Single player mode

I want to say that I have also waited a long time for this game, and expected to be more like TT, TTG.

I dont like the idea of getting attacked, and if I cant play foe a few days , my town would be wiped out, I think there should be 2 sides to the game, 1- single players get to play on their own like TTG, and 2- players that want to play and attack each other play on a different side,,,,, I thought that when I chose single player I would be playing at my pace and not with others attacking like I have read on here

If the game consists of having to worry about been attacked, thats not what I want, and I dont think I would finish the game like others had said wont eather, I thought that single players would play the game more like TTG..... I HOPE THAT SOMETHING COULD BE DONE FOR US THAT WAITED SO LONG FOR A GAME TO BE LIKE TTG, ITS ONLY FARE THAT WE GET OUR SIDE DONE,,,PLEASE MAKE IT A TWO SIDE GAME, SINGLE LIKE TTG, AND MULTY PLAYERS THAT WANT TO BE ATTACKED,,, I KNOW A LOT OF PLAYERS WANT THE SAME AS I DO.   JUST EXPRESSING MY OPINION,,, THANKS

Some weeks ago i suggest different type of servers. For example a speedserver with strong reduced buildingtime and more speed for units to spent a weekend playing or just an evening with a fast competition. I would prefer Expandingserver where you can attack and destroy other towns and expand endlessly. And as i see here at this thread maybe a peacefull server would be interessting for some players too, the whole kind of multiplayer isn't the problem, the most frustrating will be attacks and competition of domains, at such a peacefull server you could place the player not so close together and every town will have truce so you can talk and trade but just atack nonplayer like opposition outpost.

Because of the fact the game is a great mix of different genres you will have fans of the different genres and you could use the option to offer different server with focus in different genres. At least you will have many player and also some who pay for the fun and this could be a easy way to make them happy.

I think that different servers would be the best solution if the team could do it somewhere down the line.  I accept that this wouldn't be feasible at the moment because we are in alpha, but maybe it could be implemented during beta testing.

But of course a "peaceful" server can bring its own problems unless the only polity available is communality, otherwise there is nothing stopping a "warmonger" signing up to the server with the intention of playing peacefully for a month or so, building up their army and then setting out to plunder everyone else.

And there is something else I want to say about the game and Berserkers postings over the last couple of years.  I firmly believe that the game we are playing is exactly what was described to us.  It was made very clear in all of his news posts that there was never going to be a  single player option in the game and that the only part of it that would be, was the adventure/questing part of the game.  He stated quite clearly that inter action was necessary but that each of us could limit the amount of interaction to suit ourselves.  Again I am putting this down to meanings being lost in translation - Berserkers first language is not English and those of us whose  native language is English, have interpreted what he said differently.
Granted I'm not too chuffed about being attacked but I knew, when I sent my donation, that what I was investing in contained elements that wouldn't appeal to me and others that would make up for those cons.

Later I went back and looked at the attack report on my hero and realized that the attacker was worse off than me. He got so little that it would not even cover the ‘cost’ of reinstating the units he lost at my place. So, I doubted he would be back – just not profitable. At that point I wondered if he even knew what my polity was. I think it was Delraylady that asked if we could have a display of our polity to deter the attackers. She is my neighbor so I am guessing she had the same experience.

Many of the "warmongers" are not in it for profit, nor do they care if they are attacking a peaceful or warring neighbor. I started a new hero and was plopped right next to someone who had already advanced. It was bad enough that he attacked repeatedly, but there was another neighbor who did the same thing. I pm'd both of them and told them that I was peaceful and had no interest in warring, but it made no difference.

As to the "defense bonus" - it is pretty much worthless. I built my palisade and tower to 5 (pre-"balancing") and had multiple upgraded towers, braves, and hunters. I was attacked (he at least gave me warning) and all my defensive structures were destroyed. It was a complete waste of time and resources to build them. Fortunately, this is not a warmongering neighbor and he has turned out to be very helpful and has not attacked again. Otherwise, I would be stuck in that hero.

Finally, this is the quote from the email I got telling me about TTII: "But if you don't care about fighting other players and would like to enjoy steady expansion, trading, quests, or puzzles, you will feel right at home too. You can choose different sets of starting bonuses and drawbacks with one of them bringing beginner players a very serious defense bonus for the sacrifice of attack power. And you will keep that protection until you feel ready to interact with others, not after a small amount of time like one week." This thread makes it obvious that many of us do NOT "feel right at home." Nor does it appear that that "protection" will stay in place until WE feel ready to interact. I shouldn't have to go through and read everything that has ever been posted to discover that what I was told by Enkord is not true.

Now, with the "rebalancing" defensive structures have become more costly and time consuming. A level 5 tower - one - takes more than 7 hours to construct. No wonder people who choose to play peacefully are unhappy.

And there is something else I want to say about the game and Berserkers postings over the last couple of years.  I firmly believe that the game we are playing is exactly what was described to us.  It was made very clear in all of his news posts that there was never going to be a  single player option in the game and that the only part of it that would be, was the adventure/questing part of the game.  He stated quite clearly that inter action was necessary but that each of us could limit the amount of interaction to suit ourselves.  Again I am putting this down to meanings being lost in translation - Berserkers first language is not English and those of us whose  native language is English, have interpreted what he said differently.
Granted I'm not too chuffed about being attacked but I knew, when I sent my donation, that what I was investing in contained elements that wouldn't appeal to me and others that would make up for those cons.

Berserker is being quoted above as saying that we can choose the amount of interaction that we have with others. Obviously this is not the case as we cannot choose to prevent someone from attacking us. I do take the point that something may have been lost in the translation. I am surprised to read that LOVEINT had structures destroyed. I was not aware that was possible at this stage of the alpha. That is distressing and I am not sure how many of the peaceful players will stick with the game if that is what they confronted with when they first start playing.

Only towers and palisade can be destroyed at this stage, but as a natural part of testing process we need this to happen to tweak so it won't be too easy. Remember, you are testers here in the first place, so if things like loosing structures upset you too much, perhaps it is a good idea to wait until later stages of the game when things will be more balanced.

I would have thought that if ‘peaceful style’ players are part of the demographic you are seeking to reach with the eventual game, then the way we react to being attacked is valuable data for you.

Lovntnt and Ghera, something that I want you both to remember is that at the moment alliances are not implemented  and I am hoping that when it is introduced it will stand to the peaceful players advantage.  I currently am part of a "trade embargo" alliance (obviously an unofficial one as alliances are not available) who will not trade with 2 other players.  There would be no point in me sending some troops to help her out as my army isn't very big, so our alliance is based on not trading with her enemies.  There are many ways to skin a cat!

AnneeR
I agree that the concept of Alliances may indeed be useful but I have no idea what that is going to look like. I am not sure what the trade embargo will do to them. They don’t trade for what they want, they attack and plunder to get it.

Some things are possible if you are online, like going to someone’s aid if you can get there more quickly than the attackers. This raises the issue of our lack of attack force, only 30% of the ‘war’ people. So if we did go to help, would our help be useless? Or is the 30% only applicable if we are the aggressor as opposed to reinforcing?

Will an alliance ‘automatically’ help its members even if they are not online, that might be interesting.

There are option as a defender you won't lose nothing. Just use them and attacker had no fun to attack you anymore.

1. If your attacker had very strong army and rams you will lose all of your army, palaisade and towers.
2. If your hero is there you will lose him too
3. attacker will plunder some of your ressources.

To prevent 1. Dont built army palisade or towers, they will be destroyed every time.
To prevent 2. If you go offline send your hero to heralds home, nobody can attack there and he don't need food. If you send more units be care of your food. The primary idea is to save just your hero.
To prevent 3. If you have stash at same level as your sheds 100% of your maximum store is protect from plunder.

If you do so, somebody can attack you 100 times per day and you will lose nothing.

Ghera, 
Slider and Lover both look for trade in the Market and as a matter of fact on Monday evening, Slider and Lover where the only people who had posted in the market.  They needed what I had and although I didn't need it I decided not to trade with them to help slow them down.  Trading with them allows them to build up their armies faster.  You don't need big storage sheds to train units, you just need  to have upgraded resource fields and these are still fairly time consuming for the higher levels.
I have a question - how do you put the "reply to: aaa" at the top of your post - ty :)

I have a question - how do you put the "reply to: aaa" at the top of your post - ty :)

Use the Button.

Only towers and palisade can be destroyed at this stage, but as a natural part of testing process we need this to happen to tweak so it won't be too easy. Remember, you are testers here in the first place, so if things like loosing structures upset you too much, perhaps it is a good idea to wait until later stages of the game when things will be more balanced.

I would have thought that if ‘peaceful style’ players are part of the demographic you are seeking to reach with the eventual game, then the way we react to being attacked is valuable data for you.

I have a question - how do you put the "reply to: aaa" at the top of your post - ty :)

Use the Button.

Thanks Hadouken

Ah um i may not be making any sense at all or whatever :P but for those who want to play solo and don't want this game to be multiplayer for you i mean you don't want to engage other players why don't we think of those people hero etc who are neighbours or who helped or friends just like the monkey tribe and those who attack you like people of the wolf tribe from TT1 to make it look like a quest etc ? ^_^ 

hi.

I loved TT and TTG (and I BOUGHT both of them - TT from BFG and TTG from Enkord - contrary to Berserkers insistances about piracy). I also thought that this game would have a single-player option: that you could play the entire game without having to interact with other players. Now I have been playing for just 2-3 days. I love the graphics and the puzzles.

I donated quite a reasonable amount fairly early on. In the time I have been playing I have spent double my initial investment to buy 140,000 Enkord cash in order to speed up the interminably slow upgrades, research times etc.

Now that I have done that and played the game, I will continue to play for now, on the understanding that the enkord money spent will be replaced each time the game is wiped during development. I will probably play once the game is perfected, but will not be spending another penny on it.

I am not happy that things take far too long to build/upgrade/research/train etc. The only reason that I can see for that is so that players will do as I have done - spend money in order to speed things up and make the game playable - there is a saying here in England about 'watching paint dry' and that is what this game feels like unless money is spent in order to change that.

The idea that people will have to spend some time each day playing the game is unrealistic - some of us have other things/people in our lives outside of this game. The fact that there appears to be no way to play against only the game - not against or in alliance with other people - is not just disappointing, it is distressing. As other people have said, on this thread, for a lot of us 'adult' players, game-playing is our personal retreat; our private space, our relaxation. This game does not look as though it will provide any of those things.

As for the notion that people will not play for long if the game is not browser-based and multi-player: I have played 'Gemcraft Labyrinth' for years - it cost me Ј5 - and the next version of Gemcraft will be released in 3 weeks time - it will cost a lot less than this game has cost me, there will be no requirement (or temptation) to pay more than the purchase price and I will play it for many years, as will the other thousands of people who have followed it avidly.

Yes, this is an addictive game with good puzzles and stunning graphics and, as a solo player, it would have been an absolute essential for me. But the multi-player and fighting elements, as well as the 'paint-drying'  aspects, combine to destroy most of the pleasure. I wouldn't recommend this to most of the people I know who, like me, play solo games against the computer and/or themselves.

I also prefer the 'single' player mode.  I've had several of my towns repeatedly attached each day by several other players, so I spent most of my time rebuilding, etc.  Not very enjoyable.  I understand that alliances may make a difference, but with people playing around the world with different time zones, it may be hard for it to work all that well unless your alliance is online at the same time.

I also have spent nearly all my original $100,000 just getting blueprints, etc. to keep things going well.  And the coin machine needing us to log in every day is frustrating.  Why not change it so that you lose one of the little squares on the wheel for each day you don't play?  I had my computer crash once, lost all the wheel info, and then your server went down for long enough that I think everyone lost their entire wheel info.

I wont to play it :( !!!!!