• 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.

Wheres the feedback thread for the new army management testing

Or is that hidden from the B group too? Can't even tell us what they're going to be doing with the feature, just say its coming soon or it's already out. How vague can an announcement be?
 
In this case it is not exactly advantages, and that is what makes this even more aberrant, the number of battles that both groups can do is the same, now the speed with which they reach that value and the ease with which they reach that value is which will vary.

Obviously, in GBG the "advantage" may be that those who have this possibility do more battles in the same sector than others (closing it faster), who have to spend more time arranging units. And those will win more personal prizes than the others.

I think they (inno) still don't account for what they lose with these tests in terms of credibility and public support. GE5 and the changes to the auto-completion of related missions had/have a very large negative impact (and no testes were done to determine these impacts).

I don't think there is a single player who is against this introduction (it will just make the battles less monotonous), it is truly aberrant that they are testing this. I want to see if they have enough shame to come here and say they won't introduce this to all players.
They are not doing this to test our activity in GE or GbG.
They are doing the test to check that it doesn't have a negative effect on player's spending. That is why they extended it to live so soon. Player's spending data in beta is too bad to be reliable.
But if they are testing it on live there was no sudden drop in spending on beta.
 
They are not doing this to test our activity in GE or GbG.
They are doing the test to check that it doesn't have a negative effect on player's spending. That is why they extended it to live so soon. Player's spending data in beta is too bad to be reliable.
But if they are testing it on live there was no sudden drop in spending on beta.
How do you connect automatic replenishment of units in with spending? From what I can tell, this new feature simplifies swapping out units (thereby saving time) but it has no effect on attrition (meaning the number of battles doesn't change) or on VP (meaning the craze to diamond rush buildings will go unabated). Also, if a player wants/needs to heal units using diamonds the new feature has no effect on that. In sum, the only impact that the new feature could have on spending is that, since it saves time, players can (1) used the saved time for activities outside of FOE, or (2) use the saved time to do other things in the game. The former has no effect on a player's in-game spending while the latter could result in more spending (but not less). What do you see that I am missing? How could the new feature have a negative effect on a player's spending?
 
How do you connect automatic replenishment of units in with spending? From what I can tell, this new feature simplifies swapping out units (thereby saving time) but it has no effect on attrition (meaning the number of battles doesn't change) or on VP (meaning the craze to diamond rush buildings will go unabated). Also, if a player wants/needs to heal units using diamonds the new feature has no effect on that. In sum, the only impact that the new feature could have on spending is that, since it saves time, players can (1) used the saved time for activities outside of FOE, or (2) use the saved time to do other things in the game. The former has no effect on a player's in-game spending while the latter could result in more spending (but not less). What do you see that I am missing? How could the new feature have a negative effect on a player's spending?
There is no link I'm aware of.
But if the feature decrease revenue (even if all players like it) then for Inno it might be better to roll the change back.

A company does not do AB testing to check if a feature works. That is what feed back is for (and bug reporting).
AB testing is for finding if a change in one place has, unexpected in this case, effect on revenues or costs. This is why AB testing is so used in marketing.

The effect might be strange like making GbG more boring and reducing participation >> less diamond spend on GbG's building >> less revenue. This is not a probable outcome, but it might happen.
 
There is no link I'm aware of.
But if the feature decrease revenue (even if all players like it) then for Inno it might be better to roll the change back.

A company does not do AB testing to check if a feature works. That is what feed back is for (and bug reporting).
AB testing is for finding if a change in one place has, unexpected in this case, effect on revenues or costs. This is why AB testing is so used in marketing.

The effect might be strange like making GbG more boring and reducing participation >> less diamond spend on GbG's building >> less revenue. This is not a probable outcome, but it might happen.
Beta testing can reveal if a change has an effect on revenue. A/B testing is used to determine which variant is better preferred by participants. INNO is attempting to see if players in the test group battle more than they used to and compare this result to what the players in the control group do during the same time frame. Any potential impact on revenue will take longer to quantify than I would expect for this A/B test to last.
 

Fenix

Viceroy
Isn't the simple fact of knowing that we are in an AB test and knowing which group we belong to, enough to change behaviour and, thus, make this test void?
 
Isn't the simple fact of knowing that we are in an AB test and knowing which group we belong to, enough to change behaviour and, thus, make this test void?
In this case, the behavior wouldn't change based on knowing. You either could or could not, did or did not. If they were testing out a pricing feature like some people got FOE+ for 30$ or 50$, then knowing which group you were in would probably affect if the people in the 50$ group waiting for the price to decrease versus the 30$ group more buying it because they know the option is either 30 or 50.
 

Fenix

Viceroy
In this case, the behavior wouldn't change based on knowing. You either could or could not, did or did not. If they were testing out a pricing feature like some people got FOE+ for 30$ or 50$, then knowing which group you were in would probably affect if the people in the 50$ group waiting for the price to decrease versus the 30$ group more buying it because they know the option is either 30 or 50.
Something similar to what I'm doing? I can do 1000 daily battles if I want, but I don't because it's boring and I'm hoping I can do them faster later. If I were in group A I would certainly have already done them all by now.
 

Sl8yer

Emperor
It is now getting silly. We were supposed to be doing an A/B test here for this new army management button. So why have they now started doing the test on the live servers. Right in the middle of a GBG season?????? Given INNOs idea of what "random selection" means, this could give some guilds a big advantage.
But more to the point was our testing it here just disregarded that they had to now test it live? They have launched far bigger (QI for instance) things in the game with far more bugs in them despite being told it was to soon. But here they said nothing and gave us no feed back at all. If they (as they say they do) read the comments we make, they will know they have been positive and constructive. Yet we are ignored. There is no point in Beta any longer, and NO the fact that it is obviously so, will not have me go to the discord monkey house.


They are doing it for the reasons they have explained. It does help if you read announcements. It saves a lot of unnescessary complaining.
 
Something similar to what I'm doing? I can do 1000 daily battles if I want, but I don't because it's boring and I'm hoping I can do them faster later. If I were in group A I would certainly have already done them all by now.
Haha the button wouldn't make the battle less boring, perhaps you could do more battles before becoming bored is what you mean?

Clearly letting people do battles faster is an extremely unethical thing to do a/b testing with, its about the $$$ somehow but I can't quite figure out how on that. It would be totally against innos values to do something so highly unethical just to make people mad though.
 

Fenix

Viceroy
Haha the button wouldn't make the battle less boring, perhaps you could do more battles before becoming bored is what you mean?

Clearly letting people do battles faster is an extremely unethical thing to do a/b testing with, its about the $$$ somehow but I can't quite figure out how on that. It would be totally against innos values to do something so highly unethical just to make people mad though.
Yes, that's it.

The $$$, the "heal all" button? I do not see other thing.
 

bilboman

Merchant
Feedback: one undesirable "feature" of replace units is that, if you change any units and then use replace units, it works from the original units not the modified ones. So if I had 2 artillery and 6 rogues and replaced the 2 artillery with 2 fast, replace units would replace the fast with artillery units as well as replacing any injured rogues. And if you didn't notice the substitution, you might get undesired results.
 
Top