PLAY NOW
FREE GAME DOWNLOAD

I'm not going to talk here about how the era is more important than the days, that has being discussed many times already. I just think that maybe the 30 day rule could last half the sessions time . 75 days is more than enough time for people to advance and have proper defenses.

And let's not start with the "people that spend"  or "people that don't work". Most of us in this game work, hence we have some money to spend. That been said , lots of people advance in this game without spending any money...YES , it can be done. If people  can't do it in 75 days, then what have they been doing??? People can  still build in between quests, I do.

I think people just miss use the 30 day rule and still don't advance and still don't  build proper defense. Maybe shortening that time ( a tiny bit) might encourage those players to better prepare.

Just a suggestion  :)

3 weeks 1 day ago

I agree. If this is going to continue to have a war component 30day rule needs to be shortened. Unfortunately, 30day rule creates victims of those few that are of age to be attacked. I do hope someone is listening! My fear is we are talking to no one anymore except ourselves

3 weeks 1 day ago

especially now that we only have 150 day lifespan, the 100 and 30 days are too long.

3 weeks 1 day ago

I do think that once both attacker and defender reach 75 days of age all bets should be off.  That is roughly half the lifespan and that seems to be long enough to keep people off-limits to each other.  That includes reinforcements of course, so we don't penalize the defender.  :-)

As it stands now anyone who is outside the 30 day spread can't attack or be attacked until both parties are 100 days of age.  For some that can mean there is a 4 day window to attack and if there is war that can leave people off limits and bullet-proof for the hero's entire life span.  Did you intend to have that effect?  By the same token, the length of the 30 day prohibition can also leave defenders vulnerable if they can't be reinforced because any alliance heroes nearby are either too old or too young to reinforce.  Was that also the intent?

Edited by River 3 weeks 1 day ago.

3 weeks 1 day ago

Reply to Sammy :

I agree. If this is going to continue to have a war component 30day rule needs to be shortened. Unfortunately, 30day rule creates victims of those few that are of age to be attacked. I do hope someone is listening! My fear is we are talking to no one anymore except ourselves

The game has progressed enormously if we think back to the mid Alpha's when this 30 day rule was necessary. Thank you very much Devs for your hard work.  Now with all the improvements I think this is not needed as much. I also agree that the presence of the Devs is not as "visible" it was before, even Bers is not around. He used to come on cc and chat a bit, that's no longer the case. 

Someone ( can't remember who) had complaint about not knowing which things where picked up from the ground  and before you knew there it was " you pick up an acorn" and that was pretty irrelevant as we can see in our inventories what we pick up. But, nevertheless, that person could see that their opinion was taken into consideration.

We would like an answers to this suggestion even if the answer is no ( and maybe why), just so we know we are still being listened to. 

2 weeks 5 days ago

Hi everyone :) I felt I needed to chime in and post my thoughts. I think the 30 day rule should be thrown out. Maybe first 10 days for new hero might be better. I think PVP should happen with players in the same age, ie stone, classical, ren, etc.. I am good at defending my towns but it gets a little ridiculous when you are attacked constantly by 6-12 groups of army at the same time and they are in Ren or Industrial age already. I admit I am not as experienced as most in-game having only been playing for 7 months but it is a bit daunting when someone can reach level 50 in 30 days or Ren in less than 40-50 days. Yes, someone can defend against that but it takes way too much work.. Nyxi is proof of that. She survived 3000 units at one time against her small army of 250. The rebuilding gets quite annoying and boring. I just let her auto delete because I got tired of it and because she was a little older than the rest in her alliance no one could help defend. She also could not help reinforce others. I really think the "Age" should be considered. If you pvp and are in the same age there is more of a balance.But whether or not this would even be considered I think what most is really looking for is a fair chance. There really needs to be some sort of balance with attacking and defending. 

Everyone keeps saying this is a War game. Yes, but it is not ONLY a war game. And with that I would like to give a shout out to  Bers and the devs for all their work. You all rock! :)

2 weeks 4 days ago

Reply to Valkeiria :

Hi everyone :) I think PVP should happen with players in the same age, ie stone, classical, ren, etc... If you pvp and are in the same age there is more of a balance. There really needs to be some sort of balance with attacking and defending. 

Everyone keeps saying this is a War game. Yes, but it is not ONLY a war game. And with that I would like to give a shout out to  Bers and the devs for all their work. You all rock! :)

Problem is that somebody can stay behind in research just to stay safe from attackers, how would
you prevent this? :)

I agree that war/peace balance is very nice, too much either would be bad/boring/frustrating honestly.

2 weeks 4 days ago

I think Valkieria's suggestion has merit since it would take much more planning and thought to attack if the playing board was more evenly balanced. If someone wants to stay behind in research they will lose out in the game is all. No loss there unless of course you are trying to push them out.

2 weeks 4 days ago

Reply to SuperUser :

Hi everyone :) I think PVP should happen with players in the same age, ie stone, classical, ren, etc... If you pvp and are in the same age there is more of a balance. There really needs to be some sort of balance with attacking and defending. 

Everyone keeps saying this is a War game. Yes, but it is not ONLY a war game. And with that I would like to give a shout out to  Bers and the devs for all their work. You all rock! :)

Problem is that somebody can stay behind in research just to stay safe from attackers, how would
you prevent this? :)

I agree that war/peace balance is very nice, too much either would be bad/boring/frustrating honestly.

There will surely be players in every age. Ones coming in and ones just wanting to start a new one. I don't think this will be an issue. Of course there are those that just want to do quests and such but so what. If they don't wish to do anything more then that it should be their choice. The fact that will still get attacked and have to defend will be there either way but at least it will be with players in that same age. Maybe there can be something within the next generation of the story where you have to be in certain ages to continue? Maybe the end story can be space age? :) That would certainly help that particular situation and force them to continue research if they want to do the quests. :) Me personally I would like to go attacking for once with someone who is on the same level as me. I mean I certainly wouldn't hold back from getting to space age and I know many others feel the same way. 

2 weeks 4 days ago

Maybe even have some type of portals for each age that has specific quests. Portals to another dimension or something. Something that can be done with an object found in the beginning? idk I have so many ideas.

2 weeks 4 days ago

Maybe 6-10 days into an age you can still attack the age before? Just putting it on the table.

2 weeks 4 days ago

Reply to SuperUser :

Hi everyone :) I think PVP should happen with players in the same age, ie stone, classical, ren, etc... If you pvp and are in the same age there is more of a balance. There really needs to be some sort of balance with attacking and defending. 

Everyone keeps saying this is a War game. Yes, but it is not ONLY a war game. And with that I would like to give a shout out to  Bers and the devs for all their work. You all rock! :)

Problem is that somebody can stay behind in research just to stay safe from attackers, how would
you prevent this? :)

I agree that war/peace balance is very nice, too much either would be bad/boring/frustrating honestly.

The advantage on hero's era Vs age was discussed many times without any change  see post  http://www.totemtribe.com/talk/adios/1/#post_33624

This is why I did not want to bring that same discussion again. We had already talked about it too much and Bers doesn't agree.  But maybe he might agree in decreasing the time that the 30 day rule is active, especially now that heroes are only active for 150 days Vs the 9 months that we used to  have before.

2 weeks 3 days ago

If the 30 day rule is taken out then some other kind of balance needs to done with attacking and defending. Bers can disagree and say no but the fact is if you don't have the ability to create units because of the age you are in then you shouldn't be attack by those units either. The suggestion of the "Age" ie Med, Ren, was if the 30 day rule was taken away. There needs to be more of a balance.Maybe Bers can chime in here and give some suggestions.

2 weeks 1 day ago

I don't think the suggestion was to remove the 30 day rule altogether; just to shorten the time it is active from 100 days hero life to 75 days.  That is plenty of time to either progress or run the risk of being eliminated by someone who wants you moved, IMO.

There is no need for additional balance, IMO.  After all, it's the balance that was demanded that necessitates multiple heroes attacking at one time.  :-)

Limiting attack by age for the entirety of a hero lifespan makes them bullet-proof should a player decide to just lay off research.  At least once their neighbors get ahead of them in tech.  No one is supposed to be invincible in this game is my understanding. 

Edited by River 2 weeks 1 day ago.

2 weeks 1 day ago

We will reduce the 100 day restriction down to 90 days, it would be more gradual and in line with other limits:

1 week of total protection

1 month protection from harassment

then 2 months protection agains developed players

then 1 month of unrestricted game until apocalypse starts

then 1 month until the apocalypse - other players start disappearing so it's a bit easier than previous one.

Therefore reducing it from 100 to 90 would make unrestricted window from 20 days to a full month, which would make more sense and will mave overall game session more balanced - this way each month will have a different feel and different pressure.

2 weeks 0 days ago

Thanks Bers.  :-)  Just so I understand, that means both players have to be 90 days or older for the protection to be totally gone just like it is now with 100 days?  So, it applies to attacker and attacked yes?

And it takes effect after the next update right?  :-)

Edited by River 2 weeks 0 days ago.

2 weeks 0 days ago

It will be exactly as before, just 90 days instead of 100

2 weeks 0 days ago

Reply to berserker :

We will reduce the 100 day restriction down to 90 days, it would be more gradual and in line with other limits:

1 week of total protection

1 month protection from harassment

then 2 months protection agains developed players

then 1 month of unrestricted game until apocalypse starts

then 1 month until the apocalypse - other players start disappearing so it's a bit easier than previous one.

Therefore reducing it from 100 to 90 would make unrestricted window from 20 days to a full month, which would make more sense and will mave overall game session more balanced - this way each month will have a different feel and different pressure.

Thank you very much for this adjustment .  Only two things I don't quite understand. 1 :  what do you mean when you say protection from harassment?  and 2 :  Are developed players those at the end of the tech tree?

1 week 6 days ago

Thanks! 

1 week 6 days ago