Community letter to make a better Empires & Puzzles

This is a community letter from 300 alliances.

English Version

Dear Creators and Developers of Empires & Puzzles,

We would like to acknowledge your excellent game, developed by your team, which occupies us, not only in our free time but also in such a complicated time of the Covid-19 pandemic.

However we think you can improve on some points:

Recently we have detected an extreme difficulty in keeping and maintaining good alliances. The lack of motivation of the players is the main reason for quitting the game!

For this reason a large number of alliances have worked together in an attempt to find a solution for this lack of motivation, but without your essential and indispensable support it will always be hard to deal with these problems.

Together Leaders and Co-Leaders from several alliances have made a list with several points to discuss with you, all of which were subject to voting by 2 representatives from each alliance.

Among these voted points, we selected 7 most voted for your further analysis and, if possible, your brilliant team can reach a consensus on a solution to overcome as quickly as possible this lack of motivation that spreads throughout many players of Empires & Puzzles.

But beware: we remind you that this is just feedback from our alliances, from what we have been able to identify that could be improved in the game, or that can be a point of improvement. The Leaders of each alliance represented here express the opinions of most of their members, and as we have some insecurity and fear that all of this might get worse we decided to write to you: We need your help!

The points are as follows:

1st friendly raids between members of the same alliance

  • the objective will be exclusively to train defenses, how to attack, and support the newest members in growing alliances;

2nd Punishment for members who leave alliances after the start of the war

  • among all, we detected that in the last few months there have been more and more members leaving the alliances after the war begins, this is very damaging to the team. In our opinion, there should be a way to control these entries into wars, or to punish members who leave alliances after war has started.

  • Some ideas / solutions suggested and discussed by the leaders:

:heavy_check_mark: Punish the member who leaves the alliance during the war, for example, by blocking him/her from entering into other alliances for a period time;

:heavy_check_mark: The existence of a box in the game menu with the option “let the leader decide” in order to give the Leader control (over the member who recently joined the alliance) to decide “join or no” into the 1st war.

We also think that the option to “participate in wars” should not be set by default when a member joins in a new alliance would, in other words, not selected by default this checkbox.

3rd Review the prices of the promotional packs of the game, evaluating the economic reality of each country and / or creating more promotions such as those of Saint Valentine and Christmas, as the global crisis that we are going through is making (very) hard the investment in the game, especially in members with less financial power.

4th Each summon gate should contain only the heroes of the event to which it corresponds

  • By most opinions this is one of the most demotivating problems in the game.

  • We do not consider it fair to have specific portals for season and events, and include the heroes of the 1st season in all of them, especially those of 3 Stars. There is already a specific portal for this (epic hero sumon) and the training camp. We considered that it would be much morefair for the portals to contain only the heroes that are subject to them, or at least to exclude the 3 stars heroes of the first season. Defining this point:

  • Event summon - mostly composed of heroes from the corresponding event;

  • Season summon - mostly composed of season heroes;

  • Atlantis summon - mostly composed of heroes from Atlantis or there is a greater chance of them being summoned;

  • Valhalla summon - mostly composed of Valhalla heroes, or there is a greater chance of them being summoned

5th Inclusion of the heroes of Atlantis in the Training Camp level 20 and increased odds for heroes of 4 and 5 stars

  • we found that there is a greater shortage of coins in the Atlantis event for those who already finished the 2nd season and we concluded that it would be wise to include these heroes in training camp (level 20), slightly increasing the odds for heroes of different 4 and 5 stars.

6th The wars matchmaking must be clarified and simplified

  • In the last matchmaking, we found that there are many uneven matches, even for alliances with several consecutive defeats, which creates a bad environment and discomfort within the Alliance itself because sometimes we have not yet started the war and the defeat is almost guaranteed. Would you please explain:

:heavy_check_mark: What really counts for matchmaking, and what are their percentages?

:heavy_check_mark: What is the formula for calculating war scores?

7th Titan rewards, Element chests and War chests should be improved

  • We expressed the same opinion, the rewards of the chests are impoverishing, making it practically impossible to evolve heroes without buying items. Many players already invest a lot to acquire the heroes, and with such poor rewards, we are unable to make the evolutions.

So, exposing all the above topics and not wanting in any way to demean your character and ways of developing the game, we just want to express our displeasure in relation to somethings that had led players to quit the game. We met to settle some points that, among all, we discussed and considered to be pivotal for a good upgrade and improvement in the game. We believe that with these changes you would motivate more the players to continue to play, and perhaps even some to return.

We are upset because we love the game, not because we hate it, and we want you to make logical changes.

Thank you for your time, we will be looking forward to your feedback. We are really appreciative of all the Creation Team of such a good game to establish strong connections not only in terms of the game, but as people and in social terms, being in contact with many different cultures and nationalities.

Thank you for your time spent reading our letter, we will wait for a reply,
Respectfully
Alliance / Leader / # of members:

An interesting post. And some interesting ideas.
However, this is a game, I strongly disagree with handing out punishment to anyone who might want to leave an alliance. I acknowledge there is a right time and a wrong time to do this, but there might be exceptional circumstances for individuals.
If you want to “protect” your alliance just vet new members wanting to join. Go to invite only.
And having a box for the leader to decide who can join the war has been muted several times. In my opinion, it’s totally wrong and can / will be open to abuse. Everyone who joins an alliance has the right to go onto the battlefield unless your alliance rules specifically forbid that. At least in those cases you know in advance what type of alliance you are joining.
Other than that -
Happy for SG to reduce their prices
Happy for SG to improve the summons
Happy for SG to include more heroes in TC20
Happy for SG to improve the rewards gained from chests
But … in my view, the most important issue that needs to be “improved” in the game. And which was sort of missed off this list of wants. Is for SG to improve communications with the whole of its player base. Just what is your communications strategy SG?

15 Likes

“Only communicate when something is wrong or to fix our mistakes. Otherwise, stay silent. If you must do a sneak peak, give 500 days’ notice”

4 Likes
  • if someone mentions a competitor…

I think I agree with every suggestion, except for #2.

And no, it’s not that I support people leaving alliances in the middle of a war. It’s generally bad form. But I’ve been in situations where a lot of intra-alliance drama started in the midst of the matchmaking->war transitional period, and people did leave during this time - not because they were intentionally trying to screw the entire alliance over, but because they couldn’t stand to be in the same alliance with certain other people for one minute longer. Essentially a “rage alliance quit”. And I support that option, if that’s the way the person feels.

Why should you be forced to stay another 2 days with a group that you aren’t getting along with? Force them to stay… why? So that they can sit there and not use any of their flags? If I get pissed off at my boss and I want to quit, should I be forced to keep showing up for two more weeks anyway - even though I’m not going to do anything while I’m there? What’s the point?

Now… as for the leader having control over who gets to participate in the war… THAT I DO agree with. I never liked that new members were automatically opted into wars the second they joined. You’ve got to make sure they’re a good fit for the team, put them through some basic training and such first before trusting them to fight alongside you.

All of the other suggestions sound good to me. :+1:

3 Likes

Anyway to add on more alliances? Unfortunately I did not see the post while alliances could still add their names to the list

I want to be why the my post is becamed a link of this! My post is not like this, is not linked. A mod can answer to me, please?

Hi there, this is a majority from Brazil/Portugal community, some other countries signed too.
We reach each alliance trought Facebook group and WhatsApp, and we spent a few weeks talking about to create this letter.

Meanwhile we heard about others communities, like the Italian petition; https://secure.avaaz.org/it/community_petitions/small_giant_e_zynga_chiediamo_cambiamenti_we_ask_changes_for_empires_puzzles_developers/?aNQWSeb&lgpd

3 Likes

This post is WAY better than yours, sorry but it’s the truth.

And IMO, you and your group should join this petition, which is in general a lot more reasonable than most of what you proposed.

To be clear, I don’t agree with 100% with all points above (even if my alliance leader agreed and our guild name is included in the list), but it looks like they really put some thought on what they were going to ask and how they’d do it.

1 Like

That one has some nonsense requests, their post was closed a few minutes ago.

I suggested that petition OP to join this petition instead, it’s more reasonable.

Yes, i agree, our alliance agree to this, but is not the same post. If we join forces is better for me!

for you?

So your entire petition is just for you?

Sorry, my English is not good, please, listen to me and use comprension. I want union of all players. For us, US US US US.

1 Like

Not possible to vote for only part of this, and can’t say I agree with the whole ticket…

But I wholeheartedly agree that an easy software change that would improve QOL would be for new alliance members to NOT be automatically opted in to war by default. This would especially help the training alliances which attract players that haven’t ever been in an alliance and have no idea what they’re getting themselves into.

Harder to program, but useful at all but the highest levels, would be a one-time “you’re approved to participate in wars” click by the alliance leadership

Not sure how I feel about alliance leadership otherwise having control over who is opted in, I can imagine that being abused. Although it would be nice sometimes when a member is having connectivity problems… :woman_shrugging:

1 Like

For me= my personal opinion. I want to express this. I want all players stay togheter

1 Like

ah, OK, no problem.

Like I said above, I don’t necessarily agree with 100% of the stated above, but it looks that they put more time ans discussion into it.

2 Likes

I started a thread some time ago, proposing some kind of reputation system, where it could indicate some player statistics, like what alliance the player was last, how long, gain reputation for staying in an alliance for some time, something like that.

And alliance leader can look at the new player rep before accepting him.

Even just letting the player entering the alliance chat to talk to him first might already be useful, and it wouldn’t affect the freedom we all should enjoy in the game.

But my thread went wrecked, nobody voted.

4 Likes

It’s a good idea, but it’s difficult to judge a player just based on numbers or how long they were in an alliance. Yes, there are many bad players out there, but there are also bad alliances. Is it fair to punish a player for leaving a bad alliance?

1 Like

The point is just to start a conversation and talk about player goals compared to alliance’s.

I’ve been playing for 2 years now, if I knocked at your alliance’s door and you could see I’ve been in 36 alliances in that time, wouldn’ you at least ask me why?

2 Likes

Of course, that would be suspicious. Which is why I keep my alliance’s door locked. :grin:

It’s a fair conversation. But I have left alliances before, and had legitimate reasons for doing so. 36 alliances seems a bit over the top (I’d probably classify them as an “alliance hopper”, and wouldn’t want them on my team)… but some are calling for players to lose “reputation points” after leaving one alliance.

1 Like

Cookie Settings