This has probably already been mentioned, but it would be nice if you could decrease the wait time for new settlers. Everything else I can build more or upgrade to reduce the wait time (e.g. build an extra Mason doubles the rate I receive stone). So maybe the rate you obtain new settlers could be related to the number of houses or how many free spaces you have for settlers (e.g. extra house decreases wait time by 5% from previous value or wait time is proportional to number of available spots).
Are they looking at making the battle animation faster? I can't see any reason for it to take as long as it does...
i like to have a move building tab
Production over time charts for easy use:
Several links in the Forum are available to calculate this. I prefer this one : http://ceo-economy.appspot.com/
It is not mine but I hope it or one like it is more prominently placed in the game for new players to be familiar with.
The reason I like this is the ease of use.
Last edited by JanusValerius; 11-05-11 at 06:10 pm. Reason: forgot to quote the original I was replying to.
I would like to suggest a filter of spammers and trollers....one that the community decides who they are.
I would propose a formula be used to show number off ignoreadds a player has against them. The number may be high and have warning points at stages.
The ignoreadds should not count if they were created while the player was not online.
This way an admin presence would not be required to boot or suspend a player the community would be somewhat self monitoring and actually several people try to.
I also suggest that you only qualify by sending it once...no "stuffing the ballot box"
I have seen some other games that could use this too, but there I saw abuse because the admins were friends of the offender or not of similar mind to the majority of members. Please help us police ourselves.
I think this is a FABULOUS idea, JanusValerius. Ohio people have such great ideas. GO BUCKS!
When life gives you lemons, make lemon flavored Starbursts.
That could work, but I think we will have to wait and see how the PvP plays out. Plus you can revenge ignoring by a guild and it's allies. Either way it is very difficult to Moderate a chat. Ohio hasn't had a good idea since Woody Hayes.
There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless. - Niccolò Machiavelli
would like to see a feature similar to Galaxy Online, that allows you to retreat from battle when you discover you are woefully matched (at least when its against the computer). When you enter battle with less troops, you always lose, so when you see the battle report, its a little disheartening to know you should have built a bigger army. When you battle against other players, I think its fine that you cannot scout their army size, or retreat (so you pick your battles carefully).
I would agree but with the inclusion of the votes only having value while the ignored player is online I do not see how that could be seriously used. More likely he would be a former member of the guild that nobody liked. No team is always 100% loyal to a singlre opinion.....unless the opinion is inherently valid by itself.Originally Posted by Armin
That could work, but I think we will have to wait and see how the PvP plays out. Plus you can revenge ignoring by a guild and it's allies. Either way it is very difficult to Moderate a chat. Ohio hasn't had a good idea since Woody Hayes.
The second reason is the high qualifying requirement that I mentioned. The ratio factor would not even apply until say 100-200 ignoreadds are created against them. I only see one guild with that many members. I doubt they are ALL die hard login junkies.
That qualifying number would then apply the player login time versus the actual ignoreadd time and eliminate any of the "ego" stacking you suggest possible with guilds participating.
These are all code based functions, but I stand by the fact that the community would be able to police itself better without admin debate and overweighted individual influence.
If you truly do not see this then the penalized player should be able to appeal through a GROUP of Ubisoft Moderators. I am sure that amount of request will be less than the current stack of complaints.
Poor vehavior should be rooted out of a society not simply glossed over so new members have to keep being subjected to it. They will leave the community if they are given more negative before they experience all the positives. Even if this is considered a business it is prefered to not earn negative rep of the entire by the behavior of the few.
I would like to suggest a vote button on some of these forum posts so that the Ubisoft team can prioritize the validity to the community as a whole.
Not to suggest the opinions would decide all policy because it is property of the creators, however it would be good business to be aware of client/user opinion trends.
Again as I already suggested it should be only one vote per user and to avoid abuse by multi that the vote can be filtered. Filtered against amount of logins again. Not a perfect block but say the player login count would filter out any votes that do not have at least level "x" (played seriously) or logged in at least 5 times.
I am sure you get the idea, heck you were smart enmough to make this program.
Anyway, the vote could like the msn news votes on the reader response messages.
Thank you for your serious consideration.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
