Feedback World 102

[Lyon]

honestly i thought they lost money with pp exchange as ive rarely seen anyone buying.. guess top 5 start up players do buy enough to cover everyone else

 

[mch123]

honestly i thought they lost money with pp exchange as ive rarely seen anyone buying.. guess top 5 start up players do buy enough to cover everyone else

Can't lose money in a 1 way transaction. Not like you can trade PP back to Innogames for personal profit lol

I think it has caused Inflation of PP though. There's more PP around for free players and that's driving the speed of the game up as everyone can now get some extra growth at start up.

 

[Lyon]

Can't lose money in a 1 way transaction. Not like you can trade PP back to Innogames for personal profit lol

I think it has caused Inflation of PP though. There's more PP around for free players and that's driving the speed of the game up as everyone can now get some extra growth at start up.

well you can sell it to other players..

but i mean before players bought pp for pa, AM etc.. now you can start with 0 pp and make tons

 

[JawJaw]

Guys, please keep feedback related to the settings. You can move your PA discussion to a seperate discussion topic.

 

[Math Debator]

Can you please explain this:

Begginers protection ratio: Activated(1:10 for 30 days)

Does this mean you can't attack anyone who is less than 10% your size until their account is 30 days old? This would be the first world ever on .net with this setting if my interpretation is correct. Would redefine (and somewhat eliminate past a certain) player farming at startup... or rather you now need to let people grow to 300+ points before clearing so you can farm them through noble rush.

 

[Celaethon]

Can you please explain this:

Begginers protection ratio: Activated(1:10 for 30 days)

Does this mean you can't attack anyone who is less than 10% your size until their account is 30 days old? This would be the first world ever on .net with this setting if my interpretation is correct. Would redefine (and somewhat eliminate past a certain) player farming at startup... or rather you now need to let people grow to 300+ points before clearing so you can farm them through noble rush.

I believe it means 10x bigger than your target

At least it's been like that for a while now

 

[Math Debator]

I believe it means 10x bigger than your target

At least it's been like that for a while now

It's only a ban on attacking players that are 10x your size or more? I did startup on 97 98 and 99 and could bookmark farm <100pt players past 1000 points, but I've never seen this ratio/setting in a world open post before.

 

[Celaethon]

It's only a ban on attacking players that are 10x your size or more? I did startup on 97 98 and 99 and could bookmark farm <100pt players past 1000 points, but I've never seen this ratio/setting in a world open post before.

10x smaller than your size, but tbh I might just remember wrong it being used on .net. Been a while since 96 started and never had that problem on w100, Could also be possible that it was a setting on .se.

 

[ALessonInPointWhoring]

Can you please explain this:

Begginers protection ratio: Activated(1:10 for 30 days)

Does this mean you can't attack anyone who is less than 10% your size until their account is 30 days old? This would be the first world ever on .net with this setting if my interpretation is correct. Would redefine (and somewhat eliminate past a certain) player farming at startup... or rather you now need to let people grow to 300+ points before clearing so you can farm them through noble rush.

Yes, that is what the setting means.

No, this would not be the first world with the setting. W101 has the same setting, except there it is 20:1, not 10:1.

It has frequently been used on national servers in the past, and since two national servers recently closed and merged into .net odds are you will be seeing it more often here in the future.

 

[DeletedUser122253]

Beautiful settings.. I will play seriously ;3

 

[Lady Mihaela Targaryen]

Why the login is impossible on any of the worlds at this point?

I get this msg whenever I want to login on a world:
An error occurred
We're very sorry, but something unexpected seems to have happened.

Please try again in a few minutes. If the error persists, please contact our support team with a detailed description of what you were trying to do.



Got this msg in the last 30 mins or so
A update?

 

[DeletedUser122389]

I have to share something with you guys, I've been playing the game for about 1 month and quit playing the game entirely because of 2 major problems in the game, regarding your play style or hours spent:

Premium points:
Because the fact that you have very high advantages when you pay for premium points, it makes the game almost pay to win. You can grow twice as fast (-50% of any building time), by having Premium account which it is an indispensable thing for big players. It is almost impossible to run 50 villages, it takes forever to go in each of them and do that it needs, the Premium account makes it a luxury. In the early game it can help you by a lot when you can queue up more than 2 buildings (at the begining the time for an upgrade is quite short). The way to improve the overall game is to make it less pay to win, grand less benefits from Premium accounts, maybe just cosmetics, the villages has skins, make people pay just to see another face of the village, not having a huge advantage in war.

Early protection:
It's too short. You can barely fortify yourself before other players plunder your village, you can't even make a 1500 points before getting exposed. The ratio between high points players cannot attack low ones its too big. Me, having a 3000 points one village I just want to conquer another village, not exactly a enemy or a player, just to see how it is to conquer something. Guess what, you cannot because other players with like 10 villages nobles you just because they see you have high points. You, versus 10 villages, it is 0% of surviving. You might think "oh ok but how about your tribe?" if I am a new player, be sure I am not accepted in a 1mil points tribe so basicaly when I see myself near a 1mil tribe, I can leave the world. If the ratio between high points players and lower ones is lower, the only reason you will not want to play anymore is because you are sick of conquering barb villages and you cannot expand anymore because the enemy tribe is all arround you but at least you had the experience of conquering a village, not just being nobled in the first 1 month of struggling to survive.

I am not a new player, I've played the game about 6 years ago, almost when the game was launched, I've played on World 4 and had about 100k points. Recently I tried to play the game once again but despite loving the game mechanics, how you can manage your time in the game, being flexible, it felt like it is impossible to grow because of other players. I've tried multiple strategies of growing, focusing on troops, or on structures, trying to get into a tribe, it felt impossible to adapt as a new player. I ended up near a 1mil point tribe and got annihilated before I could ever reach 2500 points. I really enjoy the game but in this case, I cannot enjoy it anymore.

 

[DeletedUser122417]

For me, there is only one real problem with this game. Whether it is a setting for this particular world or something related to InnoGames' business model is not my concern. What is my concern is this: who can attack me. I don't care if I am allowed to attack someone with a larger village than I have or not. What bothers me is that someone can attack me and wipe out my troops because they either spent money to advance more quickly or started much earlier and therefore have used more time. If I have 100 troops in my village and someone attacks with 2000, there is absolutely no chance I can defend my village, REGARDLESS OF WHAT KIND OF TROOPS ARE USED (Except scouts, obviously)!! Likewise someone with a 1700 point village to my 350 point village is going to have a much better chance of winning even with troop parity.

I see at least 3 ways to fix this. First, make a world with 3 or 4 times the Barbarian villages and no PvP. This eliminates the veteran players from destroying the new players as the world gets full, but comes with some serious extra work for the Barb villages, since they now need to attack the players. Secondly, prevent a player from attacking a village with fewer points and/or fewer total troops. Thus, if I have 350 points and 2000 troops, whether they are at home or somewhere else, I can only be attacked by someone with no more than 350 points or fewer than 2000 total troops. There is a balance somewhere in this, of course, and it could be a 10000 point village attacking with 50 total troops or something like that. Both of these methods come with their own problems, of course, and they are not the way I see as the best method to fix my original concern.

The best way in my opinion to fix the issue of those who spend lots of real money always winning everything is this. First, a player can always attack up and can always attack a Barbarian village. And a player can attack down provided there are some balancing effects. I'm going to use some D&D-style terminology to explain my idea. A player may only attack another player's village with no penalty if that village's points are within 90% of the attacking villages' total points. This allows coordinated attacks so that several smaller villages (or tribes) can reasonably defeat a single larger village, but reduces the likelihood of the 1700 vs. 350 point attack I described earlier. If the difference is greater than 10%, the attacker takes a penalty (or the defender receives a bonus) of 1d10 * 10% for each additional 10% difference. Here is an example: Attacker is from a 1000 point village, the defender is a 500 point village. This is a difference of 50%, so there are 4 "die rolls" ((90 - 50) / 10) to determine the penalty. The minimum penalty would therefore be 40% (4 rolls of 1 each, multiplied by 10%), and the maximum calculated penalty would be 400%, although a cap of 90% penalty seems reasonable to me. There should also be a comparison to number of troops, with a similar calculation based on actual attacking troops vs. total number of defending troops, regardless of their location or type. I think the current attack/defense calculation is reasonable once the battle is joined, but a 2000 troop vs. 100 troop battle is simply too unfair. However, if I decide to leave my village uncovered, it's my own fault that I lost, not the attacker's. So, for example, if I have 1800 total troops who are all out scavenging (or attacking someone else), a person (or group) attacking me takes no penalty if the total troops actually used in the attack is 2000 or fewer, regardless of how many troops that person (or group) has in total. Note that this calculation should not include scouts, since those can do no direct damage.

Ultimately, my point is that until there is something that forces reasonable parity among villages involved in battles, there is no reason to make this game free-to-play, pay-to-win. It might as well be pay to play, since the only people who can possibly enjoy themselves are those who spend large amounts of real money. This is why I quit playing 8 years ago, and why I will probably quit playing in the near future. I don't mind losing sometimes, but I should be able to win at least once in a while if you are going to call this a free-to-play game.

 

[bobertini]

For me, there is only one real problem with this game. Whether it is a setting for this particular world or something related to InnoGames' business model is not my concern. What is my concern is this: who can attack me. I don't care if I am allowed to attack someone with a larger village than I have or not. What bothers me is that someone can attack me and wipe out my troops because they either spent money to advance more quickly or started much earlier and therefore have used more time. If I have 100 troops in my village and someone attacks with 2000, there is absolutely no chance I can defend my village, REGARDLESS OF WHAT KIND OF TROOPS ARE USED (Except scouts, obviously)!! Likewise someone with a 1700 point village to my 350 point village is going to have a much better chance of winning even with troop parity.

I see at least 3 ways to fix this. First, make a world with 3 or 4 times the Barbarian villages and no PvP. This eliminates the veteran players from destroying the new players as the world gets full, but comes with some serious extra work for the Barb villages, since they now need to attack the players. Secondly, prevent a player from attacking a village with fewer points and/or fewer total troops. Thus, if I have 350 points and 2000 troops, whether they are at home or somewhere else, I can only be attacked by someone with no more than 350 points or fewer than 2000 total troops. There is a balance somewhere in this, of course, and it could be a 10000 point village attacking with 50 total troops or something like that. Both of these methods come with their own problems, of course, and they are not the way I see as the best method to fix my original concern.

The best way in my opinion to fix the issue of those who spend lots of real money always winning everything is this. First, a player can always attack up and can always attack a Barbarian village. And a player can attack down provided there are some balancing effects. I'm going to use some D&D-style terminology to explain my idea. A player may only attack another player's village with no penalty if that village's points are within 90% of the attacking villages' total points. This allows coordinated attacks so that several smaller villages (or tribes) can reasonably defeat a single larger village, but reduces the likelihood of the 1700 vs. 350 point attack I described earlier. If the difference is greater than 10%, the attacker takes a penalty (or the defender receives a bonus) of 1d10 * 10% for each additional 10% difference. Here is an example: Attacker is from a 1000 point village, the defender is a 500 point village. This is a difference of 50%, so there are 4 "die rolls" ((90 - 50) / 10) to determine the penalty. The minimum penalty would therefore be 40% (4 rolls of 1 each, multiplied by 10%), and the maximum calculated penalty would be 400%, although a cap of 90% penalty seems reasonable to me. There should also be a comparison to number of troops, with a similar calculation based on actual attacking troops vs. total number of defending troops, regardless of their location or type. I think the current attack/defense calculation is reasonable once the battle is joined, but a 2000 troop vs. 100 troop battle is simply too unfair. However, if I decide to leave my village uncovered, it's my own fault that I lost, not the attacker's. So, for example, if I have 1800 total troops who are all out scavenging (or attacking someone else), a person (or group) attacking me takes no penalty if the total troops actually used in the attack is 2000 or fewer, regardless of how many troops that person (or group) has in total. Note that this calculation should not include scouts, since those can do no direct damage.

Ultimately, my point is that until there is something that forces reasonable parity among villages involved in battles, there is no reason to make this game free-to-play, pay-to-win. It might as well be pay to play, since the only people who can possibly enjoy themselves are those who spend large amounts of real money. This is why I quit playing 8 years ago, and why I will probably quit playing in the near future. I don't mind losing sometimes, but I should be able to win at least once in a while if you are going to call this a free-to-play game.

Have you tried Casual?

 

[DeletedUser122417]

Have you tried Casual?

Where is "Casual"? I can find it in the "World Info" from the home screen, but I cannot see how to join that world. The only ones available are W99, W100, W101, W102 (where I am), and "HP", which gives me a prompt that tells me it is the exact opposite of what I'm looking for. I certainly would prefer to play where I don't have to worry about the disparities I discussed.

 

[JawJaw]

Where is "Casual"? I can find it in the "World Info" from the home screen, but I cannot see how to join that world. The only ones available are W99, W100, W101, W102 (where I am), and "HP", which gives me a prompt that tells me it is the exact opposite of what I'm looking for. I certainly would prefer to play where I don't have to worry about the disparities I discussed.

In the game settings of your world, you can find a button 'casual transfer'
Those worlds usually are more relaxed and offer more protection to beginning players.