• Good day, Stranger! — Are you new to our forums?

    Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!

World Map Idea for empty neighbor spots

DeletedUser

Guest
[Summary]: When the most recent purges of inactive players occurred, there was a lot of complaining, and it took weeks to refill spots near me. My idea relates to the idea of something in those spots for people to visit.

[Have you checked for similar ideas?]: I didn't find exactly what I am thinking.

[Details]: My idea is that instead of a spot being empty, instead there would be ruins there. It makes sense that the inactive/abandoned towns would fall into ruins, and new towns make sense to build on ruins because that was a good spot before. When a player would visit the space, they could explore the ruins for coins. I was thinking maybe 1/2 neighborly help bonus to explore ruins.

[Reasons for Implementing]: It would make sense in game for there to be something there rather than a town disappearing, and would help with folks who like to visit while they wait for neighbors to return. It would also help folks who are stuck on an edge and don't have a lot of neighbors. People on edges tend to be newer folks, so it would also help with retention.

[Balance]: when people were complaining about the spots being empty, one item mentioned was that it would be problematic to automatically get help bonuses on empty spaces, when some people get stuck with inactives upgrading their mail hall. My idea of half bonus is to make it somewhat worthwhile without being too generous.

[Visual Aids]:
My graphics skills suck, so I will spare you. I was thinking this would be pretty simple to code graphics for though, as you could have one image to replace the blank space image to reflect ruins, and then one image for clicking on the ruins as the ruins wouldn't need to be recognizable as either type.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
First off +1 to this idea.

Now: two things. :D
  1. I don't see any reason at all as to why the neighbourly help reward needs to be decreased, unless it were halved and the supporting player would receive a 50% coin and supply reward. That doesn't make any sense to me though, as the respective deleted, inactive player would not have given NH, so the supporting player would not have received any supplies for at least 30 consecutive days priorly. Gaining supplies and coins might somewhat compensate the fact that the inactive player has been a nuisance for a while though... :rolleyes:
  2. There really only needs to be one style of graphic. A supporting player just needs to click on the respective ruin/deleted city and the NH reward is gained as well as the 23 hour indicator popping up as with any other regular player's city when supporting them. No need to "enter" the ruins/previous city. That'd just be more unnecessary loading screens.
EDIT: If the devs decided to implement this by 'recycling' the city graphics already in use, then 4 graphics could be used, for which the first chapter eleven city visual could change from:
Elves_City1.png
to this:
deserted.png
for example.​

Completely new graphics would be cooler, though it would make more sense if cities were deserted rather than instantaneously turning into ruins...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
+1 to this idea as well, then we wouldn't get that really bad drop in income as we normally get - I went from 115 villages to just 42 before the empty spaces started to be repopulated.
 

Deleted User - 13667

Guest
+1. Cant get any worse than the current we have here. And I think its high time changes are made
 

DeletedUser

Guest
EDIT: If the devs decided to implement this by 'recycling' the city graphics already in use, then 4 graphics could be used, for which the first chapter eleven city visual could change from:
Elves_City1.png
to this: View attachment 881 for example.​

Completely new graphics would be cooler, though it would make more sense if cities were deserted rather than instantaneously turning into ruins...

Thanks for the graphics! I don't know how to do them myself. What I meant by the second graphic was once you click into a town, where you would normally see the player's town, there would need to be something to click on with the hands floating. I was thinking that you probably need a pile of ruins to click on in the rough shape of a main hall.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Thanks for the graphics!
You're welcome. :)

What I meant by the second graphic was once you click into a town, where you would normally see the player's town, there would need to be something to click on with the hands floating. I was thinking that you probably need a pile of ruins to click on in the rough shape of a main hall.
I understood that as such. It must be possible for the developers to have us skip "click[ing] into a town" to then load a graphic with some sort of ruins to click on though. Instead a player could just click on the town on the world map and get an immediate NH reward instead of "entering" that town. Would be much more practical in my opinion and cheaper to implement (one small graphic instead of a big one). Just my opinion though.

A nice big ruin/decaying main hall would be neat. I do like it. It's just... Expensive and I'm not sure I want the extra loading screens. xD
 

DeletedUser815

Guest
It must be possible for the developers to have us skip "click[ing] into a town" to then load a graphic with some sort of ruins to click on though. Instead a player could just click on the town on the world map and get an immediate NH reward instead of "entering" that town. Would be much more practical in my opinion and cheaper to implement (one small graphic instead of a big one). Just my opinion though.
Good idea @Valerius :) It would also reduce loading times and the time a player spent having to do what many consider a chore... Neighborhood Help. Whether it can be implemented without overhauling the whole map system is another story. I like the idea though :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
EDIT: Thanks Avatrix

It would also reduce loading times and the time a player spent having to do what many consider a chore... Neighborhood Help.
Precisely. Especially considering the actual reward for giving Neighbourly Help is meant to be receiving it in return. Unfortunately that can't happen in this case, so the only possible reward (coins & supplies) should be as easily obtainable as possible, as the argument of "maintaining a degree of social interaction by visiting neighbour's cities" no longer holds.

Having done a brief internet search on reviews of Elvenar - the issue of inactive neighbours getting deleted with no immediate replacement is tied as the number one point alongside the lack of endgame content amongst the negative comments. Guess it really bugs players when their income takes such a hit. Perhaps the amount we get from NH needs to be reduced so that people don't become so dependant from it? *ducks and runs* :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Hmmm, I guess I had been thinking that the code to click into a city would be easier to maintain. Since empty spots currently have nothing happen when you click on them, it would probably be just as easy to just click one time. I like that better. :) See, I mulled this over for a few weeks before I posted and the idea can always be improved. ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hmmm, I guess I had been thinking that the code to click into a city would be easier to maintain.
It would be. If the devs go with your initial proposal, then they'd basically just rid an inactive's city of all buildings (which is currently the case) and place a "dummy" city with just the Main hall, yet swap the Main Hall graphic with a ruin/run-down/decaying Main Hall. Apart from adding a Main Hall with altered graphics, there'd practically be no coding to do from my understanding of it. You'd then just receive the normal NH coin reward as before.

With a one-click option, Avatrix is right that it's another story (in terms of coding). Would it be worth it though? Definitely. Make that a big definitely. :D
 

DeletedUser121

Guest
Or to make it simpler: don't remove inactive cities until they can be replaced. When a neighborhood gets wiped out by wholesale removal of inactive cities, this penalizes the active players. It's beyond annoying, and one of the reasons I quit buying diamonds months ago.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm not sure on the load balancing - but there has been wholescale purges on US1 now as well - but the impact is less, as people are already repopulating. Is this because only the US1 server is linked to Facebook?
If so - would it be beneficial to bring in the EN servers to this balancing?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Or to make it simpler: don't remove inactive cities until they can be replaced.
This would be a further temporary solution, as the point you made in another thread regarding upgrades for Main Halls never completing in some cities is why this would not truly fix the issue entirely. Apart from that, I suspect that it is far more complicated (perhaps not even currently possible) to replace inactive cities immediately as new players register to the game/start to play on a new world. Regardless, it would take time to implement and a permanent solution that makes this issue the least frustrating and annoying is what the devs really need to work on in my opinion. Not a partial solution or temporary fix, because let's face it: inactives will always exist somewhere.
 

DeletedUser530

Guest
Is it not possible for the delete and replace sections of the software just talk to eachother so that the number of deletions doesn't exceed new enrolees in such outrageously disproportionate quatities? I would suggest you don't delete an excessive number of cities until there are new players available to fill a pre-defined portion of those already deleted. I find it really difficult to believe that a computer works so slow that deletion has to work 60 days ahead of replacement.

Surely all that you need is enough vacant spaces for 2, 3 or maybe maybe even 5 days typical enrolment of new members and each day delete the amount of cities equal to the number who joined that day. If you work on a 5 day lead that will ensure that you always maintain the pre-defined lead (5 days) and sufficient free spaces for a 400% over subscription in any one day. The 60 day replenishment is losing members - of the few neighbours I have left that were active, most have not visited for at least 2 weeks and so I suspect have jumped ship. I believe you may be losing ACTIVE members as a result of your current policy of deleting inactive members too quickly.

If you want this game to survive it is absolutely essential that the 60 day replacement program has to be drastically shortened - a week goes almost un-noticed, but 2 months is a killer.

A few hours ago I reported that I'd lost 31 of my 45 neighbours but I've lost another one since. Simply based on losses of neighbourly help, with neighbourly help at 7200 coins per city per day I am losing over 230 000 coins per day, putting me at a massive disadvantage to at least 50% of players.


I can't find who it was that said " People on edges tend to be newer folks" but I can ensure you that I have been on-board for several months and was not on the edge when I joined. The world is shrinking, probably because there are now 2 worlds
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I'd say having players stuck on the edge of the world puts them at a serious disadvantage. This is something that really needs to be fixed. It would make most sense to relocate the inactive cities that do not qualify for deletion to the edge of the map, and possibly a relocate feature allowing people to apply for relocation if they start playing again. Probably a pain in the rear to implement, but having people stuck at the end of the world so to speak is unfair.
 

DeletedUser838

Guest
LOVE the idea of making the empty spots work for active players.

An alternative idea: is it possible to "compress" the map? In Arendyll (sp) I have lost 39 neighbours I counted on for supplies and gold, and they are STILL empty. I have been playing for several months and find the problem of repopulation of these empty spots is clearly a real issue. If there are not enough new players coming in to fill those spots, to keep the existing and active players happy, then compressing the map might be an alternate answer. Bring active players closer together & fill in the empty spaces...killing two birds with one stone.
 

DeletedUser780

Guest
I'd say having players stuck on the edge of the world puts them at a serious disadvantage. This is something that really needs to be fixed. It would make most sense to relocate the inactive cities that do not qualify for deletion to the edge of the map, and possibly a relocate feature allowing people to apply for relocation if they start playing again. Probably a pain in the rear to implement, but having people stuck at the end of the world so to speak is unfair.

I totally agree that players should not be disadvantaged on the edge of the map. If inactive cities can be relocated to the outer reaches, could active players be relocated towards the centre? btw, I have NO technical knowledge of programming etc. so don't know if this would be feasible? :)
 

Deleted User - 13667

Guest
Perhaps providing a chance to move to a random spot would be good. Like a fleeting mirage everyone gets shuffled?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Taking into consideration that the placement of new players within the world map is certainly a circular pattern expanding outward from a fixed centre, the time it takes for a new ring to form increases continuously. Thus players at the current edge of the map will indeed always be at the (currently) greatest disadvantage when it comes to available neighbours in regards to scouting distance. That disadvantage increases further once inactives are deleted and the system begins to replace these with new players. As these newer players are placed once again from the centre of the map outwards, there is a good chance that the players on the edges of the map will not witness any replacement neighbours for a very long time. Should a world nearly stop growing or even stagnate (more inactives per 30-day cycle than new players within a 30-day cycle), then the players on the edges will likely never see any replacements at all.

*scratches his head*

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just leading to a very plausible, logical disaster as Slotharingia mentioned? I would really like to read what the devs have to say on this matter as it is indeed rather alarming to see that the current concept of both the placement of new players and the replacement of inactives is bound to fail in the (near?) future. Perhaps it's even failing already on some worlds... And yes, I'm aware that the devs are working to improve and fix the situation, however it would be nice to see what that solution might look like. Key word: Communication. :)

To pull this whole little discussion back on topic: I'd like to see the idea in the OP implemented because it is a viable solution for replacing inactive cities to gain a few extra coins or even supplies. As I mentioned in a previous post, simply replacing the inactive player city with a blank city map save for the default main hall building would already suffice and is pretty much the same procedure as having a new player replace the inactive one. The code is already in place to a large degree form my understanding. Changing the graphics of said main hall building to a ruin or whatever it is you fancy would be an added bonus. Having a one-click option directly via the world map would be brilliant. Having any option at all to slightly compensate for the already annoying 30-day nuisance that is an inactive prior to vanishing and leaving an empty hole in the map you can do absolutely nothing with: that's a minimum.

Just my current opinion at this rather late hour... :rolleyes:
 
Top