Why?

DeletedUser122217

Guest
You had great great success with world 100. Brought a Lot of players back got everybody excited about this game and then go right back to what made you fail work 101 and now 102. Just Take world 100 and add a little to it. That's fine if you want to do your p2w worlds and no limited haul world for your no lifers but the majority don't like them worlds. Sucks watching people ruin a game that is so easily fixable
 
Sort by date Sort by votes

mch123

Guest
Read the forums a little more. I've been discussing this a lot recently and pushing for change.

In the end I finally conceded to the facts that TW is making in $14M revenue. The company is making $189M revenue. Innogames is 51% owned by another company (MTG - Modern Times Group) anyway. What is their incentive to change? Who do you contact to try and change the model? I was working on TW making $1M-$5M in non P2W model. It doesn't even compete when they have other products that are more valuable and worth their time developing.

Your best hope is supporting an indie developer in making a new game that isn't for profit and is community first.

Anyway... by what metrics did you conclude that w100 was a success? The player base as a whole didn't grow. It makes less money for innogames. There is a lot of complaining about cheating instead of P2W. The world is smaller and they didn't really commit to it either by opening another P2W world immediately after...

It's a shame that it's going this way. Just got to look to more creative options now.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser122217

Guest
Worlds like world 100 will keep players around and the other p2w worlds will slowly lose players till the base is to small to be enjoyable. I understand they make more off the other worlds that's common sense but keep it up and they will lose more and more players so either they keep it the way it is and lose people (which means less money they will make overtime) or keep people around by making it more like world 100 or for every p2w world you make a limited haul world. For games like this to keep going you have to attract new players cause your old timers will eventually quit and if there's no new ones coming in then there goes your game. I see it way to often and it gets old. You would think a guy like you that enjoys this game would agree to make worlds more enjoyable for people that aren't no lifers cause they are the majority of your population. But no you took the time to attack me (now I need to go to my safe space) rather then help try and make the game better. You make excuses for the company. I remember many years ago looking at the maps and seeing all the villages there was so many people playing. I just want it to grow again and p2w won't do it. But hey bud keep making excuses for the company then don't complain when the servers die out. If you enjoy the game you should have the common sense to fight for it
 
Upvote 0

mch123

Guest
BiBLiCAL iZ BaK said:
If you enjoy the game you should have the common sense to fight for it
Click to expand...
Click on my username, click on the button that says "postings" and read what I have been saying for the last couple of weeks. I am in complete agreement with you.

I've argued every possible side and all the changes I think that are needed to allow the game to grow again. However, TW dying out means nothing to Innogames. They will move on to the next project. Making changes will cost more than it will generate. They don't care for you or I. What's their incentive to change?

I wish there was a way to help the community continue playing this game but you'd need to wave a magic wand. Next best option is support a developer to create a new alternative.
 
Upvote 0

DeletedUser122217

Guest
I got a wand I could wave but it's not magical, and its usually a disappointment for the other party ;)
 
Upvote 0

mch123

Guest
ALessonInPointWhoring said:
Except that W100 is literally among the least popular worlds ever. The premium features are more popular than limited hauls is.
Click to expand...

I can't think what the term is to describe observational analysis like this but it is faulty. You have a game that drives out F2P players and leave P2W players behind, you then set up an experiment that tests whether the remaining people like P2W and use it to draw the conclusion that P2W is more popular ....lol
 
Upvote 0

ALessonInPointWhoring

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
408
You're making a strawman argument.

I said premium features are more popular than limited hauls.

I did not say worlds with premium features are more popular than worlds without them are.

Limited hauls and no hauls have always statistically been the least popular settings.

The game also by no means drives out F2P players and leaves P2W players behind.

If that were the case this wouldn't happen on worlds:

Rank Name Tribe Points Villages Points per village
1 KGBRomeo Next 277.823 39 7124
2 1st ENEX Next 195.730 23 8510
3 mrhoangdh Next 104.802 23 4557

The reason that happens is because very few people actually opt to spend much money. Specifically 2 out of 9993 players on that world spend a large amount of money.

Didn't exactly leave behind P2W players when 99.9799% of the players are spending minimal amounts of money.

So, yes, there are faulty observations being made - by you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top