This is a fairly frequent observation. It's accurate, INNO doesn't listen to the players often.
For good reason. So much of the feedback and so many ideas folk have are awful with no thought for the effects on the game, just how it makes the game easier or better for that player.
Just as bad, anytime a thread reaches more then a few dozen posts, the opinions and ideas are contradictory. This and the first GBG thread are filled with splendid examples of lots of people wanting lots of thigns that conflict with the wants and ideas of lots of other people.
INNO does listen, but what message is being sent?
----------
The following was a response to a question about INNO listening a few weeks back:
----------
That'd be me. If you don't pay attention to the forums, if you don't engage in conversations, if you don;t follow topics and discussions for months and years, then you really have no clue what's happened in the past or how we got to where we are today.
I'm in a much better position to discount or dismiss your opinions of what the player base thinks on any topic and understand what INNO is doing then you are to discount my opinions. I haven't and won't do so, I'd appreciate you extending the same courtesy and stop doing so.
Appreciate the civil response.
I'm a big fan of history and completely agree that finding the right direction moving forward is much easier when you know where things came from. I'm relatively new to the game (not quite 2 years yet), and I'll often ask older players about how things used to be both in FOE and on my specific server. (i can't tell you how many times I've heard stories about mountain men. #norespect)
The forums are a small segment of the players. The vast majority of players do not utilize forums. I don't think the forums as a whole are any better of a representation of what the player base thinks than a regular discussion with players from a variety of guilds and server. Someone could argue that talking to players on global is a better source because those are players that actually play the game and don't just live on the forum. I'm
not saying that. Both are valuable.
Your list of changes inno has made does show they've listened to feedback. There
should be a list of changes like that. How many times did those come up? How long did those take to implement after being brought forward? Where is our timer on mobile that shows when GB's collect?
If any of the suggestions that have been put forward in this thread conflict with past policies/decisions inno has made, it would actually be helpful for discussion for someone with that prior knowledge to kindly chime in. That
[your] experience is highly valuable. It doesn't do anyone good to keep posting ideas that have long been shot down.
Your point about conflicting suggestions is certainly valid. Players have competing interests, due to play style and general game position, and it makes sense that the devs would rather not change anything regarding highly conflicted topics. That's why the nerf on TVP is so surprising and frustrating. The conflicted part was what they changed (pvp use). The fact that it's not a very good building and needed improvement was highly agreed on, but no change was made to make it better or to compensate for the loss of pvp use.
It's cases when there is little or no conflict that I'd (we'd?) expect to see changes. Here's a couple of examples
1. TVP/SG needed buffs to be worth building.
2. Request for 1down kit or retro kit to downgrade buildings.
(This is particularly notable given how the auto-battle from the overview map has changed fighting completely. In an age like CE, AAVs were king when everyone had to enter into the battle map, skip a turn, then auto-battle. Now, to be competitive, you must auto-battle from the map, so CE champs are the best unit by far. When upgrading past CE before, it didn't matter, but now we can't go back.)
3. Mobile GvG - I realize this is a huge can of worms from a development standpoint. It's also the biggest barrier for most players that want to gvg and can't. Availability/Recalc time is much less of a hindrance. I understand that user experience is a factor as the maps are large and complicated, and yet, there are plenty of players that play on puffin which literally has no mobile accommodations. Bottom line: Players DO want mobile GvG and are willing to make sacrifices to make it work. (heck, inno might even be able to crowdsource some great ideas on how to make it more user-friendly).
4. GvG maps for AF/OF/VF (loved the idea of replacing a few of the early age maps with advanced maps. Right now, Af-VF are no-man's land for GvG. it's like a 6 month gvg black hole. Arc goods are not helpful for the guild, and units aren't competitive against SAM. yes, i know AA was supposed to be the end, and inno has alrady said they aren't doing this. Doesn't change that many players want it.)
Obviously, adding mobile players to gvg can/would add more lag issues, so perhaps that's yet another reason it's being avoided. I will say that as we're developed our guild, we've had players that didn't gvg and barely played. Once they started GvGing, they started playing more and spending $$$. GvGers are easily the most engaged players in the game from a time standpoint.
So back on topic with the thread:
It seems highly agreed upon that 4-hr recalcs is going to be a resources nightmare for most players/guilds that wish to hold land. If everyone has the same resources per 24hr (units/goods), but have 6x as many recalcs to fight, how will that be sustainable?
And filling AA NPCs with SAM units is not going to work for stopping farmers. We all agree on that too.
There's no ballpark indication of how soon these changes are coming (1 week? 1 month? 6 months? mid 2020?). We don't know if they are going to be tested on beta before going on live servers. I know a lot of guilds would manage resources differently if they knew how soon to expect these changes.