The nerf is bad for every player and the funny part is that IP2 doesnt even realizing how much it harms their economy (despite they are claiming that they do so to protect their economy)
And here is why:
For end gamers aka veterans and ancient players they are punished for being efficient. But its those people who are helping the new players, testing out stuffs and even making the game competitive. Without end gamers the game is is less challenging and some players will leave the game of out boredom. (The sole reason why Gw still exist. Think about that aspect for a moment IP2)
How is it for mid gamers? Those arent so competitive but also are punished for because end gamers are efficient. How? The assumption of 6 battle per min is based on optimazed condition with the profound knowledge about the game and even its fine tuning which most mid gamers doesnt possess since they are enjoying the game in a different way than those competitive end gamers. However they provide a lot to the game and your enconomy since those are the ones taking in new players into the guild and helping them to grow.
Lastly the new players aka newbs. Those joining the game and trying to check everything out. And most of them will be overwhelmed by every mechanism the game can offer (which is actually a good thing since it means there is a lot of variety) However not every player possesses the time nor the will to learn everything there is in this game. So they would asks around for help.
But if there is no one around to help them, be it with information or joining a guild then you can be sure that those will leave teh game soon enough. And those are potential consumers
@IP2_and_co If you think that you really protect your income by nerfing everything because it generates too much resource (in your opinion) and even hiding the formula you are using to nerf then i hope that those who are still paying for your game are enough to pay your cost.
And lastly i will assume that after first gnome storm nerf you lost some income. Based on that assumption i will say one thing more. You lost that income not because 0,001% of the top player spree your gnomes over so fast that it generated tons of resource but because the player base are pissed at you and losing trust in your company and your handling of problems. Like second nerf being implemented without even telling us what is too easy or too fast.
Once more end gamers had to use their stuff to find it out.
Sometimes art imitates real life. The original announcement is not unlike your politician blaming the 1% for the state of the economy, 2/3 of the population, including the rich themselves, agreeing the rich should be taxed much higher, but then announcing much higher taxes for everyone, even for those already desperately poor.
âActually, it was our poor choice of economic policies all along, we just wanted you to direct your anger at [small group of people].â
Using 1x Greed/1x Dust Devil/2x Ironhawk to guarantee kills of gnomes during Gnome-A-Palooza, I was able to do a whopping 4 battles in 60 seconds. The minute ended when the 5th battle loaded. It takes about 2 seconds to actually kill the enemies. The rest of the time is spent clicking:
After 15 minutes of Gnome-a-Palooza, I killed 168 gnomes in 42 battles. Thatâs an average of 21.42 seconds per battle: 2.8 battles per minute on average.
I believe the fastest you can do is 4 battles per minute. I donât think 5 battles per minute is possible with all of the extra animations. Averaged out though, itâs closer to 3 battles per minute max, given the screens and clicks and loading times.
There is no way you are doing 4.8 battles per minute during gnome-a-palooza. Start a Gnome-a-Palooza event and count how many gnomes you kill during those 15 minutes. Then divide the number of gnomes you killed by 4 to get the number of battles, and then divide 900 by the number of battles to get your actual seconds per battle. Then divide 60 by that number to get your battles per minute.
For instance: 60 / ((15*60)/(168/4)) = 2.8 battles per minute
4.72 battles per minute⌠I donât think thatâs true averaged out. Thatâs 12.7 seconds per battle including loading screens, animations, victory, rewards, selecting difficulty, hitting all the buttons. Thereâs no way.
Loading screens strongly depend on where you are located, the difference is up to several seconds. When you play directly on the game server you are apparently even able to do 6 battles each minute.
Scroll up, there is a video where tacet does exactly 5 battles in a minute. Itâs definitely possible, so letâs not argue each other and keep the discussion on whatâs really an issue here.
Itâs now Saturday in Australia so we are not getting an answer for this event. So pathetic that they can figure all this out and drop it on us 2 days after campaign starts and before the gnome event, but then bounce the second anyone has any real questions.
Iâm not finding any video from him. Can you link it? I donât know why you would want to argue that more battles per minute is possible. Doing that helps devs justify their 6 battle per minute reasoning. They look and say âSee, Tacet posted a video showing 5 per minute, so 6 per minute must be possible, so we were right.â
Itâs wrong. And the real issue is that the 6 per minute is ridiculously higher than it should be. They should be averaging it on 3-4 battles per minute.
Itâs irrelevant. They arenât averaging it on 6 battles per minute, or 3-4 battles a minute, they are averaging it on battles taking 50 seconds. If you go twice as fast you get half as much, further reduced for spending time between battles instead of within battles.
It depends on your connection and if youâre playing on mobile, you can reach the different buttons much faster than with a mouse. (Since you have multiple fingers)
