Олег Поленин

Few other issues: Base listing order is inconsistent, ie. main base list is ordered by distance from player (great) but the army transfer list is ordered by the creation date. I think I understand some rationale behind it, but an ability to change and unify this order would be great. Some elements of Night map style, most often the road numbers, have colors that mimic other game elements. This is causing noise when searching for resources. If possible, such elements should be toned down or removed. Hand and flag buttons are close to each other, sometimes this makes me clock the wrong button when eg. driving as passenger on an uneven ground.

Yeah, a visual distinction of station status would be useful (free/owned by me/owned by other player).

Ruvox did pretty thorough job with listing most of current bugs in the UI area Here are my few cents: The main map display is very confusing due to following reasons: Icons for lands are displayed very inconsistently, like some sandbags not being displayed when actially present etc. Current display system allows for just one building to be displayed. If a tower of present, you don't see a wall and so on. It would be great for a display system to give a more elaborate, complete display of land contents. Even better, if the graphics were changing with building upgrades. Also, tower being present on land hides sandbag wall level from popup balloon. This makes recon harder. With every base there is a land attached. When you try to click it, it either displays menu as land or as base. This is really confusing and should be simplified. A base should just be a base, with all mechanics based on single UI object. As suggested elsewhere on forums, some way to adjust which elements you see at which zoom level would be great, especially for setting resources in a larger scale and also being able to see a nice overview of ones all lands and bases. A display of a current pick up range would be a nice UI feature, even if optional. For other UI items: As ruvox mentioned, but maybe not clear enough, the back button feature is very inconsistent. For best UX, the back button should always work, up to the world map level (as a return from other tabs). While Android allows modifying a notification sound for each app, it's hard to find and most users won't know about it. Adding this option in the game settings will make it more accessible, and customizing notification sound for DE is gamechanger making it easier to notice the flow of timers. Message history is too short

Maybe it's to early to ask, with all that 2.0 stuff and so, but... Will there be any more perks or perk levels to get?

Yeah, but I'm trying to think about balancing some issues here. Each approach has some downfalls here. Using just a geographic name is nice, but will start to look funny, when in large city. Imagine all lands of one player being named "London" for that matter. Any deeper differentiation would be lovely. Rename option sounds cool, even if you have to pay for it, because people will likely care for very few lands, the best of, and will not have time to micromanage all names. Yet this will produce a rather monotonous gaming environment, with most lands named identical in big cites, even if you allow for the first rename to be free, since even with free rename, most players won't have time to use it. Thus I'm just looking for solutions to make the default/initial names more granular. Just ideas. Maybe street names, maybe some other source

Yet does one really need a strongly trustworthy source for the in-game label of a more or less randomly placed flag? Seriously, the only issue I see here would be the efficiency of such API calls.

@Mr. D Won't OpenStreetMap give away nearest amenities? https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/53455/find-all-amenities-with-name-and-address-around-a-given-location

Yup. But then... I was sure I read somewhere on forums that these names were taken from Foursquare, not Google. Shame on Google anyways.

I though it would be hard to get duplicate base names when bases are 100km from each other

I was writing about free rename thinking that new lands/bases will have a pretty unrecognizable names. If the base names will be assigned geographically (as it previously was, I assume) then it's perfectly ok, at least ux-wise I don't like to speak for others, but, taking ux look again, the replacement you did to my bases (reverting to cities names) might be considered a desired default among other players and by the same time minimize the impact of change enforced by this update

Unfortunately, all existing bases have been renamed from city name to it's source land name, which caused real mess in the base list (like, some ATM, some fast-food name etc - no idea where that is). Is there any way to return old names of existing bases, city-based, without forcing a huge Unobtainium commitment? It's 38 for me Also, how will the feature work for future lands/bases? Will the name be random? Will there be a possibility for a first rename to be free, either for land or at least for new base?

Lol, it's really already there Thanks! (now pressing all other buttons to find hidden functions, lol... )

Would it be possible to enable an option for the map to follow GPS location, or, in other words, keep screen centered on player all the time? Preferably, such feature would need a button on UI to toggle it's state. If there is an issue with low-end client devices efficiency for such feature, the feature might be a hidden, opt-in option (such as, the icon could become visible after enabling it on profile). Allowing for the map to follow the player would be especially useful when routing/navigating on a bike

Is it possible to implement an option to adjust a following rendering parameters: zoom level at which resources merge, range of resource rendering? I understand, that there are some technical limitations that may be the reason for the currently designed values of these parameters, namely: rendering capability of the low-end client devices (ie. too much objects will make map sluggish or drain more power), server and network efficiency (ie. the size of information to be sent to client or the time to compile the data). One of these two must be the leading limit here, I guess, but I have no real data regarding the serverside impact of data package size, nor the rendering drag caused to client devices. But if it's the client issue that's the only problem, surely the flagship devices would be able to render more, and thus allowing to edit such parameters would allow for easier and more smooth gameplay, especially when planning larger operations on resource retrieval.

If possible, adding a filter for Local leaderboard icons (binoculars) would be beneficial to a player with large amount of bases. These icons are layered above the base circles and thus, in largely divided areas (like europe) you cannot see your bases clearly.

Thanks! And shame on me for missing it

Would it be possible to get a little flag button on Utility Structures, similar to the one already present on lands and Resorce Stations? It's quite a problem, when you have a Base around one of your lv100+ lands (which is, I think, what every player starts with). Once your base grows, it begins to cover your utility structures and forbids the player to level them up - using the Flag action buffs the Base defense only.

In the current alliance system, it's hard to monitor the alliance territorial extension in-game, without any external tracking solutions. Would it be possible for the game to display allied players base areas (circles)? The base area display would be totally enough; most players tend to keep the exact base location a secret for various reason, but if only the circle is displayed and only at widest zooms (when lands disappear), no privacy is then exposed; the fact, that circle center coordinates would be exposed in application communication, might be viewed a security issue, but this data could easily be truncated to as few digits behind coma, as required to provide a lesser accuracy (few hundred meters or even worse), this is not an issue when drawing a circle at such a low scale; land display in such a large scope is also not necessary, I think the current scoping for lands works totally OK. Seeing allied base areas would allow player to better plan land and resource trade, that would lead to better communication and will effectively make it more feasible to create some intercontinental trade networks that would allow players and alliances to to trade in global scope, something I am slowly trying to build up. Such global trades going through multiple player chains would require communication and trust building between players. promoting the bult-up and growth of the in-game community, and would greatly influence of the otherwise limited alliance system.

Also, binding the communications with certain actions would solve the moderation problem mentioned in other topic: with attack and trade actions, the impact of the messages would be extremely narrow (single player) and by nature, will be resource-limited (you have to either fight or trade); with land plaques, it might seem more problematic, but the impact would still be small, since (a) a viewing player would have to click on a land to see the content, land by land, so the potentially problematic message wont be forced on viewers that much, (b) it still requires some resource commitment, (c) feature might be limited by resource cost, e.g. like Lv3 sandwall

A little suggestion or a bug report, not sure: When creating the trade offer, the only interface available is a slider. As trade offers for single lands are usually, well, of low value, it's getting increasingly hard to trade when the player has plenty of resources. Would it be possible to convert the value label (on the left from the slider) to an editable field? Such that player could click it and enter the amount via keyboard? (both Android and iOS should allow for the field to require a strict numeric value)

I'd like to make an another feature suggestion: Currently the game lacks any means of in-game communications. From what I understand, and likely agree, embedding an advanced and complicated chat system into game would be, well... complicated But why not make some very simple forms of communication, by allowing players to set a "label" or "comment" on various current game objects, e.g.: a comment on an attack action, that could be set in combat window by attacking player (e.g. "If you keep attacking me, you will face consequences, let's talk on Discord") a comment on a trade action, that could be set when defining a trade offer (e.g. "Please accept this trade demand as a retribution for your attacks") a label/plaque on a land object, that could be set by owners, for various uses, like notes, commemoration, fun (e.g. "Here lay the bodies of 833 brave soldiers who protected this land from barbaric attack by this and this player", "Will sell this land for 100 personnel") The game is really lacking in communications, since some players don't check on the Discord link in the Chat menu. Adding such small labels would allow a minimal communication and make it easier for players to avoid conflicts and find friends

I would like to make a small feature suggestion: In current game there are several map styles (Day/Night/Black), each of them having it's pros and cons that make them useful in different situations, eg: when biking with phone mounted, I prefer Night because the streets have much better visibility here in high sunlight; on other occasions I prefer Black, since it gives a good icon to background contrasts, it's just easy to see FoT and resources clearly on that map. Unfortunately, switching maps is quite hard now. Would it be possible to make a button in the UI screen that could be use to swap map styles - the way it does in Google Maps? I understand that the space in main UI is limited and it if that is an issue, I think that such feature could be included in the top left yellow button (3-Dot button), or even better, certain items might get reorganized to make place for the new one, e.g.: Items and Power-Ups is a button that is used less than once an hour or even less often; might get hidden in the 3-Dot button Current Objective button, while important for new players, looses it's purpose after few days of play, and could for example be moved into right corner and disappear once the objectives are complete Trade Management would better fit in main "Hamburger" menu. I leave it for discussion, but please keep comments focused on map style swap, not on what to remove from UI as what I wrote about removing buttons is more of a quick suggestion, not a merit of this topic

@Republic of America Like I said in Discord, imagine a new L10 player working and/or living on the Long Island NYC. That player, to set new lands or bases, basically cannot play at home and/or work, has to drive far away to set up any base. I understand that such player might want to fight with Dad, but there's no chance for him or her to be powerful enough to fight

Cannot edit, but what I meant in the penultimate sentence was: This way, when a player attacks anyone, he or she will be accountable with a possible retaliation in a limited time, while the "surrender" option will still be available to any party or ally that is retaliating on the initial attacker.

As I said earlier today on Discord, while I think that some changes are needed, I'd rather disagree with the idea described in the initial post here, for the following reasons: The existing Disappearance feature addresses two loosely connected, but otherwise separate issues: the problem of high-level players bullying lower-level players, and thus a solution for latter to withdraw from conflict; the problem of land congestion in city areas, ie. when lands of one player cover an area wide enough to prevent other players for playing effectively. The Underground scheme proposed above keeps only the first problem addressed, and it does in fact somewhat lower the guard protecting lower-level players. The Underground scheme disregards the second issue. The players will not be able to expand if another, older player already covered large areas of a given city with his bases. Also, with the idea there was a rationale provided that I do not think is strong enough to support the case, as explained here: Rationale claims, that current feature, in an existing Menace vs Alliance scenario, allows the Menace to immediately surrender war with higher-level Alliance members (and disappear to them), picking on lower-level members only. This scheme, as suggested in rationale, prevents Alliance members to support each other effectively and allows the Menace to hit the Alliance selectively and safely on it's weak points. This indeed sounds unfair, but in my opinion, only when we forget, that current Disappearance feature is also available to the Alliance members and they too can use it to disappear from the Menace, leaving him thus in solitude and with complete separation from all Alliance members. The only thing that current mechanism prevents is in fact a chance of retaliation on the Menace. And it may be seen as a problem, since it allows the Menacing player to perfom "hit and run" attacks without any consequence. To address this problem, I would rather propose a following feature, composed on two simple rules: Create a player attribute/token I'd now call WARMONGER, that is timed and locks the "surrender" option against ANY player. When a player attacks any other player that has no WARMONGER token on him, put a 7-day WARMONGER token on the attacking player. This way, when a player attacks anyone, he or she will be accountable with a possible retaliation in a limited time, while the "surrender" option will still be available to any party or ally. This could be enough for immediate solution and could be expanded in future eg. to limit the safe retaliation (that does not result in triggering the WARMONGER token on retaliator) to the alliance members only.