Feedback: Update to version 2.124

[Arci]

I am visiting from the US server to be able to put in my 2 cents. I believe the majority there is against this update also. It undermines the purpose of VM. This is the first we have heard about this update also. Not sure how you can say that only Germany is against it when other servers are only now hearing about it. This should go thru a poll with the players and a message should be sent to every player about it. Especially, since it will drastically change the rules of the game.

On US server I can see only one public feedback, that is yours.
On FR they started a good and balanced debate, some players are pro, some other are against, and this is ok.
On EN most players are happy of the change and seem to strongly support it.
On NL players started a good debate as FR did.

Where else the link was spammed? Can you send me a private message with threads from other markets that some of you opened today? So we can get a global overview.

It doesn't seem that "everyone will stop playing because of this forced tactic change".

 

[DeletedUser3785]

Excuse me, but this is the biggest nonsense I've ever heard.

Why do you want to punish thousands of honest players, just to avoid that a few dumbheads do their dirty tricks?

How many players are actually blocking a WW island by owning all cities on said island and then go into VM? Do you have any numbers? Percentages? I have been playing this game since 2011, and only __once__ in all these years I have seen a WW island being blocked by a player who went into VM. And guess what, in that world we did sit it out. 56 days of VM is nothing, not even 98 days (in worst case).

Why don't you just prevent the cheap VM tricks? There is a simple solution: Make it impossible that 1 player can own all cities on an island.

But as I did say above, I doubt that blocking a WW island by a player in VM is even a problem.

oh and btw, I'm playing on EN servers and US servers, I just came here to give my 2 cents.

 

[DeletedUser4190]

N



As you can see guys we really care on your opinion, I always try to answer to everyone's questions and we listen to everyone of you, but not always we can satisfy your requests.
We keep doing our best, thanks for every constructive and meaningful feedback!

First I thought mnot to waste my time to get back to you, but the kind of post you write forced me to register to get you a feedback. Even if I am shure you dont care.

As I posted in the german Board. These decission is up to the Publisher but, implementing it in runnig WW Worlds could be tricky. To go with your style, I try to set points where I could cry out loud with bold letters.

We in Mochlos.de just started the WW time and now you come with this great Idea of fixing non existent problems! We just started, that means we will run at christmas time to decide who will be the winner. Thought most of us have family I normaly take 1 Week of my vacation Time. Now you as a publisher tell me (after I investet money in your game) Sorry but we dont give a f.... shit about your plans for X-mas let take over your ww citys. But as funny sidenote a lot of people have the same plans.... so we played for the sake of nothing or we tell our loved ones "sorry but I have to play, the publisher decided".

Maybe there is somebody left in the bulding who is not on your arrogance level. That is not pun intended, it is how you get your posts received. Your Job is comunication with the community, not to be the second coming of him and bring us the light.

Einstein put it in the following words "Two things are infinite: the universe and the stupidity of men. But I'm not so sure about the universe."

We all here are your customers, and we are the reason you can pay yor bills. We will be able to survive without this game, you have to find a new job first, if we are all gone.

You take everybody who has a real reason for V mode during WW time as a liar.

I don't think that WW players' mom (that are a very very very tiny amout) die that ofter, to be honest. This sound more like an excuse,

let me get it back to you

I dont think that a lot WW players and alliances (that are a very very very tiny amout) abuse V-mode , to be honest. This sound more like an excuse, for a chance somebody fell in love with.

I am shure you wil not like my words and my intention because, I tried to grill you. But that is what you do with your CUSTOMERS we are not somebody you met at a Bar. Give us the due respect and the respect for our complains and I will be teh first one to say you do a good job.

 

[DeletedUser4191]

I'm a conquest player. The only positive side of this update would be that an alliance can break a Siege on a wonder city even when the player is on active VM, but I don't think this is the best solution. (Enemy often figures out VM activation and all attacks, CS are timed perfectly to that activation time, then if the CS landed the alliance can no longer save the city, however conquest is ~50% about siegebreaks - it is unfair that VM allows less chance to keep a city compared to revolt worlds.)

If there was a voting, I would still be against this change.

VM should work like peacetime. (The last 24 hours before its activation CS should not be able to land.)
This would have the same effect like above and could also create fair conditions in general to keep cities on conquest too.

If you want to avoid Wonders hidden in VM yet be player friendly... all you need is time limits.

Cities on World Wonder islands aren't affected by owner's vacation mode - for same alliance members only.
After ~3 days of vacation wonder cities are attackable - for everyone.

Leadership could make the call for the alliance.
When a player has to activate vacation in a real emergency it is bad enough to wait until activation and be exposed to tricks like last minute CS, no chance of siegebreak and arrange handovers when a player literally can not respond.

Traitors who ruined a wonder and would hide in long VM normally could be attacked by anyone.

Super emotional topic... I think it is worth to reconsider and come up with a rather player friendly solution over making a big change what the community is so unprepared for.

On a side note I play for 6 years was expecting a new endgame by now, not rushed fix to revolutionize our hated wonders - it is like 2 steps forward 3 behind.
VM blockage of wonders, player rotation etc... are part of the wonder evolution, products of a community to gain advantage in a competition fair way - what some of us perfected over the years. Now you disable all these achievements for what, to play Grepolis 1.0? Way too easy and boring.
Even thinking about this direction of grepolis makes me want to quit.

 

[DeletedUser4192]

I think that the biggest part of the problem is that servers take too long to close... in the end, it all depends on what Inno wants as a community, the people that play the game more seriously, want to move on after a world is won and done. Others prefer to build their pretty cities which doesn't make Inno a penny in general. So how do you make the People that bring revenue in, keep being interested.

Find the solution to the real problem... people wouldn't go in VM if it didn't take 6 months to close a world. I played Sparta on a US server under a diff name and it took I don't know how many months for the server to close. You get either players that are bitter that will logon once a day to cast a spell or again, simmers that are happy there is no war and they can play sim city.

Find a better solution on the victory condition of a world and this whole thread wouldn't mean anything and the rule would be totally irrelevant.

The People that like to play will play and the people that want to move on will be better off. Pretty sure Inno makes the most income in the first two months of a new server anyway and it is about the money in the end isn't it?

Make it about BPs if it's a wargame, not about points. If you are in VM for 30 days and are a landlord on a world wonder, then you should ghost and that fixes the issue. The people that need their vacation time or plastic surgery have time to get it done without being penalized. Don't play the game if you can't commit to the completion of it as a WW landlord by sticking around for months after a landslide win just to make sure another alliance doesn't complete wonders on the said world is the bigger issue in my opinion and that is what should be discussed.

If a server based on it's population level doesn't get x amount of BP in this amount of time, the timer starts. It's simple to program and fixes all this stuff and forces people to fight if they want to keep the server going. The ones that complain are probably the ones that weren't organized enough to get the job done and want to drag it out.

Cheers,

Howie~

 

[DeletedUser4192]

Also, if Innogames introduces that on servers that are already into wonders or close to it rather than new servers, you will need a LOT more mods to deal with the tickets... just sayin

 

[DeletedUser4193]

• Cities on World Wonder islands aren't affected by owner's vacation mode.

This is a terrible idea. Vacation mode is used for actual vacation and real life situations that take people away from the game. It's not only used to mess with world wonders.

In the past, I have seen people take a WW city as someone entered VM. It's a strategy that can benefit both sides.

Not having vacation mode available for someone on a wonder island is a punishment. This is not a good change. I understand a teammate could take the city, but what if you have an emergency and no one has slots? Very bad.

 

[DeletedUser4194]

I've replied to the thread on the US forum, but essentially, I'm against this being put into effect without more notice, and I don't believe it should apply to any current WW world as it would be completely unfair, changing a major game 'rule' midstream.

 

[DeletedUser4195]

2. No, the account is on vacation mode, you can't log in, but this can be an interesting point, i'll take note on that.
3. Most probably when 2.124 will be deployed on live markets, approximately around the first week of november.

I have been reading through the replies and it seems very obvious that there are a lot of very legit concerns about this change. And you are ignoring most of them.
Then I got to these two answers you wrote.
What?!
The account is on vacation mode, can be attacked by anyone, but the player cannot go online and defend their city? So now a player on VM is being treated like a banned player? How is that fair at all? If you actually go through with this, you should allow a player being attacked to end the VM in response to those attacks.
...What?!
This is being implemented around the first week of november and no one even thought to let all the other servers know about it?

You said you don't think player's moms die that often.
..............
The point was that people go through tragedies. Ones that are out of our control. And you are punishing people for that. You talk about that not happening often? Well, a WW becoming invulnerable because every city on that island is in VM does not happen often.

This is not a change in tactics.
*nori* had an excellent idea. "If you want to avoid Wonders hidden in VM yet be player friendly... all you need is time limits. Cities on World Wonder islands aren't affected by owner's vacation mode - for same alliance members only. After ~3 days of vacation wonder cities are attackable - for everyone. "
Why weren't other solutions such as this considered? And if they were, why did they make this decision?

 

[Arci]

@ExtremeJeff: Note that not the whole account is attackable, but only WW towns. If you have 100 towns and only 1 on WW, other 99 towns will remain in VM mode.


Anyways, thanks to everyone for you feedback, every good point (and we identified lot of them) has been forwarded to game design and everything will be discussed from scratch.

This doesn't mean that we will revert the update, but most probably we'll think about minor changes based on what you asked. Not everyone will be satisfied obviously as it's just impossible, you have many different opinions!

Thanks again and stay tuned for further updates on this topic!

 

[DeletedUser2543]

Arci, not only De Grepolis is against. You forget to mention that the US is also strongly against this feature...
But this would be a theme were an survey would be good!

 

[DeletedUser2458]

We all play the same game. I really can't understand how the first community can disagree and the second one agrees.

 

[Arci]

We all play the same game. I really can't understand how the first community can disagree and the second one agrees.

Different communities have different playstyles, and people with different background and culture usually have different ideas and way of think, see and react on situations.

The world is big

 

[DeletedUser2543]

Grepolis worlds won't be much longer big...

 

[DeletedUser4196]

On US server I can see only one public feedback, that is yours.
On FR they started a good and balanced debate, some players are pro, some other are against, and this is ok.
On EN most players are happy of the change and seem to strongly support it.
On NL players started a good debate as FR did..

I'm playing on the Dutch servers.Never been here too make a point or leaving a message behind on a discussion because the most ideas are ok with me.
Some ideas are more practical then others but now this time i took the effort too make my point in this discussion.

First off all i like to play more offensive then defense but i have a few WW city's. I have 2 kids in the age of 5 and 8...we all know what kind of problems these kids could bring too us.
If something would happen to them i will go in vacation mode for a few days...that's normal...no matter what happens i still having my WW city's when i come back to the game. I don't take advance off my VM because im being attacked or something else...no in reale life such tinges are at first place.

That's why i disagree with this new feature that WW city can be attacked even if someone is VM.
We never know what could happen....a child that's got an accident...a wife that's got injured..a family member who's in need of help..and this list can be bigger but we all know why VM is important too all players...you never know what could happen...
The solution is quite simpel just make sure there is a limited time of VM a player with a WW city can get into. Not longer then 10 days in a row ore something lik that.

On the Dutch server there was no info regarding this new option.
No vote or what so ever.
I hope Inno is smart enough to let the community vote for this stupid idea...because it realy is the worst update ever.

 

[DeletedUser4197]

@ExtremeJeff: Note that not the whole account is attackable, but only WW towns. If you have 100 towns and only 1 on WW, other 99 towns will remain in VM mode.


Anyways, thanks to everyone for you feedback, every good point (and we identified lot of them) has been forwarded to game design and everything will be discussed from scratch.

This doesn't mean that we will revert the update, but most probably we'll think about minor changes based on what you asked. Not everyone will be satisfied obviously as it's just impossible, you have many different opinions!

Thanks again and stay tuned for further updates on this topic!

You shouldn't make some minor changes, you should just start from scratch with this ridiculous idea. I don't have any WW city's myself on the Dutch world I play, but it will be absolutely impossible to defend your city's. every player has moments in their lives where they need some time for personal things that happen unexpectedly, that what VM is for to begin with!

You intended to make it easier to attack WW's from alliances that make use of VM to protect their WW's, but you also made it absolutely impossible to defend them!

So I'd say you guys will finally listen to your community and create a better solution or just leave it as it is, because by solving one problem, you're creating dozens if you're really going to introduce this onto all the existing worlds

 

[DeletedUser4195]

I wanted to point something out brought up by Diodemus in the beta forum.
"Allylimit 40. For the WWs you need 140 cities that makes at full capacity, which is unlikely 3.5 cities per player. Closer reality there are already 30 players, I am now 31 time player with WW-cities, since it can be rounded to 4.5 better cities / player. Especially during the holiday season, the number can sometimes under 25 players set ergo 5.6 cities per player. But there are also Allylimt 30 because it looks even worse ..."

I would like to ask if you will be raising alliance limits? An alliance of 40, for example, will without a doubt run into this issue numerous times because chances are extremely high that the player hitting vm will be on a wonder island. Are there plans to compensate for smaller alliances or for these alliance limits?

Thank you for continuing to reply to us.

 

[DeletedUser2458]

Not everybody can or wants to sit on the WWs island. So, I have experience that about 5 players are able to secure WWs. There are small markets with small amount of (able) players.

 

[DeletedUser4191]

VM on wonders is equal to an attackable ban.

 

[Arci]

For those who don't speak german (like me, yay) here a little summary on what our Lead Community Manager, Naranya, wrote here, on german forum.

• We went through all kinds of suggestions and most of them would not be practicable due to other loopholes that would be opened.
• We agreed to implement the changes with the next update, but only activate it for new worlds and worlds where age of world wonders has not started yet.
• All other worlds follow at a later point with enough advance notice.
• We're still thinking about implenenting an automatic notification to alliance leaders in case someone who holds at least one ww village goes into vacation mod, but more info about that will come mostly next week.