I've become very jaded as regards feedback, given that most of it is ignored, but I'll make a "one time only" post here where I make an extended effort to give feedback. (There'll be reasoning, advice to Inno, and everything.)
I have a daily Challenge to aquire 2 sectors in the campaign map. I had a province where it was possible, but if I had to send my scout on a trip, I would have had to use diamonds to complete it. This has to be fixed.
It looks like a nice addition to the game, time will show if it will catch on.
Unless it's fixed, it will be like incidents... People will give it a go in the short term, then it'll fade into obscurity. For the longest time people have asked to alternates to conquering/research because the end-game is actually broken and provides a penalty to advancing. Having such things as a mandatory part of new features will not serve to change peoples' minds, it will simply doom such features to failure before they have even been given a chance.
I build blacksmiths, don't take much room, go up quick & don't take much pop. I do this in my worlds I play in
I said it before in a previous post somewhere; If the late/end game requires a ton of early era buildings simply because they are population/space effective, then the designers (and managers) have failed. A game should evolve according to the players, and engage them enough so that they want to use the latest options available to them.
it also resets the FP timer
That shouldn't happen... Log it as a bug.
Some general comments on several of the points raised:
There are checks in place to make sure that there won't be any "impossible" challenge conditions. However, if you see any that you simply can't do (for instance "solve X encounters" when you've already completed all of them), please comment here or (even better) report this to via our support system, as this is of course not intended
.
This being said - there will be conditions that are rather demanding and it is by design that not everybody will be able to complete them on every single day. However, with involvement and activity, most players should be able to complete them 7 days in a row from time to time. Probably not every week though.
Also, unlike normal quests, daily challenges are tailored by age. So depending on what age you're in, the requirements may differ. If you see any problems related to this system, please also comment, as improvements are possible
.
As mentioned above, I've become very apathetic about providing feedback, but I'll make another try here - because I still have flickers of optimism in my soul... I would appreciate a full, considered response to the specific reply below from Inno.
For the most important feedback I can give, I will say the following;
This new feature is being touted as a difficult to achieve feature with rewards that are appealing... From the first chests I was offered I can say without hesitation that I was completely uninterested in spending my time on this feature. If you want players to actively engage with a feature, then you need to make the minimum rewards are worth it. My rewards for the first chest were;
5% chance of getting a SoK. (Good prize, worth a bit of time.)
10% chance of getting a SoI (Decent for specific uses, and I can see a use for it when used in high volumes.)
15% chance of getting a SoA (Good if you need the medals, otherwise useless... I probably take 4x VT solely because they level as the player does.)
70% chance of getting 10FP.
That last one is the one that really kills the feature.... It's the most likely prize I can get by far, and I can get that very same "prize" by spending 10 hours doing absolutely nothing in game - and also keeping to my 24h collection schedule which minimises plundering. At this point I've no interest in spending time doing tasks that will get me a worthless reward.
Advice; Well for one, re-evaluate the way you look at the value for rewards. It's clear you look at the players as if they are customers to be guided towards spending money on the game, but you need to start looking at players as if they are small businesses. Every single day of my work life I have to deal with that sector to one degree or another, and you will *never* find an entity that looks for more value in a spending outlay than they do. If you can provide an offering that appeals to that mindset, then regular players will find it far more acceptable/convenient and will adopt it with less reservations.. Yes new players may currently spend more per head... but the end-goal should be to get end-game players to use diamonds as well, and very few parts of the game do that as things stand.)
As an example (in the case of the rewards I mentioned above); Remove the FP rewards.... I'm an an end-game player, but even taking into account my entire play across all worlds I've rarely spent diamonds on FP and the odds of my doing so now are zero. You aren't losing income by dumping the FP rewards, so don't offer it as a majority prize. (One of my worlds generates 100+ FP a day without fail. 10FP is barely even noticeable as a daily reward.)
In fact, don't just remove the FP rewards, only offer the 3 big prizes at equal opportunity - possibly at a slightly higher chance (40/30/30) to get the SoK, given that you are trying to pull players into the feature. 2 of the 3 prizes are useless for the endgame - most players have the BPs to build any GBs, and have enough medals that the daily rewards from the SoA are pointless - and if a player doesn't get the SoK then they can tell themselves they might do better next time. This goes for any combination where there's a good prize, with an average/poor/pointless prize making up the offerings. In trying to complete the challenges to get the good prize, players are more likely to spend diamonds when compared to doing nothing so there's literally nothing to lose.
Secondly; Don't actively discourage end-game players with tasks that will hurt their game overall. For starters, every aspect of the game that you cut off from end-game players means you lose a prospective revenue stream. This is bad for both you (money-wise) and the player (engagement-wise). Stop giving players reasons to ignore the game and/or features you introduce. For example; Nowadays I rarely research, I almost never conquer the map. That's because it's in my interest not to. One of the main reasons is that I need to save tasks for quests, lest I go too far ahead in the advancement of my city and end up with GBs/events that no longer benefit me, but the secondary reason is saving up for quest requirements. (Even GE is getting into this territory, given various factors that I'll explain if Inno ask.) Paying to advance is one of the things I used to do - 50 diamonds per scout, for example, because I wanted to continue immediately - but since I no longer treat things like that as a priority I no longer spend those diamonds. If you can resume that minor attraction for players, then you resume the revenue stream that comes with it.
Lastly, and something that is specific for me (and a handful of users I've seen) do something new. Introduce some mini-games or something. Sliding puzzles, jigsaws, "quizzes" where you have to get a specific population/happiness combo using available buildings... Anything that breaks up the monotony of setting productions or spending FP. Something that can be repeated for a challenge, but doesn't actually involve advancing progress in the game signficantly or making a massive rebuild of your city. Normal players don't mind either of those, because they want to improve their city, so don't mind the sacrifice as they know it's an imporvement overall... But once a player reaches the end game they tend to have organised an effective and efficient city which they don't want to destroy without having good reason. Newbies are a consistent income source, but they don't change all that much so if you want to improve your overall income then the end-game players are the ones you have to get onboard.
Just my two cents/penneth/pence* worth.
* delete as applicable.