ACTUAL Start Time of Tomorrow's FA?

[DeletedUser26654]

Come on, not an official start day - OR time listed in your "news". So: DOES it start tomorrow, the 21st or is that just wishful thinking by the FS leaders?
AND, what is the U.S. start time. I'm in one FS that says 5 AM ET, which is freaking ridiculous or another who says it's 1 PM start time, which makes more sense. Come on Inno, give some CLEAR info when announcing something.

 

[DeletedUser19014]

The last one started at 3 AM Pacific time. I think. My memory's not so good at that time of night.

 

[ajqtrz]

This one, our PST member told us, started at 2am. And it's only 151 hours long instead of 156, the normal length. Sigh. I do wish they'd tell us the start and end times.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

Come on, not an official start day - OR time listed in your "news". So: DOES it start tomorrow, the 21st or is that just wishful thinking by the FS leaders?

We were specifically told when FAs were new that future FAs might launch with little or no warning at all.

 

[ajqtrz]

We were specifically told when FAs were new that future FAs might launch with little or no warning at all.

Yes, you are right, of course, but isn't one of the things emphasized in the Fellowship Adventure, the ability to plan and execute a plan? I suppose you could just plan for it starting in two hours, two days, or maybe two months from now and build a bunch of workstations, t1 sets, and then launch them on blacksmiths and statues in anticipation, losing space and production while you twiddle your thumbs. You could do that. But knowing when it starts and, to a lesser degree, when it ends, means you can plan and execute and that is a nice, enjoyable, fun part of the game, don't you think? It certainly adds challenge, right?

So while you seem to disagree with the suggestion, you also say in another place, that you like increased challenge (and fun, I suppose, though I don't remember if you said that), I can only surmise that you missspoke and that your too would really like them to be more clear.

On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe you think it would be a challenge as well to scramble and try to get going without much notice. But I think, in the long run, it would be more frustrating to come in and find that it started nine hours ago and you and your fs have been caught "flat footed" because you got no warning whatsoever. So it's "frustration" vs "challenge" and I vote for "challenge."

AJ

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

We were specifically told when FAs were new that future FAs might launch with little or no warning at all.

No, that is what they said about the Crafting Challenges, not the FA. There has to always be some warning, so that players can be in a fellowship before it starts.

 

[Ashrem]

So while you seem to disagree with the suggestion,

Sorry, I thought this was the complaints forum, not the suggestions forum.

Seriously though, I couldn't possibly care less about how much warning we get for fellowship adventures. I find nothing fun about them, whether we get two days, or the two weeks we always get Becuase they run them on beta first, every single time.

All of that aside, it's laughable that you think more warning creates more challenge.

No, that is what they said about the Crafting Challenges, not the FA. There has to always be some warning, so that players can be in a fellowship before it starts.

You're almost certainly right. My mistake.

 

[ajqtrz]

Sorry, I thought this was the complaints forum, not the suggestions forum.

Seriously though, I couldn't possibly care less about how much warning we get for fellowship adventures. I find nothing fun about them, whether we get two days, or the two weeks we always get Because they run them on beta first, every single time.

All of that aside, it's laughable that you think more warning creates more challenge.

So, if it's "laughable", why is that? As I pointed out, there is a difference between something that detracts from the ability to plan (as no warning would, no doubt), and sufficient warning that allows you the time to plan. Since it's a cooperative thing (meaning the members of the fs cooperate), planning becomes part of the activity. The challenge of having a good plan an executing it does make the whole thing challenging and fun for some of us. This is probably because better planners tend to do better. Since you say it's "laughable" to believe this, why do you say that? Labeling an idea with a vague term is just like name calling and hardly persuasive except to those who are already persuaded.

AND, just because they have done it in BETA "every single time," does not mean that they have to do so. Is this not implied when, as you say, they tell us they can do it without warning? Or has that statement now been officially retracted? -- in which case my point is probably made stronger.

Finally, if you "couldn't possibly care less about how much warning we get for fellowship adventures" and "find nothing fun about them" why respond to a thread about Fellowship Adventures?" But maybe it's just to get a good "laugh" at statements with which you, for reasons unknown, disagree.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

So, if it's "laughable", why is that? As I pointed out, there is a difference between something that detracts from the ability to plan (as no warning would, no doubt), and sufficient warning that allows you the time to plan

Yes, there is a big difference. Having warning makes it less challenging. It allows extra planning time, and extra construction time. I don't even understand how you can pretend that having warning makes it more challenging.

Edit: It also, no doubt, makes it more fun for some people (who enjoy logistics), but not more challenging.

 

[ajqtrz]

Yes, there is a big difference. Having warning makes it less challenging. It allows extra planning time, and extra construction time. I don't even understand how you can pretend that having warning makes it more challenging.

Edit: It also, no doubt, makes it more fun for some people (who enjoy logistics), but not more challenging.

Exactly. For those of us who enjoy planning and logisitics it IS more fun and challenging. And since the whole of the FA is pretty dependent on planning and logisitics whatever makes that more fun and challenging is a good thing. To say that knowing in advance what you will encounter increases the challenge is to say it makes those who are good at such things better and those who are not so good, do worse. Part of running a fellowship and participating in an FA is in getting people organized and moving in the right direction. On the other hand, I will admit there may be some increased challenge in suddenly coming upon something and having to "think on one's feet," but in a game such as this, where people are not always around when you are, it's would be more of a frustration than a challenge. A challenge is something you think you can meet and overcome, a frustration is something of which you can't find a solution but still remains a roadblock.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

Exactly. For those of us who enjoy planning and logisitics it IS more fun and challenging. And since the whole of the FA is pretty dependent on planning and logisitics whatever makes that more fun and challenging is a good thing. To say that knowing in advance what you will encounter increases the challenge is to say it makes those who are good at such things better and those who are not so good, do worse. Part of running a fellowship and participating in an FA is in getting people organized and moving in the right direction. On the other hand, I will admit there may be some increased challenge in suddenly coming upon something and having to "think on one's feet," but in a game such as this, where people are not always around when you are, it's would be more of a frustration than a challenge. A challenge is something you think you can meet and overcome, a frustration is something of which you can't find a solution but still remains a roadblock.

I don't disagree with much there. It doesn't matter. The number of people who can get extra enjoyment out of planning for an extra couple of days (but don't already have more than that extra couple of days because they are not paying attention to what's happening on the beta server) vs the number of people who will get even more pleasure if they are forced to plan more quickly because they didn't know it was coming and thrive under pressure, combined with the vast majority who couldn't give a flying red fire-truck, is negligible. I doubt if there are 5 people who would get more enjoyment out of the event with more than two days warning who don't already get it by watching beta or having someone else tell them about beta. You were certainly aware of it two weeks ago. Did you not inform your team that it was coming? I don't believe there were very many people who care about the FAs but didn't know two weeks ago that one was coming this week.

And if it comes up as a suggestion, I'll vote against it, because I think we should have no warning at all. I don't think the people who want to rearrange their fellowship to bring their more competitive FA cities into play should get the chance. I think the FA should start with no hints and with the membership locked in place for the duration. No joining, no quitting, no kicking. Let the logistics people enjoy making a successful FA with who they've got.

 

[ajqtrz]

I don't disagree with much there. It doesn't matter. The number of people who can get extra enjoyment out of planning for an extra couple of days (but don't already have more than that extra couple of days because they are not paying attention to what's happening on the beta server) vs the number of people who will get even more pleasure if they are forced to plan more quickly because they didn't know it was coming and thrive under pressure, combined with the vast majority who couldn't give a flying red fire-truck, is negligible. I doubt if there are 5 people who would get more enjoyment out of the event with more than two days warning who don't already get it by watching beta or having someone else tell them about beta. You were certainly aware of it two weeks ago. Did you not inform your team that it was coming? I don't believe there were very many people who care about the FAs but didn't know two weeks ago that one was coming this week.

And if it comes up as a suggestion, I'll vote against it, because I think we should have no warning at all. I don't think the people who want to rearrange their fellowship to bring their more competitive FA cities into play should get the chance. I think the FA should start with no hints and with the membership locked in place for the duration. No joining, no quitting, no kicking. Let the logistics people enjoy making a successful FA with who they've got.

First, as you say, "no warning" would certainly be more enjoyable to those who "thrive under pressure." I'm not sure if that would mean less enjoyment for more players or more enjoyment for more players. As you imply, we really don't know the numbers so we have to rely upon anecdotal information and reason. My thinking is that there are an awful lot of fellowships use various spreadsheets and are very organized which would imply they either want/need the warning (whether from Beta or from notifications), and enjoy the "planning and logisitics" part of the event. I'm willing to bet that those fellowships would rather have a more precise warning than not. Not sure how to measure people who "thrive under pressure," and want "no warning." And as for the "vast majority who couldn't give a flying red fire-truck" again, we are in the land of speculation. I'm not aware of any way to measure this other than look to see how many participate in the FA and how many don't. One would argue that those who don't play, don't care, and thus don't care how much or what kind of warning is given or not. But that's hardly a measure of if the warning should or should be more specific.

The premise of your remarks has been that "no warning" beats "warning," and that by watching Beta we are getting all the warning we need. At least that's my take. The idea of "no warning" I've already addressed, but since there is no set amount of time between Beta launch and main launch, one way to perhaps, "have your cake and eat it too," would be to vary the amount of time between Beta start and live start? I'm sure there's a minimum of a few days, but they could not announce and have people just sit and wait....sort of like what happened this time since the start of Beta was on Friday and nobody knew until the announcement if it would start on Friday or the usual Monday. That added some "pressure" under which some could "thrive" more.

I agree with the idea of limiting the moving around. Perhaps when Beta starts the rosters are locked. People could leave, but not join (which would negate the point of leaving for many). Or they could leave and join but the FA would not work on anybody who joined after the start of Beta. Of course, I have to admit we do bring players in for the FA. Usually some local neighbor who is active but hasn't joined an fs, if I have an opening, gets invited for the FA. I like the idea of letting solo players experience things they might not get the chance to since they are playing solo. But that's my preference.

I would suggest that if you think it would be better to have "no warning" you might like to suggest that as a separate thread since here we are voting on more precise warning, not "no warning." Just a thought.

Good remarks as usual.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

First, as you say, "no warning" would certainly be more enjoyable to those who "thrive under pressure." I'm not sure if that would mean less enjoyment for more players or more enjoyment for more players. As you imply, we really don't know the numbers so we have to rely upon anecdotal information and reason. My thinking is that there are an awful lot of fellowships use various spreadsheets and are very organized which would imply they either want/need the warning (whether from Beta or from notifications), and enjoy the "planning and logisitics" part of the event. I'm willing to bet that those fellowships would rather have a more precise warning than not. Not sure how to measure people who "thrive under pressure," and want "no warning." And as for the "vast majority who couldn't give a flying red fire-truck" again, we are in the land of speculation. I'm not aware of any way to measure this other than look to see how many participate in the FA and how many don't. One would argue that those who don't play, don't care, and thus don't care how much or what kind of warning is given or not. But that's hardly a measure of if the warning should or should be more specific.

It certainly is. Codifying the warning puts extra responsibility on the volunteer forum and game moderators a la additional histrionics when there is the inevitable error in delivering said notice.

The premise of your remarks has been that "no warning" beats "warning," and that by watching Beta we are getting all the warning we need. At least that's my take.

That's not at all the case. I make no claims or implications that the average player would enjoy it more, only that it is how I would prefer it.

I would suggest that if you think it would be better to have "no warning" you might like to suggest that as a separate thread since here we are voting on more precise warning, not "no warning." Just a thought.

• Apparently I was too subtle in my 'complaints vs suggestions forum' comment earlier. This thread isn't a suggestion, it's a comment, in the comments forum, not the suggestions forum. We aren't voting on anything in this thread, and never will be in this forum.
• Even if it were in the suggestions forum, a poll has not been added, so any discussion is valid. It's only once a poll is added that the idea can't be modified by the creator. If it were in the suggestions forum, which it isn't.
• It starts with "come on," classic complaint language, it doesn't follow the format for a suggestion in any way, which is fine, because it isn't in the suggestions forum.

 

[ajqtrz]

@Ashrem Sorry, I read "I will not vote for it" and forgot it wasn't going to go up for a vote as you say, it is in the wrong forum. On the other hand, you keep repeating "I'll not vote for it," as if it is up for a vote so there's some "excuse" for my mistake, or not. LOL.

I do think you should put the "no warning" suggestion in the suggestion forum because then we could get at least a rough idea of the numbers. The forum is, of course, a poor polling place since very few players ever come here and even fewer come here with any regularity. But you have to work with what you have so a suggestion and vote would be nice to see.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

On the other hand, you keep repeating "I'll not vote for it," as if it is up for a vote

Uhm, no. I said it exactly once. and what I said was " And if it comes up as a suggestion, I'll vote against it "

 

[Ashrem]

I do think you should put the "no warning" suggestion in the suggestion forum because then we could get at least a rough idea of the numbers.

I don't, because I doubt it would be popular. There are lots of things I'd like to be different, but I have no expectation that others should agree with me. If I put something in the suggestions forum, I try to aim for things I think will be an improvement for the majority.

(In the long run, that is. I'm not afraid to suggest things that will hurt current players if I think it will improve future participation).

 

[shimmerfly]

I would rather have the flying red fire truck please thankyou.

 

[Ashrem]

I would rather have the flying red fire truck please thankyou.

Now there's potential for a suggestion....

 

[shimmerfly]

Could be an option.

 

[DeletedUser26654]

• It starts with "come on," classic complaint language, it doesn't follow the format for a suggestion in any way, which is fine, because it isn't in the suggestions forum.

Seriously dude? Get a life.