Project: Fixing the World Release Rate.

DeletedUser5061

Guest
I see where your coming from and I do support it but inno won't say no to a influx of cash, especially if they have spent money on advertising the game and expect to see immediate results. I think more realistic ask would be limiting the speed 2+ non-morale servers to 6 every year would suit them better. That way they can release a new server every 2 months evenly between revolt and conquest so each one is four months a part or have dual releases like you said at the beginning year and one dual release in the summer, leaving a revolt for spring time and a conquest for the fall.

This will give premades time to plan accordingly and will make the servers more competitive as the vets know its going to be a long time wait for a server they like so will try harder to stick it out. The forums once these awaited worlds finally release will be buzzing and knowing months in advance will make it feel like event. Last but not least 100% extra gold sale on the opening day of the server only available on that server is a must if Inno want to make some real money and drive the veterans into those new servers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Great Idea, I support it. Daizan had some interesting points as well. Unfourtanetly I don't see Inno doing this. I feel they make way to much money with their current world release rate to slow it down. I especially like getting rid of the player cap. Think about a speed 2 with 80k players. That would be pretty fantastic.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I disagree with Daizan. I think cutting down on and slowing down the release rate of new worlds could have the potential of boosting revenue. I believe Smilodon has commented on this, if not please correct me. If release rates are decreased, world caps are lifted, and worlds stay open longer then that has the potential of worlds with dramatically higher number of players and players who stick around longer therefore potentially raising overall revenue. And this is how we should sell it to Innogames. Unfortunately it is all about the money for them and if we demonstrate that these ideas have the possibility of dramatically increasing their revenue then that might motivate them to listen to these ideas.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
dai's point is valid, if you have noob worlds as well, noobs will join them, spend gold, who really cares, everyone is happy.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
dai's point is valid, if you have noob worlds as well, noobs will join them, spend gold, who really cares, everyone is happy.

I don't think you need noob worlds as you put it to accomplish getting new players t join and buy gold. I think Smilodon's idea of putting them several oceans away from bigger players or alliances could do the trick along with ditching world cap and allowing worlds to stay open longer. Even under the current model new players can get destroyed by more experienced players as new players have 4 days at the least and 7 at the most to learn the game before their protection ends.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
I think Daizan has some good ideas, especially marketing wise. Which is needed to make the pitch of this idea successful. I guess we have a business major among us. I have a question though, its late so I may have misread it a few times. But you said 2+ speed non-morale. I feel this implies only these types of settings. So would 1 speed or morale worlds be released in between the time? If so wouldn't we still have that issue?

I think one counter to the influx of cash would be perhaps organizing to slow that influx. We all have skype, many of us have at least a few contacts and influential players on that list of friends that still play. Now i'm not saying starve inno into bankruptcy. But if they're not listening to the players, then one word from people such as Daizan, Deathwish, Bend24, etc. Would probably go a long way and stop people from spending as much. That would trickle down and probably make a company more open to suggestions. This worked to temporarily drive down gas prices in 2006. Though that's just a theory and its easier said than done.

Atilla, it can be argued both ways. The point I feel is being made is that Inno wants the cash quickly. It will make the same or maybe a little more profit with my idea. Both moves are good business moves on paper. Long term my idea makes more money I feel. But I study political science and not business.

As for noob worlds and elite worlds. I feel the key issue is meshing them. Talk to any premade and you'll see maybe 5-6 of the original 30-60 brought there in the first place. So recruiting new players is important. We want a long, competitive, world. If we end up paying any amount of money, then we better get our money's worth. If i enter a world to play, then I want a challenge when I do play. I want to see the world die in two years and not two months. At the very least a world should last a year. Especially if I choose to spend money on said world.

There's a lot of things that have gone wrong in Grepo when it comes to inexperienced players, the bad learning curve, and them being killed off.

1) It is now possible to be conquest ready BEFORE BP ends. When I first started playing this wasn't possible unless the world was a three speed server. Now you can do it on two speed and if you're willing to spend the money, then you can possibly do it on a one speed server. You had time to fight, to learn to dodge and snipe, to read guides, etc. You were guaranteed almost two weeks before you had to start worrying about being conquered.

2) All of the great grepo leaders have all left or no longer deal with noob teams in a committed fashion. And maybe that's something we should take a little blame for ourselves and fix.

But because the worlds are so quickly released and often filled with premades, who honestly has the time to develop their skills? They get killed, hop, get killed hop, maybe a few luck out and get an invite and become something, but many just quit. Lets face it any notable leader that has commented here isn't going to be around forever. Good leaders are in higher demand now than three years ago I would say. Hell, above average leaders are rare qualities at this point. Anyone who is a solid leader now most likely had some experiences in 1.26 and at least made an impact in the world or to midpoint. I have met very few good 2.0 leaders. And all of them are untested. They'll most likely never have to take on Grepohugs, Illuminati, Alliance X, The Liquidators, The Unit, etc. Or their leaders. But these alliances are only great because of the experiences they went through from long games and strong competition that came from it. The people who pay for this game right now are being robbed of an experience. That's what's saddest of it all. I see a lot of old schoolers right now. All of who would probably want the earlier times back or at least something similar.

Anyways enough sentimental stuff and semantics. Back to business, I wanted to thank everyone for their support so far. Friends, rivals, random players. Its nice to see everyone coming together. I personally think that as long as the list of rising support grows, then it'll be too big to ignore. So lets consider this a petition and a challenge.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yes I know what you were saying about the influx of cash and my posts were in agreement with what you were saying in regards to the influx of cash that Innogames is receiving. So yeah I was totally agreeing with you, Smilodon, and what you were saying. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser32743

Guest
The idea is very good. Its a big problem when a new world starts, because players from older worlds join the newest worlds, and leave the older ones they were playing on. There was a very interesting period last Summer, when 3 worlds were opened in 1,5 weeks (one of then was Hyperborea).

InnoGames has serious marketing managers, and they are working on to obtain as many money as they can. And thats marketing, and thats ok. But its not a good idea to open new worlds every 2 weeks, because it makes older worlds secondary. On the other hand, the sustenance is expensive, and it grows with every new world.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I disagree with Daizan. I think cutting down on and slowing down the release rate of new worlds could have the potential of boosting revenue. I believe Smilodon has commented on this, if not please correct me. If release rates are decreased, world caps are lifted, and worlds stay open longer.

That's not how revenue nor World caps work.

Grepolis thrives on the fact that when new worlds open, everyone thinks they have a chance at being #1, and as such some people who wouldn't otherwise be spending gold go ahead and buy some. As the world gets older, less and less people become regular gold spenders, thus resulting in income from older worlds going down overall. (I'm sure you could find some stats from rare occurrences showing otherwise for specific months in specific worlds), but as far as I see that's the case. As for World caps, they depend on world speed unless it's changed since it was last discussed.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
That's not how revenue nor World caps work.

Grepolis thrives on the fact that when new worlds open, everyone thinks they have a chance at being #1, and as such some people who wouldn't otherwise be spending gold go ahead and buy some. As the world gets older, less and less people become regular gold spenders, thus resulting in income from older worlds going down overall. (I'm sure you could find some stats from rare occurrences showing otherwise for specific months in specific worlds), but as far as I see that's the case. As for World caps, they depend on world speed unless it's changed since it was last discussed.

I am aware of most of that. Please read the entire the conversation. Thank you. This whole conversation is talking about changing that and the current dynamic that exists in Grepolis towards one that will hopefully be more rewarding and appealing to a broader range of players.
 

DeletedUser38224

Guest
I am aware of most of that. Please read the entire the conversation. Thank you. This whole conversation is talking about changing that and the current dynamic that exists in Grepolis towards one that will hopefully be more rewarding and appealing to a broader range of players.

NO, THIS IDEA IS NOT ABOUT CHANGING GREPOLIS TO WHATEVER "VISION" YOU HAVE FOR IT. IT IS ABOUT CHANGING THE WORLD RELEASE DATES.

That being said, I do support this.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
First off why are you shouting? Was that even necessary? No, not really. So please spare the caps next time. That is the whole point of changing world release dates to hopefully alter the current dynamic into something better.
 

DeletedUser14397

Guest
I agree

im fed up buying gold for a world to collapse (THEBES is a classic example) but there has been many more

this idea would make for the worlds lasting much longer with way more active people

+rep Dan
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
That's not how revenue nor World caps work.

Grepolis thrives on the fact that when new worlds open, everyone thinks they have a chance at being #1, and as such some people who wouldn't otherwise be spending gold go ahead and buy some. As the world gets older, less and less people become regular gold spenders, thus resulting in income from older worlds going down overall. (I'm sure you could find some stats from rare occurrences showing otherwise for specific months in specific worlds), but as far as I see that's the case. As for World caps, they depend on world speed unless it's changed since it was last discussed.

Having seen this type of thing with discontent players before, I can say that Inno will drive its market down at this rate and ruin the game. As for buying gold later in the game currently, let me ask you the following. Why would you need to do so? I mean with nobody new coming in, you have no need once the best alliance establishes final dominance. With longer worlds we know that people would keep spending as powers would rise in the ring and rim to challenge core alliance. This has happened before. Grepolis would prolong its profits rather than needing short bursts. Right now they're going up and up, but they're going to crash in the long (probably short) run. As for stats, i'll just reiterate what my first argument. The older worlds would prove my point. And the way Grepolis 2.0 is set up, Inno will make much more money this way than before while keeping its players happy. Creating more long term profits and just just short bursts.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What are the biggest differences between Grepolis 2.0 and prior versions? Would that be farming villages, world wonders, etc.? Just curious. Thank you. :)
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
What are the biggest differences between Grepolis 2.0 and prior versions? Would that be farming villages, world wonders, etc.? Just curious. Thank you. :)

Lots of differences.

1. Farming villages- Right now, thanks for forced loyalties and captain, its possible to farm quickly and max your farms for conquest. Back in original grep you started off in possession of all your farms but had to build and use troops to loot them. Mood was also always lost.

2. World Wonders didn't exist and the point of the game was just to fight and survive. Either you got conquered or you got bored.

3. Longer lasting worlds.
 

DeletedUser32498

Guest
What if they found a way to implement world wonders as the game progressed? Like say maybe after the world gets to like 20 million points a wonder is able to be built. By the time 20 million overall points is reached in the world it should be around like 1-3 months depending on world speed. And say for the next wonder would take like 30 million over all world points. Something like that. Call it a 'wonder world' for people who only want to build wonders. And grepo should also make regular worlds called 'survival worlds' for people who just want to survive. I think they shouldn't eliminate the wonders idea but maybe make 2 separate world types.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
I think WW should probably be buried and forgotten. But if it or some other crappy end game absolutely has to stay in order to get a slowed down world release rate, then i'll gladly accept that. Thing is, if you get into separate worlds, then Inno will have a new reason to start firing off worlds and releasing them faster as both will be in high demand.
 
Top