Closing Down Shop?

DeletedUser36085

Guest
It seems the main issue is Inno won’t publicize what their long-term plans are for the game, and that’s causing us to wildly speculate, lose interest and grow pessimistic, considering the signs that point to the game’s death.

Are Inno trying to revitalize the game while maximizing profits? Are they trying to innovate the game? Are they trying to retain their paying customers? We can’t know for sure.

It seems what we think will help the game isn’t what Inno think will help the game. Weird.
 

DeletedUser54775

Guest
It seems the main issue is Inno won’t publicize what their long-term plans are for the game, and that’s causing us to wildly speculate, lose interest and grow pessimistic, considering the signs that point to the game’s death.

Are Inno trying to revitalize the game while maximizing profits? Are they trying to innovate the game? Are they trying to retain their paying customers? We can’t know for sure.

It seems what we think will help the game isn’t what Inno think will help the game. Weird.
You bring a good point. As players, we might be losing confidence on InnoGames. Domination was supposed to fix many things, but it clearly backfired.
Perhaps it is too hard to try to fix the game for them, and they just might close shop and move on to other games. This would be sad. The game could be improved and fixed with really minor rule changes. No need to make it too complicated. I am wondering myself if I should play again other games.
 

DeletedUser36085

Guest
You bring a good point. As players, we might be losing confidence on InnoGames. Domination was supposed to fix many things, but it clearly backfired.
Perhaps it is too hard to try to fix the game for them, and they just might close shop and move on to other games. This would be sad. The game could be improved and fixed with really minor rule changes. No need to make it too complicated. I am wondering myself if I should play again other games.

I’m playing Forge of Empires right now and enjoying it, despite how much of a money grab it is. And FoE is doing fine, though I do believe Inno may lose many players due to a) too much money grab, b) not much communication between Inno themselves and us, players, and c) lack of advertising through word of mouth and social media (due to point a).

I do enjoy the strategy, organization, administration and planning in both Grepo and Forge. Resource and space management are my favourite aspects of strategies. It will be sad if Grepo dies.
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
Domination wasn't perfect, but the reason it backfired was that some people tried to play it in the same way as they were used to playing WWs. Given the mess that those tactics made of Leontini, I do have hope that other Domination worlds will be more of a success.

While perhaps not brilliantly received, Inno did try another addition in the form of Casual Worlds. A lot of the vocal community seems to look down on the idea (so far as I have heard), but there are quite a few people enjoying that world, as it allows them to play the game without quite as much of a time commitment (one of the tougher aspects of the game).

It has also been mentioned in a recent update log that Inno are working on an exciting new feature. No clue as to what it is yet, but hopefully it's something good that will improve the game, even a little bit.
 

DeletedUser36697

Guest
I agree with your assessment. I have been on those Skype rooms, so this is not something based on speculation.

Oddly, enough these people that you are making reference to get really sensitive when you point the obvious. They start to see personal attacks where there are none intended. However, when someone gets upset or starts to perceive comments as personal attack it is usually a sign that unconsciously they know that you are telling the truth. This is why it highly bothers them.

oh gosh.. I wish you would follow your own words...
smiley_emoticons_lol.gif
 

DeletedUser36085

Guest
Domination wasn't perfect, but the reason it backfired was that some people tried to play it in the same way as they were used to playing WWs. Given the mess that those tactics made of Leontini, I do have hope that other Domination worlds will be more of a success.

While perhaps not brilliantly received, Inno did try another addition in the form of Casual Worlds. A lot of the vocal community seems to look down on the idea (so far as I have heard), but there are quite a few people enjoying that world, as it allows them to play the game without quite as much of a time commitment (one of the tougher aspects of the game).

It has also been mentioned in a recent update log that Inno are working on an exciting new feature. No clue as to what it is yet, but hopefully it's something good that will improve the game, even a little bit.
Great summary. I thought the biggest problem for Grepolis was to reinvigorate the game by attracting new players, but in fact, it is the strategies of the existing, veteran players that are stalling the development of the game’s new features. Also, the same strategies stall the retention of new and returning players, as they don’t find the game as fun anymore, as the hugging takes out the ‘war’ aspect out of Grepolis and the collusion between the top alliances prevents the world from ending, prolonging the less fun gameplay experience.
 

DeletedUser36085

Guest
Still think scrapping the end game and just making it a full on war game is the best idea.
I think that’s what they’re trying to do with domination, without scrapping the endgame. They want to emphasize that an alliance wins by being an alliance and doing alliance stuff, but the real consequences are twisted. Hopefully, the devs understand that the twisting of the gameplay will eventually kill the game.
 

DeletedUser17088

Guest
I'll admit that even though my presence has been non existent since 2015, the itch sure is back for wanting to play.

however it seens Conquest speed 2/3 morale inactive doesnt exist any more :(
 

DeletedUser56207

Guest
I'll admit that even though my presence has been non existent since 2015, the itch sure is back for wanting to play.

however it seens Conquest speed 2/3 morale inactive doesnt exist any more :(

next conquest world they announce is most likely going to be speed 2/2 or possible 2/3 only month away :)
 

DeletedUser36085

Guest
I'll admit that even though my presence has been non existent since 2015, the itch sure is back for wanting to play.

however it seens Conquest speed 2/3 morale inactive doesnt exist any more :(
There will be a 2/3 conquest world, but I think they’re moving away from inactive morale. Probably because golders would ruin all the rest of the fun for the non-golders.
 

DeletedUser45141

Guest
There's a LOT more competition now. Full mobile games are being preferred by gamers of this genre. I know Grepo is mainly a browser based game and a lot more benefits comes with using a browser to play it. But if Inno does not decide to improve its mobile app version then it has no chance to compete with the other games on that platform.
 

DeletedUser36085

Guest
There's a LOT more competition now. Full mobile games are being preferred by gamers of this genre. I know Grepo is mainly a browser based game and a lot more benefits comes with using a browser to play it. But if Inno does not decide to improve its mobile app version then it has no chance to compete with the other games on that platform.
I didn’t know the app was lagging in comparison to other mobile games. If that’s the case, then this does make attracting a wider audience a bigger issue. How many people play browser MMOs these days, anyway?

There are many better optimized games on mobile, but nothing like Grepolis comes to mind.
 

DeletedUser56292

Guest
If that’s the case, then this does make attracting a wider audience a bigger issue. How many people play browser MMOs these days, anyway?
App improvements might help attract new players but keeping them? Hell no. The root of the issue stems from how the devs/forum community answered "how do we keep innovating and making Grepolis exciting?"

From a marketing perspective, the answer would be create new units, add exciting stuff etc. Which to be fair, members of the community did suggest.

Instead, we got the 'engineering'/boring answer of new infrastructure. Gold uses, Mobile Attack Alarms, Grepolis Intel, Victim Finder and other sorts of structural improvements.

But hang on, doesn't more and better features mean improved experiences?

If you are reading this, probably. But you are/never were the majority. The overwhelming majority of players back when worlds used to fill were casuals. These changes the devs have made over the years weren't for the casuals, they were for you (i.e the most vocal and best value customers). It's a lot like natural selection really, the more competitive and full-on Grepolis became the thinner the population came. The casuals have died out and the remaining population has lots of money and/or lots of time. You NEED hundreds of dollars and/or a significant portion of your life to be competitive. Advertising, a new app and new units won't change that. The actual conditions of the game need to change so that casuals can begin enjoying the game again and maybe there will be a boost in players.

Inno has been either completely ignorant of their user base, or focused solely on extorting a profit out of the 1%. Either way, the playing community has also got themselves to blame.

Serious question here.

How many people enjoy the game and what part of it? And ask yourself if that's you talking or Inno's casino like game design.
 

DeletedUser32254

Guest
App improvements might help attract new players but keeping them? Hell no. The root of the issue stems from how the devs/forum community answered "how do we keep innovating and making Grepolis exciting?"

From a marketing perspective, the answer would be create new units, add exciting stuff etc. Which to be fair, members of the community did suggest.

Instead, we got the 'engineering'/boring answer of new infrastructure. Gold uses, Mobile Attack Alarms, Grepolis Intel, Victim Finder and other sorts of structural improvements.

But hang on, doesn't more and better features mean improved experiences?

If you are reading this, probably. But you are/never were the majority. The overwhelming majority of players back when worlds used to fill were casuals. These changes the devs have made over the years weren't for the casuals, they were for you (i.e the most vocal and best value customers). It's a lot like natural selection really, the more competitive and full-on Grepolis became the thinner the population came. The casuals have died out and the remaining population has lots of money and/or lots of time. You NEED hundreds of dollars and/or a significant portion of your life to be competitive. Advertising, a new app and new units won't change that. The actual conditions of the game need to change so that casuals can begin enjoying the game again and maybe there will be a boost in players.

Inno has been either completely ignorant of their user base, or focused solely on extorting a profit out of the 1%. Either way, the playing community has also got themselves to blame.

Serious question here.

How many people enjoy the game and what part of it? And ask yourself if that's you talking or Inno's casino like game design.

I have played on and off since en9. Not long ago I had intimate knowledge of what the players in the dominant alliance in a particular world was spending for a crown, it was insane. No other world for it. Way back in the day gold whoring was mostly looked down upon, now, and for some time, it is standard operating procedure.

No matter what you think of that, fact is the "big fish" need "little fish" to eat. Inno/grepo needs "little fish" to fill out the oceans and grow to be "big fish".
If/as the "little fish" notice that they are priced out, they don't play. If "little fish" don't play.....

I don't know how you fix this,, Inno needs profit, Grepo needs a more financially level playing field.

The best I have been able to think of is "Buy-In" worlds where gold use is limited to the initial buy-in purchase set for that world. = In a 5K world, 5K gold is all you have to spend for the duration of the world, budget wisely.-- or 20K, 2K, 10K, 100K, whatever the buy-in is for that world.
The big spenders can beat on each other's bank accounts in high buy-in worlds, the skill players and noobs can enjoy a game where they can be competitive.
 

DeletedUser56292

Guest
The best I have been able to think of is "Buy-In" worlds where gold use is limited to the initial buy-in purchase set for that world. = In a 5K world, 5K gold is all you have to spend for the duration of the world, budget wisely.-- or 20K, 2K, 10K, 100K, whatever the buy-in is for that world.
The big spenders can beat on each other's bank accounts in high buy-in worlds, the skill players and noobs can enjoy a game where they can be competitive.
Not a bad idea, I was thinking along the lines of having different features 'gold trading' etc. enabled/disabled for different worlds that way there may be a world available for every price point.

However, it's probably too late for any real difference to be made
 

DeletedUser56314

Guest
The best I have been able to think of is "Buy-In" worlds where gold use is limited to the initial buy-in purchase set for that world. = In a 5K world, 5K gold is all you have to spend for the duration of the world, budget wisely.-- or 20K, 2K, 10K, 100K, whatever the buy-in is for that world.
The big spenders can beat on each other's bank accounts in high buy-in worlds, the skill players and noobs can enjoy a game where they can be competitive.
It's definitely something they should consider.
 
Top