• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

[Question] GvG

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
Please tell a player that's been here less than 6 months how he's supposed to know what to search in the first place? I know for regulars here, these type of things are trivial. For a lot of players, this is brand new news. fwiw, I don't believe the announcement is ever linked to - only referenced - I wouldn't know which one to look for or to search for and I've been involved off and on in gvg discussion for 2 years now. How is this helping build the community and encouraging someone to participate? Would it be better if only the regulars posted here and all new players stopped?

I've read a lot of your posts and often see your point, even if I don't agree. It just stinks that someone that's clearly intelligent like you goes with a response like this instead of being helpful and showing him.

It's not like you all don't know the common questions that come up. You could make a post and reference it to save yourself time. You can keep a notepad with links. Why not be better than this?

... another beauty from the cartel.
View attachment 18723

^--- I'm glad. this person responds too much. :)
The thread was mentioned in a half dozen posts prior, with links included. They got spoon fed where to find it, did they bother? Magic 8 ball says, "Don't count on it."

And that's it. unlike you or I who will do the research to know what we're talking about, most don't and won't. We can link to the answers all day and few if any will read them. Case in point, above. Have they read the link, or are they committed to remaining willfully ignorant?

Have you read the thread? I've yet to see you address anything that is in there other than the 5% canard, which was provided to you in a post here. Links were provided, where's your 5 page analysis on what Inno said? Wouldn't that be worth more to the conversation than your 5 page analysis of what forum posters said?

Edit: That screen cap without attribution makes it appear that is something I wrote. It is not. Please edit your post to either attribute it to the author, or make it clear I did not write that.
 
Last edited:

Agent327

Well-Known Member
This is exactly my point. No dialog about things of substance.

Is it? How can it not be "of substance" if you disqualify me to take part in the discussion from the start, cause I do not live up to your standards of people that are allowed to have a say in the game?

Thanks for confirming I was right in not getting an answer to my question.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
its extremely funny whenever people bring up gvg, these okers just jump right in and throw that 5% into your face. Meanwhile, only less than 1 % of the player base actually uses the forum. Using that logic, you might as well shut down the whole forum
No, using the same logic, the forum should never be improved. Like GvG will never to be improved.
 

Tannerite2

Member
No, using the same logic, the forum should never be improved. Like GvG will never to be improved.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that you agree, the forum should not be improved? Or are you saying you agree that GvG should be improved? It seems odd that a dedicated forum user such as yourself wouldn't want improvements on the forum and more player participation, but everything you've said before now contradicts the second option. I guess there's also a 3rd option where you agree that the logic behind the 5% argument is flawed....
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that you agree, the forum should not be improved? Or are you saying you agree that GvG should be improved? It seems odd that a dedicated forum user such as yourself wouldn't want improvements on the forum and more player participation, but everything you've said before now contradicts the second option. I guess there's also a 3rd option where you agree that the logic behind the 5% argument is flawed....
He's not saying either one. He's pointing out the flaw in your logic when you said:
its extremely funny whenever people bring up gvg, these okers just jump right in and throw that 5% into your face. Meanwhile, only less than 1 % of the player base actually uses the forum. Using that logic, you might as well shut down the whole forum
Since all we're saying is that Inno isn't going to improve GvG, the correct analogy would be to say that they might as well not improve the Forum. I find it odd that you all claim that GvG is too complicated for some players, yet you all seem to have trouble figuring out simple Forum posts. How in heaven's name do you figure out something as "complicated" as GvG then?
 

Tannerite2

Member
He's not saying either one. He's pointing out the flaw in your logic when you said:

Since all we're saying is that Inno isn't going to improve GvG, the correct analogy would be to say that they might as well not improve the Forum. I find it odd that you all claim that GvG is too complicated for some players, yet you all seem to have trouble figuring out simple Forum posts. How in heaven's name do you figure out something as "complicated" as GvG then?

icarusethan is not me. I did not say that.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that you agree, the forum should not be improved? Or are you saying you agree that GvG should be improved? It seems odd that a dedicated forum user such as yourself wouldn't want improvements on the forum and more player participation, but everything you've said before now contradicts the second option. I guess there's also a 3rd option where you agree that the logic behind the 5% argument is flawed....
You are correct you did not say that. However, @Johnny B. Goode is correct when he says that my post was to point out the flawed logic. Flawed logic which you also clearly fail to grasp.

Inno has never stated they are going to shut down GvG as is claimed by the poster. Therefore, you cannot make the analogy that based on user participation Inno should shut down the forum, because at this stage, Inno has announced no plans to shut down GvG.

Inno has only said GvG will not be improved. Therefore, the consistent logic would be the forum would never be improved.

As far as agreeing or not agreeing, Inno clearly stated their reasons why GvG was going to stay, but not be improved or ported to mobile. None of those reasons have changed, none of those reasons you've addressed. Have you even read the reasons to address them? Magic 8 Ball says,

1619843380476.png

Unless and until those issues can be addressed, which I've yet to hear here, the business case hasn't changed. If anything, with the success of GBG, the business case for investing in GvG has gotten worse. Had GBG not been a hit, maybe, but now? You're definitely behind the eight ball. (See what I did there?)
 

Tannerite2

Member
You are correct you did not say that. However, @Johnny B. Goode is correct when he says that my post was to point out the flawed logic. Flawed logic which you also clearly fail to grasp.

Inno has never stated they are going to shut down GvG as is claimed by the poster. Therefore, you cannot make the analogy that based on user participation Inno should shut down the forum, because at this stage, Inno has announced no plans to shut down GvG.

That's why in my post I said "not improved" instead of "shut down."

Inno has only said GvG will not be improved. Therefore, the consistent logic would be the forum would never be improved.

Yes, that is what I said in my post:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that you agree, the forum should not be improved? Or are you saying you agree that GvG should be improved? It seems odd that a dedicated forum user such as yourself wouldn't want improvements on the forum and more player participation, but everything you've said before now contradicts the second option. I guess there's also a 3rd option where you agree that the logic behind the 5% argument is flawed....

As far as agreeing or not agreeing, Inno clearly stated their reasons why GvG was going to stay, but not be improved or ported to mobile. None of those reasons have changed, none of those reasons you've addressed. Have you even read the reasons to address them? Magic 8 Ball says,

View attachment 18729

And why do you think I haven't read the thread? The thread supports my original statement - where I simply mentioned one of the reasons Inno will not improve GvG. I did not argue that GvG should be improved, but you seemed to take it as a personal affront.

He died in 2015 I believe. There was an event where you could receive the Speaker's corner and a portrait of him. I have heard for years that GvG won't be updated or ported to mobile because it's too expensive to figure out the code.

Code Base – Let’s simply say it’s complicated.

(idk how to quote a locked thread, but it's from this thread)

I didn't list all the reasons, but the difficult code is one of them.

Unless and until those issues can be addressed, which I've yet to hear here, the business case hasn't changed. If anything, with the success of GBG, the business case for investing in GvG has gotten worse. Had GBG not been a hit, maybe, but now? You're definitely behind the eight ball. (See what I did there?)

But GBG isn't necessarily a hit. It definitely has more users, but as iPenguinPat said, more users doesn't necessarily mean people like it more. People who hate it play it because it is a necessary part of the game now. You cannot be competitive if you do not play GBG. Unless you can prove that GBG is a hit, you cannot use it as a reason for GvG not to be improved. Participation =/= enjoyment.

You seem to think that I am arguing that GvG should be improved on this thread. I am not. I posted a reason why GvG had not been improved, I pointed out a flaw in the 5% argument, and I reiterated Pat and others' point about participation not necessarily reflecting enjoyment. There is no need for the vitriol.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
And why do you think I haven't read the thread? The thread supports my original statement - where I simply mentioned one of the reasons Inno will not improve GvG. I did not argue that GvG should be improved, but you seemed to take it as a personal affront.
Do try to follow along, dear. My comments were on the analogy. I responded to you because you were clearly confused by my response to the flawed analogy, wondering what I agreed with in the analogy. I agree with nothing in the analogy.

But nice to see I ruffled your feathers enough to get you to not only read, but quote the thread. Now you know that it was not only the complicated code. That even fighting through the complicated code, there were too many other issues, to port GvG as is. Why do I know you didn't read it prior to your first post, the phrase, "I have heard for years." Clearly repeating rumor and innuendo, having not read it yourself. Had you read it, you would have said, "I read years ago..."
But GBG isn't necessarily a hit. It definitely has more users, but as iPenguinPat said, more users doesn't necessarily mean people like it more. People who hate it play it because it is a necessary part of the game now. You cannot be competitive if you do not play GBG. Unless you can prove that GBG is a hit, you cannot use it as a reason for GvG not to be improved. Participation =/= enjoyment.
You seem to think Inno cares about your enjoyment. Pro Tip: They don't. They only care about your engagement. That and diamond usage, something I see GBG consuming voraciously. So, like it or not, it's a hit. That you and many others play it, makes it a hit.
You seem to think that I am arguing that GvG should be improved on this thread. I am not. I posted a reason why GvG had not been improved, I pointed out a flaw in the 5% argument, and I reiterated Pat and others' point about participation not necessarily reflecting enjoyment. There is no need for the vitriol.
I honestly don't know what you're arguing, and it seems neither do you. If nothing else, I'm glad you read the original thread and know the code was a tangential issue to the rest.

As far as competitive, what does that even mean? Who are you competing against and what are you competing for? Whatever that is, is what holds you to GBG making it a hit. They may suck at a lot of things, but one thing Inno knows is psychology. Especially, the psychology of addiction.
 

Tannerite2

Member
Do try to follow along, dear. My comments were on the analogy. I responded to you because you were clearly confused by my response to the flawed analogy, wondering what I agreed with in the analogy. I agree with nothing in the analogy.

It's a good analogy. If you believe the 5% argument for GBG, then you should believe it for the forums as well.

But nice to see I ruffled your feathers enough to get you to not only read, but quote the thread.

Yes, you are a good antagonizer. I believe that has been mentioned multiple times on this thread. The problem is that I had already read the thread, so you got me to do nothing except quote the thread to show proof that you wrongly accused me of being incorrect.

Now you know that it was not only the complicated code. That even fighting through the complicated code, there were too many other issues, to port GvG as is. Why do I know you didn't read it prior to your first post, the phrase, "I have heard for years." Clearly repeating rumor and innuendo, having not read it yourself. Had you read it, you would have said, "I read years ago..."

I never claimed it was only the code. I mentioned what I had heard for years. We all know companies don't tell their users all their reasons for doing stuff or specify which of their many reasons is most important.

You seem to think Inno cares about your enjoyment. Pro Tip: They don't. They only care about your engagement. That and diamond usage, something I see GBG consuming voraciously. So, like it or not, it's a hit. That you and many others play it, makes it a hit.

When games become unenjoyable, people stop playing. If GBG is unenjoyable, but necessary and they slowly remove the other enjoyable parts of the game, they will see their users shrink, despite high participation levels and spending in GBG. I doubt that Inno wants their customers to be annoyed for 90% of the time they play. So I do think they care about enjoyment.

I honestly don't know what you're arguing, and it seems neither do you. If nothing else, I'm glad you read the original thread and know the code was a tangential issue to the rest.

I told you in my post I listed the 3 things that I responded for:
I posted a reason why GvG had not been improved, I pointed out a flaw in the 5% argument, and I reiterated Pat and others' point about participation not necessarily reflecting enjoyment.

Now I have a 4th reason - explaining to you why Inno should care about enjoyment.

As far as competitive, what does that even mean? Who are you competing against and what are you competing for? Whatever that is, is what holds you to GBG making it a hit. They may suck at a lot of things, but one thing Inno knows is psychology. Especially, the psychology of addiction.

I'm not sure what your point is here. GBG is necessary for points, FP, goods, GBs, etc. It's necessary if you want to be among the best in any other aspect of the game. If players get tired of GBG and decide the rest of the game is not worth the pain of GBG, then they may quit the game. GBG could still maintain high participation rates even while players quit the game because of GBG. And before you start putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying that will happen. I'm using the logic from this hypothetical scenario to explain why Inno should care about my (and others) enjoyment.

And once again, I don't think the condescending tone and rude comments help contribute to the community.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what your point is here. GBG is necessary for points, FP, goods, GBs, etc. It's necessary if you want to be among the best in any other aspect of the game. If players get tired of GBG and decide the rest of the game is not worth the pain of GBG, then they may quit the game. GBG could still maintain high participation rates even while players quit the game because of GBG. And before you start putting words in my mouth, I'm not saying that will happen. I'm using the logic from this hypothetical scenario to explain why Inno should care about my (and others) enjoyment.
If that's the monkey that's got you, then you're right, you'll have to do GBG whether you like it or not. I'm not sure how that matters to Inno when their metric is engagement. Sure your hypothetical could happen, but time and time again Inno proves they know you better than you know yourself. Every game has turnover, the question is, how many are leaving vs. how many are joining? Something we can't know. So far, Inno's track record of continued growth and profitability would indicate a growing, not shrinking player base.

It also makes perfect sense that the top folks who have burned themselves out on GBG would eventually leave the game. As long as there's a bigger new crop coming on, it's all good. I would also think newer players would be more likely to spend money to build their younger cities than someone sitting in the end game, a fully built up city. I can only speculate, but Inno knows for sure.
 

Tannerite2

Member
If that's the monkey that's got you, then you're right, you'll have to do GBG whether you like it or not. I'm not sure how that matters to Inno when their metric is engagement. Sure your hypothetical could happen, but time and time again Inno proves they know you better than you know yourself. Every game has turnover, the question is, how many are leaving vs. how many are joining? Something we can't know. So far, Inno's track record of continued growth and profitability would indicate a growing, not shrinking player base.

It also makes perfect sense that the top folks who have burned themselves out on GBG would eventually leave the game. As long as there's a bigger new crop coming on, it's all good. I would also think newer players would be more likely to spend money to build their younger cities than someone sitting in the end game, a fully built up city. I can only speculate, but Inno knows for sure.

That's a decent argument for Inno to make from a short term business perspective, but an odd one to make as a player.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
That's a decent argument for Inno to make from a short term business perspective, but an odd one to make as a player.
I'm not sure why you think, as a player, I can't understand business realities. I'm also not making an argument, I'm merely pointing out those realities.

You also say 'short term business perspective,' as if Inno's model is somehow unsustainable. 9 years and running, record growth year over year, the entire time. Sure, at some point FoE will likely die, but it's already outlasted and outperformed 90% of it's brethren. It could die tomorrow and still be one for the record books.

Having said that, I will say that I think MTG's growing ownership and influence is troubling for the game. Events, Example A
 
Last edited:

Tannerite2

Member
You also say 'short term business perspective,' as if Inno's model is somehow unsustainable. 9 years and running, record growth year over year, the entire time. Sure, at some point FoE will likely die, but it's already outlasted and outperformed 90% of it's brethren. It could die tomorrow and still be one for the record books.

Relying on a constant influx of new players is not a solid long term strategy for a game that requires such long term commitment, in my opinion. And just by making enough profit to pay multiple salaries, it's outperformed 99% of its brethren, so that's not really saying much. to be fair, FoE has been much more successful than I expected when I left the game in 2016 or so (been back since November). I expected it to go the way of Grepolis, a different InnoGames game that is a shell of what it was. That doesn't mean that banking on new players will work
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
That doesn't mean that banking on new players will work
Of course it does. How do you think businesses grow? A constant influx of new customers. It's all about inflow vs. outflow. Are there more players joining and actively playing the game than there are active players leaving the game? If the answer is yes, you have a healthy, growing business. If the answer is no, you don't.

You might want to read this:

Funny thing with GBG is that it allows new players to advance faster than at any time before making it easier for new players to get and stay engaged. You a prime example upon your return. I agree that it's always sad to see long term players leave the game for whatever reason, but it's inevitable. As long as the inflow exceeds that, all good.
 
Last edited:

iPenguinPat

Well-Known Member
Relying on a constant influx of new players is not a solid long term strategy for a game that requires such long term commitment, in my opinion. And just by making enough profit to pay multiple salaries, it's outperformed 99% of its brethren, so that's not really saying much. to be fair, FoE has been much more successful than I expected when I left the game in 2016 or so (been back since November). I expected it to go the way of Grepolis, a different InnoGames game that is a shell of what it was. That doesn't mean that banking on new players will work
Of course it does. How do you think businesses grow? A constant influx of new customers. It's all about inflow vs. outflow. Are there more players joining and actively playing the game than there are active players leaving the game? If the answer is yes, you have a healthy, growing business. If the answer is no, you don't.

You might want to read this:

Funny thing with GBG is that it allows new players to advance faster than at any time before making it easier for new players to get and stay engaged. You a prime example upon your return. I agree that it's always sad to see long term players leave the game for whatever reason, but it's inevitable. As long as the inflow exceeds that, all good.

Done a lot of research on inno's business model. It's a bit different from a lot of other F2P games. Their main focus is driving the CPI/CPA cost down as low as possible. Then by keeping all their other costs as low as possible, they have decent margins.

Forge feels like a bit of a unicorn in their portfolio of games. Elvenar is several years newer, but much less popular. The reviews anywhere except the app store are pretty ugly for most inno products...

What makes no sense to me is leaving so many opportunities to increase the value of customers. It's a different business model though. Churn and burn. The biggest danger of that model is when the cost to bring on new players gets too high due to competition (increased ad cost for example). Until it gets too pricy to bring in new players, there's no reason to worry about keeping old ones, it seems.
 

Sheldor the Destroyer

Active Member
The thing is, 50,000,000 is the number of registered accounts. About 5,000,000 are active. That is-45,000,000 for the percentage. I ain’t very good at math but that should be %5=600,000 players.
 

Johnny B. Goode

Well-Known Member
The thing is, 50,000,000 is the number of registered accounts. About 5,000,000 are active. That is-45,000,000 for the percentage. I ain’t very good at math but that should be %5=600,000 players.
5% of 5,000,000 is not 600,000. It is 250,000. And while that sounds like a lot, it means that there are 4,750,000 of the 5 million that don't do GvG. Or, for every GvG player, there are 19 non-GvG players. Context.
 
Top