On June 20th at 10:00 server time our next event, Grepolympia the Greek Cup, will begin. Feel free to leave your feedback here as well as discuss the event.
Grepolympia - Greek Cup Feedback Thread
- Thread starter Baudin Toolan
- Start date
J.n.c 1993
Strategos
Wonder how many people with fat wallets are looking forward to abuse this? 
DeletedUser36697
Guest
Ah here it is again............ the event that rewards big alliances, larger than 10, and bones all other smaller alliances or single players..
got to ask... what meds produce a sentence like this...
"Don’t miss this new take on our beloved event and make sure to join the competition before the event ends on July 2, 10:00am server time!"...
I would hate to see the announcement for an event that folks really disliked
got to ask... what meds produce a sentence like this...
"Don’t miss this new take on our beloved event and make sure to join the competition before the event ends on July 2, 10:00am server time!"...
I would hate to see the announcement for an event that folks really disliked
DeletedUser41523
Guest
So long as it's not OP idc.
DeletedUser47932
Guest
Just what we need another event (said with immense sarcasm). Talk about not listening to players when we say there are too many events in quick succession.
DeletedUser34939
Guest
From a guy who doesn't care if inno wants to milk people for money once a month with these things I really think we need to stop calling them events. If they are going to be dropped every 3 weeks can we just call them "things" or "happenings" or something? "Event" is a little too dramatic a term for an every day occurrence.
DeletedUser54775
Guest
I would tend to agree with the previous posters. These events "vulgarize" the game.
DeletedUser36697
Guest
So one member of our Alliance achieves a high score and posts the 3 x numbers he used to achieve that score....
I use the same 3 x numbers he used to achieve that score... and get way less a score than he did...............
Some one care to explain why the same scores don't get the same results?
I use the same 3 x numbers he used to achieve that score... and get way less a score than he did...............
Some one care to explain why the same scores don't get the same results?
DeletedUser31852
Guest
So my question is: one of my alliance mates did not get the cheaper festivals which is the community reward in Epidamnos... He was not in VM and has been playing for over 2 months. Weird thing is, my alliance got second spot in the ranking, so he has the defensive athenian shield buff in all of his cities, But not cheaper festivals.
Where should I report this? It's William Greatheart in Epidamnos
Where should I report this? It's William Greatheart in Epidamnos
DeletedUser54192
Guest
Did he participate in the match? I believe I read somewhere that you only get the community reward for a specific match if you participate in that match.
DeletedUser31852
Guest
He only did the free participation - never for 50+ gold though, which shouldn’t be an issue
He sent a ticket, let’s hope it can be fixed or he gets the bonus delayed
He sent a ticket, let’s hope it can be fixed or he gets the bonus delayed
DeletedUser44213
Guest
I would like to raise a major concern I have had with this event. I have provided screeshots to make my case and would like to point out that this is a case of misrepresentation before I continue.
Now i'd like to draw attention to the highlighted section of text. Note that the text implicitly applies that a distribution of points is optimal. Therefore implying that each score that can be attained by one distribution would be constant... Well I now look to the second screenshot.
Now I cannot prove that the two scores displayed on screen are from the same distribution of points but I am sure there will be stored data of my attempts. I threw twice with the same distribution and points but attained different scores. I have spoken to others in my alliance who have reported far greater changes than just 2 score points as well I should note. Now of course I wouldn't have a problem with this apparently random score generation if the event was free...
But instead, you have everyone paying real money under the illusion that the score is somehow completely ratio dependent. I can see for a fact, that it is not. This is a clear case of misrepresentation and you could have people wasting a LOT of money trying to obtain better distributions when actually its just that the score has a degree of randomness to it. I'd love to see the way the scores were calculated and I think with these findings are almost required. Because if not, I will be following this up as its actually disgraceful. Not only are you catering to your constant needs to empty our pockets, but now you aren't even doing it in an honest fashion.
Like if you agree this needs answering.
Now i'd like to draw attention to the highlighted section of text. Note that the text implicitly applies that a distribution of points is optimal. Therefore implying that each score that can be attained by one distribution would be constant... Well I now look to the second screenshot.
Now I cannot prove that the two scores displayed on screen are from the same distribution of points but I am sure there will be stored data of my attempts. I threw twice with the same distribution and points but attained different scores. I have spoken to others in my alliance who have reported far greater changes than just 2 score points as well I should note. Now of course I wouldn't have a problem with this apparently random score generation if the event was free...
But instead, you have everyone paying real money under the illusion that the score is somehow completely ratio dependent. I can see for a fact, that it is not. This is a clear case of misrepresentation and you could have people wasting a LOT of money trying to obtain better distributions when actually its just that the score has a degree of randomness to it. I'd love to see the way the scores were calculated and I think with these findings are almost required. Because if not, I will be following this up as its actually disgraceful. Not only are you catering to your constant needs to empty our pockets, but now you aren't even doing it in an honest fashion.
Like if you agree this needs answering.
DeletedUser31852
Guest
Slivas, we figured this out quite early in the event, it just seems to have a sort of anti-timer that adds a bit of randomness to the event. With one same combination, we found that results could varry in a span of +/- 7 s at least. I don't actually believe this is actually realistic, as athletes that train a lot sometimes have better and worse performances, they are not machines.
My feedback on the event (first one I used more than 200 gold on, Istros was generous):
- Allow for a faster distribuition of points; when waiting 9 hours and putting manticores in it, it is tedious to click 50 times on the plus button, especially with slow internet connections (not to mention when you reset at level 220).
- It was great that bonuses are linked to alliance, this way even new members benefit. However, on Epidamnos we had a sneaky bunch that decided to switch quick before the event ended to make a select few alliances jump at least 15 seconds, only to jump back after the event finished, to make sure their ennemies don't get the buff or that their allies or sister alliance get it, even if they don't deserve it. An easy fix to this would be to require that a participation only counts for the alliance if it was performed while in the alliance (which would only make this a bit harder to do and not solve it completely, but at least not cause any negative side effects). A more extreme way of doing this would be implimenting a cooldown for your score to be transfered to a new alliance (say 10 minutes). So if you are in alliance A, and switch to alliance B and participate from there, your score would only count 10 minutes after you joining the alliance. This second idea is harder to implement probably but better and at least the first one should be easy to do.
- be more transparent about how the event works. For example announcing this "anti-timer" regarding scores varrying for the same skillset, also telling us if skill distribuition is the same or not in different worlds (in fact we lead multiple trials accross a few worlds and still couldn't tell exactly if distribuition affected timings the same in every world, or if there was even a difference between two players - cf different recipes or same recipes).
It seemed likely that in the same world similar combos had similar results, but as I said, we really weren't sure (despite a lot of attempts to see) if it was the same, similar, or completely different on different worlds.
A bit of unknown in this type of events is good, but too much isn't good, transparency is always good regarding how things work.
Let me explain: if you had announced that it was the same on every world and that there was an antitimer, suddenly parts of the community would have started working together a bit, but also others not, hiding valuable "alliance secrets" regarding their best combo, and you would have gotten lots of engagment. Allowing gold users to be pioneers helping out others, making them feel good and spend more, and the non gold users to be helped, so they aren't as marginalized as the golders.
Let's see if our feedback even gets listened to up there lol, maybe I won't bother taking this time again - would be nice if you guys said if and when stuff was told to the people at the top
My feedback on the event (first one I used more than 200 gold on, Istros was generous):
- Allow for a faster distribuition of points; when waiting 9 hours and putting manticores in it, it is tedious to click 50 times on the plus button, especially with slow internet connections (not to mention when you reset at level 220).
- It was great that bonuses are linked to alliance, this way even new members benefit. However, on Epidamnos we had a sneaky bunch that decided to switch quick before the event ended to make a select few alliances jump at least 15 seconds, only to jump back after the event finished, to make sure their ennemies don't get the buff or that their allies or sister alliance get it, even if they don't deserve it. An easy fix to this would be to require that a participation only counts for the alliance if it was performed while in the alliance (which would only make this a bit harder to do and not solve it completely, but at least not cause any negative side effects). A more extreme way of doing this would be implimenting a cooldown for your score to be transfered to a new alliance (say 10 minutes). So if you are in alliance A, and switch to alliance B and participate from there, your score would only count 10 minutes after you joining the alliance. This second idea is harder to implement probably but better and at least the first one should be easy to do.
- be more transparent about how the event works. For example announcing this "anti-timer" regarding scores varrying for the same skillset, also telling us if skill distribuition is the same or not in different worlds (in fact we lead multiple trials accross a few worlds and still couldn't tell exactly if distribuition affected timings the same in every world, or if there was even a difference between two players - cf different recipes or same recipes).
It seemed likely that in the same world similar combos had similar results, but as I said, we really weren't sure (despite a lot of attempts to see) if it was the same, similar, or completely different on different worlds.
A bit of unknown in this type of events is good, but too much isn't good, transparency is always good regarding how things work.
Let me explain: if you had announced that it was the same on every world and that there was an antitimer, suddenly parts of the community would have started working together a bit, but also others not, hiding valuable "alliance secrets" regarding their best combo, and you would have gotten lots of engagment. Allowing gold users to be pioneers helping out others, making them feel good and spend more, and the non gold users to be helped, so they aren't as marginalized as the golders.
Let's see if our feedback even gets listened to up there lol, maybe I won't bother taking this time again - would be nice if you guys said if and when stuff was told to the people at the top
Rachel.L
Phrourach
what's interesting is this is a rehash of the same event (going on for years) but no one has ever had this issue before
there seems to be a lot of things that never had a problem that suddenly do
perhaps this is something the new gpc can address with the devs once they get moving @ErikWijmeersch @Kal Gordon @DizzlJoe @Hyper
there seems to be a lot of things that never had a problem that suddenly do
perhaps this is something the new gpc can address with the devs once they get moving @ErikWijmeersch @Kal Gordon @DizzlJoe @Hyper
DeletedUser54339
Guest
People jumping in and out of academies/2nd branches to obtain the best possible results is hardly new, to be fair.
DeletedUser31852
Guest
true, I'm new to all this ;-)
but jumping to an ennemy of my ennemy?
but jumping to an ennemy of my ennemy?
Rachel.L
Phrourach
alex, wasn't talking about the jumping being new but the problems being new
it's the EXACT same event (new names but same mechanics) and yet ppl aren't getting rewards (okay not new but usually less frequent), are training their athletes/ using troops and then scores go down, point optimization not functioning after ppl pay gold, etc.
taking something that is already coded and functional, just substituting names, doesn't make these problems happen
it means the code was changed, either by someone very dumb (and inno would never hire bad ppl) or intentionally (for the obvious purpose)
and the fact that no mod, dev, or gpc person has ever address these concerns, speaks volumes
DeletedUser54339
Guest
Yeah that's not good. I always thought the mechanics of this event had an element of randomness to them to be honest, but this looks new.
Rachel.L
Phrourach
yep, i totally agree
the alliance jumping is just a part of grepo, like other annoying but legal things
imo this has been a stable event, without much complaint, until now
we seem to be breaking more things as we pay more attention to bells and whistles (and muhlah) rather than nuts and bolts