What should be added to the game?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • What should be added to the game?

      What should be added to the game? 11
      1.  
        Airborne Infantry (6) 55%
      2.  
        Scout planes (super fast but very weak) (0) 0%
      3.  
        Crates with new unit skills (0) 0%
      4.  
        Premium account 3rd research slot (1) 9%
      5.  
        Actuall NAP option (4) 36%
      Just a speculative poll.
      玛 POLAR
    • None of the above.

      I would prefer the developers focus on bugs, play-ability and smarter AI behavior.

      I have not recognized any bugs yet but any that exist should be the #1 priority for the devs.

      The second priority should be improvement of the game interface. The Army management tab. More intuitive controls. More tool tips. More pop-up guidance for the newbie on how to play the game. These things reduce the "I quit" rate of players. Every player who quits is loss for the devs. There are only so many folks willing to try the game. Each one that walks away is irreplaceable. Need to keep each of those encounters.

      Third is keeping players playing after they have figured out the UI. This is where an AI that behaves more realistically is important. It gives feedback to the player. It also establishes a norm of conduct for interactions in the game that will bleed over into PvP interactions. Whether we intend to or not, we always will include examples of modeled behavior in our list of options we might do. If the AI is modeling accepting war goals short of total surrender, the PvP interaction will start to include that also.

      Take care of all this stuff first.

      More units, buildings etc is a red herring. These things do not bring in more players and if carried to an extreme will only drive players away who are not interested in dealing with 47th level Druid/Barbarian/Cleric/Wraithmasters with rings of Oneness.

      Keep the focus on a strategic level of game. If we must include more blingy units to keep the simple minded engaged with bright and shiny stuff, at least make sure it does not detract from the base level mechanics of the game. We don't need Rambo Spec Ops troops. No army ever was made entirely of special forces 'cause then there is nothing to allow them to be 'special' from. Besides, if everyone is a SEAL, who is making sure the lights stay on and there is food on the table?
    • F. Marion wrote:

      Third is keeping players playing after they have figured out the UI. This is where an AI that behaves more realistically is important. It gives feedback to the player. It also establishes a norm of conduct for interactions in the game that will bleed over into PvP interactions. Whether we intend to or not, we always will include examples of modeled behavior in our list of options we might do. If the AI is modeling accepting war goals short of total surrender, the PvP interaction will start to include that also.
      As of now the AI tends to sit there and let its armies be destroyed by your invading forces. I could sit and do nothing against, say, Communist China for days after capturing the initial provinces in my war against them and they wouldn't do a thing.

      Better AI would make the game sooooo much better, I'm sorry, but it would... Harder to play.
      follow me on instagram @coopswithdahoops

      add me on snapchat @coopswitdahoops

      follow me on twitter @realCooperDavis

      yeahhhhhh