[Question] GvG

[iPenguinPat]

Well no, you're making assumptions about that single question that are not in evidence. The question is about rewards, not fun. You cannot assume that "I want to help my guild" and "I would fight a lot less" all equal "it's not fun". The only answer which we can assume equals "not fun" is "I only do it for the rewards". You'd need a poll question that specifically asks, "Do you find GBG to be fun?" to form conclusions about fun.

That would help with a direct comparison, sure, but it wouldn't shed any more light on GvG participation.

Nothing is a strong argument when you remove all context from it and then try to apply it to something completely different. That's a strawman argument at best.

Valid point. Without actually removing rewards in testing, there's no way to even get an unbias answer (even then, the loss of rewards would affect the answer). There's still something to be taken from the fact that nearly 50% say they only participate for the rewards.

Saying only 5% of players participate in gvg does remove all context. What % of daily players gvg? what % of top players gvg? what % of big spenders gvg? Are inactive accounts included in that? It's a very vague statement that leaves out the context of segments. Regardless, my point stands - simply giving a % of players that use a feature doesn't justify if it should be supported or not without more context.

(I suspect the overlap of "big spender" and "GVGer" is just enough that Inno doesn't want to risk rocking the boat. A lot of players have said they would quit FoE if GVG is removed. Many of them are medium to large spenders.)

Correct it isn't.

700 on a total of over 50 million players does not mean a thing. Besides that, your survey target is not representative of all players at all. Majority of players does just play the game. They can not be bothered by the forum, Youtube, Facebook or Discord. If I do the same survey in my Guild I would get much different results.

I do not agree with you is it so much more fun either. Same as in GBG, Guilds are killing it. Large parts of the map can not even be played cause they are blocked off. That is supposed to be fun? Why don't you do a survey on that and see what results you would get.

Even as a forum mod, your view of the FOE player base is far more narrow than mine. My videos get more views and interaction than the majority of the stuff posted here and include players from regions all of the world instead of being limited to only the US

While my playstyle is completely different than the majority of players, I still hear and understand many points of view (and regularly get asked for advice on how to improve within their style of play). There might be 50 million registered players, how many of them are actually active? How many have been deleted? Across all US servers (according to an inno approved 3rd party site), less than 25% of registered players were active (192,680 of 780,081).

In fact, part of why my surveys should be taking note of is the diversity of players included. A survey of your guild would be a very limited group of mostly like-minded players. Mine included players from around the world with all kinds of different playstyles (including players that have been playing less than 3 weeks and are total newbies and players that have been playing more than 6 years. etc). It's a much better sample than anything you have access to.

You might do some research on polling. 700 to 1000 is plenty to give a margin of error within a 1-2%. That deviation wouldn't significantly change the meaning of my results. Yes, the fact that they were on youtube does make the poll less random - players on youtube are likely to be more engaged in the game; therefore, adding players that aren't on youtube would likely include a larger segment of casual/inactive players that aren't involved with all of the features like gbg/gvg nor are they as likely to be spending $ on the game. If anything, my results likely skew toward more active and engaged players than what a perfectly random sample would give.

It's a bummer that several of you (that spend more time on the forums than actually playing the game) come here and gang up on anyone that doesn't agree and act snarky and smug toward players that spend more time and money on the game instead of the forums. Several commenting on this thread only have 1 GB that's level 80 and less than 13k and 20k fights on their main cities since before Jan 2019, yet attempt to dominate the conversation about in-game/gameplay topics.

If you want to talk about a business making money, the opinions of the players like these shouldn't be counted as much as players like ANU, Enom, Zuck, Meatbutcher, etc etc etc. Smart businesses know how to segment their audience and cater to the ones that affect the bottom line. You don't have a vested interest in the balance and competitive features of the game because you're so far removed as casual players. The top 250-500 most active/competitive players on each server are experiencing the game in a completely different way that you really don't understand. (Some have more fights in 2 weeks than you have in several years of play - literally impossible for you to compare that experience).

It really makes you look out of touch and more like a bully than a contributor trying to develop the community.

I'm specifically trying to help inno make a better game that will get more players involved, spending more money, and driving more success. It's really counterproductive to drive players like me away from the forums and possibly the game.

 

[iPenguinPat]

In other words there’s too many options and/or it’s using leading questions/answers which prevents it from being a proper picture.

My main concern about the results is your audience will depend on your target market. If a lot of the people that follow whatever channel that is are predominantly a particular playstyle or mindset and less of the other playstyles that are in the game then your results are going to only really represent that kind of playstyle.

The number of 700+ is impressive and does indicate something, but lacks details on what kinds of players those 700 represent

If you read through the comments, it actually is a very diverse group of players. While my personal style of play is very combat focused with emphasis on GVG, my videos cover topics that beginners find to be valuable. There are players that have specifically mentioned being extremely new (less than 1 month of gameplay). The event content, in particular, tends to generate a lot of viewers, so that doesn't favor any specific playstyle.

For myself? It’d really depend on how removing rewards changes the game dynamics as to whether or not I’d want to keep playing GBG. The most fun part for me isn’t so much the rewards, it’s when you have other players in the guild working with you at the same time. GBG at the start I found fun because you had to use strategy to counter the enemy and you were still figuring those strategies out. There’s strategy now sure, but it’s already been figured out to the fine details. Remove the rewards and you may still get checkers anyway because it’s so effective for winning and the top two guilds don’t need to destroy each other to win

Alternating sectors and defensive flips would remain the status quo with or without rewards because it's effective like you've mentioned. From time to time, guilds will start being more combative and not team up, but that's too costly on treasury and time-intensive to sustain. It doesn't usually last long (there are always exceptions).

GBG has really gotten extra stale over the last 4-6 months. Players from servers all over the world have mentioned getting matched up against the same top 3-4 guilds for many seasons in a row, while never seeing any of the other 1000MMR guilds for months on end. I can confirm, there are at least 8 (of ~30) guilds with 1000MMR that we have not grouped since August 2020. We've had the same top 4 guilds (including my guild) 5 of 6 seasons.

I’d love to see those figures for this time last year actually. Cause Covid did cause a explosion of activity from people having more free time but if that increased activity is a artificial inflation due to Covid then you’re also going to expect a dramatic dropoff afterwards (I don’t know if we’ve had that dropoff or not). Particularly if the extra time then disappears as players go back to work OR players reach in a significantly shorter time the same point they would have quit normally due to being able to spend more time on the game.

Interestingly the biggest problem I’ve come across as a player that causes a group of people to suddenly lose interest in GBG or the game is when there’s a fight either internally or cross-guild in regards to alliances and taking provinces. If GvG was more active you likely would have the exact same issue there as well. Whether it’d be as intense or frequent I don’t know. But if the biggest reason for people to stay is the social aspects then it’s also going to be the biggest reason to leave if it goes sour

This topic started on mobile gvg and has kind of gone sideways, but I think this brings it back full circle in some ways. The community/social aspect is what generally keeps players around long term. GvG participants tend to be more guild-focused players and tend to be a more tight nit community. The majority of top GBG guilds are littered with drama over siege camp farming and treasury management woes (although treasury management is better understood and becoming less of a sticking point).

Against similar strength guilds, getting on the wrong side of the timers can be disastrous and put you at a significant uphill battle to regain equal footing. The attrition burn to break free makes staying free much harder unless you're just overpowered. With gvg, individual sectors and day-to-day activities tend to be less critical/impactful. It's equal footing each day rather than one guild having a significant attrition advantage. That makes mistakes less dramatic in general.

Bringing gvg to mobile would absolutely increase the participation rate for three main reasons:
1) players that don't have pc access would be able to gvg
2) Instead of being tethered to a computer, players could do gvg from the beach, or at the park, or coffee shop, or whatever... without having to lug around a laptop.
3) the restriction of the once per day recalc would be significantly less problematic because the increased mobility/accessibility noted in #2

Comparing gbg vs. gvg participation % doesn't speak to how much players like the feature. One gives crazy rewards, is active 24/7, and is mobile. The other gives no individual rewards, is pc only, and typically revolved around about 20-40 minutes of the same time each day. And Forge tells you when battlegrounds starts and ends each season whereas there is never a mention of gvg. You'd have to immediately address the gap in accessibility and rewards available before gleaning any meaningful comparisons or conclusions.

At this point, inno has said no, and that's final. What I don't get is why they don't allow players to simply use their mobile browsers to do gvg if they're willing to endure the gameplay, why stop them? A lot of players previously used a flash-enabled mobile browserto play on their tablets when it was still an option.

Last thought: It would make a lot of sense to setup servers as "GVG vs. nonGVG servers" and allow players to move to a different server 1 time (with some restrictions to prevent imbalance due to overdeveloped/older players transferring to underdeveloped/newer servers). That way, players that want to gvg can get on a server where gvg is active, whereas players that don't care can play on a server where gvg isn't determining guild rank or driving up player score. It would allow inno stop spending resources on some % of servers that don't gvg. It's a common thing in mmorpgs to have server variations like that, so why not here?

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Saying only 5% of players participate in gvg does remove all context. What % of daily players gvg? what % of top players gvg? what % of big spenders gvg? Are inactive accounts included in that? It's a very vague statement that leaves out the context of segments.

When Inno made that statement, they specified that it was 5% of active players. I don't see how any other "segment" is relevant.
Top players? According to what standard? Ranking points? Because it is so heavily influenced by GvG battle points, that gives a really skewed picture.
Big spenders? That is thrown in to every conversation about any game feature. Do you really think that all or most of the big spenders are GvG players? Back in the day that might have been true. Back when GBs weren't hyper leveled. Back when attack boosts weren't in the multiple hundreds, and a Traz wasn't pumping out hundreds of Rogues. Back then a heavy GvGer probably did spend some Diamonds on healing in order to fight on., Now it's just auto battle as fast as you can. What is there to spend money on in GvG? Nothing. Hyper leveled attack GBs and Traz allow you to fight all day without spending a dime. Hyper leveled Arcs give you tons of Treasury goods. And there are no tangible rewards in GvG, so what sense would it make to spend money there? So believing that the current big spenders in the game are mainly GvG players is wishful thinking at best.

Here's a little more context. Around the time Inno first made that statement, they also stated that 70% of players were mobile users. That means that 30% used the browser version to some extent, and thus had access to GvG. So even if you narrowed it down to the segment that had access, only 16% took advantage of that access. And that was the only game feature outside the main city at that time. It was before GE, before Cultural Settlements, before GBG. Now you have all three of those, each of which gives tangible rewards. What effect do you think the addition of those three had on the GvG participation percentage? Logically, at least some of that 5% stopped playing GvG in favor of one or more of the other features that actually gave them something other than intangible ranking points.

In another thread, I mentioned "beating a dead horse". Well, GvG as a subject of discussion is just about the deadest of horses. Inno stated long ago that development/upgrading of GvG was not gonna happen, and they have never deviated from that. Campaigning for GvG change/improvement/upgrading is like beating your head against the thickest of brick walls. I post on threads about GvG because I hope to convince players not to waste their time with that. I am seldom successful, but I keep trying.

 

[Agent327]

Even as a forum mod, your view of the FOE player base is far more narrow than mine. My videos get more views and interaction than the majority of the stuff posted here and include players from regions all of the world instead of being limited to only the US

So cause I am a forum mod here I am limited to only the US? Interesting.

While my playstyle is completely different than the majority of players, I still hear and understand many points of view (and regularly get asked for advice on how to improve within their style of play). There might be 50 million registered players, how many of them are actually active? How many have been deleted? Across all US servers (according to an inno approved 3rd party site), less than 25% of registered players were active (192,680 of 780,081).

There are no Inno approved 3rd party sites.

In fact, part of why my surveys should be taking note of is the diversity of players included. A survey of your guild would be a very limited group of mostly like-minded players. Mine included players from around the world with all kinds of different playstyles (including players that have been playing less than 3 weeks and are total newbies and players that have been playing more than 6 years. etc). It's a much better sample than anything you have access to.

You are what is referred to as an influencer. That makes the results of your surveys rather predictable. It's like looking for Lakers fans in LA in my opinion.

You might do some research on polling. 700 to 1000 is plenty to give a margin of error within a 1-2%. That deviation wouldn't significantly change the meaning of my results. Yes, the fact that they were on youtube does make the poll less random - players on youtube are likely to be more engaged in the game; therefore, adding players that aren't on youtube would likely include a larger segment of casual/inactive players that aren't involved with all of the features like gbg/gvg nor are they as likely to be spending $ on the game. If anything, my results likely skew toward more active and engaged players than what a perfectly random sample would give.

Same answer.

It's a bummer that several of you (that spend more time on the forums than actually playing the game) come here and gang up on anyone that doesn't agree and act snarky and smug toward players that spend more time and money on the game instead of the forums. Several commenting on this thread only have 1 GB that's level 80 and less than 13k and 20k fights on their main cities since before Jan 2019, yet attempt to dominate the conversation about in-game/gameplay topics.

Can you tell me how much time I spend on the forums and how much I spend in the game? I would be really interested to learn, cause it is not something I keep track of, but since you do, please tell me.

If you want to talk about a business making money, the opinions of the players like these shouldn't be counted as much as players like ANU, Enom, Zuck, Meatbutcher, etc etc etc.

Who?

Smart businesses know how to segment their audience and cater to the ones that affect the bottom line. You don't have a vested interest in the balance and competitive features of the game because you're so far removed as casual players. The top 250-500 most active/competitive players on each server are experiencing the game in a completely different way that you really don't understand. (Some have more fights in 2 weeks than you have in several years of play - literally impossible for you to compare that experience).

I don't? Can you enlighten me why?

It really makes you look out of touch and more like a bully than a contributor trying to develop the community.

Am I? Show me where you get that knowledge that I am out of touch.

I'm specifically trying to help inno make a better game that will get more players involved, spending more money, and driving more success. It's really counterproductive to drive players like me away from the forums and possibly the game.

Interesting you see yourself as better qualified than all Inno personel dealing with this. Even more that you feel that not agreeing with you is driving you away from the forums. It is what happens on forums. People do not have to agree with you. They are allowed to have an own opinion[/QUOTE]

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

While my playstyle is completely different than the majority of players, I still hear and understand many points of view

And yet you want to dismiss the opinion of others because of their playstyle? Really?

It's a bummer that several of you (that spend more time on the forums than actually playing the game) come here and gang up on anyone that doesn't agree and act snarky and smug toward players that spend more time and money on the game instead of the forums. Several commenting on this thread only have 1 GB that's level 80 and less than 13k and 20k fights on their main cities since before Jan 2019, yet attempt to dominate the conversation about in-game/gameplay topics.

So we all have to have hyper leveled GBs and fight all the time or we won't understand the game or other players? Talk about someone acting "snarky and smug"! Get over yourself, dude. So you make videos, who cares?

Oh, I just saw a bit of one of your videos where you claim that one of the main reasons players don't do GvG is because it's "too complicated" or "they don't understand it". ROFLMAO!!!!! No, buddy, we understand it fine. We just don't like it. You apparently do like it. Great. Keep playing it. Don't expect any of your videos to start a "GvG revolution", though. Ain't gonna happen. That ship sailed years ago.

 

[Just An Observer]

w00t!!! I am a Top 3%'er! That and $3 will get me a drink at Starbucks....LOL!

It was interesting to see the numbers of active players being so small. Then add in the pair of 3% Big Spender categories who are carrying this game. I wish I was given more special treatment by INNO.

What is really small: The amount of regular participants on this forum. Compared to Mage Knight in its prime, which had extremely active forums, FoE forums are So Dead. I wonder why?

As for me, I have a PC dedicated to playing FoE and doing nothing else. Despite that I have no interest in GvG. GBG on the other hand lights my fire. "The Great Relic Hunt" is what I call GE and it is enjoyed for the rewards it has, Wish I could play as much of it as I wanted every single day but that kind of setup would really throw FoE as a game out of whack. Dealing with Settlements is entertaining. So are the seasonal events. I do not need to do more than one city as my work on it takes all my time. For those who tackle multiple worlds, they must really be flooded with fun times!

Diamond League shows how few the amount of top guilds are. Most players are not that serious. The ones who are do make for a most interesting game though.

Social aspects: There are a few clunkers out there but those who are reaching out to make contact in FoE are Pretty Decent People. I really like some of them too!

The overall experience after being in FoE for just over a year for me rates as Pretty Good. INNO has dropped the ball on several fronts when dealing with the players but the game they created is still entertaining and fun.

So much for my rambling thoughts...LOL!

 

[Graviton]

Valid point. Without actually removing rewards in testing, there's no way to even get an unbias answer (even then, the loss of rewards would affect the answer). There's still something to be taken from the fact that nearly 50% say they only participate for the rewards.

I agreed there's something to be taken from that, but I'm not sure what. Is it that clicking fervently in GvG might not be as much fun as clicking fervently in GBG or clicking fervently in PvP or clicking fervently to collect one's productions? I mean, I sure as heck wouldn't do the Vikings settlement if it didn't cough up a Yggdrasil. But it does, so I do. That tells us nothing.

Saying only 5% of players participate in gvg does remove all context. What % of daily players gvg? what % of top players gvg? what % of big spenders gvg? Are inactive accounts included in that? It's a very vague statement that leaves out the context of segments. Regardless, my point stands - simply giving a % of players that use a feature doesn't justify if it should be supported or not without more context.

Do you imagine that Inno doesn't know any of that? While it may lack some context, it's not all that vague: five percent of players is five percent of players. If they included inactive players then it wouldn't be five percent of players, it would be five percent of accounts. Five percent of anything is a tiny minority of that thing. If that entire five percent quit, I doubt Inno would notice. Apparently Inno ain't worried about it, as they've actually done the research and analysis by looking at every player, not just those on the forum and not just those who answer video surveys.

My videos get more views and interaction than the majority of the stuff posted here and include players from regions all of the world instead of being limited to only the US.

Not sure how you're measuring views on the forum, but I'm willing to concede for the sake of argument that you may have more viewers than this forum does. And? Inno has a view of every player. So you're not just arguing with those of us on this forum, you're essentially telling Inno they don't know their own numbers and player base, but you do.

In fact, part of why my surveys should be taking note of is the diversity of players included. A survey of your guild would be a very limited group of mostly like-minded players. Mine included players from around the world with all kinds of different playstyles (including players that have been playing less than 3 weeks and are total newbies and players that have been playing more than 6 years. etc). It's a much better sample than anything you have access to.

You don't have a better sample than Inno does. You are arguing that Inno is going to lose significant revenue due to its lack of focus on GvG, when Inno itself has determined it will not.

You might do some research on polling. 700 to 1000 is plenty to give a margin of error within a 1-2%. That deviation wouldn't significantly change the meaning of my results. Yes, the fact that they were on youtube does make the poll less random - players on youtube are likely to be more engaged in the game;

It's not less random, it's exactly as random unless you gatekeep your YouTube channel and limit responses to a certain number of people from certain demographics Anybody can watch your video and respond to your survey. In fact I'd wager people who take the time to join the forum are more engaged than people who look at videos. Takes a lot more effort to establish an account and participate on a forum. Takes more time and engagement to read through posts than it does to watch a video. You may be correct (at least I can admit when I don't know something) but I see no evidence on which you're basing this assumption.

It's a bummer that several of you (that spend more time on the forums than actually playing the game) come here and gang up on anyone that doesn't agree and act snarky and smug toward players that spend more time and money on the game instead of the forums.

Who's being snarky and smug now? Unlike YouTube, a forum is designed for discussion. Back and forth. Differing opinions. You just dismissed everyone who disagrees with you based solely on the fact that they have a forum account (which also means we're not as engaged!). Then, just in case you missed somebody, you also tried to dismiss us based on perceived game activity. When anybody with any knowledge of this game understands that many players have more than one city, and many long-time players have abandoned advanced cities to start new ones over the years. Looking at the GB levels and battle numbers of one city is meaningless. Less than meaningless, as it has not led you to acknowledge that it's meaningless but instead led you to a faulty generalization.

What we can gather from your meticulous research is that you really really like GvG, which is cool. But you then go on to make grand assumptions based on flimsy evidence and sneer at anybody who disagrees with you in an attempt to inflate support for a game feature that the company has already abandoned. Perhaps there's such a thing as being too engaged.

 

[Agent327]

At this point, inno has said no, and that's final. What I don't get is why they don't allow players to simply use their mobile browsers to do gvg if they're willing to endure the gameplay, why stop them? A lot of players previously used a flash-enabled mobile browserto play on their tablets when it was still an option.

How exactly do you think that should be done?

Adobe Flash Player EOL General Information Page

Since Adobe no longer supports Flash Player after December 31, 2020 and blocked Flash content from running in Flash Player beginning January 12, 2021, Adobe strongly recommends all users immediately uninstall Flash Player to help protect their systems.

And as far as I know the only browser supportinmg flash was Puffin and that stopped even before Adobe stopped.

How on earth can you hold Inno accountable for that?

 

[Just An Observer]

I ran Flash on IE/Windoze 7. Before the EOL for Flash came along, I bought another computer for exclusive use on FoE. It is Win10 with Opera. Other than Win10 causing problems, it is a nice setup.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

When Inno made the announcement introducing GBG where they went into the reasons they chose not to bring GvG to mobile, only 5% of the players using it was just one of many reasons, the others, much more technical in nature. My takeaway was that the inherent architecture of GvG was the big issue, not just the 5% representation.

I've always played on PC, but I lived in the Pacific time zone, where recalc is 5:00 pm. GvG inherent problem #1. With all the action clustered around recalc, 4-6 time zones can participate. The cluster around recalc is also the root of the never ending performance complaints. More players hitting all at the same time only makes that worse. GBG solves this completely. Reason to play 24 hours a day.

Inherent problem #2, one map for the entire server. A new world would open, there'd be competition until the maps were essentially locked. Where they've stayed locked ever since. The same few guilds fighting over the same contested border tiles, with a bit of back and forth. I propose this is one of the reasons Inno kept having to open new worlds so frequently. Each world would get 6-12 months of real competition, then everything was locked up again, time for a new world. GBG solved this as well. Unlimited maps for unlimited guilds and players. Notice there's been no new worlds since Birka, opened just before GBG went live. No need since?

I don't know who screwed the pooch early on, but it seems apparent Inno wasn't able to add new Age based maps after FE. It seems this is a place where the success of FoE outpaced the plans for success. When GvG was introduced, FoE had a bunch of ages left to add before getting to FE, where it seems the original plans and architecture of FoE and GvG stopped. Seems for whatever reason, they were able to get GvG to recognize new units, but not new goods. All ages was the best they could do, cause Medals were already defined? Or they simply made the decision that adding new Age based maps would only exacerbate the issue by packing more players on at recalc.

Anyway, the 5% issue may very well be the egg, the issues above why very few ever got into GvG. 20 hours of the users where GvG is inconvenient, to impossible? Opening GvG to mobile never made sense from a business perspective from the recalc flaw alone. Too many issues to port 'as is' least of which the code. They knew to bring something to mobile and the masses, they needed something redesigned from the ground up to overcome all the inherent flaws of GVG. They did so with GBG.

Read the many reasons Inno gave in the original announcement and go from there. Focusing on the 5% won't get you anywhere.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

When Inno made the announcement introducing GBG where they went into the reasons they chose not to bring GvG to mobile, only 5% of the players using it was just one of many reasons, the others, much more technical in nature. My takeaway was that the inherent architecture of GvG was the big issue, not just the 5% representation.

I've always played on PC, but I lived in the Pacific time zone, where recalc is 5:00 pm. GvG inherent problem #1. With all the action clustered around recalc, 4-6 time zones can participate. The cluster around recalc is also the root of the never ending performance complaints. More players hitting all at the same time only makes that worse. GBG solves this completely. Reason to play 24 hours a day.

Inherent problem #2, one map for the entire server. A new world would open, there'd be competition until the maps were essentially locked. Where they've stayed locked ever since. The same few guilds fighting over the same contested border tiles, with a bit of back and forth. I propose this is one of the reasons Inno kept having to open new worlds so frequently. Each world would get 6-12 months of real competition, then everything was locked up again, time for a new world. GBG solved this as well. Unlimited maps for unlimited guilds and players. Notice there's been no new worlds since Birka, opened just before GBG went live. No need since?

I don't know who screwed the pooch early on, but it seems apparent Inno wasn't able to add new Age based maps after FE. It seems this is a place where the success of FoE outpaced the plans for success. When GvG was introduced, FoE had a bunch of ages left to add before getting to FE, where it seems the original plans and architecture of FoE and GvG stopped. Seems for whatever reason, they were able to get GvG to recognize new units, but not new goods. All ages was the best they could do, cause Medals were already defined? Or they simply made the decision that adding new Age based maps would only exacerbate the issue by packing more players on at recalc.

Anyway, the 5% issue may very well be the egg, the issues above why very few ever got into GvG. 20 hours of the users where GvG is inconvenient, to impossible? Opening GvG to mobile never made sense from a business perspective from the recalc flaw alone. Too many issues to port 'as is' least of which the code. They knew to bring something to mobile and the masses, they needed something redesigned from the ground up to overcome all the inherent flaws of GVG. They did so with GBG.

Read the many reasons Inno gave in the original announcement and go from there. Focusing on the 5% won't get you anywhere.

While I agree with most of your post, I don't recall anyone ever arguing that the 5% participation figure was the reason Inno gave up on GvG. It has always been a side issue, argued over mainly because GvG afficionados apparently don't believe it, or believe that the 5% is a result of Inno abandoning GvG, and not a result of GvG's inherent flaws.

 

[InsaneYogi35606]

Can someone give me directions? I seemed to have taken a wrong turn and ended up in Global Chat instead of the FOE Forum.

 

[Taeshire]

Have to agree Yogi, apparently being active in the forums gives your opinion more validity than people who actually play the game and with a modicum of success.

Sadly this has always been the case (with any web game), the more active you are in the forum - whether it be as a mod or a participant - has absolutely no relevance to how successfully you can play the game, understand the game mechanics or indeed understand what players across a broad spectrum want, like and dislike from the game.

It's frustrating that the forum "influencers" seem so out of touch with the game, or what players actually want from the game. Maybe more time spent playing at a higher level, getting "good at the game" and less time foruming might be an idea?

 

[Agent327]

Sadly this has always been the case (with any web game), the more active you are in the forum - whether it be as a mod or a participant - has absolutely no relevance to how successfully you can play the game, understand the game mechanics or indeed understand what players across a broad spectrum want, like and dislike from the game.

It's frustrating that the forum "influencers" seem so out of touch with the game, or what players actually want from the game. Maybe more time spent playing at a higher level, getting "good at the game" and less time foruming might be an idea?

Could it be that both is possible? What is the norm for being "good at the game" according to you?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Have to agree Yogi, apparently being active in the forums gives your opinion more validity than people who actually play the game and with a modicum of success.

Sadly this has always been the case (with any web game), the more active you are in the forum - whether it be as a mod or a participant - has absolutely no relevance to how successfully you can play the game, understand the game mechanics or indeed understand what players across a broad spectrum want, like and dislike from the game.

It's frustrating that the forum "influencers" seem so out of touch with the game, or what players actually want from the game. Maybe more time spent playing at a higher level, getting "good at the game" and less time foruming might be an idea?

Wow. All that and adds nothing to the discussion. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Emberguard]

Being active on the forums doesn't change anything other then how familiar people may be with you. Your opinions aren't any less valid, just less known. It takes time to get to know each other and get a feel for how much you know

Interesting that you bring up a broad spectrum of players but also seem to dismiss the forum portion as being out of touch and not knowing the game. Ok, let's assume we're out of touch with you and you're out of touch with us. The only way to change that is to open a dialogue.

You want us to reach a higher level. Please define it. If we started a new thread for this and showed our cities and you gave directions for what to apply to running those cities for the next 3 months would that satisfy you?

 

[The Lady Redneck]

Maybe more time spent playing at a higher level, getting "good at the game"

Not always the case. I do know some high end players in more than one world who have a great overall perspective of the game at all ages. and who can really help player of all levels. Some are never, or very rarely, on these forums. Instead if they have a question or concern they go directly to support with it. Mainly because they want to spend their time playing the game rather than wading through endless forum posts trying to find the few that are relevant. I also know an awful lot more high end players who are totally lost when it comes to anything outside their own and perhaps their previous Era. They get up "to the top" and become dismissive of anything outside their immediate sphere of play. So more time playing at a high level does not always equate with an all round knowledge of the game.

 

[Graviton]

Man, all of a sudden people are posting on the forum that people who post on the forum don't play the game. It's like they started a forum account so they could read what we have to say and then tell us that we shouldn't be saying it. It seems we have some folks who have no idea how to handle differing views, or have a discussion. This place is turning into Twitter.

 

[5moveCheckmate]

What is truly frustrating is that there are no changes made based upon feedback given to Inno, whether on here or in the support system. In fact, a lot of what I've seen is that enough players have had to band together to stop Inno from destroying valuable game structure lol. One huge issue I've had several lengthy discussions with Inno about is that there is no equality whatsoever in the promotions given out to players. I am a 4-year + player of this game. In all that time, I have not ONCE seen the Princely gift promotional that is made available to so many other players. Some players I know who have just started get them and I don't. I've bought diamonds on multiple occasions as well... and yet Inno still refuses to give a paying customer even one promotional. No matter how active you are on the forum, the game, or whatever... remember: your voice apparently only truly matters if enough other people help boost it. And when people do take an active voice, like iPenguinPat, guess who shows up to add a censor? the mods. #theforumisglobal

 

[5moveCheckmate]

FoE has become stale. Inno has been trying to revitalize it but they keep digging themselves a deeper hole because they don't fix the basics. Then they butt heads with anyone who says to the otherwise, because they and their entire mod team refuse to think there is anything wrong. They just argue, pulling out the classic use of a strawman.