New Premium Feature Idea: "Warcry boost" & "Hephaestus' Blessing"

I personally love the idea. The only thing I could probably comment for now is that the price should be a bit higher.

I'd suggest it should be around $99.99. That price should be more reasonable than the first one.

I do kind of believethat they should have different names as we're WWI not ancient greece. May I suggest:

War drums

and

War economy.

ALthought I think that the bonusses might give to much of a bonus especially when you increase attack damage don't forget regular armies are capped so increasing that does a huge lot

Moderatorial Note:
Added to the biglist

Quote from Zombiekaedo

War drums sound fine, but War economy doesn't seem catchy to me.

If you look at it closely, it's not a huge boost, but it should be more than enough. Can't the developers do something about the cap'd damage then?

Maybe have the cap'd damage change when you have the boost so that it doesn't affect players who do not have the boost? I think it's not such a big deal implementing these kinds of changes.

Display More

Any huge size of infantry battalion has 12 attack damage +50% does quite a lot. Those are right now features to represent battlefield size. If the cap is removed then it becomes pure battle of the numbers. If the cap remain even with bonus then the bonus is useless so I do think 50% is huge

Just no!
Why? Two reasons:
1st - you will create disbalance within the community, you will alienate every free player, and without them this game will die pretty fast.

2st - Balance issues, all those bonuses will just make the game unplayable for everyone else not having this bonuses.

And crit damage !? Like are you serious? I would agree to this if this was some third grade mmorpg, but this is a real time strategy game. People are already complaining strategy element is gone once GM is used (I disagree to some extent), Just imagine the public outrage if such an idea becomes true, it will completely destroy a community that's half gone from what I read and hear

I am not fond of this idea, either. It will only give advantages to those who have a lot of money over those who are not that rich. If you can somehow beat a player who uses a lot of Gold, I think it would be almost impossible to beat a player whose units shot further, move faster and cause 50% more damage.

This idea would ruin the experience for free players. All free players know that gold users are already overpowered, and we often dogpile on them, then go back to a normal, fair game. This would cause the same issue, everyone would dogpile them because they're so much stronger than everyone else. In short, you're paying 50$ to get jumped, or steam roll through servers. Either way, the game would become a lot less fun, and a lot more unfair.

Paying should grant more creative benefits not outright buffs. You could make this 100$ it still doesn't make it ok.

I think the game already offers enough buffs in the form of goldmarks.

Leaving aside my agree to the opinions against the idea (Craftsman, King_max, SpartanBG, etc), I must note I played in games who makes similar packs (let's call those games "eR") and they become really disastrous for free players: it's practically impossible to enjoy the game WITHOUT buying those packs and even the (few) community will only value you by those packs, not by your strength or skill. Free players becomes utterly useless and there isn't worst sensation than to be a useless player in a game.

Besides, those proposals are pretty unrealistic with the WWI topic. That war represented the zenit of technological and psychological warfare. People believing the war would be won by showing more courage than the enemy were mowed down by machine guns in No Man's Land, and while the war went longer and longer, more and more people was looking for ways to avoid recruitment or to defect from the frontline, let's not mention the futility of fortress against modern artillery. or buildings destroyed once and again during the fight. Your ideas, hence, are totally unfit with the representation of "The War to end all Wars."

Edit to add: Your first idea sounds me similar to this. And well... if Wonder Woman would have been fighting with the Allies in the Western Front, that war wouldn't have extended for four years.

Quote from Demonaire

Leaving aside my agree to the opinions against the idea (Craftsman, King_max, SpartanBG, etc), I must note I played in games who makes similar packs (let's call those games "eR") and they become really disastrous for free players: it's practically impossible to enjoy the game WITHOUT buying those packs and even the (few) community will only value you by those packs, not by your strength or skill. Free players becomes utterly useless and there isn't worst sensation than to be a useless player in a game.

Besides, those proposals are pretty unrealistic with the WWI topic. That war represented the zenit of technological and psychological warfare. People believing the war would be won by showing more courage than the enemy were mowed down by machine guns in No Man's Land, and while the war went longer and longer, more and more people was looking for ways to avoid recruitment or to defect from the frontline, let's not mention the futility of fortress against modern artillery. or buildings destroyed once and again during the fight. Your ideas, hence, are totally unfit with the representation of "The War to end all Wars."

Edit to add: Your first idea sounds me similar to this. And well... if Wonder Woman would have been fighting with the Allies in the Western Front, that war wouldn't have extended for four years.

Display More

totally agree what you

We cant let the business model make free users feel useless.

I think this buff would do exactly that.