Feedback PvP Arena

[forwandert]

And why not create a place of exchange between our ideas and the capacities / desires of the developers?

It was done on servers for some of Inno's other games with voted in players from the community and time arranged for communication with devs to forward things and discuss. Council members where on set timeframes before I new council was voted in. After initial feedback and meetings which sounded positive, devs would ignore everything for months and left the players council trying to answer community questions they couldn't answer (Sound familiar?). After ignoring them for a good while and mid term for the council they just pulled the plug.

At least the community managers left all up to read on the forums as the council got more and more frustrated but it's one reason I never blame any of the forum/admin teams for anything happening as when you read through it's obvious what problems they too have.

 

[Atokirina]

I was really looking forward to the release of the PVP arenas.

 

[Umbrathor]

It won't be Aether... From day one Dudettas has been on Inno's side. Yes she most likely passed on our feelings but made it clear in a post she wish we did not have feedback on this. The last change should have been done in week one. IT WAS SAVED till just before release... Inno never ever cared about what the players said. EVER... Please remember Dudettas works for Inno. She maybe polite but her job is to make sure we are placated... She failed here...

I find this message offensive and devoid of any empathy towards people who work in customer service positions in general, and @Dudettas specifically. The message serves no purpose other than to offend. I considered asking to have it removed, but that would just fuel this kind of bias. So instead I am publicly taking a stand against it, and any messages or remarks like it.

 

[Schmetterthor]

Good decision so far, though I did like some aspects!

Three last things:

PvP-Towers:
1.) You do not necessarily have to remove the PvP-Towers, because they are a quite informativ tool about the activity of the neighbourhood, but you might change the rewards, just medals are a little bit old fashioned nowadays.

PvP-Arena:
2.) Make it fun ...
3.) ... and keep they music!

 

[Umbrathor]

@Dudettas said:
As you are already aware, the forum feedback contrasts greatly with the other feedback we are receiving. I'm sorry but I can't tell you what this other feedback is. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means I can't tell you what it is.

Now i understand all the lying, pinoccio is working there.

I can see no valid reason for the secrecy unless this is untrue.

Forum members, especially beta testers, should have trust in Community Managers to keep them fully informed with accurate information. That trust has been severely tested recently, and will be hard to rebuild.

You are being paid, we are testing for free. We deserve more respect than we are being shown.

How very unlucky that no happy player has taken the time to explain here on the forum why he loves the feature and what there is to love. How very strange that the Arena is the only and first time the forum feedback isn't at all consistent with the mysterious other feedback that noone's heard of before. We'll see whether or not the EN forum feedback will be more consistent with this famous feedback...

It's not being consistent because there is a lot of opposition to this feature in this one and Inno wasn't going to have it (meaning there are far too many smart players in beta that it hurts Inno's ego). Explains the censoring as well as the removal of polls very clearly.

I just don't understand why you put it on Beta and then took 99% of the feedback from alpha.
Why bother ?

Posters above:

• Have you considered the possibility that the PvP arena works well enough for SAAB players for them to continue playing it?
• Have you considered the possibility that this means that a fair number of, maybe even the majority of beta players, are still playing the PvP arena?
• Have you considered the possibility that beta players are even going so far as to buy extra attempts with diamonds, because some people get a kick out of being first?

I assume that the answer to those questions is a negative.

In an earlier post, I have suggested the most likely alternative form of feedback:

I'd say it's pretty clear. The main source of feedback for a any new feature is how many people are using it / playing it, and whether or not people pay diamonds for the diamond options it offers. As long as there are plenty of players who DO play in the arena, and people who are willing to spend diamonds on it, Inno will consider the feature a success.

Basically, most people vote with their feet. If thousands of people are still playing beta, and a few hundred are complaining, Inno is justified in considering the possibility that those thousands of people are reasonably content with the arena. After all, it's usually people who are UNhappy that post feedback, because they want to see a change and vent their frustration. Happy people have less reason to post comments, so they are less likely to do so. Negative feedback is therefore usually overrepresented. This means that makes sense for Inno to weigh the input of actual gameplay against the input from the forum.

The reason why Inno does not reveal this alternate source of feedback, is to prevent people from influencing that source. If I am right in thinking that the actual gameplay (on beta) is their alternate source of feedback, this means that they want to prevent unhappy beta testers to advocate a boycot of the PvP Arena. This is understandable: if no one plays the Arena is it not getting tested.

In more direct reply to the quoted forum posters:
@jovada : there is a very obvious source of input about the feature, other than the forums. So please stop calling Dudettas a liar. In general: please consider whether you have all the facts before you start accusing people. It helps to ask questions rather than making assumptions.

@Praeceptor : to you also I say: please consider asking questions before making assumptions. I do agree that Inno is horrible at communicating and providing information. Inno seems to have a policy to not keep the players / testers "fully informed with accurate information". The information seems to be accurate most of the time, but Inno hardly ever informs us 'fully'. I would actually suggest you to rethink the fact that you trusted them to do this. ; )
Or question their policy on how they inform the players/testers.

@Berenice la Sauvage : players vote with their feet. Gameplay forms a logical major form of feedback input. And it is certainly not the first time Inno says that negative feedback on the forums contrasts with other forms of feedback.

@SeekerDave : they don't take 99% of their feedback from alpha, They take it from gameplay on beta. Makes sense, doesn't it?

In a way it has been amusing seeing the various conspiracy theories develop (not specifically the posters above and definitely not only the posters above), but conspiracy theorists are fighting windmills, like Don Quichotte. It's alsways better to use your mind, ask questions and get your facts straight, so you can fight the fights that are actually worth fighting. That is way more constructive.

 

[Berenice la Sauvage]

@Umbrathor, Inno is deactivating the Arena. Would they if the data were good?

 

[Thunderdome]

Have you considered the possibility that the PvP arena works well enough for SAAB players for them to continue playing it?

If SAAB players benefit from such then Inno should have place a feature for them and leave the rest intact for everyone else. Alternatively, they should made the PVP arena matched by age or a smaller range so it can be enjoyable by everyone. Matching and rewards were the only things I have a problem with that Inno failed to address (yes, the increase from 150 to 192 medals isn't even enough to put a dent in me in saying I wanted to play when I can collect that amount in a day when I pick up incidents). The timing of attempts were somewhat a bigger improvement as I didn't have to wait 4h each time I do a fight after I expend the first 5. The manual fighting kicked it up a notch.

Have you considered the possibility that this means that a fair number of, maybe even the majority of beta players, are still playing the PvP arena?

Probably, probably not. If Inno gauge its feedback by how many were playing the feature vs. how many were not, they would not have call for its deactivation and the restoration of the towers and mechanics. A large amount of feedback within the first 60 pages had called for some form of even matching. We were left in the dark for about 4 weeks with the statement of "there isn't an update at this time". Maybe moderation and liaison are a bit different from when I was a mod in a different game/company, but leaving everyone high and dry isn't being professional enough. Especially if it went on towards 8 weeks.

Have you considered the possibility that beta players are even going so far as to buy extra attempts with diamonds, because some people get a kick out of being first?

There's a subtle difference between spending wisely and spending on impulse. Guess which one I am leaning towards. If the matching is even and sensible, I would not mind in spending diamonds for attempts (and even medals). This feature didn't give an incentive for getting up there in the rankings. A few battles I can get into, but I have to lose out (-50) on some because they have the following: SAAB, SAM, Tomorrow (for example). It's not only once but three times in a row. Had I wasted either, that's like a kick in the butt right there.

In the end, they have something to redevelop. Hopefully, it will be better so it can wow the people. My advice, if they are going to make for everyone, then make it for everyone; not only for those that have advanced aged cities, because those who are in lower ages won't enjoy it (or use it) if they feel they cannot participate (if they kept getting those from ages out of reach). Also, it wouldn't hurt for Inno to revisit their units (for every age) to see how this was a fiasco in the first place and work on something to not have a repeat of such.

 

[jovada]

@jovada : there is a very obvious source of input about the feature, other than the forums. So please stop calling Dudettas a liar. In general: please consider whether you have all the facts before you start accusing people. It helps to ask questions rather than making assumptions

@Umbrathor learn to read first , i never said dudettas was a liar, i said pinoccio is working there and that was ment for the devs or "the other sources", dudettas IS NOT the other source. And what do you think we did during 8 weeks ??? Weren't we asking questions ???

A little bit cheap of you to play suddenly the avenging inno angel.

 

[PackCat]

Can Inno at least give us back the battle points (BP) display?
It was the only way to tell if Inno was cheating or incorrect audit Inno.
BP x .02 = Ranking Points (RP) earned per battle.
You knew if you won 150K BP, it was worth 3K RP.

They should have left it alone and just upped the prizes from the original.
Otherwise, it just looks like another money grab by Inno.

 

[Nessie]

Can Inno at least give us back the battle points (BP) display?
It was the only way to tell if Inno was cheating or incorrect audit Inno.
BP x .02 = Ranking Points (RP) earned per battle.
You knew if you won 150K BP, it was worth 3K RP.

They should have left it alone and just upped the prizes from the original.
Otherwise, it just looks like another money grab by Inno.

Fully agree, PackCat. Up to now it's not clear if we get back the battle points display or just our "old" towers.
It's not that I believe InnoGames cheat us regarding battle points but seeing the battle points right away after a fight belongs to the learning experience for new players and players in a new era.

 

[Sinitar]

@Umbrathor, I'm one of the players who test everything, also this arena
You can't get feedback based on how many players play the arena ... I still play it too but it doesn't mean I'm participating and I like it, I'm only there to see the evolution of things. When we complain, we do it seriously and not as a joke! As for who the usual send a feedback here, they are those who expose themselves as well as the voice of a group of people with the same convictions! Players who use diamonds don't care if it's a good thing or not! Their goal is to excel in the rankings
Tell me when would a player under the future era have a chance to be at least in the top 50? Never because the current system works very badly: the players of the last eras are bored of having to attack a player with a weaker power than him and those who are in the first ages, they feel inadequate because they encounter defenses of players that are impossible to overcome even if had 2k% attack bonus

 

[Dessire]

1. let players fight against players of 2 eras below and of the same era
2. let players earn the same amount of points,doesn't matter the era.

pvp is about skills, not attack and defense bonuses. guild battlegrounds is the best example of how % doesn't matter most of the time. you can have 700% of attack and 300% of defense and defeat an army of 1200% attack and defense. all dependes on the units you use and how you use them.
so, the best way to make everything fair is by allowing all players the same amount of points regardless of the era. (a colonial age era player could then beat an SAAB player without fighting against him directly but earning points by fighting againts players 2 eras below and of the same era of him/her.

if you are in colonial age and you defeat a LMA player, you could earn for example 50 points, by defeating a colonial age player 100 points, if you are a SAAB player and defeat a SAM player your earn 50 points and for defeating a SAAB player 100 points. so a colonial age player could be as good as you even if you are in SAAB because real pvp is about skills, not attack and deff bonus.

about rewards. most players don't want SoKs and wishing wells and don't want renovation kits! give better options like "1 ticket that allow you get a copy of any building/upgrade kit from the antique dealer's auction. if you open the antique dealer window and there is a pagoda upgrade kit, you can use the ticket to earn a copy of that upgrade kit without spending coins".

 

[CrashBoom]

haha an arena for cowards
if the opponent from the same eras are too strong take the ones 2 eras below

you can have 700% of attack and 300% of defense and defeat an army of 1200% attack and defense.

really ?

but why do you then need opponents 2 eras below

1. let players fight against players of 2 eras below and of the same era

that idea sounds like people are too stupid to defeat opponents from their era or 2 eras above

the best way to make everything fair

you want to fight against players 2 eras below
so those must defend against players 2 eras above

how in the hell could that be fair

but earning points by fighting againts players 2 eras below and of the same era of him/her

but what if I beat an opponent 2 eras above ?

that would be the case if a defender beats the attacker who is attacking an opponent 2 eras below

if you are in colonial age and you defeat a LMA player, you could earn for example 50 points, by defeating a colonial age player 100 points

and if you are in colonial age and lose against LMA player

he should earn 200 points
because LMA player defeated CA player

 

[DEADP00L]

I like the idea of attacking only players of his age and one age above.
What would generate to defend only against players of his age or an age below!

 

[jovada]

I like the idea of attacking only players of his age and one age above.
What would generate to defend only against players of his age or an age below!

Long time ago i made the suggestion for GvG that player could only participate in era 1 below , own era and era 1 above, so a SAAB player could not build a few ballista and fight in the iron era, that way starting players (guilds) could fight and learn and enjoy GvG and battles were much fairer but it was rejected.

 

[Yekk]

There have been many great ideas on how this possible addition can be intergrated into the game. I believe some can be done where Inno gets what it wanted plus the player base gets its requests.

 

[The Lady Redneck]

The best guild is the guild that works for you.

Wrong. The guild is only as good as the people in it working together for each other. And a good guild is not simply about being #1 OK that is nice but it is not the be all and end all of the game. It is about having fun, and playing all aspects of a game we enjoy. I have been in guilds that ended up with a bunch of players with your attitude. Everyone out for themselves. They end up dead and boring.

When GvG was first launched in the game I hated it. Did not like how it changed the guilds and vowed I would never play it. And I stuck to that until the launch of GBG. Some of us decided we would give GvG a go out of curiosity to see if it had changed over the years. And ended up thinking "hey this is not bad" especially as it did help the guilds ranking which in turn helped us all with cheaper costs for building and quicker healing time and shortened troop production time from Traz. plus the battle points raised our personal ranking, which again helps us. That is what GvG gives us. OK other areas of the game gives more visible rewards. And when you can only see the game through the eyes of "Self Only". You will not see that.

I do want to add I like the whole game now. And do wonder about the outcry against GvG by some. Maybe they have tried it. Got their egos bruised as it was not the walk over they thought it would be. So now want rid of it. Whatever...... It is only one part of a very enjoyable game. If it went I would miss it, just as I would miss GE, GBG, Settlements,, or anything else (Except PvP Arena LOL)

 

[Pragal]

pvp was the biggest mess up i have seen , last 7 of 10 fights all much higher ages than me, that is mad so that one cannot climb in the ranking, by losing all the time can only go down,

Moderator note: removed Developer bashing.

 

[planetofthehumans2]

Wrong. The guild is only as good as the people in it working together for each other. And a good guild is not simply about being #1 OK that is nice but it is not the be all and end all of the game. It is about having fun, and playing all aspects of a game we enjoy. I have been in guilds that ended up with a bunch of players with your attitude. Everyone out for themselves. They end up dead and boring.

When GvG was first launched in the game I hated it. Did not like how it changed the guilds and vowed I would never play it. And I stuck to that until the launch of GBG. Some of us decided we would give GvG a go out of curiosity to see if it had changed over the years. And ended up thinking "hey this is not bad" especially as it did help the guilds ranking which in turn helped us all with cheaper costs for building and quicker healing time and shortened troop production time from Traz. plus the battle points raised our personal ranking, which again helps us. That is what GvG gives us. OK other areas of the game gives more visible rewards. And when you can only see the game through the eyes of "Self Only". You will not see that.

I do want to add I like the whole game now. And do wonder about the outcry against GvG by some. Maybe they have tried it. Got their egos bruised as it was not the walk over they thought it would be. So now want rid of it. Whatever...... It is only one part of a very enjoyable game. If it went I would miss it, just as I would miss GE, GBG, Settlements,, or anything else (Except PvP Arena LOL)

How could I possibly be wrong when you spend the rest of the paragraph defending my statement? No point in being in #1 guild on the list if I'm not a fighter, measurement is only in fights. If I'm a trader or a 1.9'er, I should look for guilds that cater to those tasks.

I've done gvg for years with a #1 guild until gbg came out. It was about a half hour out of my day right before/after recalc. There's probably only a couple active major guilds on the map in my live world and one man guilds, the big thing is simply GBG. Its just like moving from the radio to the tv, the world turns and you're trying to tell me why I need to keep an old radio when the tv is just better in all areas.

 

[The Lady Redneck]

why I need to keep an old radio when the tv is just better in all areas.

You can draw endless comparisons between old things and new. Radios have changed a great deal in the last 8 years, So have TVs. I still prefer listening to music on the new radio system I have rather than through the TV. Each has its place. So have modes of transport. Just because we have a Silverado does not mean I am going to shoot my horse. I enjoy both. You originally said why not just get rid of GvG. Why not keep both and enjoy them?