It's a lot of manual futzing though, even if it is only a few people, with no real guarantee of results, across a couple of dozen servers.
- Do they do it automatically for all of them, in which case it is being manually adjusted for a bunch of people who aren't playing?
- Do they ignore those people and deal with them if they return?
- Are they going to send each of those people a message, indicating they've done it? If not, (or even if they do and it doesn't get looked at) what if someone who isn't on the forums gets a manual adjustment and then spends them on extra roads without realizing they got it?
- What about people in the middle of the chapter, but past that tech? Just let them do it? Offer an adjustment that they may not take because they don't know it has stopped making a difference in tournaments but is still penalizing them in exploration so it makes the rest of the chapter easier until six months from now when they find out about the changes and are right back where they started?
Making the techs use goods that anyone can generate, even if the cost is fairly high, is a single database adjustment for all servers that never has to be touched again.
Yes. Do it for all of them. The coding is even easier that way and the weight on the server less since if you try to distinguish between who should and who should not get it you have a number of variables. The more variables the more processor and development time is taken to code each decision. The closer you are to a single variable the faster and less load you have on the server since asking single yes/no boolean question of each account before applying the solution. Nothing "manual" about it.
Do it for all. No problems
No need to notify individually, but just make the announcements. If a person doesn't read the announcements that's on them. Minimum hassle for the devs since it's only one message.
If you haven't finished a chapter you don't get the benefit since the cost of rebuilding is not there. You can just go back and finish the skipped ones in that chapter.
That's it.
As an outsider here, someone who will not take part in the voting process but someone who has grown accustomed to the developers thinking...I am not exactly sure how you are planning on convincing the developers to change a research requirement. Some of these requirements have been in place for months, if not years, and you had the choice to accomplish them. For individuals who chose to skip optional research because they chose to listen to "more experienced" players made a choice with their decisions.
Lately, I am noticing a lot of ideas being presented here because many of you are wanting to personalize the game to your playing style. I will hate for the developers to begin mentally brushing aside ideas coming at their desks (from THIS server) disguised as personal, or to put it simply, make individuals gameplay easier for them so they can begin to enjoy their personalized game that is made so millions can play it.
I am now reaching a point where I am deciding on completely putting a stop to ideas that serve no purpose, enhance the game in any shape or form, other than to make selective groups or individuals gameplay easy because they are not happy with the choices presented to them and simply wants a personalized the game to play. I realize I have opened a passageway here, but when I start to see that people are wasting time with trivial matters, I have to begin reconsidering my approach even if that means extra work on me. I would hate to become as strict as the moderators on the beta server, but you all have to play your part here as well.
This is a game to play. Why did you not strategize in the event the developers choose to pull another rabbit out of their hat, and strategically prepare yourself for when that optional research becomes mandatory or necessary?
My suggestion on how to do this does not cause any changes to the game. It just grants instant resources to those in a particular situation caused by a
choice the devs made in the game. It was a
choice the players made based upon the rules in force at the time. A football game in which the refs decided the forward pass was no allowed in the third quarter would be really, really bad if one of the teams entire offense was based on the forward pass AND they were not notified that the change would be made in the third quarter before they started the game. The devs
choose to make the change and are responsible for their
choice.
As for the players "convincing" the deves? Are you kidding? Ultimately the players are in charge of EVERYTHING unless Inno does not wish to make a profit. I am exaggerating, of course. But the balance of power between the consumer and the supplier is a delicate one and upsetting it one way or the other does effect the bottom line. If the game were always highly profitable to the point that no changes could enhance the profit, no changes would be made. Maintaining and raising (if possible) profit is the job of the entire Inno team, from the devs to the community support. Everybody should know that.
Two of the ways you DON'T maintain the delicate balance is by ignoring or even insulting the players. Players have laid out a pretty convincing argument that the basic change proposed is unfairly costly to them. The remedy is reasonable and pretty easy to do. At least in SQL it would be. And, generally speaking, your devs are probably quite capable of implementing my suggestion in a couple hours at most AND the server processing time over a few days would not be too taxing, though I have no way of being 100% certain of this. In any case, it could be done.
The other way to upset the delicate balance is by insulting them. Everyone has a personal playing style and most of us know people who have a personal playing style close to our own. The "single motive fallacy" is applicable here. (I posted the explanation of this in the Lounge if anyone cares to review what I mean). Just because a person's personal playing style benefits from a proposed change does not mean they are posting the proposed change
solely for that reason. Thus, as one who would not benefit from this proposal as I've skipped no SS's, implying, that I should vote against it because it's somehow a selfish request, is an ad hominem remark and should be ignored.
On the bigger picture though, it's worse. To declare that you are now going to measure if a proposal is one in which a person wants to merely enhance their personalized game experience or something significant for many, is scarey. And counter-productive. Again, even if the proposal benefits my personal playing style it does not therefore mean it's not relevant to others. Your concern is noted and may, and on rare occasions may actually occur. But I suspect people like myself, and others, would be pretty quick to point out such a singular, self-centered lapse and thus you should not worry enough to soil your hands trying to take care of it. Just a suggestion.
If you wish to reduce the number of suggestions here, you have started off in the right direction. No better way to kill creative thinking than to declare all suggestions are okay to put on the table and then the moment one arrives you dislike, you, burn the table. I would suggest you just take a deep breath and let the players have their say on whatever silly or super proposal is put forth. Yes, they will sometimes be pretty restricted in scope and even silly. But, as I said, we are capable of addressing that ourselves.
Your last point is interesting. I, personally, am anticipating that Chapter 17 will require a billion little yellow ducks that will cost me twenty billion seeds. I'm saving them up, just in case. Unfortunately, for some reason I'm stuck in Chapter 15 as all my seed procution is going toward those twenty billion seeds I MIGHT need should the devs decide in that direction. Ditto for Mana, btw because you know those sneaky devs might suddenly want 20 billion in mana too! Anticipating what the devs might or might not do, except in minor cases, is not the same thing as anticipating what they might do to the underlying several year old decisions they are revisiting now. Games are not generally played with "what if they do X two or three years in the future?" but "what are the rules now." Expecting that sort of planning is probably a waste of time -- unless you want to provide a list of what the devs MIGHT do into the future, say three or four years? (Hmmmmm... oh, that's been suggested already, darn!)
Just some thoughts.
AJ