couching exploits that I can imagine, even with players just sharing their base area. I have always said that a smartly designed trade feature, one without central market, but requiring players to build trade networks, would be beneficial to community building. @Eerienkah argued that such feature would rarely be used (two players would rarely have something to trade between), but I believe, that once you have few players that you can trade with, you can network. Once two random players discover on discord that they might be interested in trading, they will be able to find - via discord - other players who can form a route between them and thus help them with trade (or, well, steal the item, with all possible consequences). Hell, with some simple coding, even the game could suggest some trade routes (give you a list of people to ask for help). You often claim this game ain't primarily about warfare, but the player interaction is currently mostly based on war. Why not expand on other areas?
  4. Hell, I would even go along with keeping the limit as a global assignment limit ("you cannot have more than 3 characters assigned globally at any time") if that was an active balance consideration (like, to limit the game impact of older players with lots of bases), but the "unassigned" limit (if limited at all) should allow to store at least few different builds (to adjust to any unrolling situation*). It would also allow player to pick up any encountered rare character and only later decide who to keep and who to dismiss. I'd say 10 is not a bad number, expandable for UBT. We could also limit UBT purchases to the unassigned limit expansion, so that the in-game purchase would only affect the players convenience ("I have more room and more time to decide") instead of providing such a straight P2W option ("I can attack F2P enemy from two bases simultaneously, both armed to the teeth with characters"). All the above applies only if @Mr. D confirms it's a feature, not a bug, ofc *) For balance issues, I'd assume that you could assign/unassign only a 100% healthy character, to keep health relevant during battle (to prevent players from replacing "dead" characters with healthy ones during a lenghty battle)
  5. From what @Mr. D said.. ...I assumed that the "with you" refers to the unassigned characters only, as opposed to those stationed in any base. Otherwise, many aspects of the game would sound pointless, especially the enormous scale of the available classes and items. One would assume a necessity to widely experiment with different character configuration, to test them every now and then, to have like an offensive team and defensive team at various moments, to dwell on training policy (should I have one maxed out team, or several less trained teams - since we cannot train all at the same time). If the total limit of characters is indeed 3, noone would experiment, since the cost of lost exp would be enormous. At most, people will search for a preferred set a bit longer at the beginning, but once you have a month or more invested exp-wise, you'd feel quite locked with the crew you have and not interested with collecting them anymore. And late in the game, once you find that few-per-world "Unique" character, you would have a really tough nut to crack, to waste any of those two-year-fed characters to risk picking that single gold one and start from scratch? Would it ever get better than a two year older character of an "ordinary" type? @Mr. D So, is it a bug or is it a feature?
  6. When I assign a character to the Command Center, it does not free the unassigned characters slot. Have 1 unassigned and 2 assigned, and the unassigned tab still shows 3/3, preventing me from acquiring new characters.
  7. @Mr. D While the update is awesome (even though I still have to find my first character), it makes one existing issue even more pronounced, namely: the long full refresh that most actions trigger. I believe the choice of actions that do trigger this full refresh needs to be heavily revised. One of the most irritating moments, that sincerely made me play a lot less, are all the military actions, like firing from towers or sending armies. I used to like to keep my lands free from FoT, but with the full refresh introduced in one of the updates and also the FoT spawn rates heavier than ever, I'd have to spend hours tidying up FoT from all my areas, not actually playing, but watching an empty, frozen screen. Now, with new objects introduced (and to be queried and rendered) the refresh time is even longer. And even picking these new items requires a full update... Why does it? Picking resources works fine without such updates. Why can't the attacked lands or picked up items cause single-object updates too?
  8. Yep. This was an issue reported many times before, and then the introduction of TP kind of solved it A simple "are you sure" confirmation box (just without any resource cost) would be more than enough
  9. My 3 cents on the Military Outposts: 1) Military outposts should not be taken into account in the Base Number leaderboard. 2) To avoid them blocking player in the future (eg. in contending in the mentioned leaderboard), it should be possible to convert them into full bases upon visiting physical location, ie. manually leveling up any land in base range above lv5 (this would also add another future strategy for drones, when you're close to a gap within your base network you can first create a military outpost there for UBT, and then convert it into base). This is just a draft suggestion, but really some option to convert MO to base should be available. 3) Military outposts should be easier to differentiate on the global map. I'd suggest using borders only (perhaps even dashed) without the filling inside.
  10. Does it have lv100+, though? Only reaching lv100 unlocks additional instances of a single building.
  11. Nope. You cannot update base, and new land must be 50m+ from any existing one, so you'd still need 20 UBT to convert a single land to base.
  12. 50m away or more. From land's border, not the center. Actually, this 50m circle is also being drawn temporarily when placing the drone, though in my tests it seemed like 5m too small (eg. I had to leave some cap between the borders).
  13. Great idea! Personally, I wouldn't allow new lands being set outside of existing base radius areas. Strange places will fill will lands, like north/south poles. I'm personally not giving into creating new bases/outposts. Prefer them to be real. Will focus on upgrading existing bases
  14. @ValarMorghulis Tough I play the dark mode only as well (black, actually), the issue is quite real for those who play in the bright And this should be easy enough to fix, either by some more universal color or by using different color on the bright map style.
  15. That green "new update" button in awesome This game really needs a red "new war" equivalent Persistent enough so it won't disappear until we review the Wars tab. It's been so many times we did not notice enemy incoming.
  • Create New...