Discussion Do you feel your world has low activity?

[Kronan]

I look at title of this topic, and it uses the word: LOW.

I can't speak for the OP, but I think low is really the wrong word.

Based on the poll, a lot of people don't think it's low.

However, most will agree it's LOWER than the deep COVID era (2020-2021) we just left - when people flocked to this game because everyone was home, and it seemed a lot more energetic and bountiful. People raced to fill 1.9 posts, there was always chatter in social topics and many more forum posters, and a lot of guilds were full @ 80 people (and had waiting lists), GbG was NEW! NEW! and there was a lot to look forward to in FoE.

As well there was a lot less grumbling about this, and that in that game.

What would have been the trajectory of the growth curve if it didn't spike artificially from Covid?

Are there lots of clues that gaming activity has moderated a bit, or a lot? Yes, Absolutely. We all see them.

What I think people here are defending is that yes, gaming has slowed, but it's still functional, and not yet painful. Do you have wait hours sometimes to get a 1.9 fill? Yes. But if that's the case, find a new 1.9. Are people tired of GbG? Certainly.

There are GbG maps that don't move at all for 10 days - no one wants to be first and ascend to a higher league.

The bigger question is: What can Inno do to rejuvenate the game so that marginal players return, new players are enticed, and current players add more time, and yes, more money.

That's a tough question. This game runs it's course for many, and what people are seeing inside the game (changes: video ads, fragmentation, etc), are of concern.

I think personally that one of the biggest changes is that Covid is essentially just a bad dream now, and people have gone back to a Real Life/Virtual Life rebalancing that they were missing during Covid. That means LESS FoE, and more Real Life. The balance has swung back for MANY.

Covid may have prolonged a FoE growth curve with a 2 or more years of positive growth extension, so this might have been where we would be 2 years ago, but are here now, seeing this, because the real nature of the community is showing how tired and yes, unbalanced they were, but didn't want to be.

 

[drakenridder]

I'm not noticing any major drop of activity. It's actually quite stable in activity. GbF guilds are fairly comparable in activity. Within GE competition (% completion) I'm also not observing an unusual decline. Considering that it's the summer/vacation period. It certainly ain't like covid peaks but that was a unique situation and a decline was expected.
Personally I don't see any solution in merging worlds. Like others have pointed out: it's too much trouble for what's worth it.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

If you don't want multifarms then why propose to put people in that situation against their will? 'Cause those are the only two options if you merge worlds where someone has cities on both worlds being merged: delete or multifarm. There's no point in crying foul afterwards if you vote to put people in that situation through this proposal. Something has to happen to those excess cities if two worlds get merged.

well they should be seperate account. Not one. and thertefore - multiaccount=ban. so yo udecide which city you keep and rest be vanished.

back in like 5+ years transfering points between world was banned. Now it is allowed and it create massive economic drop. One players=one city. It should be like this always.

Or if not vanished. Just let ppl keep their building in one city - i mean put them all in storage, and let ppl decide what to place where. It would also shock the economy but ppl would not lost anything.

 

[xivarmy]

back in like 5+ years transfering points between world was banned. Now it is allowed and it create massive economic drop. One players=one city. It should be like this always.

It's still not allowed on most regions.

The multiworld players are playing it either because:

- they value each world individually (different friends, different strategy, whatever)
- diamond mining taking advantage of the one resource that *does* share between cities on the same account.

Taking existing perfectly-rule-compliant cities and declaring them now illegal when they're well within existing rules would be a low blow.

Incidentally, even if cross-world trade is allowed in your regional servers, I doubt that cross-world FP transfer is the reason for the bottom falling out of the economy Massive income from GBG and new powercrept event buildings are likely a much bigger factor. People have more FP than they know what to do with.

 

[Boo...]

In your main world, do you see:

- extremelly difficult to find players willing to move from one guild to another or lack of new but active players?

- less than 15 guilds are trully interested on move and stay in diamond league, the rest of guilds are just relax/dead/not motivated guilds?

- the global chat being only used by the same players almost always? (In my world is like 20 players using the global chat. It looks really dead!

- a lack of active 1.9 groups or players using 1.9?

If you have noticed another sign that your world is starting to become a dead world, write which sign is it, please.

It is necessary to raise the question of how to increase activity, or what caused the decrease in activity.
That is, it is necessary to eliminate the cause, and not deal with the consequences.

 

[Boo...]

Your merge proposal doesn't take GvG into account. The guilds put in a lot of effort to hold the territories. What will happen to GvG in the event of a merge? I don't even want to discuss this topic.

 

[Emberguard]

Or if not vanished. Just let ppl keep their building in one city - i mean put them all in storage, and let ppl decide what to place where. It would also shock the economy but ppl would not lost anything.

That's not going to help anyone if things go into inventory. Inventory stock is worthless if it never gets built and people already say they don't have the space for buildings in a single world

Only way there would be a benefit if is Forge Points and used Blue Prints from Great Buildings go into inventory so people can combine them

well they should be seperate account. Not one. and thertefore - multiaccount=ban. so yo udecide which city you keep and rest be vanished.

back in like 5+ years transfering points between world was banned. Now it is allowed and it create massive economic drop. One players=one city. It should be like this always.

What exactly do you get out of this scenario where previously legitimate accounts get banned or deleted in a world merge? Multi-account and cross-world trades are banned except in one or two servers where the rules are stated to allow cross-world trades. So why put this proposal that would either require the very thing you say you object to, or just delete everything?

 

[CrashBoom]

or a much easier solution
delete all worlds except the first one
and all not having a city on the first world must start a new one there

 

[drakenridder]

Putting stuff in inventory does not help anyone with their GB's. For example different cities of 1 player may have high lvl GB's. Putting them back into inventory undo all the time invested into them. Nevermind the expansions and diamonds and cash spend on events.

 

[CrashBoom]

Or if not vanished. Just let ppl keep their building in one city - i mean put them all in storage, and let ppl decide what to place where. It would also shock the economy but ppl would not lost anything.

so I now level fast a Pegasus to level 50 in world A, the Centaurus to 50 in world B and the Hydro to 50 in world C

and when this comes I decide to have all 3 in the same city

Putting stuff in inventory does not help anyone with their GB's.

they could implement storing GB into inventory with the current level of it

 

[Grzechu Junior]

If you don't want multifarms then why propose to put people in that situation against their will?

because i think it should be against rules and ppl should be banned for this. Thats all. I would really liek to change in this.

 

[drakenridder]

so I now level fast a Pegasus to level 50 in world A, the Centaurus to 50 in world B and the Hydro to 50 in world C

and when this comes I decide to have all 3 in the same city

Despite your sarcasm, it won’t match reality. There are lots of players who play on different worlds with different playstyles. They’ve invested years in GB’s and other parts. Let’s give a few examples:
C-world
Arc-180
CF-100
Alcatraz-200
Zeus, TA, CdM, etc. - 80
BG - 80
Himaji-80
Kraken-80
Hydra-20

D-world
Arc-80
CF-150
Space carrier-80
CC-80
GT-70
SV-120

Among a couple of more worlds. Let’s assume the merge happen to A and all GB’s will be put in inventory. What will happen? At best sufficient BP-sets for those levels. However the fps needed to lvl them to that point are down the drain. The goods invested to construct them too. Particularly unfortunate for SAT GB’s. Progress in TT got hard reset since the player didn’t have a city in A. All extensions bought with diamonds are lost. All portraits bought with the cash pass and worse 1% league avatars are down the drain. The guilds the player once had helped building up are gone too.

they could implement storing GB into inventory with the current level of it

Improbable and too much trouble for what it is.

Let’s also not forget why multiple worlds exist and where introduced in the 1st place. It’s just borderline too catastrophically to ever happen. Don’t “fix” what isn’t broken. Sure some decline was bound to happen post-covid and annually games get set aside for vacations and outdoor activities. Let’s face the reality of this: it’s a catastrophic if it ever be implemented and would certainly inspire a mass exodus. Ultimately becoming making the nonexistent problem into a catastrophic problem.

Most curious to the following things:

What happens with rewards from cash passes?

What happens with expansions
What happens with GB’s folks worked on for years?

How are ripped apart guilds be compensated?

What’s gonna be done when players spend real money on various worlds?

What happens to rare avatars? 1% league avatars, cash pass avatars, etc

 

[Emberguard]

Putting stuff in inventory does not help anyone with their GB's. For example different cities of 1 player may have high lvl GB's. Putting them back into inventory undo all the time invested into them. Nevermind the expansions and diamonds and cash spend on events.

I agree it would suck and be grossly inadequate. It is however the only way I could imagine any progress being retained on Great Buildings when you have one world that already has them, and then duplicated Great Buildings on the other world merged together.

It certainly would do nothing for those that sold Goods as there's no way to distinguish that from anything else. It wouldn't help swap threads much at all either as those players don't place on their own Great Building. 1.9 would be the main play style to get something retained from this, unless the system doesn't keep track of amounts on the building and just deposits Forge Points based on level reached instead.

And you're right. Time is non-refundable.

they could implement storing GB into inventory with the current level of it

That would only work if going into a city that doesn't already have the building in it, because you can only build one of them.

Hypothetically I suppose one could just add levels to the existing Great Buildings. But then you'd have the issue of how many levels to add? Sweet Spot levels are cheaper to raise up than any other level. So you can't just add 1 for 1. It'd have to scale in some way based on relative costs to reward ratio.

Let’s face the reality of this: it’s a catastrophic if it ever be implemented and would certainly inspire a mass exodus. Ultimately becoming making the nonexistent problem into a catastrophic problem

Agreed. I can see no benefit to anyone, including those that brought up the proposal

 

[xivarmy]

because i think it should be against rules and ppl should be banned for this. Thats all. I would really liek to change in this.

And if it were at the very start of the game, perhaps you could debate whether that's how the game should run.

But 11 years later? With people who have worked on their (multiple) cities on different worlds for years and years? It's really not a good option to try and make the rules more restrictive.

There's also perfectly benign reasons to have a second city that inno should even encourage - because then you might spend on both cities. There's a crowd of players on the US servers for instance that every new world they're there, buying their way to high eras, immediately gaining high castles. As long as they don't overdo it to the point where people get sick of it, a new world is a big payday for inno and much of the players on it are existing players who want to start from the beginning again.

 

[drakenridder]

The "only" "fair" refund for GB's would be automatically applied refunded fps. For example a player has 3 worlds and on combined their AO has received 1M fps. Assuming 1 of the worlds is the world in which all gets merged into. Than their AO will receive all the fps from the player's other AO's of the other 2 worlds. Instantly propelling that GB to a new height.
Is this fair for new players? Absolutely not. As this hypothetical player had access to an entire city worth of fps + potentially 1.X booster teams poring in fps. Resulting in an never seen before powerhouse.
Even if all expansions are transferred in hard discounts on expansions it'll hardly feel fair. Assuming the TT gets resolved by automatically making the Frankenstein merged city at the lvl the furthest city got, it would undo all the work on at least 2 cities. Potentially even all 3. As the player may purposefully camped out in certain ages or in the city's world that became merged as the "dominant" world.
New players already complained sometimes about the AD auctions bidding's to be ridiculously high. Imagine the power of those with full WW/FoY inventories post-merge. Among their massively boosted castle levels. As the points should be merged too. Granting even more unfair advantages to pre-merge players. Denying that however wouldn't be a merge and undo everything they've worked for even more.
Another specific player group hit hard, would be those playing challenge. Like original tiles challenge for example. It would instantly kill that part of the game.

All what this does is creating significant inequality, a massive cap between new players and pre-merge players. All for the sake of "activity." Besides destroying, undoing and effectively locking down all variations on worlds various players worked hard for and enjoyed. There ar no winners, only losers. The only few who could benefit are die-hard GbF players and traders who don't care about their other worlds, which is doubtfully the case at best. Considering strategical boosting either CF or attack GB's on multiple worlds pre-merge. Assuming it would even be done, which I don't think will ever happen. As it's more trouble than it's worth.

 

[CrashBoom]

That would only work if going into a city that doesn't already have the building in it, because you can only build one of them.

Hypothetically I suppose one could just add levels to the existing Great Buildings. But then you'd have the issue of how many levels to add? Sweet Spot levels are cheaper to raise up than any other level. So you can't just add 1 for 1. It'd have to scale in some way based on relative costs to reward ratio.

actually you can BUILD the same GB as often as you want
you just can't HAVE the same GB more than once in your city

so if I have a level 5 in my city and get a level 50 from a different world in my inventory I would first delete the level 5 GB

 

[Grzechu Junior]

And if it were at the very start of the game, perhaps you could debate whether that's how the game should run.

But 11 years later? With people who have worked on their (multiple) cities on different worlds for years and years? It's really not a good option to try and make the rules more restrictive.

There's also perfectly benign reasons to have a second city that inno should even encourage - because then you might spend on both cities. There's a crowd of players on the US servers for instance that every new world they're there, buying their way to high eras, immediately gaining high castles. As long as they don't overdo it to the point where people get sick of it, a new world is a big payday for inno and much of the players on it are existing players who want to start from the beginning again.

you know transfering FP was banned for long time at begininng?
it was allowed in like 2015-2018

 

[xivarmy]

you know transfering FP was banned for long time at begininng?
it was allowed in like 2015-2018

It still is in almost all regions.

It's also an example of making rules *less* restrictive - it doesn't create new violators. It's making rules *more* restrictive that's the issue (particularly in-so-far as the new restriction destroys *years* of work of rule-abiding players)

 

[drakenridder]

On some servers cross deals are allowed or better said tolerated. This was on some servers quite early decided upon. Even up to this day. However bear in mind that on those servers warnings are issued that although for now it's tolerated, it may not in the future. While on most servers it's not and penalties are given.