Too everyone upset with how MW was developed

[Dover]

Please stop. Playing the game that is. No one in the General thread cares about how you feel the casualty rates are. No one in General thread cares about you not being able to crush another person 2000 defense below your attack, no one in General cares about you getting picked on by gold buyers. 99% of the whiney posts are coming from players with 20 posts are less which tells me no one is reading anything that has already been posted. There is some good information in these threads if you would Search for it or take some time and read through it.

I posted this in another thread but I feel this needs its own post. If you have an issue please do not post it in the General Forum, you are not helping yourself or anyone else, you are actually annoying most of us. If you have a true issue and not just a whiney little post open an in game ticket. This has been written time and time again.

You'll notice the intelligent players TS, AO and others have told you how the game is played and what to do all without crying over it. The pouty players need to grow up and start acting more like them. If that is not enough for you, you may need to take a step back and ask yourself if you should really be playing a game you do not like.

I understand the game limitations and short comings and one day I may stop playing if I start feeling like you guys sound. But I will not post a whiney little "I am selling everything because my troops die when I fight" thread.

I lose too many troops when I attack someone, man have you ever heard something so silly about a war game. LOL

[vitus79]

good thread, i second that

[Bond]

Thank you. There is some real gold out there, really valuable tips shared by experienced players. Who take the time to make the game more enjoyable with funny, intelligent advice. Unfortunately, like real gold, the advice is scattered among the debris.

A big thank you to those hat help with game play - you know who you are.

[CJ54]

Thank you. There is some real gold out there, really valuable tips shared by experienced players. Who take the time to make the game more enjoyable with funny, intelligent advice. Unfortunately, like real gold, the advice is scattered among the debris.

A big thank you to those hat help with game play - you know who you are.

So here's the million-dollar question for the readers: is anyone willing to take it on themselves to compile up some links to that information?

Also, to the OP: I want to be clear that negative feedback is still valuable, as long as it is less vague than "Funzio sucks". It's okay for people to let us know that they're unhappy with something, as long as they're clear on what they're unhappy about. Also, it helps us spot potential issues that might only be affecting a smaller number of users (which can be another thing that causes lower-post-count players to start posting: they may have only recently encountered a serious issue).

[chuck norris]

Two issues are obvious. Obvious isn't a strong enough term in any sense. Ridiculously blatantly omg obvious.*

Crashing.*
Casualties.*

The recent casualties "bug" has brought a TON of activity to the forum, from new and immature players AS WELL as Modern War veterans. This flurry of feedback *speaks for itself. There is no other single issue more affecting your fans than that. Your hall of fame constituents are wondering aloud about giving up on the game. PVP is likely at an all time low. We are losing valor units at "very high" rates instead of low. Goals are crippled, raiding is suicidal, and everybody is miserable.*

When the "bug" is fixed, we want our valor back. Seriously.*

Seems obvious to me.*

And thanks for stopping by.*

[chuck norris]

Wow. I have no idea where the asterisks came from. Sorry.

One more thing. The casualty bug didn't appear in an update. You are and have been adjusting it on your servers safe to assume. So that fix very likely does not need to wait for an Apple approved update. Correct?

[Agent Orange]

I'd agree with Chuck, crashing is probably the most frustrating part of the game aside from the casualty issue.

I've been able to spend some time on my brothers iOS devices and have been checking out the levels they are playing at and notice that the casualty issue is a bit inconsistent though still serious. I also caved in and opened up the iPod I picked up on boxing day and set up a new player so I could try the turtling strategy and to check out how much has changed on the lowest levels.

For the most part the game plays well in the lower levels mainly because the players are fairly evenly matched even up into the mid 50's. The rivals lists seem to still be populated through a formula of picking players in a specific level range and also a specific number of allies.

Where this suddenly changes is somewhere in the mid 50 to the 60's and above or at least that is what I see based on my rivals list. I am at L78. At this point I get quite a mixture of players from super weak to the golden whales.

In terms of the casualty issue. I can understand that fighting a war = taking losses but the way these losses are calculated seems to defy logic. Well at least in terms of the data we are presented with which is our attack and defence scores. But the other two factors that nobody understands much about are our attack and defence skill points as well as the actual ratings of the units in our armies. I suspect this is why we have such confusion right now with how the game is calculating out what is lost and what isn't.

Adding to that is my gut feeling that certain units are misidentified such as the Super Hornet and Stealth Frigate which have fairly strong ratings but in reality seem to be lost far too often than is logical. In the case of the Stealth Frigate this loss issue goes way back to when we had the problem with it changing value and cost. Since then my gut feeling is that it's value was overly devaluated so that the game could get rid of all the cheaply bought Stealth Frigates but it seems to have stuck to the current ones as well.

Unfortunately in the games current state attacking and raiding is not cost effective and since attacking and raiding are probably the key component of the game (being a war game) it makes for a rather problematic issue. In other words most of us are now sitting on our hands waiting to see what happens next or leaving.

But the problem I see is that the game got out of hand too fast with gold buyers. I have to wonder if anyone at Funzio figured that some players would go out and build massive indestructible armies so fast. That caused the big problem with those who were just plodding along only buying small amounts of cash or gold or nothing at all since they were now being annihilated and because of this they are giving up on the game. Honestly if I didn't like puzzles so much I would have tossed in the towel a month ago. I think the game has some real potential but the corner you guys are painted into is a tough one. How do you fix the game so that it is more equitable without killing it for the whales? And that to me is the million dollar question.

I also don't think you can drop the cost of gold and cash even though it should be. Only because that is not fair to those who have already purchased at the higher costs. I do think that allowing more things to take place at the same time might take some of the sting out of the game and this could be based as I mentioned a few months ago on the level of the player. Eg at L20 you can build 2 buildings or do 2 upgrades at the same time, L30 3 things etc. Folks are still going to need cash or gold if they want to speed things up so from a financial standpoint it's more of a win win situation.

So how to fix this? Good question, let me ponder it some more.....

[Speed ump]

I would not mind at all if the price of gold dropped. I would have more purchasing power from this point forward, the same time as all other players. I just noticed some others issues I have encountered, not sure if this is the correct thread, but I will start here. Since about a week ago, I used to be able to attack and complete goals not listed in my folder aka attack 40 times without losing, etc. that way I could collect more valor points. That is gone now. It appears they have opened the new maps for us higher up guys, but the cost ( millions) to attack one target verses the payout is ridiculous.also I was able to keep attacking the general in the government map without anyfurhter costs, and after 14 attacks I would get a nice payout. Now it is charging me to attack, and every time I do I always lose a player or more that I must pay for again. Similar to the older maps, but more so. The cost versus payout is a quick way to lose millions. I tried last night and lost 5 million after just a few plays.thanks for trying to give us something to do at the higher levels,but no thanks. I'd rather pay to decorate my base, it's much cheaper:-) To replace attacking for valor points I am raiding a lot more,so more people people get pissed, which is ok.im just adapting to the changes in the game play.

[Wildfire]

To add my tuppence worth to the interesting and constructive stuff in this thread. The issue of how the game plays and how changes in the gameplay have effected everybodies strategies seems to generate a bit of a vitriolic diatribe in this forum from many players.

With CJ54 bringing greater developer input to these forums could I ask that we are given a degree of advance notice of impending changes like the changes to rivals lists over christmas and changes to unit losses last weekend. The unused News / Announcements forum could perhaps be a nice home to this sort of information. Giving advance information too would hopefully reduce the degree of annoyance and unconstructive stuff.

It would also be nice to know more about things like attack and defense skill points and what exactly they do in real terms rather than the vague "improves you chances" description. It's hard to quantify what they really do as you've no idea what your rivals points are relative to yours. When you've points to spend the game always seems to recommend energy instead.

Also when it says for example against the Sea Scout "Strong Against Sea", what does this translate into in attack and defense.

[JMC]

In other games Ive played there was a cap on how much gold someone could buy in a day. That cap was fairly high at $200, but at least it kept players from being ridiculously overpowered and most of the buyers didn't mind it. Basically whats happening right now is unlimited limited edition items and that sale at xmas. During that time a bunch of people just threw $5000-$10000 out the window and made it impossible for anyone to even compete with them. Having a cap still allows gold players to advance much quicker, but also still makes them wait like the rest of us and makes the game more fair for the rest of us.

Also at AOs post, that multiple upgrades idea is nice, but it will not make the company more gold. That is why i dont see them implementing it. A gold player finishes all his buildings and upgrades instantly anyways, so how is having two or three buildings upgrading at the same time going to make him spend more? It won't, meaning that idea makes them no money, so they likely will not do it :/

[Speed ump]

I did not get to spend much during the Christmas sale since apple keeps keeps making me contact support to complete purchases after buying a few times, and it takes days for them to get back with me. I would argue that gold players don't pay for immediate upgrades as much as you might think. The cost to do so for longer times is just stupid crazy. I'd rather buy units with it. Also I think the amount you think gold buyers might have spent during the sale is way overstated, maybe by 10 times. Did they take advantage, I am sure to some extent. I did buy a few until apple cut me off. I am probably one of the biggest gold buyers and have spent maybe 12k or a little more during the whole time i have played. And CJ please don't tell me have much I have really spent, I don't think I want to know. That way I can fool myself into believing it is less:) if they made gold much less expensive, more people would buy it I believe. I would of course have to spend to keep ahead of the others, so it would level the playing field just a bit more, maybe. Or maybe us"whales" pay the way enough already.

[Tramp Stamp]

So here's the million-dollar question for the readers: is anyone willing to take it on themselves to compile up some links to that information?

I request Funzio demonstrate good faith by doing the following:

1. Sticky Syn's "best of" thread in the Crime City forum, which does exactly as requested but for a different game. Not doing this strongly suggests that making a similar thread for Modern War will largely be a waste of time. Even with dedicated bumpers, Syn's thread often lands on page 3 or 4 within a matter of days.

2. Please select forum moderators, which Funzio has been advertising for 4 months. If you guys really do read everything then you'll know who to pick without much problem or debate.

[Wildfire]

A question for Speed ump, do you collect all the limited edition units or not? The reason I ask is I came across someone a couple of days ago who seemed to have one of everything I've seen, he'd likened it to collecting toy soldiers when a kid! I have to say I thought, you know I can relate to that I quite liked it. I also liked the retort that even golf would be cheaper as a hobby!

[JMC]

I did not get to spend much during the Christmas sale since apple keeps keeps making me contact support to complete purchases after buying a few times, and it takes days for them to get back with me. I would argue that gold players don't pay for immediate upgrades as much as you might think. The cost to do so for longer times is just stupid crazy. I'd rather buy units with it. Also I think the amount you think gold buyers might have spent during the sale is way overstated, maybe by 10 times. Did they take advantage, I am sure to some extent. I did buy a few until apple cut me off. I am probably one of the biggest gold buyers and have spent maybe 12k or a little more during the whole time i have played. And CJ please don't tell me have much I have really spent, I don't think I want to know. That way I can fool myself into believing it is less:) if they made gold much less expensive, more people would buy it I believe. I would of course have to spend to keep ahead of the others, so it would level the playing field just a bit more, maybe. Or maybe us"whales" pay the way enough already.

Most of the people with 40K+ stats basically came out of nowhere and gained all that power during those few days the xmas sale was out. To get those sort of stats people would have to spend at least a few thousand dollars. For instance JVJK spent enough money to go from 15000 stats to 70000 stats all within a couple days. I may be overstating what you spent in those few days, but many others spent thousands easily.

As for the upgrade idea, my logic still applies. If the gold spenders could upgrade two buildings at once they would not spend more, because they upgrade the buildings instantly anyways. As for people like you who are not willing to spend gold on building upgrades again, that means they are not getting money from you. If anything, multiple upgrades will make people spend less gold, and therefor they will not do that.

[Agent Orange]

Most of the people with 40K+ stats basically came out of nowhere and gained all that power during those few days the xmas sale was out. To get those sort of stats people would have to spend at least a few thousand dollars. For instance JVJK spent enough money to go from 15000 stats to 70000 stats all within a couple days. I may be overstating what you spent in those few days, but many others spent thousands easily.

As for the upgrade idea, my logic still applies. If the gold spenders could upgrade two buildings at once they would not spend more, because they upgrade the buildings instantly anyways. As for people like you who are not willing to spend gold on building upgrades again, that means they are not getting money from you. If anything, multiple upgrades will make people spend less gold, and therefor they will not do that.

Not so sure about that, what you may get with multiple upgrades is someone who doesn't want to spend a small fortune playing who just might want or need to do an upgrade while in the midst of a normal one. If anything it could bring some people who would not normally spend gold into the mix.

As you know I don't buy cash or gold so it's hard for me to really see that side of the equation....

I guess my question is why don't you like the idea?

[JMC]

I said i like the idea. Just stating that they really have no reason to implement it because it would cut from their profits. For the situation like you said, someone might want to instantly upgrade a building while say another building is being built. That is a likely scenario, but again it does not add to their profits so i dont see them ever doing it. Gold is for speeding up the game, if they implement something like that, many people that might of bought gold before will decide that the times are now reasonable enough to just sit and wait instead of spending gold.

Again, im all for that idea, would help me out a lot. But, i just dont think they would ever do something like that.

[General Principle]

I've been toying with posting this idea, and this thread seems like a good place to air it out and see how bad I get beat up. Implement a mechanism where wait times are reduced and multiple upgrades are allowed for 30 days if a player purchases at least the minimum amount of gold (which I believe is currently $4.99). Even the most frugal gold buyer would get a boost out of this (twice, actually, if you consider both the improved gameplay and the purchasing power of your gold which can be spent immediately or saved for a big purchase). It would also put the game on a quasi pay as you go basis while still allowing the free players to play, albeit with a less advantageous set of parameters.

Also, addressing the issue of the 1 percenters (God love you all, I wish I had that kind of disposable income). I've noticed that a lot of them don't seem to be playing the entire game, they just raid and attack. While all's fair in love and war, perhaps the devs could encourage players to pursue missions and goals (other than pvp) by requiring certain checkpoints to be reached before allowing further pvp game play (e.g., disallow pvp raids and attacks until the player makes a required amount of goal or mission progress). Granted, it might annoy some of your high rollers, but coupled with my other suggestion I would expect that lost income to be offset.

[Speed ump]

Personally I played every goal given to get the valor points and you could make money on the missions. I even did the blatantly obvious decorate your base to intimidate your opponents, and believe me, I know how intimidated it makes everyone feel too:) take a look at my base, I have never seen anyone else with such beautiful trees covering their base. I guess I m the only sucker who took the bait on this one, but I was bored. Then the only goals you got after a certain level are attack ones. Now even those are mostly gone, all I can do is attack over level 110. They finally did give us new missions, but for now it is messed up. It costs several million to attack one target, and the payback does not justify it. I assumed it would be like the previous missions where you eventually made your money back and then some, but after a while and 5m in the hole, I gave up. It even changed my ability to go back to the old ones at the same prices. It changed to this same crazy pricing and ruined those ones too. Don't know if it is on purpose, or something messed up, but I doubt they will get many takers the way it is now. I like that everyone is tossing around some ideas here. Looks like things are going in a positive direction.

[General Principle]

Yeah, I've seen several big-gold players actually playing the game (I guess I'm technically a gold player, but only about $30 worth). Didn't mean to imply it was everybody. It does sound like the high level players have outpaced the devs. I hope they can do something to keep you guys engaged (especially since I'm not too far behind you at level 53).

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one blowing money on the interior decorating missions. I never see any decorations when I visit other bases, so I didn't know if it was a bug or if I was the only one buying $100K worth of barrels and sandbags.

[Wildfire]

I even did the blatantly obvious decorate your base to intimidate your opponents, and believe me, I know how intimidated it makes everyone feel too:) take a look at my base, I have never seen anyone else with such beautiful trees covering their base.

I came across a base a few weeks ago where the player had more or less completely cleared the bit of the base you see when you select them to raid. What they had left in the middle of the screen was a little walled area with the little pink tree that costs 8 gold in the centre of it. I hadn't the heart to attack them when I saw it so it worked well!

My decorating has stopped at spelling my name in morse code using barrels!

[Agent Orange]

I said i like the idea. Just stating that they really have no reason to implement it because it would cut from their profits. For the situation like you said, someone might want to instantly upgrade a building while say another building is being built. That is a likely scenario, but again it does not add to their profits so i dont see them ever doing it. Gold is for speeding up the game, if they implement something like that, many people that might of bought gold before will decide that the times are now reasonable enough to just sit and wait instead of spending gold.

Again, im all for that idea, would help me out a lot. But, i just dont think they would ever do something like that.

Ok, thanks! Well I hope we can get them to change their minds.

[Coop d'Nupe]

These issues are really no different from the growing pains experienced at Storm8. Some of their games work better than others. I really like this MW game over the S8 War Game due to the graphics. Unfortunately, the game is played completely differently, as alliances by flags really means nothing and it appears difficult (if not impossible) to use your army like a real team. Otherwise, it is entertaining. I too spent money on trees and stuff, but my base looks real purty!! Add me 927-726-343.

[Agent Orange]

I gave up on the missions as well, they were getting way to expensive for the minimal if any gain. I looked at the new ones and it will cost me several million just to kill a red container. I gave up at the Marketplace and now only do a few select parts of a mission. I looked at the Natural Gas Facility and the Littoral Combat Ship was tempting for a split second. I actually don't need to buy anything to do it but 15 x 310 energy not worth it.

I bought some of the decorations but not the barbed wire fence. I stopped them when I discovered the reward was less than the cost.

[Wildfire]

I gave up on the missions long ago, the selective loot farming optons seem much more attractive. It does make you wonder though, looking at some of the missions that are available to me and the costs involved it's as if they are completely out of step with my profile. Which leads me to think maybe the way we all play this game is very different to how the developers initially saw us approaching it.