DeletedUser
Guest
Can World Wonder stay, but not necessarily be the primary end game for any given world?
DeletedUser32373
Guest
I agree, people play a server, aren't #1, then run to a new world.
DeletedUser42621
Guest
I agree with this as well 
DeletedUser
Guest
Why? 16 worlds a year still seems excessive IMHO. Why is 16 a year more desirable then 8 a year?
DeletedUser44426
Guest
I just want to point out that this might never happen . With every world released, Inno gets money off those who pay for gold. Its a repetitive state that keeps Inno up and running. If you want this project noticed, then you will have to bring it to other foreign servers, as the EN and US servers wont enough for Inno to change it, they will need multiple servers of different countires worldwide to agree with it. But I dont really see this happening.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
16 is a little high, in my humble opinion.
@TKJ- True it might not ever happen. But enough people bringing this up would help drive the point hope. I'd gladly expand to other forums if there's anyone or anything that can accurately translate to their languages. Also the cost to keep inno up and running wouldn't come close to the profits being made from rapid release. Remember, they profited before and were able to expand and improve/ attempt to improve the game big time. Not to take it to the extreme here and this comparison is definitely not the same. But answer me this. What if Martain Luther King just "didn't see it happening?" Or Abraham Lincoln? What if Alexander the Great marched his army out looked at the Persians and then said "Oh , yeah not gonna happen, lets get back home everyone". Point is, success or fail, you have to try something to get results.
@TKJ- True it might not ever happen. But enough people bringing this up would help drive the point hope. I'd gladly expand to other forums if there's anyone or anything that can accurately translate to their languages. Also the cost to keep inno up and running wouldn't come close to the profits being made from rapid release. Remember, they profited before and were able to expand and improve/ attempt to improve the game big time. Not to take it to the extreme here and this comparison is definitely not the same. But answer me this. What if Martain Luther King just "didn't see it happening?" Or Abraham Lincoln? What if Alexander the Great marched his army out looked at the Persians and then said "Oh , yeah not gonna happen, lets get back home everyone". Point is, success or fail, you have to try something to get results.
DeletedUser
Guest
I agree with Smilodon. If Innogames was able to generate and profit before all of these changes took place, who is to say they cannot profit and remain profitable if they decided to alter the current model of gameplay? You never know if something will or will not work unless you try. Without trying nothing will ever happen that is for sure.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
I'll sum this up simply and lay this mod/Inno Dev's dead and beaten horse of an excuse to rest.
"Worlds fill up which is why we release so quickly"
"Worlds fill up which is why we release so quickly"
How many people Grepo worlds are build to hold:
What Grepo currently holds:
This is world 73 (2 worlds ago). What was that about worlds filling up again? You can't possibly make the argument that worlds are full or not designed to hold that many people. Sorry mod squad, you're either lying or being lied to.
What Grepo currently holds:
This is world 73 (2 worlds ago). What was that about worlds filling up again? You can't possibly make the argument that worlds are full or not designed to hold that many people. Sorry mod squad, you're either lying or being lied to.
DeletedUser32743
Guest
Opening new world in every 2 weeks is a very regrettable action. Players cannot focus on their current worlds, and they decide to join another world. The previous updates were very good, because they reduced the existence of ghost cities, and new players can join the game, without opening a new world. Inactive players should be removed from the center of the map to make a place for new players.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
That sounds worse honestly... No offense. But why would a new player want to end up on an island where someone is at 5k points and knows what they're doing?
DeletedUser
Guest
As others have stated as good of an idea as this is I just don't see it happening. The amount of gold spent in the early parts of a server are much much higher than the latter.
In the beggining people will spend lots of gold to reduce build times, reduce resources needed, and speed up their troop production. Later in game once you are established there is not a need for this and it becomes to costly to do this as well. Spending gold to speed up troop production in 3 cities is affordable. Spending gold to speed up troop production in 30 cities is getting expensive, 100 cities plus its just downright insane. In the later part of servers I would imagine all people really spend gold on for the most part are the special characters. The amount of gold they make off that is very minor compared to the large sums of gold they make upon world releases.
I would love to see this happen, but dont think it will. I think Daizans idea is more realistic as Inno would then be able to make their money still. Although I still dont see his idea happening either as I would guess that the high speed no morale worlds are where the most gold is spent as the more hardcore players who are willing to spend play there.
In the beggining people will spend lots of gold to reduce build times, reduce resources needed, and speed up their troop production. Later in game once you are established there is not a need for this and it becomes to costly to do this as well. Spending gold to speed up troop production in 3 cities is affordable. Spending gold to speed up troop production in 30 cities is getting expensive, 100 cities plus its just downright insane. In the later part of servers I would imagine all people really spend gold on for the most part are the special characters. The amount of gold they make off that is very minor compared to the large sums of gold they make upon world releases.
I would love to see this happen, but dont think it will. I think Daizans idea is more realistic as Inno would then be able to make their money still. Although I still dont see his idea happening either as I would guess that the high speed no morale worlds are where the most gold is spent as the more hardcore players who are willing to spend play there.
DeletedUser32498
Guest
I'll sum this up simply and lay this mod/Inno Dev's dead and beaten horse of an excuse to rest.
"Worlds fill up which is why we release so quickly"
How many people Grepo worlds are build to hold:
What Grepo currently holds:
This is world 73 (2 worlds ago). What was that about worlds filling up again? You can't possibly make the argument that worlds are full or not designed to hold that many people. Sorry mod squad, you're either lying or being lied to.
That right there is a very good arguement!
DeletedUser
Guest
Can definitely prove that the current model is more profitable then the model proposed by Smilodon? Most likely not. Innogames wouldn't need to rapid release worlds if they managed to keep worlds open for longer then two months. I am sure that the gold bought in the first few weeks of a new world would far out pace the gold bought over the same time in Smilodon's model, but I would bet the overall gold bought in Smilodon's model would far out pace the current model. I also would bet that a fair number of players burn out rather fast under the current model due to the rather tedious and one dimensional nature of the current incarnation of Grepolis. Which is probably why they are so afraid of scaring off new players.
DeletedUser
Guest
I would imagine the amount of gold spent in the first 2 months of a server is more than 10 to 15 times the amount spent the remainder of the server. I don't like it at all, but thats most likely how it is. Therefore rapid world release is far more profitable than sustained worlds. You must also look at the amount of players spending gold, not just what its being spent on in different stages of a server. A world has say 30k players at the beggining of a server. Say jus 1/3 of those players spend some amount of gold. That is 10k players spending gold. In the later part of a server, even with smilos suggested idea I can't imagine more than 10k players are still playing and that is guessing high. Say 1/3 of them are spending gold, that is only 3,333 players spending gold compared to the 10k in the early stages of a server. Not to mention those players that are still spending gold are spending less than they were at the start. Rapid world release = more players spending more gold.
DeletedUser
Guest
That's exactly my point. I was looking at the number or potential number of players buying gold. That was what my whole comment centered around. Lol And why encouraging longevity of worlds and getting rid of the world cap could in fact generate more gold then the current model we are playing under. As Smilodon has proven is that current worlds can hold a lot more then players then most currently have in there respective servers. In addition to that how many players or potential customers bail on the game due to it's repetitive nature and the fact you have very little time to learn your way around the game. And when you finally do get it down then the world you are in is already on the decline and close to being closed. Plus it's not just about who is currently buying gold, it is also abut cultivating your customer base and keeping them hooked in the game so they keep spending money on your product.
Personally I would love to see data collected on how many new layers bail versus how many stay on and keep playing for a significant period of time. I would bet more leave the game then stick around. In my opinion that is a big problem that needs to be tackled and I think Smilodon's proposal could be a great step in fixing many of these issues.
DeletedUser
Guest
I've read your 'entire conversation', which mostly consists of people telling you why it won't work, and you not proposing any solutions for it and all the other posts of "I support, but I don't see it happening" too.
Let me put this in the simplest way possible. World release dates have been optimized for profit/ customer satisfaction balance. If you increase customer satisfaction, profits will be slimmer, if you raise profits, customer satisfaction will lower. They've made up their mind on this already, ages ago.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
Lets clean this up, Kanga & Bend24, you've both been here for a long time and know how Inno works. You're also both mature enough to explain the reasoning behind your words. So i'll list the argument and my logic. You list the counter and a fair compromise if at all possible. Sound fair?
1) Players spending gold early on: This is the exact reason we ditch the world cap and slow the release rate. If you keep having players add up, then they'll keep spending to play the game and catch up or stay alive, this goes on for two months until a world is relatively full and competitive. You do more when the pressure is on. Ben, we saw it a bit over the past year. Remember how there's usually four alliances that are actually capable of winning and how within a month and a half they've all been assimilated into one, have pacted each other, or died from inactivity. So what's the point of spending the gold anyways? I've seen players in late game gold like a mofo before to save time. But in new gen, there just is no pressure unless you're a lesser alliance. And chances are that you're lesser for a reason.
2) World hype: Picture this, a three speed conquest, 100 cap, no morale server. Now picture waiting a longer time for it than a few weeks to a month. The amount of people who would flock to that server and spend gold would be unimaginable. Due to the highly competitive nature, especially in the core 5 oceans, people would spend more gold. Now if you release two 3 speed servers a year one conq and one morale, then you stand to make a killing. If we have worlds like Cythera filling up in a week or so when its created and forgotten on a whim, then we can easily profit as both a business and gaming community. Imagine us grabbing 30k players in a world like that in 48 hours and being much higher in a week. Everyone will be paying and competing. Same for lower speed worlds with likable settings.
3) World Type: Lets be honest here, the best worlds have no morale, usually no revolt, and are 2+ speed. That's in addition to a mid to high alliance cap. I say we release more highly competitive worlds in this order. This maximizes profits. More players want to play a tough game and lasting game for win or lose. Inno would generate more profit by following this style and producing less learning worlds. I mean we didn't have all these safe guards on Gamma and Theta and we ended up just fine. Sleep deprived, mostly insane, but just fine right?
4) Customer satisfaction vs profits: Its not possible to have both? Inno is treating this like the 1920's stock market. Its going to go up, and up, and up and then, CRASH. Its better to make players want to play again and lose the short term profit than lose long term funds. Most successful games try to make their players stick around. Instead of a new major gimmick every year, lets just do what most the community wants even if its to an extent.
5) Inno's minds: Inno can make up its mind all it wants, if there's enough annoyed players on this list, then they'll start breaking down a bit. I mean lets be honest half the people on this list know how to organize ops with fakes, brute force, and coordination almost to the second. Some of us have convinced entire servers to join our side and go after specific targets. And others try to get them to go after their alliance just for fun and are good at doing that too. So if we can plan ops and propaganda, then you mean to tell me we can't at least attempt some kind of plan to sway Inno to loosen up a bit? I would find that very hard to believe. There aren't many people here who haven't had a notable achievement yet.
Summary: The trick to keeping gold flow high is to keep pressure on someone. Do you give your best performance in a sport or job when someone isn't gunning to beat you? Of course not. I never ran a record 400 meter time when I was blowing out all the guys who made 56 seconds their best time. You won't invest more when the world goes from a war zone to a waiting room with a few small bar fights in just two months.
That's my thoughts at least on this late night. Feel free to suggest a counter proposal that's more realistic so we can make some progress.
1) Players spending gold early on: This is the exact reason we ditch the world cap and slow the release rate. If you keep having players add up, then they'll keep spending to play the game and catch up or stay alive, this goes on for two months until a world is relatively full and competitive. You do more when the pressure is on. Ben, we saw it a bit over the past year. Remember how there's usually four alliances that are actually capable of winning and how within a month and a half they've all been assimilated into one, have pacted each other, or died from inactivity. So what's the point of spending the gold anyways? I've seen players in late game gold like a mofo before to save time. But in new gen, there just is no pressure unless you're a lesser alliance. And chances are that you're lesser for a reason.
2) World hype: Picture this, a three speed conquest, 100 cap, no morale server. Now picture waiting a longer time for it than a few weeks to a month. The amount of people who would flock to that server and spend gold would be unimaginable. Due to the highly competitive nature, especially in the core 5 oceans, people would spend more gold. Now if you release two 3 speed servers a year one conq and one morale, then you stand to make a killing. If we have worlds like Cythera filling up in a week or so when its created and forgotten on a whim, then we can easily profit as both a business and gaming community. Imagine us grabbing 30k players in a world like that in 48 hours and being much higher in a week. Everyone will be paying and competing. Same for lower speed worlds with likable settings.
3) World Type: Lets be honest here, the best worlds have no morale, usually no revolt, and are 2+ speed. That's in addition to a mid to high alliance cap. I say we release more highly competitive worlds in this order. This maximizes profits. More players want to play a tough game and lasting game for win or lose. Inno would generate more profit by following this style and producing less learning worlds. I mean we didn't have all these safe guards on Gamma and Theta and we ended up just fine. Sleep deprived, mostly insane, but just fine right?
4) Customer satisfaction vs profits: Its not possible to have both? Inno is treating this like the 1920's stock market. Its going to go up, and up, and up and then, CRASH. Its better to make players want to play again and lose the short term profit than lose long term funds. Most successful games try to make their players stick around. Instead of a new major gimmick every year, lets just do what most the community wants even if its to an extent.
5) Inno's minds: Inno can make up its mind all it wants, if there's enough annoyed players on this list, then they'll start breaking down a bit. I mean lets be honest half the people on this list know how to organize ops with fakes, brute force, and coordination almost to the second. Some of us have convinced entire servers to join our side and go after specific targets. And others try to get them to go after their alliance just for fun and are good at doing that too. So if we can plan ops and propaganda, then you mean to tell me we can't at least attempt some kind of plan to sway Inno to loosen up a bit? I would find that very hard to believe. There aren't many people here who haven't had a notable achievement yet.
Summary: The trick to keeping gold flow high is to keep pressure on someone. Do you give your best performance in a sport or job when someone isn't gunning to beat you? Of course not. I never ran a record 400 meter time when I was blowing out all the guys who made 56 seconds their best time. You won't invest more when the world goes from a war zone to a waiting room with a few small bar fights in just two months.
That's my thoughts at least on this late night. Feel free to suggest a counter proposal that's more realistic so we can make some progress.
DeletedUser
Guest
could i just point out the number of months in a year is 12?
but like dan said, think about cyth, after such a long wait there was A LOT of gold spent there, A LOT.
DeletedUser25660
Guest
Very much possible. Add me to the list and +rep as well.
What could motivate the players to keep playing after several months of repetitive gameplay, and at the same time, still generate profit for Inno? Some ideas below for discussion.
Graphics used below are properties by Innogames and Wizards of the Coast, they are being used to aid in this discussion
After 2 months,
Make something new to generate curiosity.
After 4 months,
Don’t make it clickable yet, but sustain the anticipation.
After 6 months …
The Grepo Portal. Hovering on the arena lets you know what’s in store in the future. Cyrene will be the new ‘Quest Giver’ and will give player new and more challenging quests. (this will replace the balloon island quests at the first six months of the world). Now, let’s click on Camilla.
Current Trend of MMO Games
Add element of gambling & sexualize characters… like making Athena, Hera, heroes/heroines sexier.
Finally
Revamp WW.
There are many currently proposed ideas to replace WW, like [post=844611]Rise of the Titans[/post] . [thread=51041]Here[/thread] is the link to this discussion.