Who is coming?

DeletedUser7205

Guest
Not coming. Work and conquest = not worth my time. If inno is listening at all, they should know that about 50% of their players only play revolt worlds. I'll check back i (FFS ... September?) when the next world is likely going to open. Good luck to all here in this world. Have fun.
 

DeletedUser11033

Guest
we ended up with 1200 players by the time the first Beginners Protections wore off, and i see a lot of really good players here. hopefully this ends up being a battle of ability and not just of deep pockets (don't get me wrong, those buying gold make the game available to all of us, just hope it is not the only factor that matters) . Good luck to everyone and let's have a good time this server.
 

Megalopsuchia

Philosopher
1200? Keep dreaming. Maybe if you count on all those dummy accounts on the outer islands that will all ghost eventually.

There's maybe 200-300 active players in the world. Worse than Kasmenai. I'd say it's pretty official - Grepo is dead on US servers.
 

DeletedUser11116

Guest
Not coming. Work and conquest = not worth my time. If inno is listening at all, they should know that about 50% of their players only play revolt worlds. I'll check back i (FFS ... September?) when the next world is likely going to open. Good luck to all here in this world. Have fun.
Scotropolis I think we played together a few years back. Initially as enemies and then I believe we ended up on the same side. I remember thinking how much of a pain you were, but then was glad to join forces lol. I took a few years off but decided to give it another whirl and haven't recognized any old mates other than you your name here.
 

jdubbs

Citizen
Scotropolis I think we played together a few years back. Initially as enemies and then I believe we ended up on the same side. I remember thinking how much of a pain you were, but then was glad to join forces lol. I took a few years off but decided to give it another whirl and haven't recognized any old mates other than you your name here.
Welcome to the party
 

DeletedUser7205

Guest
Sadly Grepolis has lost most of its early players like us. Adding "heros" was a great improvement to the game and gave it a boost. Adding the 30% BP rule for attacking allies was just silly as most internals are easily seen by GRCR Tools by all on server. Adding 12:00 - 8:00 "Night Bonus" was brilliant. Creating "Domination" was a nice try at a new end game but much like the -30 to +30 luck swing in attacking, it drove lots of players away. Now almost all worlds are "conquest" which stinks. Golds uses as "instant complete" is a terrible change from cutting build time by 50% making uuber heavy gold users basically unstoppable early in worlds.

At the end of the day, for every good change Inno made to Grepolis, it seems they made one or more changes that were bad which has resulted in a diminishing player base.

Inno, if you are listening and want to again become relevant and profitable like when you actually had money to run TV adds, consider making the following changes.

A) Capping the amount of gold that can be used each month per player to say 5,000-10,000 (not including the advisors gold).
B) Having worlds where advisors are mandatory. This makes the world incredibly more competitive.
C) More speed 2 and 3 revolt worlds with night bonus FFS. 50% of your players HATE conquest.
D) Dump casual worlds which is a waste of your processor, memory and hard drive space on servers. If you want worlds for purists, give them "no advisor" worlds with a 1000 gold per month cap.

Much like morons that think taxing the rich creates more revenue, you seem to think that giving heavy gold users a giant advantage is good for your bottom line. BOTH ARE WRONG. Taxing the richest people higher makes richer people leave your area. Heavy gold users may give you a small boost for the beginning of worlds but they ultimately get bored then quit Grep all together. Try to get players (like me and others) to spend $10-$20 per month on a competitive interesting strategic game and you will see the masses come back and your revenue stream be steady.

You have a unique game model but this constant gold grab is killing your player base Stop it and settle back down so your game can again be a fun hobby and what it should be; a relatively inexpensive strategic game to play with friends new and old.
 

DeletedUser16479

Guest
Yup. Golding is killing grepo. 10 years ago it was an accomplishment to have 80 cities by the end of WW. And the world would likely last close to a year. Now way different. Gold is taking the place of skill. As far as revolt. My least favorite. It seems all I do is rebuild walls. That's where 70% of my resources go.. Lol
 

DeletedUser16359

Guest
Sadly Grepolis has lost most of its early players like us. Adding "heros" was a great improvement to the game and gave it a boost. Adding the 30% BP rule for attacking allies was just silly as most internals are easily seen by GRCR Tools by all on server. Adding 12:00 - 8:00 "Night Bonus" was brilliant. Creating "Domination" was a nice try at a new end game but much like the -30 to +30 luck swing in attacking, it drove lots of players away. Now almost all worlds are "conquest" which stinks. Golds uses as "instant complete" is a terrible change from cutting build time by 50% making uuber heavy gold users basically unstoppable early in worlds.

At the end of the day, for every good change Inno made to Grepolis, it seems they made one or more changes that were bad which has resulted in a diminishing player base.

Inno, if you are listening and want to again become relevant and profitable like when you actually had money to run TV adds, consider making the following changes.

A) Capping the amount of gold that can be used each month per player to say 5,000-10,000 (not including the advisors gold).
B) Having worlds where advisors are mandatory. This makes the world incredibly more competitive.
C) More speed 2 and 3 revolt worlds with night bonus FFS. 50% of your players HATE conquest.
D) Dump casual worlds which is a waste of your processor, memory and hard drive space on servers. If you want worlds for purists, give them "no advisor" worlds with a 1000 gold per month cap.

Much like morons that think taxing the rich creates more revenue, you seem to think that giving heavy gold users a giant advantage is good for your bottom line. BOTH ARE WRONG. Taxing the richest people higher makes richer people leave your area. Heavy gold users may give you a small boost for the beginning of worlds but they ultimately get bored then quit Grep all together. Try to get players (like me and others) to spend $10-$20 per month on a competitive interesting strategic game and you will see the masses come back and your revenue stream be steady.

You have a unique game model but this constant gold grab is killing your player base Stop it and settle back down so your game can again be a fun hobby and what it should be; a relatively inexpensive strategic game to play with friends new and old.
capping gold spending is taxing on their profit margin but it's a nice jumbo shrimp of a read

p.s. 50% of players hate revolt...
 

DeletedUser262

Guest
A) Capping the amount of gold that can be used each month per player to say 5,000-10,000 (not including the advisors gold).
B) Having worlds where advisors are mandatory. This makes the world incredibly more competitive.
C) More speed 2 and 3 revolt worlds with night bonus FFS. 50% of your players HATE conquest.
D) Dump casual worlds which is a waste of your processor, memory and hard drive space on servers. If you want worlds for purists, give them "no advisor" worlds with a 1000 gold per month cap.
A) A gold cap would be smart, but I would rather see a cap on how much gold can be purchased rather than spent. This would mean players that gold farmed would be able to gain an advantage through optimal play by getting more gold than those just buying gold. You know, reward skill at playing the game more than those with wallets...The way this could work is there could still be a common bank like there is now for gold, but it would have a limit to how much gold could be pulled form the bank or purchased each world. So, say you have 100k gold at the start of a new world, but you only were able to withdraw 2500 gold a week from your bank. Then at the end of the world whatever gold you had would be rolled back into the bank.

B) Not sure how making advisors mandatory makes a world more competitive. Anyone with decent skill can farm the gold for advisors in the early game, and in the mid-late game use gold they farmed earlier or just purchase gold. Gate keeping out bad players who aren't willing to spend money would get old fast and make for a lot of sim city gameplay.

C) Both modes suck, because they are both pay to win currently. No point of making more worlds at all if there is no player base. Personally I don't really care which I am playing if I was playing seriously. As a gold farming troll who thinks this game is garbage and dead, conquest is better because people don't expect to run into maxed out defense until they lose a nuke. Which makes me happy for a whole day sometimes. Night bonus should always be a thing though. People work/sleep, and those of us that can be online 24/7 have an unfair advantage without it.

D) There are casual worlds? I don't play often enough to know what Inno is doing to try to bring in players that they drove away with the pay to win model. That said "challenge worlds" that have a low gold cap, with or without advisors would be good. It would probably be a good idea to have some gold and keep advisors to generate revenue, but variation tends to be good, especially if it is geared towards skill rather than money.

capping gold spending is taxing on their profit margin but it's a nice jumbo shrimp of a read
I see you got your understanding of economics from the same spot Inno did. As Scot explained, the current model is not long-term sustainable, which is why the player base has shrunk to a small fraction of what it was at it's peak. Pay to win in a competitive game does not work long term. There has to be a balance between spending money to gain an advantage and keeping that advantage from being overwhelming. Right now the game is literally pay to win. You can just flat out purchase practically everything available in the game. This more than anything else is what keeps new players from staying, and drives away old players. Inno shot themselves in the foot making the game pay to win.

Honestly they don't care about the long term sustainability of a game, they just keep making new titles, attract a player base, make it blatant pay to win, milk it for everything it is worth, and meanwhile release a new title. As long as they keep releasing new games, it doesn't matter if the old games fail Inno stays profitable. Their business model is based on churning out new titles, and attracting more whales, not turning current properties into cash cows.
 

NetizenSteve

Artisan
Everyone does realize that this is a war simulation game, right? You know who wins real wars? The ones with better funding, that's who.
 

DeletedUser262

Guest
Everyone does realize that this is a war simulation game, right? You know who wins real wars? The ones with better funding, that's who.
No they don't, in fact the opposite is closer to the truth. It is very difficult for a well equipped military to win against a poorly equipped militia in a war. Because a well equipped military has a huge support cost, where as a militia is practically free. Also, calling this a war simulation is like calling Tekken a boxing simulator.

Edit: wait, are you an actual noob? Because that account is less than a week old.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser262

Guest
Okay, explain to us how exactly that makes sense...
Coming from the guy that called this game a "war simulator". Examples of this would be the US vs British during the revolutionary war, Vietnam vs the US, Afghanistan vs Russia. All were won by poorly equipped militias essentially because the war was not cost effective for the better equipped and wealthier aggressor.
 

NetizenSteve

Artisan
Coming from the guy that called this game a "war simulator". Examples of this would be the US vs British during the revolutionary war, Vietnam vs the US, Afghanistan vs Russia. All were won by poorly equipped militias essentially because the war was not cost effective for the better equipped and wealthier aggressor.
I'm sorry you seem to have miscomprehended what I said...when I say wars are won by the ones with better funding, I am saying that they are won by people who HAVE the funding, not people on a budget.
 

NetizenSteve

Artisan
I'm also going to put this out there, for those of you who entertain the idea that complaining about gold users in the game here in the forums might persuade Innogames to put a cap on how much a player can use within a set time frame. Let me remind you, that while it is a game to us, it is a business to them...and while a victory is all that matters to us, the profit margin is all that matters to them. Or do you suppose they offer a "free-to-play" browser game for all of the world to love and enjoy, out of the kindness of their hearts?
 
Gold is not the issue anymore per say, you combine that with spammers and huge pockets then its an issue. Gold Locking works but who has time to lock a players screen for 8,12 or more hours. Not sure what the solution with gold can or would be because as you said NetizenSteve it is a business and they want too make money.
What should happen is they put in the Fair Play Rule EN has about Spamming, doing this will bring more players back and maybe more money spent on the game.. Wallet Warriors usually fade and leave before world is over save the top spenders or 3 pct of players...