Feedback Regarding Recent Feedback

[Owl II]

Events and features within Forge of Empire are a large undertaking that requires considerable resources in terms of time, planning, and staff. And for good reason, they are core to the Forge of Empires experience.

Not exactly what you were waiting for here, but I will say (not for the first time): events are core to the Forge of Empires experience. But it also kill the game. Because the only purpose and reason to play it is buildings. But the space in the city is limited and we can't collect buildings indefinitely. If you made the goal of the events not to get buildings, but some of competition, it would change the whole game. You even tried to introduce this in the football (tournament part), but implicitly. The idea is good. It needs to be developed. But you have to come up with a form of competition that fits well into the context of the game. Otherwise, you can ruin everything. Example: a tournament in a football event is perceived by players mostly positively. PVP arena, which is made in likeness, turned to be a failure

 

[Nickneck the Lion]

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.

I play properly on live in my main world in SAV. However, I am on the move in 6 other worlds from the Iron Age to the Arctic future, so I also know the problems in these ages. Of course, I have more experience than a completely new player.

 

[xivarmy]

The statement contains a lot of platitudes that I'm sure most of us know to be true. But doesn't really address any specifics at all.

Let's take Jupiter Moon (because honestly the 10th anniversary event being another unexciting event could be viewed as a matter of taste):

- not even the units changed much from venus - this was for a while one of the few things we could count on being different. Here we changed two abilities (to other long-existing abilities). And nerfed the range on a unit that was barely used in venus anyways. Job's done. I realize by now it's too late to backpedal on this really, animations are done - and changes that could be made may well be for the worse. But this was not an unforeseeable complaint.
- the quests since SAAB have been a point of contention for the amount of aborts they require to get to something you do want to do. Certainly one of the reasons my current main is sitting in OF and not moving forward. Still not addressed.
- you asked for feedback on colonies some time back - back in SAAB if i recall. Got lots of ideas. Colony's still the same in SAV. and still the same in SAJM.
- the GB's not exciting - not awful either - but it missed the mark when it comes to potentially offering something valued and unique. which: it happens, not every GB should be great. But we only get 1 GB per age now, so it raises the stakes for those waiting for something new they want. "Maybe next time" is a whole year away.

Perhaps the biggest question, giving that individually any of the above could be swallowed if it came with some good news: what *did* you accomplish about the new age? Who other than the art department earned their paycheck working on this new age?

 

[iPenguinPat]

There is a major gap between what Inno Says and what Inno does regarding feedback and players. Something simple like moving a "heal all" button that was obviously an issue took months of complaining to get fixed. Or the GBG matchmaking issue which took months of complaining and being told lies by support (i.e. nothing is wrong, matchmaking is random) before finally fixing it. But when there's the rare something that benefits players, it gets "fixed" practically overnight.

Forge/inno could easily get a small group of players to vet ideas before wasting valuable development resources on them. Instead, arrogant game designers force-feed players their lousy ideas (while having an extremely restrictive DNSL which basically limits suggestions to UI updates only - preventing any real discussion about good, balanced features and ideas).

Reference: PVP Arena, Perks, Event Hub (seriously?! lol), flying n00b trap, Virgo project, 4 copy/paste space ages, heal all, fighting RQs/RQ about limit, multiple Recalcs per day (but no changes to landing zones), lack of in-game rule enforcement, no mobile gvg, no gvg rewards, no gbg balancing, suppressive/oppressive communication restrictions, etc.

A core group of truly top endgame players could help to vet a lot of these ideas as either bad or what could be done to improve them. Instead, inno just re-uses code and mechanics across all their games, and while there's nothing specifically wrong with that, failing to provide a unique experience is a failure.

Juber is lightyears ahead of any other mod or CM that we've seen on the forums but is still forced to withhold the majority of details that players want. We have no timelines, no reasoning, and no sign of improvement moving forward.

In many ways, The players of Forge have become hostages of innogames in this sense - We have invested countless hours (and in some cases huge sums of money) into this game and it is a major social ecosystem for many players - to leave this game would be leaving behind a huge part of what players have built accomplished (and having to start over somewhere else.). On one hand, there is a sense of appreciation for making a fun/great game for many years, but on the other hand, there is a feeling a betrayal that things have gone so far off course from where it was when we started.

There used to be great anticipation about new ages, new GBs, new events, etc. Now, all we have to look forward to are copy/paste ages, time consuming monthlong events every 2 weeks, and garbage features that add no excitement, adventure, or challenge to the game.

Player surveys would help. A less restrictive DNSL would help (at least let players discuss why bad ideas are bad rather than killing them before the discussion starts). A Trello board with status updates about what inno is working on would be huge (many other games have this type of thing). At least we could see if inno was even hearing our feedback in a tangible way.

 

[Thunderdome]

I think many have already said their piece, so I am going to say mine.

There was some suggestions I had hoped for when the sprint came about to make their "improved" debut, but they are ignored. One of which is the Victory Tower. At 1x1 footprint, it gives a tiny amount of medals within a 7 day period. GBs that give out medals do it at 1 day. Wishing Wells/Fountain of Youths give them out in a day. Certain event buildings (as random or intended) give them out in a day. Placing on a player's GB gives them out depending on the time a person's GB is being placed in a 1.x thread or swap thread. Incidents give them out (at random) when collected. And certain quests (GE, recurring, etc.) give them out whenever it is triggered. The only difference between a VT and the latter is the latter gave out more than just the dinky VT. The only thing a VT is good for (including the upgrade kit) is to be sold to the AD so I can clean my inventory of them since certain places try to award such junk (useless things) to me to get what little AD currency I can get.

I am providing the VT as an example of how communication between a player that is providing some feedback, the liaison (either forum admins/moderators), and the developers is faring these days. I used to run a forum myself on a service that I was offering. I would have folks who can be there to help the end user with things so I don't have to be there all the time. If I think a person's idea is feasible then I will voice that to them. If I think a person's idea won't work, I will do that as well... either through myself or my representative along with some kind of feedback so they know instead of the "your idea(s) won't be considered" without an explanation shtick.

In the first few years, Inno was really good on their things as they had listened to the players. It's the later years that players felt like they were put out to the curb, including myself, that sometimes we asked ourselves "what is the point of providing feedback if the developer isn't going to listen?" Many players had suggested things to improve this game, to identify problematic things (cough, GBG/GvG, cough), and to generate new ideas that will make it worthwhile to play. We're not asking to make the game easier for us, we're just asking to make it fun and worthwhile to play.

In short, if you say our feedback is "valuable" then act like it is and throw us a bone back.

 

[drakenridder]

the support pool bonus is only useful for GvG

To a limited level, 75% defensive bonus cap ain't gonna be noticed by anyone.xd

 

[Nickneck the Lion]

To a limited level, 75% defensive bonus cap ain't gonna be noticed by anyone.xd

You're right there, I have Off.1700 and Def. 1600, only since I'm excluded from GvG as an App player, it's a useless boost. For example, if you had 75% plus on the key sector in GbG, that would be interesting ;-)

 

[jmtiago]

there are 4 topics that continue to spoil the game that need to be discussed:
gvg, bugs and slowness
GBG matchmaking, not random at all
multiple accounts
bots

 

[UBERhelp1]

I think one of the core problems that is being run into here is that many players feel as if their feedback and ideas are sent into a void. To be quite frankly honest, it feels as if the developers don't interact with the community. In many other games you'd see developers on the forums, maybe messaging on a bug report to say a fix is on the way, or asking a question to clarify a player's ideas. But instead, what we have is players in those roles and the developers nowhere to be found. The only time we do get interaction is from moderators (to be clear, I respect the mods and think they're great, just that they aren't directly working on the game itself).

As for the line in the statement about balancing, I think that's another massive problem. Inno has walled themselves into a situation where two things are blatantly obvious: anything released in a new age (except maybe GB/troops) will have no major impact on the game, and fighting is the only possible strategy. To the former, event buildings and special buildings have become so strong to the point where there is no way that any tech tree building can compete. With the first events gave stronger buildings (think WW) rarely, now you can get a city of them easily. Many players ask for new ages, but is there any true reason for that? What does that give you? New units, a new town hall, and... that's all that matters. If you want to balance the game with new ages, then something must be done to make new ages actually valuable to the player. To the second topic, there is also only one strategy in this game. To fight, and fight faster. There's no alternative. You can't negotiate. The only thing that matters is increasing that attack boost higher and higher and higher.

To be honest, I don't see a possible solution to these problems. And as much as I hate to say it, I don't think really anyone does either. You can't substantially nerf all the buildings in the game to make tech tree buildings useful again. You can't greatly increase the strength of enemies without pulling the rug out from many players. And you can't make any substantial change to the game's structure without angering many of those who have put years and money into the game.

I think that what Inno has to do right now are the following. Immediately.

1. Keep communication lines open. Let us know that you're listening. Let us see you checking the forums. Anything.
2. Ask for player feedback. If you can't solve the problem, maybe someone else will have a good idea.
3. Increase time between beta releases and live. Give more time for feedback, communication, and testing. Additionally, I would recommend some sort of system where more players could try out changes (test accounts? Maybe extra beta worlds where you can get a test city set up for testing different aspects of releases?)
4. Visibility of a/b testing. If two players see different things, let us know why. Especially on live servers (but also see #3).
5. Either go all in, or admit defeat. You've lose a lot of credibility in the player's eyes. Give us reasons to stay interested.

 

[mcbluefire]

Wait. You want us to provide feedback on your thread "Regarding Recent Feedback"? Isn't that the very definition of a shorted feedback loop? Are we really insane enough? I suppose we are.

Forum Bot: "I hope this at least addresses partially the concerns you have raised. As a primary goal of ours, we would like to improve transparency, and therefore, we would like you to get involved in the discussion."

Who is "I" in this letter? The Forge team?

Great, improve transparency by RESPONDING to us with more than "feedback provided", "can't go into details", "issue fixed" or other generic terms that tell us nothing.

If you want to involve us in the discussion you have to address major concerns by acknowledging them, stating what is being taken to the devs, and how they reacted to the concerns overall. We get absolutely none of that so we are not in a discussion.
I'll give you some examples (although I know I am wasting my time):

• SAJM GB: It is my understanding that the benefits provided by the GB appear to be unrelated to SAJM, primarily helpful to only players in certain ages, also the guild good bonus is perceived as subpar when compared to the FE GB "The Arc". I am taking this to the devs.
  • Dev reaction was appreciative of the feedback and they are willing to consider the limited range of the GB's primary benefit. The guild good bonus is unlikely to change. It is possible that another bonus will be considered that benefits players in SAJM specifically.
• FP Purchase window: Prevailing feedback is that the diamond and coin buttons are too close and that a 100 FP purchase option would be appreciated.
  • Devs concur that the UI could use some tweaking and the buttons will be spaced better in a coming update.
  • Devs do not agree that a 100FP purchase button should be provided at this time.
• ForgePlus: Feedback is pricing is prohibitive for the typical player to purchase more than once a year and that some additional options and/or lower price point might make it more marketable.
  • Devs are not ready to make comments about this system at the moment, however they are aware of the concerns and want this system to be profitable and enjoyable for all who participate. Following initial testing blah blah..
• SAJM: Feedback overwhelming notes that most of the mechanics appear to be copy and paste of the previous space ages while the art is commended as beautiful.
  • Devs plan to make three more space ages before adopting new systems as they need to spend their time on events.
• Events: Feedback appears to be that players would appreciate more time spent on building out interesting new ages instead of regular events.
  • Devs and Management are considering cutting back on number of events and instead increasing their duration to free up devs for the next age.

Hope that reflects how a feedback loop might look in a environment of discussion.

Best of luck.

 

[Amdira]

I guess one of the problems is, that it's only very few players here in the forum giving feedback at all and 90% are playing FoE for combat in the first place. I don't think this has been the intention of the game to make it a full combat game, but a strategy game, as it is still described. But there are many players who don't want to spend all their time on combat - you just won't see them here, because they are being mocked from the beginning and tried to be convinced, that FoE is a combat game and there is no other way to play it. I'm watching this also on live servers - whenever a new player is asking for help, it starts with Oracle bashing and ends with convincing them to concentrate on combat and nothing else. Maybe combat is the best way to take a seat in the TOP 10, but not everyone is interested in clicking auto-fight some thousand times a day.
Looking at the new features of the last 2 years I see the attempt to make it more attractive for those players, who don't want to spend all their time on combat, but also on building and make negotiatons and teamplay within the guilds more attractive again (started with settlements, space carrier, auto select for negotiations, more goods in event-buildings and last but not least guild perks).
What I try to say is, that the interests of current beta-forum-members are rather one-sided and just won't help devs to implement features for non-combat, new and casual players. On the other hand I understand when very active players are frustrated if new eras seemingly are just copy-paste and don't bring new attractive features. Also the new GB is not really of interest for SAJM players, but more for AF-players upwards. There were many suggestions for improvement, but I lost hope, that anything will be changed. That may be the main reason for frustration and the feeling, that beta-feedback is just being ignored.
Just my 2 Cents

 

[DEADP00L]

You want feedback to improve the game but you don't seem ready to make concessions. There are lots of things to do though, often simple, but are you willing to challenge yourself?

- Remove points earned in GvG, whether for guild ranking or individual ranking. So that there is real fairness between browser and application.
- Overhaul the general ranking system to integrate all kinds of facets of the game instead of representing the fights at 99%. Thus you will demonstrate the richness of the game which is not just one way to play.
- restore interest in being in an active guild rather than letting solo-guilds flourish to benefit from the same advantages. FOE is a self-help game where you have to proportionalize the advantages according to the number of members per guild.
- reduce the element of randomness which is omnipresent and which makes the game look more like a casino than a strategic game.
- retest the advantages of guilds but with criteria which impose the participation of all members, even weak, for advantages higher than their costs.
- respond frankly to the eternal complaints about mass po/mo, the purchase of PF in large quantities, ...
- develop the already existing facets instead of wanting to create new ones. The Tavern is a great idea, too bad it has never seen an addition in 4 years of existence. The antique dealer will fall into disuse with non-targeted offers.
- give guild expeditions more prominence, it's the only facet of the game that involves all members without any interference from other guilds.
- revise to a real balancing of GBG so that the championship has at least a meaning in its definition. (good suggestions abound)
- find usefulness in the elements you have put in place and which accumulate unnecessarily (medals, gold, special resources, ...) In a management or strategy game, a player must struggle to accumulate important elements , never the other way around.
- instead of sending us a message in the game each time a facebook article is published, do regular surveys on areas of work.

And if you don't think all of these remarks are wise, say so frankly instead of a silence or the typical phrase "we will study the matter". Be honest and respect your community.

 

[Jules]

Why developers and game designers can't spend 20 minutes of their day engaging in these forums is beyond me. It seems like the management culture has Inno completely walled in. Juber has been godsent and is lightyears ahead of any other CM but without change from the top nothing will be changing.

This feedback for our feedback thread just shows Inno is not interested in engaging. But at least they know players here are not appreciating the game's direction? That's a good thing right?

 

[DEADP00L]

This feedback for our feedback thread just shows Inno is not interested in engaging.

This is what I fear, once again.
They started this discussion and it's a good bet that at best we have some standard phrases and at worst we don't see them here for weeks.

In each video game company, there is a digital communication manager.
The objective of this manager is not to be out of step with the expectations of Internet users and technological developments. It offers online communication strategies to optimize the use of new products.
Its main missions revolve around interfaces with users. It is he who manages the activity of the company vis-à-vis customers and has the following missions:
– Define the communication policy on the internet
– Identify the strategy to follow
– Ensure the sale of advertising space on the internet
– Provide information on any changes
– Establish the online media plan
– Creation of online events following meetings with advertisers

 

[Finkadel]

This statement and THIS thread in particular was not to gain knowledge by Inno developers. No. It was for us, end players, to have a thread to further discuss pointless complaints.

Pointless. Yes, that is exactly what they are. I imagine people responsible for further development of the game (I highly doubt that they are "developers", more likely they are accountants) have lower ranks to tell them what community thinks. And if it is not what they are after, well, that is community fault, not theirs... You mention "guild perks" as an example, that they "listen" to us. No, they don't. They only saw final outcome - no money for them. That is all. I play the game for 8 years altogether. I used to grant them some doubt, but now I am sure I was crazy to do that. See, even free from fee workers are defending those payed by Inno for not having time to answer to community questions. It's like financial pyramid, no one ever is making a mistake, it's only us, who are paying for this... things... are mistaken that we are not happy with them...

I know their accountants are only to see fresh players or fresh worlds to keep them going. But without us, endgame players, there won't be anything to aspire to or achive. SAJM GB is just a joke, not useful for SAJM players in any way. No way, since we have Arcs levelled to maximum capacity. I used to love the game, but now... Well, thanks to Inno I have plenty of time to play other games, thank you Inno!

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

Want Feedback?
Delete GvG totally and add those precious guild ranking points to 1st through third in GBG each season and watch how competitive it gets...

 

[ArklurBeta]

Want Feedback?
Delete GvG totally and add those precious guild ranking points to 1st through third in GBG each season and watch how competitive it gets...

Don't want to hijack the thread and start a completely off conversation, but that would be a very interesting experiment, because my vote is that it wouldn't change that much. Most of the guilds who use GBG for farming, wouldn't really care about the points, you don't really get anything that useful for being in the TOP guilds. For those who play on a competitive level, wouldn't make too much difference, since they are already fighting to be the #1. Not saying none, but it wouldn't do a hard 180 turn for people.

 

[DEADP00L]

Don't remove GvG, a lot of elders are attached to it, but remove all implications (points for individual and guild rankings) in order to achieve some fairness between browser and application.

 

[Nickneck the Lion]

This would at least be a step forward by putting browser and app players on an equal footing in the ranking. However, it does not change the fact that Inno needs to actively communicate between developers and game designers. And finally bring new eras with new game mechanics, not just copy and paste. The same applies to the events. It is also not necessary to start an event almost every month. If the game is interesting and challenging, it creates excitement and fun. Then 4 very good events per year are enough. And there is also time to fix the bugs in the game.

 

[xivarmy]

Don't remove GvG, a lot of elders are attached to it, but remove all implications (points for individual and guild rankings) in order to achieve some fairness between browser and application.

They're attached to the guild implications to it too If you remove the guild ranking, you may as well just remove it.