Discussion: Recap and update: Settings changes on older worlds

[baseball2009star]

Alright, 3 out of 4 worlds acheived 100% dominance with the 3 months. During that last three months, there won't be moral disadvantage and 25 cent nobles. With these two changes, I can see how that would increase the next 4 worlds to close to 4 out of 4 achieving 100% dominance. But why does it HAVE to be 100% dominance? Who the hell wants to be forced to noble a 75 point village to win the world? Can we get a range of villages that are included in that percentage? E.g. 100% of all villages above 1K points, or 100% of all villages above the maximum growth limit for barbarians...


I'm glad to hear such a universal dissatisfaction with 100% dominance to win a world. This WILL cause them to rethink their strategy. Also, I'm glad to hear the new adaptation on the moral and price of packets/coins. That's a start in the right direction. I know that I was getting ready to start a new world, but with this change probably won't. I'd like to see the worlds hover at around 2-3 years a piece and that would keep me pretty interested.


@ all the pissed off players - From what I'm understanding there never was a solidified end-game procedure. The idea from the start of the game was for a tribe to gain 100% dominance. They negotiated on the 4 previous worlds to end them and to implement a more steady procedure with more and more worlds ending they have tried something new. Let's try some empathy in this situation. I am pretty sure innogames isn't trying to *Screw* us over.



Maybe a better explanation of how you, morthy, foresee worlds ending.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you for posting official criteria finally. It would be good to have some official method by which someone can be contacted once the world reaches a certain stage, it is still not clear.

I would also recommend deleting morale at an earlier stage than 85%. It has a very limiting effect on who you are actually able to attack in the late game.

 

[MichielK]

@ all the pissed off players - From what I'm understanding there never was a solidified end-game procedure. The idea from the start of the game was for a tribe to gain 100% dominance. They negotiated on the 4 previous worlds to end them and to implement a more steady procedure with more and more worlds ending they have tried something new. Let's try some empathy in this situation. I am pretty sure innogames isn't trying to <bleep> us over.

I don't think they are trying to do that either, though I'm not completely convinced either :icon_wink: I do think they make their decisions based on perceived short-term gain rather than the long-term viability of TW (either that, or they simply underestimate the likely outcome of this).

Frankly, I don't understand the obsession with preventing worlds from ending. If a world ends and the players had a worthwhile experience, they will simply join the new worlds that open as replacement. I certainly would have, but I am not going to if I have to spend months fighting a war that's already won.

With regards to the fact that there never was a solidified end-game procedure, I believe that's true. However, I also think the lack of an end-game procedure wasn't by design; it wasn't there because there was no reason to spend time and resources on creating one if worlds were nowhere near ending. Now that various worlds are getting closer and closer to the point where continuing will not alter the final outcome, it is time for an efficient, reasonable and profitable structure for ending worlds. The concept as published earlier fails to meet any of those standards.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have one question about this.
W39 seems to have met all your criteria when you wrote the post, yet it was not included in the list of worlds that met the criteria. Why was this?

 

[DeletedUser]

http://forum.tribalwars.net/showthread.php?t=215553

Look up there. It was announced before, apparently now that has turned in to a "4 month experiment" without any further announcements until now.

To W33, who has made the effort to reach 70%, I feel sorry for you.

Personally, after playing this game close to 3 years in W21, and having played even longer dating back to W8, I find this announcement a farce. I don't know what goes on in other worlds, but I will sum up my world simply:

1) The last two years have been lopsided.
[SPOIL]Side 1:
Tribes: PnP
Side 2:
Tribes: ~IMP~

Timeframe: 29/05/2009 00:00:00 to 29/05/2011 17:34:00

Total conquers:

Side 1: 34,378
Side 2: 23,506
Difference: 10,872

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 4,467
Side 2: 309
Difference: 4,158

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 310,326,933
Side 2: 160,078,291
Difference: 150,248,642

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 41,745,687
Side 2: 2,923,416
Difference: 38,822,271

[/SPOIL]

2) Stats do not include other tribes that we've been taking out, and disbanded academy tribe of the above that merged into the main body.

3) Going is slow because its a packet world.

4) Political lines have been static for well over 2 years.

5) Enemy frontline continents have been falling largely uncontested over time.

6) Enemy decides to delay the end my running to the rim and playing tricks that the new pushing rules have protected them for:
http://forum.tribalwars.net/showpost.php?p=5967122&postcount=241

7) In the meantime, people get bored, get married, change jobs, graduate and quit.

8) It has become a full time job of the duke to find constant replacements.

9) Despite our best efforts, tribe dominance is only at 37-38% and gaining at average of 1% a month. Add in our allies (rank 2) and we have 55%. Most of this is gained via ennoblements.


You, the TW community, please tell me. With this kind of lopsided stats for the past 2 years well before 70% what other options do I have? Political lines have been static for 2 years. So have membership in general. The only option available is to carry on what we are doing, which has become duller than watching the paint dry for another 15 months (or more) to reach 70%. Now that option is gone, so I need to get the remaining 30% as well. Granted it should get a bit faster as packet prices come down but that is still a good 2-3 years away.

As far as I'm concerned, we've won. You could say we do not have dominance % but there is no opposition. Personally I have not had anything over 200 incomings for longer than I can remember. I wanted some kind of formality for it and the only way was to reach 70%. Now with this announcement I need to reach 100%. I think I am done wasting my life on this game.

I think, hard and fast numbers are pointless. The 70% thing was good for awhile, as it gave us in older worlds something to focus on, especially since there has never been any end game rules when we started our worlds. However, I believe it had significant impact in newer worlds, the way people play out their recruitment and merger strategies reaching the required dominance faster.

Each world is unique due to the player base and circumstances. These rules condemn us to watching the paint dry for the next 2-3 years, because all the best opposition have already been taken out.

Before any end game rules, this was just a never-ending game, and tribes of old would declare victory when they are satisfied and be done with it. This option suddenly becomes appealing again.


I have said this, from my point of view as Duke of PnP.

PnP - ranked 1 in W21
backwards - ranked 1 in W21

Thanks for your time.

 

[DeletedUser656]

I have one question about this.
W39 seems to have met all your criteria when you wrote the post, yet it was not included in the list of worlds that met the criteria. Why was this?

Good catch, '500' should have been '300' in the criteria.

 

[busamad]

That's stupid putting a number of players on morale what happens in a world like 34 with a 20 member tribe limit or how about W41 with 150 member limit.

As I said I know you are trying hard to make things easy for all but you just cannot make it the same for all worlds it just does not work like that.

 

[DeletedUser66513]

InnoGames have fallen into a trap that so many game developers have done these days, and its sad to see.

The last few updates and rule changes have clearly been based around attracting new players to the game, but in their eagerness to attract new players, they are neglecting the old hands who have put so much into the game, and been loyal customers of premium for so long.

They seem to believe that the more players they have, the better their profit margin will become. They need to be shown that this is not the case.

Yes, lots of new players may mean lots of new money for a short time, however the large majority of new players to the game leave quickly, and nothing will change that other than a complete dumbing down of what the game is about.

The only thing that these changes will bring in is that the same old hands who have played for so long will grow bored and leave, which has already been going on for a long time now - sometimes of course they are forced to leave by things outside of InnoGames control, however I do not believe this accounts for the majority. Most leave because they get to a certain point in the game, and then find that InnoGames, rather than rewarding them for their loyalty, abandon them in favour of those players that will mostly only play the game for a few weeks.

As the more skilled members of our community slowly leave, the average quality of the community will in turn decrease. As this happens, the appeal of the game will decrease too, as there will nothing for the new players to aspire to when they leave. Add to that the fact that those ex-players will probably find new games/communities to spend their time, and the reputation of InnoGames themselves will be lowered, affecting their new player intake.

In order to continue their success, InnoGames need to have a much more open ear to what their long term player base are saying. They don't always have to listen of course, sometimes the community come up with some damn stupid ideas. But they cannot take us for granted, and they cannot treat everyone the same. Someone who joins the game and leaves 3 weeks later does not deserve the same attention as someone who gives their hard earned money to try and keep the game running.

These new players cannot be relied upon to sustain the games lifespan, yes they need to be brought in, to keep the community expanding - but its the long term customers who keep the game going - and InnoGames appear to be forgetting this.

100% is a ridiculous thing to ask for, even when considering banning restarts at 85%. W21 is a prime example of this. Admittedly when it is still 55-45 as a ratio, there is still a chance - albeit a tiny one for anyone who is familiar with the way W21 has been for the last few months - or years even.

However once it gets to a certain point there is nothing you can do. Its like a game of chess, when the opponent has nothing left but a king and a couple of knights, whereas you have half your pieces still on the board, and yet still continues on anyway just to try and annoy you into resigning yourself.

I could live with 80% tbh, but 100% is completely stupid, and shows clearly that InnoGames are losing focus on who among their consumer base are the most important.

 

[DeletedUser656]

Just to reiterate on my last post, as it seems many of the replies here show a basic lack of understanding of the situation.

The old end game scenario has not been in effect or used for quite some time. It had too many flaws and negative feedback to be used again.

These are measures introduced because without them there would be NO way for a world to end. We'd follow the German versions' example, where worlds would continue to run for 5+ years, only being closed when the player count dwindled to something like 20-30 people.

So no, this has absolutely nothing to do with money. It has nothing to do with us losing focus on customers. It has nothing to do with trying to make a quick buck out of older worlds. We're simply responding to the many tickets we've received asking for disabled restarts and no morale.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why not increase world speed in addition to lowering packet/goin price for end game?

 

[DeletedUser656]

Why not increase world speed in addition to lowering packet/goin price for end game?

The game speed can't be modified after the world has been started because previously set commands, queues, etc would not update. There's be no way to differentiate between attacks sent before the change and after.

The only exception to this was W47 I think, where we made the change on Christmas day during the attack breaks.

 

[rascal-the-cat]

This is a specific question for Morthy.

Why 100%?

Have you considered that you are leaving players in the two 'winning' tribes in the position where they can be held hostage by rogue players who once the end game criteria is met can decide to 'have fun' and leave their tribes in order to screw everyone else over.

We all know that people like that exist so why give them the chance to ruin it for everyone else?

Yes I accept that they can be nobled out but that takes time and in the process Innogames would lose a lot of goodwill for having made a rule that allows one person(s) to spoil it for all.

It's a seriously bad decision in my view.

 

[DeletedUser656]

This is a specific question for Morthy.

Why 100%?

Have you considered that you are leaving players in the two 'winning' tribes in the position where they can be held hostage by rogue players who once the end game criteria is met can decide to 'have fun' and leave their tribes in order to screw everyone else over.

We all know that people like that exist so why give them the chance to ruin it for everyone else?

Yes I accept that they can be nobled out but that takes time and in the process Innogames would lose a lot of goodwill for having made a rule that allows one person(s) to spoil it for all.

It's a seriously bad decision in my view.

A few reasons really:

• You don't fully own a world until you've reached 100%.
• It's extremely hard responding to players not in the winning tribe(s) who have paid for and extended premium accounts when they ask us why they can no longer login to a world they still wanted to play.
• One of the biggest negative points of the endgame scenario is that after we posted some guidelines for when it could start the majority of players interpreted them as solid criteria and would send in support tickets demanding it the minute they achieved 70% dominance. This isn't really practical for us for a number of internal reasons, such as the work required by sysadmins to archive a world. If we'd set the goal as 90%, we couldn't guarantee the world would close at that point. With 100% we can guarantee that.

I would *again* like to point out here that the only 'decision' made in this announcement is that we would close worlds at 100% domination instead of letting them run forever.

 

[DeletedUser]

There should be no requirement to reach 100% village ownership. The game is won long before that point is reached. Forcing players to slog through months of conquering every damn last village is asinine. This is piss-poor customer service on innogames' part, a plot designed to suck money out of players but that is just driving players away from this game.

I doubt any of the existing worlds will reach this completion requirement before innogames has to shut the servers down due to lack of cash flow.

 

[rascal-the-cat]

A few reasons really:
$

I would *again* like to point out here that the only 'decision' made in this announcement is that we would close worlds at 100% domination instead of letting them run forever.

I actually think it is excellent that there is now a clear and precise policy for the ending of a world - in my opinion that has been needed for some while.

However I feel that you somewhat skimmed over my point of rogue players causing chaos by jumping from their tribes at the last minute. A reduction to something like 98% will take that option away from them.

 

[DeletedUser]

the end game phase is killing tw.

their should be a change

 

[DeletedUser93439]

The game speed can't be modified after the world has been started because previously set commands, queues, etc would not update. There's be no way to differentiate between attacks sent before the change and after.

The only exception to this was W47 I think, where we made the change on Christmas day during the attack breaks.

In this case I suggest that when the end game phase is entered, you announce an attack break to come in a week/two weeks that will last the time needed to up the speed.
Of course, it would be best to have a poll about the new speed: No upping the speed/ x2 / x2.5 / x3
Or something among the lines

 

[DeletedUser]

@ Morthy:

So insteady of editing the post you remove it. tell me jirki can you answer my questions or are all of the admin at a loss of words about the reaction to your rule cahnges

If you want a reply to the post, make a post which does not violate the rules. When a post contains multiple rule violations, it's obviously deleted.

Now seeing as another admin said i would get a proper reply if i made my post nice here goes my edited post
no one likes you and your crews new idea, surprised? Still waiting on your answer on why you will loose money with this new 100% owned villa idea? I did read right about you saying you ARE NOT DOING THIS TO MAKE AN EXTRA BUCK. Because i can still not see how that will happen WITH YOU NOT MAKING MORE MONEY. With more worlds opening and work getting more you need more admin so somewhere you need to get the funding. Like previously started most people now will leave this game after the finish what they started because of your new ruling.

Please explain to all of us here why suddenly after 4 worlds ending as they did it changes so dramatically. Man up and answer the paying customers what they ask.

To add to this you say you got so many negative feedback on the old scenario, if you get more here will you start changing it again?

A few reasons really:
You don't fully own a world until you've reached 100%. (so does this mean we will need to noble out all them barbs to because you really dont own a world if you only own all players owned villas.

It's extremely hard responding to players not in the winning tribe(s) who have paid for and extended premium accounts when they ask us why they can no longer login to a world they still wanted to play. (Here is an easy answer you lost and the victory conditions was announced so if you wanted to keep playing you should have tried a bit harder)

One of the biggest negative points of the endgame scenario is that after we posted some guidelines for when it could start the majority of players interpreted them as solid criteria and would send in support tickets demanding it the minute they achieved 70% dominance. This isn't really practical for us for a number of internal reasons, such as the work required by sysadmins to archive a world. If we'd set the goal as 90%, we couldn't guarantee the world would close at that point. With 100% we can guarantee that. (again here is an easy answer thank you for bringing this to our attention we will get working on it right away because we are paid to this)

 

[MichielK]

• You don't fully own a world until you've reached 100%.

This is true, of course...but why should "fully own" be the requirement for victory? You act as if this is common sense, but judging by the reactions in this thread very few people agree with that.

As Mikebro mentioned above, the game is usually won long before that point is reached. If the same tribe takes more and more territory from their enemies every single day (in W16, I believe that my tribe has won 99% of the days this year), what's the point in forcing them to continue for months if not years?

• It's extremely hard responding to players not in the winning tribe(s) who have paid for and extended premium accounts when they ask us why they can no longer login to a world they still wanted to play.

Understood, but a time limit could easily solve that. If players are told right now that the world will end X days after one tribe reaches Y%, they won't come back to you in 6 months or a year saying they're surprised. It's hardly different from the other chances you've just implemented.

• One of the biggest negative points of the endgame scenario is that after we posted some guidelines for when it could start the majority of players interpreted them as solid criteria and would send in support tickets demanding it the minute they achieved 70% dominance. This isn't really practical for us for a number of internal reasons, such as the work required by sysadmins to archive a world. If we'd set the goal as 90%, we couldn't guarantee the world would close at that point. With 100% we can guarantee that.

I bet that most people would prefer 90% without a guarantee than 100% with one. Do you really expect people to lodge complaints and start petitions if you make a structure where a world will be closed 60 days after 90% has been reached and it turns out you're a couple of days late? We'd much prefer the chance of a few days delay on a sensible system than the guarantee that you'll get a much hated system exactly right.

I would *again* like to point out here that the only 'decision' made in this announcement is that we would close worlds at 100% domination instead of letting them run forever.

Morthy, most of us are not arguing that this is "a step back from 70% + 30"...we're merely trying to voice our opinion that if you're going to create a policy for ending worlds, the policy should be sensible. Lower noble prices, no restarts, no morale; those are all excellent steps in the right direction. What we want is for you to make a few steps further in that direction so that you have a great structure for end-game, rather than one that is merely better than nothing at all.

You have some of the best and brightest minds in the community telling you what they'd prefer. You have enemies in-game (e.g. me and Mikebro) agreeing that 100% is not the way to go. We're open for discussion, eager to share our ideas and opinions with you, and willing to help you reach the perfect solution. Will you take our views into consideration?

 

[A humble player]

@ Morthy:

Now seeing as another admin said i would get a proper reply if i made my post nice here goes my edited post
no one likes you and your crews new idea, surprised? Still waiting on your answer on why you will loose money with this new 100% owned villa idea? I did read right about you saying you ARE NOT DOING THIS TO MAKE AN EXTRA BUCK. Because i can still not see how that will happen WITH YOU NOT MAKING MORE MONEY. With more worlds opening and work getting more you need more admin so somewhere you need to get the funding. Like previously started most people now will leave this game after the finish what they started because of your new ruling.

Wait, so the fact that they might make money off of this means that the only reason for them doing it is to make money?
I like making crafts, just because I sell them doesn't mean that it is the only reason I make them. I can in fact have motives other than profit, and the profit simply be a unintended consequence.

Please explain to all of us here why suddenly after 4 worlds ending as they did it changes so dramatically. Man up and answer the paying customers what they ask.

Erm, because as morthy said:

The old end game scenario has not been in effect or used for quite some time. It had too many flaws and negative feedback to be used again.

That seems straightforward.

To add to this you say you got so many negative feedback on the old scenario, if you get more here will you start changing it again?

So are you trying to argue bothfor and against it?
And I'd assume yes, however so far there have been all of 8 people who have complained publically.

A few reasons really:
You don't fully own a world until you've reached 100%. (so does this mean we will need to noble out all them barbs to because you really dont own a world if you only own all players owned villas.

learn to read. 100% of player owned villages.

It's extremely hard responding to players not in the winning tribe(s) who have paid for and extended premium accounts when they ask us why they can no longer login to a world they still wanted to play. (Here is an easy answer you lost and the victory conditions was announced so if you wanted to keep playing you should have tried a bit harder)

Are you, as a player in the top tribe any more important to innogames than another paying customer who is not in a top tribe?
Apparently not, all customers are equal in the eyes of inno :O no matter what tribe or side they are on.

One of the biggest negative points of the endgame scenario is that after we posted some guidelines for when it could start the majority of players interpreted them as solid criteria and would send in support tickets demanding it the minute they achieved 70% dominance. This isn't really practical for us for a number of internal reasons, such as the work required by sysadmins to archive a world. If we'd set the goal as 90%, we couldn't guarantee the world would close at that point. With 100% we can guarantee that. (again here is an easy answer thank you for bringing this to our attention we will get working on it right away because we are paid to this)

Duh what?