Cancelled. After reading through it, this thread is irrecoverable.

[Pheryll]

Inno I am sure will love any excuse to decrease diamonds, DA, CC, time boost, and magical buildings. Everything BUT fragments pff

Just because they decrease one prize does not mean they need to replace it with anything. Lowering the diamond yield and increasing the probability is one of many ways they could accommodate the empty space left from removing a prize.

 

[DeletedUser18111]

Just because they decrease one prize does not mean they need to replace it with anything. Lowering the diamond yield and increasing the probability is one of many ways they could accommodate the empty space left from removing a prize.

Ya well the idea as it stands, says nothing about that.

Anyway, it's an all around horrible representation of what was discussed in this thread.

Have a great day.

 

[Kekune]

It looks like Xelenia updated the original post, I assume to make it clearer what we're voting on. The first version is hidden behind a spoiler. There's very little left.

I think when I voted the first time, I voted more on the contents of the overall post and discussion. But the final proposal leaves a lot of loose ends.

 

[Yogi Dave]

Anyway, it's an all around horrible representation of what was discussed in this thread.

In the end, it's up to the OP to decide what to present as the idea to be voted on. It really doesn't matter what is discussed. That is just to get the idea talked about which may or may not influence the OP. The top post is not a conglomeration of the discussion, nor does it require consensus. There were 8 pages of discussion before voting was opened with many divergent ideas. 8 pages, and now 12, shows people have opinions and interest in the subject. It's easy to get lost in the weeds determining what the devs should see having gotten that much input. Xelenia has said the devs only see the top post and that is what we vote on. Nothing else. After that, it's up to the devs to determine what to make of it and determine if they like it as is or need to modify it or reject it. In this case, they need to determine what the balance should be. I don't think we would be able to come up with concrete amounts for each chest or spire crystal.

 

[Pheryll]

But the final proposal leaves a lot of loose ends.

It certainly does.

This version of the proposal makes no recommendation other than greatly reduce the prevalence.

Once a reward is diminished without increasing other rewards, it will be harder to argue for more rewards.

 

[samidodamage]

I think when I voted the first time, I voted more on the contents of the overall post and discussion. But the final proposal leaves a lot of loose ends

Me, too! Having looked at the actual statement we are voting on, I have changed my vote to no.

 

[Ashrem]

The first line is confusing and should never have been reworded from reducing the fragments to reducing the rewards when we never discussed an overall reduction of the rewards. The subject of the idea, and the second line continues to talk about fragments, which is what it appears we are voting on.

For the developers look at the idea, and think that players want fewer rewards for the Spire, they'd have to be pretty incompetent, and I think that pretending the idea is asking for fewer rewards in order to drum up votes against it is a cheap shot on the part of those opposed.

 

[Yogi Dave]

My vote remains yes. There are other things I'd also like seen done in the spire, but reducing the number of spell fragments as you move higher in the spire should be simple and is specific. I'd have liked the final idea to have been clearer on that. I did like mentioning ideas of what could replace them with, I didn't think expressing what to put in each spire crystal was a good idea. There's another idea being discussed about changing qualities of the moonstone set. So, this isn't the end of spire changes we would like. It is a starting point.

For the developers look at the idea, and think that players want fewer rewards for the Spire, they'd have to be pretty incompetent, and I think that pretending the idea is asking for fewer rewards in order to drum up votes against it is a cheap shot on the part of those opposed.

Wow, I certainly wasn't trying to drum up votes against the idea. I was saying the wording would have been better to express what it appears the proposal was.

@Ashrem this was part of my post.

As it is, that first sentence gives a wrong impression right of the bat.

As a dev, that first line would make me go "What?" since it doesn't fit the subject and who would want that anyway, as you say. The point is you don't want the dev to have that first confused reaction. Yes, it's corrected in the next paragraph, but that first line distracts from the intent. I'm certainly not petty to try and get people to change their votes by trying to make them believe the idea is something other than it is.

 

[Ashrem]

@Yogi Dave I never thought your intentions were anything but drawing attention to careless wording. I am not so sanguine about Crazy, who appears to have had a bee in their bonnet against the idea from the start, and Pheryll, who said nothing against the idea through the entire thread, and is suddenly talking about how if they take stuff away there's no reason they'll want to give it back later.

 

[Yogi Dave]

@Yogi Dave I never thought your intentions were anything but drawing attention to careless wording.

Thanks. I'm glad it was an overreaction on my part.

 

[Risen Malchiah]

Wait, when was the wording in the original post changed? I don't remember the current wording of "reduce the spire rewards" being present when voting began. I was voting on the reduction of spell fragments in the upper tier of the Spire specifically, not an overall reduction of fragments in the entire Spire nor a reduction of "rewards" in general. I had to change my vote to a no until this is corrected.

 

[Pheryll]

and Pheryll, who said nothing against the idea through the entire thread, and is suddenly talking about how if they take stuff away there's no reason they'll want to give it back later.

Check the post times. The edited version of the first post came before my posts. What is currently there speaks about a reduction and specifically states that it makes no recommendation other than the reduction.

 

[Ashrem]

Check the post times. The edited version of the first post came before my posts. What is currently there speaks about a reduction and specifically states that it makes no recommendation other than the reduction.

The first line can be read that way. The subject and detailed description both address a reduction in fragments, not a reduction in overall return.

 

[Yogi Dave]

Wait, when was the wording in the original post changed? I don't remember the current wording of "reduce the spire rewards" being present when voting began. I was voting on the reduction of spell fragments in the upper tier of the Spire specifically, not an overall reduction of fragments in the entire Spire nor a reduction of "rewards" in general. I had to change my vote to a no until this is corrected.

I don't think it was changed after voting started. That violates the rules. I didn't notice the wording until I reread the post earlier today. Since I hadn't looked at this thread for several days, it was a fresh read and I saw the words as they are, not as I knew they meant. The only problem would be a bit of confusion for someone reading it without having read the thread, but that would quickly pass since both the title and the second paragraph talk about spell fragments. As @Ashrem pointed out, the devs aren't going to think we want few rewards. The wording can't be corrected per the rules, but I don't think it's a big problem. I'm really beginning to wish I hadn't pointed that out if it's making people change their votes based on that sentence.

 

[SoulsSilhouette]

I'm not in favor of this. I'll explain why.

What will Inno replace the spells with if they aren't a part of the chests? Something else that is not very useful? I have a city in every world. I like the spell fragments. I don't really mind having a full inventory of stuff because if I need culture or pop, it's in there waiting for me. I don't like building residences because of the size changes along the way. Makes space an issue. The event buildings stay the same size. The unicorns stay the same size. So not having to disenchant them for spell fragments eases the issue quite a bit. In the early going, players don't need the portal profits as much as they might need the spell fragments. So maybe the chests could be more chapter driven to encourage early players to participate. I truly believe that more thought needs to go into creating an environment that encourages, even casual players to stay. Everyday players have a different view and outlook than someone who only has the time to play for thirty minutes a day. Just my thoughts.

 

[Pheryll]

As @Ashrem pointed out, the devs aren't going to think we want few rewards.

I see no reason why they wouldn't come to that conclusion. If they do not see the discussion that led from the original to the final proposition, they may consider much of the reasoning within the spoiler to be voided by popular opinion.

 

[DeletedUser18111]

I'm not in favor of this. I'll explain why.

What will Inno replace the spells with if they aren't a part of the chests? Something else that is not very useful? I have a city in every world. I like the spell fragments. I don't really mind having a full inventory of stuff because if I need culture or pop, it's in there waiting for me. I don't like building residences because of the size changes along the way. Makes space an issue. The event buildings stay the same size. The unicorns stay the same size. So not having to disenchant them for spell fragments eases the issue quite a bit. In the early going, players don't need the portal profits as much as they might need the spell fragments. So maybe the chests could be more chapter driven to encourage early players to participate. I truly believe that more thought needs to go into creating an environment that encourages, even casual players to stay. Everyday players have a different view and outlook than someone who only has the time to play for thirty minutes a day. Just my thoughts.

Nicely put, I think it is important to keep the general player in mind. Beside, in a game that has me planning.every.single.thing it is nice to just have fragments as after thoughts and not part of my daily maintenance of elvenar goods.

 

[Pheryll]

I don't think it was changed after voting started. That violates the rules.

Much of the proposition was reclassified as an older version by moving it into a spoiler. That changes the inherent nature of the proposition.

 

[Ashrem]

I see no reason why they wouldn't come to that conclusion. If they do not see the discussion that led from the original to the final proposition, they may consider much of the reasoning within the spoiler to be voided by popular opinion.

I get that the wording has spoiled the suggestion, but poor wording of the suggestion aside, really? You can't see why the developers wouldn't conclude that players want fewer rewards? I suppose, after all, that happens pretty much every day of the year, right? And the developers are clearly so incompetent that they will blindly decrease the rewards because a request titled "Reduce prevalence of spell fragments in the spire rewards."

 

[Pheryll]

I get that the wording has spoiled the suggestion, but poor wording of the suggestion aside, really? You can't see why the developers wouldn't conclude that players want fewer rewards?

There are many reasons why the player base might want fewer rewards, one of which would be the high tournament scores that resulted from the addition of the spire. With the present wording I would say that the amendment made to the proposition was not friendly, and could be seen as defeating the whole reason for the proposition.