Dreaming about an expiring negotiation boost building

[Alram]

How to make the Spire + Tournament playable on a weekly basis:
1. REMOVE ANCIENT WONDERS FROM THE COST FORUMLAE!!

REMOVE ANCIENT WONDERS FROM THE FORUMULA!!!

You could start a suggestion thread about this.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

How to make the Spire + Tournament playable on a weekly basis:
1. REMOVE ANCIENT WONDERS FROM THE COST FORUMLAE!!

...as someone who likes to take time and just casually play through chapters while upgrading AW's, etc..., this alone is THE no.1 reason I am so massively boned in my main city on K-world.
It has a total of 54 AW levels and I am in the early stages of Tree Huggers (Ch.9)
My E-world city has only 15 AW levels and is in the early stages of Orks & Gobbos. (Ch.8)
The difference in both fighting AND negotiating especially, is pants on head stupid... My K-world city in the Spire by the 5th fething encounter alone is already over 1000 troops per slot, vs. my E-world city that almost half of that!

My K-world city, due to the additional AW levels and their effects, can barely manage to crawl to the end of Lv2 weekly, and only does about 1700-1800 tourny pts.
I am no longer 'gaining' resources/prizes from the spire + tourny, as I as forced to automatically spend everything i make in a single week, just to break even in troops + goods.

REMOVE ANCIENT WONDERS FROM THE FORUMULA!!!


2. For negotiations that involve 6 - 8+ options, just give us 4 turns to make them viable!


Done.
Spire + Tourny mostly fixed, and mid-game players are no longer bent over a barrel unfairly due to the instant massive demand on Orks/Mana/Seeds resources.

Half the unit size means there is also space (expansions) involved
54 wonderlevels alone cannot explain that difference.

 

[ajqtrz]

Lol you can't win this one dude no matter what.

If we talk about climate change, I say there is and issue you say it ain't.
You never told us you were talking about today, and in 1864 there was no climate change issue.

cmon dude, if you make a claim, don't use 1864 as an excuse.

You heared about a statement, but are your eyes glued together?
Cant you see and make your own judgement when you get 6000 points in the tournaments?
Are you really that.....

Also why make a statement as if you experienced it if it's mere hearsay.
You have backtracked everything with only excuses why it ain't your fault. and blame someone else.

Be a man, take responsibility.

Since I've made my points well enough, and since this isn't the proper place for such a discussion, how about we just drop it? Given the animosity in your words over various posts I doubt you can be convinced of what I consider the truth, no matter how plainly and reasonably I put it. So if you wish the pot to no longer be stirred, take your spoon out as I'm taking mine.

Thanks,

AJ

 

[Socrates28]

But wha about those that fund the game? thay always get 4 of them for a lot of money now nothing?
There is a reason you can get more than 1 baseplate during an event. some of the big sponsors count on it.

Excuse me, but your post was asking for a suggested solution to the problem of how to prevent multiples of this building and I gave you one. Now you say that you want to be able to get multiples of this building. I am sorry but you cannot have it both ways. Multiples are either a problem or they are not. Which depends entirely on one's point of view so you can have yours and I can have mine. Have a great day.

 

[The Unbeliever]

Excuse me, but your post was asking for a suggested solution to the problem of how to prevent multiples of this building and I gave you one. Now you say that you want to be able to get multiples of this building. I am sorry but you cannot have it both ways. Multiples are either a problem or they are not. Which depends entirely on one's point of view so you can have yours and I can have mine. Have a great day.

Honestly, I really don't think anyone with a functioning brain actually believes that a few people having 2-3+ Red Chocobos, or a field of Library sets, etc... is in any way "unbalancing" or "unfair"...

There is NO pvp in this game, and it takes little to no effort to realise that the pts system is beyond borked and makes absolutely 0 sense. (ie: a 'Magic' city can have more pts yet be hugely inefficient vs. a city full of event buildings that can do 3-4x more tournament/spire.) Even in the much more 'open sandbox' of FoE, the pts system is just as gakky, due to a few ways to farm infinite ranking pts.
However as there's no in-game advantage for being in the top 10/50/100, etc... of the world rankings, the only things being 'hurt' by some players having 'X' more of 'Y' vs. other players, is simply your own ego and/or sense of personal entitlement.
Now if there were in-game bonuses for being within a certain ranking bracket, (ie: say top 10 players every month get 100x RR's + 1000kp + 10 random artifacts + 500 diamonds), then sure, imbalances are really, really bad and should be addressed! But that isn't the case obviously, so who cares if 'Gazzy' has 2 Fire chickens + 20 mermaids + 4 Brown Bears vs. 'Grotsworth' who just started playing 2 weeks ago?!

Inno is the problem here, because the Elvenar dev team insist on artifically "balancing" the game by basically putting hard limits on what players can ever achieve.
And it's not to actually balance things, but rather, comes across as being more or less about simply not hurting some people's feelings vs. actual practicality. (ie: look at the clusterfeth that's the current tournament system!)

So instead of letting players decide on their own play style and how competitive vs. casual an individual wants to be, we're ALL now shoehorned into the devs "my way only" of playing the game.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Honestly, I really don't think anyone with a functioning brain actually believes that a few people having 2-3+ Red Chocobos, or a field of Library sets, etc... is in any way "unbalancing" or "unfair"...

There is NO pvp in this game, and it takes little to no effort to realise that the pts system is beyond borked and makes absolutely 0 sense. (ie: a 'Magic' city can have more pts yet be hugely inefficient vs. a city full of event buildings that can do 3-4x more tournament/spire.) Even in the much more 'open sandbox' of FoE, the pts system is just as gakky, due to a few ways to farm infinite ranking pts.
However as there's no in-game advantage for being in the top 10/50/100, etc... of the world rankings, the only things being 'hurt' by some players having 'X' more of 'Y' vs. other players, is simply your own ego and/or sense of personal entitlement.
Now if there were in-game bonuses for being within a certain ranking bracket, (ie: say top 10 players every month get 100x RR's + 1000kp + 10 random artifacts + 500 diamonds), then sure, imbalances are really, really bad and should be addressed! But that isn't the case obviously, so who cares if 'Gazzy' has 2 Fire chickens + 20 mermaids + 4 Brown Bears vs. 'Grotsworth' who just started playing 2 weeks ago?!

Inno is the problem here, because the Elvenar dev team insist on artifically "balancing" the game by basically putting hard limits on what players can ever achieve.
And it's not to actually balance things, but rather, comes across as being more or less about simply not hurting some people's feelings vs. actual practicality. (ie: look at the clusterfeth that's the current tournament system!)

So instead of letting players decide on their own play style and how competitive vs. casual an individual wants to be, we're ALL now shoehorned into the devs "my way only" of playing the game.

The mistake Inno made was not in letting people have multiples of the pet buildings, or any building, it was in not coding it so the feeding effect from multiples would not stack.

 

[The Unbeliever]

The mistake Inno made was not in letting people have multiples of the pet buildings, or any building, it was in not coding it so the feeding effect from multiples would not stack.

Who cares if it stacks? All the other troop boosters stack, so again, the mythical "balance" argument is moot...

The only reason to put hard limits on powerful buildings is if we had a full-on PvP function and/or if ranking pts actually meant anything. Since neither of that is true, the only reason for the devs to be artificially "balancing" things the way they are, is simply because we players have hurt their little fee-fees by playing in a way they obviously feel is 'wrong' and/or borders on cheating.

Again, why are they so horrified by very active players who could score 12-15k pts weekly in the tournaments? No one was being hurt or deprived by it. There's not 'bonus prizes' for finishing top 10/25/100/etc... every week, so again, no one is missing out on actual game/city boosts. (...except of course some meaningless ranking pts, but maybe like 10 people actually care about those?!)

C'mon Inno, stop nerfing everything into the ground and give us back meaningful event prizes, and not this constant garbage ball of weak sauce trash!
This event is a perfect example of the devs pants-on-head idiotic designs... we get a new pet that gives an insignificant amount of 'bonus' event currency. (about 90 'extra' from the feeding effect)
BUT!
Then the devs reduce the amount of free daily event currency, AND, double junk us by removing the final half-day's bonus, so that now we actually are losing event currency vs. previous events?!

This is absolutely asinine.

 

[Socrates28]

Honestly, I really don't think anyone with a functioning brain actually believes that a few people having 2-3+ Red Chocobos, or a field of Library sets, etc... is in any way "unbalancing" or "unfair"...

There is NO pvp in this game, and it takes little to no effort to realise that the pts system is beyond borked and makes absolutely 0 sense. (ie: a 'Magic' city can have more pts yet be hugely inefficient vs. a city full of event buildings that can do 3-4x more tournament/spire.) Even in the much more 'open sandbox' of FoE, the pts system is just as gakky, due to a few ways to farm infinite ranking pts.
However as there's no in-game advantage for being in the top 10/50/100, etc... of the world rankings, the only things being 'hurt' by some players having 'X' more of 'Y' vs. other players, is simply your own ego and/or sense of personal entitlement.
Now if there were in-game bonuses for being within a certain ranking bracket, (ie: say top 10 players every month get 100x RR's + 1000kp + 10 random artifacts + 500 diamonds), then sure, imbalances are really, really bad and should be addressed! But that isn't the case obviously, so who cares if 'Gazzy' has 2 Fire chickens + 20 mermaids + 4 Brown Bears vs. 'Grotsworth' who just started playing 2 weeks ago?!

Inno is the problem here, because the Elvenar dev team insist on artifically "balancing" the game by basically putting hard limits on what players can ever achieve.
And it's not to actually balance things, but rather, comes across as being more or less about simply not hurting some people's feelings vs. actual practicality. (ie: look at the clusterfeth that's the current tournament system!)

So instead of letting players decide on their own play style and how competitive vs. casual an individual wants to be, we're ALL now shoehorned into the devs "my way only" of playing the game.

I agree. If I want to have 1+ of anything then that is the way that I want to do it. As you so rightly point out it hurts no one at all except someone's idea that it is wrong for some reason. I paid for it in time, effort, diamonds, and money, all mine and not someone else's, so why can't I have it my way instead of someone else's way!

 

[Nectar of the Gods]

Although I have skipped most of the math posts because it hurts my head when you all get started on your math wars, I am also dreaming about a negotiation boost building. I would far rather negotiate than fight, even using Autofight, which is what I always use. I tried manual fighting once. That was enough. The argument against it--that people are already receiving goods based buildings in events and from the MA that benefit them with negotiations--is wrong. Those buildings benefit everyone, whether they are a fighter or a negotiator, and they help the city as a whole. They are not specifically for negotiations in the Spire or Tourney. So what you are saying in effect is everyone benefits by the event and crafted buildings for their cities, but people who chose to negotiate instead of fight have to split the benefits of those buildings and not get any bonuses at all to help them navigate the Spire and Tourney. The military buildings only benefit the fighters, not negotiators. So why not have a building that benefits those who negotiate? It would only be fair. Because right now it is not fair. It has always been exceptionally expensive to cater. The devs have reduced the costs a little but not nearly enough to make catering something that won't wipe out a person's goods if they choose to do it more than fighting. A building to help with catering costs that could be crafted in the MA would be a fantastic boon. It won't level the playing field but it might at least help.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

Although I have skipped most of the math posts because it hurts my head when you all get started on your math wars, I am also dreaming about a negotiation boost building. I would far rather negotiate than fight, even using Autofight, which is what I always use. I tried manual fighting once. That was enough. The argument against it--that people are already receiving goods based buildings in events and from the MA that benefit them with negotiations--is wrong. Those buildings benefit everyone, whether they are a fighter or a negotiator, and they help the city as a whole. They are not specifically for negotiations in the Spire or Tourney. So what you are saying in effect is everyone benefits by the event and crafted buildings for their cities, but people who chose to negotiate instead of fight have to split the benefits of those buildings and not get any bonuses at all to help them navigate the Spire and Tourney. The military buildings only benefit the fighters, not negotiators. So why not have a building that benefits those who negotiate? It would only be fair. Because right now it is not fair. It has always been exceptionally expensive to cater. The devs have reduced the costs a little but not nearly enough to make catering something that won't wipe out a person's goods if they choose to do it more than fighting. A building to help with catering costs that could be crafted in the MA would be a fantastic boon. It won't level the playing field but it might at least help.

I am sorry, you derailed here, there is no such thing as a fighter or a negatiator only thing.
If you make anything for "negotiators" fighters will also use them.

The combination fighting + negotiating is always the superior option above fighting or negotiation.
Because a fighter can negotiate and a negotiator can fight. her is no you have to choose one or the other for this week thing.

Thinking in strict boxes is not a good thing. what prevents you as a negotiator to use combat buildings and fight a little?

 

[Gladiola]

@The Unbeliever I am a new player, but my guess is that the reason they've moved to limit the number of certain buildings is to prevent power creep. The problem is not that players with 2 fire phoenixes or 5 Moonstone Libraries will have an advantage over other players. The problem is that they will have an advantage over the game mechanics such that they have to be constantly scaled to take into account the more awesome fighting power and/or goods production of the elite players. Witness the tournament changes after the introduction of the fire phoenixes. I don't think it's coincidental.

Having multiples of certain buildings creates immense power creep at the top echelons of the game and causes the game to be less challenging for the 5% of player "whales" who provide probably 50% to pay for the game development. So then the developers make adjustments to keep the game interesting for them but makes it frustrating for the 95% of the players who pay the other 50%.

The solution is to prevent multiples of certain buildings. Unfortunately they do this not by looking ahead and setting the limit proactively but by shutting the barn door after the horse is gone and a number of people already have multiples.

 

[Iyapo1]

what prevents you as a negotiator to use combat buildings and fight a little?

Nothing at all.

I dont have a lot of troops so it would be of limited utility. There is also nothing to prevent a fighting city from using an expiring negotiation boost building. It might be of equally limited utility.

 

[The Unbeliever]

@The Unbeliever I am a new player, but my guess is that the reason they've moved to limit the number of certain buildings is to prevent power creep. The problem is not that players with 2 fire phoenixes or 5 Moonstone Libraries will have an advantage over other players. The problem is that they will have an advantage over the game mechanics such that they have to be constantly scaled to take into account the more awesome fighting power and/or goods production of the elite players. Witness the tournament changes after the introduction of the fire phoenixes. I don't think it's coincidental.

Having multiples of certain buildings creates immense power creep at the top echelons of the game and causes the game to be less challenging for the 5% of player "whales" who provide probably 50% to pay for the game development. So then the developers make adjustments to keep the game interesting for them but makes it frustrating for the 95% of the players who pay the other 50%.

The solution is to prevent multiples of certain buildings. Unfortunately they do this not by looking ahead and setting the limit proactively but by shutting the barn door after the horse is gone and a number of people already have multiples.

Nope...
The devs are simply out of touch, clueless 'Monday Morning Quarterbacks" who don't play their own game and have no fething clue how their own systems actually work in practice.

Notice how the last couple of chapters end up *increasing* the spire/tourny difficulty by IIRC 15-20% overall.
Yet, the player only gets something insulting like maybe 6-8% overall increase in their city output, so that overall, we end up in the insanely stupid position of advancing/researching being an active detriment in every concievable way?!

Only an incompetent clown could gak things up this bad...
Again, I can't recall the actual numbers, but it's been proven that Ch16 + 17 actually make your city suck vs. improving one's ability to play the game.

It's not about "keeping things challenging." We're at the point where the game itself is bass-akwards and becoming more and more unplayable once you hit a certain wall.

 

[Gladiola]

@The Unbeliever the changes you're citing could also support the point I'm making. To keep things challenging for the tiny minority of players with multiple buildings, the overall level of difficulty relative to upgrades is increasing. Players with multiple buildings have been on a steeper slope, and the game raises the grade to compensate, but for the average player that doesn't have multiples, the climb is becoming almost vertical.

 

[CrusaderMichael]

How many expiring troop help buildings are there? How many expiring negotiation help buildings are there?

i actually thought of that the other day... or, maybe it was a post. I wouldn't mind such a building existing at all, AFTER they make negotiating hurt some more... "it's too easy as is"

 

[The Unbeliever]

@The Unbeliever the changes you're citing could also support the point I'm making. To keep things challenging for the tiny minority of players with multiple buildings, the overall level of difficulty relative to upgrades is increasing. Players with multiple buildings have been on a steeper slope, and the game raises the grade to compensate, but for the average player that doesn't have multiples, the climb is becoming almost vertical.

There is nothing challenging about this game, rather, they've instead just made things mildly to hyper frustrating and then insert an arbitrary impassible wall once players hit a certain threshold.
That's not "smart" or "clever" or any kind of deeper game design. It's just plain idiotic.

At this point, the devs have removed so much player choice from the game, they as well just give us pre-set templates for everything and then hand out our participation ribbons at the end of every event/tournament/spire so that no one's feelings get hurt anymore.

 

[Nectar of the Gods]

I am sorry, you derailed here, there is no such thing as a fighter or a negatiator only thing.
If you make anything for "negotiators" fighters will also use them.

I haven't derailed anything. I was fairly clear in what I said. There is a fighter only building. As a matter of fact, there are several fighter only buildings. And I'm not even talking about AWs. Those buildings that are crafted in the MA--Unleashed Unit Upgrade, Enlightened Light Range, Magnificent Mage Multiplier--and the Dwarven Armorer from the Spire, these buildings are specifically used by fighters only. A person who is negotiating is not using those buildings. They are useless. What I am suggesting, and what I believe others who negotiate are suggesting, is that buildings be created that would help with negotiating the Spire and Tourney to help balance out the game. Because it is not fair for those who negotiate not to have any help when the fighters have all those buildings to rely on to lessen their costs for playing the Spire and Tourney. Fighters will only use such new buildings if they negotiate because they wouldn't be useful for fighting. If they do that, they have switched sides and are negotiating. I have no problem with that.

The combination fighting + negotiating is always the superior option above fighting or negotiation.
Because a fighter can negotiate and a negotiator can fight. her is no you have to choose one or the other for this week thing.

Thinking in strict boxes is not a good thing. what prevents you as a negotiator to use combat buildings and fight a little?

Why in your mind is the combination of fighting and negotiating always the superior option above fighting or negotiation?
I do a combination of fighting and negotiating. I do it because negotiating alone is too steep a price on my city. If I had a choice, I wouldn't fight at all. I hate it with a passion. There have been times when I have dreaded another week of the Spire and Tourney and I just wanted to give up. But playing the Spire and playing Tourney is necessary for my city's growth and the good of the FS. You betcha I'm going to do everything I can in both of those endeavors. So I do what I don't want to do--fight.

What prevents a negotiator from using combat buildings and fighting a little? If a person does not want to fight, why should they be forced to fight just because the game is rigged against them? There are also AWs that are geared for fighters. Those AWs won't be in a city that only negotiates. Why would they waste the space and kp? I'm sure someone with the math will be able to tell me, but I imagine a person who had no AWs such as MM would not do well even with the crafted buildings.

I abhor the sense of entitlement that permeates these discussions, as if a person who negotiates is somehow "less" because they chose not to fight. That they are getting off "easy" somehow. That they don't need any help because they aren't fighting and only the fighters should be given buildings to help them with their climb of the Spire and progress in Tourney. It is so wrong headed I can't fathom it.

 

[SoggyShorts]

the reason they've moved to limit the number of certain buildings is to prevent power creep. The problem is not that players with 2 fire phoenixes or 5 Moonstone Libraries will have an advantage over other players. The problem is that they will have an advantage over the game mechanics such that they have to be constantly scaled to take into account the more awesome fighting power and/or goods production of the elite players.

Nailed it. Expiring buildings are an excellent tool against powercreep too. Imagine if the moonstone set had been expiring. Then, even though they were totally screwed up the scrolls, that issue would actually be fixed by only removing them from the spire.

 

[SoggyShorts]

What I am suggesting, and what I believe others who negotiate are suggesting, is that buildings be created that would help with negotiating the Spire and Tourney to help balance out the game. Because it is not fair for those who negotiate not to have any help when the fighters have all those buildings to rely on to lessen their costs for playing the Spire and Tourney.

I think what crazy is saying is making such a building is simply impossible because fighters (even the ultra-lazy-99% autofighters like me) aren't 100% fighters and if you add a building to help negotiators then the vast majority of fighters will just add it to their toolkit.
Pure negotiators will not gain an advantage with such a building.

Why in your mind is the combination of fighting and negotiating always the superior option above fighting or negotiation?

It's just logical.
Every single fighter city makes goods too, it would be a total freak unicorn who made only exactly enough goods for techs and not a single plank more usable for negotiation.

• When players say "fighting city" they mean "mostly fighting city" because if they get stuck in a fight they can (and do) click the other button.
• When players say "non-fighting city" they often mean a negotiating-only city because they don't actually have troops that can win the next fight when they get stuck.

There are pacifists and other anti-fighters who absolutely refuse to fight, but afaik there are zero fighters who refuse to click cater once in a while.

 

[Iyapo1]

Pure negotiators will not gain an advantage with such a building.

I dont understand this sentiment.
Because fighters can use it too, it has no value or benifit?