Discussion GE A/D symbols

[Silly Beaver]

Does anyone else believe that we need to add more symbols to an already very straight forward mechanic in GE. The first 4 levels are all attack and the fifth tells you that you are defending with each dialog box. Either way you do not change the way you battle. Someone has too much time on there hands.

 

[Matteozzzo]

They should stop with the attack/defend nonsense: it's just red or blue attack.

 

[-NinjAlin-]

I find both red and blue emojies useful for GE, maybe they are not useful for the majority of players now since we know that first 4 levels use red and 5th blue, but It's very possible that with the next GE update with tiers, that each encounter to have a random color each time you get to fight on it, so at least you know before opening it what to expect to use on that fight, we've seen already similar implementation in GbG.
They also changed colors around the waves of enemy units with either blue or red, these are nice aditions for a good amount of players.

 

[Olddude]

I find both red and blue emojies useful for GE, maybe they are not useful for the majority of players now since we know that first 4 levels use red and 5th blue, but It's very possible that with the next GE update with tiers, that each encounter to have a random color each time you get to fight on it, so at least you know before opening it what to expect to use on that fight, we've seen already similar implementation in GbG.
They also changed colors around the waves of enemy units with either blue or red, these are nice aditions for a good amount of players.

I agree this looks pre-emptive to a change in the over all GE with red and blue battles along all levels.

 

[Kronan]

They should stop with the attack/defend nonsense: it's just red or blue attack.

Not necessarily. We've already experienced just how the game can "SHOCKINGLY" change (turn on a dime),when the idea of BLUE only boosting was assigned to GE 5.
I remember a prevalent backlash to that, including a "boycott". Over time, the pain of that faded for the player community. If you remember up to that point RED and BLUE never crossed their pairing color, ie- we've always had RED attack paired with RED defense, and BLUE attack with Blue Defense.

Who's to say that in higher levels of play, some encounters in GE may be a total hybrid, or "cross pollinated", such as

1) Red Attack, with Blue Defense
2) Blue Attack, with Red Defense

I think it's safe to say that players NOW have learned that they should be equally boosting their armies by color, somewhat homogeneously.

 

[Matteozzzo]

Not necessarily. We've already experienced just how the game can "SHOCKINGLY" change (turn on a dime),when the idea of BLUE only boosting was assigned to GE 5.
I remember a prevalent backlash to that, including a "boycott". Over time, the pain of that faded for the player community. If you remember up to that point RED and BLUE never crossed their pairing color, ie- we've always had RED attack paired with RED defense, and BLUE attack with Blue Defense.

Who's to say that in higher levels of play, some encounters in GE may be a total hybrid, or "cross pollinated", such as

1) Red Attack, with Blue Defense
2) Blue Attack, with Red Defense

I think it's safe to say that players NOW have learned that they should be equally boosting their armies by color, somewhat homogeneously.

What I mean is they should stop calling defense the action of attacking with blue bonus. I think this is just wrong.
In GE5 I attack with blue bonus to win the node, I don't defend.
Defense means someone else is attacking me (for example when a neighbor attacks my town).

Even in GBG, I thought that the blue bonus could be used for some real defense, instead they simply changed the color of some sectors where you just attack with blue bonus (not defend).

I'm not against different bonuses, they could add green and yellow ones if they want.
I only suggest they should call attack the active action of attacking with my army (which may also have a defense bonus while attacking, ok) and call defense the passive action of being attacked by someone else.

This is not something crucial to the game, but it seems to me it does make things more clear.

 

[Kronan]

Yeah, kinda agree. The verbosity and redundancy of naming these armies and boost profiles is taxing...

Just hover your mouse over the Forgotten Temple, and take a look.

A proper renaming/makeover would cost way WAY more than keeping the current naming design and it's perpetuation...

 

[Fury the Avenger]

Yeah, kinda agree. The verbosity and redundancy of naming these armies and boost profiles is taxing...

Just hover your mouse over the Forgotten Temple, and take a look.

A proper renaming/makeover would cost way WAY more than keeping the current naming design and it's perpetuation...

No it wouldn't.
In most places the name is not used at all. We do use them on the forum.

Where it's used (like in node name in QI), just change attack and defend to red fight and blue fight.
They don't even need to do it all at once. They can change QI then Ge then GbG, etc.
In GbG the only poin I see it is in the button to combat. That's all. In the army management windo the title are inverted. So just remove the code that handle that. We are the attacker, the enemy is defensing the province (BTW this is new code introduced for this championship).

 

[Kronan]

You a software engineer, @Fury? Have any direct relationship to architecting, design, coding game or any systems as large and comprehensive as FoE?

For everywhere that a representation of the "old" (ie current) naming and display methodology is used, including multiple sized information boxes, on multiple platforms, all have to be addressed.

It is complicated, and costly to design this COMPREHENSIVELY from conception to delivery . I did a lot of this, and still do. Anything can be done - for a price.
I maintain that doing this is going to have a FoE "big price tag", that won't be embraced by management in a profit driven environment that we are in today.

As well, and to make sure they don't break something in the process, more alpha and beta testing time will be required for fit and finish delivery than the entire thing is worth.

PS: It doesn't make them ANY MORE MONEY, and they'll spend quite a bit to do it.

What you give up for creating a stampede on this issue, is probably a bunch more things of higher value AND sizeable community interest.

For Pete's sake - they can't even FIX the FP well to show all 4 digits or even 5 digits of FP collection cleanly, vs 3... We've asked them for months...

 

[Fury the Avenger]

You a software engineer, @Fury? Have any direct relationship to architecting, design, coding game or any systems as large and comprehensive as FoE?

For everywhere that a representation of the "old" (ie current) naming and display methodology is used, including multiple sized information boxes, on multiple platforms, all have to be addressed.

It is complicated, and costly to design this COMPREHENSIVELY from conception to delivery . I did a lot of this, and still do. Anything can be done - for a price.
I maintain that doing this is going to have a FoE "big price tag", that won't be embraced by management in a profit driven environment that we are in today.

As well, and to make sure they don't break something in the process, more alpha and beta testing time will be required for fit and finish delivery than the entire thing is worth.

PS: It doesn't make them ANY MORE MONEY, and they'll spend quite a bit to do it.

What you give up for creating a stampede on this issue, is probably a bunch more things of higher value AND sizeable community interest.

For Pete's sake - they can't even FIX the FP well to show all 4 digits or even 5 digits of FP collection cleanly, vs 3... We've asked them for months...

No, I'm just a product manager.
I actually did at least one project where a naming convention needed to be changed all across a complex system. In this case there isn't even a need to do it all at the same time, which my project did require.
While it doesn't make any money it can still increase revenue by reducing the rate of new client leaving because of a confusing platform. Which is quite similar to this case.
In this case there is also the added benefit of some simlification to code, so less pron to bug.

In my experience the main issue with this type of changes if how well the point where changes are needed are maped. If the mapping is complete the project is annoying but not complicated. If the mapping is badly done, you get a lot of low priority bugs.

 

[lord budovatel cz]

I think that will be more levels in GE

 

[Fury the Avenger]

I think that will be more levels in GE

They already announced they are working on GE 6-10. But that was some time ago and I don't think we got any update on it, but this might be in preparation for those levels.

Who's to say that in higher levels of play, some encounters in GE may be a total hybrid, or "cross pollinated", such as

1) Red Attack, with Blue Defense
2) Blue Attack, with Red Defense

We already have the first one. We call them: Plundering and PvP Arena /s

 

[planetofthehumans2]

Honestly I think they're unnecessary. Just extra fluff that didn't need for the game.

Also this is on app only, not pc????

And also they should keep the buttons consistant and not be swapping them inbetween level 4 and 5, as well with on gbg.

 

[Silly Beaver]

Honestly I think they're unnecessary. Just extra fluff that didn't need for the game.

Also this is on app only, not pc????

And also they should keep the buttons consistant and not be swapping them inbetween level 4 and 5, as well with on gbg.

It is on my PC

 

[planetofthehumans2]

It is on my PC

A/B testing ??

 

[Mor-Rioghain]

Not necessarily. We've already experienced just how the game can "SHOCKINGLY" change (turn on a dime),when the idea of BLUE only boosting was assigned to GE 5.
I remember a prevalent backlash to that, including a "boycott". Over time, the pain of that faded for the player community. If you remember up to that point RED and BLUE never crossed their pairing color, ie- we've always had RED attack paired with RED defense, and BLUE attack with Blue Defense.

Who's to say that in higher levels of play, some encounters in GE may be a total hybrid, or "cross pollinated", such as

1) Red Attack, with Blue Defense
2) Blue Attack, with Red Defense

I think it's safe to say that players NOW have learned that they should be equally boosting their armies by color, somewhat homogeneously.

!!!! Bite your tongue!!! LOL