• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Feedback Ongoing Changelog w/c 30th January

DeletedUser7239

Guest
And then? Since when is it normal to fight without casualties? That's ridiculous players want to win without losses! I you want to fight, you will lose some of your units! This is the problem with the gvg! Point farmers don't even need a high attack boost or a high Alcatraz and they can take 10 sectors every day, while they can reach 100% in the GE too every week! Should i make some screen shots for you of our enemies, or you'll believe me, those guys haven't got high GBs, so their stats are low, but they could insult us and ruin our game in the last year day by day on the maps, in more eras at the same time, and they could finish the GE too in AF. You can write some numbers, but fights must take casualties, and you think that they shouldn't and this is a huge problem with your thinking!!!

Besides one or two,others agree with me not only here,but on live server, so this is not a problem with my thinking.
All fights take casualties i know, to an acceptable point(if you know how to fight).
But i ask you if it is too easy, let me change my version.
Instead of deleting A/D GB, fight with 8 spearman :D in AF, now, thats a challenge, tell me how it goes.
Obs: only in the 46/48 encounter.
Better yet i DARE you to show me a video of you fighting with this new version, without healing units and only with the +30A of the tavern ;)
AF only, base (A/D) 99/90
Units of your choice.
 

vakini

Squire
The new FP direct to bar sucks.

darkstar has been asking for suggestions, and here is one:

-rewards from tresure hunt, GB´s and GE goes direct to a seperate account as we know coins/resources/medals/diamonds does.
-the FP- timer bar continues with the max of 10 FP (one pr. hour).

the using of FP to Research and GB´s changes so we get a space/tap (next to the "spend 1 FP") where we write the amount of FP we want to spend on
Research or GB´s, then we get a pup-up window asking us if we want to spend from Coins,diamonds or FP-account

- choosing coins or diamonds, then a pupup-window telling us how much it costs, accepting the costs the FP-amount is send.
- choosing FP-account, the amount is send (if enough on account)

the "spend 1 FP" then only spend FP´s from FP-timer bar.

It would bee great to the players if we could donate up to 100-250 FP a time to research or FP´s on this way
 

DeletedUser7239

Guest
Another problem with your thinking, i want to play the same game as others.

I do see your point.

Give 8 units for the players when they register and let them win all the fights wih those, without losing any, of course using autobattle, that would be an amizingly interesting and challanging game! Ridiculous that 1-2 units loss in two-wave battles are too much for you!

Amazing how can contradict yourself so fast.

I can't show you, because i've already built up all my attacking GBs to lvl 69

How fair is this even to compare? i was not talking about this huge levels, to you its not important the new boost, and again others can kiss their b?
See my point? better and better rewards? i do not get a good reward for weeks and i always finish without healing and such. what have you to say about this?
You are a very strong player i got that, way stronger then me for sure, you should show more understanding to others or you want to play alone with all the other strong players?
 
It's not there to disadvantage anyone, but to reform the way these rewards from the Treasure Hunt are received and spent. As a direct reward they'll be spent at the time, and not stockpiled for a later time.[...]
1) Government the other day: "The new tax increase ist not there to disadvantage anyone, but to reform the way your earnings are received and spent. Direct taxes mean we'll have the money at the time, and not perhaps later after you stockpiled it under your pillow."
...Spoken like a politician, Darkstar, rephrasing a lie and make it seem like an argument against the lie. But a lie remains a lie even if spoken in ignorance. And I mean no offense here. It is just some weak semantics against the mathematical truth that there is a clear disadvantage for all players with these new direct FP-to-the-bar packages as it removes an important degree of freedom from the players.
Let us, in good faith, assume the first phrase in your statement to be made in good faith, and acknowledge the propositional logic, it remains the compelling conclusion that this reform is a political decision to take some measure of control over when FPs are spent from players. As there is absolutely no benefit in this for players, the first phrase is logically proven wrong, provided the game management knows what they are doing, else it is just highly inaccurate.
Please give it to us straight.

2) Another matter, with a very recent update there is a new forced delay within GE in displaying earned experience after a shooting battle during which it is not possible to quickly skip to the treasure chest and/ or the next encounter. Please remove that. A forced delay is immature programming and patronizing the players (did it myself a lot at age 10 *g*). I hope for the programmers' sake this is a bug. ^^
 

Achaeus

Marquis
Okay it appears the feedback threads on the daily changelogs were started at the right time. :p

The decision to change the package rewards to direct Forge Points is because we prefer to see a more constant flow of forge points through the game, rather than them being stockpiled into infinity. (Also in general on the UI side we think it's more understandable when there's only being one method of storing Forge Points - the Forge Points bar.)

Don't worry, no changes currently planned for the handling of the Great Building rewards, we realize that's a bit of a different situation.

I am afraid I am not fond of this change as many above have pointed out as well. My reasons are my FP's do flow out of my inventory, but when I want them to, and then on a players GB which I am concentrating on or into my research, but always when I am ready for them to be used. I believe one of the objections here is that when our FP Bars are full we are not earning FP's, hence in a way forcing us to spend FP's in a haphazard approach, which also removes the strategic approach of using FP's, (i.e. gaining the lead on a GP for which you may need BP's, or concentrating your FP's for the reward).

I guess we have the option of simply not giving into the forced use of FP's and not earning new FP's. If that is the case I would have to ask, why have the FP Bar at all? I hope that Inno will reconsider this change and consider instead how players use their FP's. Perhaps an inventory cap would make more sense, albeit that would need to be based on the players age. Another thought is to have FP's that sit in inventory too long time out, however again, the players age would need to be taken into consideration and obviously a 1st in 1st out would be difficult to track.

Finally the argument that 1 method of storing FP's is more understandable is flawed by the simple fact that GB's still store FP's in inventory. You still have 2 methods of storing FP's so that in itself is not a valid argument, not to mention players are already familiar with the current method of storing FP's. Sorry that one simply won't be something we can argue with our Guilds in live.
 

thephantom

Emperor
InnoGames
1) Government the other day: "The new tax increase ist not there to disadvantage anyone, but to reform the way your earnings are received and spent. Direct taxes mean we'll have the money at the time, and not perhaps later after you stockpiled it under your pillow."
...Spoken like a politician, Darkstar, rephrasing a lie and make it seem like an argument against the lie. But a lie remains a lie even if spoken in ignorance. And I mean no offense here. It is just some weak semantics against the mathematical truth that there is a clear disadvantage for all players with these new direct FP-to-the-bar packages as it removes an important degree of freedom from the players.
Let us, in good faith, assume the first phrase in your statement to be made in good faith, and acknowledge the propositional logic, it remains the compelling conclusion that this reform is a political decision to take some measure of control over when FPs are spent from players. As there is absolutely no benefit in this for players, the first phrase is logically proven wrong, provided the game management knows what they are doing, else it is just highly inaccurate.
Please give it to us straight.
Those 'weak semantics' are clearly important, since you are still misinterpreting what I've written. ;) In the quote there I am talking about the intent of the changes, the purpose for which they are done. Even if we are talking about the effect they're having, then do read the rest of my replies as at no point have I denied that you will need to spend those FPs at the time of receiving, unless that decision is so important for you that you'd rather keep them in the FP bar while not receiving hourly FPs. The intention of this, as already pointed out multiple times, is for FPs to be spent more frequently, for there to be a more constant flow of FPs.

That is also the benefit that the player and the game as a whole receive, FPs everywhere, including in lower eras, become more frequently used. I can only apologize if my wording comes across a different way than intended, but if you go back and reread the quoted part I'm fairly sure you'll see there's no "lie" there. I have no issue correcting myself when I've provided wrong information, I have corrected myself in the past. This is not the case here.

Since we are talking about giving things straight I do have a question - do you use the Treasure Hunt? I've had messages with multiple players who do use it and reached out to check if that behavior is intended or a bug, and none of them said they have an issue with the change. At the same time, the majority of posts here who disagree with it are pointing out they do not participate in the Treasure Hunt. Based on what you've written, you seem to be disagreeing with a "trend" of FP rewards being changed (apologies if that assumptions is wrong - it's why I ask about the use of Treasure Hunt).

Yet Relic rewards were always direct FPs. If you do not use the Treasure Hunt, that means only the Guild Expedition package-to-direct FPs affect you, and those are in 2-5-10 amounts (really same as the Treasure Hunt). Great Building contribution rewards, which are the main source of FP packs if you're interested in stockpiling them in big numbers, remain unchanged. So you will be spending smaller amount of FPs directly when receiving them, while having the big rewards in FP packages. Does all of that not mean more frequent FP spending overall in the game, while at the same time you maintain full control of how you spend those big FP rewards?

2) Another matter, with a very recent update there is a new forced delay within GE in displaying earned experience after a shooting battle during which it is not possible to quickly skip to the treasure chest and/ or the next encounter. Please remove that. A forced delay is immature programming and patronizing the players (did it myself a lot at age 10 *g*). I hope for the programmers' sake this is a bug. ^^
Not sure what type of delay you're referring to. Just did multiple GE battles on both Beta and live and the behavior is the same - battle fishes, you get the expedition points reward window, you close it and move on. If you can actively reproduce your issue, please report it in the Bugs forum section or via support.
 

dolphin

Marquis
I can give you a concret example: did you take a close look to that chest? here on beta i think i open it 6 times, i think. wanna know what i get? garbage!

I've been looking at other companies games the last few days!
 

vakini

Squire
The new FP direct to bar sucks.

darkstar has been asking for suggestions, and here is one:

-rewards from tresure hunt, GB´s and GE goes direct to a seperate account as we know coins/resources/medals/diamonds does.
-the FP- timer bar continues with the max of 10 FP (one pr. hour).

the using of FP to Research and GB´s changes so we get a space/tap (next to the "spend 1 FP") where we write the amount of FP we want to spend on
Research or GB´s, then we get a pup-up window asking us if we want to spend from Coins,diamonds or FP-account

- choosing coins or diamonds, then a pupup-window telling us how much it costs, accepting the costs the FP-amount is send.
- choosing FP-account, the amount is send (if enough on account)

the "spend 1 FP" then only spend FP´s from FP-timer bar.

It would bee great to the players if we could donate up to 100-250 FP a time to research or FP´s on this way

Darkstar, you have been asking for suggestions. Above I give you one, but you havnt answerred to it.

- it would solve one of the greatest irritations in the game (at least to me) : try spending 100-250 FP on research or in a GB, with FP´s bought for coins, and look how much time you use on it.
- it would solve the problems with overfilled FP- bar, when getting rewards in FP (ex. getting 100 FP from GE, and you wanna split it to different GB´s, you have to use the tab "spend 1 FP" so many times your finger is getting hurt.

Please ask the developers if they have a solution to that.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
- it would solve the problems with overfilled FP- bar, when getting rewards in FP (ex. getting 100 FP from GE, and you wanna split it to different GB´s, you have to use the tab "spend 1 FP" so many times your finger is getting hurt.

Please ask the developers if they have a solution to that.
some already have the solution for this (some like me are still waiting to get it):
the new GB donating window

there you can use the 5 and 10 FP button which takes those FP from the bar if there are enough
 

thephantom

Emperor
InnoGames
Darkstar, you have been asking for suggestions. Above I give you one, but you havnt answerred to it.

- it would solve one of the greatest irritations in the game (at least to me) : try spending 100-250 FP on research or in a GB, with FP´s bought for coins, and look how much time you use on it.
- it would solve the problems with overfilled FP- bar, when getting rewards in FP (ex. getting 100 FP from GE, and you wanna split it to different GB´s, you have to use the tab "spend 1 FP" so many times your finger is getting hurt.

Please ask the developers if they have a solution to that.
As BetaTest said you do not need spend FPs 1 by 1, with the new Great Building you can spend them in higher amounts, such as 10 FPs. There are no "answers" to provide for suggestions. All we can do regarding suggestions is pass them along so that they can be considered as something that might be adopted in the game (even if it's not in the presented manner).
 

vakini

Squire
As BetaTest said you do not need spend FPs 1 by 1, with the new Great Building you can spend them in higher amounts, such as 10 FPs. There are no "answers" to provide for suggestions. All we can do regarding suggestions is pass them along so that they can be considered as something that might be adopted in the game (even if it's not in the presented manner).

I dont think you understand me then.

If I want to use my coins on FP, I only can buy one FP at a time, and after buy 10 x 1 FP ( if place in FP-bar) I can go to use them, then I have to go buy 10 x 1 FP again, and again and .....

It is a waste of time (and my fingers), but with a space (as earlier mentioned) next to the tab "use 1 FP" where we can write the amount of FP we want to use on either research or GB´s and then a pupup window (coins/diamonds/packs) choosing coins/diamonds we get a new pupup window showing how much coin/diamonds we are about to spend on the FP´s, accepting that the FP´s transferred to either the research or GB´s chosen, choosing packs the amount of FP´s are transferred right away if enough in packs.

and please give us the possibility to choose when we wanna use our FP´s from treasury hunt, GE and GB, as I suggested we could have an account as we have coins/resources/medals/diamonds where the packs/rewards are placed, instead in the inventory.

and if the suggestion have been past on to the developer, then you just have to mentioned it.
 
Last edited:

vakini

Squire
some already have the solution for this (some like me are still waiting to get it):
the new GB donating window

there you can use the 5 and 10 FP button which takes those FP from the bar if there are enough

yes, but its only to GB´s, not research, and still why cant we choose the amount ourselves???
we have to use either 1, 5, or 10 FP at a time
 

DeletedUser6705

Guest
It's not there to disadvantage anyone, but to reform the way these rewards from the Treasure Hunt are received and spent. As a direct reward they'll be spent at the time, and not stockpiled for a later time.
....
Let me rephrase what I've said then - you still decide where/how to spend those Forge Points, except if that decision is 'at a later time', in which case you won't be receiving new hourly FPs till that time.

I could not disagree more with you on this one... all that change really does is increase the gap between players who already get large FP packages due to their high level arcs (and therefore will eventually be the only ones with the freedom to decide WHEN to spent large amounts of FPs to secure lucrative spaces) and the younger ones who do not that those high arcs just yet...

If Inno was in the slightest concerned about balancing, they would increase the number of opportunities to earn FP ***packages*** vs FPs directly on the bar rather than decrease them, but unfortunately the word "balancing" is only ever used to screw players these days :rolleyes:
 

thephantom

Emperor
InnoGames
I could not disagree more with you on this one... all that change really does is increase the gap between players who already get large FP packages due to their high level arcs (and therefore will eventually be the only ones with the freedom to decide WHEN to spent large amounts of FPs to secure lucrative spaces) and the younger ones who do not that those high arcs just yet...

If Inno was in the slightest concerned about balancing, they would increase the number of opportunities to earn FP ***packages*** vs FPs directly on the bar rather than decrease them, but unfortunately the word "balancing" is only ever used to screw players these days :rolleyes:
Not sure what balancing you are referring to because that's not the stated reason for this change, but for GE changes, Crystal Villa, Rail Gun, which someone brought up here. Please do look back in the posts, I believe on page 2 the reason has been pointed out, and it's been repeated since.
 

DeletedUser6705

Guest
Ah well, Darkstar I will have to spell in out in even more detail for you then... I suspect most other forum members got it straight away...

In recent times players have taken several massive hits due to "balancing", and I deliberately did not mention them, as this was off topic in this thread, but you are on the right track. All of these changes were perceived by the vast majority of forum members as a hit, but the party line was that those changes were needed in the interest of "balance".

Now we see an equally unpopular change that actively disrupts balance - giving a disadvantage to weaker players over those who already get more FPs thanks to their Arcs anyway. So less chances for weaker players to secure lucrative spots in the GB levelling game.

If Inno's commitment to "balance" was more than just lip service, then we would not see this change. Instead, we would see more opportunities to earn/win FP packages outside of GB contributions, and not less.
 

thephantom

Emperor
InnoGames
Ah well, Darkstar I will have to spell in out in even more detail for you then... I suspect most other forum members got it straight away...

In recent times players have taken several massive hits due to "balancing", and I deliberately did not mention them, as this was off topic in this thread, but you are on the right track. All of these changes were perceived by the vast majority of forum members as a hit, but the party line was that those changes were needed in the interest of "balance".

Now we see an equally unpopular change that actively disrupts balance - giving a disadvantage to weaker players over those who already get more FPs thanks to their Arcs anyway. So less chances for weaker players to secure lucrative spots in the GB levelling game.

If Inno's commitment to "balance" was more than just lip service, then we would not see this change. Instead, we would see more opportunities to earn/win FP packages outside of GB contributions, and not less.
What "balance" was disrupted with this change? Those who used the Treasure Hunt had the same Forge Point packages or chances for grabbing the same prizes as those who receive contribution rewards, especially with an Arc? And that was taken away? It's the contribution rewards themselves that give those prizes, and the Arc that increases them further. And all of that is still accessible to everyone. Plus every reward and prize is simply higher when working with high level Great Buildings. This change is certainly not disturbing any 'balance' in the game. The change is done for everyone; if you however are not partaking in Treasure Hunt then you are excluding yourself from the group that it affects.

Balance doesn't mean everyone gets the same prize for different actions. It means the game has balance within itself. For example the challenge in era A is weaker than the challenge in the next era: B. Similarly the prizes in the early eras are smaller than the prizes in the late eras. The stats for the building A should be similar to the stats for all buildings of that type/era/description, not double or triple so it stands out. Because when those things aren't right, they imbalance the game and bring out more issues in the long run.

It's never easy when a rebalancing has to be done, because even when it has positive impact on the game itself, it can still affect folks negatively. But unfortunately it's important that it is done. I see no connection with that to this though since this is in no way a rebalance.
 

DeletedUser7239

Guest
Ah well, Darkstar I will have to spell in out in even more detail for you then... I suspect most other forum members got it straight away...

In recent times players have taken several massive hits due to "balancing", and I deliberately did not mention them, as this was off topic in this thread, but you are on the right track. All of these changes were perceived by the vast majority of forum members as a hit, but the party line was that those changes were needed in the interest of "balance".

Now we see an equally unpopular change that actively disrupts balance - giving a disadvantage to weaker players over those who already get more FPs thanks to their Arcs anyway. So less chances for weaker players to secure lucrative spots in the GB levelling game.

If Inno's commitment to "balance" was more than just lip service, then we would not see this change. Instead, we would see more opportunities to earn/win FP packages outside of GB contributions, and not less.

Spot on.

Do not wast your time because even after all our feedback they decided to take this to live servers, typical behaviour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top