Castle Clash: Brave Squads Today: 0    Total Posts: 11420

Total:#9

Create Thread

[Suggestion] Stop Adding New Heroes, Pets, Talents, Enchantments... Mostly.

[Copy link] 8/6902

#1
Posted on 10/7/19 5:48:54 PM | Show thread starter's posts only

So as the title says, that's my suggestion. Explain? Well... okay, I guess I can do that.


Okay, so we have enough Heroes, now. In fact, arguably we have too many Heroes, at this point in time.

Now, I'm not saying stop adding new Heroes entirely. That would likely mean bad things for everyone.

What I'm suggesting is to make it special! Say a new gem roll Hero every three months instead of every month. Give us time to start really wanting it.

I've reached the point where I see a new Hero, shrug, and continue on about my day. I'm in no huge hurry to get it. If I do, that's nice... if I don't? Oh well, it'll happen eventually or I'll just buy it when it gets cheap (another reason to dislike Bazaars, what a surprise!).

A new Hero used to feel like a big thing that could be game changing. Now, between all the new Heroes, Pets, Talents, and Enchantments coming out on a regular basis it has started to feel like just another thing. No big deal, you know?

This would not include Event Heroes and Dragons, by the way. That doesn't mean throw out an Event Hero every month, though, IGG. :ermm:

Same goes for Pets, Talents, and Enchantments. No more than four per year, excluding Event Pets. Each one would be set on alternating months.

Say January we get a Hero. February we get a Talent. March we get a Pet. April we get an Enchantment. May we get another Hero. Repeat ad infinitum. Maybe make an exception for Heroes or Pets (never both, unless it is naturally their month) on major Holidays, like Valentine's, Halloween, and Christmas when we usually got a themed Hero.

That way we'll never have a Hero/Pet/Talent/Enchantment come out at the same time as any other, except for special occasions, while still having something new every month to possibly get excited about.

This serves two purposes.

One, it slows down the bloat. This game is getting bigger and bigger with every update, and it's only gotten worse now that Pets/Talents/Enchantments seem to be a regularly released thing. Slowing that down is a good thing.

Two, it still gives us something new to play with every month, while slowing the aforementioned bloat. This way we can get excited about that one thing, instead of having four things to mostly meh about.

Just my opinion, though. Can't speak for everyone.

Signature
Ok, sure.

What?

Move along, please.
#2
Posted on 10/7/19 9:04:57 PM | Show thread starter's posts only

When I saw the title my first thought was "Good Luck With That One", but after reading your post I find them to be well thought out and am actually hoping IGG will see the pure logic of it all. +10

Signature

Follow IGG @Facebook.com/IGG    Follow CC @Facebook.com/CastleClash
#3
Posted on 10/8/19 2:55:58 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

As much as you have some solid points, there are also some points, which will make this difficult to be made.
1. Company must earn, without new content there well be losses, and financial report is what is deciding about future of project, and one from mode/hero/pet a month might be just not enough,
2. Some of P2P might get bored waiting for something new, and they will search for different game, and this is not good for any game,
3. This is good for F2P and minor P2P, since they would have more time to find and develop that hero, and get res for more,
So as much as it can be good for some of us, it may not be that good for IGG.
Good luck anyway. :)

Signature
Leader of Nation_Army. Want to know more about us ?? Check this:
http://cc.forum.igg.com/topic?ctid=189821&t=1454402552&p=1
 
#4
Posted on 10/10/19 10:32:15 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

Nice suggestion and i agree with you!!Although igg is a company and must earn money!I dont agree with cichomeniak in part ''p2p might get bored" bcz they wait something new,yes,but if something new shows off(hero,talent) etc they have it from the first or second date and it will be maxed!!so probably they will get bored again!!My opinion is since they make the bazzars so cheap with much rewards,many get bored and quit bcz there is no point for gw,ff etc!Thats all!!

Signature
#5
Posted on 10/16/19 6:52:20 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

Agreed Don't need heroes in every month

Signature
#6
Posted on 10/16/19 9:05:45 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

I’m fine with new heroes every month.  Most aren’t really that good - so just pretend they don’t exist or wait until 3-4 bad new heroes are I. The bazaar all together in the $5-10 pack.

Signature
#7
Posted on 10/18/19 3:10:39 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

I completely agree with your stance on new heroes. New heroes used to be somewhat exciting, but now it's more, meh...

Signature
#8
Posted on 10/18/19 10:14:02 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

The more of these I read the more dizzy I get. You guys are going in circles are srguing different points of the same issue in discussion. Personally I think everyone is right if you link it all together. It's so diverse off a game in trying to please everyone it pleases no one at certain levels.  f2p mad cause the rewards wont get em to level 200 hero. In a matter of years. And p2p upset cause they are bored and the game modes supply no creative challenge what so ever or reward to make it worth it. But isn't that the answer to both. If you raise the rewards and give better stuff the free 2 play have somewhat of a fighting chance to level thier heroes enough for the spenders to beat em back down again. Why does the cat chase the mouse even though he already knows he can kill it cause it's still fun. What if we raised the building levels to a maximum levek of 50 but you have to spend some How to unlock the next set of llevels. But be creative in level upgrades like sonthing other than just coins and mana maybe defense towers unlock new capabilities. Like heroes garrisons adding talents to them like stun towers or or self healing towers or whatever y'all can cook up in the lab. Would add a different defense strategy makes Guild Wars more challenging. 500k mightcant beat a 1.5 mill anymore but the continuing heroes release keep adding that hopefull chance. If smaller guilds were allowed to guild war each other and still get some better rewards it will help them grow with us p2p and p2p will keep spending just to keep that edge on the competition anyways the new building levels I think could add a lot to the game even if it's just to keep building something. Give the winning players of Guild that wins the Guild Wars a leveling item and a fat sack off hammers to further their building levels. I realize this is a rough idea I just pulled out of nowhere but itds kinda what everyone is all ready saying. We cannot build no more and there's no point in winning cause the reward means nothing I think tis could fix some of that and f2p wont quit if they're matched up against other f2p guilds. I know nothing about creating games so I dont know what kind of challenge this presents but I think it would give everyone something to look forward to. Make the new building levels a real challenge so we cant blow through them but make it so we can't just buy the levels or put a restriction on hammersales  there has to be a way we. Can even it out some so f2p can have a way to keep competing and p2p not get bored. Also those soldiers in the barracks need an upgrade that will alsi affect the strategy and give a new twist to attacking and defending in many ways if those lil guys could somehow go higher in strength and possibly add some affect to the game play other thandistracting a hero skill from hitting another hero. That will also help there's no one size fits all easy fix here but if we have stuff to keep leveling it stay inyeresting for everyone I really think defense tower capabilitys alone would totally change and maybe fix Guild wars and put strategy back into it. Instead of blueprint on how to win

Signature
#10
Posted on 10/18/19 10:25:44 AM | Show thread starter's posts only

Btw I was combining this and a few other arguments from other suggestions together that I just read that's why it seems like I wrote it in the wrong place

Signature