UI Optimization-Vol.3: Tactics

[Peter]

Hello Commanders,

 

Tactic is a very important part of this game. We have relocated some buttons and optimized the tactic interfaces. Check the pictures below. Please note that the pictures are not the final versions.

 

Bonus: From this volume (Vol. 3) on, we will give away 3000 diamonds to each of the top 3 BEST comments of each volume. The comments can be suggestions, advice or opinions on our UI optimization. Come and give us your feedback! We will not deliver the diamonds if no good comments in the comment area.

 

1. Here is a sample picture of the interfaces when one's in a map. We have remove the tactic button to the left hand, however, the tactics will still show on the right.

 

2. For a convenient use, when one chooses a tactic, the tactic info will show at the right bottom.

[alyas]

Good job  i like that  and change some things in game but i have comment about officers plz discount prize some officers because 50 $  is high prize

Thanks again 

 

[CptBrad]

Looks great. But y’all should come out with some tactics. One could be increased range for units for 15 minutes with 30 minute cool down. And lower the cost of the $50 officers to be like $40 

[ApkHawk148]

I must admit seeing something changing about this game does add some interest back to the game, keyword “some”. Looks and interface updates are good but there needs to be more effort directed towards actually gameplay. I can tell you from experience that it is frustrating trying to find a good bf to play. Often times your league will join and there really be no good competition which results in a boring bf. In short there seems to be a great lack of leagues with a good size as well as skill level to fight against. It wasn't like how it was years ago when these leagues were plentiful.

what I would like to see is a new system added that promotes and fixes the lack of pvp. Rebels are fine from time to time but to join bfs all the time with the main challenge being rebels is boring and will turn players away. I for one am not motivated to play if all there is to fight are rebels.

Not saying this is the best solution but what if upon joining a bf a player is placed into a “temporary alliance”? These temporary alliances can have a limit of say 15-20 players. Now for leagues with players question up they will join and the reminder of players will fill in. Specific rules can be added to avoid any issues if this idea seems possible. By following this system it may help motivate new players and solo players to work within their alliance to win or push them to forming or joining a league. Also with this system only those within the alliance can be “allied” so at most an alliance can have 20 members allied. While neutral is part of the existing game I think it should be removed to make it more fair. The main reason being alts and sister leagues. This will prevent players from using alts or their sister league members for extra tactics or troop support. The game should be won by skill and teamwork, not sheer force of numbers. While this doesn’t not eliminate the alt/ sister league issue all together it will help deter and limit the use. 
 

I believe the only way to promote this game and help it grow is to bring back what made it popular in the first place. There should be more pvp than there is PvE. PvE in my opinion should only be for new comers as training for pvp. Once they reach a certain lvl they can no longer play these maps. It would also be cool to see more global based type maps where larger scale wars can be made but with different landscapes. 
 

I would like to add that there should also be a focus on making more troops varieties. One idea on where to start is by following what air class did with bombers. Each bomber has a specialization and copy that to tanker and cannoneer. Have troops that are good vs buildings, good vs air, good vs ground, and one that is average in all areas. I will say that there needs to be a balancing act done to the existing bombers. A ship bomber shouldn’t be used to kill ground troops effectively and so on. Fro what I see bombers have that one high trait but also the other stats aren’t bad either. Whatever the troop specializes in should only have high stats in that area with all other stats being very low to nonexistent. This will make players chose carefully on what troops they make.

[GreatKingZ]

1) YOU MUST JOIN THE 3 TROOP TECHNOLOGIES, IN 1 SINGLE TECHNOLOGY,
MY REASON:
IT IS A FASTIDE TO ACTIVATE GUNNER AND BE AT A DISADVANTAGE WITH THE TANKS, THAT IS WHY IT FUSES THE TECHNOLOGIES.

2) MANAGER
YOU MUST ELIMINATE ALLIANCES WITH OTHER LEAGUES, MY REASON.  THERE WILL NO LONGER BE ALTS OR ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNTS.

3) YOU MUST CREATE A BUTTON TO DEMOLISH THE CITY, ITS CENTRAL BUILDING WITH GEMS
 THAT IS NEEDED HERE.

4) AND YOUR CREATE X5 PRODUCTION OF RESOURCES, IN ALL MAPS
, THIS GAME IS VERY SLOW
3 DAY COLLECTING RESOURCES
AND THE FIGHT LASTS LESS
OF 4 HOURS IN AN ENTIRE MAP.

[ApkHawk148]

14 hours ago, GreatKingZ said:

1) YOU MUST JOIN THE 3 TROOP TECHNOLOGIES, IN 1 SINGLE TECHNOLOGY,
MY REASON:
IT IS A FASTIDE TO ACTIVATE GUNNER AND BE AT A DISADVANTAGE WITH THE TANKS, THAT IS WHY IT FUSES THE TECHNOLOGIES.

2) MANAGER
YOU MUST ELIMINATE ALLIANCES WITH OTHER LEAGUES, MY REASON.  THERE WILL NO LONGER BE ALTS OR ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNTS.

3) YOU MUST CREATE A BUTTON TO DEMOLISH THE CITY, ITS CENTRAL BUILDING WITH GEMS
 THAT IS NEEDED HERE.

4) AND YOUR CREATE X5 PRODUCTION OF RESOURCES, IN ALL MAPS
, THIS GAME IS VERY SLOW
3 DAY COLLECTING RESOURCES
AND THE FIGHT LASTS LESS
OF 4 HOURS IN AN ENTIRE MAP.

Gem demoing a city is a horrible idea, the idea that anyone can demo a high lvl city just because they are about to lose it ruins the spoils of war and just shows how much of a sore loser the player is. Imagine a player is attacking the city, what could happen is the defender will demo instantly and then could possible spawn an alt right there if the alt has no city which would come with an 8hr shield. This would not only ruins the attack but trap and leave the attacking army vulnerable.

A better idea is to remove the option to demo if the city is under attack. Once the city is under fire, just like shielding won’t work, neither should demoing. If the player wants to demo they need to start before being attacked.( league cities will remain the same when it comes to demoing).

 

As for resources it seems to me you aren’t grabbing enough villages or Resource zones. I bet your only of those players that only has 4 of each and expect to fund their whole army, LC and upgrades. Getting at least 8 villages and 8 resources zones is enough to fund you very well and that’s on top of the city mini zones. If you need more resources you should go to bf tech and do the ones that increase production.

[ApkHawk148]

I really do hope that next season will be far better than season 4 which was absolutely trash IMO. I would like to see skins for higher end tanks such as king tiger or Maus. Seen way too many bomber/ air skins 

Now many players may disagree with what I am about to suggest but hear me out.

Tanks as they are currently are very underwhelming mid to late game. Even with perks and buffs (if tanker clàss is selected) m40s and arty have a higher chance to win on a one on one battle as m40s has AOE and tanks do not. Unless your tanks are spread out in the best way possible , all tanks will suffer together the same AOE damage from arty while the arty player will only have very few troops attacked at a time.

The only positives to tanks are they are good attacking cities and have a higher hp pool then stugs would. They do last a while in a fight but that is without doing much damage ( in short they are just meat shields to stall). In truth tankers do not get a lot of kills in a pvp battle and even more so in a team pvp battle. Often times it’s those with M40s that claim the majority of the kills and tankers even if they are shown playing a huge part , the game doesn’t reward them for this unless they get kills.

 

Now for the suggestion or rather 2.

The first suggestion is add a bf tech for tanker that gives tanks a 5 min AOE attack ability.( this would be a lvl 15 battle lvl needed). Now this doesn’t make them super OP but it does give tanks that boost they need to fight other armies. Tanks do still get out ranaged by arty so they player will have to still place their tanks down strategically. 
 

The second suggestion which may be more unpopular to some is create a new tactic card that gives tanks a 5 min AOE. There would have to be limits though as it could be abused such as teammates constantly dropping it on their tanker players so it would have to be solo use only. However in truth this idea seems very unlikely and doing bf tech is much better.

 

Just a few more improvements tanks need are speed and range. Not both but they need something to close the distance with what they are attacking. It’s already hard enough that arty have more range but when under fire the tanks move super slow that by the time they reach the arty they are either half to almost dead. Also the roads in the game seemed to be bugged as sometimes the troops move fast while other times they move the same speed as they would crossing terrain.

I really hope that this is all looked at and taken seriously. The game needs troop balance to make it more enjoyable and it always seems to be the same go to troops being used with tanks being a lower end use. A maus which requires a lvl 5 LC munitions should not be easily beaten by a lvl 2 LC munitions m40 troop. In game arty is accurate, does high damage and has AOE, however if you look at games like world of tanks this is not the case. It is hard for arty to hit a target, it’s a gamble on if they do high damage and AOE only occurred if another tank was practically hugging another tank. If a tank had a shot at the arty it usually does with just one shot. Back to this game this is not the case. Just food for thought.

[pattoo900]

Don’t have anything major to say, but I really appreciate the game.  Someone is doing a great job.

[JigglinJake]

I personally think the new interface you are exploring is a great way to clean up and modernize this game. That being said, here are my few suggestions regarding the UI in general:

1- try to clear as much unnecessary features as possible from the screen during a battlefield or consolidate features so there is more room for operation, especially for mobile users. This could be accomplished with less dropdown tabs or an augmented ability to transition quickly from the battlefield to the main screen so secondary features may be specifically reallocated there rather than add to clutter.

2- in the name of eliminating extraneous features, maybe as a consideration you could have a toggle-able option to remove the descriptions from the tactic points so it won’t interfere with more experienced players’ games that involve more rapid and strategic use of tactics.

3- to keep this centered on UI and not balancing, if any new tactics were to be added (highly encouraged, specifically with long-term mobility, range, economy, and sight as well as stackables in mind) I would them able to be ordered by user preference.

4- try updating range so that units to receive benefits are clearly marked and possibly include an option on the tech tree to see what their increased stats would look like.

5- potentially consider adding an automatically-triggering option for tactics if a unit is under attack or if a city is under attack although this would need to be more thought out (though it would balance players taking out players when they are asleep in other nations and not allow tactics to be used as an unbalanced bludgeon against an inactive player)

6- allowing us to buy special tactics in-game would add strategy as well as increase revenue. I understand that adding more tactics to the game that are not uniquely able to be purchased is a disincentive to add more, but the revenue stream would be much more consistent and immensely expanded if more players were to play the game and stay interested for longer. Using tactics as an incentive for leveling up is a great way to hold interest while not overwhelming new players… just something to think about.

7- messing around with font and background opaqueness is a trivial detail that people will not find massive issue with. But if the opaqueness could be less than 100% so troops and landscape can be visible, that would be excellent.

[JigglinJake]

Unrelated to UI which is a very strong first step, and aside from advertising, I would advise moving away from catering to older players with novel features and more towards building a base of newer players that will stay interested long enough to add to the culture of the mid-game. Expanding the player base to raise a middle game culture would allow for battlefields specifically designed for tiers that are populated with active and interested combatants. The tiered system along with an open system would balance the game itself with no great need to interfere with mechanics and develop a learning curve that new and midgame players can be a part of rather than suffer as a result of. The issues currently plaguing this are the fact that tiered bfs lack active participation and a segregate players in larger leagues. Both of these issues might be solved with an augmented base and cultural solidification of the mid-game. Maybe tactics (per my last comment) could be excluded from certain tier battlefields unless purchased. This would not be retroactive, rather, if I were a newer player, I could purchase access to “Blitzkrieg.” I want to balance the player’s interest with the developer’s interests here so while adding little to the game, it would subsidize revenue enough to add tactics to later game not for purchase (normal) that would otherwise decrease the revenue because those players would not be purchasing the “special tactics.” The net gain obviously being the fact that you would be bringing interest to all facets of the game, catering to all tiers of player proficiency, and adding strategy with more ability to micro-manage and balance if issues arise leading to a more stable game with a more active community. I’ve got more ideas, but I’ll wait until further prompting on another post or something to actually post.

As a side note: most of us players don’t want radical change, and most of our issues would easily be solved with a more developed middle game culture. For those that are asking for new features and new ideas for balancing or new troops, their complaints are echoes of this sentiment in a more aggressive light. Focus on the bigger issues that will allow you to address their concerns in the future without sacrificing quality or revenue and possibly try to appease them in the shorter term by releasing statements that maybe you are working on new things (like a new troop). This would increase speculation and enthusiasm and as a side project, would be lucrative in more ways than just the aforementioned.

[JigglinJake]

This should be my last comment for now. I want to go over a small hypothetical and ask a question.

One being, where does this game see itself and what do the players see it as being and where do both want it to go in the future…

this can be ascertained with a simple survey (with maybe a marginal reward like 200 amethysts for answering)

this would allow you to tailor the game to the players’ overall wishes as to what they want the game to be… do some see it as a grand strategy game because you incorporate the economy, population growth, and minor political abilities such as foreign relations… or do some see it as strictly a military strategy game… do some see it as a role-playing historical type game… these question are extremely important because they would influence the content you should be choosing to work on. 
a grand strategy game would encourage you to add more diplomatic features and maybe work on selecting “nation benefits” like if you chose to play with a country in mind (USA would get made manufacturing increased, Japan would get better Air Force and more leadership points, Britain would get stronger turrets and repair rates with defense on home soil, Germany would get increased mobility) thus would also cater to those who think of it as a role-playing game.

a specifically military strategy game would encourage you to dismantle the basic diplomacy options in favor of a more evenly-weighted system where allies cannot be sister leagues (obviously this can  also be counter balanced as above with more diplomatic relations) and adding more troops, tactics, larger maps, and more topographic variation like getting more defense on mountains, less movement in snow.

a grand strategy game could be in want of seasonal variation that has overall effects on gameplay (This could be full game or individual bf) or options for extended battlefields

a military strategy game would require a reworking of resources to allow for different types of troops, more leadership point potential (possibly gradient linear and not exponential like it currently is), and different  areas of the army to fixate on with potentially more expansion capacity and engineering capabilities.

 

the thing is, all of these ideas would be amazing if implemented in the future (at least for me), but it is unrealistic to implement anything without FIRST polling people and SECONDLY testing… testing and balancing are huge and can mitigate revenue loss, public dissent, and gradually gain reputation for innovation. The testing of this Game needs to be much more systematic, rigorous, and persistent if new features are to be added in large enough quantity to revitalize the game and answer everyone’s wishlists. What I feel would be the beat way to do this is… instead of doing it yourselves, let the players to do it for you. By paying them menial sums of in-game currency, you would not inflate the value of the currency or damage the overall market, but could easily make experimental battlefields that players would love and jump on to test new troops, terrain, tactics etc. features. The best part aside from increased interest is access to massive feedback systems and the ability to keep statistics on abstract additions. If you wanted to make a Britain that had increased repair, turret strength, and defense on home territory, and a Japan that had stronger Air Force and more leadership with other benefits, you could monitor these experimental bfs statistically to make adjustments like who wins more of the time, who has more territory, what type of armies are built, what country to people gravitate towards… this is a massive update that could only be accomplished through having people beta-test for you, but imagine the possibilities for single troops or terrain… you could adjust gameplay at will because you’d be rewarding the players with the obvious expectation that it is not a fair battlefield but experimental, and this would allow you to give certain players troops or advantages and test against players using non-adjusted features or statistics.