Feedback [Feedback] - Auto Battle

[DeletedUser7529]

They will be switched, I am just not sure when we will get the change yet.

Great to hear that. Its confusing having new button replaced old one and normal attack relocated to new position. I lost some battles as I accidently clicked auto battle.

 

[DeletedUser8262]

Thanks for the info, after years of playing i didn't know that but now that i do that method is more appealing to me personally than the new auto-battle

 

[DeletedUser7942]

This is called 'loading the battle normally'. Other than that, I'm not sure what you mean. I always understood that it's intended to be (mostly, not entirely) random which army you go up against in a given GvG sector and that you don't know what it is until you load the battle. Heck, even the game probably doesn't know what it is until you click to start the battle.

And that would be great if we're talking about the old system of autobattle but we're not. In this new autobattle system the random chosen army factor gets applied after you hit autobattle whereas the old or other system you can choose to autobattle, retreat or manually attack. So what this new or alternative autobattle system amounts to is a gamble whereas the old or other autobattle can be decided upon first. What I'm saying is apply the randomly chosen army first, show that in the army management window then we can decide if we want to auto or attack.

Now I'm sure a response to that could include something to the effect of this makes it too easy on the attacker in that they would be able to tailor make the attacking army and such thereby defeating the random "fun" factor of GvG but then we have to ask, what's the point then of having this feature? I mean sure if you know you can defeat all the armies in the sector, *cough spears cough* then it's a timesaver, then you have to ask who is this for? Me I guess, love me some spears lol I suspect a developer who GvG's got tired of such spear filled sectors and wanted a way to kill them faster, it's like they read my mind.

 

[DeletedUser7779]

@TheSlayerofSloppyJoes
Well you kinda answered your question yourself - this new feature will help only champ farmers or when hitting tiles full with spears.
Otherwise, exactly like you pointed out, it's a gamble and not knowing the defending army in advance might even cost us all our troops as we can't retreat and can't hide/hold our real unit.
Though, showing the defending army in advance is a terrible idea. What chance does the defending army stand if attacker knows what they're facing? Part of a good strategy when filling tiles is setting up the defense so that the attacker cant use only 1 unit on all 8 armies. With your suggestion, not only it will be easier for the attacker but also faster as all they'd need to do is hit auto or worst case change attack army when seeing what's in defense.

 

[DeletedUser]

on GvG with 8 eels and enough boost it doesn't matter what the defending army is

 

[DeletedUser7779]

on GvG with 8 eels and enough boost it doesn't matter what the defending army is

Right and how many eels do you need for that if you're fighting 40-50 battles in GvG? Even with enough attack boost auto will probably lose 1 and the rest will be damaged. Fight with damaged, then lose even more than 1 per battle. So unless I delete everything in my city and build 20 eel barracks, I don't really think that'd work for more than a day or 2.

 

[DeletedUser7164]

I can't get used to have the Attack-button where the old cCose-button was, and the new Auto Battle-button where the Attack-button was. Why have they been switched?
Could'nt you let the Attack-button be where it was?
I have already lost many troups by mistake while clicking the Auto Battle instead of Attack!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

FYI we are temporarily deactivating this feature as I posted here.

 

[DeletedUser7942]

@TheSlayerofSloppyJoes
Well you kinda answered your question yourself - this new feature will help only champ farmers or when hitting tiles full with spears.
Otherwise, exactly like you pointed out, it's a gamble and not knowing the defending army in advance might even cost us all our troops as we can't retreat and can't hide/hold our real unit.
Though, showing the defending army in advance is a terrible idea. What chance does the defending army stand if attacker knows what they're facing? Part of a good strategy when filling tiles is setting up the defense so that the attacker cant use only 1 unit on all 8 armies. With your suggestion, not only it will be easier for the attacker but also faster as all they'd need to do is hit auto or worst case change attack army when seeing what's in defense.

Well I still like the idea of it, even if it only saves some time some of the time and less clicks. This is why it's generally a good idea to express why a change is being made. If we understood what they are going for our feedback would make sense but as usual we're left floundering and grasping to make something make sense which may be out of step to what the purpose of a change may actually be for. Not blaming the mods or anything, just think Inno needs to communicate more fully in detail so we understand better to tailor our responses better.

Now I realize like I said it would make attacking easier if we could see the defending army before hitting autobattle but we can already do that now with the slow version. Yes the slow version you still get a random army but once you figure out all the armies in the sector you can still tailor your attacking army, of course sometimes you have to eliminate one army with one type of attack before your can switch to a different type. Which I'm fine with all that and even fine with taking the gamble with the new system but just trying to figure out a way to make the two more equal I guess and still get the speed and less clicks.

So perhaps it should work like this. Click on View Sector, Choose your attacking army, Click on Attack(a siege already in place of course), the defending army is shown and a confirmation box comes up asking if you want to autobattle, manual battle or surrender. At that point you can't change your attacking army and if you decide then to surrender you have to start all over again. This maintains the element of a random selected defense and the same commitment to selected attacking army as the old system while having less clicks, more speed and also I'm guessing less drag on the server which for y'all would mean less "lag" in that regard.

 

[DeletedUser]

just think Inno needs to communicate more fully in detail so we understand better to tailor our responses better.

Sometimes we are looking at how the community uses and perceives a new feature as much as we are looking for bugs or flaws in the game mechanics. While I understand you all want as much information as possible on new content, providing what the intent of the game designers was for any given feature is not always realistic.

 

[Achaeus]

I used the auto battle in levels 1 and 2 of GE, then half way through level 3 before the troop losses were too high and I went back to manual battles. I liked it and did not have a problem with hitting the wrong button.

Sometimes we are looking at how the community uses and perceives a new feature as much as we are looking for bugs or flaws in the game mechanics. While I understand you all want as much information as possible on new content, providing what the intent of the game designers was for any given feature is not always realistic.

Zarok, I too believe greater communication is necessary in this environment. To be quite honest when Darkstar started giving more info, the complaints seemed to decrease and the constructive comments increased. It seemed to me that Beta players were considering what the intention was and were offering more constructive statements about how it might affect them and their style of play, opposed to the angry frustration we seem to have to endure now. I truly dread coming to the forum some days because of that, and my activity level in the threads here has reduced because of that. I guess in the end, greater communication gives the impression we are working as a team here to improve the game, rather than just being test subjects, and hope you will kindly consider offering more detailed information in the future.

 

[DeletedUser7942]

Sometimes we are looking at how the community uses and perceives a new feature as much as we are looking for bugs or flaws in the game mechanics. While I understand you all want as much information as possible on new content, providing what the intent of the game designers was for any given feature is not always realistic.

Certainly there must be some reasoning behind changes? It's not like an explanation is needed for every single change but I think for some changes it's practically required if the feedback they are looking for is to make sense at all. I can understand if all they are looking for is a general response like if we like or don't like but they could just say that as well then we could refrain from any suggestion.

See I try to liken it to being in the boardroom with them, we ask, what problem is trying to be solved by such a change or what are we looking to improve i.e. the purpose, without this we're just swimming in the dark with feedback. But again I want to reiterate this is no fault to mods and such rather perhaps something that need be considered in the communication process which mods/cm really have no control or say over and would be contingent upon Inno to take initiative on.

 

[DeletedUser]

and hope you will kindly consider offering more detailed information in the future.

I provide all of the information I have available to me at the time.

perhaps something that need be considered in the communication process

I am happy to discuss this with the higher ups, but in the end it will be Game Design's decision as to how much, or how little, information they want to make available to the community on any specific content.

 

[DeletedUser7942]

I am happy to discuss this with the higher ups, but in the end it will be Game Design's decision as to how much, or how little, information they want to make available to the community on any specific content.

Thanks and it's certainly understandable how and what they choose to disclose, it's their game so perfectly reasonable. Just would be nice to be "in the know" I guess you could say so we had a framework to work within. I mean if in some things all they're looking for is a simple "like/dislike" then a simple poll could take care of that. But if they're looking for constructive feedback which would entail changes then the purpose of something becomes important else the feedback would be off base/track with that purpose.

So for instance with the topic at hand what is the purpose of this autobattle? If the only purpose is to relieve server load then we can provide feedback in that regard, our comments would be to the point. So for example we could say well if this is to relieve server load it would stand to reason you would want to promote the most use possible out of it to which I think some changes in design could achieve that which I mentioned above;

So perhaps it should work like this. Click on View Sector, Choose your attacking army, Click on Attack(a siege already in place of course), the defending army is shown and a confirmation box comes up asking if you want to autobattle, manual battle or surrender. At that point you can't change your attacking army and if you decide then to surrender you have to start all over again. This maintains the element of a random selected defense and the same commitment to selected attacking army as the old system while having less clicks, more speed and also I'm guessing less drag on the server which for y'all would mean less "lag" in that regard.

I think doing that would encourage more use of this feature.

This sentiment could also be said of the change to PvP. What is the purpose of such change? Is it to give new players some breathing room before they start getting plundered? So they have some investment in the game before considering quitting when their Palace gets plundered? If this is so it begs the question, if someone were going to quit from getting plundered anyway what's the likelyhood of them staying just because PvP got moved to later in Iron Age? Doubtful it would be much. So the question becomes one of what to do to which I replied in part;

If they really want players to not be negatively affected by PvP then they should make non PvP servers or an opt out of PvP option and merge PvP with PvP and non PvP with non PvP players.

So that is another example that if we knew the purpose we could be on point with that purpose in our feedback.

 

[Rob Farmer III]

FYI we are temporarily deactivating this feature as I posted here.

It appears bugs have been introduced with the stoppage. When I used this on the Continent Map, after the battle for a sector ended, there would be a significant lag before the result was reflected on the Province Map.

Now, after the stoppage, when a battle ends (Full Auto or full Manual), it reverts to the Continent Map, instead of the Province Map, as it has always done in the past, thus, forcing a re-entry into the Province Map after each battle. Secondly, after the last Sector battle that Acquires the Province, it reverts to the Continent Map, without showing the Prize Pop-up for the Acquisition.

 

[Andi47]

Why this /#%$!)/&# fade effect (even present after temporary deactivation of the new feature)? To eat up the time which we otherwise would win by using auto-battle?

 

[DeletedUser7779]

So perhaps it should work like this. Click on View Sector, Choose your attacking army, Click on Attack(a siege already in place of course), the defending army is shown and a confirmation box comes up asking if you want to autobattle, manual battle or surrender. At that point you can't change your attacking army and if you decide then to surrender you have to start all over again. This maintains the element of a random selected defense and the same commitment to selected attacking army as the old system while having less clicks, more speed and also I'm guessing less drag on the server which for y'all would mean less "lag" in that regard.

Hmmm but that way we will have to click twice - first on attack and then a second time on surrender / auto fight / manual fight. And in case we decide to manual fight (manual as in hold the real troop back and then hit auto - which i personally would do in GvG unless siege is being hit) - that's already 1 click more than what we currently have!
Also, this idea needs some tweaking... if you click surrender, you shouldn't "get away" with no losses. Example - the way it is now - attack with 8 turtles against 8 eels defense. The eels move first, so they will kill 2-3 turtles before the attacker's turn to move and surrender. That has to be considered and replayed in the background - can't just retreat when you don't like the army you're facing - this will be just too easy. And if this is to be changed for GvG, it has to be changed for all cases where we don't know the defending army in advance, e.g. hood fights.

I do see your point here - your suggestion tries to balance out hitting a tile vs hitting a siege (because siege army is known once hit) - but those are too much of a changes only for one new button. I can't really predict what impact all this will have in GvG, but I assume many will complain.
Removing the button completely (not only temporarily ) would be the best decision imo.

 

[DeletedUser7942]

Hmmm but that way we will have to click twice - first on attack and then a second time on surrender / auto fight / manual fight. And in case we decide to manual fight (manual as in hold the real troop back and then hit auto - which i personally would do in GvG unless siege is being hit) - that's already 1 click more than what we currently have!
Also, this idea needs some tweaking... if you click surrender, you shouldn't "get away" with no losses. Example - the way it is now - attack with 8 turtles against 8 eels defense. The eels move first, so they will kill 2-3 turtles before the attacker's turn to move and surrender. That has to be considered and replayed in the background - can't just retreat when you don't like the army you're facing - this will be just too easy. And if this is to be changed for GvG, it has to be changed for all cases where we don't know the defending army in advance, e.g. hood fights.

I do see your point here - your suggestion tries to balance out hitting a tile vs hitting a siege (because siege army is known once hit) - but those are too much of a changes only for one new button. I can't really predict what impact all this will have in GvG, but I assume many will complain.
Removing the button completely (not only temporarily ) would be the best decision imo.

I replied on the other thread with a little bit of a clearer picture I think:

1) Load attacking army in your Army Management window
2) Initiate battle against player/sector
3) The Army Management window pops up and shows defending army
4) At this point you cannot change your attacking army
5) The Army Management window also shows three options, Manual Battle, Auto Battle and Retreat
6) In GvG when you retreat and reinitiate you, like now, still get a random defending army and the process starts all over again and in PvP of course you still can't attack for 24 hours if you retreat.

If I had to guess I think Inno's goal with this feature is to reduce server load. Like with the Aid button and GB button next to avatars and such so we don't have to constantly load other players cities so with this we don't have to constantly load battle maps. Who wouldn't be for reducing server load in GvG? All I ever hear about GvG from people is "lag" so it seems to make sense to me what they're doing if that's why they're doing it.

Old/Alt system;
1) Click view sector, Army Management Window opens
2) Load attacking army
3) Click Attack, Battle map appears in manual mode
4) Click Auto
5) Click Results
6) Click Okay to close results window, battle map fades
(end battle)

If we simply fight manually then two steps are removed;
4) Click Okay to close results window, battle map fades
(end battle) Yes less steps and clicks structurally but loads map every time.

New/Alt System;
1) Click view sector, Army Management Window opens
2) Load attacking army
3) Click Manual or Auto (clicking Auto shows you defending army, locks in attacking army and the auto button turns into a Surrender button)
4) Click Okay to close results window, results window fades

If we clicked Manual in step 3 then;
4) Battle map appears
5) Click okay to close results window, results window fades

There are less steps, clicks and less demand on the server for fighting automatically while keeping the same structure. I don't think they should get rid of it rather make it make more sense which I think the above does.

And I agree, if you surrender the results should be the same as they would be if you surrender now, so if you get hit and damaged now after surrendering then so should you with this system as well. And yes this should work the same for PvP as well.

So imagine the below where if you click auto the defending army is revealed to you, your attacking army is locked in and the auto button turns into a surrender button and the manual button turns into a fight button;

Spoiler

 

[DeletedUser4379]

'Sometimes we are looking at how the community uses and perceives a new feature as much as we are looking for bugs or flaws in the game mechanics. . . . '

This is pretty much a lie, or else a great many of the flaws/bugs/bad ideas would never be implemented to live servers in the first place, let alone waiting for fixes.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is pretty much a lie, or else a great many of the flaws/bugs/bad ideas would never be implemented to live servers in the first place, let alone waiting for fixes.

It is in no way a lie, and please don't imply that I would ever lie to my community. Just because you think content should not have gone live does not mean everyone felt that way, or that it didn't test well.