PDA

View Full Version : Leveling Bad News



Nikita007
07-21-2013, 08:59 AM
I have to say, there is a first for everything but I have never played a game where leveling is considered a 'bad' thing. It drives me nuts to think about camping. I am just not that patient. If I am going to play a game then believe me I am going to be active and play it. My player is fairly well balanced with x4000 stats but I have a friend who has a HLP that is considered level heavy. Especially when you consider there are so many around 100 level with 1 M stats. I have heard Gree is trying to make the game more balanced. Here are my questions for the more knowledgable:

(P.S. If you came here to complain please do it somewhere else.)

1. What are solutions for a level heavy player?

2. What are the advantages for leveling? (Should there be more of an incentive for players to level?)

Solutions for level heavy players: The way I see it a level heavy player can camp. Boring! The closest I could come to camping is using energy only toward Limited Quests Individual and Guild. (Personally I think if you aren't getting as far in these quests as you can you will eventually be left behind (yes even campers).) Fight only in wars. No raiding or fighting. Complete area maps through level 4 to pick up the extra skill points. Are there any other tricks? Obviously gem use.

Advantages for leveling: More energy. If you are a gem user it is really pointless to start before level 100 as you are throwing away real money not getting the full 1000. You can make it up getting further than non gem users on Limited Quests. Skill points for army attack and army defense, I understand they give you an advantage in fights/raids/war as far as higher success rate even if target is higher stat. Is the skill points for army attack and defense really worth it? Hero skill points are two sided: kill monsters easier but will also level faster if you use your energy bar regularly. Any other advantages for the higher level players out there?

If these questions have already been debated in another thread please direct me. Otherwise I am curious as to other 'intelligent' players comments. Thank you! : )

Tito89
07-21-2013, 09:18 AM
the only true advantage is access to buildings. its not a good scenario they have built but everything can be improved, its merely a question of who wants it to improve, gree or the consumer?

jonny0284
07-21-2013, 10:53 AM
There should be units/armor & weapons/buildings that are only open to specific level tiers. This way the player is compensated for their advancement. Otherwise a level 100 player has the same perks as a level 200. Meh, not exactly fair.

TheQ
07-21-2013, 11:05 AM
I agree with Jonny, that would be a great idea.

Zenobia
07-21-2013, 11:29 AM
Johnny, that is a great idea to do something towards removing the penalty for high level players. Although non-invincible units are becoming moot. I now only use 232 BBRs on the defense side - the rest are indestructibles.

Other than more energy on hand when you've been away from your device for many hours, and more skill points, there are ZERO advantages gained from level 100 to level 200. And the advantage of those skill points is dubious at best. No one from Gree has ever given any indication WHAT attack and skill points do, other than to claim it's the reason other players win battles when they shouldn't. And while having more Hero Strength from skill points is an advantage, IMO that advantage is totally wiped out by you likely having all your maps level 4 or 5 as opposed to 2 or 3 because the mobs have more hit points the higher your map level. AND the additional hit points on the mobs goes a way towards cancelling out the additional energy as well.

So by leveling up you get a small amount of help killing mobs. And that is supposed to balance out the lower level player getting TWICE the average CP per attack in war. I don't think so.

jonny0284
07-21-2013, 11:42 AM
Ok, so units are moot. And, W&A are already covered by LTQ prizes.

Then allow for more % in boosts for HLP's.

Zenobia
07-21-2013, 12:21 PM
Ok, so units are moot. And, W&A are already covered by LTQ prizes.

Then allow for more % in boosts for HLP's.

I like that! Like, a second boost building for each unit type, available at levels 130, 140, etc or something like that. And maybe buildings that boost armor & weapons. And high-level only buildings that actually DO something to prevent people with attack 350K lower than your defense from raiding your buildings. Then I might actually upgrade my manors, lenders, etc. Right now it's not worth it - not only do I get a lot more income from raiding than I do from my buildings but if I happen to, like yesterday for example, have a birthday party and miss my collection time, only a nearly equal or better play can get my gold.

[DW] maretzky
07-21-2013, 12:35 PM
Simple advice for HLP feeling a bit too "systematized" - start an LLP ;) It gives a pure breath although is based on HLP advantages got so far. My HLP got 100k in 10 months. My LLP - in 10 DAYS... BUT! 80% of players still spendin months to get over 100k... Like 80% of them never read this forum ;)

Zenobia
07-21-2013, 12:39 PM
I only have one i-device so only one account for me. :)

But really, what this is about is that all the effort we've put into the game over the last year plus ought to make our characters worth more than ones started yesterday. A lot of us have invested a lot. We should not be penalized in wars for it. We should get advantages not detriments.

Nikita007
07-21-2013, 01:17 PM
Zenobia, jonny and maretzky:

Thank you for the comments. I agree that there need to be some additional 'perks' for the HLP. A second LLP is not for me but the HLP I mentioned has done exactly that. While still playing both accounts and getting a chance to take advantage of all the LTQ/Guild units now available and Boss event rewards. The favor of the game is decidedly stacked for the new player right now. However, most of those new players aren't really all that new ; ) just clone accounts with super powers ; ) Hopefully, Gree is listening and working on creative ideas to level the playing field. Or at least shake it up! Can't have these LLP getting too large of egos. Why not reward your long term members.

I like the HLP boost building idea a lot : ) Gold is becoming moot other than for Guild bonuses. Once your vault is maxed and your income buildings are maxed there isn't really any other good use for gold. I would also expect to see some new Guild bonuses coming in the future.

sousas
07-21-2013, 01:41 PM
To allow HLP to have more units would do the trick.

Level 150 - 4 units for each ally
Level 175 - 5 units for each ally
Level 200 - 7 units for each ally

Anyway, today there are 2 types of campers.

Old gold raiser camper and the new GLTQ camper. This will only make difference in the latter one.

Shinazueli
07-21-2013, 02:04 PM
I personally think that the main advantage of camping is that you don't lose fights to rivals. And they're erasing that advantage quickly with GQ units. It's almost dead.

Here's the real problem.

I've been playing since the game released. There is absolutely no way that someone (who has spent less real money) who started after me will ever catch me. And the same for the people who pay more than me. In most games that go on for years, there are periodic "resets" to allow a level playing field at maximum level. Think mmorpg expansions. The max level is reset and all of your old stuff is basically worthless.

The issue is that they have painted themselves into a corner with all of these gem purchases. Nobody wants to come up and play on the same field as someone else that has a year advantage in units and buildings; on the other hand, they can't just wipe out thousands of dollars of invested equity of the longer term players.

Just an example of what can go wrong with horribad game planning. If they'd slowly increased the maximum level from the beginning and wiped A/D gains, from the beginning, it wouldn't be so painful now. So they chose to massively inflate stats, and this somewhat balances things because if you stop playing, you'll eventually fall behind. But there are a great many people who didn't stop. And they're invincible up top because they have every available reward.

Let me tell you, nothing in this world could make me level up if I was starting this game today, and realized that I could never ever catch up. Nothing. If they forced me to level, I would just quit playing. Since I do have that year, I can compete, but nobody who starts now can. Bad Gree, bad.

A smarter game design would have been cheaper, smaller, announced(!) non-permanent advantages that would be wiped every few months. Now, they're screwed.

When a game that's completely based on social interaction loses the ability to attract new players... We call that death.

For those of you, and I know there are many, who played WoW, what do you think would have happened if they allowed you to equip every piece if gear that you'd ever earned, simultaneously, with the caveat that you could never go back and get those old pieces that you missed? Nobody who started seven years into the game would ever be able to play at maximum level. New players would play for a month or two til they realized it. Then they would quit. If this sounds stupid, it's because it is.

valient
07-21-2013, 02:39 PM
Leveling should be rewarding and not something to work around.

jonny0284
07-21-2013, 02:50 PM
I personally think that the main advantage of camping is that you don't lose fights to rivals. And they're erasing that advantage quickly with GQ units. It's almost dead.

Here's the real problem.

I've been playing since the game released. There is absolutely no way that someone (who has spent less real money) who started after me will ever catch me. And the same for the people who pay more than me. In most games that go on for years, there are periodic "resets" to allow a level playing field at maximum level. Think mmorpg expansions. The max level is reset and all of your old stuff is basically worthless.

The issue is that they have painted themselves into a corner with all of these gem purchases. Nobody wants to come up and play on the same field as someone else that has a year advantage in units and buildings; on the other hand, they can't just wipe out thousands of dollars of invested equity of the longer term players.

Just an example of what can go wrong with horribad game planning. If they'd slowly increased the maximum level from the beginning and wiped A/D gains, from the beginning, it wouldn't be so painful now. So they chose to massively inflate stats, and this somewhat balances things because if you stop playing, you'll eventually fall behind. But there are a great many people who didn't stop. And they're invincible up top because they have every available reward.

Let me tell you, nothing in this world could make me level up if I was starting this game today, and realized that I could never ever catch up. Nothing. If they forced me to level, I would just quit playing. Since I do have that year, I can compete, but nobody who starts now can. Bad Gree, bad.

A smarter game design would have been cheaper, smaller, announced(!) non-permanent advantages that would be wiped every few months. Now, they're screwed.

When a game that's completely based on social interaction loses the ability to attract new players... We call that death.

For those of you, and I know there are many, who played WoW, what do you think would have happened if they allowed you to equip every piece if gear that you'd ever earned, simultaneously, with the caveat that you could never go back and get those old pieces that you missed? Nobody who started seven years into the game would ever be able to play at maximum level. New players would play for a month or two til they realized it. Then they would quit. If this sounds stupid, it's because it is.

You wrapped it all up. Props, man. :)

It's spot on.

Chief_K
07-22-2013, 05:06 AM
I will agree that leveling does seem to have become more of a penalty, but do you really think that leveling should specifically be rewarded? I think many of you would actually be hurt by this more so than newer players. I have, like many people, invested heavily in hero strength. So as we tend to do more damage than those that haven't, we will actually get fewer XP for mobs since we can defeat in fewer hits. Therefore, some players would be "rewarded" by needing more hits to defeat mobs and gaining more XP and levels much quicker than some of us could hope.

E-I
07-22-2013, 07:24 AM
If it were me I would change how CP works. Give the highest amount of CP for a win against someone who is the same level as you. Slightly lower CP for someone who is +/- 5 levels. Lower for +/- 10 levels, and so forth.

It is ridiculous to me that Gree penalizes people who enjoy frequently playing the game, particularly the standard PVE quests. What kind of game maker does that?

Mickeytah
07-22-2013, 10:49 AM
I will agree that leveling does seem to have become more of a penalty, but do you really think that leveling should specifically be rewarded? I think many of you would actually be hurt by this more so than newer players. I have, like many people, invested heavily in hero strength. So as we tend to do more damage than those that haven't, we will actually get fewer XP for mobs since we can defeat in fewer hits. Therefore, some players would be "rewarded" by needing more hits to defeat mobs and gaining more XP and levels much quicker than some of us could hope.

Except those players are penalized by not going as far in LTQs. Like you, I have invested heavily in HS, so I can kill LTQ mobs faster.

Shinazueli
07-22-2013, 12:24 PM
If it were me I would change how CP works. Give the highest amount of CP for a win against someone who is the same level as you. Slightly lower CP for someone who is +/- 5 levels. Lower for +/- 10 levels, and so forth.

It is ridiculous to me that Gree penalizes people who enjoy frequently playing the game, particularly the standard PVE quests. What kind of game maker does that?

While I agree with your stated reason, your solution blows. Getting less points for attacking someone 50 levels higher than for attacking someone at the same level is kind of stupid.

Levelling up is not just about CPs, contrary to popular belief.

A more reasonable solution is that you would gain CP's based on your OWN level, regardless of the opponents level.

Eunuchorn
07-22-2013, 03:01 PM
While I agree with your stated reason, your solution blows. Getting less points for attacking someone 50 levels higher than for attacking someone at the same level is kind of stupid.

A more reasonable solution is that you would gain CP's based on your OWN level, regardless of the opponents level.

X - Y = Way too reasonable to ever be implemented in a corporate profit driven world.

Eunuchorn
07-22-2013, 03:04 PM
I will agree that leveling does seem to have become more of a penalty, but do you really think that leveling should specifically be rewarded? I think many of you would actually be hurt by this more so than newer players. I have, like many people, invested heavily in hero strength. So as we tend to do more damage than those that haven't, we will actually get fewer XP for mobs since we can defeat in fewer hits. Therefore, some players would be "rewarded" by needing more hits to defeat mobs and gaining more XP and levels much quicker than some of us could hope.

There are so many pros and cons to this statement depending on what type of camper you are I don't even think I can fathom them all.

Someone start a Build Comparison thread.

Nikita007
07-22-2013, 08:00 PM
Sounds like we need a very smart programmer and mathematician to come in and fix this for us. Preferably also a gamer too. One that can see far enough into the future to avoid some of the stumbling blocks we have so quickly ran head long into. That is not me... I have a friend but he is already employed by a top gaming company ; ) Imho the smartest thing Gree has done recently is the Guild implementation to the game, without the social part the game could loose value to many players quickly.

Shinazueli very impressive and makes sense. Keep the ideas coming!

Shinazueli
07-22-2013, 09:45 PM
Sounds like we need a very smart programmer and mathematician to come in and fix this for us. Preferably also a gamer too. One that can see far enough into the future to avoid some of the stumbling blocks we have so quickly ran head long into. That is not me... I have a friend but he is already employed by a top gaming company ; ) Imho the smartest thing Gree has done recently is the Guild implementation to the game, without the social part the game could loose value to many players quickly.

Shinazueli very impressive and makes sense. Keep the ideas coming!

That's the f'ing frustrating part. I'm not inventing the f%^*ing wheel here.This has all already been done. All they have to f@&$ing do is copy other games!!! Seriously!

I mean, we are playing a damn phone game with very few graphics. We aren't looking for a holy grail of a game. Just stop screwing us by being retarded. That's all we want.

Jerle
07-22-2013, 10:24 PM
We actually have some algorithm changes in the works for down the road that will make camping a less attractive strategy. We're not fans of it either - it's counterintuative and a strange way to play a game.

Mickeytah
07-22-2013, 10:26 PM
We're not fans of it either - it's counterintuative and a strange way to play a game.

True story. Although, technically, they're not playing the game. haha

Dirt road Joe
07-22-2013, 10:34 PM
We actually have some algorithm changes in the works for down the road that will make camping a less attractive strategy. We're not fans of it either - it's counterintuative and a strange way to play a game.
You guys have already done a good job at making Camping a less attractive strategy with these crazy LTQs. The only thing you guys need to take care of is the war CP payouts(this is the only valid point campers have to camp on right now!). As soon as you change that algorithm, Camping will no longer be necessary... Ever. :)

NukeHog
07-23-2013, 09:35 AM
We actually have some algorithm changes in the works for down the road that will make camping a less attractive strategy. We're not fans of it either - it's counterintuative and a strange way to play a game.

Thanks for the feedback Jerie. As mentioned above (any many times before), the long time players that helped build this game are frustrated by the noticeable disadvantage in wars of being a higher level by playing this game as intended from the beginning. There have been some good suggestions (higher boost buildings available to higher levels only, higher unit buildings...), but what about wars? Maybe add another target in the battles only accessible by higher levels. Currently if a player's stats are too low, they can just hit the castle and gain minimal points. What about adding a target on the other end of the spectrum (just spitballing here, but maybe a "throne room" or "castle vault")? Not sure of the metrics involved, but it wouldn't seem like such a penalty to be higher level.

I apologize if this post is out of place, but felt like it followed the spirit of the thread as least :-)

Nikita007
07-23-2013, 01:40 PM
Thanks Jerle! Glad to this is an aspect of the game you are working on improving and that you are listening as well : )

Shinazueli
07-23-2013, 09:24 PM
We actually have some algorithm changes in the works for down the road that will make camping a less attractive strategy. We're not fans of it either - it's counterintuative and a strange way to play a game.

Well at least they aren't lying and saying they don't mind camping any more.

Shadows
07-23-2013, 10:40 PM
I have to fix everything around here.

Love your signature, Jerie :-)

Shinazueli
07-24-2013, 12:19 AM
We actually have some algorithm changes in the works for down the road that will make camping a less attractive strategy. We're not fans of it either - it's counterintuative and a strange way to play a game.

Not that I seriously expect an answer, but what would your long term plans include? I'm not asking for details here... But the way the game is currently set up... It's not possible to compete with players that have played for longer than you, with all else being equal. You couldn't pay me to be maximum level and on the same field as 3M+ stats.

Because exponential growth eventually reaches limits. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but you guys have done serious flaws with your design, and I'm not even talking about incentivizing levelling. The root cause is the massive imbalance caused by mismatched play times. I don't see a solution that will please even most people, and I've been playing games for 20+ years.

You can't simply give everyone the same stats, because that would piss off your gem spenders.

You can't leave it as it is and force everyone to level, because you'll lose the vast majority of your player base.

And you can't simply exponentially inflate stats, as your spenders don't have infinite pockets to "keep up". You'll end up losing your revenue. Because once you fall off the crack pipe of keeping up, what's the point in playing. You can't go back to being a regular joe once you've chased the dragon. So these players will end up quitting.

Now that you've started to inflate stats, you can't stop, either. Nobody is going to pay for less rewards than you are offering right now. They can only get bigger. Which was why we told you in the beginning it was such a bad idea, but you didn't listen, because all your business dudes saw the short term profits. Not like we haven't seen it dozens of times in other games or anything...

The way I see it, you're kind of screwed with your business model. People have invested too much to see their equity devalued, but nobody can hope to compete with those same players. Unless you put them in their own little sandbox and have everyone else play in their own box.

Maybe you could shed some light on this conundrum? An actual answer?

Johan -
07-24-2013, 02:32 AM
We actually have some algorithm changes in the works for down the road that will make camping a less attractive strategy. We're not fans of it either - it's counterintuative and a strange way to play a game.

Thanks for your comments, hopefully is doesn't stay by comments alone.
It has been a long time ago when the subject came up about new buildings, up to now nothing changed. Furthermore I question why the level200 is still the limit, it will not take long till many players are floating around in that level and what else to do? just collecting the money from the buildings and waiting for a LTQ? many other games updated there play with more levels. more maps etc.. The game must stay attractive, I think many long term players are tired of the game already, the only thing what keep them playing the game is because they still have a little bit hope that the game will improve ! ( and the fact they spent already much money in this game)

Same for subject "the vault" , the vault increased to 1,13 mill., but because the frequent guild wars and LTQs, the players who go overvault are just a handfull.

Means the only thing what is left to do is raid some kingdoms, attacking other players is not really interesting anymore..
Strange that for an online pvp game, most aspects to play against each other are brought to a minimum..

We have so many LTQ/EVENTS, but what about a PVP events? last time we had something like that was more than 5 months ago???

About camping, for me the term camping has changed, I do LTQ/EVENTS, collect money from my money buildings and raid minimal, I stopped with map quests and since 4 months, don't buy any units or armor. I non-stop upgrade my money buildings.. the gold from collecting I donate to the guild. I try to stay as long as possible in a level, I don't have any interest to enter the whale zone, now my stats are good, ones I enter the whale zone, my stats will be average....

Looking forward to some more improvements in the game

Chief_K
07-24-2013, 05:20 AM
Furthermore I question why the level200 is still the limit, it will not take long till many players are floating around in that level and what else to do? just collecting the money from the buildings and waiting for a LTQ? many other games updated there play with more levels. more maps etc.. The game must stay attractive, I think many long term players are tired of the game already, the only thing what keep them playing the game is because they still have a little bit hope that the game will improve ! ( and the fact they spent already much money in this game)

I certainly agree about questioning why level 200 is still the limit. What is the incentive for me to get to level 200 now when I know there are so many whales stuck there and waiting for some fresh blood. Whale zones at other levels are different because you can either level past them or eventually the whales will level up themselves. At 200, they're just stuck there and I know they will most definitely have better stats than me since many of them have probably been there for months.

LordIndy
07-24-2013, 07:38 AM
We actually have some algorithm changes in the works for down the road that will make camping a less attractive strategy. We're not fans of it either - it's counterintuative and a strange way to play a game.

It would seem the easiest way to fix this would be to remove the 500 ally limit. Just keep it at 5 allies per level. Eliminating the level 200 cap seems to make sense too, but it would punish those that have been there a while.

Colony Colonel
07-24-2013, 07:58 AM
What is the problem with camping? you face weaker opponents and therefore can work on your manor upgrades etc with less threat and try to keep a higher W:L ratio.

If you don't want people to camp in this game then why create levels? if your end goal is for everyone to be level 200 then you may aswell just remove levels. Yes, players that have been playing for longer will be stronger and new players won't stand a chance... but if everyone is then level 200 you will encounter this problem regardless.

lower levels also score more points in guild wars (or so we are lead to believe) if everyone was the same level, more gems would have to be spent to score enough points to take the top spots. I assume this is your reasoning.

Mickeytah
07-24-2013, 09:18 AM
We have so many LTQ/EVENTS, but what about a PVP events? last time we had something like that was more than 5 months ago???

The Guild Wars are PvP events.

Johan -
07-24-2013, 09:49 PM
The Guild Wars are PvP events.

Of course they are, or better said GvG events ;). It's not the same as the PvP quests before.
Before we had quests for which we needed to raid farms, attack castles etc.., browsing through the rival list searching for buildings to destroy :D. Guild wars we have plenty now.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for new buildings, many of my buildings are lv.10, because I got bored I bought more gem buildings to improve my Kingdom! What is a kingdom without progress, I have so much space to expand my kingdom, but I don't have the buildings to do it! I'm actually also dissapointed that my decorations are not visual for other players, our quest maps have trees and other decorations, so why can't other players not see mine!! I removed a couple of trees lately, because I covered some of my buildings behind it! ( to find out it was only more difficult for myself to upgrade these buildings)
Just my 2 cents..

Shinazueli
07-24-2013, 11:00 PM
What is the problem with camping? you face weaker opponents and therefore can work on your manor upgrades etc with less threat and try to keep a higher W:L ratio.

If you don't want people to camp in this game then why create levels? if your end goal is for everyone to be level 200 then you may aswell just remove levels. Yes, players that have been playing for longer will be stronger and new players won't stand a chance... but if everyone is then level 200 you will encounter this problem regardless.

lower levels also score more points in guild wars (or so we are lead to believe) if everyone was the same level, more
gems would have to be spent to score enough points to take the top spots. I assume this is your reasoning.

From a developers perspective it's harder to develop content across all brackets; most games only release new content for maximum level, because that's the way the game is meant to be played. I camped for a looong time, until the LTQs came out and wrecked my strategies, along with everyone else's. There's already no point in camping, because you really don't need to go over vault any more. But the strongest disincentive towards levelling is and will continue to be the "whales" at maximum level. Until that's resolved there will always be campers.

Extending the level cap is a band aid, at best. Those players are still there. The root cause is imbalance caused by huge differences in played time. Fix the root cause, and a lot of the other problems will simply vanish.

For those among us with massive advantages in stats over players just starting out, that's just not going to work out long term. I would like the game to live on, but it's on the fast track to a train wreck right now. Outside of completely overhauling the way stats are calculated, I don't see a solution.

You might anger a lot of players who've paid for those advantages, but the other choice is losing everyone when nobody wants to start playing because they can't hope to compete, and the population dwindles due to natural attrition.

And then:

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a526/shinazueli/ed981c8a-5167-43ca-addb-441bf074470f_zps6341af3e.jpg (http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/shinazueli/media/ed981c8a-5167-43ca-addb-441bf074470f_zps6341af3e.jpg.html)

Mickeytah
07-24-2013, 11:05 PM
I'm actually also dissapointed that my decorations are not visual for other players, our quest maps have trees and other decorations, so why can't other players not see mine!!

Well, that blows. I did not know that decorations could not be seen by other people. That's so stupidly lame.

I'm willing to bet they did it so people can't hide their small to smallish income buildings behind trees. Way to remove part of the strategy.

Shinazueli
07-24-2013, 11:39 PM
Well, that blows. I did not know that decorations could not be seen by other people. That's so stupidly lame.

I'm willing to bet they did it so people can't hide their small to smallish income buildings behind trees. Way to remove part of the strategy.

You can still hide them behind other buildings. Good rotation and placement make them extremely hard to click on; and at least in KA you can tell the level by clicking on it, unlike some of the other Gree games.

Mickeytah
07-24-2013, 11:44 PM
You can still hide them behind other buildings. Good rotation and placement make them extremely hard to click on; and at least in KA you can tell the level by clicking on it, unlike some of the other Gree games.

Now I understand why you said, "Too bad we'll never get to see it" when I posted about the graveyard I built in my kingdom. I'd just assumed you meant you wouldn't see me in the rival list in order to pay me a visit.

I know you can hid them behind other buildings, but I had just come up with a very mean and evil thing to do to visitors that I can no longer do because they don't see decorations.

Shinazueli
07-25-2013, 12:24 AM
Now I understand why you said, "Too bad we'll never get to see it" when I posted about the graveyard I built in my kingdom. I'd just assumed you meant you wouldn't see me in the rival list in order to pay me a visit.

I know you can hid them behind other buildings, but I had just come up with a very mean and evil thing to do to visitors that I can no longer do because they don't see decorations.

Post a screenshot. At least then I can find your manors quicker.

LordIndy
07-25-2013, 05:00 AM
?.......I camped for a looong time, until the LTQs came out and wrecked my strategies, along with everyone else's. There's already no point in camping, because you really don't need to go over vault any more. But the strongest disincentive towards levelling is and will continue to be the "whales" at maximum level. Until that's resolved there will always be campers.

Extending the level cap is a band aid, at best. Those players are still there. The root cause is imbalance caused by huge differences in played time. Fix the root cause, and a lot of the other problems will simply vanish.

For those among us with massive advantages in stats over players just starting out, that's just not going to work out long term. I would like the game to live on, but it's on the fast track to a train wreck right now. Outside of completely overhauling the way stats are calculated, I don't see a solution.

You might anger a lot of players who've paid for those advantages, but the other choice is losing everyone when nobody wants to start playing because they can't hope to compete, and the population dwindles due to natural attrition.


You contraindicated yourself here many times. Camping has become a flawed strategy. People camping for months and years just found their kingdoms leveled by players who started a week ago, picked up all the units from the guild quest, beat the boss, etc. you can start out and quickly have 200-300k stats so quick now it is ridiculous and the speed with which you can gather stats will only increase with time. The elite guilds are building super LLPs with crazy stats (like 1M) in the level 20s. The game has changed to completely take camping away from the mix.

The idea behind this game is to not be the best player overall, just pretty good for your level. That will be best achieved by beating LTQs and placing well in wars. Both require gems. Gree obviously wants people to spend money to gain in-game advantages. Before, the main advantage gems bought was time, now that has shifted to the primary focus of the game which is stats. I give them props for achieving their purpose.

Mickeytah
07-25-2013, 09:51 AM
You contraindicated yourself here many times. Camping has become a flawed strategy. People camping for months and years just found their kingdoms leveled by players who started a week ago, picked up all the units from the guild quest, beat the boss, etc. you can start out and quickly have 200-300k stats so quick now it is ridiculous and the speed with which you can gather stats will only increase with time. The elite guilds are building super LLPs with crazy stats (like 1M) in the level 20s. The game has changed to completely take camping away from the mix.

The idea behind this game is to not be the best player overall, just pretty good for your level. That will be best achieved by beating LTQs and placing well in wars. Both require gems. Gree obviously wants people to spend money to gain in-game advantages. Before, the main advantage gems bought was time, now that has shifted to the primary focus of the game which is stats. I give them props for achieving their purpose.

While you are correct, Shin is also correct because you two are making different points. You're pointing out that GREE has successfully boosted their sales and increased revenue. Shin's point is that they have currently fast tracked to game to dying out faster than it would have under Funzio.

They are doing what Shin is talking about by having done what you are bringing up.

I'm not a fan of sacrificing long term gain for short term gain.

LordIndy
07-25-2013, 11:17 AM
While you are correct, Shin is also correct because you two are making different points. You're pointing out that GREE has successfully boosted their sales and increased revenue. Shin's point is that they have currently fast tracked to game to dying out faster than it would have under Funzio.

They are doing what Shin is talking about by having done what you are bringing up.

I'm not a fan of sacrificing long term gain for short term gain.

But see that is exactly what they needed to do. The way to make the game more interesting is to keep these events and guild wars. Prior to those things occurring I and many others simply logged on at most, a few times a day, collected money, and did any upgrades you could do and then logged off. The strategy was simple get to BD10 any way you could. Many could do that for free by camping and just taking your time. There was no need to be in a hurry because to afford a dragon army with gold you needed to build your economy anyway.

The survival of the game depends on it being profitable. By creating an atmosphere that encourages spending through guild wars and LTQs they have increased interest and commitment to the game while boosting profits.

Shinazueli
07-25-2013, 04:17 PM
But see that is exactly what they needed to do. The way to make the game more interesting is to keep these events and guild wars. Prior to those things occurring I and many others simply logged on at most, a few times a day, collected money, and did any upgrades you could do and then logged off. The strategy was simple get to BD10 any way you could. Many could do that for free by camping and just taking your time. There was no need to be in a hurry because to afford a dragon army with gold you needed to build your economy anyway.

The survival of the game depends on it being profitable. By creating an atmosphere that encourages spending through guild wars and LTQs they have increased interest and commitment to the game while boosting profits.

No. This is incorrect. The survival of the game depends on people playing it. As in any social game, regardless of their business model.

We are talking past each other. Allow me to clarify.

I'm not advocating camping at this point. It's dead or dying. Exponential stat inflation was the murder weapon. Which you've correctly described in detail.

What I am saying is that exponential growth cannot continue without bound. There are realistic limits. And when they are reached, the game will be in a very bad spot. (for instance, how many bits are used to store your stats on the server? How much would it cost to add another, and another? Go look at the graph of e^x. You'll see what I mean.)

On a tangent to that, even if they could grow without bound, the same 1% stat boost is not the same stats for a player whose been playing for six months versus someone who's been playing for 12 months or someone who's been playing for one month. Which is why I said the root cause of the imbalance that causes players to want to camp is the huge disparity in played time.

Because they allow you to bring every single unit you've ever earned to battle, (with a high limit of 1500 units), a player who has only been around long enough to earn 200 units cannot hope to compete with one who is almost full indestructible. It's just not going to happen. So that player will camp, and get stronger at lower levels.

The whole "relative" strength idea is based upon a flawed concept where it doesn't matter what your raw stats are because you don't have to compete with those HLPs with 3M stats. Ie, camping.

When the xp from the LTQs starts pushing players up into the same brackets, they're going to quit. Because they cannot catch up.

Which is why I said they are going to have to overhaul the way battle stats are calculated. Because bringing a year of units to someone's kingdom that's played for 3 months doesn't work out.

A level increase and a corresponding ally increase only delays the inevitable.

Because the inherent source of the imbalance wouldn't be corrected.

Now do you see what I'm trying to say? Buying a permanent advantage and not allowing others to go back and purchase them (or earn them, god forbid) is a recipe for disaster.

The best solution I can come up with is this:

About 3 months after you release an LTQ, re-release the same quest, but with no time limit. This will add quite a huge variety of things for your free players to do, and not completely erase the advantage of your gem players. They will still have a three month advantage in stats, which is easily 3-400k stats.

It's not even like they'd all catch up immediately, as those quests would easily take two weeks apiece of real time natural energy regeneration. But it would go a long way towards rebalancing the game. And you'd have no additional work or cost associated with it, because all of the content is already developed.

To those who would flame me for saying these players should just be handed the best units available... They wouldn't. They still wouldn't be able to best a gem player doing the current LTQs. But they wouldn't be 2 million stats behind and they wouldn't quit.

The best part? For those who do spend to "keep up", they'd have to even more, so they wouldn't lose spenders.

It's like wow did with their patches. After new content has been out for a while, and they were about to release new content, they'd just nerf the crap out of the current content to equalize gear before a new patch. The hardcore raiders would still have the very best gear available, but someone that wants to get into raiding could gear up to a respectable level within a short (month) period of time. Win-win.

Doubt they'll do it, but it would fix the problem.

Edit : allow me to add one more clarifying example that I'm sure most of you are familiar with. When you apply to a guild, or are looking at an applicant to your guild, do you have a minimum stats requirement? I bet most of you do. I also bet that that minimum stats requirement is based on the strength of your opponents. Which is exponentially increasing. Someone starting the game today will never be able to meet those minimum requirements. You may have noticed a drying up of potential applicants that meet your minimum requirements. That's because you pretty much need someone that has been playing for x months, and if new players stop coming in... No more qualified applicants. So you start stealing from other guilds, because there are a finite numbe of players who have been playing for x months. Some guilds fail. Eventually, everyone in the TopXYZ is just the long time players, and you all know each other. There are no new additions to this pool, because time only goes one way, and attrition only works one way. Eventually, you reach critical mass.

I'm not going to speculate on a timeline, but it's a finite amount of time. You do the math.

SpikedPunchVictim
07-26-2013, 10:42 PM
+1 Shinazueli. I've been seeing the game this way too and I think your solution of re-releasing the events later is a good one. Another option is to schedule events at different times to bring more event dynamics in. Players who have earned the units for that event wouldn't earn them, but earn lots of gold instead.

In the end, the battles are still pretty static and are just straight number games - like the game of war. In the end there's no strategy for the player. Just accumulate stats.

Another idea would be to create a tiered system where better players move to higher tiers and can only attack players in their tier. This would still incentivize the players to want to move ahead, and not penalize the players leveling up.

Krissy
07-27-2013, 01:44 PM
Think there was a fix. I'm getting more points for hitting people at same level.

Shinazueli
07-27-2013, 07:12 PM
+1 Shinazueli. I've been seeing the game this way too and I think your solution of re-releasing the events later is a good one. Another option is to schedule events at different times to bring more event dynamics in. Players who have earned the units for that event wouldn't earn them, but earn lots of gold instead.

In the end, the battles are still pretty static and are just straight number games - like the game of war. In the end there's no strategy for the player. Just accumulate stats.

Another idea would be to create a tiered system where better players move to higher tiers and can only attack players in their tier. This would still incentivize the players to want to move ahead, and not penalize the players leveling up.

That last paragraph is what is currently happening. As you get pushed into the whale zone, you're entering the final tier of players. Which is pretty much chock full of 2+M players. It's pretty much a step transition between being the hammer and being the nail.

Also, I'd never advocate for a system where you get matched based on stats. It should still remain based on level and ally count. This rewards good play and punishes bad play. But there exists a reasonable limit to this, because you can be Rainman and if you started six months ago, or 3 months ago, FUN&RK and the like will still eat your face off, once you get into their bracket.

Finally, if this developer persists in their relative inaction... Another reason why this is going to end badly. Right now most (of the gem players) are willing to spend for 30k ish per LTQ. If they keep it flat, (linear growth model), then people will stop spending because @ 3M stats, that's 1% more stats. Not going to make a difference. And since you can raid successfully at 50% stats, there's no point in trying to make it about defense. And "keeping up" is a weak motivation for the amount of money required, the prices are too high to justify that little of a gain. Their other choice is to make it a relative increase to your current stats, which is the definition of exponential growth. Which I've described in detail why that's a bad idea, above.

Just more thoughts.

Edit: another part of the problem, albeit a minor part, is the huge range at which you can win/lose an attack/raid. I'll suck up losing to 80% of my stats at 1M, but that's a 600k difference at 3M. That's like 12-20 LTQs of a difference. The % modifier needs to come down as your raw stats come up. Nobody is going to pay thousands of dollars so that they can still lose the same battle to the guy that didn't spend them.