Major Overhaul of Game

[LordFirefall]

I also don't like this idea. Regarding doing away with scholarships, it would imbalance the game far too much toward the larger players. The current exponential scholarship requirement levels the playing field between large players and small. With your idea, players with 100s of cities would become unstoppable and would easily roll over any smaller players.

As to the elements you allege this will add, consider the following:

1. Ballistae already are relevant. If you don't think so, you've never played against the right guild.
2. We can already take advantage of the iOS map. We already can figure out what is or is not a scholar.
3. Maxed out cities already are utilized - they make great targets for those of us who know not to build them.
4. There is already a risk/reward relationship interwoven throughout the game.
5. There are plenty of ways Quark capitalizes on gold spenders - this would just emphasize spending in a different area.
6. See #3.
7. Most players make sure they have an academy in every LC now. I doubt that players will strategically place them. Rather, all their cities will be maxed. Back to square one...

The guild idea is terrible. You claim Valor is turning into a fraternity, this suggestion will exacerbate the problem. What noob will be able to join a good guild now? He/she won't even know a jump room exists, much less join one. As far as spies go, as much as folks hate them, they add a layer of strategy to the game. Most of us that have played for a while not only know how to avoid them, but we also know how to use them to our advantage.

All your solutions address problems that already are being worked and promised. MCM and mass scholarship purchasing will fix these issues. They are likely taking a while, because Quark doesn't want to break the game. Your proposed changes will require as much or more work than MCM and mass scholarship purchasing, without fundamentally changing the game.

[MyName999]

Just to summary: if these changes would occur, the game wouldn't be the same...

Better asking for a new game with new rules, than changing an existing one

[sancheezy]

look, ive been around, and led a successful coalition, since w3. ive seen just about every change made to valor. some good, some bad. TBS isnt really as horrible as most players make it out to be, and as for me not knowing how to rebut a point. allow me to make this clear to you: if players needed to have a fully built city in order to train scholars(like ryksi said... HOW would that even work) gold spenders would thrive A LOT more than they currently do. clones arent EVEN an issue, they are extremely easy to deal with, while that guy rifles through his 100+ accounts to defend against 25+ REAL players... sorry but i dont see the advantage clones have outside of being used as spy accounts. and if you dont have a complete group of players you trust by now, YOU have a problem, not the cloners. it doesnt matter what game you play, there will always be cheaters, so lets get that out of the way and rule it out as "if they beat you, you really DO suck at this game"

how have i contradicted myself? i merely stated that the game isnt broken(because in the way you want to fix it, it ISNT) so how exactly have i said anything contradictory? any player who knows what ballasts are for knows that they have a strong use. maybe you should read my guide in the tutorial section, as it clearly states the difference between attacking a city to take it or to destroy it. i know MANY players that use them properly, and many that dont use them at all, thats what makes players unique, we all have our own play style. changing the games systems that, again, are not broken, will not change that, at all.

ill go back to what i originally said. "change is not always good." and btw you singled me out, when how many others said they disagree? i just so happened to type a little bit more than them as to why I disagree. i stick by my original statement, if the game was changed as much as you think it should be, many many many many more players would leave. if you can think of a good reason why those changes would help to keep players im all ears buddy, but dont assume im ignorant because you dont want to read in-between the lines of what i say.

cheers and happy hunting

Almost anytime you have to give your resume before making a statement usually isn't a good thing in life.

If TBS isnt so bad then why are so many people leaving? My hypothesis is that the game has gotten stale, kind of like these boards. That's why I like to liven things up here and there ;-)

To answer how that would work is simple, you go to your academy and hit train scholar. If you don't have the per-requisites (missing a building) it could say "You need additional structures to train scholars". Down the road it would be nice if it listed the buildings that were missing to help guide people further.

How would gold spenders thrive more by not having scholarships? People don't generally buy the costly resources later in game. If anything it puts a bigger value on farming to buy scholars.

I agree that clones aren't an issue and provide yummy food. But the fact of the matter is that the game still favors those breaking the rules. I have a great team of players (as I mentioned earlier in my post if you actually read it :P) but many plan to leave in the future with me. The bottom line is, if you have a guild of 25 players who play by the rules, you can give me a guild of 20 players who use negative scholars and I will wipe the floor with you. That's simply a fact and numbers back this up. If this wasn't the case why does this occur in every GW and is prevalent in almost every other world?

Yes people use ballistas for rally points and the occasional farm and/or academy. I am talking about opening this up to a greater degree and making them even more relevant than they currently are (and the game quicker overall).

It is clear that you and I see things very differently. The things you value and discuss in detail on this fourm (...medals...) is one of the last thing that matters to me and most of the players I know (yes the "collectors" out there love them but they dont add much to the game play in my experience with some exceptions).

So while I agree you TYPED a little bit more, you actually SAID a whole lot less than most people. If your guide is anything like your posts on here, well I am not sure how much help that would be to anyone.

Reading in-between the lines assumes you actually have some underlining message. Beating your chest and saying, "Me is great and know it all" isnt much to build on. You STILL have presented the weakest of all arguments here and not outlined these "glitches" or any solution for them as I mentioned earlier. Instead of reading between the lines you should try ACTUALLY reading the lines of text.

[sancheezy]

I also don't like this idea. Regarding doing away with scholarships, it would imbalance the game far too much toward the larger players. The current exponential scholarship requirement levels the playing field between large players and small. With your idea, players with 100s of cities would become unstoppable and would easily roll over any smaller players.

As to the elements you allege this will add, consider the following:

1. Ballistae already are relevant. If you don't think so, you've never played against the right guild.
2. We can already take advantage of the iOS map. We already can figure out what is or is not a scholar.
3. Maxed out cities already are utilized - they make great targets for those of us who know not to build them.
4. There is already a risk/reward relationship interwoven throughout the game.
5. There are plenty of ways Quark capitalizes on gold spenders - this would just emphasize spending in a different area.
6. See #3.
7. Most players make sure they have an academy in every LC now. I doubt that players will strategically place them. Rather, all their cities will be maxed. Back to square one...

The guild idea is terrible. You claim Valor is turning into a fraternity, this suggestion will exacerbate the problem. What noob will be able to join a good guild now? He/she won't even know a jump room exists, much less join one. As far as spies go, as much as folks hate them, they add a layer of strategy to the game. Most of us that have played for a while not only know how to avoid them, but we also know how to use them to our advantage.

All your solutions address problems that already are being worked and promised. MCM and mass scholarship purchasing will fix these issues. They are likely taking a while, because Quark doesn't want to break the game. Your proposed changes will require as much or more work than MCM and mass scholarship purchasing, without fundamentally changing the game.

Isn't the game already imbalanced towards larger players? Isnt this why people spend a ton to grow early on and then taper off spending? This is a game of numbers.

1. I am talking about making them more relevant than rallies and the occasional farm and/or academy. Yes they are very relevant at "clean-up" time.

2. I am talking about making the current map more valuable under the new structure. This will help newer players as well to spot scholars and allow for help from the guild with identifying when taking screen shots.

3. Exactly my point...actually make them relevant.

4. I am talking about increasing the risk versus reward spectrum to include the ability to loose more cities more quickly since scholars would be more prevalent.

5. This is a business.

6. See #3?

7. I dont see that as true. Many people demolish forges and cut back on farm space for more troops. If we are back to step one then in this process the one thing missing is scholarships. By getting rid of scholarships (and negative scholars) we allow more resources to flow towards the thins that matter...troops (Ok initially buildings would absorb a little more) but if every LC can train an infinite number of scholars imagine the carnage you could cause on your foe.

In regards to the guild idea it was nothing set in stone. I was merely toying with the idea of worlds where you jump into it and be coded either red or blue (for example). This way the world stays balanced (theoretically cant recruit the world) and may force people to work with their side as their wouldn't be any switching of sides. Presented this way would actually exacerbate the spy problem but was another independent idea. Perhaps a separate thread should have been made to present that one.

Utilizing spies is something I am against in Valor and so we will not see eye to eye on this. I simply think that, given its a game, going the extra step to befriend a guild (and many people personally) to stab them in the back isnt my cup of tea and doesn't actually keep people playing...in fact quite the contrary. I would rather have people show me their skills in the game rather than their skills on kakao. But that's just my what I value.

Finally, lets be honest. No one really has hundreds of cities anymore. People peak out around 100 in a 1k (if that). So this notion of 100s of cities has become further and further from the reality that is Valor today.

[LordFirefall]

Isn't the game already imbalanced towards larger players? Isnt this why people spend a ton to grow early on and then taper off spending? This is a game of numbers.

I'm not sure long you've been playing, but the escalating scholarship requirement is a serious limiting factor for larger players. That requirement costs you in resources and time. Do the math. If an 800+ city player devotes max resources to scholarship purchases, he buys 11-12 scholar slots. A player with far fewer cities buys about the same, but with far less resources and far less time. If you free that large player from the requirement, he can devote those resources to troops with which to overwhelm you. As far as peaking around 100 cities, there's more to Valor than TBS.

1. I am talking about making them more relevant than rallies and the occasional farm and/or academy. Yes they are very relevant at "clean-up" time.

Again - you've not played against the right guild if you think that ballistae are only relevant against rallies, farms, academies and clean up. You're discounting the immense psychological impact of having your cities systematically taken apart by a merciless player.

2. I am talking about making the current map more valuable under the new structure. This will help newer players as well to spot scholars and allow for help from the guild with identifying when taking screen shots.

3. Exactly my point...actually make them relevant.

Just because an attack is coming from a super city, doesn't mean its always going to be a scholar. The only sure fire way of figuring out if a scholar is enroute is by timing it or revealing troops. I suspect this quest for super-city relevance may have its roots in liking the looks of the city more than anything else.

4. I am talking about increasing the risk versus reward spectrum to include the ability to loose more cities more quickly since scholars would be more prevalent.

There is already risk involved. Newby players would fall prey to veteran's that much quicker with your proposal.

5. This is a business.

You are correct. However, you still haven't made a case that your suggestions would cause people to spend more gold than they do now.

6. See #3?

Again, I suspect the reason you want super-cities to serve a function is solely because you think they look cool.

7. I dont see that as true. Many people demolish forges and cut back on farm space for more troops.

How many LC's do you have with no Academies? I use a pretty good mix of buildings that allows me to move needed resources and retrain my troops quickly, without coming close to the 40k mark. I do that without sacrificing my academy, or downgrading my forge so much that I can't recover when someone targets me with ballistae.

Utilizing spies is something I am against in Valor and so we will not see eye to eye on this. I simply think that, given its a game, going the extra step to befriend a guild (and many people personally) to stab them in the back isnt my cup of tea and doesn't actually keep people playing...in fact quite the contrary. I would rather have people show me their skills in the game rather than their skills on kakao. But that's just my what I value.

Re-read my post. I didn't say I liked spies. I merely pointed out they add a layer of strategy to the game.

You complain about negative scholars, but doing away with scholarships will allow players to operate unconstrained. At least with negative scholars, players have to go to the trouble of dealing with their scholar farms. I'd rather see MCM and Mass Scholarship purchasing come out than to see them done away with entirely.

It appears I'm not alone in my opposition to your idea, judging by the responses to this thread.

[Benfrom300]

just save your time FF. its his way or the highway. let him leave, as i see it all he is doing is trying to cause a huge stink over what he thinks will make the game better for him. its already been stated the game is balanced, its already be stated that ballistae have a strong use but he doesn't want to see it. he is stubborn and clearly cannot handle the facts we have laid out here. I'm done here.

[sancheezy]

I'm not sure long you've been playing, but the escalating scholarship requirement is a serious limiting factor for larger players. That requirement costs you in resources and time. Do the math. If an 800+ city player devotes max resources to scholarship purchases, he buys 11-12 scholar slots. A player with far fewer cities buys about the same, but with far less resources and far less time. If you free that large player from the requirement, he can devote those resources to troops with which to overwhelm you. As far as peaking around 100 cities, there's more to Valor than TBS.

I agree this is the INTENT of the scholarship system but we all know the majority of large players (take every GW for instance) use negative scholars to curtail this requirement.

As you said, the math on negative scholars allows for significantly more resources to be devoted towards troop production and therefore overwhelm the opposition. That is why it is done.

My point is simply that legacy worlds (all new ones at least) are shrinking all the time. The Valor of 800+ cities isn't the Valor of today. TBS (and now only 1K worlds) mean a much smaller and quicker experience and by changing the scholarship requirement it levels the playing field.

Again - you've not played against the right guild if you think that ballistae are only relevant against rallies, farms, academies and clean up. You're discounting the immense psychological impact of having your cities systematically taken apart by a merciless player.

If your guild is even somewhat organized and supports this is basically a non-issue. Sure it occurs occasionally with a restart in a 1K, but morale takes care of this over time and makes the cost of this action extremely high. Adding more to the defensive stats of ballista may be something that would make them more appealing IMO but again not really my point. I was simply using the existing framework and building upon it. Since the name of the game is now "get all of the cities" demolishing the cities isn't as relevant as it once was. Most people dont want to demolish something they will eventually need to capture anyway.

Just because an attack is coming from a super city, doesn't mean its always going to be a scholar. The only sure fire way of figuring out if a scholar is enroute is by timing it or revealing troops. I suspect this quest for super-city relevance may have its roots in liking the looks of the city more than anything else.

This is actually my point exactly. I adds another layer of strategy when attacking (timing fakes to come from other super cities) to disguise the scholars.

There is already risk involved. Newby players would fall prey to veteran's that much quicker with your proposal.

Maybe that would be the case but a shorter life in the game may be a good thing. Rather than get beat down over a few months, the world would be over more quickly and new players can decided to continue playing Valor or quit. I think inactivity is the worst enemy in the game.

In either case I think it provides more transparency to the game and will even the playing field out with new players not getting taken out simply because someone knows how to game the system better.

You are correct. However, you still haven't made a case that your suggestions would cause people to spend more gold than they do now.

Quicker world’s means more gold spent. It also means more GWs which means even more income. Also the fact that more speeds ups (because of an increased build requirement) and more resources would be required to get to your first scholar would mean more money spent from those players that choose to have scholars the same days a world opens or within an unnatural span of time.

It may also mean someone demolishes a building and uses speed ups to demolish in order to “poison pill” a city. Obviously this is simply a hypothesis but was laying out a case on why changes can (and should be made) and how they could be advantageous to both business and players.

Again, I suspect the reason you want super-cities to serve a function is solely because you think they look cool.

I am simply using what already exists in the game: the city side scroll bar, CH to 30 and graphics that exist with little to no purpose at this time.

How many LC's do you have with no Academies? I use a pretty good mix of buildings that allows me to move needed resources and retrain my troops quickly, without coming close to the 40k mark. I do that without sacrificing my academy, or downgrading my forge so much that I can't recover when someone targets me with ballistae.

I have a handful without academies. Usually those pesky barb conversions. Once you have 30-50 academies it really doesn’t matter IMO and having one in each city isn’t necessary. If using negative scholars then you need even less academies. I usually max my cities in the 32-36k range but again simply use what is part of the game in order to enrich the game and not simply keep the status quo.

Re-read my post. I didn't say I liked spies. I merely pointed out they add a layer of strategy to the game.

I apologize if I misunderstood you utilizing spies to your advantage with liking them. My opinion is that they detract from the game (and cause more people to leave) than strategy they add. The diplo job in Valor is quite possibly the worst job in history.

You complain about negative scholars, but doing away with scholarships will allow players to operate unconstrained. At least with negative scholars, players have to go to the trouble of dealing with their scholar farms. I'd rather see MCM and Mass Scholarship purchasing come out than to see them done away with entirely.

Yes I am asking for more transparency within the game. Rather than have a dirty secret that this is used on a large scale, put everyone on an even playing feel. Take for instance a guild of all new players. Friends that are arguably better gamers than average. Those 25 (or whatever number) will NEVER be able to win against a guild of 25 that were not as good but use negative scholars. Again the math just doesn’t back it up (resources all devoted to troops versus buying scholarships).

When the game favors scamming the system versus using the game the way it was designed then something needs to change in my opinion (and apparently a lot of others who have left and/or complained on these boards). With the simple hurdle of scholar farms being the only barrier to that path is a weak argument at best.

Mass scholarships purchase is something that has been mentioned for so long but isn’t as easy as people suggest (an “easy button” with simply “Buy all scholarships” is a laughable concept).

First off, how would you identify which cities purchased scholarships versus which needed to train troops or have buildings queued?

Do you need to cycle through each city and do this first before buying all scholarships? Back to the original problem.

Do you need to select which cities are part of this scholarship program? Now we are back to evaluating each city on an individual basis to toggle this.

The fact of the matter is that each city is so unique that you really don’t know if and/or what you will use your resources on. If you are in a world where you can go and spend down all the resources with no need to queue up troops, well then that’s about as stale a world as exists and I don’t (and hope) Quark is not focused on this.
I simply posted an idea to solve these major issues that utilizing the side scroll bar and many other features (and code) that are currently pointless.

It appears I'm not alone in my opposition to your idea, judging by the responses to this thread.

If we know anything about statistics then the 3 people that have posted here are hardly indicative of a population and tell us absolutely nothing. Even if 100 people posted here that wouldn’t even get us close to statistical integrity.
I don’t post this to make friends or be popular on a public message board. I post this because the game has gotten stale and many many people have left and continue to leave. If you really want to get some data look back on all the posts related to these items and then compare that to the few fanboys protecting the current state of affairs.

The bottom line is, if Valor never changes and disappears, do any of us win?

[sancheezy]

just save your time FF. its his way or the highway. let him leave, as i see it all he is doing is trying to cause a huge stink over what he thinks will make the game better for him. its already been stated the game is balanced, its already be stated that ballistae have a strong use but he doesn't want to see it. he is stubborn and clearly cannot handle the facts we have laid out here. I'm done here.

All I am doing is utilizing the forums for what they are designed for and (as I have pointed out now a few times) kicking the dust off the forums a little and throwing something else out there other than the, "Lets have a new medal" idea that seems to come up or a gripe on the issues with no solution (which by the way I have asked you for a list of what you call the issues with no response).

Here is another important piece of information for life, the difference between fact and opinion. What you stated (game being balanced) is 100% your opinion, there is no fact stated there (and no effort on trying to back up your opinion). What I am stating is also my opinion,which I am backing up with points. The FACTS are that people keep leaving and have been complaining about these issues for a very long time which is why I choose to address them in a more proactive way (versus standing behind something without any idea or ability to explain why you believe in it so adamantly).

At least LordFireFall presented his opinion on why he didn't agree with my proposal. YOU haven't laid out any argument or much of anything. Please do not take credit for other people's work (what facts have you laid out?); when I gave you a shot to do the same. You choose to or do not have the ability to come up with any independent thoughts it seems.

Thank you for informing me that you are done here, as I have said over and over you really never started. You presented no point and have added nothing on this thread (again).

The fact that you cannot even come up with some rebuttal on a public forums is just sad and maybe is indicative of the state of this game and its players. Again just my opinion.

[LordFirefall]

I agree this is the INTENT of the scholarship system but we all know the majority of large players (take every GW for instance) use negative scholars to curtail this requirement.

As you said, the math on negative scholars allows for significantly more resources to be devoted towards troop production and therefore overwhelm the opposition. That is why it is done.

My point is simply that legacy worlds (all new ones at least) are shrinking all the time. The Valor of 800+ cities isn't the Valor of today. TBS (and now only 1K worlds) mean a much smaller and quicker experience and by changing the scholarship requirement it levels the playing field.

I'm well acquainted with how and why negative scholars are used. Here's the reality to taking away the scholarship requirement: whether its 1 more or 800 more cities, the player who has more cities can overwhelm those with less players if they can devote all their resources to troops. Scholarships are a limiting factor that allows that smaller player to at least compete. It doesn't matter if worlds are smaller or not.

If your guild is even somewhat organized and supports this is basically a non-issue. Sure it occurs occasionally with a restart in a 1K, but morale takes care of this over time and makes the cost of this action extremely high. Adding more to the defensive stats of ballista may be something that would make them more appealing IMO but again not really my point. I was simply using the existing framework and building upon it. Since the name of the game is now "get all of the cities" demolishing the cities isn't as relevant as it once was. Most people dont want to demolish something they will eventually need to capture anyway.

I'm going to say this again - you've not played against the right guild. Sim. It. Out. It doesn't take a lot of ballistae to get through heavy defenses and knock down buildings (especially 1 level buildings). My guild has brought enemy offensives to a screeching halt with the right application of ballista.

This is actually my point exactly. I adds another layer of strategy when attacking (timing fakes to come from other super cities) to disguise the scholars.

It doesn't add another layer though - its merely a derivation on existing strategy. Moreover, its one that sharp or seasoned players won't fall for.

Maybe that would be the case but a shorter life in the game may be a good thing. Rather than get beat down over a few months, the world would be over more quickly and new players can decided to continue playing Valor or quit. I think inactivity is the worst enemy in the game.

Do some research and you will see the fallacy of your premise. You get a higher stick rate, the longer you keep a player around.

In either case I think it provides more transparency to the game and will even the playing field out with new players not getting taken out simply because someone knows how to game the system better.

There's nothing saying your idea won't present ways to game the system. Depending how your method is implemented, I can think of at least three ways to game the system.

Quicker world’s means more gold spent. It also means more GWs which means even more income. Also the fact that more speeds ups (because of an increased build requirement) and more resources would be required to get to your first scholar would mean more money spent from those players that choose to have scholars the same days a world opens or within an unnatural span of time.

Quicker worlds don't necessarily mean more money. It could easily mean more inactives. People have a tendency to play many worlds at once, when playing quick worlds. As a result, they go inactive in more worlds as the one in which they are doing well takes up more of their time.

It may also mean someone demolishes a building and uses speed ups to demolish in order to “poison pill” a city. Obviously this is simply a hypothesis but was laying out a case on why changes can (and should be made) and how they could be advantageous to both business and players.

Only a fool purchases speed ups to demolish buildings. Its too easy to have a neighbor drop guild and launch ballistae (yet another use for them in a savvy guild).

I am simply using what already exists in the game: the city side scroll bar, CH to 30 and graphics that exist with little to no purpose at this time.

It may not be of any use to you. That's not the case for many of us. Additionally, one of the portions of MCM that Quark has been working on will use the scroll bar.

I have a handful without academies. Usually those pesky barb conversions. Once you have 30-50 academies it really doesn’t matter IMO and having one in each city isn’t necessary. If using negative scholars then you need even less academies. I usually max my cities in the 32-36k range but again simply use what is part of the game in order to enrich the game and not simply keep the status quo.

You advocate bringing use to something you think is unused, yet you convert barbs without building an academy. Interesting.

I apologize if I misunderstood you utilizing spies to your advantage with liking them. My opinion is that they detract from the game (and cause more people to leave) than strategy they add. The diplo job in Valor is quite possibly the worst job in history.

If you think the diplo job is the worst job in history, you are missing many levels of strategy. This is part of my problem with your suggestion. You're not looking at the second and third tier effects your suggestion would bring.

Yes I am asking for more transparency within the game. Rather than have a dirty secret that this is used on a large scale, put everyone on an even playing feel. Take for instance a guild of all new players. Friends that are arguably better gamers than average. Those 25 (or whatever number) will NEVER be able to win against a guild of 25 that were not as good but use negative scholars. Again the math just doesn’t back it up (resources all devoted to troops versus buying scholarships).

When the game favors scamming the system versus using the game the way it was designed then something needs to change in my opinion (and apparently a lot of others who have left and/or complained on these boards). With the simple hurdle of scholar farms being the only barrier to that path is a weak argument at best.

Google is your friend. It's not a secret for anyone that cares too look, listen, and learn.

Mass scholarships purchase is something that has been mentioned for so long but isn’t as easy as people suggest (an “easy button” with simply “Buy all scholarships” is a laughable concept).

First off, how would you identify which cities purchased scholarships versus which needed to train troops or have buildings queued?

Do you need to cycle through each city and do this first before buying all scholarships? Back to the original problem.

Do you need to select which cities are part of this scholarship program? Now we are back to evaluating each city on an individual basis to toggle this.

The fact of the matter is that each city is so unique that you really don’t know if and/or what you will use your resources on. If you are in a world where you can go and spend down all the resources with no need to queue up troops, well then that’s about as stale a world as exists and I don’t (and hope) Quark is not focused on this.
I simply posted an idea to solve these major issues that utilizing the side scroll bar and many other features (and code) that are currently pointless.

Changing a fundamental piece of the game certainly wouldn't be any easier. As to the mechanics, I can think of many easy and intelligent ways to do things with MCM and Mass Scholarship purchasing. One part of MCM is being able to apply user defined filters to the side bar. You could tag your cities that need work and do that work before you purchase scholarships. You could set a resource threshold for all your cities and purchase scholarships down to that threshold (no need to work individual cities prior). You could set it so a scholarship is purchased before resources max out (if you were doing it server side). The logic isn't hard, if you think about it. Those ideas were just off the top of my head.

If we know anything about statistics then the 3 people that have posted here are hardly indicative of a population and tell us absolutely nothing. Even if 100 people posted here that wouldn’t even get us close to statistical integrity.

I don't recall making a claim that the data on this thread could be generalized back to the overall Valor population. However, I'm not new to this game (been playing since W15), or multiplayer strategy games (over 30 years), and that experience says you will lose a lot of players when you fundamentally change game mechanics.

I don’t post this to make friends or be popular on a public message board. I post this because the game has gotten stale and many many people have left and continue to leave. If you really want to get some data look back on all the posts related to these items and then compare that to the few fanboys protecting the current state of affairs.

The bottom line is, if Valor never changes and disappears, do any of us win?

I know better than most why players have left the game (yes, I'm the guy that conducted that survey a while back). I've looked at this game from many angles, and argue based on the knowledge gained through those observations. Also, if you do some searching and reading on the forums, you'll see I'm not a "fanboy". Since I also am a GuildMaster, am in a Kakao chatroom with Ben, other GMs, and Quark staff, I can tell you Ben isn't either. Most of our opinions (GMs) are outcroppings of those of our guildmembers.

[sancheezy]

I'm well acquainted with how and why negative scholars are used. Here's the reality to taking away the scholarship requirement: whether its 1 more or 800 more cities, the player who has more cities can overwhelm those with less players if they can devote all their resources to troops. Scholarships are a limiting factor that allows that smaller player to at least compete. It doesn't matter if worlds are smaller or not.

That is the current state of the game and why people spend as much as they do early on in a world. Also, it is not entirely true that a person with 1 additional city can simply overrun another person given the game engine and the advantage given on defense. You are correct that someone with 800 more cities would clearly have an advantage over someone with less which is why I said the size of the world is completely relevant. On evaluating this solely on an absolute basis it would imbalance the game to a large degree. On a relative basis this advantage is smaller. I personally would love to see one person accumulate 250 cities in a 1k and try to conquer it on their own if this is the biggest drawback to this structure.

This would devalue the re-spawn of a world though.

I'm going to say this again - you've not played against the right guild. Sim. It. Out. It doesn't take a lot of ballistae to get through heavy defenses and knock down buildings (especially 1 level buildings). My guild has brought enemy offensives to a screeching halt with the right application of ballista.

I guess I take the stance because I have not seen any in GW other than defensive or chaos purposes. Again it may be a large mistake on many factions sides but if the "top players in the game" aren't using them on what is supposed to be the winner's platform, I think it isn't as relative as you are implying they are.

It doesn't add another layer though - its merely a derivation on existing strategy. Moreover, its one that sharp or seasoned players won't fall for.

Generally speaking a derivative it something new. Something that doesnt impede the seasoned players and possibly helps new players (SS rally and map) is potentially a good thing.

My whole post was based on a derivation of what is here.

Do some research and you will see the fallacy of your premise. You get a higher stick rate, the longer you keep a player around.

Let me clarify what I meant as I see it wasn't too clear. I think that a shorter time spent PER WORLD could potentially translate to a higher stick rate in the game overall. I think the worlds of today (lasting 3 months on average lets say) is too lengthy, time consuming and repetitive. By shortening this down (to say 6 weeks) I think you will have less inactives per world (more people likely to stick it out until the end) and also (potentially) a higher stick rate long term.

There's nothing saying your idea won't present ways to game the system. Depending how your method is implemented, I can think of at least three ways to game the system.

I'm not saying my idea is a panacea. With any idea there will always be pros and cons depending on implementation. Thinking of ideas is (generally) the easy part, it is following through with it and bringing it to fruition where the problems generally lie.

Quicker worlds don't necessarily mean more money. It could easily mean more inactives. People have a tendency to play many worlds at once, when playing quick worlds. As a result, they go inactive in more worlds as the one in which they are doing well takes up more of their time.

I think this is the message that Quark has been telling us for quite some time. The quicker worlds (1ks) are the most profitable. They also lead to GWs which are (probably) the biggest profit center to them. I think with a shorter game life per world, we would cut back on the degree of inactives. Also, a quicker world would mean people would NEED to be more active for this period of time but could make it more palatable than the current requirements.

Most of my experience is around people playing one world at a time. The majority of players I play with generally only start a second world if/when their primary becomes too boring (slow). I never considered the speed of the world to have a correlation to activity levels and do no personally see it. I will ask around more to see if people feel this way in my group.

Only a fool purchases speed ups to demolish buildings. Its too easy to have a neighbor drop guild and launch ballistae (yet another use for them in a savvy guild).

My point was that it COULD make it relevant.

It may not be of any use to you. That's not the case for many of us. Additionally, one of the portions of MCM that Quark has been working on will use the scroll bar.

I didn't say it had no benefit to me but felt my ideas expanded on these features which already exist.

You advocate bringing use to something you think is unused, yet you convert barbs without building an academy. Interesting.

No I was saying once I have 30 cities with academies I generally don't build anymore. In fact, once the basics are maxed out (troops, resources and wall) I do not build anything other than troops. For instance in my current world I cannot say I have queued up many buildings in the last couple of weeks (other than rebuilding walls). Sure the person that caps 1ks has a long road of queuing buildings. My idea is to make buildings (and construction of cities) have an increase priority throughout the world. At the very least all of the resources in a game would be directed towards tangible items: troops and buildings. This would mean constant growth for players that are active (either increasing points with buildings or lots of additional KST with all of the additional resources for troops).

If you think the diplo job is the worst job in history, you are missing many levels of strategy. This is part of my problem with your suggestion. You're not looking at the second and third tier effects your suggestion would bring.

Again just an idea for some worlds to avoid the "recruit the world" phenomena that has been going around for a while. As I said before this is simply a separate idea and should simply be viewed in isolation (and possibly deserved its own thread initially).

Google is your friend. It's not a secret for anyone that cares too look, listen, and learn.

Just because you can Google something, doesn't make it a good think. There a lots of things out there that people shouldn't be Googling and learning.

More to the point would be who is the target demographic for the game? It is a male age 10-30? They would likely go this route or is it the casual gamer that shops the app store and downloads the app (everybody)? I say this because the bulk of the people I play with dont check the fourms and would never Google something like this. Kids, jobs, spouses and all of the other RL things suck up too much time to go through all of this. In fact I doubt any of them know I am so outspoken here on this forum and probably never will. I agree the person maintaining a spreadsheet will look this up but is that the only Valor player we are catering too?

Changing a fundamental piece of the game certainly wouldn't be any easier. As to the mechanics, I can think of many easy and intelligent ways to do things with MCM and Mass Scholarship purchasing. One part of MCM is being able to apply user defined filters to the side bar. You could tag your cities that need work and do that work before you purchase scholarships. You could set a resource threshold for all your cities and purchase scholarships down to that threshold (no need to work individual cities prior). You could set it so a scholarship is purchased before resources max out (if you were doing it server side). The logic isn't hard, if you think about it. Those ideas were just off the top of my head.

As I pointed before out most of those suggestions will still suck up a significant amount of time still. Going through and changing city tabs require an in-depth knowledge of all of your cities. If we have the information similar to Aura's Blessing (population, resource level and troops in city) available in the side scroll bar this would be a lot easier but again on the scale you are talking about (800+ cities) tagging cities (and un-tagging) would still require a significant amount of time.

An auto-scholarship purchase system would go against the nature of the game (activity) and perpetuates the problem you were against of the 800 city player versus the 1 city player.

The logic isn't hard at all, it is the implementation of this where the issues arise.

I don't recall making a claim that the data on this thread could be generalized back to the overall Valor population. However, I'm not new to this game (been playing since W15), or multiplayer strategy games (over 30 years), and that experience says you will lose a lot of players when you fundamentally change game mechanics.

You didnt make a claim but an implication that, because three people hadn't agreed, the Valor population didn't agree. All I am saying is that Quark wasn't afraid to make these changes with TBS and shouldn't be afraid to make drastic changes again.

I know better than most why players have left the game (yes, I'm the guy that conducted that survey a while back). I've looked at this game from many angles, and argue based on the knowledge gained through those observations. Also, if you do some searching and reading on the forums, you'll see I'm not a "fanboy". Since I also am a GuildMaster, am in a Kakao chatroom with Ben, other GMs, and Quark staff, I can tell you Ben isn't either. Most of our opinions (GMs) are outcroppings of those of our guildmembers.

[/QUOTE]

I know all about your survey and commend you for taking a proactive role. I also apologize to you as I was not referring to you as a fanboy but rather the other users who did not present an argument but defended the game without any additional ideas.

I understand you are arguing based on the knowledge gained through the survey but consider this. Your survey is ripe with biases. The survivorship bias alone (you asked people who play(ed) the game at the time) what they would like to see and also asked people to fill out a survey on a forum that is for people that CURRENTLY play Valor. I really don’t think many people that quit Valor are coming back to these forums to look for a survey to improve the game. This means that the information gained is biased towards the current users and not actually gaining new players or getting back the players that have actually left. Unfortunately, to overcome this you would need to survey an additional 9,500 people (including those that left the game) at random.

This does pose an interesting question, is Quark looking to hold onto its (weakening) player base or try to gain a large number of players again (potentially).

In addition to this you have selection biases. Who actually logs in to take a survey and/or comment on a forum? Younger people... (I just learned how to do multi-quote thing a day ago and have a facebook I check once a month if that). Most of the people I play with wouldn't ever take that survey and would never add Valor to their facebook friends/likes. I would imagine that, if this type of marketing and demographic is what Quark was going for, the twitter bonuses would still be around. I do know about 25 people who have left recently who probably spent about $50 in gold per month each. That is $1,000/month in recurring revenue gone from a company. I don't care what business you are in but that hurts. I can say confidently that this demographic isn't what is represented in your survey...but they too would be a poor proxy for the Valor population. The reality of it is that Valor is a mobile application and (I would imagine) is/was created for broad market appeal.

Finally, your data doesn't come from a random sample. It comes from a post tied directly to you. To think that the data isn't at least a little bit biased because of this would be a bit of a leap.

I think many times (in business, life and overall) people fall into a pattern and a think tank. By not introducing new people into the GM room (which I hear is very very quiet these days) you can run the risk of data mining as well.

Been a while since I took statistics and again am a BIG advocate for change in some way but just want to point out that your survey, from the point of statistical significance, isn't very relevant. So, if someone doesn't put too much stock in it (I believe I read that Quark never said anything to your survey), there may be a reason behind this. In other words, another idea out there (not necessarily my own) is quite possibly the right now. Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are market research firms that do this but the cost to figure out something like this is probably far greater than Quark is willing to invest in Valor (now if this were Champs that might be a different story... :P)

Cheers on the stimulating discussion though. Caused me to actually use my memory a bit