Feedback Regarding Recent Feedback

[Juber]

Dear Kings and Queens,

This is the place to be if you have any questions about our statement or would like to discuss it with other players.
Please keep in mind that your opinion may differ from the opinions of other players, you don't have to convince each other of anything here.

We appreciate your feedback!

Please write your feedback in a factual and constructive way and stay on topic.
So that we can pass your feedback on to the developers, the following points would be important to note:

• Feedback that only contains one sentence like "One sentence feedback." is not helpful. Please make sure to include reasons for your opinion.
• The same goes for positive feedback. We are happy about it of course, but describing what exactly you like is always very helpful!
• Limit your feedback to the actual content. Feedback like "You should improve X" or feedback that refers to other game content or previous events is not helpful.
• Use the "Like" button if another player has already reflected your opinion well.

Thank you very much and have fun!

Sincerely,
Your Forge of Empires Team

 

[MooingCat]

The biggest thing I'd like to see is more transparency around the feedback process. You write of a weekly meeting to discuss feedback, it would be great to get some kind of summary or at least indications of what was discussed. I realize not everything can be shared back, but any kind of acknowledgement or insight into the whole process would help greatly. It would make it easier for the players to understand what feedback has been received and what the Dev team is looking at, which will also make it easier to give more relevant feedback

 

[DEADP00L]

You talk about SAJM and our frustration, but in no way about your laxity!
Don't fool us, a year to make a fourth copy of the age of March, without any real novelty, or even an attractive GB... what did you expect in terms of comments from the assiduous community?

You talk about a dialogue with the players but you only "listen" to us (and still I often have doubts) without ever bringing anything as an answer.
For my part, I would prefer that you tell us that you do not want to implement a suggestion rather than silence or the eternal phrase "we will study the case", especially when 1 year later there is no other answer or modification .

In addition, when I regularly read Jubber who claims not to HAVE THE RIGHT to say more, I wonder about your willingness to communicate and show respect to your community.

Finally, I will end with your hypocrisy.
You say the beta server is there to improve the game but you also say that due to a busy schedule you have to implement things on the live servers without any changes based on feedback from the beta server.
And yet the solution would be simple, shift at least 1 more month between the beta test and the application of the live servers.

So thank you for posting this announcement, but I expect more action than words.

 

[ArklurBeta]

As Moo said, more communication would help a lot. Don't know how much you can tell us, but from our perspective, some sort of detailed message about the feedback, what was the decision regarding them, or even mentioning that "we are still thinking on this one, whether we should do it 'X' or 'Y' way", or something like that.

For example, I trust @MooingCat's numbers for the events, so if his numbers tell that you need to be very lucky to get a fully leveled event building, I consider it being true, and if that's the case, I'm wondering if Inno really considers it being "okay" if players won't be able to get them, even if playing daily, but not spending money on event currency. For this matter, a clear response would be nice. I did see that the paper money (event currency) you can get was increased, but based on Moo's numbers, one still needs luck to get a fully leveled event building, and that's if you have the box. In short, I don't think players shouldn't be able to get a fully leveled event building if they play daily, finishing all quests, collecting "most" of the incidents, even without the box.

 

[Finkadel]

So this is what I understood:

Bla, bla, bla, find our minor mistakes so we can fix them because we don't actually play the game, bla bla, bla, it is not your business, but ours, bla bla bla, will never speak to you again, because apart from minor mistakes we do not care what you think, bla, bla, bla.

Congratulations, you nailed it.

 

[Owl II]

I still think that the main problem is you don't know your game and don't understand how it is played. We see examples at every step.
New GB: you hear that players don't like the slow extraction of special materials. But you are doing GB which does not solve these problems. And the problem itself is more in the minds of some players than in practice. Any player of the space age can collect tens and hundreds of thousands of special goods a year before the release of the new age. He doesn't need to build synthesizers. He doesn't need GB, which increases the production of synthesizers.

You hear requests to make multiple purchases of FP for coins. But you did it in a perverse way that does not solve the main problem, the limit of 10 FP in the scale.

The players asked to assign a separate type to the rogues so they could put a filter(fast, heavy, light, artillery, ranged...+ rogues). You have added another line to the list of eras to select. What for? Filtering a rogues with the choice age does not require intervention in the program code. Any player who has not reached the extreme age puts the filter on the age above his own. Players of the extreme era put a filter on the bronze age.

You do this every time the players start asking for something en mass. We understand that this comes from a lack of knowledge of the game. But it looks like a mockery of the players.

 

[drakenridder]

Another bright example is the lack of coming back on an content for coming up with new GB bonuses. So far only Alcatraz's and CF's bonuses where acknowledged to be player's ideas. While good and interesting ideas where made none saw the day of light so far. Instead lacklustre GB bonuses. Another awesome example are some bonuses that could've been an great and unique bonus for an future settlement reward, eg shorter exploration time yet the castle system got introduced and took many similar good bonuses with it. Technically yes they where introduced but factually the execution of them fall flat.
As others said more transparency would be much appreciated. In particular the concerns regarding space ages. I would strongly suggest to holding an contend globally and collecting top 10 ideas. Then sorting out doubles and holding globally and voting process for the best ideas for space ages. Whatever comes op on top could be introduced in an future space age. Similarly something could be done for an grand GbG overhaul which has been requested for I don't know how many years. Among other serious concerns. Yet all those are either dismissed or acknowledged and ignored afterwards or at best with GbG answered with an reskin and a few new toys to get.

 

[-Alin-]

Make these SPACE AGE GBs actually work for space age, the new boost in the AI CORE it never was meant for a SAJM player.

Not to mention for a few guild goods a normal 1.9 player will have to spend from 0 to 100, a „cheap” ammount of 130k forge points.
Make it worth its name and its looking, at least make it give 3x5 goods per level first 80 levels then make it give 2x5 goods after level 80, and the passive boost it should really work on continent map goods sites, at least make it usefull for SAJM players, dont force people use 2way lanes and synthesizers for older special goods, as harbor and terminal doesnt require any space in main city ...

 

[DEADP00L]

For the troops, for example, you have started some good ideas without fully exploiting them.
Like so-called "stealth" troops, make invisible troops on a type of terrain that could be seen (and therefore touched) only in contact OR if you have at least one weak troop unaware of invisibility.
Thus each player would have to make a choice to use only 7 strong troops or not to see the opposing invisible troops.

For the GB, either you make a useful GB MAINLY for the era concerned, or you integrate the special resources in the construction of this GB.

I'm not saying my ideas are amazing, but I think there are enough thoughtful players to bring you ideas to develop instead of just copying and pasting from previous eras.

 

[JhonnyBn]

What players mean by "transparency" is answers. We want feedback to our feedback

After the development team discusses the feedback, we would like to hear what you think.

For example, ideas that were fowarded but not implemented. Why they were not implemented?
The scope of the idea is too big? Lack of details in the idea? This is not the direction Inno wants to the game? The team is already working on other stuff (and will be implemented later?)? Just Why?

After many players say something about a new feature or event (generally unhappy), we would like to see an official response "We are looking into this and have not yet decided how is the best method to handle this problem".

Moreover, we would love to hear what are you trying to do to solve the problem. "We are looking into changing X to Y. What do you think about that?".
That way, players could provide feedback to you (inno) during the planning process.

About new features:

It is impossible to predict what players will do with new features, but if you include players in the planning phase we can help build a better product faster and with less effort (you do not have to scrap or re-do a feature if the players are happy with it before it is implemented). A big group of advanced players (like the beta playerbase) can see a lot of things that the inno team couldn't see (by number of minds thinking about something)

Take advantage of all of your many fans that dedicate many hours to this game. Talk to us about what you would like to introduce to the game (before you do it), and we will give hints about what we like and dislike before you waste time on some lacking feature.

The more you say about something before it is live, more we can give feedback and more you can develop a better update.

 

[Havik79]

I would agree more transparency would be a good start, another good idea would be to remember your job, which is making a game, leave political statements to twitter yeah, especially pointless things, sorry but tell me when you have donated money or something of actual help, not just posting an image which does nothing.

Also maybe try talking to us about some new mechanic or whatever you want to add to the game, we have dataminers hunting out info as it is, why not say hay what are your thoughts on adding a new event building which gives out more fragments of things.

I know what is happening in the world is messed up, but pictures do not change things, or help anyone who needs it.

 

[outoftheline]

[...] but if you include players in the planning phase we can help build a better product faster and with less effort (you do not have to scrap or re-do a feature if the players are happy with it before it is implemented).

I think they tried that to some extend with the Guild Perks.
The feature was not polished - which Inno said when releasing it on Beta - and we could also suggest perks. But from what I've read in the feedback threads players did not really get what Inno was trying to do there. And.. the feature was not that great in the first place.
With the perks they were also pretty transparent and did not release it, because of the negative feedback.
If they ever get back to it, they might make it more to our liking? Hope so.

Maybe it's sometimes hard for Inno to tell if players are just annoyed by a change, but will get used to it eventually, or if the change really is that bad. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[JhonnyBn]

I think they tried that to some extend with the Guild Perks.
The feature was not polished - which Inno said when releasing it on Beta - and we could also suggest perks. But from what I've read in the feedback threads players did not really get what Inno was trying to do there. And.. the feature was not that great in the first place.

I don't know if I'm using the right terms, but the point is talking about it before the idea is in alfa, way before beta. They already implemented it and were looking for ways to improve it. I'm talking about a big idea post (like we do with suggestions) and we would give feedback about the idea, before it even exists in alfa.

For example, instead of releasing a "we hope to see your feedback on this unfinished feature being launched on beta X day" they could have said "We are planning on doing this with this requirements and this list of bonuses. What do you think?" and many of the feedback on beta release day would have already been heard before they wasted time developing the idea on alpha, and they could focus on a new list at that moment. One month later, with a nice list they could check for feedback again, and if it's good then they begin to develop it in game and everyone will be happy and inno doesn't waste face, time and effort in bad ideas

Maybe it's sometimes hard for Inno to tell if players are just annoyed by a change, but will get used to it eventually, or if the change really is that bad. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's really true

 

[DEADP00L]

I think they tried that to some extend with the Guild Perks.
The feature was not polished - which Inno said when releasing it on Beta - and we could also suggest perks. But from what I've read in the feedback threads players did not really get what Inno was trying to do there. And.. the feature was not that great in the first place.

This is the only time and because no comment was positive.
But let's see if the application of the new age will undergo, on the same principle, big changes.
I bet not!
The worst is that on my live server, I will still be entitled to: "but you are not able to make yourself understood on the beta forum so that this dung arrives here?"

 

[outoftheline]

This is the only time and because no comment was positive.

Well, that's not entirely true.

Feature scrapped (might come back now after 4 years?) https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/new-feature-show-hall.8794/
Removed some changes after feedback (okay, not only beta feedback): https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.c...guild-vs-guild-improvements.10580/#post-91730
Postponed due to feedback: https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guild-forum-removal-postponed.13683/
And that's just what I could think of from the top of my head ^^

Still, it's not enough.
I'm especially disappointed with the new era. The most loyal players have to play in that era for an entire year, it has to be good enough.

 

[Nickneck the Lion]

I've only been playing FoE for 3 years, I've been active in the forum for 1 year. In my experience, you want feedback, but you don't give us any. How do we know if suggestions and ideas make sense? Some things are forwarded, but you implement almost nothing. Why don't you have the courage to send your developers and game designers to the forum and discuss ideas here? Every player knows that not all wishes can be implemented. We are currently thinking about the future of the game and possible new content and improvements without feedback. I make games for the players and so that Inno earns money, but without players it won't work.
I have been looking forward to SAJM for 1 year now, but I don't know yet if I should change the era. The only reason would be the land expansions and this is not really a reason.

 

[outoftheline]

I'm talking about a big idea post (like we do with suggestions) and we would give feedback about the idea, before it even exists in alfa.

Hmm, I don't know if that would work.
The feedback you get here on beta is mostly from pretty advanced and involved players. They also need to think of new players, casual players and so on.

 

[DEADP00L]

instead of making facebook videos that are supposed to be exchanges where none of the real expected questions are ever selected, do a chat with members of the beta forum.
it will be less commercial but much more in line with our requests.
and if the developers really don't have time to answer in chat, select about twenty members of the forum that YOU consider interesting or constructive to set up a real dialogue.

 

[DEADP00L]

you also have the possibility to regularly make polls on your future achievements or on the requests of the players!
but unlike the sprint where the players spent more time developing suggestions than you spent making 1% of them, report rejections with explanations to better guide our contributions later.

 

[Nickneck the Lion]

The guild perks were the reason I started playing on Beta. I had hoped that this would make the guilds more attractive and useful again. How is it now, the prestige is useless, the support pool bonus is only useful for GvG. It is unimportant for app players, building discounts have also become uninteresting thanks to the event buildings. Ultimately, only the recruitment boost is interesting. Something urgently needs to be done here to make guilds more interesting again. Of the 8 possible guild perks, I didn't find any really convincing. There were many suggestions from the community, why were the top 10 not put up for selection and then the 3 best implemented for testing? Then we could have tested and given further feedback. I'm sure that players spend more time in the game on Beta than developers, programmers or game designers. A car engineer knows the technology, but doesn't necessarily know what the driving comfort is like when you're driving 600 km a day. Inno simply has to talk more with the players.