Ruvox
-
Posts
345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
43
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ruvox
-
-
Not that I feel the urgent need of it but is this still a thing ?
On 26.2.2018 at 7:50 PM, Mr. D said:a new leaderboard associated with war victories will be added as well in a separate release.
-
1 hour ago, URAS said:
Are players with bases less than lvl 10 able to attack another player to enter pvp early?
I think nothing has changed since this post:
On 2.2.2018 at 11:22 AM, Mr. D said:Which is why disabling all PvP for new players (i.e. making them unable to attack non-AI enemies and making all of their lands non-attackable either) seems like the best quick solution currently.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, URAS said:
Is it possible to attack with only a fraction of your army while leaving the rest to defend?
1 hour ago, URAS said:Can an army be divided up to attack multiple locations simultaneously?
No, at this point not. But @Mr. D has mentioned sometime before that this feature is already on his list if I remember correctly.
1 hour ago, URAS said:Are there timers limiting how quickly troops can be transferred from base to base (i.e. if I eliminate all 300 of an enemy's local troops, can they rapidly transfer another 300 troops from a base hundreds of miles away in minutes?). If there aren't, shouldn't there be?
As soon as I know no, there are no such timers within the game. I transferred troops a dozen times in no time before.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mr. D said:
E.g. someone with 100 lands (and an expected 6th level of their base)
That's also a little bit complicated since a legal player who accumulated lots of money could have placed 100 lands carefully close to each other and build sandbag walls on all of them and then merge them resulting in a level 100 land but having 1090 base level up points thus a base of level 21 (1050 points would be required for this). But I also have to admit that this is a very expensive and time consuming process.
8 minutes ago, Mr. D said:I know that you're one of our most honest and vigilant players who knows all the rules and frequently helps the new players learn them, so I don't know why I'd think you were abusing this exploit!
Thanks !
-
See this post concerning a possible ingame messaging system:
On 4.4.2018 at 5:28 PM, Mr. D said:That is pretty much why we don't have a chat system right now, to be honest!
The question's been raised many times in various threads, but to recap there are several issues with in-game chat system that we aren't ready to face yet; the key ones being:-
It is indeed a significant development requiring lots of sub-features. As you've correctly pointed out, ability to manage contacts, mute/block/ignore, create channels and groups will be required; no one's really going to be satisfied with a non-configurable message box and a free-text input.
And as it's only me developing the game right now this functionality is just a bit too time-consuming compared to some other features that are being requested more frequently.
-
Moderation: you may know that I've built another game published by Epic Dragon (a browser-based MMORPG named "Flamefrost" - flamefrost.com) and that game does have a fully-featured chat box.
Of course, an MMORPG cannot function without an in-game chat & mail, but occasionally I do wonder if it actually causes more harm than good. The number of times our new players have been discouraged from playing by spammers or malicious players (i.e. haters or fans of our competitors) is greater than I can remember.
Additionally, having an in-game chat does involve certain legal responsibilities, e.g. if our in-game chat becomes a hub for arranging criminal activities we may become liable for any real-world issues arising as a result.
So no chat can be left unsupervised and we just don't have enough people in the team to monitor a chat in DE (I'd love to do it myself, but then we'll unlikely see any development done; real-time chat moderation is a full-time job).
That is why our chat is currently based within Discord, a server run by our veteran players (and they have full control over it). This approach is really helpful and time-saving for me!
A very interesting feature has been suggested in the past, which involves "message-less" communication between players: i.e. the ability to send pre-defined messages, commands or requests (e.g. suggestion to attack someone, meet in Discord etc.).
This way it would be impossible to send any offending content and no moderation or excessive development will be required.
I quite like this idea myself, but I haven't been able to finalize the details of its implementation yet, so I'm not sure when it will appear in the game.However, as always, I'm open to any alternative ideas or suggestions.
-
2
-
It is indeed a significant development requiring lots of sub-features. As you've correctly pointed out, ability to manage contacts, mute/block/ignore, create channels and groups will be required; no one's really going to be satisfied with a non-configurable message box and a free-text input.
-
I really tried to understand that scenario but I'm still not sure how or when this happened. But I am also unsure about if I had noticed this exploit if accidentally using it. I merge lands from time to time and don't observe my base level up points constantly.
I merged many lands about three weeks ago on Fuerteventura and also made a post here about it because there were a little other issue, feel free to analyze the points rewarded there. Because if there something went wrong, I definitly wouldn't have noticed it.
So if I used this exploit at any point I apologize for it but really didn't noticed it. I also think that I'm not the only one having no idea about this and not constantly observing the base level up points.
-
To your second point, you already asked about this and already got answeres to this and it has nothing to do with the new update.
See:On 29.1.2018 at 6:07 PM, Mr. D said:* shrug *
That's not our database, I'm afraid; we're storing whatever Google's reverse geolocation tells us for your coordinates!I think they're considering it a separate entity:
And:
On 29.1.2018 at 7:22 PM, Ruvox said:Hong Kong is a part of China, Greenland belongs to Denmark and so on and so on. I don't see any problem there.
And to be honest being the leader of a so remote region like Svalbard is nice enough to be legitimately honored somehow.
Lastly, the website you are referring to has nothing to do with the developer.
-
1
-
-
I just noticed a very small thing which could be optimized, when using Unobtainium to upgrade remotely the "view-anchor-point" turns back to the current position which is a little bit confusing when remotely upgrading a land farther then 300 kilometers.
-
2 hours ago, Mr. D said:
When you open a list of existing buildings on any of your bases from "My Lands" you will now see two arrows at the bottom, allowing to view next/previous base without leaving this screen.
Thank you soooooooo much.
2 hours ago, Mr. D said:it is now possible to upgrade any such land remotely for 5 Unobtainium (per land level)
I've thought about it a little bit because reading this the first time made me feel very uncomfortable with this idea... But I see that this is a very helpful thing for some people including myself. Since it's only upgrades and by a fair price I think it's a fair thing. This gives Unobtainium an additional interesting use which is hard to exploit because "normal" gaming is by far easier and cheaper and rewards at least some people who traveled around. So after thinking about it a little bit, I love this new feature.
-
2
-
-
19 hours ago, Mr. D said:
Additionally, all bases are now sorted by distance from your current position (closest first).
In general I'm very happy about this. But there is one thing I am a little bit afraid about which you might test to make sure it won't get ugly.
I think at least some people tend to do two things: First, having their main base at home. Second, establishing new base nearly 100 kilometers from their main base to be able to establish as many bases as possible. So if they sit at home like people tend to do and looking into the My Lands tab with already a few bases establishes they might constantly "float" around since they are all nearly 100 kilometers apart and the GPS might also drift around a little bit .
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Republic of America said:
I hate to go against the grain but... I kinda hate to see it go. I liked it... That's just me tho.
The game is evolving slowly and I think you have to admit that this future didn't had any additional functionality lastly. But it lead to at least some people wondering in the forum or the discord every now and then why they can only sea one of there lands there. For everyone asking this publicly there are many others don't asking but still wondering. So this feature was responsible for confusion and lost its purpose a few updates ago and had to be replaced by a placeholder when not present to prevent lagging in the My Lands tab. Imho there are more positive points with leaving it than keeping it.
Nevertheless, I see that there is one scenario where it actually is a useful feature. When having one big land so most of the time you are located within this land (I think this counts for the most of the bigger players) one had to always zoom and/or slide on the Earth View to find the big lands center to interact with it. But at least I didn't interact with my big land much lastly.
-
1
-
-
First of all, I really appreciate more alliance options/possibilities/features. There is so much potential and there are already very important alliance features within the game.
But there is one thing I also like about Domination which I am afraid could get lost or to much softened when some of your ideas would be implemented. It's keeping everything location based. At the moment a player can interact with everything within his base(es) range. This can be a very huge area and is encouraging to establish new bases all over the world. Everywhere where I have a land which is in my range and in the range of an allied player I could share resources with him via trading lands. I can attack together with allies when we both have the same enemy in range.
1 hour ago, URAS said:sharing resources with alliance members regardless of their proximity/location but at a much reduced percentage (maybe 5% of what is gathered?)
So this one is indeed very interesting, I'd also like to have a resources share function with allies but I wouldn't be happy with the idea of allowing it regardless of the location. I'm very happy with this only possible if the two territories (base ranges) at some point overlap. You could say so that a save transport can be guaranteed.
Imagine being in a war with two members of an alliance one south and one north of you a few hundred kilometers apart. At the moment you could prevent them from supporting each other directly when you just keep them from establishing a base within your range (an ally had to travel far to the territory of another to establish a base there in a save place).
I'd really really like to keep thing location based here.1 hour ago, URAS said:sharing troops to protect allies
A good idea, this can only be made via trading to share Personnel and Supplies. But here I'd also like to keep thing location based for the same reasons as previously mentioned.
1 hour ago, URAS said:coordinated attacks (i.e. an agreement with an ally to attack a single target with your combined troops)
At the moment this would be not that useful since there are never more than 50 soldiers actual fighting on one target no matter how big the army is.
1 hour ago, URAS said:resource collection bonuses if your territory is adjacent to/touching an ally's.
Currently if there are two allies they would both spawn resources so there are all in all twice as much resources but the are both sharing them so everyone would only get the half of it resulting in both having the same as they were just one person. BUT rounding up when sharing makes it a win-win situation. So at the end of the day there is already a mechanism rewarding allied resource collection.
1 hour ago, URAS said:integrated hierarchy system (i.e. promoting Tom to General, demoting Tim for inactivity)
Sounds interesting but what would be the matter of ranks ?
-
3
-
-
Thanks for this huge clarification.
So this means trying to upgrade a level 100+ land will damage an enemy structure ? It's half on half a failed and successful action. It's not upgrading, not building anything, not spawning resources and not rewarding base points but will collect resources and "use" the capture timer.
-
If upgrading an owned land which overlaps or is closer than 5 meters or contains an lower level enemy land the enemy land will get damaged.
How do buildings affect this kind of damaging ?
Does this damaging also work if it is just an attempt to upgrade for example if I want to upgrade but can't because the land is already at level 100 (which will reset the capture timer) or if I want to upgrade but can't because I had to merge before which I can't do at the moment ?
Does placing a new Utility structure, upgrading a new one or healing a building also result in damaging ? -
So since you fixed this one some time ago
On 27.2.2018 at 12:55 PM, Mr. D said:healing a building that's already at maximum health will no longer initiate land capture timer
I wondered if this post still counts
On 15.2.2018 at 9:11 PM, Mr. D said:Building Utility Structures provides you with base XP, as well as healing constructions purchased from the "Construct" tab.
Just checking in next to a perfectly healthy sandbag wall is only going to generate resources (no experience).Or if healing a structure of full health will just don't perform any capture action any longer so neither spawn or collect resources nor adding base points. Which would make the most sense in my opinion.
Additionally, does healing also affects the "basic buildings" of a land of level 100 or above if performed in the middle of the land resulting in no upgrade ?
Sorry for reviving this old post but I don't have the ability to try this out now and I finally found some time to write in the wiki again
-
You can only see other players bases if they attacked any other player or the Ai within the last 24 hours. This also applies for bases of allied players.
You can only trade with pvp-enabled players (players who had a base of level 10 at any point) to prevent trading as an exploit in war situations.
The first one exists since I play the game but the second one was part of a update/fix several weeks ago.
-
1
-
-
In addition to that a "performance saving" mode would be nice where only the flags get displayed (structures would still be noticed through the tooltip). This way it would be easier to differ whose land it actually is since four lands near to each other (an aliied land, my land, an enemy land and a pvp-disabled land all with a sandbagwall on it) would normally all be displayed the same.
-
I'm also still receiving some "random" notifications from time to time such as trade request notifications without any ingame message or actual request
-
I've noticed that Land area, Lands Captured, Bases Established and Highest Base Level Leaderboards are separated between national and international Scores. This separation doesn't make any sense with Top Peacekeepers, Points of Fame, Richest Lands and Top Game Supporters scores and so there no such separation.
But I think a separation would also make sense for the Largest Army leaderboard since all army units have to be stationed at specific bases which in any case are associated to specific countries. For example someone could lead the international leaderboard with 10k soldiers but only have 100 soldiers in 100 different countries (even if this scenario is very unlikely).
In addition to that such a separated leaderboard would make it possible to guess the sum of baselevels someone has in a specific country (if the player stationes the maximum of soldiers). -
I've run into a similar scenario again but now with fighting myself after buying the land
To be honest at that moment I forgot that I made an offer and the sell was well timed.
-
Ah ok thanks, then I guessed wrong what banning exactly means. I was just a little bit confused seeing him still in my tracking list, still having lands in Berlin, still upgrading his Sandbagwalls and still restocking his army.
So no, I didn't saw any different behavior than this. Thanks for clarifying
-
Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I have no idea about the specific ingame behavior of Sandman but he is currently pretty active for a banned player.
-
Experienced the same issue since this morning. Also the "land capture is available" notifications multiple times within a 15 min cycle returned.
-
Points of Fame are similar to Peacekeeping Points but awarded when you attack or defend against other players.
-
1
-
Merging lands at the same place
in Technical Support
Posted
I came into a somehow special situation...
I bought a level one land (Herr Dr. med. Christoph Graf von Matuschka) from another player. This player then still standing at the exact same position captured again and also sold this land to me.
Then I Had 2 level 1 lands at the exact same place and was not able to interact with one of them. I constructed a level 10 Sandbag Wall on it, sold it temporarily to an ally to be able to interact with the second one and build there also a level 10 Sandbag Wall. Then I bought my land back resulting again in two lands at the exact same position. To do this I had to track my ally and turn my view range outside of 300km to be able to see my allies land.
Now I wanted to merge the two lands but it seems like the land I can interact with does not recognize the other land as an adjacent lower level land.
Could you please fix at least the merge mechanic and maybe think about a possibiltiy to interact with such lands even if not having an ally and having the option to turn the view radius 300km away ? I think things like this may happen more often since bad GPS often turns out to place aomeone in the exact same postition again.