Bonus to new players in a favored faction

20% xp for units for 10 days
20% xp for heroes for 10 days
20% gold production for 5 days

How is this fair?

When a population of a faction is heavily outnumbered by the other faction then the "population" control kicks in. Depending on the ratio, the bonuses change.

It is not fair having 10 people playing Light and 4 Dark, is it?

This is a system which is being used by all MMOs to provide a balanced population and therefore provide a challenging and fair challenge for all the participants.

I think this is a downright unfair way to solve the demographics problem, and hope there is a better solution.

Please reconsider giving new players unfair advantages as a solution!

Are new players who join the game on one faction being given those rewards?

It may not seem very fair but its true that most games do something like that when they need to balance population.

From my experience is ussually a starting boost that doesnt matter that much in long run but helps keeping the numbers.

This kind of things dont tend to create much problems. Dont know why that big reaction.

What seems to cause more trouble is when they reward players that are already stablished for moving. I have seen that creating lots of unbalances in some games. But what you say doesnt affect much.

I am not arguing for how this change will make players join the dark faction, I am saying that it is undermining players who have already joined the game and players who have been playing for some time.

This could be the drop that made some players see the game lose its final spark of potential. I say this as it is my preception from talking to players in the game, and due to the fact that I am feeling it myself.

The game is now so focused on regaining a status quo that it has undermined older players, many of us are currently sitting on the fence hoping the developers make an end to this outrage. - Some of us are however giving up.

Notelitten wrote:

I am not arguing for how this change will make players join the dark faction, I am saying that it is undermining players who have already joined the game and players who have been playing for some time.

This could be the drop that made some players see the game lose its final spark of potential. I say this as it is my preception from talking to players in the game, and due to the fact that I am feeling it myself.

The game is now so focused on regaining a status quo that it has undermined older players, many of us are currently sitting on the fence hoping the developers make an end to this outrage. - Some of us are however giving up.

I don't get it - how does this affect you, specifically? Are you taking it as a personal insult, or does the idea of these newer players advancing quicker affect your own rankings in some way? I'm asking because you're more or less threatening to leave, at the moment, so how it affects you personally is relevant.

It affects new players on one side, as a representative for members on the light side (running a guild) I take this as an assult on the new members on the light side.

It doesn't affect my ranking in anyways except for the fact that I (and many others will quit over this change).

The game has now started to cater to losers in an attempt to create an eternal stalemate, perhaps fun for the new players to the dark side, but damaging to the game for anyone else.

I'm threatening to leave because I see how this is affecting the veteran players, we played this game because we saw potential. The potential of the game is now gone, and has changed its focus.

Any unfair benefits given to new players is unacceptable, and is going to destroy the game and the playerbase.

Thanks to some of thte changes over the last couple of days, I have seen hordes of players quit the game, some dedicated optimist still hope for the game to display it's potential, and some players such as me who merely have gone on a strike, in a protest to unfair changes to the game.

A lot of time and effort has gone into the game on our part, playing the game, attempting to make the community a very good one, and good it has been.

The lastet changes have simply for many of our members been the final drop that made the glass pour over, we are not going to sit and watch certain players get free bonuses that the other side would have to pay to get, it is unheard of.

if a new solution to this problem is not found soon, I will have to search for a better game, like many of my game matest alreday have, and I'm afraid others will follow aswell.

Perhaps the developers should ask themselves how this solution is working out in other MMOs?

Notelitten wrote:

It affects new players on one side, as a representative for members on the light side (running a guild) I take this as an assult on the new members on the light side.

It doesn't affect my ranking in anyways except for the fact that I (and many others will quit over this change).

The game has now started to cater to losers in an attempt to create an eternal stalemate, perhaps fun for the new players to the dark side, but damaging to the game for anyone else.

I'm threatening to leave because I see how this is affecting the veteran players, we played this game because we saw potential. The potential of the game is now gone, and has changed its focus.

Any unfair benefits given to new players is unacceptable, and is going to destroy the game and the playerbase.

I don't actually see how it affects the new players, actually. It's my experience that if you're prioritizing gems or bonuses over style or thematics, then they didn't really care that much about the sides in the first place. If you're actually dead-set on playing dwarves on the game, you're still playing dwarves. If it affects your enjoyment that much that you're not getting production bonuses, you didn't care too much about them in the first place.

as to your "eternal stalemate" comment - I'm not seeing light's forces grinding to a halt at the moment, and moreover, the only change this has made is that they're trying to make a win or loss less focused on overall numbers. the point of this game is strategy. A numbers advantage that is not regained in some area isn't good for a strategy "theme". I believe that the devs are trying to make it so that a win depends more on quality and coordination rather than overall quantity, which is a big part of the game's theme.

That said, it's difficult to say one's given an "unfair" benefit in that all they're doing is getting a slightly larger rush to the late-game - in-battle, the game's self-balancing or at least tries it's best to be, as the devs are constantly looking to balance and rebalance it, and out-of-battle, you have the same healing times regardless of production bonuses.

AgentAAA wrote:

I don't actually see how it affects the new players, actually. It's my experience that if you're prioritizing gems or bonuses over style or thematics, then they didn't really care that much about the sides in the first place. If you're actually dead-set on playing dwarves on the game, you're still playing dwarves. If it affects your enjoyment that much that you're not getting production bonuses, you didn't care too much about them in the first place.

You're free to see what you wish, to me it's clearly providing an unfair bonus to new players. I am not prioritizing gems over gameplay, I am however saying that if it requires payment for the benefit, it is downright unfair that it is rewarded to a specific playerbase.

If you're dead set on playing dwarves, and you see your peers grow at a higher rate than your rate, for the same amount of gameplay, I don't know about you, but I would certainly leave the game right away, and give the game the ONE star it deserved for uneven and unfair gameplay.

AgentAAA wrote:

as to your "eternal stalemate" comment - I'm not seeing light's forces grinding to a halt at the moment, and moreover, the only change this has made is that they're trying to make a win or loss less focused on overall numbers. the point of this game is strategy. A numbers advantage that is not regained in some area isn't good for a strategy "theme". I believe that the devs are trying to make it so that a win depends more on quality and coordination rather than overall quantity, which is a big part of the game's theme.

Perhaps I'm seeing something you aren't because hordes of players are now quitting the game in frustration, soon to include me aswell. The devs are trying to make the game more even and fun to play, but they are using dirty and unfair advantages to do so, which is my reason for concern, and eventually quitting the game.

AgentAAA wrote:

That said, it's difficult to say one's given an "unfair" benefit in that all they're doing is getting a slightly larger rush to the late-game - in-battle, the game's self-balancing or at least tries it's best to be, as the devs are constantly looking to balance and rebalance it, and out-of-battle, you have the same healing times regardless of production bonuses.

[/quote]
Not difficult to say what so ever, the game is now rewarding new players in a specific faction an UNFAIR advantage, and is therefore an unfair and rigged gameplay. - However I guess the population control of the developers is succeeding, because due to the hordes of players leaving the light side now, the darks should soon see an easy paty to the capital...

Why don't we just let nature take its course? I don't see why can't the light or dark side win a couple games (even if it's a rush). Trench war is boring.

TLDR in Blue.

Notelitten wrote:

The lastet changes have simply for many of our members been the final drop that made the glass pour over, we are not going to sit and watch certain players get free bonuses that the other side would have to pay to get, it is unheard of.

Firstly, it doesnt really add to the discussion when you use arguments like "hordes of players are leaving" or threatening to leave as some form of extortion. The devs have the numbers and can see activity levels. They know the stickiness of their players.

About the paid for boosts -- Sure, players who paid for resources/boosts will feel slighted, but that comes from a mentality that some paying players have that once they pay for an advantage in the game, that advantage should never be lessened or taken away from them.

This zero-sum thinking is critically flawed, but a lot of games are designed around that mentality - P2W games are a good example of this. "I want to be the best, I paid to be the best, now dont let anyone be better or that reduces how good I am!" They feed on the apparent gap between themselves and other players and that makes them enjoy the game.

I personally think thats a really petty reason to enjoy games and it will inevitably set those people up for disappointment. There are much better reasons to enjoy games.


----
All that said, I actually dislike this "short-term boost" method of balancing populations too. It is a quick bandaid fix. While it may "sell" some new players on joining the low pop side, the downside is that it doesnt address the deeper core imbalance problems that push players to one side.

The long term solutions I would hope to see:

• Make the game more resilient to population imbalances through the game systems/mechanics.
  
• Determine what fundamental / intrinsic pressures are pushing players to one side and reduce/counter them.
  

Fundamental pressures would be things like:

• More people want to play the "good" faction than the "bad" one.
  
• More people want to play on the side that looks like its winning or will have the long term advantage. This is especially true in a 2 faction system.
  
• These two things feed off each other.
  

The first one is more of a lore issue and relatively minor, but important to fix in the long run. The 2nd one is the bigger problem. There should be no perceived advantage to having a larger population on one side.

Trying to give new players "short term bribes" to counter this perception will rarely be a winning proposition for either side. The boosts are either too much or too little and while they may not create any long term unfairness, it also doesnt solve any core problems in the long-run.

About this short-term bribe vs long term pop advantage problem:

• For the players who see in the long term - short term boosts wont sway them. Or, in order to sway those people, the short term bribe has to be pretty significant.
  
• The higher the bribe, the higher the risk of introducing long term imbalances. Short term imbalances can affect long term balance.
  
• For those who are not swayed and go with the perceived better pop side, they will resent the dark for getting an efficiency boost.
  
• There is also a risk that these boosts will be counter-effective. The higher the bribe, the more people might think, "Wow, if the darkside has to get such a huge boost, then the Light must have a reaally big advantage! I'm going Light!"
  
• It can also make players feel cheated in the long run. Not so much for the reasons that Notelitten talked about - but because players feel like they are forced to make choices that may not be fun. Multiplayer gamers have a bad habit of doing what is efficient - even if it may not be fun. Some people will take the initial boost because they think that is the route to faster/more power and find many days later that they resent the choice they made because they are not playing a race / playstyle that they really would have enjoyed.

Overall, it is not a pleasant choice to face as a new player. Its not a choice that players have much information to make a good informed decision. I also dont think players should choose their race based on anything more than what playstyle / flavor they want to enjoy. Everything else should be balanced.

---
About Solutions..
I kinda hope the devs are just testing this to see how much it affects the pop numbers. AFAIK, the last population numbers that were announced by devs were 53% and 47%. Thats pretty even. I would not have expected a 6 point spread to cause such heavy imbalances that there is a need to resort to boosts to rebalance populations. The devs have the numbers though and we dont, so I wont argue about need.

Instead, I think its more valuable to think of ways to build resiliency so that even 10-15 point spreads of population dont feel imbalanced at all. In other threads I have mentioned some ideas:

• CP container sizes that are different for each side so that they can be scaled based on active populations.
  
• A 3rd faction that puts pressure on the winning faction more - either a player faction or an NPC faction.
  
• Quests could give large chunks of CP. The amount of CP awarded might scale based on population sizes.
  

Of these things, the only one that a new player will see and immediately recognize as a balance to population imbalances is a 3rd player faction. The other things require education. Even a note/tip below the Faction Selection screen that informs the new player that there are game systems that counter population imbalances might help.

If a new player sees no advantage to being on the higher pop side, that removes one of the big causes of population imbalances.

Hegorn wrote:

The long term solutions I would hope to see:
Make the game more resilient to population imbalances through the game systems/mechanics.

The MVP calculation BC uses gave me an idea. You know how the player with the lowest AP's gets a score multiplier (ex. x1.50). Perhaps the same concept can also be applied to counteract the player imbalance so whether faction wins will be based on effort.

For example, let's say there are 20 light players and 10 dark. 4 light players do a co-op and earns a total of 40 conquest points. 2 dark players also decide to do the same and earned 20 CP's. On both sides, 20% of the respective population did a co-op but the light side still wins. The MVP-style multiplier can go into effect so that it would be:

Light side: 40 CP's * 1 = 40 CP's total
Dark side: 20 CP's * 2 = 40 CP's total

So both sides got the same amount of CP's because the same proportion of the respective population made the effort.

Steven261 wrote:

Hegorn wrote:

The long term solutions I would hope to see:
Make the game more resilient to population imbalances through the game systems/mechanics.

The MVP calculation BC uses gave me an idea. You know how the player with the lowest AP's gets a score multiplier (ex. x1.50). Perhaps the same concept can also be applied to counteract the player imbalance so whether faction wins will be based on effort.

For example, let's say there are 20 light players and 10 dark. 4 light players do a co-op and earns a total of 40 conquest points. 2 dark players also decide to do the same and earned 20 CP's. On both sides, 20% of the respective population did a co-op but the light side still wins. The MVP-style multiplier can go into effect so that it would be:

Light side: 40 CP's * 1 = 40 CP's total
Dark side: 20 CP's * 2 = 40 CP's total

So both sides got the same amount of CP's because the same proportion of the respective population made the effort.

Yea, its not a bad starting point. Numbers would need work of course.

Maybe its based on the average population numbers from some period of time in the past. That way cyclical population fluctuations dont give any side an advantage and can affect the warfront. I dont mind if cyclical fluctuations affect the battlefield.

I agree with Hegorn in several points. I never thought this as a great solution despite is largely used as I said in my post before. In fact I have seen things happening like the ones that he commented. For example people not joining the boosted faction because that way they know that faction is losing.

But Nolitten your actitude is just...too exagerated.

I mean you are putting it like OMFG now Dark players are getting end game in 3 days.

I have been playing for a bit more than 10 days and with those boost I barely would have a quarter of a level extra on my units and heroes and like maybe 5k-10k more gold been optimistic. Because the production in the first days is quite low.

So dont be so childish and do like Hegorn. Search solutions arround to not having to use this kind of things


By the way I like a lot the container size idea. I mean now how the game is designed numbers matter a lot because the amount of CP earned by a side is completely proprotional to the amount of battles played by players of that side. SO the mroe players the more points.

Something that makes the CP obtained varying depending on total population would make population unbalance almost unoticeable (if difference isnt very big) and would make the battle on going more focused arround cooperation, cordination and strategy. What is supposed to be in fact.

Firstly I'd like to point out that I''ve had a few beers, due to champions league

[quote="Hegorn"]TLDR in Blue.
Firstly, it doesnt really add to the discussion when you use arguments like "hordes of players are leaving" or threatening to leave as some form of extortion. The devs have the numbers and can see activity levels. They know the stickiness of their players.[quute]
Yes the devs may see the numbers and from what I've experienced being in the community with veteran players this is on one of the key factors of us leaving the game for good, this is in fact the droplet that made us quit the game and give up kongregate games for goood. We expected these games games to be fair and allow for fair gameplay. If more players joined the light side I would expect the developers to make a rational desicion and make it a fair starting ground that in a fair way encouraged dark players. - Not specificially gave premium content to beginners.

Hegorn wrote:

About the paid for boosts -- Sure, players who paid for resources/boosts will feel slighted, but that comes from a mentality that some paying players have that once they pay for an advantage in the game, that advantage should never be lessened or taken away from them.

I agree with this. Some players have jobs and have decided to put money into the game to benefit their players,I personally know players that have given thousands of dollarrs to the developers and I'd expect feedback, yet we do not, we experience a total ignorance from the developers, and thus, many of us have therefore decided to quit the game in hope of other games, in expectations of a better game showing up that either listens to its community, or has decided to give its players a fair chance.

The point being that all players should experience the same curve of growth.

Hegorn wrote:

This zero-sum thinking is critically flawed, but a lot of games are designed around that mentality - P2W games are a good example of this. "I want to be the best, I paid to be the best, now dont let anyone be better or that reduces how good I am!" They feed on the apparent gap between themselves and other players and that makes them enjoy the game.

I personally think thats a really petty reason to enjoy games and it will inevitably set those people up for disappointment. There are much better reasons to enjoy games.

I agree wiith you, games that give a signigiccant advanttage to paying members are never good, yet this was diferent it had a point where players could pay to improve their buildngs, yet their armies would remain low levels if they did not deddcate time to the game.

This has now all been destroyed by giving an experience bonus to the losing faction, and is one of my main reasons of quitting the gamme. I guess this is my formal resignation from the game.

I hereby quit the game, and encourage other players who wish for a fair game to do the same!
I would encourage all quitters to look back into the game in a months' time and see if it has improved.

If nothing has happened within tha time, I expect this game, just as earlier games to crash and die a horrible, sudden death by players leaving.

Hegorn wrote:

----
All that said, I actually dislike this "short-term boost" method of balancing populations too. It is a quick bandaid fix. While it may "sell" some new players on joining the low pop side, the downside is that it doesnt address the deeper core imbalance problems that push players to one side.

Agreed. some players have actually dedicated time and resources to come where we are today.

Hegorn wrote:

The long term solutions I would hope to see:

• Make the game more resilient to population imbalances through the game systems/mechanics.
  
• Determine what fundamental / intrinsic pressures are pushing players to one side and reduce/counter them.
  

Fundamental pressures would be things like:

• More people want to play the "good" faction than the "bad" one.
  
• More people want to play on the side that looks like its winning or will have the long term advantage. This is especially true in a 2 faction system.
  
• These two things feed off each other.
  

The first one is more of a lore issue and relatively minor, but important to fix in the long run. The 2nd one is the bigger problem. There should be no perceived advantage to having a larger population on one side.

it may be the alcohol talking but I'm not sure what you are syaing here, persomally I couldn't give a rats' ass about the lore, fair is fair and it should remain that way if the developers cared about its' players

Hegorn wrote:

Trying to give new players "short term bribes" to counter this perception will rarely be a winning proposition for either side. The boosts are either too much or too little and while they may not create any long term unfairness, it also doesnt solve any core problems in the long-run.

This is missing the point, to my understanding.

Hegorn wrote:

About this short-term bribe vs long term pop advantage problem:

• For the players who see in the long term - short term boosts wont sway them. Or, in order to sway those people, the short term bribe has to be pretty significant.
  
• The higher the bribe, the higher the risk of introducing long term imbalances. Short term imbalances can affect long term balance.
  
• For those who are not swayed and go with the perceived better pop side, they will resent the dark for getting an efficiency boost.
  
• There is also a risk that these boosts will be counter-effective. The higher the bribe, the more people might think, "Wow, if the darkside has to get such a huge boost, then the Light must have a reaally big advantage! I'm going Light!"
  
• It can also make players feel cheated in the long run. Not so much for the reasons that Notelitten talked about - but because players feel like they are forced to make choices that may not be fun. Multiplayer gamers have a bad habit of doing what is efficient - even if it may not be fun. Some people will take the initial boost because they think that is the route to faster/more power and find many days later that they resent the choice they made because they are not playing a race / playstyle that they really would have enjoyed.

Overall, it is not a pleasant choice to face as a new player. Its not a choice that players have much information to make a good informed decision. I also dont think players should choose their race based on anything more than what playstyle / flavor they want to enjoy. Everything else should be balanced.

It may once again be the alcohol talking, but this is exactly my point, and why I am abandoning this forasaken game.

Hegorn wrote:

---About Solutions..
I kinda hope the devs are just testing this to see how much it affects the pop numbers. AFAIK, the last population numbers that were announced by devs were 53% and 47%. Thats pretty even. I would not have expected a 6 point spread to cause such heavy imbalances that there is a need to resort to boosts to rebalance populations.
The devs have the numbers though and we dont, so I wont argue about need.

to my understanding we were either fed bullshit numbers, or we the devs have some idiotic plan of a permanent status quo, either way it is unfair, and one of the reasons I've lost all trust in the developers. They have shifted their product (the game) from delvering a quality product, to cater to newbies. I hope this works out, because me (and many of my peers) have decided not to put a single more dime into this shit of a game! - Many of us would even like to see it crash and burn. (I will not be around for that fun )

Hegorn wrote:

,,,

I'm going to neglect your further points, as it is irrelevant to why I am now quitting the game.

I hope to see the game on a different path when I once check back on it in the future, as for now I hope this game crashes, and suffers a horrible death

I guess I'll finally be breaking free from this potential good game, and go back to living my life as it should be lived..

Too many dollars spent, and too much time wasted.

Thank you all for the posts.

First of all I have to say that I personally respect everyone's opinions and of course their decisions. We want all our players to enjoy Battle Conquest and have a great time playing it.

I really don't understand the fuss about the recent changes, so allow me to throw my 2 cents here.

1) As well said above, the World Map is supposed to be there so it provides some strategic elements to the game by having players organize and plan their attacks on specific regions for specific reasons. The reason why we went ahead with the changes in the Regional Containers was because we wanted to add another element of strategy to the World Map by simulating the following:

a) The front lines could easily break and ground could easily be conquered by any side as the battles are fierce.

b) When a faction breaches the front line defenses of the other faction and pushes through to its interior, resistance will increase.

c) The regions adjacent to the capital of a faction are heavily defended as they are the last defenses before an enemy can attack the capital.

The above changes are valid for both capitals, so obviously there is no unfairness here. In fact, it is very possible to cut the "supply lines" of a faction, by conquering regions in a way which would lead to isolating enemy's regions.

In regards to the "population control":

You do know that these bonuses are ONLY for new players, right?

1) The bonuses given to the faction which is underpopulated are not permanent. Once the ratio between Faction A and Faction B is established then the bonuses are not shown during registration.

2) There are tens of reasons why a player would choose a Faction over the other and most of the reasons have nothing to do with the game's mechanics because simply during the registration the player DOESN'T know the mechanics. Therefore the player's decision making process has nothing to do with game mechanics but is rather a personal preference and nothing more.

3) What has been mentioned in terms of a multiplier in CPs is already in the works, but:

a) We cannot punish a Faction because it is active by providing very high multipliers to the other Faction and therefore the multipliers will be low
b) It is still a matter of how active a Faction is, as in the formula the number of battles will determine the total CPs acquired by a Faction

4) The bonuses given to a new user are 10 days XP bonus for their units and heroes and 5 days gold production. How exactly will those bonuses provide a disadvantage to the other Faction when:

a) The % increase in production for 5 days is on a very very low level resource building.
b) The player will be playing on Easy or Normal on the first few days and he won't be able to recruit a good number of heroes to get the full advantage of the XP bonus

5) How exactly is the opposite Faction receiving a disadvantage when only new players take the XP bonus and that will just help them out on their first few days without even becoming a valid threat? How exactly has Light lost "power" due to the population control? Have we forbidden players from registering a Light account? Have we given special powers to the Dark forces which will make their life easier? Allow me to disagree and the facts are clear...

Finally...

We do not like stalemates... It really makes me wonder how we could have given this impression, when for several weeks there has been no change on the World Map and then we decided to actually CHANGE the CPs given by making the APs of an army a variable in the formula (as a result the CPs awarded increased SIGNIFICANTLY) and reduce the values of several Regional Containers in order to make them easier to be conquered.

We want to make the game more challenging for everyone and we will continue our efforts towards improving the gaming experience. If for some reason some players think otherwise, all they have to do is look at what we have been doing the past 1 month...

RuneSlayer wrote:

Thank you all for the posts.

First of all I have to say that I personally respect everyone's opinions and of course their decisions.

As customers I (and a group of other players) are thanking you for a great game experience during the first month of gameplay, the game did for sure have potential, and for the first month of gameplay it seemed worth the few thousand dollars we invested in this game.

It is sad that you have chosen the path of equilibrium and status quo, we respect your choice, and hope you spend our dollars wisely on dollars for further developing new and better games in the future. - It is definitely a sad and un-repairable dameage that we have seen the last couple of days, I myself have taken a final farewell with the game, and though it's sad seieing my money go down the drain, I have to respect your choice.

RuneSlayer wrote:

1) As well said above, the World Map is supposed to be there so it provides some strategic elements to the game by having players organize and plan their attacks on specific regions for specific reasons. The reason why we went ahead with the changes in the Regional Containers was because we wanted to add another element of strategy to the World Map by simulating the following:

a) The front lines could easily break and ground could easily be conquered by any side as the battles are fierce.

b) When a faction breaches the front line defenses of the other faction and pushes through to its interior, resistance will increase.

c) The regions adjacent to the capital of a faction are heavily defended as they are the last defenses before an enemy can attack the capital.

Obviously you are not understanding the point, the fact that the game now has given unfair advantages to a certain side of the battle is the final cancer that has been instated in the game. This is not whatsoever relevant to the reason I (and many others) am/are quitting this game.

Though this was an interesting and perhaps bakwards idea, my mates and I would have no problem in seeing these theories be tried out on a global scale, as they would still be fair, and reward players who worked very hard to get their "fame".

RuneSlayer wrote:

The above changes are valid for both capitals, so obviously there is no unfairness here. In fact, it is very possible to cut the "supply lines" of a faction, by conquering regions in a way which would lead to isolating enemy's regions.

I still agree with you completely, the changes in the above paragraph, were completely fair, and did not benefit any faction or group of players.

RuneSlayer wrote:

In regards to the "population control":

Finally; we're getting to the heart of the game' problems.

RuneSlayer wrote:

You do know that these bonuses are ONLY for new players, right?

You know that these bonuses are rewarded to ONLY ONE FACTION right? - It seems you are obvlivious of this fact, as if it is to be neglected, yet it is one of the most unfair changes instated in the game, if not the MAIN unfair advantage.

RuneSlayer wrote:

1) The bonuses given to the faction which is underpopulated are not permanent. Once the ratio between Faction A and Faction B is established then the bonuses are not shown during registration.

If it is permanent or not is irrelevant!
It is an unfair advantage.

I am still asking the question as to which bullshit we (as a community) have been served, is it so that the dark faction represent 25% of the community, or is it the 47% to 53% difference we were told in the official chat. - No matter what we have been served a pile of hot bullshit, and your changes have lead us in the dark.

RuneSlayer wrote:

2) There are tens of reasons why a player would choose a Faction over the other and most of the reasons have nothing to do with the game's mechanics because simply during the registration the player DOESN'T know the mechanics. Therefore the player's decision making process has nothing to do with game mechanics but is rather a personal preference and nothing more.

If this is the case, why would you add an unfair bonus to a certain faction, do you understand that this encourages quitting for new members, which in itself manifests itself in the community? - Which in terms is one of my main reasons for quitting this game?

RuneSlayer wrote:

3) What has been mentioned in terms of a multiplier in CPs is already in the works, but:

Telll me more, this is perhaps not going to make me quit, as I already have, but it certainly would make more players quit if this benefits a certain faction. - I believe you (as developers) are digging your own grave here)

RuneSlayer wrote:

a) We cannot punish a Faction because it is active by providing very high multipliers to the other Faction and therefore the multipliers will be low
b) It is still a matter of how active a Faction is, as in the formula the number of battles will determine the total CPs acquired by a Faction

Agreed, now the question is not how you should maintain status quo, but WHY you are discouraging it.

RuneSlayer wrote:

4) The bonuses given to a new user are 10 days XP bonus for their units and heroes and 5 days gold production. How exactly will those bonuses provide a disadvantage to the other Faction when:

a) The % increase in production for 5 days is on a very very low level resource building.
b) The player will be playing on Easy or Normal on the first few days and he won't be able to recruit a good number of heroes to get the full advantage of the XP bonus

If the bonus is so irrelevant, I'll be happy to provide you with a list of players who would like a refund of their wasted gems, on this irrelevant ingame bonus!!!

This being said, most of us have already quit, and we accept your desicions, however stupid, and will perhaps look back into this game in a few months and see if it is worthy of our time once again, right now; it is NOT.

RuneSlayer wrote:

5) How exactly is the opposite Faction receiving a disadvantage when only new players take the XP bonus and that will just help them out on their first few days without even becoming a valid threat? How exactly has Light lost "power" due to the population control? Have we forbidden players from registering a Light account? Have we given special powers to the Dark forces which will make their life easier? Allow me to disagree and the facts are clear...

You are missing the point. It is an unfair advantage, not a threat.

A threat would be a fun challenge. While an unfair advantage would be ground to quitting (which we are.)

RuneSlayer wrote:

...

I neglected your futher bullshit, as it was irrelevant.

All this said, thank you for your time, your game had potential while it lasted, we hope to see a good game from you in the future. And mostly, I appreciate your lack of censorship on this site, it shows dedication to you works.

As far as "fixing" the game goes, on my buddies, and my part, it's too late, this game has already shown its' bad spots, and we already regret our wasted time and money.

Even if I have my reservations about something, I'm more than willing to try it out and see how well it works. I know this feature wont ruin the game. People who say otherwise are simply resorting to baseless hyperbole.

I think the devs have done a great job of keeping up with player feedback and making measured decisions on how to better the game. The changes to balance the map are working really well. There is a lot more map movement in the center and participation matters more overall.

Thanks for that.

RuneSlayer wrote:

In regards to the "population control":
2) There are tens of reasons why a player would choose a Faction over the other and most of the reasons have nothing to do with the game's mechanics because simply during the registration the player DOESN'T know the mechanics. Therefore the player's decision making process has nothing to do with game mechanics but is rather a personal preference and nothing more.

I agree with most of that statement. I have trouble agreeing with that last sentence.

I think new players are very susceptible to being influenced by what is perceived to be powerful / OP in the game. You're completely correct that new players know little to nothing about the game mechanics. Instead, they base their decision on whatever they can quickly discover about the game. Often this is very partial or incorrect information.

I think one of the most common questions I see in Kong's chat: "Which race is the best?" This is a symptom of the same behavior - where many players will choose based on what they think will give them the most power.

New players get first impressions from various sources - through reading forums, or through kong chat, or examining the leaderboard, or through playing the game for a little while and restarting. They want to win. They know that PvP will be a big part of the endgame and they want every advantage they can get. Enough players will switch based on these perceived advantages even if they lose a day or two of development.

Something else that I think supports my view on this -- the feature of player resets was one of the heavily requested features to be implemented by the dev team. If players truly pick the race they really want to play purely based on flavor and the descriptions of the playstyle, then resets probably would not be such a heavily requested feature. Players like having the option to switch to a "stronger" race if their first choice turns out to be underpowered or they are on "the losing side."

Quote :

3) What has been mentioned in terms of a multiplier in CPs is already in the works, but:

a) We cannot punish a Faction because it is active by providing very high multipliers to the other Faction and therefore the multipliers will be low
b) It is still a matter of how active a Faction is, as in the formula the number of battles will determine the total CPs acquired by a Faction

Would you be willing to talk more about your plans for this? I'm sure I'm not the only one interested.

Notelitten wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

1) The bonuses given to the faction which is underpopulated are not permanent. Once the ratio between Faction A and Faction B is established then the bonuses are not shown during registration.

If it is permanent or not is irrelevant!
It is an unfair advantage.

So if these advantages are so unfair, why do you think that you as a paying player deserve them and no one else does?

Will you feel that way about gems being earned through ingame play too?

This is exactly what I meant by P2W games being driven by people with that mentality.

Well said Hegorn. The answer is no, I would not have the same mentality towards gem earned ingame, as they are fairly distributed. Not unfairly, as this startup bonus is.

Notelitten wrote:

Well said Hegorn. The answer is no, I would not have the same mentality towards gem earned ingame, as they are fairly distributed. Not unfairly, as this startup bonus is.

So its only unfair if you dont have access to it?

Notelitten wrote:

Well said Hegorn. The answer is no, I would not have the same mentality towards gem earned ingame, as they are fairly distributed. Not unfairly, as this startup bonus is.

I dont think you got my point.

I'm saying that if your outrage is justified and this is an unfair boost to give to 1 side, then it is equally unfair that it be given only to paying players.

I'm saying that your outrage at the unfairness of these boosts is baseless because you think it is okay for paying players to receive them.