Ryu said:
Please elaborate on what numbers/participation encourages you to run beacon massacre yet again?
Hi, Ryu!
According to the information I have, during the previous Massacre Tournament players' activity on Beacons was much higher than during any other Beacon-related Tournament.
on Untamed Lands we boycotted this event and only 1 beacon changed hands. What information do you have?Ryu said:
Please elaborate on what numbers/participation encourages you to run beacon massacre yet again?Hi, Ryu!
According to the information I have, during the previous Massacre Tournament players' activity on Beacons was much higher than during any other Beacon-related Tournament.
They probably look at the meta data and see when and were players spend the most on sapphires. and well.... hey lets have becon masacre again!You go to all the trouble to point out in business speak why Plarium working against the benefit of the server and even their own long term interests and all they do is accelerate the program and run the tournament again.
They have nothing but utter contempt for their own customers.
Gadheras said:
djmoody said:
They probably look at the meta data and see when and were players spend the most on sapphires. and well.... hey lets have becon masacre again!You go to all the trouble to point out in business speak why Plarium working against the benefit of the server and even their own long term interests and all they do is accelerate the program and run the tournament again.
They have nothing but utter contempt for their own customers.
it was everyone buying the 50% boosts to suppliment their defense inthe beacons out of fear.
Ok, for the pure number of fights without risk (and meaning) conducted by a few that metric might actually look strong. Not having seen your numbers I am actually willing to believe that normal beacon tournaments mostly draw those leagues that had plans for other peoples beacons anyway. No need to rehash the conceptual weaknesses here, we will have enough other threads for that. Thanks for your answer.Ryu said:
Please elaborate on what numbers/participation encourages you to run beacon massacre yet again?Hi, Ryu!
According to the information I have, during the previous Massacre Tournament players' activity on Beacons was much higher than during any other Beacon-related Tournament.
nice tactic, scare players to spend money.... cute. really cute.Gadheras said:
djmoody said:
They probably look at the meta data and see when and were players spend the most on sapphires. and well.... hey lets have becon masacre again!You go to all the trouble to point out in business speak why Plarium working against the benefit of the server and even their own long term interests and all they do is accelerate the program and run the tournament again.
They have nothing but utter contempt for their own customers.
it was everyone buying the 50% boosts to suppliment their defense inthe beacons out of fear.
Alonya said:
But as I already said before, after each new feature release, devs check two important sources of information:
1) Player feedback from forum passed by CMs.
2) Activity logs.
Sometimes player feelings may differ from the actual situation that is represented by logs. In each case the decision about further feature development is made individually, based on all available data.
I have another number for you to look at Alonya... how many people have gone inactive or totally quit the game since the last Beacon Massacre? How do those numbers compare to the metrics from before the Massacre? Short term burst of activity, mostly by leagues trying to protect themselves from the uber-coiners and then massive die-off of players. Great results, if running off the player base is what you are trying to accomplish.
i lost 4 active players who decided to go elsewhere than tolerate plariums tactics.Your not alone in that area as well
We did not have that problem so far, at least not outspoken, but there are things that could be done to increase the retention rate of new players (main accounts), even if it would likely increase the benefits for having alts, too. One big thing is getting people into the long-term game as quickly as possible.
Another is putting unit build-up on a level that allows an active game-play where one mistake does not put you back to the beginning of your army building phase. Starvation or a similar limitation is what most games have for good reason.
Assuming that monetisation is the goal, and not attacking a business for behaving that way, I am convinced that you could do WAY better than you likely are. More greed is better, right?
If only activity equaled satisfaction.
I am active in the BG out of pure stubbornness trying, hoping plarium hasn't stolen my troops for good, I keep hoping just maybe I will get back what I put in but I keep getting proven wrong so my activity creates more dissatisfaction until I quit.
Plarium is like a long lasting bad relationship
You aren't happy but you put so much time and effort into it you aren't ready to quit even though you aren't happy and plarium won't go to relationship counseling with us LOL
Hello and from me.I have one request if its possible of course!Can you restore my day Rewards?The reason to miss out One day is because i have been on trip and one my friend keep alyve my acount.If you chek my game history uou can view i never miss to login everyday!
Regards!To a sufficient degree for a daily log-in game, yes. You play it, you must like it.So I ask again, does activity equal satisfaction?
lp1979 said:
Hello and from me.I have one request if its possible of course!Can you restore my day Rewards?The reason to miss out One day is because i have been on trip and one my friend keep alyve my acount.If you chek my game history uou can view i never miss to login everyday!
Regards!
i can direct you to support but the chances that they restore it are near none (because the reason is simply not enough )
a trip does not qualify as if a server issue is
but try your luck who knows sometimes they do make exceptions ( especially if you had a good count of days )
also for future reference stay relevant to the content of the thread
http://company.plarium.com/news/blog/community-managers-who-are-they/
according to plarium senior community manager Dennis Kobzan, only 200,000 active players in all of the plarium gaming community.
So now we have the number we have all been asking for.
assuming each game has an equal amount of players, thats 20,000 per game.
just doing an even split, that means a max of 10k active active players per server on stormfall.
willing to bet the number is more 80/20 split and only 2k active on untamed lands.
IronApex Turok said:
http://company.plarium.com/news/blog/community-managers-who-are-they/
according to plarium senior community manager Dennis Kobzan, only 200,000 active players in all of the plarium gaming community.
So now we have the number we have all been asking for.
assuming each game has an equal amount of players, thats 20,000 per game.
just doing an even split, that means a max of 10k active active players per server on stormfall.
willing to bet the number is more 80/20 split and only 2k active on untamed lands.
Well, does this also include the FB variant of their games as well?, You would think like Stormfall on FB would have more players as its tied more to FB as a social media. Also some of the games more likely to have higher activity than the others, so do a splitt down not that reliable. If their metrics is based on actual activity within a castle, then there would be a lot of bots defined as actives too.
my point was that the number of live players was very low. i was actually estimating high on purpose, but yeah when you start adding in factors like that, the numbers get even smaller.
Well, does this also include the FB variant of their games as well?, You would think like Stormfall on FB would have more players as its tied more to FB as a social media. Also some of the games more likely to have higher activity than the others, so do a splitt down not that reliable. If their metrics is based on actual activity within a castle, then there would be a lot of bots defined as actives too.
