50% less GE Diamonds? More Like 75-90% (3yr Data Sheet)

[La Marchessa]

Reply #186View attachment 20303

yes Sharmon ,I replied to you reply about that quote. It's okay to modify statements and expand them for clarity. As I said-

"
I don't agree 100% - hows that... and I don't see 100% anywhere in my replies. lol
I agree that UBER just makes a lot of guesses that he presents as assertions everyone should just accept, which I do not. I think it's possible that Inno has hundreds of thousands on at peak times perhaps, but not constantly. I'd like to see this worked out or see numbers on it or something else. No matter how much hardware they've needed or need, even with upgrades, they make way more money than that - much more than people would probably guess. I would have never thought Inno had made what it did in 2020 for example. .

I appreciate your participation here, because I enjoy healthy debate."

I'll add that to a degree we all do a lot of guesswork - as is required since none of us work for Inno, (as far as we know). At least I present an article or data when I make most of my assertions.

Let's work together to really crunch how many people are likely to be online playing FOE actively at any given time - an average number.

 

[Dursland]

The space to hold a million dead accounts would likely fit on that USB key stuck in your laptop lol. It's the needed raw processing power and bandwidth that costs so much.

Yeah it's not the inactive accounts costing money or server resources, they are just data sitting around - which is very cheap to store these days.

Also that is from 2020. If you watch one of @UBERhelp1's recent videos it speaks of FoE's revenue declining in the most recent quarter. That's why we're seeing all this extra monetization.

 

[Emberguard]

"Mobile games developer and publisher InnoGames had a record-breaking year in 2020. The German studio saw €220 million ($266 million) in revenue, a rise of 15 per cent year-on-year. Furthermore, it is the 14th consecutive year that the company has experienced financial growth." https://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/75933/innogames-saw-record-breaking-revenues-of-266-million-in-2020/#:~:text=Mobile games developer and publisher,company has experienced financial growth.

LOL I do not agree with Impaler's assessment that it is inevitable that a fantasy game has to deliver the decidedly unpleasant experience of real world inflation because of hardware costs. It's like saying the British public HAS to fork out .5 billion (the real cost estimate) for the Coronation) while Prince Charles himself is worth multiple billions and doesn't put in a dime. NOPE, it does not have to be inevitable or required, its just gotten away with.

Here's the beef - Inno has been worth multiple multiple HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars annually for years - the new owners just wanna milk the cash cow till she keels over and dies. Those hundreds of millions annually were made on the model of NO FRAGMENTS, WHOLE WELLS AVAILABE IN EVENTS, and 75%+ MORE DIAMOND REWARDS IN GE than now. Sounds like a winning model actually, and hardware was never a problem. I'm not saying this is immoral, as capitalism famously has no morality. Killing a cash cow? A debatable corporate strategy.

If Inno needs to clear its servers it can clear out millions of inactive accounts and reduce the time it takes to get rid of a city after Delete to two days instead of letting them sit there for two weeks - no moves like that whatsoever and so Inno is choosing to keep its serves bloated with non-active cities - so the expensive server argument fails completely.

@Revenant Rogue thanks for weighing in! I find your perspective helpful and enlightening.

End of 2019 / beginning of 2020 was when the pandemic hit. That would have more than likely resulted in a artificial spike of new players due to everyone staying at home. That also resulted in InnoGames posting advertisements for additional inhouse jobs (Link: job offer 2021).

Unless you have some way of continuing the artificial high indefinitely then it's inevitable you'll follow artificial highs with a crash of some degree. So yes, whether or not we agree with how they're going about it, there is a knock on effect from that resulted in needing to increase revenue. One that InnoGames would be far more informed on than anyone here.

 

[La Marchessa]

Some one says "This is impossible, lmfao. " and you say I agree then you agree 100% . the statement you agreed to was definitive . eg The sky is blue , you can't partially agree with a definitive statement by saying I agree and leaving it at that. Try again.

I never said 100% that is so weird - where are you getting that.

and you are getting pedantic. I explained myself thoroughly, time to move on please.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Again, just because that's your particular experience, doesn't mean it applies to everyone else. GE5 may not be worth it to you personally, but for many others, a 20% FP increase and a significant enhancement to a city's attack/defense efficiency is worth a heck of a lot, and to just gloss over that fact like it's irrelevant is not only dismissive, it's also pretty darn short-sighted and myopic.

Dismi

I'm sorry but your own personal experience as a diamond farmer does not somehow invalidate mine or others' experience. My points about the diamond nerf affecting many players significantly absolutely still stands, despite your being insulated from it, simply due the way you happen to play the game.


I'm guessing you're referring to still being able to fight through the first 4 levels of GE? Sure, I can as well, and that never changed. I don't see how I'm "wrong again" about that when I never even mentioned anything about that in the first place. When I was talking about people having their "feet knocked out from underneath them" I was referring almost purely to the loss in diamond income, which is substantial for those who used GE as a main source of diamonds. GE may not have been one of your main sources of diamonds, but it was for many, myself included.

Also, you mentioned that "there is nothing in GE5 that is effective outside of GE5 that I can't get the equivalent elsewhere without ever having to mess with GE5. Forgotten Temple? Forget it." Well, that's just patently FALSE. How could you possibly hope to increase your city's (non-GB) FP efficiency by 20%, short of spending literally tens of thousands of diamonds on events for better event buildings (which would take months, btw)? The Temple literally does that instantly when built, and only requires 4 weeks of completing GE5, and maybe hundreds of diamonds in negotiations over those 4 weeks, rather than the probably 15k+ with the other method. So yeah, in no meaningful way could you honestly view the two as "equivalent."


Ok so to start with, it's 40% attack AND defense for attacking army, PLUS 50% attack AND defense for defending army, in a 3x4 space! Again, can you add that to your city in other ways, of course you can. Can you add all of that to your city in the same 3x4 space? Not a chance! The attack (and defense) efficiency of your city instantly rises quite a bit with the construction of the FT, and it's disingenuous in the extreme to act as if you can possibly replicate that in any other way, because you simply can't. You can add sentinel outposts, winner's plazas, etc. to match that attack, sure, but the space required to match it would be MUCH greater; i.e. way less efficient.


Again, just because that's your particular experience, doesn't mean it applies to everyone else. GE5 may not be worth it to you personally, but for many others, a 20% FP increase and a significant enhancement to a city's attack/defense efficiency is worth a heck of a lot, and to just gloss over that fact like it's irrelevant is not only dismissive, it's also pretty darn short-sighted and myopic.

You say my opinions are "wrong" and call people "apologists" and "shills" for having a different viewpoint all you want, but no amount of ad hominem attacks will ever make your argument more compelling, persuasive, or factually correct, especially when that argument is also littered with logical fallacies and specious statements of supposed fact.

Your original post that I was replying to claimed some things that just aren't universally true and are oversimplifications at best. One was that the objections to the changes to GE boiled down to Diamond use. Completely wrong and shows that even if you've been "haunting" the Forum, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Lots of rewards got nerfed in the change, not just Diamonds. And while the previous rewards undoubtedly weren't critical to many players' development, they were miles better than the fragments we get now.

As far as your comment about "high level fighters" in your first post, nowhere did you connect that to Diamonds. In fact, your comment about certain players having their "feet knocked out from under them" clearly delineated between two groups. Diamond farmers and high level fighters. Now some Diamond farmers who started their farms after Wishing Well availability was curtailed and built their Diamond farms around GE1-4 are clearly worse off. But high level fighters are not. And you never connected your comment about high level fighters to strictly being about GE. So from my perspective, your conclusions are flawed at best.

Now maybe you're just mistaken, and there really is no "apologist" slant to your post, but you are most definitely wrong in your oversimplification of the completely valid objections to the GE changes.

 

[Sparky16]

GE 5 is utterly terrible. No matter how you try to look at it. Negotiation is untennable due to the goods required. Fighting is impossible due to the severe lack of city defense players use in this game. City defenses take up space, space is limited. GE 5 offers garbage in rewards, Inno doesn't give us the chance for expansions, takes away diamonds, costing more diamonds to nego through GE 5, goods are better used in treasuries over wasting them for garbage rewards in GE 5. The cost, the time, the effort required is not worth it. Garbage in garbage out so they say.

Inno failed again. Not surprised though, they never seem to listen to the players, just take stuff away and expect us to play like nice little lap dogs and use our visa's non stop!

 

[La Marchessa]

GE 5 is utterly terrible. No matter how you try to look at it. Negotiation is untennable due to the goods required. Fighting is impossible due to the severe lack of city defense players use in this game. City defenses take up space, space is limited. GE 5 offers garbage in rewards, Inno doesn't give us the chance for expansions, takes away diamonds, costing more diamonds to nego through GE 5, goods are better used in treasuries over wasting them for garbage rewards in GE 5. The cost, the time, the effort required is not worth it. Garbage in garbage out so they say.

Inno failed again. Not surprised though, they never seem to listen to the players, just take stuff away and expect us to play like nice little lap dogs and use our visa's non stop!

you pretty much summed it up. : ) thanks for your perspective.

 

[LoveNkind]

"Coercing players to play Level 5 at significant costs in goods and diamonds is only fun for Inno." yes!

Nobody is coerced to play GE at all, let alone GE 5 by FoE or Inno. High-power guilds may make such rules, but I doubt any guilds require GE 5. I love GE 5, its beauty and its rewards, but many don't.
As to the diamonds, I just won a couple sectors in two worlds on the campaign map and won 100 diamonds in each! I don't think I have seen diamonds from this before. I want y'all disappointed ones to know this. It is limited, however.

 

[LoveNkind]

You painstakingly maintained a log of all the diamonds you collected in all of your cities over a three-year period. Previously, I applauded this effort. However, so far, you only have 6 data points (one GE season, 6 cities) to compare with your tabulated data. INNO never said that they nerfed the diamonds by 50%, players said that. The players based the statement on two facts. First, the average number of diamonds collected during a GE season was 162 (you can confirm the veracity of this by analyzing your own data set). Second, each diamond-bearing chest in L4 states that players have a 30% chance of winning 90 diamonds (which makes the average expected collection 81 diamonds per season. So, 162 before, 81 after. A reduction of exactly 50%. Now, you can argue that INNO can be lying about the 30% chance but, they didn't lie about the chances to earn GE diamonds before. You can insult players that disagree with you (calling them "brown nosers") but the fact remains that you are wrong. Diamonds were nerfed for sure, by 50%, and your venting won't change that fact. If you think otherwise, share some analysis that supports your conclusions - not just data.

Excellent analysis. However, diamonds were nerfed by a lot more than 50% if you failed to complete level 4--and most players do not get that far (I do).
A bright spot: I won 100 diamonds twice today in the campaign map. Inno did not tell us about this. It was a wonderful surprise, just in time to give me a chance at Professional league in the current event, which I really, really want because I am the only player who dearly loves GE5.

 

[LoveNkind]

I never saw anything showing a 50% reduction over INNO's signature. Please share a link.

The real bottom line - statistics. Prior to the introduction of L5, the 4 GE levels contained 18 chests that contained an opportunity to win diamonds. The chance to win ranged from 5% to 50%). Taken together, there was a 99.5% chance of winning some number of diamonds. Taken together, the average number of diamonds won, per season, was 162. With the introduction of L5, only GE L4 has chests containing an opportunity to win diamonds (3 30% chances). The odds to win some diamonds is now 90% (with an average payout, over time, of 81 diamonds). You have three years of data, are comparing it with a single data point, and drawing a conclusion that the data does not support now (and probably will never support). Currently, during any given GE season, there is a 10% chance of winning no diamonds. Several of your cities got no diamonds this time which is not inconsistent with the probability. Feel free to challenge my logic but, if you choose to, please provide some analysis and not just supposition.

In each of 3 GE diamond opportunities, there is a 70% chance of NOT getting them. 70% times 70% times 70% = 34.3% chance of zero diamonds in any particular week per world played thru level 4. There is also a small chance of winning all 3 times, and a chance of winning twice. Over time, it works out to 81 per week per world played thru level 4.
I am not having much luck with a few dozen WW's and FOY's, but did get 100 diamonds twice from campaign map.

 

[LoveNkind]

For current age units, quite probable.

But so far the players I've heard able to complete it are mostly in Industrial Age with Hovers / Turturrets

I have completed GE 5 each week so far in my main account, first in Modern Age and now in PostModern. I have very high defense stats from PvP, and do 13/16 encounters fighting, and then I have to switch to negotiations. I have hundreds and hundreds of troops, so I don't mind losses of those, but you do have to have a survivor. I have no hovers or turtaturrets--how do you get those?

 

[LoveNkind]

They have never touched the Arc, despite it being so overpowered that it changed the entire game.

I remember Inno's surprise soon after Arc's release at its extremely enthusiastic reception, and advanced players were pushing people to get level 80 arcs, when most of us were way below the era to get an arc at all. Today, any decent guild helps little ones get bp's, does(very) unfair trades for the goods, and Big Players have a blast dumping 500 or 600 fp in the lil one's arc. I do that myself now that I have level 80 arcs in both my cities, including my Iron Age diamond farm. It is such fun because it doesn't cost you much at that point, and it makes such a HUGE benefit to the smaller one.
Inno has a lot of features to encourage cooperative play.

 

[LoveNkind]

Dismi

...Lots of rewards got nerfed in the change, not just Diamonds. And while the previous rewards undoubtedly weren't critical to many players' development, they were miles better than the fragments we get now.

...

I had so many faces of the ancient and gates of the sun god, and ww's and SOK's (remember when they were the most desired reward? Now I throw them away) and terraces etc. etc. The move to fragments is logical--a valuable reward (some of them) but long term players work a long time for them, which makes them more valuable when you finally get them.
However, the frags are cluttering up my inventory something TERRIBLE. You can discard them, but only one fragment at a time, and you have to re-open inventory to do the next one. We need to get fragments their own separate inventory catagory.

 

[La Marchessa]

Nobody is coerced to play GE at all, let alone GE 5 by FoE or Inno. High-power guilds may make such rules, but I doubt any guilds require GE 5. I love GE 5, its beauty and its rewards, but many don't.
As to the diamonds, I just won a couple sectors in two worlds on the campaign map and won 100 diamonds in each! I don't think I have seen diamonds from this before. I want y'all disappointed ones to know this. It is limited, however.

I did not originally make the statement about coercion, but I did quote it and say "yes!" - mostly about the "not fun" part. However, upon further consideration, I've decided that I disagree with you that "Nobody is coerced" - there is an argument to be made that an element of coercion indeed does happen once an invested player in a game must comply with rule or set changes they did not agree to.
Dictionary.com - "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police."
Inno indeed acts as a government, and while still within the system, changing the game in an abrupt manner forces a player to play in ways that are not what they signed up for, thus being pushed into an existential decision, forced to comply or leave the game completely.

After another period of time, if the player still plays, then they tacitly accept the new situation and are no longer coerced, but at least at first, they have been forced to comply against their will, the very definition of coercion.

 

[Graviton]

I did not originally make the statement about coercion, but I did quote it and say "yes!" - mostly about the "not fun" part. However, upon further consideration, I've decided that I disagree with you that "Nobody is coerced" - there is an argument to be made that an element of coercion indeed does happen once an invested player in a game must comply with rule or set changes they did not agree to.

Nope, nobody is coerced. Incentivized, sure, or disincentivized as the case may be. Read that definition again: nobody is being forced nor intimidated to do anything. You will not be harmed, you will not be fined nor arrested, and nobody will come to your house to kick your dog. You could argue that they changed the rules of the game mid-stream (I would disagree with that too, but at least you'd have half of a point) but coercion is not even close to what's happening here.

I'm not happy about it either, I've cut back on my diamond spending because I won't be earning as many as I was before. But calling it coercion is just an emotional reaction, it's not reality.

 

[La Marchessa]

Nope, nobody is coerced. Incentivized, sure, or disincentivized as the case may be. Read that definition again: nobody is being forced nor intimidated to do anything. You will not be harmed, you will not be fined nor arrested, and nobody will come to your house to kick your dog. You could argue that they changed the rules of the game mid-stream (I would disagree with that too, but at least you'd have half of a point) but coercion is not even close to what's happening here.

I'm not happy about it either, I've cut back on my diamond spending because I won't be earning as many as I was before. But calling it coercion is just an emotional reaction, it's not reality.

Simple matter of a broad vs a narrow reading of a definition.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

I did not originally make the statement about coercion, but I did quote it and say "yes!" - mostly about the "not fun" part. However, upon further consideration, I've decided that I disagree with you that "Nobody is coerced" - there is an argument to be made that an element of coercion indeed does happen once an invested player in a game must comply with rule or set changes they did not agree to.
Dictionary.com - "the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police."
Inno indeed acts as a government, and while still within the system, changing the game in an abrupt manner forces a player to play in ways that are not what they signed up for, thus being pushed into an existential decision, forced to comply or leave the game completely.

After another period of time, if the player still plays, then they tacitly accept the new situation and are no longer coerced, but at least at first, they have been forced to comply against their will, the very definition of coercion.

You should read the game's General Terms and Conditions. You check the little box each time agreeing to them each time that you log in. Included in the T&C is a statement that INNO reserves the right to change the game any time that they want. You agreed to these terms otherwise you could not be playing. What they do is not coercion, by definition.

 

[MKPapa]

Not only GE. I have a strong feeling that diamond rewards were heavily nerfed in GBG as well. I got 0 this season so far after 317 battles in DL.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Not only GE. I have a strong feeling that diamond rewards were heavily nerfed in GBG as well. I got 0 this season so far after 317 battles in DL.

One partial season, 317 battles, is not enough data to support any "feelings". On the other hand, during the past 4 complete seasons (17,791 encounters) I collected 4,525 diamonds. This is an average of 1 diamond for every 3.93 encounters which is consistent with the expected diamond payout since GBG was introduced. No nerf to diamonds in GBG.

 

[Brakkia]

lol Fanbois as usual defend at all costs, lying about how many diamonds they got to try and prove everyone wrong. We know you are lying about it, they nerfed the hell out of it to force you to pay real money. GE on 2 worlds would average me about 150 - 200 Diamonds for the last 2+ years, now after 5 weeks, not one diamond? I call BS on you, Keep defending little sheep!