Survey Questions?

[NightshadeCS]

This is the best thread on the Forum. the others just depress me.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

They were your general demographics.... and questions with answers about strongly agree... to strongly disagree responses.

They asked about the aspects of the game you liked best. General gaming questions,etc.

I think it's horrid that everyone isn't given a chance to answer the survey. It should be open to everyone to respond the one time. That's absolutely shameful and won't be an honest tabulation of how the participants of this game actually feel.

Shame on Inno.

I received the survey and answered the questions... Inno still won't have a clue how I really feel about this game because the questions weren't focused on that. They were generalised around gaming with such statements as "I play games to escape reality" or "I play games to reduce stress". I had to laugh because Elvenar actually increases my stress and is far too much like real life (never having enough of what you need, work outweighs play, rules of living dictated by profit-driven entities etc) to be an escape from it. Basically, we were being asked how much we agreed or disagreed with someone elses opinions.

 

[Ashrem]

I received the survey and answered the questions... Inno still won't have a clue how I really feel about this game because the questions weren't focused on that. They were generalised around gaming with such statements as "I play games to escape reality" or "I play games to reduce stress". I had to laugh because Elvenar actually increases my stress and is far too much like real life (never having enough of what you need, work outweighs play, rules of living dictated by profit-driven entities etc) to be an escape from it. Basically, we were being asked how much we agreed or disagreed with someone elses opinions.

I never once got the feeling the survey had anything to do with how people feel about Elvenar. It seemed like a standard marketing survey, to see who is playing their games, what areas represent an opportunity for future changes, and how they should focus their advertising. Whether their average player likes "to blow things up" tells them who they should aim advertisements at, not what we think about the game.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

I never once got the feeling the survey had anything to do with how people feel about Elvenar. It seemed like a standard marketing survey, to see who is playing their games, what areas represent an opportunity for future changes, and how they should focus their advertising. Whether their average player likes "to blow things up" tells them who they should aim advertisements at, not what we think about the game.

Absolutely... and that's a shame because from what I've been reading through these forums is that this game has the potential to be huge but only if Inno resists the urge to use the game as a tool to separate people and their money. I understand Inno is a business with stakeholders but there's a huge difference between being profitable and creating a deliberately manipulative gaming environment with the sole purpose of separating people from their money.

 

[Ashrem]

Absolutely... and that's a shame because from what I've been reading through these forums is that this game has the potential to be huge but only if Inno resists the urge to use the game as a tool to separate people and their money. I understand Inno is a business with stakeholders but there's a huge difference between being profitable and creating a deliberately manipulative gaming environment with the sole purpose of separating people from their money.

Targeting your advertising is a good practice regardless of anything to do with the game itself. Knowing whether you should advertise in games that involve blowing things up is making good use of your resources and has no causal relationship to using the game as a tool to separate people from their money.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Targeting your advertising is a good practice regardless of anything to do with the game itself. Knowing whether you should advertise in games that involve blowing things up is making good use of your resources and has no causal relationship to using the game as a tool to separate people from their money.

I agree targeted advertising is good practice and I have no complaint with them doing that. My point was that there seems to be an awful lot of attention put toward accruing new players whilst insufficient attention paid to keeping existing ones. I understand why and what their motivation is - I'm just disappointed that Inno doesn't appear to be overly concerned with keeping the game a pleasurable experience once the initial thrill wears off and the expense becomes prohibitive.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I agree targeted advertising is good practice and I have no complaint with them doing that. My point was that there seems to be an awful lot of attention put toward accruing new players whilst insufficient attention paid to keeping existing ones. I understand why and what their motivation is - I'm just disappointed that Inno doesn't appear to be overly concerned with keeping the game a pleasurable experience once the initial thrill wears off and the expense becomes prohibitive.

But that is the way of the free-to-play game. Long-term customers tend to slowly spend less or stop spending altogether, and then they need to be replaced with new spenders. These types of games have always had a short memory when it comes to making money. You haven not helped to pay the bills lately? Then we do not need you any more.

 

[Ashrem]

But that is the way of the free-to-play game. Long-term customers tend to slowly spend less or stop spending altogether, and then they need to be replaced with new spenders. These types of games have always had a short memory when it comes to making money. You haven not helped to pay the bills lately? Then we do not need you any more.

It's an interesting trait among gamers (certainly encouraged by the developers) to think of themselves as investing rather than spending. Very few people would expect to be allowed to use the old menu in a restaurant because they ate there 20 times last year, or be outraged that the brand of Jeans they like is no longer being made. But change the output of an Ancient wonder after a certain date, or alter the conditions of the tournament for the future.....

 

[DeletedUser27062]

But that is the way of the free-to-play game. Long-term customers tend to slowly spend less or stop spending altogether, and then they need to be replaced with new spenders. These types of games have always had a short memory when it comes to making money. You haven not helped to pay the bills lately? Then we do not need you any more.

I don't think it needs to be a zero sum game (pardon the pun). I also think that Inno use a far more sophisticated strategy when it comes to player turnover and customer farming.

The game is designed to pull you in early with loads of easy quests and lots of rewards. This way the player quickly accrues a decent stash of goodies to begin crafting their city. The individual nature of these cities ensures people feel special, that their cities are special and represent a unique aspect of their personality. Add to that the ability to prove oneself through fighting or competent production of goods and you have a fine recipe for success where people feel like they're able to make something of themselves in this virtual realm. That attachment to psychological needs sets the grounds for a very well developed strategy where they exploit the good old sunken cost fallacy - the emotional and financial investment in the city helps keep people investing. The longer people play the less likely they are to walk away. Then the idea is to mix it up a little by introducing some "unfair" rewarding. Research has proven that people tend to work harder for longer at something when the rewards are inconsistent but this only holds true if a fair base has been established first. The fair base establishes the reward cycle - if I do A then I get B but if we change it so that when I do A sometimes I get B then my anticipation of the reward is higher than when it was guaranteed. So, it's not the reward that compels us but the anticipation of us - treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen.

I've tested this theory and had some interesting results during the Autumn keys promotion. In one of my cities I selected the most expensive reward sphere my keys afforded me and in another I always selected the lowest cost ones. Interestingly I was consistently offered the opposite of what I wanted after the first few days. I repeated the experiment in two other cities. In one I always selected battle based reward spheres and in the other I chose anything but battle based rewards. Once again I tended to receive less of what I actually wanted. The game's AI learns what I want and feeds me just enough of it to keep me hungry and never enough that I feel full.

It would be very interesting to see the financial report on this game's earnings. I think you'll find that new players do indeed spend larger amounts but they do so for a much shorter time. Long term players are still dropping coin into the game - it's almost impossible to progress without doing so. It is those long term players, the ever loyal fans, who pay the bills but Inno, like most companies these days is focused on bigger money now, not regular income. When they stop attracting new customers the game will go away and a new one will take its place. Inno is the only winner here.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Very few people would expect to be allowed to use the old menu in a restaurant because they ate there 20 times last year, or be outraged that the brand of Jeans they like is no longer being made. But change the output of an Ancient wonder after a certain date, or alter the conditions of the tournament for the future.....

That's not true at all... All people always have expectations around consistency. Being hard-wired to seek and perceive patterns means we like things to follow an expected trajectory. Even thrill seekers or adventurer types like consistency in the basics of life.

 

[Ashrem]

That's not true at all... All people always have expectations around consistency. Being hard-wired to seek and perceive patterns means we like things to follow an expected trajectory. Even thrill seekers or adventurer types like consistency in the basics of life.

It's not true in every case, which is why I wrote "very few people." It is true in general. People may not like a change in the menu or discontinuation of a product, but it's pretty rare for them to have a hissy fit and threaten never to eat or shop there again unless things are put back they way they used to be.

 

[ajqtrz]

It's not true in every case, which is why I wrote "very few people." It is true in general. People may not like a change in the menu or discontinuation of a product, but it's pretty rare for them to have a hissy fit and threaten never to eat or shop there again unless things are put back they way they used to be.

The difference is that when you get the menu you expect the things on the menu to be on the menu as long as you have the menu in your hand. If you consume what you order from the menu and then, on your next visit, get a new menu with different things, you don't cry -- though you might miss the "old menu" -- because you realize that you are entering into a new set of what you can and can't order. Nothing is lost. On the other hand, if you ordered a steak and half way through your meal they took your plate and replaced the 1/2 steak left with 1/2 a chicken breast you wouldn't be too happy. That's more of what they do when they change things already set in place in my city.

Ditto for the jeans. If you haven't purchased the jeans and they aren't available, nothing lost but the opportunity. If, on they other hands, you are wearing the jeans and look down to find they have been magically swithched to a paire of plaid bermuda shorts, you might react with some horror...and have to find a new girlfriend. Once you purchase something and are using it nothing should change about it because it belongs to you, not the developer. It's interesting that there is a court case in the US over this matter. An agreement said one thing and the game company, because somebody choose to do exactly what the contract said, decided to kick the player because it cost the company money. They didn't change the rules (if you can believe that) but instead, just kicked anybody who found the "exploit." Pretty sad, and stupid in my opinion.

That people do not like change is true, but not liking it is one thing while not liking it and thinking it is unfair is another. Changing the menu is the right of the restaurant owner and while I might not like it, I accept it. Taking my 1/2 finished steak and exchanging it for 1/2 a chicken breast without my permission, is robbery and very, very unfair.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

The difference is

There are all kinds of differences, not just the listed ones

Restaurants wouldn't sell you a meal that refills your soda glass every morning for the rest of your life, nor clothing stores sell you jeans that provide a fresh pocketful of change each time you put them on. Players get constant benefit from things they buy in game, and still feel like they ought to keep getting the same bonus stuff for the rest of their lives and that no conditions should ever change unless they get better, or they have the right to moan and threaten and call for boycotts.

 

[ajqtrz]

There are all kinds of differences, not just the listed ones

Restaurants wouldn't sell you a meal that refills your soda glass every morning for the rest of your life, nor clothing stores sell you jeans that provide a fresh pocketful of change each time you put them on. Players get constant benefit from things they buy in game, and still feel like they ought to keep getting the same bonus stuff for the rest of their lives and that no conditions should ever change unless they get better, or they have the right to moan and threaten and call for boycotts.

Exactly. When you buy an "all you can eat" buffet you don't expect the owner to change his/her mind in the middle of your meal. If your "meal" continues for days and days that's the owner's problem, not yours. You bought it with an agreement of it's value and after you bought it the previous owner doesn't have the right to change it's value. That's basic ownership. It's your resource for which you paid.

However, somewhere, probably buried deep int the "fine print," is probably something that gives the owner the right to "adjust" things as he/she desires. Unfortunately, in a court of law it's not what the contract says but what is generally expected that takes precedence UNLESS the contract writer has taken specific measures to insure the signers know that there is something in the contract they might not expect. So if I go into a "all you can eat" buffet and there's a big orange sign that says, "We reserve the right to limit the amount of food you eat" that would probably sufficient to limit the food intake of the customer. However, like I said, unless it's buried in the "fine print" (and is therefore, probably not enforceable), when you buy a resource that says it will give X for the rest of your ownership of us, it should give X. If the game operators decided to change it, you have the right to complain. Loudly and forcefully if you think it worth the effort. (I don't but that's just me.).

And while I'm at it, there are places that sell you a cup for coffee and promise a "free refill" every morning as long as you bring in the cup. The cup isn't built to last long and they are counting on you also picking up a donut or two but there are places that do that. "Free soda" for life may not appear a wise decision but if it's offered and it paid for, that's what you should get.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Exactly. When you buy an "all you can eat" buffet you don't expect the owner to change his/her mind in the middle of your meal. If your "meal" continues for days and days that's the owner's problem, not yours. You bought it with an agreement of it's value and after you bought it the previous owner doesn't have the right to change it's value. That's basic ownership. It's your resource for which you paid.

However, somewhere, probably buried deep int the "fine print," is probably something that gives the owner the right to "adjust" things as he/she desires. Unfortunately, in a court of law it's not what the contract says but what is generally expected that takes precedence UNLESS the contract writer has taken specific measures to insure the signers know that there is something in the contract they might not expect. So if I go into a "all you can eat" buffet and there's a big orange sign that says, "We reserve the right to limit the amount of food you eat" that would probably sufficient to limit the food intake of the customer. However, like I said, unless it's buried in the "fine print" (and is therefore, probably not enforceable), when you buy a resource that says it will give X for the rest of your ownership of us, it should give X. If the game operators decided to change it, you have the right to complain. Loudly and forcefully if you think it worth the effort. (I don't but that's just me.).

And while I'm at it, there are places that sell you a cup for coffee and promise a "free refill" every morning as long as you bring in the cup. The cup isn't built to last long and they are counting on you also picking up a donut or two but there are places that do that. "Free soda" for life may not appear a wise decision but if it's offered and it paid for, that's what you should get.

AJ

I was going to respond to Ashrem but you've presented the perfect response - well said.

 

[Ashrem]

Exactly. When you buy an "all you can eat" buffet you don't expect the owner to change his/her mind in the middle of your meal. If your "meal" continues for days and days that's the owner's problem, not yours.

Except for the part where they have you ejected from the premises for trespassing after they close (among other things like paying for the supper buffet and expecting the breakfast buffet...). Regardless of fine print, Any buffet eater who tried to sue because the owner made them leave after closing hours would have a tough time in court.

It doesn't work. Only in virtual settings do people feel like they are justified in behaving like a one time payment bestows a perpetual obligation.

 

[Ashrem]

And while I'm at it, there are places that sell you a cup for coffee and promise a "free refill" every morning as long as you bring in the cup. The cup isn't built to last long and they are counting on you also picking up a donut or two but there are places that do that. "Free soda" for life may not appear a wise decision but if it's offered and it paid for, that's what you should get.

If only the description of any of the buildings or tournaments in Elvenar said they are forever and will be unchanging for the rest of your life.....

 

[SoulsSilhouette]

well, I must be an odd duck.... well, I am. If a restaurant nerfs their menu to accommodate a swathe of customers and take off the things that I love, then I won't go there. Yes, I do boycott. If there is still something that I like, I will go back for that ONE thing if I have an irresistible craving for it. A local restaurant that I really enjoyed decided to go 'low fat and healthy'. I went there, ordered what I usually did (a chicken Kiev pastry) It wasn't what I wanted. I wanted the butter and garlic fill which made the buttery pastry heavenly. They had replaced all the bad stuff with no fat to low fat ingredients... and it was NOT in the least what I wanted. I've not been back. They recently announced they were going out of business. So, obviously, I am not alone.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

They recently announced they were going out of business. So, obviously, I am not alone.

Yes, the coronavirus hates low-fat too.

 

[Ashrem]

well, I must be an odd duck.... well, I am. If a restaurant nerfs their menu to accommodate a swathe of customers and take off the things that I love, then I won't go there. Yes, I do boycott. If there is still something that I like, I will go back for that ONE thing if I have an irresistible craving for it. A local restaurant that I really enjoyed decided to go 'low fat and healthy'. I went there, ordered what I usually did (a chicken Kiev pastry) It wasn't what I wanted. I wanted the butter and garlic fill which made the buttery pastry heavenly. They had replaced all the bad stuff with no fat to low fat ingredients... and it was NOT in the least what I wanted. I've not been back. They recently announced they were going out of business. So, obviously, I am not alone.

The question isn't whether people stop eating there, it's how many of them stand out in public throwing a tantrum about it and calling for all of their customers to just eat their free breadsticks and never buy anything from them again.