Discussion: Recap and update: Settings changes on older worlds

[DeletedUser656]

This is the discussion thread for our announcements regarding settings changes on older worlds and the endgame period. Please note that this thread has been used for both the initial announcement in May and the subsequent changes announced in June. The first 16 pages of replies are for the old guidelines.

Old, deprecated guidelines

New, up to date guidelines

 

[DeletedUser656]

Some people have asked for a discussion thread, so here you go ^^

 

[DeletedUser]

What is the tribe dominance defined by when you say 85%? Of owning all villages in the world, or only player owned, or K dominance, or etc?

 

[DeletedUser]

Already mentioned...

1. The overall dominance of the top 2 tribes must be at least 85% *.

* Percentage of player owned villages.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ah ok, I'm just blind.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is the most ludicrous , one sided , Money making scheme called a "game" Ive seen in my Life. 100% ?????

If ever Ive seen capitilism at work , this is it. No wonder the player count have dropped from 500 000 to 140 000 .

I will make it my destiny to defer anyone I meet from playing this game , for the sheer fact that admin , can make changes , based purely on getting the most money out of us vs. what the people PAYING the money want. We in W33 werent even consulted to hear how we feel about it. Changing it from the traditional 3 month windows to this is just plain stupid and greedy. What chance in hell does the opposition have of coming back ? NONE This is just done to extract maximum profit from us until the 100% mark is reached. And guess what you get for your effort over two to 3 years. Premium points. To play this game again ? I dont think so.

This was the last straw I needed to go and invest my money elsewhere , to more deserving people , who actually listens to what the community has to say.

 

[DeletedUser656]

This is the most ludicrous , one sided , Money making scheme called a "game" Ive seen in my Life. 100% ?????

If ever Ive seen capitilism at work , this is it. No wonder the player count have dropped from 500 000 to 140 000 .

I will make it my destiny to defer anyone I meet from playing this game , for the sheer fact that admin , can make changes , based purely on getting the most money out of us vs. what the people PAYING the money want. We in W33 werent even consulted to hear how we feel about it. Changing it from the traditional 3 month windows to this is just plain stupid and greedy. What chance in hell does the opposition have of coming back ? NONE This is just done to extract maximum profit from us until the 100% mark is reached. And guess what you get for your effort over two to 3 years. Premium points. To play this game again ? I dont think so.

This was the last straw I needed to go and invest my money elsewhere , to more deserving people , who actually listens to what the community has to say.

There is no "traditional" 3 month window. There have not been any end-games for quite some time. It was an experiment on 4 worlds that didn't go terribly well.

This change speeds up the end of worlds dramatically and so loses us money.

 

[DeletedUser]

who actually listens to what the community has to say.

I've never heard a single person say end-game is too fast. :icon_confused:

 

[DeletedUser]

I, too, am from W33 where we had reached the 70% mark previously set for End World phase to commence. From then, it would have been 3 months until the world closed provided no major changes occurred such as the tribe splintering.

To now be told as we were all looking forward to winding the world up around early September, that we must continue until 100% ownership (current rate is 1% per week thus meaning a further 28 weeks from the point we're at) likely to be in 6 - 7 months time is definitely a slap in the face to us all.

We welcome the clarification of End World stages but not the new time frame. Further, there was no consultation with us on this matter although Admin staff were aware we believed we had reached the End World phase.

Morthy, please tell me how you came to the conclusion that these changes would speed things up for us?

 

[busamad]

The part that I find hard is that as was pointed out when I think W18 closed (with only 2 months for an end game) each world is different in part due to settings but also how the world has grown politically.
To put the same standard on every world will make some far better in late game however others will suffer.

For me its not so much the need for cheap nobles that are required, more either a reduction / removal of morale.
The very cheap nobles mean I have to increase my activity yet I joined a world with the settings that I felt suited my life style.
Its does not work the same on all worlds but I would have liked for a time based morale to be set in place at the closing of the world or at the very least when 1/2 price nobles are introduced.

Are such cheap nobles required on all worlds? I do not play them so unsure but checking data I find a swing in nobles per player on the worlds you mention fit the criteria to be great. We have W29 286 players & 62 nobles per player going all the way to world 10 at 145 players with 265 nobles each.

Then my world with 547 players an average of just 37 nobles each. The removal of morale will help at the same settings decrease the time needed for the world to finish without a silly increase in nobling speed.

 

[DeletedUser]

I do think it should be relevant to each world and decided by each world (at least in part), my world 43 is getting towards the end (nearly) and our situation is vastly different than that of W10 or W29 or etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well well isn't this just great. 100% owned villas to end a world. Are you @#$@$#%^ insane? Who da hell are you to just change rules or "previous traditions" as you see fit? Changing the end game from 75% + 3 months to 100% ownership is a huge jump and personally i think a jump not worth taking.

I can agree on the 85% no more moral, that is a awesome ruling. I can understand the reduction of packets / gold coins. But then to say sorry mate even if there is now way any one else can come back and win your world we need you to pay a few more months of premium to make it all worth it for us.

Now @ Morthy and his crew you say "This change speeds up the end of worlds dramatically and so loses us money." how the hell do you come to this conclusion. I will be waiting on your answer. Because like i see it we were about to get the 3 month ruling now we will be playing for atleast another 7-8 months, so were exactly do you loose money or are the premiums free after 3 months?

So to conclude for now, morthy i would like your calculations on how you loose money and i would like to know who of the players was asked if this is a good new rule to introduce as i cant remember being asked or informed of any possible changes to the end game rules.

Oh and before i forget harbinger297 yes you heard it before acid just said so so did blue and so did i and i am pretty sure there will be a few more saying the same, or atleast from those guys that was near the beginning of end game.

 

[DeletedUser]

You gave world 7 the choice when there was 76% dominance, more than fair and I'm sure they were all pleased by it - As we (World 33) would be.

Maybe get some feedback from each world when an alliance or tribe has a reasonable dominance rather than a set amount for every world, every world is different!

There is no "traditional" 3 month window. There have not been any end-games for quite some time. It was an experiment on 4 worlds that didn't go terribly well.

This change speeds up the end of worlds dramatically and so loses us money.

How so?

 

[baseball2009star]

I don't think it's necessary for me to go on a rampage and flame the a-holes who came to this conclusion. I might not be understanding this right. But this does sound ludicrous to me as well. As busamad stated, these worlds are all different. As I do understand why one ultimate conclusion to initiate end game phase is needed. I do believe the extreme worlds should be evaluated individually with consideration for a general end-game phase initiation. I am from W33 as well, and from my understanding W33 is one of those extreme worlds. With settings of .5 Speed. Point based moral, and Churches. This world is a rather slow world. Although this new change may dramatically speed up the "average" world, it will dramatically change ours. Granted, our opposition is still there, but with very little hope of making any big pushes. Also, I'll expand on Acid's point of the player count dropping dramatically in the last year - year and a half. While I don't want to speculate on the reason of this. In my opinion, I can empathize on the feeling that innogames has been 'nickle and diming' there members for sometime now.


@Morthy, I do ask for you to reconsider some of these extreme worlds, which includes the slower worlds (33 and 45). If you feel this new stipulation absolutely necessary then implicate it on newer worlds. I definitely do not wish to play this bloody game for 8-10 more months...


Thank You
~Baseball

 

[DeletedUser656]

We never formally announced it, but we stopped doing endgames quite some time ago.

Here's a recap of before and now:

Before: No endgame, no removal of morale, no disabling of restarts, no reduction of noble prices beyond 1/3.
Now: No named endgame scenario, a clear goal for the removal of morale and disabling of restarts, much cheaper nobles.

So yes, I stand by my statement about this increasing the speed at which worlds can be won. I'd also like to point out that with the old end game system (which did not involve the removal of morale or the immediate disabling of restarts) three out of the four worlds achieved 100% domination within the three month limit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Your comments here differ to those you gave me in skype the other day when I first requested End World be initiated on W33. Perhaps you'd care to discuss it with me there as this does not align with our conversation then.

 

[DeletedUser]

So to conclude for now, morthy i would like your calculations on how you loose money and i would like to know who of the players was asked if this is a good new rule to introduce as i cant remember being asked or informed of any possible changes to the end game rules.

@ Morthy and crew: So when you dont have an answer you just forget about the question asked?
No let me understand this even better there is no named endgame scenario, so you can just change it as you please when ever you please because you guys are admin. Do i have this correct?

 

[DeletedUser]

Please note that the rank 1 tribe will be declared as the overall winner, and only players in the rank 1 tribe will receive premium prizes.

What is the prize structure?

 

[MichielK]

Since I'm in the leadership of the winning tribe in one of the worlds directly affected (W16), I'll put in my two cents.

Reduction of package cost, removal of morale, disabling of restarts: fantastic!

W16 has 185 players left, and more than a quarter have less than 100K points. Many of these players restart, restart and then restart again, only to be rimmed over and over when their villages reach a decent size. Thanks to these changes, we can finally remove them permanently from the world. Heck, it may even generate income for InnoGames if these players are forced to start on a new world where they could actually achieve something.

Playing until 100% dominance: beyond awful.

On W16, like on other slow worlds, the losing tribe has realised long ago that they cannot win the final war. Rather than fighting, they resort to nobling backfield barbs in order to keep their dominance percentage up. What they're hoping for is that the winning tribe will get bored faster than they do.

I can't speak for other tribes, but I can tell you what the majority of my tribemates will do: we'll continue until we achieve this ridiculous requirement (since we do not want to give our enemies the satisfaction of a victory they did not earn), and then never ever play the game again. These rules force us to perform boring tasks for months and months after the world has been effectively decided, and will ruin the game for us forever.

(I presume that this feeling will be even worse for the losing tribe, who performed even more boring tasks and don't even have a victory to show for it :icon_wink

It's an awful idea for InnoGames' bank account as well. I presume this idea started because InnoGames believed they'd get more premium out of existing players. Perhaps, but I suspect they will lose more income in the short term because these players will be far less likely to play (and pay for) multiple worlds...and once these worlds do reach 100% and close down, the financial results will plummet and never recover. Forget the reputation damage, forget the poor treatment of loyal players. You. Will. Lose. Money.

The bottom line? The winners score a victory and leave the game. The losers get their loss and leave the game. InnoGames squeezes a few months of extra premium out of these players, and then loses them forever. Everyone loses. Surely you can come up with something better?

 

[DeletedUser]

Probably 1 premium point for each tribe member. As i can figure their previous endgame went terribly wrong so prizes wont stay the same either. They will probably announce it only after another world ends in a few months.