Absolutely, when you are using the word exploit as a basis for accusing them of having a cheating mentality (unlike it's actual, non-gamer, definition, which is descriptive of making an effort to profit from how things are, not pejorative).
It's enough to know four things to accuse majority of players with that:
1) there was an exploit;
2) players were happy using it;
3) usage of that exploit is limited now;
4) players are unhappy about Nr.3.
There's no need to know if players think/thought that they are/were exploiting something.
If the average player doesn't think they're cheating by using a strategy that works and the devs haven't asked them not to then how can you assert that it is reflective of a cheating mentality?
Do you think that devs are now intentionally making this event, ehem, let's roll with your theory, as boring as possible...and not just fixing something?
So you don't acknowledge that how a person thinks about the world has anything to do with whether they have a "cheating mentality"? That's an interesting, if incomprehensible position. If I think that using anything but a bow to hunt deer is cheating, does that mean a person who uses a rifle is guilty of an exploit?
Just operating with information I actually have. What's in fact is interesting, is how you know what players actually think. Do you know what I am thinking now? That's some super-hero stuff.
Let's add more info to the deer situation:
1) there was a hunting contest;
2) organizers thought participants will be using bows, because bows were right in front of their eyes and everything was suggesting that bows should be used;
4) some guys brought rifles instead, because there were no rules prohibiting usage of rifles;
5) organizers created rules and banned usage of rifles in their next contest.
Hmm, yes. Guys who brought rifles were exploiting the fact that there were no rules prohibiting usage of rifles. For me existence of newly created rules prove that. Doesn't matter what someone was thinking during the first contest.
The developer changing the game to discourage a behavior does not mean that behavior was an exploit, only that they want us to do things a different way. Nobody kept level one manufactories aand workshops a secret, we discussed them at length. At any time the devs could have had a community manager post saying "Please don't do that, we consider it an exploit. They didn't. They changed certain aspects of the game to reduce the value of the strategy.
First part is just brilliant. Jk. You like to speculate, so...why in your opinion do they want us to behave differently? This is probably most important question, so think carefully.
+
Do you realize that you're talking about Inno, right? Have you ever tried to contact support and report someone for breaking game's rules? Actual game rules, that are written, not vaguely implied. No? Okay. Then please don't make any assumptions about anything devs or our community managers could do.
There were no hotfixes when players found actual bugs that prohibited them from advancing and that made Inno lose money (magic buildings issue). They don't care about losing money, they have plenty, they don't care about forum. Fixing events just now? I'd say that was quite fast by their standards.
Btw, you seem to like out of place analogies, so here's one for you: if you'd see one person murdering another, and then another, and then another...and there wouldn't be anyone stopping the murderer, would you really think "Policemen aren't around, so everything's fine."?
Oops.
What's the definition of smearing? Is it anything like claiming someone made up a definition of something after making up your own definition?
Didn't claim that. It's a fact. Or didn't you make your own definition of an exploit, and it was a textbook one? I'm confused right now.
Sorry, that paragraph is incomprehensible to me. Am I supposed to have failed at being perfect? I'm not perfect. I'm a human being who has opinions and some skills and experience. Sometimes I read wrong and think someone wrote something when it was actually someone else. I always apologize when I realize it.
When someone apologizes to me, I don't drag out what they apologized about months later as proof they are bad people.
Calm down. I don't think you're a bad person at all, I quite like you actually. I just had an experience when you took a statement out of context and started to make conclusions, and then completely refused to follow logical steps that would lead to realization of your failure. So you're just stubborn, not bad. I've similar character, I just can't express myself in a manner you can (english is not my first language, so yours seem nearly flawless to me).
I note that you failed to read the parts in the current discussion where the most vocal people don't think the event is too hard, just that some parts of it are incredibly boring.
Yes, some posts might be interpreted in that way. Buuuuuut... it's too convenient to call event boring now. Isn't it? Reasons:
1) It's what, like fourth repetitive event? If I'd be bored from collecting stuff, I'd be bored from event long time ago......why this one is special?;
2) I'm not sure how far I am in a questline, but so far it seems that quests require much less collecting X things X times......so, yet again, less collecting of stuff = increase in boredom... how so, shouldn't effect be the opposite?;
3) Pay X amount of goods require resource management skills, and every player has to decide if he/she can pay that amount instantly, there's no tutorial for that.... not following tedious pattern and making your own decisions = increase in boredom?;
4) Majority of quests can be completed just by playing and collecting stuff on a daily basis, so majority of quests shouldn't even affect anyone at all?;
5) Quests are not mandatory...so, ehem.. don't even know what to say.
I think calling event boring is a clever, but at the same time stupid, way to express your feelings about changes made to it. Some don't want to admit that usage of lvl 1 buildings was an exploit and they liked exploiting things, because exploiting something just sounds bad, plus cheaters are exploiting things and no one wants to be called a cheater. Some just liked how easy following tutorial was, and they don't want to deal with challenges - admitting that might make someone look weak, no one wants to be called a weakling (or stupid, or incapable of doing simple math). Some are just are mad because they won't get enough beets to try to get as many "best" event buildings as they can in time, and get super-aggressive when you say that couple of pop/culture per square won't matter, because you basically question their intellect and ability to plan things properly. Some just think that rewards are not worth the effort anymore, aka spoiled players by Winter's event. Soon people who were simply unlucky will join the crowd saying that event was boring, poorly designed, rewards suck, free premium buildings is a trick to make us spend more money...etc.
No need to put words in my mouth. I don't think the majority of people "crying" (and thanks for gratuitous insulting us) think the event is too hard. I do think a lot of us think that some of the steps are boring, tedious, monotonous (and maybe even stupid, and pointless), though, which is not a good thing for any player to think about anything that wants to makes money by entertaining.
Finally someone said thank you! You're welcome. Though it's not an insult. Crying has it's place when something totally unfair is being done. Here devs are giving premium buildings left and right...but folks are getting upset because rewards are not as good as they expected, and they actually have to pay for them with goods and supplies. In a city-building game. Okay.