Also the increase of coins needed to create a new alliance in my opinion is a very bad move. If you have 10 new alliances created daily you might have slight chance to get a HOD or Synergy alliance. If you have 0 new alliance created what are the chance of getting one good new alliance ? 0%
We definitely don’t want to encourage burnout or anything like that.
The goal of this feature isn’t to do anything competitive or playing at alot or anything like that – the requirement is to win a single attack per day!
An engaged team full of complete newbies in Stone/Bronze rank who have cards at level 1 can achieve the top prize by logging in a single time per day and doing a single chest-opening battle. It will take leadership who is organized, teamwork and kicking out inactive people but teams at any level of deck power should be able to achieve the highest reward goal.
It really shouldn’t take more than a couple of minutes per player – of any deck power & rank.
Well I understand the point you are making. We are talking about different stage of alliance maturity.
If you already have 60 players now in an alliance you will have no problem even if all the players are at bronze stage. My concern is at the infant stage of an alliance. HOD and Synergy don’t grow over night. It takes time to grow (60 active members) to where we are now and with the alliance reward what are the chances of us seeing a new alliance coming out ? Everyone will find a mature alliance to join.
Maybe that is the direction of the management now. I can’t debate without any numbers here. Maybe you are right because you have all the numbers and data. We will just have to see in short and long term what is the impact.
Thanks for taking time to respond.
I have not received the 600 tokens for the last daily quest and it’s been happening to a lot of people. Please respond
I have not received the 600 warp points either. It completely skipped it!
Please can you restore them??
@Chucklesb011 exactly why I made the other post about the rewards packs when you rank up. Totally agree.
@Lyth it seems like they have deliberately skipped over replying to you, which I’ve seen happen quite a few times when it’s a subject like that. @S7campusLifer please do not ignore direct questions like this.
- We definitely hear the feedback.
- At a high level, we’re not perfect. Sometimes we’ll release things which are wrong and we’ll need to iterate on them.
- This feature was released about ~2 weeks ago and after seeing it in action, we found it wasn’t having the intended effect – we need to change it. If it’s still not working, honestly we might need to change it again. We’re human beings and we don’t get every number right the first time.
- We obviously don’t like seeing our players upset. In the short term, it would be easy for us to make sure all the numbers always inflate upwards with each change. Long term, it’s going to break the game economy if we do that every time. It’s a balance.
- We will continue to monitor the usage of the feature and continue to tweak as we get more feedback and data on how it’s working.
Thanks for the reply.
The problem is you guys are listening, sort of, but not fixing things fast enough. You lost a lot of players with the last change. They aren’t coming back if you fix it now but you can prevent more loss. I couldn’t estimate how many but my former guild went from fully active to at least 10 not signing on. That included the guildmaster which makes it hard to fix.
The change you just put with alliance piggy bank would have made it terrible if I were still there. Despite the loss we still had about 43 people finishing the quest each day. The reward would have dropped for those of us sticking in there and trying to keep the guild alive from 400 a day to 200 a day. I left and found a more active guild, so did at least 2 or 3 others and maybe more by now.
I’m not saying constantly go up but you haven’t listened when everyone said coins weren’t enough. It’s not good to constantly have 50 cards to upgrade at all times. Then you cut the rewards for packages, then you cut the amount of coins. OK don’t always inflate, its bad for the economy. Always cutting is bad for the game, you lose players.
The game itself is one of the best tablet/phone games I’ve ever played but you are destroying it with these economy shenanigans.
Thanks for the feedback.
Our hope is that this feature will incentives officers to rally their team to each get 1 Battle per day. I expect many officers will need to remove some low activity players and make space to recruit some new players who are more excited to contribute to the team once a day.
Right now there are literally hundreds of alliances with 1-4 very active players sitting with ~50 inactive players in the team with them. We hope that this feature pushes them to “move up” to more active alliances and help a team sitting at 43/60 get up to 50+. But that requires that they feel a need to switch, and the better team feels a need to make space for them to join.
Maybe consider after a member completes the quest, after a set time (3-4hours) then they can contribute once more so 2 sign in are required to boost progress if they are missing the goal. A player signing in once for the day to play a match doesn’t create a very active community if they are unhappy with the games changes currently. Incomplete quests kills the game.
We’re definitely listening, but the fact of the matter is that we’re a very small team with members that wear many hats. Each time you see staff respond to this forum, they’re choosing to take time out of their day helping develop the game (coding, making art, designing UI, etc.) to do so.
Again, we read everything on this forum as time permits. Sometimes you won’t see an immediate reply because 1) the answer has already been covered elsewhere in another thread (this is why we strongly discourage creating duplicate topics) or 2) the person reading the post doesn’t have the appropriate background to give a meaningful answer. In these cases, a wrong or bad answer is far more damaging than none. That being said, the posts are forwarded to the person with the right context to provide a response when appropriate.
If you need help with an issue that can realistically be solved for your game alone (like the Alliance Quest rewards), please file a support ticket so we can get the relevant information to locate your game data. If you need a timely response and fix to your game, please do not expect it from the forum, as it’s not the correct platform for it.
Just to give everyone an idea of what is coming…look at WarDragons. Devs will seem engaged until is seems like profit stabilizes and then add a skeleton crew of hugely unhelpful outsourced support backed by people operating on mostly personal fleeing.
I was curious if this game would actually follow a different path but it feels like a carbon copy of that. Not saying that some of the devs aren’t trying but it’s eerily similar all the same. Minus TenCent investing millions of dollars probably though.
I really don’t want to turn this forum into talking about War Dragons on this forum or else this whole forum will be inundated by War Dragons players jumping all over here. I’m not going to comment any more on War Dragons – I really don’t want to turn this forum into “talk about war dragons”.
But just to clarify: War Dragons currently has a larger team working on it than Wild Beyond. I still work on War Dragons a little bit and for sure the people working on it are highly skilled and engaged — for sure some of of them way more than someone like me
Back on the alliance engagement topic, something that would be REALLY helpful would be a way to see a bit more activity history. As an officer in a “very active” guild that can’t seem to breach the 25 contributors mark each day, it’s hard to tell who is inactive versus who just missed a day yesterday. I had thought getting 20-25 contributors each day was good before, with an appropriate reward. Getting 50 (out of 60) is extremely difficult for all but the top handful, I suspect.
It was more so that people can get an idea of the general process that has been used so they can evaluate both where this is not and where it seems to be heading.
The fact that you made such a broken cost structure does not mean that the player base should then be punished due to this is more how I see it.
What people have repeatedly said is that boosting a deck ABOVE the one the current player has it ridiculous. THAT is where people are clearly the most upset. Getting hit with random fully maxed decks in an event is asinine. I dont really know how to make that any more clear.
If this was purely competitive game with no advantage given to transactions then sure, but its not. So essentially punishing people who did spend the time and/or money by having them face decks that are even stronger than theirs is where the problem lies.
I dont get the logic at all. So…you worry that people in the mid game (say level 12-14?) quit because they cannot beat levels higher than theirs? So…how the heck does it make sense to essentially do the same thing to end game players who have some 17s and then matching them against boosted decks of ALL 17s? Magically it makes sense in one scenario but then not in the other? How does that work? I feel like people must be missing something.
@Holeesmokes I can definitely speak to this: I literally am working on this today! The current way the game determines “activeness” is not at all discerning. Pretty much any Alliance will be marked as “Very Active” if there a couple of people playing the game. In an upcoming app update I will be changing this to be way more discerning so someone can look at this activeness score and feel pretty confident they’re joining a great guild if it says “Very Active”
That sounds great! Does it come with a way for alliance leaders and officers to better pinpoint who is dragging us down and kick them?
@Holeesmokes that is in the roadmap as well but will be in a following release.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.