Bellspire/Lighthouse Chages

[DeletedUser2870]

The best guess is that with the upcoming changes to how visits work the LH/BS would become significantly better than the rest making it a "must have" wonder in later chapters.
From what I hear, doing your visits on the mobile app is at least 10x faster.
The biggest issue is that the mobile app is still in Beta in the UK, and the changes to visits on the live browser version could be months away. If they had nerfed the LH/BH the same day, or even when a solid release date was known, then there would have been some balance to the change.

Even assuming that is the reason, the problem is still that the nerf went too far. Now the Mt.Hall is (in most cases) significantly better to level up instead, and requires zero effort. I'm all for a having a balanced game, but inno rarely balances upwards, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Mt.Hall gets hit by the nerf hammer next.

First, this is speculation. l sure am not too impressed with the app.
But even if it is so, one should not change the working of the CL beforehand. Not to mention thatbthis would be unfair towards the players who do not use the app.
But its moot. IF it was overpowered, a much easier way would have been to adjust the amount generated per visit. That way it still would encourage people to visit and it would reward active players more than non active players, which also is fair and sensible.
The whole idea that it now doesnt matter whether one does 3 visits or 300 is an utterly ridiculous way of arranging things. And a slap in the face of people who worked hard on building up their AW and a network of active neighbours.
Already its having an effect on visits, even after a few days the number of visits has dramatically gone down and I expect that to get worse.
This is a change that has probably even more of an impact than the sickening way they ‘improved’ the wholesaler. I know that for me those goods were part of the strategy of my game and now getting around 80% less means it will have a serious impact. Less trading, both within my FS and without. And there no longer is any reason for more visits than my FS, so less interaction with other players.

 

[DeletedUser1996]

Already its having an effect on visits, even after a few days the number of visits has dramatically gone down and I expect that to get worse.
This is a change that has probably even more of an impact than the sickening way they ‘improved’ the wholesaler. I know that for me those goods were part of the strategy of my game and now getting around 80% less means it will have a serious impact. Less trading, both within my FS and without. And there no longer is any reason for more visits than my FS, so less interaction with other players.

Yes - Good statement !

 

[qaccy]

But its moot. IF it was overpowered, a much easier way would have been to adjust the amount generated per visit. That way it still would encourage people to visit and it would reward active players more than non active players, which also is fair and sensible.

You mean...like the original version of the AW? Would you be happier with the bonus if you were getting less from all 300+ visits put together than you currently do from the 3 chest rewards? I have a feeling you wouldn't, that you'd still be comparing it to the previous version, but that's what it was like when it first got added to the game.So it went from pretty bad, to pretty good, to now somewhere in between. Spin it how you like, but I see it as still better than the original design and still more worth the space than anything else I could fit into those 24 squares.

 

[mucksterme]

.So it went from pretty bad, to pretty good, to now somewhere in between. .

Somewhere in between pretty good and pretty bad?
Well; the order is; pretty good - good - real good.
Pretty good is as low as good goes.
So if it is lower than pretty good it is bad.

And even if you don't accept that, by your own words it got worse. So why defend it?
I don't care if it was even worse originally. They supposedly made it better. So why ruin it now?

And again, as has been stated several times, this discourages visits.

If they wanted to help 'younger' players, they could have done it better.
Maybe do the three chest 10X (2000) thing like now. But then do the old (200) bonus every ten visits after.

On a whole different note. Does anyone else think they are getting more KP prizes from the chests or has that just been a coincidence in my game?
If it is on purpose I like it.

 

[qaccy]

@mucksterme As you said, if it's 'lower than pretty good it's bad'. But on the other side of the coin, I can replace 'good' in your scale with 'bad' and ask you that if it's better than bad, it must be good, yes? Anyway, you can't objectively say it's bad, in light of the original version existing which is clearly worse. You can have a subjective opinion on how useful it is now, we all can, but the fact of the matter, the objective fact, is that it's now in between the two other versions of the AW.

The second part of your post where you say 'I don't care that it was worse before' is why most people are terrible at giving feedback, and what I pointed out in one of my other posts: People willfully ignore things that don't support their own personal view, even if what they're ignoring is pretty significant when it comes to discussion. It really hurts your position and viewpoints when you aren't willing to consider all factors that contribute to the topic being discussed.

 

[Risen Malchiah]

@mucksterme As you said, if it's 'lower than pretty good it's bad'. But on the other side of the coin, I can replace 'good' in your scale with 'bad' and ask you that if it's better than bad, it must be good, yes?

I feel you and @mucksterme can make an Abbott & Costello routine out of this.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

Its no longer ‘pretty good’ or ‘good’ or even ‘moderately good’ it now is just ‘pretty useless’.
It does not help anyone. Its not ‘balanced’ and the reasoning by support that pretty much everyone put it up because of the extended help is not based on any facts, just a feeling.
From all players I have spoken, less then 10 put it up for that reason, while about 90 said they put it up for the goods. So if the devs say otherwise Id like to see some evidence, but personally I believe they are (again) lying through their teeth at Inno.
Also, their announcement was that SOME PLAYERS would get A BIT LESS, but MOST PLAYERS would get MORE.
Again, a blatant lie. Or rather, pair of lies. MOST PLAYERS now get A LOT LESS while a tiny SOME PLAYERS get a TINY BIT MORE.
And nobody in his right mind would call an 80-90% reduction ‘a bit less’.

I stated it before: if they felt the amount of goods was making it overpowered it would have been easier to adjust the amount generated per visit. That way active players still would be encouraged to make more visits and thus get rewarded, at the same time encouraging people to make visits.
This action pretty much killed any reason for visiting people, as coins and supplies are easy to come by, especially for advanced players and even more so since the introduction of the instants.

 

[Ashrem]

@mucksterme As you said, if it's 'lower than pretty good it's bad'. But on the other side of the coin, I can replace 'good' in your scale with 'bad' and ask you that if it's better than bad, it must be good, yes? Anyway, you can't objectively say it's bad, in light of the original version existing which is clearly worse. You can have a subjective opinion on how useful it is now, we all can, but the fact of the matter, the objective fact, is that it's now in between the two other versions of the AW.

The second part of your post where you say 'I don't care that it was worse before' is why most people are terrible at giving feedback, and what I pointed out in one of my other posts: People willfully ignore things that don't support their own personal view, even if what they're ignoring is pretty significant when it comes to discussion. It really hurts your position and viewpoints when you aren't willing to consider all factors that contribute to the topic being discussed.

None of us can be truly objective, because you* can't be on these forums without playing the game. The "Feedback" forums aren't supposed to be an objective discussion of soemthing that doesn't affects us, they are supposed to be a discussion of how we feel about the game we are playing. Mucksterme doesn't have to be objective, nor do any of us. We are here to share our opinions of how the game-play is proceeding.

Fewer people "willfully ignore things that don't support their own personal view" than most want to admit. What we generally do is willfully withhold them, not ignore them. We deliberately paint our position in the best possible light and the position of those who disagree with us in the worst possible. You might, or might not, be better than others at keeping your arguments objective.Your position might or might not be more considered. Humans will argue as we do, and an objective analysis of how a particular game function works is the responsibility of the developers, not the players. Our responsibility is to help the developers (or rather the community managers) understand how we feel about the game.

*generic "you" as in "a person"

 

[mucksterme]

The second part of your post where you say 'I don't care that it was worse before' is why most people are terrible at giving feedback, and what I pointed out in one of my other posts: People willfully ignore things that don't support their own personal view, even if what they're ignoring is pretty significant when it comes to discussion. It really hurts your position and viewpoints when you aren't willing to consider all factors that contribute to the topic being discussed.

The "it was worse before" it totally irrelevant.

I know a football team that was perennially going 2/12.
A new coach came in and two years later they went 7/12.
The next year 5/12.
The year after 4/12.
Coach got fired.
No one said, "But it was worse before he came."
Because it was still bad.

This is bad, no one cares that it was worse a year ago.
It got to be good, but then it got bad again.
Maybe not as bad, but bad is bad.

 

[qaccy]

Its no longer ‘pretty good’ or ‘good’ or even ‘moderately good’ it now is just ‘pretty useless’.
It does not help anyone. Its not ‘balanced’ and the reasoning by support that pretty much everyone put it up because of the extended help is not based on any facts, just a feeling.
From all players I have spoken, less then 10 put it up for that reason, while about 90 said they put it up for the goods. So if the devs say otherwise Id like to see some evidence, but personally I believe they are (again) lying through their teeth at Inno.
Also, their announcement was that SOME PLAYERS would get A BIT LESS, but MOST PLAYERS would get MORE.
Again, a blatant lie. Or rather, pair of lies. MOST PLAYERS now get A LOT LESS while a tiny SOME PLAYERS get a TINY BIT MORE.
And nobody in his right mind would call an 80-90% reduction ‘a bit less’.

You know this...how? Unlike you, the developers actually have access to hard data rather than anecdotal evidence. I'd counter that you're the one with 'just a feeling' rather than knowing facts in this situation. I'm not saying you're wrong in that you somehow managed to ask over 100 people their usage for this AW, but I am saying that there are a lot more than 100 players who built this AW whom you have no contact whatsoever with, and Inno certainly has data revealing NH numbers among all players so they can objectively state what is and is not going on in the game.

I stated it before: if they felt the amount of goods was making it overpowered it would have been easier to adjust the amount generated per visit. That way active players still would be encouraged to make more visits and thus get rewarded, at the same time encouraging people to make visits.
This action pretty much killed any reason for visiting people, as coins and supplies are easy to come by, especially for advanced players and even more so since the introduction of the instants.

Again, you're describing the original version of the AW. That wasn't very appealing either, and the current version is still an improvement over that.

None of us can be truly objective, because you* can't be on these forums without playing the game. The "Feedback" forums aren't supposed to be an objective discussion of soemthing that doesn't affects us, they are supposed to be a discussion of how we feel about the game we are playing. Mucksterme doesn't have to be objective, nor do any of us. We are here to share our opinions of how the game-play is proceeding.

Fewer people "willfully ignore things that don't support their own personal view" than most want to admit. What we generally do is willfully withhold them, not ignore them. We deliberately paint our position in the best possible light and the position of those who disagree with us in the worst possible. You might, or might not, be better than others at keeping your arguments objective.Your position might or might not be more considered. Humans will argue as we do, and an objective analysis of how a particular game function works is the responsibility of the developers, not the players. Our responsibility is to help the developers (or rather the community managers) understand how we feel about the game.

I disagree with this assessment. Certainly, we're free to talk about how we feel about things, but when it comes to game balance emotions get left at the door. Tell me, between 'this feature sucks, change it back', 'this feature is completely worthless', and 'here's how I think this feature can be improved', which one is closest to something the developers can work with? Talking among ourselves sure, use whatever verbiage you want but if you want the ear of the developers, you should present yourself and your thoughts in a certain way. Unfortunately, most of the comments left on these forums towards the developers aren't feedback that can be acted upon even if this game's development was a democratic process driven by the players.

The "it was worse before" it totally irrelevant.

I know a football team that was perennially going 2/12.
A new coach came in and two years later they went 7/12.
The next year 5/12.
The year after 4/12.
Coach got fired.
No one said, "But it was worse before he came."
Because it was still bad.

This is bad, no one cares that it was worse a year ago.
It got to be good, but then it got bad again.
Maybe not as bad, but bad is bad.

People who knew the relevant data would certainly have been able to say it was worse before he came, because it was. In your example, something being bad and something being worse in a different form are not mutually exclusive things. However, also in your example that team's record is the same to all observers regardless of how interested they are in it. With this (or any) AW, each player can utilize it differently meaning there are accordingly varying degrees of usefulness for it. It's only worse compared to the previous version, IF you're someone who visited more than 30 people per day. It's a fact that there are people with this AW who weren't and still aren't visiting that many on average per day. The AW is not worse for these people, and if it actually got better for them then I doubt they'd be someone who thinks it's 'bad'. Essentially, you're trying to pass off a subjective opinion as an objective fact. When you post on this subject in the future, you need to add 'for me' immediately following the word 'bad' because otherwise you're kind of warping the truth.

 

[mucksterme]

Talking among ourselves sure, use whatever verbiage you want but if you want the ear of the developers, you should present yourself and your thoughts in a certain way. Unfortunately, most of the comments left on these forums towards the developers aren't feedback that can be acted upon even if this game's development was a democratic process driven by the players.

IT IS ALL TALKING AMONGST OURSELVES.
There are no developers here.
Where did you come from?
This is a long established fact.
The Devs Do Not Read These Forums!


.

When you post on this subject in the future, you need to add 'for me' immediately following the word 'bad' because otherwise you're kind of warping the truth.

Do NOT tell me or anyone else here how we "need" to respond.
First off, anybody here with an IQ greater than a kumquat knows that a thread like this is all personal opinion.
This is not like when someone asks a question of fact about the game.
This whole thread is about why we don't like the change.
We do NOT "need" to use words that please you.
Now perhaps what you meant to say was, " You should add ... "
But you are the one being particular about wording here. So I must assume you said what you meant to. And what you meant was to tell me how I am supposed to talk.
If this was a less sensitive forum, I would quite succinctly tell you what I thought about that.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

@qaccy Total BS
The devs may have access to all kinds of data, but not the reason why someone builds a particular AW. That cannot be found in any kind of ingame stat
That can ONLY be gathered by going out and asking people. And about 100 people may not be enough statistically, it at least is more than just an empty phrase aired by the devs. And if you take a look at the reasons given on the forums you're very likely to see about the same percentage of people giving their reason for building it.
So unlike you re warping I'm using evidence, where the dev team has provided none.

As for your statement that this change is an improvement: that is your opinion, your FEELING perhaps, but unless you make only a few visits its impossible to see it as an improvement.. I notice a 80% reduction in yield, so again, that's just hard evidence of it not being an improvement for me.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

Just to get some more insight on why people actually build or upgrade their CL, please see this poll
https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/crystal-lighthouse-poll.13489/

 

[Risen Malchiah]

@Dhurrin The problem with this method of data is that we're going to have skewed results that don't represent the entire player base. Even if everyone we spoke to agreed with us, we're polling amongst the top 5-10% of the game's players. The vast majority of players are not active multiple times per day and many don't even log in daily. Those are probably the players the devs were speaking about benefiting from the change. They're also the type of player who would want to lengthen the window when their NH visits will benefit them. If a player logs in once a day, an 8h culture visit may end up being worthless. And if a player also has limited time, they may skip visits entirely or simply visit a few people.

Naturally, we as the more active group aren't happy with the change, but I believe the change actually does benefit more players. But I can admit that I don't care all that much about "those" players, and I agree that there is a better way to balance the AW so it can benefit both groups.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

@Dhurrin The problem with this method of data is that we're going to have skewed results that don't represent the entire player base. Even if everyone we spoke to agreed with us, we're polling amongst the top 5-10% of the game's players. The vast majority of players are not active multiple times per day and many don't even log in daily. Those are probably the players the devs were speaking about benefiting from the change. They're also the type of player who would want to lengthen the window when their NH visits will benefit them. If a player logs in once a day, an 8h culture visit may end up being worthless. And if a player also has limited time, they may skip visits entirely or simply visit a few people.

Naturally, we as the more active group aren't happy with the change, but I believe the change actually does benefit more players. But I can admit that I don't care all that much about "those" players, and I agree that there is a better way to balance the AW so it can benefit both groups.

Yes, most of the 'players' on the map are inactive, or come online once in a while only. So for them it will be an improvement, IF they have the CL. Most of those dead/semi-dead cities do not.
So the question is why a company would want to reward customers/clients who hardly ever bother to come and certainly do not spend a lot, while kicking their loyal, regular customers who provide most of the revenue in the groin.
I'll not dispute that a lot of starting players buy diamonds (the offer for the 3rd builder is a good one), but as by far most of them quit, one is talking about a small one-time revenue gain, while its the loyal, long-time players who buy diamonds on a regular basis. And those are the ones getting -beep-ed now.

As for the people on the forum, yes, they are only a very small percentage of the playes. However, many of them represent their FS, or at least several members of their FS. Why have 25 people visit the forum when you can share the info within your FS by having just a few keeping an eye out? Its like saying the senate is only a limited number of people, so no-one should pay attention to them...yes, but they each represent quite some people, not just themselves. (or should, but lets leave politics for another day).

The only ones benefitting from this change are the lazy players, the selfish ones who only care about themselves and do a few visits to get the chests. But anyone who regularly did more than 30 visits looses on this change. And for 30 visits, that means even in a smaller FS one only needs to have 10-15 neighbours to visit. You get that many before you're through with chapter1, while you're only able to build the CL from chapter 4, probably 5 before one gets enough runes.
You cant get there without having at the very least 30 neighbours if one has a lot of goldmines around, plus your FS members, so by the time one can build it, doing only 30 visits is already a small part of your neighbours.
which means that, as I said, the only ones benefitting from this change are the ones so lazy or so selfish they don't bother to make a lot of visits.

As for benefitting: I'm no longer visiting neighbours, so they don't benefit from my CL being castrated.
I no longer get even close to the same amounts of additional goods, so I'm no longer taking trades I don't really need to help out neighbours.
I'm also not posting as many trades anymore for them to take, so they don't benefit from that anymore either.
So tell me again, how exactly do so many people benefit?

 

[mucksterme]

The vast majority of players are not active multiple times per day and many don't even log in daily. Those are probably the players the devs were speaking about benefiting from the change.

If your theory is true, the devs are stupider than anyone gives them credit for.

People here are constantly claiming that the devs do everything motivated by getting us to spend real money.
So who do you think is more likely to use their credit card?
The guy who logs in once or twice a week, or the woman who logs in multiple times a day?
If you were trying to increase Inno's income, which player would you encourage?
Which would you discourage?

 

[DeletedUser7738]

Please do not make this personal, please do not attack each other. Inno's change to the GBT/CL Wonders have hit the average player "in the guts" as was previously stated, clearly a move to compel us to buy more diamonds - simple as that. I know and understand most of the sentiments, even the cat fight going on between a few of you: since we can't "attack" Inno and see any immediate (if any) results, we start to attack each other, the closest person(s) to us that we can see the results. Elvenar is a good game, keep your comments on the topic of the thread and focus on the cause of your angst, ire and distress: in this case Inno not each other. I even got hate mail from someone who took some of my tongue & cheek comments personally - RL issues spilling into an online game is not uncommon esp in these troubling times. Pro, con or neutral, the GBT/CL change affects everyone in one form or another and just another low blow in the spiraling decline of a good game.

I am a mid level, 3hr casual player, read the guides, frequent the fan sites regularly, use the Elven Architect often, enjoy communicating with my neighbors and FS mates, participate in the events & tourney's (not the FA though, that sucked!!), help build others AW's and perform my FS & neighborhood rounds almost every day. So, maybe not so "casual", but 3 things stand out for me: I will not sell my GBT or CL's because they still provide some benefit (CB help duration, esp since I am so CB handicapped atm) for me at my stage in the game (end of Dwarf Chap) ; I will still make the neighborhood rounds & help my active neighbors; and I will not be buying diamonds in the foreseeable future. As I have said elsewhere, the GBT/CL change was just the 2nd to last nail in the coffin.

 

[DeletedUser7367]

Oh @Mykan - this is the first time that I'll ever have to not only disagree with you. I have a lv11 BS (Bell Spire). I now get 9999 goods for my three chests per day. That is a far cry from what I would have received daily. Here is my reality:

New Total: 9999

Old Total: -8760 >24 members of the my FS 365 goods per person
-3650 >visit just 10 peeps outside my FS
===================================
12400

Differential: 2401

I chose "10" as it's a nice round number.

Less goods will negatively impact my ability to trade with the world. In turn, it will mean less trades with my FS. It also directly impacts my ability to participate in higher levels of the tournaments or fellowship adventures which negatively impacts my FS. All of which contributes to a negative attitude about this change.



PS Although you are the great Mykan (your guides are awesome / everyone should read them)- and I know that you already know this but for some puzzling reason you implied that you did not (by mentioning the speed of which it takes to make a visit) - here is the fastest way to perform neighbourly help for those who don't know:

Time to complete a neighbourly visit: 7-15 seconds (or 6 mins max for your entire FS)

Step1: One hand on the keyboard, the other on the mouse.
Step 2: From whichever screen you like, click on the letter "F" on your keyboard
-------------the Fellowship page will open
Step 3: Choose your victim and click on them
-------------their towne will open
Step 4: While their towne is opening if that takes awhile, click on the letter "E" on your keyboard
-------------the "helping hand/neighbourly help" icon will appear immediately over their Main Hall/Culture/Builder (even if the graphic hasn't quite loaded)
Step 5: Choose the building and click on it to receive the help bonus

Rinse and repeat (use "W" to open the world view map for world visits)

Someone who SALIENTLY is not afraid to proffer TRUTH to a discussion laced with 'defending' INNO! Essentially, our AW Purchase/Upgrade CONTRACT has been broken.... by INNO.

 

[DeletedUser7367]

@Brooster and @Ashrem
Would you please take your petty little squabble over who has the biggest opinion and start PM each other your thoughts
Don't get me wrong its very entertaining but your both starting to sound like a broken record
I blame the MODS on this forum for letting this dribble continue
NO other inno forum that I am a part of either in Elvenar or FoE would let this go on without at least 1 public warning
@Aider are you alone or do the forum mods just don't care about your own forum rules

Perhaps INNO's backlash is the very reason they are mute.... BTW, since WHEN have I ever IMPUNED YOU, Andrew? How dare you call me out for expressing adamant disagreement with good cause??? WHO ARE YOU, My parent, God Almighty? Seriously, you act the pious fool, now.

 

[Ashrem]

Seriously, you act the pious fool, now.

Was this supposed to be another example of how you never attack anyone but the developers? If so, it failed.