With our upcoming update on the horizon, hopefully dropping later this month, I wanted to take a moment to explain the reasoning behind our decision to extend idle times and what you can expect.

We’re making a small shift from our original vision of an idle game that required more frequent check-ins. Over time, we’ve realized that, in trying to stay true to the name Idle, we were actually going against what players typically expect from the genre.

Not just that, but initially we thought having players log in every few hours would boost engagement. And while some do enjoy that style of play, we’ve come to see that it’s more demanding than we intended – especially in the long run. Constant check-ins over a long period of time can start to feel exhausting. And instead of making the game more enjoyable, it can create pressure to minimize downtime, which isn’t really what an idle game should be about.

The Problem

Over time, we’ve come to realize that our game’s name and genre naturally set certain expectations about how long players should be able to stay idle. While we’ve always believed that “idle” isn’t about how long the game idles but rather the fact that it can play on its own, we can’t ignore that many players see it differently. And let’s be honest – it can leave a sour taste when someone downloads an “Idle” game, only to find out it can only idle for two hours. Why would they stick around when we’re essentially contradicting the core expectation of the very genre our game is built upon?

I mean, sure, in hindsight, you could say this was obvious from the start… but it wasn’t. By definition, the world idle literally means spending time doing nothing – or in the context of the idle genre, the player does nothing while the game plays itself. I remember feeling frustrated when people claimed, “IdleMMO isn’t even an idle game,” despite it quite literally fitting the definition of the word.

But really, there’s no hard line between what’s “idle” and what isn’t. It’s not like six hours of idling is idle, but three hours somehow isn’t. Where do you even draw that line? Six hours? Twelve? It’s a bit of a silly debate on an arbitrary line drawn by peoples own experiences.

As time went on – and with more feedback and experience – I realized I was getting too caught up in the semantics of the word idle instead of focusing on what actually matters: player expectations. And in the end, that’s what’s truly important.

Sure, we could shake our fists at the sky and insist that idle means a game that plays itself while the player does almost nothing – but honestly, who cares who’s right or wrong? At the end of the day, debating semantics won’t change a player’s expectations when they first load up the game. If it’s not what they expected, they won’t stick around long enough to argue about it – they’ll just leave.

Our game isn’t big enough to redefine what idle means in the minds of players. If most people come in with expectations shaped by other established idle games, then maybe it’s us who need to rethink our approach.

The reality is, our current system has led to confusion and frustration because it pushes against the norms of a genre that our game is literally named after – and that’s something we need to address.

The Solution

So, moving forward, we’re adjusting our approach to better align with what players come to expect with an idle game: a more relaxed, less demanding experience that respects their time.

That said, we’re still fully committed to creating a game experience that encourages slightly more frequent check-ins than typical idle games – also offering more optional ways to engage in active gameplay. (A great example of this is our “Power Hunt” system, which turned out to be a welcome addition for players who enjoy making a bit more progress through active play)

With this in mind, we’re making a slight shift in our approach. Let me break it down:

• The idle duration for the main character will be significantly increased, making the game more “idle-friendly” overall.
• However, to maintain engagement, alt characters will require more frequent check-ins compared to the main character counterpart.
• We’re also exploring new ways to encourage optional active gameplay – similar to how Power Hunting works. It’s too early to say exactly what this will look like, but just to throw out a rough idea, we could experiment with a small “Second Wind” boost for players who refresh their actions after X hours. (Again, this is just me thinking out loud – don’t take “Second Wind” as a confirmed feature!)

Idle Times

So naturally this begs the question: what are the new idle times going to be? Well, let’s break it down.

Disclaimer: These are our currently planned values, but they’re not final. Nothing is set in stone until the numbers are live in the game. In the past, we’ve made slight adjustments between announcement and release, and that could happen again. That said, this should give you a good idea of what we’re aiming for.

The Positives

Doesn’t Subvert Expectation

As I mentioned at the start of this post, one of the main issues was that we were unintentionally subverting the expectations of players downloading the game. This update aims to address that.

While the maximum of eight hours is still lower than what some other games offer, it provides a more reasonable balance – allowing players to make meaningful progress without feeling the need to check in as often as every three hours.

Reduces Alt Character Reliance

This change slightly nerfs the effectiveness of alt characters, primarily due to their shorter idle times compared to main characters. We say “slightly” because, while alt characters will increase in idle times compared to before the update, they will require much more frequent check-ins relative to main characters. This adjustment addresses concerns from players who worry about an over-reliance on alt characters to progress in the game.

Our goal has always been to ensure the game remains fully playable and enjoyable with just a single character. However, for players interested in managing multiple characters, the option remains available – it simply demands a bit more attention and effort compared to managing your main character.

It’s important to note that, overall, gameplay will become easier for both main and alt characters compared to the pre-update experience. However, as the context and balance will shift, it’s crucial to compare like-for-like main character versus alt character scenario rather than pre-update versus post-update scenario, since the old idle times will no longer apply.

No More Exhaustion

Something we touched on in our previous blog post about the upcoming update – is that requiring more “check-ins” ended up encouraging unhealthy habits, even though that was never the goal. That’s why, early in the game’s beta, we introduced the somewhat controversial Exhaustion System. The idea was simple: we wanted to discourage unhealthy behaviour and give players a reason to step away. In a way, it was our way of saying, “Hey, you’ve been playing for a while… maybe take a breather?”

And, to some extent, it worked. In the first few weeks, about 60% of players who played for more than 20 hours stopped just short of that mark. But in the end, it wasn’t an ideal solution. The biggest problem was that felt like we were punishing players for enjoying the game – and that’s the last thing we want.

With the increased idle times, players will need to check in less frequently. And because of this, it gives us the opportunity of removing the exhaustion feature from the game.

More Ways To Increase Idle Times

When we first committed to keeping idle times low, it really limited how much we could expand that through gameplay. As we’ve mentioned before, we had a housing feature in the works to help with that, but it was always meant as a small boost – maybe an extra hour or two at most. But now… we can aim a little higher and make housing even more rewarding when it is ready.

Not only that, but with the restrictions eased, we now have way more flexibility to experiment with ways to extend idle time. We could add rare potions that boost idle time, or even give temporary extensions to players who hit certain milestones. The possibilities are endless! (Again, I’m just thinking out loud here. These aren’t fully realised ideas)

We’ve always believed in rewarding effort, and the idea of giving dedicated players a meaningful way to extend their idle time is genuinely exciting. I guess it comes down to the idea that “the more you invest, the more you reap” – a concept that fits perfectly with this approach. That said, it’s still a bit early to lock anything in just yet.

The Negatives

Unfortunately, with the increase in idle times, we need to make a few tweaks to keep things balanced – especially when it comes to skills, as we’re mindful of the potential influx of extra items into the game. Since these changes directly affect the power of boosts, like those from the Shrine and Essence Crystals, you can expect some minor adjustments across the board.

Closing Thoughts

We get that some players enjoy a game that requires a few more check-ins than others. However, our goal is to get the right balance – staying true to the idle genre while giving players the freedom to play at their own pace without feeling tied down to constant logins. That said, for those who enjoy checking in more frequently, using alt characters will still require the occasional frequent check-in. And when you compare it to other idle games out there, the new alt character idle time (2-3 hours) is still much lower than most.

We know exactly what we want this game to be, and staying true to that vision is important. One of the key things that makes IdleMMO stand out is that it’s not just a “set it and forget it” idle experience you may come to expect with some games – we want to encourage meaningful check-ins and engagement.

That said, we’re not so stubborn that we refuse to pivot when something doesn’t work as well as we’d hoped. Ideas evolve, and this is one of them. We’re not afraid to make big changes when we believe they’ll improve both the game and the experience for players – even if that means rethinking or reversing past decisions.

This decision has been simmering for a long time… slowly evolving as we’ve gained a clearer understanding of what IdleMMO should be and how to make it more enjoyable for players. As time has passed, our vision has matured, and so has our approach. This isn’t just a sudden change… it’s the result of months of reflection, feedback, and a commitment to making the game the best it can be.

Honestly, there’s a part of me that’s proud we tried something different in an idle game, even if it didn’t pan out quite as expected. Because at the end of the day, that’s what being a developer is all about – experimenting, learning, and creating new and exciting things. We’re truly lucky to be in a position that allows us to do that.

Now, let’s just hope that a year from now, we’re not writing another blog post saying, “Oh god, we were wrong. Turns out increasing idle time in an idle game actually killed the game. Who would’ve thought?”

_{Last updated: January 16th 2025}

The goal of this blog post is to break down and explain our approach to balancing whenever we make new changes or big overhauls. Honestly, it gets pretty exhausting having to repeat our design philosophy in every single patch note – it’s starting to feel like a broken record.

So, from now on, any relevant patch notes will just link here instead. If you’ve clicked through from a patch note, then hey there! Welcome! Let’s dive in.

The Short of It

This blog post ended up being pretty long, mostly because it dives into our past experiences with balancing updates and how they shaped our design philosophy. If you’re just looking for the short version, here it is:

Here’s how we approach things: when we roll out a new feature, we like to keep it on the conservative side. Then, as we gather more data, we’ll adjust things like rates, gold, or whatever else needs tweaking. This way, we can figure out if changes are even necessary and make informed decisions.

Think of it like this: it’s way easier to add stuff to the game than it is to take it away later.

Want to know more? Then read on…

Balancing Is Hard…

Yep… balancing is supremely hard. Honestly, I’d argue it’s the hardest part of developing an online game, hands down. Developing a game? Easy compared to balancing it. Handling payments with all their complexities and edge cases? Give me a couple of weeks, and I’ve got it covered. Setting up a web infrastructure that handles over 35 million requests a day? Pfft. Child’s play compared to getting balancing right.

And I’d bet good money that most game developers in similar circumstances would agree with me. Even Blizzard – a company with a market cap of $74.28 billion – still struggles with balancing their games. Take Overwatch, for example. If you’ve played it recently, you’ll know their patch notes often feature monumental sweeping changes to multiple characters or mechanics that completely shake up the “meta” – sometimes flipping it on its head entirely (though, there’s a cynical side of me that believes they’re doing it on purpose to feel things feeling “fresh”).

In a community Q&A, a Hearthstone developer came pretty close to implying that they’re winging it – making last-minute design changes and basing decisions on what feels right, rather than sticking to a strictly data-driven approach. Now, don’t get me wrong – this isn’t me saying whether that’s the right or wrong way to do it. Maybe it works for them, maybe it doesn’t (I can’t say since I don’t personally play Hearthstone).

But here’s the truth: balancing is hard. Anyone who says otherwise is either a prodigy or straight-up lying. At some level, we’re all just winging it. Every single one of us. The difference is, some are just a little braver about admitting it than others.

Why is balancing so hard? Honestly, it’s such a massive, multi-layered question that I don’t even know where to start. There are just so many things to think about, and that alone is what makes it so tough.

Who do you focus on – old players or new ones? How do you keep the game’s economy stable without accidentally breaking it? What even defines a “good” economy? How easy should it be to acquire end-game items?

And then there’s the big question that companies like Blizzard undoubtedly face: how do balance updates affect monetization? What happens if the game becomes too easy and people get bored? Or if it’s too hard and players just give up?

And really, who gets to decide what’s “too easy” or “too hard”? There’s no universal rulebook for that – it’s all pretty subjective. At the end of the day, a lot of it does feel arbitrary.

Honestly, the Hearthstone developer might be on to something. Maybe, in the end, it really does boil down to what feels right. Sometimes, instincts and experience can carry you further than numbers alone.

Perception of Change

As I’ve mentioned before, asking what makes balancing hard is such a tough question that I wouldn’t even know where to begin. Honestly, I could probably write an entire book about all the challenges involved.

But there’s one aspect of balancing that I really want to drill down on. The real challenge is something deceptively simple: how players perceive change. That’s where the real challenge lies, and it’s where things start to get tricky.

Making changes in a game is always a balancing act – whether it’s tweaking the economy, fine-tuning a battle feature, or even just juggling priorities and opinions. But if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s this: you literally can’t please everyone. It’s just not possible. And yes, I mean literally, not figuratively. I could release an update that magically put $20 straight into everyone’s bank accounts, and I guarantee at least one person would find a reason to complain. Just off the top of my head, I can think of several valid reasons to complain:

$20? I’ve spent $100 on this game, and all I get is $20 back?

What am I going to use $20 for? I use pounds, not dollars!

Why are they sending us $20 when they could be using this to improve the game? I don’t need this money.

Now, that might sound a bit dramatic – or like I’m trying to build some kind of strawman argument to make my point stronger. I mean, I’ve never actually handed out $20 to everyone, so I get the skepticism. But I promise you, it’s not. I wish it were, but this is just the unfortunate reality when dealing with thousands of people.

If you think about literally any change in the world, no matter how positive it is, there will always be someone who’s unhappy with it. That’s just the way things are. The only exception might be if you’re dealing with a really small group of people – but even then, it’s not a guarantee.

To illustrate, there’s an XKCD comic that comes to mind. I think I’ve posted this XKCD so often that it’s burned into my brain. If you’ve been reading our posts for a while then you likely rolled your eyes and uttered “Oh, god, not this again”. It’s about a developer fixing a critical bug, something that objectively improves the experience for nearly everyone. But for one user? That bug happened to work just fine for them – in fact they turned the bug into a feature of their own. And in their eyes, fixing it wasn’t an improvement; it was a problem. They’re so focused on what they’ve lost that they can’t see the good it brings to the bigger picture.

Now, you might be wondering: “But Mike… where are you going with this? Surely the perception of change has nothing to do with the act of balancing itself?”

Oh, sweet summer child, it absolutely does – and far more than you might think.

Perception shapes everything. It’s not just about the math or the mechanics of balancing (though, they’re equally as important); it’s about how those changes feel to the players after they have been made.

You see, while the perception of change doesn’t directly mess with the game mechanics, it can have a huge impact on the game’s ecosystem because it’s all about how players react. And that reaction? It’s almost always tied to how the change directly affects their gameplay experience.

People Are Selfish

Yep, people are selfish. Now, before you blow a gasket, hear me out – I’m not blaming anyone. I don’t mean it in a bad way at all. Honestly, it’s totally understandable and makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Players come and go – it’s just the nature of things. Someone might stop playing tomorrow, next week, or a few months from now. Sure, we hope they’ll stick around for the long haul, but realistically? The chances of that happening are pretty slim. And that’s okay – it’s just how things work.

It’s great when a game feels amazing for a few weeks because it just happens to align perfectly with someone’s play style. But let’s be real – most players aren’t thinking about the game’s long-term health, especially if they’re not even sure they’ll still be playing by then. And if that play style gets disrupted in the name of “longevity,” well, they have every right to be upset.

I don’t blame them for that. People naturally focus on how changes affect them right now, not the bigger picture. Heck, I’m probbably the same way most of the time.

The problem is, if something does goes wrong, we’re the ones left dealing with the fallout. And let’s be real, most of that fallout lands squarely on the economy, creating long-lasting issues that we have to work hard to fix.

So, when we say something like, “We’re making a change that will benefit the game, but you won’t actually notice it until the economy stabilizes down the line,” a lot of players are just going to be annoyed. And that’s completely understandable.

Let’s say we make an objectively good change – a surefire way to keep the game healthy in the long run – but it means reducing X or Y. There’s always going to be a good chunk of people who get annoyed because it affects them in the moment. And honestly, why should they care about the long-term health of the game? Why would they? I get it. They’re not obligated to care.

It’s not like we put in our terms of service, “Oh, by the way, you’re required to love and nurture this game like it’s your own child.” No – they’re here to have fun. And if we make a change that disrupts that fun, they’re going to be upset. It’s as simple as that.

Now, I’m not saying everyone’s like this. There are definitely players who can set aside their own situation and see the bigger picture. But let’s be real – that’s not the majority. Most people are focused on right now, and if right now isn’t fun for them, they’re going to let us know. And that’s fair.

Imagine I make a game with an in-game market that has a 30% tax on every purchase. It’s been there since day one. Players accept it because it’s the norm – it’s just how the game works. Then one day, I lower the tax to 25%. Fantastic! Players are thrilled – more money for everyone.

Now, flip the script. Imagine the tax started at 3%. Everyone is used to low taxes and has built their expectations around that. Then, in a future update, I raise the tax to 25% to tackle inflation. People would lose their minds – and rightly so! No one likes higher taxes. That’s their hard-earned money, and taking more of it feels like a betrayal.

The kicker? From a purely numerical standpoint, both scenarios end up in the same place: a 25% tax rate. But the perception is fundamentally different. Lowering taxes feels like a win. Raising them, even to the same level, feels like a punishment.

This is the critical difference: the context of the change. It’s not just what you do, but how it’s perceived, that defines whether a change is seen as positive or negative.

Our Past Experience

We’ve talked about our past experiences and the lessons we’ve learned along the way – notably in a recent Q&A session hosted by Couch Cat, a YouTube channel that focuses on persistent browser-based games. The experiences we had have shaped and molded the way we approach balancing now.

Let me break it down and explain further.

For IdleMMO, we’ve always had a pretty high market tax – up to a staggering 15%, depending on membership status – right from the start. Sure, people occasionally complain about it, but it’s nothing new. It’s always been there.

On the other hand, in SimpleMMO, we had to tackle inflation caused by some deeply flawed mechanics. To counter it, we increased the market tax rate from 3.5% to 6% and added additional taxes of up to 6% on things like trading to prevent people from getting around the tax.

And the result? Well, sometimes it’s better to show than tell. So here are some of the top comments from the community:

Time for SMMO to die faster and truly just become a chat room

Mike just destroyed the f**king economy. Amazing.

This update is criminal activity.

I’m going to quit (They did not)

Overreaction? Justified? As amusing as they are – it doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, there’s a clear lesson here: perception matters a lot because negativity spreads like wildfire.

When we rolled out the update, I explained the reasoning behind the changes – it wasn’t like we left players in the dark. But that didn’t seem to matter. The change was for the good of the game, and it did achieve the purpose it was meant to serve. Yet, people were so furious at the thought of additional taxes that some outright quit the game, while others stuck around but kept playing with a chip on their shoulder.

And this wasn’t even the first time. A few months earlier, we had to make adjustments to stop players from occasionally earning over 1 million gold with what was essentially a single button press – something that was never supposed to happen. It was a side effect of the game’s “infinite” nature and how gold scaled with levels. Honestly, I never expected anyone to hit level 10,000, let alone 500,000.

That update only impacted 164 players out of over 900,000 at the time. The result? Well… let me just show you just some of the reactions that were deemed appropriate for this post:

Game just died

Mike just wants the game to die

He’s f**ked us

I’m cancelling [the subscription]

You’ve obliterated all my personal hope for the game

Mike can go f**k himself

Did the game die? No – of course not. If I had a penny for every time I read that phrase, I would be a millionare. But it’s the same situation again. A change that ultimately benefited the game and only impacted a small group – 164 players at the time. Yet, we were absolutely bombarded with negativity, from both personal attacks and general complaints, even from players who weren’t remotely affected. I even saw a level 50 player complaining about it – for context, the update only applied to players above level 40,000.

The real issue here was the ripple effect. These players, despite being nowhere near the level cap where the update mattered, were surrounded by so much negativity that it put them off the game entirely. The negative atmosphere became contagious, even for those who had no reason to care, and it left a sour impression that still lingers even today.

There’s an important, multi-faceted lesson here: perception and community sentiment matter, even when the changes themselves make logical sense.

First, there’s the personal human element. I’ve touched on this before in previous posts, but I’ve been at this a while now, and I’ve been called everything under the sun – name-calling, personal threats, you name it. I’ve gotten used to it over time, but when it’s coming at you from every direction all at once, it’s tough to keep your guard up 24/7. I’d be lying if I said it didn’t get to me, even just a little. Still, I did my best not to let it sink too deep.

While they could control their reaction, I try not to blame them – even after some of the horrifying comments I saw during those two updates. Honestly, I’d probably feel annoyed in their shoes too. They’re responsible for how they act, of course, but I get where the frustration comes from. I mean, I can’t even count how many times I’ve cursed EA Sports up and down for what I thought was absolute tripe (FIFA, I’m looking at you).

The difference is, back then, I was just some random dude yelling at a big, faceless corporation. But in that moment? I was just one guy trying to make the game better – while getting absolutely bombarded with hate.

You might be thinking, “Ok – so what? People say bad things. Boo-f**king-hoo, cry me a river, ya big baby.” And fair enough. But beyond the human element, the second – and arguably more important – effect of those changes was the direct impact they had on the player base: people were unhappy and angry.

The truth is, only a small handful of people were actually upset. Most players didn’t care; it barely affected them. But as the old saying goes, “A single rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel.” A few vocal players left because of the changes, while others stayed but kept that negativity alive – and that negativity started to spread. It created this atmosphere where more people left, not because of the changes themselves, but because of the negativity surrounding them. And in some cases, it even fostered communities that thrived on hatred.

Here’s the thing: there’s nothing stronger than a shared sense of mutual hatred for something. It’s human nature. I don’t blame them – I accept it. Hell, I even get it. I’ve been there myself.

Take Blizzard and Overwatch as an example. Back when they made sweeping changes that ruined the game for me personally, I wasn’t just frustrated – I actively went on Reddit searching for negative posts to validate my feelings. I wanted to see other people ranting about the same things, and I latched onto that shared sense of outrage. It’s a cycle, and honestly, it’s pretty hard to break out of.

It’s entirely possible that you’re stuck in this cycle right now as you’re reading this. Maybe you’re frustrated with a change we made recently, or maybe you’re still holding onto hard feelings from something we changed years ago. And you know what? I completely get it.

As I’ve said before, it’s impossible to please everyone. Even the simplest, most harmless change in the world is bound to annoy someone, especially when you’re dealing with thousands of players logging in every day. I’ve come to terms with that, and the best I can do is be transparent about the reasoning behind our decisions.

Anyway, I digress. The two situations I described earlier left me with one big question: “Were the changes worth it?” And honestly…. that’s not an easy question to answer. It’s complicated.

If all I had to deal with was the hate and negativity, and it stayed self-contained, then yeah – absolutely, it was worth it. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’m not afraid to step on a few toes if it means a game of ours gets better in the long run.

But the fact that these changes negatively impacted the game in other ways? That’s where things get murky. When the backlash creates ripple effects – players leaving, negativity spreading, and fostering communities that thrive on hostility – it starts to feel like the benefits might get canceled out by the damage.

And that’s the real problem here. The line between “doing what’s best for the game” and “doing more harm than good” isn’t always clear. Sometimes, the right decision on paper doesn’t translate so cleanly into reality.

Our Approach

After reading all this, you’re probably thinking, “Damn, this guy’s done nothing but whine about people being mad.” But the point isn’t to say, “Oh, poor us, look how bad we developers have it.” It’s to give you some context – why we felt the need to come up with a new approach to handle these situations. And honestly? It’s made a real difference – it’s actually turned out to be surprisingly effective.

This ties back to my earlier example with market taxes. If the taxes were set high from the very beginning, it effectively eliminates that negative backlash when changes have to be made later. Plus, the benefits for the game’s economy are more long-lasting.

Take this scenario: say a game has a 30% tax for three years, and after those three years, we lower it to 25%. That means we not only maintained a healthy economy for three years – enough to justify reducing the tax – but we also benefited from three years of having that extra 5% tax in place. Now flip that scenario. Imagine the tax started at 3%, and we later had to raise it to 6%. In that case, there would’ve been a three-year period where the tax was unnecessarily low, and during that time, extra gold would’ve stayed in the economy that otherwise would’ve been removed from the higher tax had we set it high initially.

If we eventually conclude that not enough gold was removed from the game, that 3% difference is gold that’s now permanently circulating in the economy. It doesn’t just magically disappear. And unless we forcibly remove it from players’ accounts (which, let’s be real, isn’t even an option), it stays in the game forever. That’s the real challenge.

It kind of boils down to this: it’s way easier to add stuff – gold, items, whatever – into a game than it is to remove it once it’s already there. And that’s not just because of the human side of things (people don’t like having things taken away), but also the technical challenges.

Let’s say we introduce an enemy that drops an item 80% of the time. After a couple of months, we realize that’s way too high and drop it to 20%. Now we’ve got two problems. First, it’s a negative change, and nobody likes hearing that rates are being slashed. Second, all the items that were already introduced into the game during those months? They’re here to stay. There’s no way to un-drop them unless we go full dictator mode, rip them out of players’ inventories, and say, “Whoops, our bad.” And let’s be honest – that’s not exactly a move that’ll win us any popularity contests.

Our approach is simple: when we introduce a feature, we aim to be as conservative as possible – without going overboard – and then gradually increase rates, gold, or whatever over time as more data comes in. This way, we can make informed decisions about whether adjustments are even necessary and what those adjustments should be.

This method solves two major problems:

• As mentioned earlier, it’s infinitely easier to add assets to the game than to take them out. Adding millions of gold is like eating cake – it’s easy. But removing millions of gold from a broken economy? That’s like trying to read a book on astrophysics while riding a unicycle. Not impossible, but… let’s just say, not ideal.

• Starting with low values means there’s only one direction to go: up. Players are much more likely to embrace improvements than cuts.

However, this approach does come with one big downside: it can make new features feel less exciting at launch. A perfect example of this is IdleMMO’s battle update.

When we first rolled out the battle system, we made it very clear in the patch notes that the loot rates were intentionally set low. The reason? We simply didn’t know the scale we were dealing with yet. If we started too high, we risked flooding the game with far more items than it could handle, which would have been catastrophic in the long run.

Despite our transparency, the battle system was met with a flood of negative feedback – mostly complaints about how little loot players were getting and how battling was no longer profitable. Over time, though, we implemented several updates to improve it: scaling enemies, magic find mechanics, a pet system, and more.

The result? The battle system is in a much healthier place now than it was at launch. Is it perfect? No. But it’s in a much better state than it was 3 month ago. And all of that was by design. It was a deliberate decision to start cautiously, gather data, and make improvements step by step. Sure, it wasn’t flashy or exciting at first, but it allowed us to avoid larger, irreversible issues down the line.

We’re not going to always get it right

Let’s face it – the cold, hard truth: we’re not perfect. We’re not superhuman. We’re not economists or mathematicians. Me? I’m just a code monkey hunched over a computer, doing my best with what I’ve got. That’s all there is to it.

A Valuable Lesson

Other than, you know, tweaking our balancing approach to be more sustainable in the long run, one of the biggest lessons I’ve personally learned is that it’s totally okay to accept that different viewpoints exist. We can’t make everyone happy, and that’s just the reality of it.

A lot of the time, critiques aren’t about one side being right or wrong – they’re just different perspectives. Sometimes it’s as simple as having different goals, and that’s perfectly fine.

Conclusion

So, to wrap up this unexpectedly long blog post – which has grown way bigger than I intended – it’s worth keeping in mind the approach we’re committed to with almost every change we make moving forward: we’re starting cautiously, taking the conservative route with new features and adjustments, and scaling them up over time.

Of course, sometimes we might not get it quite right. Maybe we’re not conservative enough – like with the recent IdleMMO update that introduced community goal tiers. We set them pretty high initially, but it turned out they weren’t high enough, so we had to adjust them further. But that’s part of the process. It’s important to step back occasionally and say, “Ok, let’s reevaluate this once it’s had time to settle.”

And if things don’t always go perfectly? All I can personally ask is to keep it civil. Name-calling, rage baiting, or venting won’t achieve anything except maybe getting a slightly amused smirk out of me. We’re not perfect – we’re going to make mistakes. At the end of the day, we’re just doing the best we can with the tools and information we have. All we ask from you is to be respectful.

I’ve noticed that some concerns have been raised on our Discord server about IdleMMO’s player population. While I’ve responded to these concerns directly in the server a few times, I realise those messages might not have reached everyone who needs to see them.

Let me put it simply: not only is this trend completely normal and expected, but we’re actually doing better than we initially anticipated – losing players at a slower rate than expected. In other words, we’re still exceeding expectations.

To understand why some players are moving on, it’s important to first look at what drove the surge in downloads in the first place.

Increased Player Count

When we launched the game on Google Play, it introduced the game to tens of thousands of players almost instantly. In fact, within just 24 hours of release, we saw over 1,500 downloads.

The trend took off immediately, with the game reaching thousands of players right from day one. Google Play deserves a lot of credit for this – their store does an amazing job of promoting apps, without us having to do a thing. In fact, they’re far better at this than the Apple App Store.

This isn’t our first experience with Google Play’s organic download surges, either. With our other game, SimpleMMO, we’ve seen similar spikes in downloads. I can’t give you an exact explanation of how this works – after all, I don’t work at Google – but from what i’ve observed, the apps shown on Google Play are always changing depending on trends.

But it didn’t stop there – it started feeding into itself. We had a sizable group of players eagerly waiting for the Android release, and that initial wave of downloads probably caught Google’s algorithm’s attention. The surge likely made the algorithm think, “Hey, this game is doing great – let’s give it more visibility.” Of course, I say “likely” because, again, we can’t know for sure as we don’t work at Google. That said, this fits with how most trend-based ranking systems work. Once momentum starts building, it often snowballs – leading to even more visibility and, in turn, even more downloads.

As a result, the rate at which players were downloading and playing the game kept climbing week after week – far beyond what we had anticipated. In just over two months, we surpassed 100,000 downloads solely on Google Play alone.

This trend continued upwards for a few months. In fact, we peaked at 3,400 downloads in a single day – which for an independent game with almost zero financially-backed marketing is nothing short of staggering.

Naturally – this wasn’t going to last forever and it would be downright delusional to think it would.

It’s impossible to maintain a such a huge surge

From the moment we noticed the game was trending, we knew it wouldn’t last forever. Trends like this always lose steam eventually, and the player count starts to decline – it’s just the nature of things. The real question for us was: how high would the peak be before the slowdown? And as it turns out, it was pretty bloody high. At one point, we had over 13,000 active characters online at the same time.

If you had told me this time last year that we’d hit those numbers, I’d have thought you’d lost the plot.

I knew we wouldn’t be able to maintain that peak indefinitely, no matter what we did. No game – no matter how amazing – can sustain its highest point forever after a surge in downloads, especially without serious financial backing. It’s not a failure; it’s just how the world works. The same concept applies to almost anything.

A better way to look at it is like this: Have you ever been to a large shop on an opening day? It’s packed. Over a week, the rush and excitement of something new fades down until it gets to a level where the super market can maintain and start to grow clientele from.

The truth is, the game launched on the Play Store back in May, and it’s only now that we’re starting to see its momentum slow down. Honestly, we’re amazed it lasted this long.

Are we sure its because of the downloads?

Yes, because it’s evident from the stats we can see. It also aligns with the nature of trends that I mentioned earlier. Again, we’ve seen similar peaks and valleys with our other game, SimpleMMO, many times. It’s not unusual, especially when it comes to Google Play. Their search algorithm changes frequently, which has a direct impact on the number of organic downloads any app receives.

And if, in the unlikely event, this is happening because the game isn’t as good as we’d like and Google gave us more downloads than we truly deserved, our response is straightforward: we’ll keep improving the game. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.

“But… but… it was the Battle Rework! I swear!”

I’ve seen this mentioned a few times on the Discord server. No, it’s not the reworked battle system – or, for that matter, any specific change we’ve made. In fact, here’s the thing: every change we make seems to make some people leave, as bizarre as that might sound. It’s just a reality of change.

Whether it’s one frustrated player or a small group, it’s impossible to please everyone. No matter how beneficial a change might be overall, there will always be someone who isn’t happy with it. This xkcd comic perfectly sums it up better than I ever could:

I think some people don’t realise just how much downloads influence the game’s population. It’s orders of magnitude greater than most other factors. Honestly, I can confidently say that even if I introduced the absolute worst feature imaginable – some pay-to-win nightmare – it still wouldn’t affect the game as much as the sheer volume of downloads does. It’s practically basic math at this point.

Think about it logically for a moment. At one point, we were getting nearly 3,500 new players in a single day. And remember, that surge continued for months. Do you know how massive an exodus would have to be to cause a population shift on that scale? Even if we made a change that not only upset a ton of people but cause them to leave – let’s say a few hundred – it’s still just a tiny fraction compared to the influx of new players we got in one single day.


Just because some Discord servers are seeing a few people leave due to dissatisfaction with changes doesn’t mean it’s a major issue. This is a classic example of the availability heuristic – a bias where people overestimate the importance of something based on the information most easily available to them, rather than looking at the bigger picture. In this case, it’s their own experiences in Discord giving a skewed perspective.

That said, I’m not saying changes don’t impact the downloads – of course they do. Any change will influence the game’s trend and key quality metrics, like how long players stick around before uninstalling. But for a shift this dramatic, it would take a significant, underlying, and fundamental change to the core gameplay. Even then, it’s not always enough. Honestly, I’ve seen games over the past few years that seemed doomed to fail after introducing sleazy dark patterns, yet somehow they’re still going strong.

Obtaining More Downloads

Given the nature of our decline, it’s fair to ask: if downloads are the issue, why not just focus on getting more downloads? Well… it’s not that simple. Almost all of our downloads have been entirely organic, and that’s something we don’t have much direct control over.

Sure, we could take steps to nudge the trend in the right direction – like optimizing our App Store page or running a marketing campaign. But right now, our main priority is what really matters: making the game better. The other things, like marketing and perfecting our store presence, can come later. Those efforts take significant time and resources, and we’d rather focus on them once the game is out of beta.

Putting Numbers In Perspective

Another thing people often overlook is that the situation looks worse than it really is because our player numbers are abnormally high. In fact, I’ve already mentioned that I didn’t expect the numbers to reach this level within a year of release – especially since we’re still technically in beta. But because the numbers are so big, even a small percentage of players leaving can seem like a much bigger issue than it actually is.

Think about it: if we have 13,000 active players on average and lose 10% over two or three months, that’s 1,300 players gone – a big number on the surface. Now compare that to when we had just 1,000 active players early on. Losing the same 10% would mean only 100 players – a much smaller number that doesn’t sound nearly as bad.

Don’t get me wrong here. It’s the same percentage, relatively speaking, but the larger active player count makes any decline seem far more dramatic. Of course, I’m not saying losing players is a good thing – it depends on the circumstances. But I’m pointing out that our unusually high player base creates a glaring perception problem: the losses look bigger simply because we started with more.

So, what now?

As with anything in life, the trend will naturally continue to decline until it reaches a stable point – where new and returning players balance each other out. It’s just the way things work, and there’s not much we can do to change it.

The real question is: at what point will the inflow and outflow of players even out? Honestly, I can’t answer that. But this brings up an even more important question…

Does it even matter?

Now is a good time for introspection. As your self these questions: Are you still having fun? So what if the game is losing players? Does it really matter? Honestly, it doesn’t – not to us, given the reasons behind the decline. We’ve already far exceeded our expectations – beyond anything I ever thought possible within the first year of launch. What truly matters is that we focus on making the best game we can and enjoying the process along the way.

If we were losing players because we were actively making the game worse, that would be a different story. That would be a sign for us to take a step back and reassess. But that’s simply not the case. The decline is part of a normal trend, and, truthfully, there’s very little we can do to stop it. We’re a small independent company. We simply don’t have the financial backing to keep it artificially propped up.

As far as app-based live-service games go, we’re in a unique and fortunate position here. We’re a completely independent, bootstrapped company. We’re not focused on micro-optimizing every single mechanic to keep you hooked indefinitely. We’re not here to nickel-and-dime you or squeeze every cent out of your pockets. I understand that its natural for peoples interest to slowly diminish, and I’m not going to hold that against them. Our goal is pretty simple: make a damn great game and have fun doing it.

As far as I’m concerned, if we stay focused on creating something genuinely good, the community will naturally follow. Obsessing over trying to maintain the massive surge of players we saw at its absolute peak is like trying to stop an avalanche with a shovel – why waste that effort when we could be doing something meaningful instead?

We’re excited to share that Version 0.23 is on its way, featuring a complete overhaul of the battle system and the new ability to change your character’s class, among other changes.

Just to clarify, I’ll be using the past tense and referring to the current battle system (the one playable at the time of this post) as the “old” system, even though the “new” battle system hasn’t been released yet.

Problems With The Old System

Let’s talk about why we’re overhauling the battle system in our game. Simply put, the “old” battle and hunting mechanics didn’t fit well with the idle game genre. Despite our efforts to refine these systems, they fundamentally clash with the nature of idle gaming. Many players found this aspect of the game polarizing – it was either loved or entirely ignored.

So, what was the issue with the old system? Let’s break it down.

Level Discrepancies

The huge problem with the old battle system was that a character’s “power level” (how strong they are) didn’t align with their “combat level” as you’d expect in most games. Surprisingly, it was possible for a character to reach combat level 100 but remain significantly weak. This happened because experience in primary stats like Strength and Defence was earned through skills unrelated to combat effectiveness.

This situation caused quite a bit of confusion among players. Many were frustrated, thinking they couldn’t defeat enemies that matched their combat level, and we had to clarify repeatedly that this wasn’t a bug – it was just how the system was designed. The issue arose because the system limits battles to no more than 100 turns. If a character is too weak to defeat an enemy within those 100 turns, the battle simply won’t proceed. This rule was primarily set to save time, as fighting through more than 100 rounds could drag on for several minutes.

One popular suggestion we’ve received is to have the game issue a warning before a battle starts if the character is not strong enough to attack a specific enemy. However, this presents a technical challenge. To determine whether a character can successfully attack an enemy, we would need to simulate the battle before it actually begins. Unfortunately, simulating battles does not scale well.

Difficulty In Obtaining Primary Stats EXP

As touched on above, the discrepancies in levels and the resulting confusion were largely due to the way experience points were distributed across different skills. For instance, activities like woodcutting, which seemingly had nothing to do with combat, contributed to increasing a player’s strength, while smelting boosted speed.

Not only this, but the experience awarded per action was excessively low. Ten months into the game, the highest Strength level achieved by any player is only 92. This slow progression caused primary stats to lag significantly behind the pace at which characters could increase their combat level, leading to a disjointed and illogical system where combat effectiveness didn’t match combat levels.

Hunting

The hunting mechanic, intended to add depth to the battle system, fell short of expectations mainly because it was tedious. The process involved repeating the same action every few minutes, which turned into a burdensome task of keeping the screen on just to ensure the hunt was completed. The core issue was the awkward timing of the hunts – they were too frequent and too brief to truly fit the idle game format, yet not short enough to be engaging for active play. This left players in a limbo where, for two or three minutes at a time, they couldn’t do much else but wait.

Another significant problem with the hunting system was its inefficiency, particularly frustrating for new players. They could spend considerable time hunting for enemies, only to encounter enemies that were “unkillable” for them. This meant they had to restart the hunt without engaging in any actual combat, leading to a cycle of fruitless efforts. This aspect of the system was so tedious and unrewarding that it sapped the excitement out of the gameplay. Even writing about it is dull.

Battling

The battling system, while slightly more engaging than hunting due to the need to monitor health, was still tedious. The system required a minimal but awkward level of attention – not active enough to be captivating, yet not passive enough to be truly idle. Players couldn’t just set their characters to battle and check back after a short period; they had to intermittently manage the gameplay, which disrupted the flow of a typical idle game.

This issue was even more pronounced for lower-level characters, where simple battles, like defeating a rabbit, could take up to 40 seconds.

More Issues

I don’t want to spend an unnecessary amount of time outlining the problems with the old battling and hunting system so I’ll just quickly list the rest.

Attacking Lower Level Enemies
The game mechanics incentivized players to target lower-level enemies. Given the lengthy process required to hunt and defeat higher-level enemies, the efficiency (EXP per second) actually decreased in tougher locations, making it more practical to stick with weaker enemies.

Stats
Despite reaching high levels, the impact of stats was minimal – this was primarily because players kept attacking lower-leveled enemies.

Food
The inefficiencies in combat rendered food almost pointless. If characters are primarily engaged in low-risk battles (like attacking weak rabbits that only inflict minor damage), there’s little need for resources like food that are meant to recover health lost in more challenging fights.

Bots
It seems that about 80% of people using bots are doing so specifically for the battle system, setting up an autoclicker on the battle page and leaving it running for hours. While I get why they do it – given how tedious the system can be – that doesn’t make it acceptable. We’re naively hoping that by smoothing out some of the friction with our new battle rework, we might discourage the use of automation a bit. Even a 10% reduction in bot usage would be significant for us. Reviewing flagged accounts and banning offenders is a time-consuming process, so easing the burden even slightly would be a big win.

Thoughts

We’ve got a lot of improvements lined up, particularly addressing the points we’ve been talking about. I realize there’s a few players who really enjoys the old, more “active” hunting and battling system, and some of you might be disappointed with the new direction we’re taking. But the truth is, the old system wasn’t quite in line with where we want the game to go. We’re trying to find a balance that keeps the game engaging while staying true to our vision.

We’ve honestly put a ton of work into the old battle system. If you’ve been here since the pre-beta stage, you will likely be aware how many times we have made adjustments to the battle and hunting system. I’m extremely cautious about not leading us into a “sunk cost fallacy”. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, things just don’t pan out the way you’d hope.

Battle and Hunting Rework

So, let’s dive right into what we’ve been working on with the battle system. Instead of just telling you about the changes, I think it’s better to show you directly.

Just a heads-up: Everything I’m sharing is still subject to change. We’re in the alpha testing phase, so things might still change quite a bit.

When you first open the battle page,  you’ll notice nothing has changed if there are no enemies to battle.

However, when you start hunting, you might notice something different…

We’ve made the hunts longer, a lot longer… and this all depends on your stats. Instead of just a few minutes, now you can hunt up to the maximum idle time allowed by the game. To extend your hunting duration, you’ll need to boost two key stats: Movement Speed, which you can increase with your equipped pet, and your Hunting Mastery level, which goes up the more you hunt. The higher these stats, the longer you can stay on the hunt.

However, with the changes to the hunting mechanic, we’ve decided to remove the ability for pets to hunt on your behalf. Not many players were using the pet hunting feature, and with the new system, it would make things a bit too powerful.

When you finish the hunt, you will notice that the enemies will be stacked on top of each other.

The main idea behind this change is to let your character continuously hunt enemies until you reach the cap, which is determined by your Hunting Mastery level. It’d be pretty impractical (and a bit silly) to display each enemy individually if you’ve got hundreds waiting, like how the old system did.

Currently, the maximum number of enemies a character can stack ranges from 500 to 2,000. So, if you’re at level 100 in Hunting Mastery, you’ll be able to stack up to 2,000 enemies. This change should streamline the experience and keep things looking clean and manageable on your screen.

This leads to another new feature: when you hunt more enemies, they just stack up on top of the ones you’ve already hunted. Since it’s not feasible to hunt all 2,000 enemies in one session – given that the idle time maxes out at 160 minutes for your main character with a membership – you’ll need to split this task over several hunting sessions. Also, it’s important to note that reaching that 160-minute cap requires a high Hunting Mastery level and sufficient Movement Speed.

When starting a new hunt, it will pick up right where the last one left off. You can keep going like this until you hit your limit.

If you decide to cancel a hunt midway, the game will automatically determine how many enemies you hunted during that time. For example, if your current capacity allows you to hunt 500 enemies over 100 minutes, and you cancel after 50 minutes, the game calculates that you’ve hunted 250 enemies – because you stopped halfway through. These enemies will then be added to any you had previously, stacking them up for you to battle later. This way, every minute of hunting counts, even if you don’t complete the full duration.

To start attacking an enemy, just click on the one you want to defeat. This will open a dialogue window, giving you the option to attack.

You will notice two new things on this screen: Food and Stance.

Food

You can choose which food to bring along for the battle, and adding food effectively extends your battling time. Here’s the basic idea: the more food you carry, the more enemies you can battle. Food boosts your “effective health” – for instance, if your character has 100 HP and you take 20 food items, each providing an extra 10 HP, your total effective health becomes 300 HP (100 + (20 * 10)). With a higher effective health, you can engage more enemies consecutively.

The battle continues until one of three scenarios occurs:

1. Your character gets defeated (in which case, they have exhausted all their health and food).
2. Your character defeats all the enemies
3. You exceed the maximum idle time.

Stance

Stance is our new method for gaining primary stat experience points. Now, instead of earning these points through skills, you’ll get them directly from battling. We believe this approach makes more sense since primary stats are exclusively used for battle. Previously, obtaining them via skills seemed to disconnect them from their main function, making the whole system feel a bit disjointed.

There will be five stances to take:
Balanced: Obtains EXP for every primary stat. for instance, if you get 20 EXP, then each stat will get 5 EXP.
Offensive: Obtains EXP only for strength.
Defensive: Obtain EXP only for defence.
Agile: Obtains EXP only for speed.
Dexterous: Obtains EXP only for dexterity.

Just to clarify, the experience points (EXP) you earn from defeating enemies are allocated to both combat and stats. For instance, if you defeat an enemy and you get 20 EXP from that enemy, that means that 20 EXP will go towards your combat level, and 20 EXP will go towards your primary stats depending on your chosen stance.

Battling

When you start battling, you will be shown a completely new battle screen.

We’ve significantly revamped how the battle system operates behind the scenes to streamline performance and to allow it to scale. Previously, in the old system, battles were conducted one enemy at a time. For each encounter, the system would “simulate” the fight to determine the winner and calculate the rewards. This method, especially when facing multiple stacked enemies, became highly inefficient and a major performance bottleneck as it had to simulate each battle individually.

Now, we’ve shifted to a “bulk” simulation approach. Instead of handling each battle one-by-one, the system simulates the entire sequence at once and calculates the outcome collectively. This not only speeds up the process but also helps in handling multiple enemies more effectively, making the whole system more robust and capable of scaling as needed.

Here’s what it specifically calculates:
– How many enemies you can defeat until one of three battle ending events occur (as I have explained above)
– How much damage is given to the enemy per hit.
– How much damage you take from the enemy per hit.
– How many hits you take to defeat the enemy.
– Your hit chance.
– The enemies hit chance.

All this info is displayed right on your screen, so you can keep an eye on your character’s progress and tweak things as needed. This new method is definitely more scalable, but it’s not without its drawbacks. For instance, unlike the old battle system, you can’t check your current health during a battle to heal up in real-time. Also, you miss out on watching each battle unfold hit by hit through those little toast notifications.

Since we’ve revamped the battle system, we’ve had to tweak how some of the stats work, especially Agility and Dexterity. We’ll detail all the changes in-game once everything is released. It’s a bit too soon to dive into the specifics since we’re still fine-tuning and experimenting with the battle formula. We want to make sure we get it just right before sharing the full details.

We’ve set up the system so that if you end a battle early, it will automatically calculate how many enemies you’ve defeated and give you the appropriate rewards. For example, if you start a battle with 20 enemies and it’s supposed to take 20 minutes, but you cancel after defeating the 15th enemy (around 15 minutes), you’ll still get the EXP and loot for those 15 defeated enemies. Plus, any unused food will be returned to you. You’ll also receive a handy overview of everything in your notifications, so you don’t miss any details.

Closing Remarks

And there you have it – that’s the rundown on our new hunting and battling system. It’s designed to be much more “idle friendly” than previous versions. Just how idle it can be really depending on your character’s stats and how much food you decide to invest in the battle. So, you have some flexibility on how hands-on or hands-off you want to be!

We’re still in the experimental phase with this rework, and we’re very cautious about how they might impact the game’s economy. Because of this, there’s a possibility we might adjust the loot rates and EXP rates for enemies. We don’t want to flood the market with crafting materials nor make it too easy to level up just because it’s easier and quicker to defeat consecutive enemies. I can’t go into specifics yet because we haven’t finalized our review – there’s even a chance that nothing will change. But I wanted to give you a heads-up that these aspects are under consideration, so you might see some adjustments.

Changing Class

Characters will now have the ability to switch classes using a special class changer item, a feature many of you have been asking for. However, to prevent frequent class hopping and maintain game balance, there are a few rules:

1. You can only change your class once every 14 days.
2. Class changing items are not tradable. You can only get them from a vendor using tokens.
3. Characters cannot switch to or from the Forsaken class.

Changing Name

This is another highly requested feature. This will work in a similar way to the class changer with similar restrictions (but Forsaken can also change their name).

Fishing Reviews

Saving the biggest news for the end, right? Well, I wouldn’t want you to finish this blog post without a bit of a shocker, so here comes a grenade for you. We’ve noticed a significant imbalance in gold accumulation when it comes to the fishing skill, particularly at the higher levels involving sharks. To help you see just what we’re talking about, here are some graphs provided by @visiel in our official Discord server which you can check out here: https://discord.com/channels/1118502854957727754/1277666983952908319/1277666983952908319. These should give you a clear picture of the stark differences in earnings in fishing compared to other skills:

It doesn’t take a genius to pinpoint where the imbalance is. We haven’t had the chance to fully review this area yet, as we’ve been focused on the battle rework, so I can’t share exact details about what the changes will involve. But, let me be upfront – you might want to brace yourself. We’re planning adjustments to how gold accumulates for high-value items in fishing.

Balancing is always a touchy subject because it can disrupt gameplay and strategies, particularly for those who’ve invested heavily based on the current system. But, let’s be honest, when one skill significantly outperforms others in terms of profit, that’s the textbook definition of imbalance. This especially true for skills that stand alone versus those that are interdependent (By this, I mean that some skills, like Fishing and Woodcutting, stand alone and don’t rely on other skills, unlike Cooking and Smelting).

From the start, we’ve committed to making decisions that we believe are in the best interest of the game’s health and balance – even if it means making decisions that people ultimately won’t agree with.

That said, just to slightly ease your concerns, I want to clarify that this update may not be an outright nerf. While it’s still too early to dive into specifics, one of our key objectives is to put a greater emphasis on cooked food so make of that that what you will.

Overview

This is just some of the changes we have planned in the upcoming update. There’s a lot more we haven’t disclosed yet so expect some surprises too. Fishing changes aside, which I am sure most of you will be screaming with glee after finding out about it, I’m sure that this update will improve idleMMO and make it more enjoyable to play. Oh, and we also have a new global campaign lined up too. We’ll share more information on that soon.

We don’t have a set timeline for when this update will roll out – it could be as soon as next week or perhaps not until early October. The timing really depends on when we feel everything is polished and ready. Given the scale of these changes, especially since they impact a core system of the game, we’re taking extra care to ensure we get it right.

In this post, we’ll provide a sneak peek into the new mechanics that will be introduced in v0.12.0.

It’s important to note that everything discussed here is currently under development and may undergo adjustments prior to the official release. Consider this a small taster of what’s to come. The comprehensive patch notes available upon release will serve as the definitive guide to all the changes.

Guilds

We initially considered incorporating guilds into IdleMMO from the start, but we chose to postpone their implementation. Our decision was rooted in the desire for guilds to have substance and purpose rather than merely existing for the sake of it. We aimed to introduce guilds thoughtfully, ensuring they align with the overall game design philosophy.

Guilds have been designed to ensure a seamless user experience, consistent with the carefully crafted design philosophy of the game, where most interactions occur on a single page.

Guild Creation

To create a guild, a character must pay a significant gold fee. This fee was deliberately set at a high value because establishing and leading a guild demands substantial investment in both time and resources.

After the guild is created, the guild page is presented, showcasing everything from the array of actions available to guild leaders to editing the guild’s appearance, allowing for a unique and personalized touch.

Guild Level

The guild incorporates a leveling system that progresses through participation in diverse guild activities. This leveling mechanism not only mirrors the guild’s activity level, which is vital for ascending the leaderboards, but also unlocks specific perks. As the guild’s level rises, certain capabilities expand. For instance, higher-level guilds can issue more challenges within a 24-hour period compared to lower-level guilds.

Furthermore, the number of available member slots increases as the guild’s level progresses. Initially, guilds are capped at 20 members, but this can expand to a maximum of 25 members based on the guild’s level. We intentionally imposed this relatively small limit to uphold a focused, manageable, and balanced community.

Guild Icons and Backgrounds

To enhance guild individuality, we offer customization options for backgrounds and icons. Guilds can personalize their background by selecting from those purchased by the leader from the market. This allows for cohesive branding across both the guild and profile.

Icons, on the other hand, are distinct entities with their own designated category in the vendor. They can be acquired for a nominal token fee, providing a wide array of options for guild representation.

Changing either the background or icon is a straightforward process. By clicking on the respective edit icon, guilds can seamlessly update their appearance to reflect their character.

Guild Description

The guild description is like the heart of the guild, setting it apart from others. It can tell a story about how the guild was formed or list the requirements for joining. It’s a way for the guild to express its identity and values to potential members.

We’ve designed the guild description to work seamlessly with Markdown, offering even more flexibility for creativity to each guild.

Guild Raids

Guild members can participate in raids to earn experience and rewards. Raids are collaborative events organized by the guild leader and prearranged by high-ranking members. Members can join a lobby before the raid starts, and once the scheduled timer runs out, the raid begins automatically.

Guilds have access to a variety of raids, each designed to scale in time. Higher-tier raids require more time to complete but offer greater rewards in terms of experience per participant and experience gained per second. This means that although they demand more time, they provide richer rewards for both the guild and its members.

The guild’s experience gain hinges on the number of participants in the raid. More participants yeilds more experience points for the guild.

Users scheduling a guild raid can select a specific start time for the event. This feature is particularly valuable for coordinating with members across different time zones, ensuring everyone can participate at a convenient time.

Individual participants earn experience by successfully completing guild raids, receiving both Combat Experience and Guild Mastery Experience.

Participants forfeit rewards if they leave a raid prematurely, resulting in reduced rewards for the guild as well.

Guild Challenges

Challenges serve as a way for the guild to accumulate experience quickly. Members holding specific ranks within the guild have the authority to generate challenges, each lasting for a duration of 24 hours.

These challenges foster collaboration within the guild, encouraging members to work collectively towards shared objectives, such as acquiring specific tems and subsequently contributing them to the challenge.

Upon successful completion, the guild earns experience points. Notably, participants are rewarded with an additional 2 experience points for every item contributed towards the challenge, irrespective of whether the challenge is completed or not.

As the guild levels up, more challenges can be generated. If a challenge is deemed to be too difficult, higher ranking members of the guild can refresh a specific task.

Guild Mastery

Guild mastery is a persistent game level that remains with the character even if they leave a guild. It serves as a testament to a player’s dedication to supporting the guilds they join. Although initially, there may not be significant benefits to increasing the guild mastery level at release, we have confirmed plans to expand its functionality. This includes enhancing the rewards obtained from performing raids, providing further incentives for players to increase their guild mastery level.

Guild Ranks

In the guild hierarchy, there are three ranks—Soldier, Officer, and Leader—each with distinct permissions. The Leader holds the highest authority and there can only be one Leader at a time. Soldiers are regular guild members with no extra permissions. Officers have additional privileges, such as generating tasks and accepting player invitations.

As the guilds feature in IdleMMO expands, the ranks will also grow in complexity. We’ve intentionally designed the system to be highly dynamic, allowing us to seamlessly add, modify, or remove ranks in the future as needed.

Guild Marks

Marks serve as currency earned through guild challenges, granting access to various guild mechanics such as refreshing challenges and participating in raids.

Currently, the primary method to acquire marks is by completing challenges.

By utilizing in-game marks as a form of currency earned through standard gameplay activities, we ensure seamless integration of future guild mechanics, fostering a cohesive system.

Shrine of the Old Gods

The Shrine of the Old Gods is a game mechanic where the community collaborates to achieve a common goal, earning game-wide boosts for everyone’s benefit. If you’ve played our other game, SimpleMMO, you might recognize a similar mechanic called the “Orphanage.”

However, shrines operate slightly differently. To donate to a shrine, characters must first be near one. Fortunately, shrines are located in almost every location (though not all), and they can be easily accessed by pressing the “Nearby” button.

The shrine features multiple tiers, with each tier offering a boost to every character in the game. Once a tier is reached, the boosts becomes active and all progress goes towards the next tier. We’ve intentionally designed the system to allow tiers to activate gradually throughout the day, based on when the goal was reached, or all at once, providing a larger combined boost.

Updated Wiki

While still a work in progress, the wiki has undergone a slight revamp, featuring more comprehensive information about various game mechanics along with overall design and structural enhancements. While I won’t delve into specifics, here’s an example of the changes made:

Additional Changes

Version 0.12.0 marks our largest update yet, packed with numerous additional changes to the game including many changes that improve its quality of life. For instance, we’re introducing key binds that enable web users to swiftly and seamlessly switch between characters without relying on their mouse.

A comprehensive list of these minor changes will be included in the patch notes upon the release of v0.12.

Release Date

We don’t have a set release date for this update yet. We’ll release it when we feel it’s ready, whether that’s tomorrow, Thursday, or even next week. However, we’re confident that we’re very close to release; we just want to ensure everything works correctly and that the underlying code is extremely robust before making it public. As always, stay tuned to our Discord server for notifications when this update drops.