Keep the Contents of the Museum and Stronghold Secret

[Manifesto]

I'm not going to argue your points, you're entitled to your opinion as l am mine.

The one thing I'll point out is l said seeing the stats after doesn't change your attack approach.
Your response was I'm not going to deploy my army near a mortar/redoubt position if I know they are boosted.
Do you even read what l write? How would you know what's boosted if stats are shown after the battle?
Yes, in a war you would know this for the 2nd battle but l never specified any 'type' of battle, you chose to make your point only on wars.
Besides, if stats are shown after a war battle (which some prefer) and your 2nd attack turns out better (because of the advanced knowledge) then everyone benefits.
I think that's a good enough compromise. Are you open to compromises?

 

[No Angel]

Booo... All of you are boring, tennis?! Soccer is nice though, the players

 

[KniferX]

The OP was clearly talking about museum in WW, everyone here is talking about museum in WW, and you did not specify you were talking about MP. You should make your point clearer next time. Basics.

One last thing before you go.. do you think that players who want to have visible museum stats in WW are children? Please answer honestly.

 

[Manifesto]

The whole point of the game is predictability

I want to comment on this one particular point. Personally, l can't think of anything more boring than a game that's predictable.
​​Maybe this is where your frustration lies with the game? You have this mindset at the start of each battle and when something goes contrary to your expectations, you rage against the developers.
Sure the Uni and museum have increased the level of unpredictably, but predictability in the game has never been very 'predictable', more so at higher levels.
The only thing l can suggest is you be a bit more flexible in your approach. Expect nothing and you'll adapt quicker.

 

[KniferX]

You do not understand my point here.
The fun part is making the unpredictable-predictable. That's where your skill comes in play.

The point of making a strategy is to make a good pattern of attack by relying on some predictions like: movement of your troops, the spawning and movement of enemy troops, range and damage of defense buildings, etc etc... that is the point of strategy.
And there is also fun in winning. When you do make a good prediction and strategy.

Losing a battle because you have made an insufficient plan or executed it in the wrong way, gives you space to learn, to become better, that is the addicting part of the game that keeps me in.

Randomly winning and losing battles because the enemy had hidden boosts you could not account for though.. is not fun. You cannot do much about it, you have to act as if each base is a behemoth, or you will get surprise losses from time to time. That is not a part of the game we need.

 

[Manifesto]

KniferX
Losing a battle because you have made an insufficient plan or executed it in the wrong way, gives you space to learn, to become better,
I couldn't agree more and is the one thing l constantly 'preach'. Now, don't you think knowing all the stats beforehand robs you of this opportunity? I do.
If you can plan for the pitfalls beforehand it robs you of the chance to learn.

 

[Manifesto]

KniferX
No, but I think that mindset is childish.
Now answer my question.

Ps: OP mentioned WW only once in his comments, that doesn't mean his whole post was about WW, imo. Unlike some posters here, l dont believe WW is the end-all and be-all.

 

[KniferX]

What mindset is childish? Thinking that it is not fine to get randomly wiped out from time to time by invisible artifacts? Thinking that you shouldn't be going full force, troop tactics every attack due to invisible artifacts?

If I wasn't open to compromise, I would've left this game a long time ago. I would feel the post attack scout report for everyone to see stats, is an acceptable compromise, maybe even a strategic utility that other teams won't use as much. That's much better than ''oh well I guess the enemy had some all defensive towers damage artifacts''

You can put the same arguments for MP as well. Even more painful if you lose your entire army there. The only redeeming factor is that you can skip bases, and that attacking defended and active bases is so discouraged already, that the presence of invisible artifacts doesn't change much for the majority of players, who are operating in the low medal ranges attacking easy targets.

 

[KniferX]

I cannot understand how you keep missing the point. There is almost nothing to learn from invisible, unpredictable boosts. The only thing you learn is that to minimize the risk you need to approach every attack as if it is the worst case scenario, i.e. become more wasteful on a limited resource such as troop tactics.

 

[Manifesto]

KniferX
I’m not missing the point, l just don’t fully agree with yours.
I trust you can accept that.

 

[Manifesto]

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree and move on.
At the very least l will.

 

[StarTrekAlliance]

KniferX - The Fantasy and Space Colony expansion packs, would be just that, expansion packs. They could be purchased by folks who want to add parallel development and enjoy the different aspects of science fiction and fantasy. They would potentially bring in more players as the base game would still be Dominations, but with portals from the main screen to the expansion packs. As to your other comment on 'randomness', well, that is reality my friend, and there are always unknowns in any situation. P2W? Nope, I don't agree. You can compete in this game without breaking the bank. I like the unknowns the Museum and Stronghold bring to the game...makes it more fun and exciting.

 

[KniferX]

StarTrekAlliance
Problems with fantasy and colonization ''expansion packs'':
- already limited developer time spent on developing parts of the game that the grand majority of the playerbase will not play. Means less developer time for new content and bug fixes for the main game that the majority of players will play

- segmenting a playerbase from different content of the game with paywalls, increasing dissatisfaction of most players, basically making 2 groups of players completely separated, might as well be playing different games.

- ruining the immersion and consistency (cohesiveness) factor. This game differentiates itself from something like Clash of Clans being that its design is heavily based on the historical and chronological advancement of the human civilization. A lot of people play this, for a part, because they feel immersed in the process of developing their own ''civilization'' through an abstract medium of a single ''base'' (an example of this immersion factor would be the very popular Civilization series of games).
Adding a sudden skip like space colonization before such an age has been reached, or just adding irrelevant elements such as fantasy portals, will ruin that immersion and make the game less cohesive.

All in all, a much better idea is to call for BHG to expand their team a bit, at some point in time, and release specific games based on those design choices (and probably skipping fantasy, Clash of Clans has that segment pretty well covered)

As for your arguments about hidden artifacts, I think it is unlikely that you will find it fun if at any point you experience hitting 2 almost identical bases. A successful attack on one, and a failure on the other, because hidden boosts are in play.
As for p2w, I also think it is unlikely you will hear of any alliance reaching top 60-50 in world war ranking without also making some of their players reach into their pockets.

 

[forgetthis]

The challenge with university research and artifacts is that at no point is it obvious that those boosts are in play, and if so, just how big the boosts are.

Traps? Hidden at first, but you see them sprung. Donated troops? Hidden at first, but you see them deploy during an attack. But university research and artifacts remain hidden, and it’s tough to know for certain if an attack goes poorly because of university / artifacts, a slight variation in strategy, bad luck, or bugs introduced with Nexon’s latest update. It makes it tougher to evolve a strategy.

A good solution would be to let players see these boosts in the results screen after the fact - then the boosts could remain hidden pre-attack AND people could learn why their attacks went awry afterwards. However, given that Nexon will want the uncertainty to help cover up bugs in their releases and there is no monetary benefit to Nexon to adding such a feature, it likely won’t happen. In fact, there is a strong argument that Nexon wants the uncertainty, because it leads to failed attacks that cause people to plunk down crowns to retrain their whole army, so now that I think about it, that kind of feature *definitely* won’t happen. If anything, we’ll see more uncertainty introduced.

 

[Davina]

The problem with artifacts is there are so many variables it is impossible to predict; and therefore form a strategy.

At least with uni/lib you can plan your strategy around the enemy having Resistance complete in lib or HTG in uni etc...

I’m not sure I have the answer to this (other than just scrapping the museum but that won’t happen). One thing’s for certain, right now it’s a lottery and that isn’t conducive to a game based on strategy (unless your strategy is to be lucky...)

 

[TinSoldier]

The team was working on a system to show the benefits after the battle, yes. This is similar to the tech that shows your your own benefits from the Museum. The design team needed more time to iterate on showing these benefits, since it felt clunky the first way we had it, and it left us feeling like it was just another screen to tap through before going to battle again.

Happy to provide updates when more become available!