Forum Discussion

SpeirFein's avatar
3 years ago

2023 Wish List of Features for Developers to Implement Into the Game

Happy start to the 2023 year developers! I have a small(ish) wish list to provide some functionality to the game. A lot of these features are already being done in the form of scripts, but it would be much better to formally introduce these features as part of the game:

1. Increase markers available. I believe the maximum is 10 per alliance and 1 per player. This needs to be expanded. I recommend 10 for each type of alliance marker as a starting point. Additionally, players should have more than 1 marker available other than a reservation marker. Each player should be able to add 5 markers.
2. Provide officers the ability to mark up to 50 NPCs at one time for planning purposes. This feature should allow alliance offers to mark a base for shooting. A generic term such as "Target" or "Shoot" along with the Forgotten NPC lettering to change color which will help differentiate the targeted NPCs from nontargeted NPCs (similar to the blue background when players save formations).
3. Tunnels should "glow" green or red when a player uses the move function. This will help players determine if their base will activate a tunnel or not.
4. A count of qualified NPCs should be provided during the move function to provide players information on how many waves the move will place the base into.
5. Limited NPC layout sharing should be added. There is a nifty script called Baseshare. Essentially, any alliance member can view a base further away as long as another alliance member base is within range of the base. This feature should be incorporated into the game. It doesn't take away from the essence of the game, but it does provide a more enjoyable experience for the player.

28 Replies

  • "zrine;c-2228522" wrote:
    The drama to this game political wise is only up to the point of the first fortress kill. The 1st winning alliance retains huge bases, becomes the 'big daddies' that dictates who is next and so forth. Obviously they continue to stick around to help their alternate accounts to thrive. I will like to suggest that once a player's account has successfully participated in killing the fortress, all bases for that player are permanently destroyed and these accounts are locked out from that server. They can enter to watch but they can't participate. In this way all the high valued POI is again open for grab and the drama continues. No big daddies around to dictate the sequence. The alliance that lost out to the 1st winning alliance still has a chance to take the second spot. They don't have to walk away empty handed. And please do not increase the Fortress level with each Fortress kill. I think there will be a lot more chaos and PVP with such model.

    This is not a new suggestion and it has been rejected by both players and developers. One of the arguments put against this is that the alliance that controls the server (the one that could kill the fortress) would simply take the centre and hold it (as they do now) and not kill the fortress thus controlling the world forever (as they do now). When the game first launched there was no fortress to kill and I'm told that this is exactly what happened (I wasn't on the first 30 or so servers!)


  • At least there is life if I look at the discussion. How about updating the Facebook and twitter social media with at least the new worlds that will be released so that one can plan a bit. I sometimes struggle to land on the home page for some reason and it would be nice to just check in on Facebook or Twitter to get an idea of upcoming worlds
  • New worlds are typically announced 2 weeks before launch. I agree, a Twitter and Facebook announcement of launches would be good. Maybe it's something the new member of staff @EE_kalyn could handle.
  • Whilst many can't play during the weekend, the vast majority can. This means that is where the money is made!
  • I've mentioned elsewhere but, defensive artillery calibration times could be much shorter. Like 75% shorter come to think of it since they increased it should be more like 80%...

  • F1jjYR3's avatar
    F1jjYR3
    Seasoned Vanguard
    2 years ago
    "b97cbae3213388ee;c-2233906" wrote:
    I've mentioned elsewhere but, defensive artillery calibration times could be much shorter. Like 75% shorter come to think of it since they increased it should be more like 80%...



    For PvP? Yes.
    As for forgotten it will have an effect only if multiple bases calibrate their artillery on a forward and exposed base I guess then leaving themselves exposed?
  • And I think that maybe the 24hr cool down before a base can attack once destroyed is too long a time.
    If it remains a cumulative penalty it can be as short as 1 or 2 hours.

Featured Places