• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Event Production Quests Rebalancing

bkbajb

Well-Known Member
The last event was challenging, boring and helped my city tremendously. Yes, I followed the list on Gems of Knowledge. That allowed me to start the 1 day, 2 day and my 60* hour scouts in advance so that when I got their, they were done, except for the 2x scouting. Then I used the time boosters that I got during the event to complete the 2nd scout. Still have over 200 hours saved. Did I build a lot of ws and production buildings? Some but I do not have a lot of room. Still got done. No complaints on my end but was it a challenge, absolutely. Just the way I like it.Soggy and I have discussed in the past how some players (not pointing any fingers) do not like challenges. Oh ya one last point, I spent nothing, sorry Inno.
 

DeletedUser20951

Guest
Arguing that a non-paying player should not be able to apply strategies and work to achieve similar results (or at least satisfactory results) or else Inno loses money is an argument against their basic business model.
That isn't what I am arguing for. Seeing as how Inno has been modifying the quests to limit nonpaying players from finishing up the line so quickly, and hindering those who don't have advanced knowledge of said quests in the process, where it is difficult to complete each of 'em in the total time of the event run, I am suggesting that they do something different than keep adding more of the same, which only serves to promote the shanty town phenomenon. Even if those behind the scenes want everybody to play in this manner, I still maintain my opinion of it being a crappy model.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
you have actually provided the best argument for rebalancing, from Inno's perspective
Only because that's the argument you want to support. Free-to-play games where the free player can not accomplish approximately the same thing as the paying player (as long as they are willing to put in the effort and/or time), are all dismal failures. There are lots of place I could spend my time if I wanted to always be lagging behind the players with money. Elvenar isn't that exceptional. Inno needs free players to make it worth the while of paying players to hang around. If there was the slightest whiff of a notion that free players couldn't finish the events without struggling, this thing would be as unsinkable as the Titanic.

Seeing as how Inno has been modifying the quests to limit nonpaying players from finishing up the line so quickly
Assumes facts not in evidence. You don't know their criteria for changing events, and I bet you're wrong. The ability of some people (who were probably never going to give Inno money in the first place) to finish the event quickly is of zero value or consequence to Inno. They get paid when they engage players and keep them mildly frustrated. The fact that some players can finish the event quickly adds a little to the frustration of those who can't, marginally increasing the likelihood of the latter group paying to do it faster.
 
Last edited:

Crowella

Well-Known Member
I am suggesting that they do something different than keep adding more of the same, which only serves to promote the shanty town phenomenon. Even if those behind the scenes want everybody to play in this manner, I still maintain my opinion of it being a crappy model.

I disagree. By your standards, my entire city is a "shanty town," and to some degree deliberately so. I upgrade something only when it is clearly necessary to progress through the game, and I flexibly rip down buildings and throw up other ones to respond to my changing needs in the game as well as events, FAs, etc.

You might not want to play like this, and I think the game should accommodate your preferred model AND MINE TOO. You should have DIFFERENT advantages and disadvantages than those who use my model, and you do. I don't see evidence that Inno wants everyone to play one way or another -- both (and a number of other ways of playing) have advantages and disadvantages.

Quests that require people to complete scouts and researches disadvantage people who have been here a long time and/or have pushed really hard to complete a lot of the research tree. In my short time here, I've made the decision to leave some optional branches of the tree filled with KP but otherwise unfinished to use at those opportunities. Currently I have 2 of these researches sitting ready for the event where I decide I want to use them. This generally means giving up city expansions. "But that nerfs the whole game!" a person might say. No, it doesn't. It's just another way of playing.

Edit: typo
 

DeletedUser20951

Guest
You don't know their criteria for changing events, and I bet you're wrong.
And neither do you. What do you think the recent changes have been for, then? That they decided that there wasn't enough currency for opening chests and added more?
I don't see evidence that Inno wants everyone to play one way or another
I do, especially with the latest addition of quests during the event, the majority requiring the construction of numerous number ones to complete them before the event's end.
Quests that require people to complete scouts and researches disadvantage people who have been here a long time and/or have pushed really hard to complete a lot of the research tree.
Such quests had been phased out, for the most part, although it sounds like they might be making a comeback in the next event. I dislike these, but they are prudently spread out few and far in-between, and much of my dissatisfaction isn't because there are some quests making the ghettos necessary, but a profusion of 'em.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
And neither do you. What do you think the recent changes have been for, then? That they decided that there wasn't enough currency for opening chests and added more?
I'm not the one who claimed that something someone else said supported rebalancing from Inno's perspective. I think the recent changes have been made to see if they can make more money, like every other change they've made. None of the recent changes make large groups of level one buildings less useful, in fact, they make them more useful than ever.
 

DeletedUser20951

Guest
None of the recent changes make large groups of level one buildings less useful, in fact, they make them more useful than ever.
Uh, this is exactly what I have been saying, but your strawman tactics are quite amusing.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
Uh, this is exactly what I have been saying, but your strawman tactics are quite amusing.
What you said, at the start of this, is that the current method is broken. My arguing that it isn't broken because it works, and because the designers keep doing it, and are successful, is in no way a strawman. You don't like it. Fine. that doesn't make it broken. You want it changed, you've proposed a change, all good. There's no evidence that you are in possession of information about Inno's "point of view," but you try to negate my argument by claiming it supports your assertion of the developers PoV. Not reasonable.

If you want a change, you have exactly the same rights as anyone else to promote it. People who don't agree with your notion of what Inno wants are not obligated to keep quiet about it while you make claims on their behalf.
 

DeletedUser20951

Guest
If you want a change, you have exactly the same rights as anyone else to promote it. People who don't agree with your notion of what Inno wants are not obligated to keep quiet about it while you make claims on their behalf.
True, but you have yet to posit your own theories to be scrutinize, merely attacking my own assumption by stating I am wrong, when we are both not privy to the inside information. My position, though, is based on observational evidence, which I believe is logical.

Oh wait, you kinda have, in the insistence that Inno is purposely giving players the ability to match the paying customers, but their actions don't support this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
True, but you have yet to posit your own theories to be scrutinize, merely attacking my own assumption by stating I am wrong, when we are both not privy to the inside information. My position, though, is based on observational evidence, which I believe is logical.
I didn't say you are wrong. I said I think you are wrong. I think there are other possibilities that are as likely, or more likely. I've expressed my own ideas and suggestions for flattening out the curve on more than one occasion, going so far as to shepherd one idea all the way through a successful, maybe even unanimous, vote on Beta. I don't need to rehash them in someone else's thread. You are encountering me after a few years of play, and after having left the game on two separate occasions in the past over things that bothered me. If I tend to shortcuts in my posts, based on assumptions about what I think should be obvious to other players, that's a failing on my part.

Oh wait, you kinda have, in the insistence that Inno is purposely giving players the ability to match the paying customers, but their actions don't support this.
I did no such thing. I asked what is unfair about that aspect of the game. That is not remotely like insisting that Inno is doing it on purpose. There are quite enough words coming from me without people making up others.
 

DeletedUser20951

Guest
I asked what is unfair about that aspect of the game.
Hence my "kinda" in the sentence, as it does suggest that you think it's Inno's motivation, but, yes, if you are not willing to spell out your stance and expect me to simply be aware of unmentioned, in the present, information, it is difficult to have any sort of actual argument on the topic, instead turning the discussion into nitpicking about perspective and absent intelligence. "Ad hominem" is probably the fallacy I should have accused, but I do believe that you are deflecting from the main discourse in order to undermine my assertions.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
Hence my "kinda" in the sentence, as it does suggest that you think it's Inno's motivation, but, yes, if you are not willing to spell out your stance and expect me to simply be aware of unmentioned, in the present, information, it is difficult to have any sort of actual argument on the topic, instead turning the discussion into nitpicking about perspective and absent intelligence. "Ad hominem" is probably the fallacy I should have accused, but I do believe that you are deflecting from the main discourse in order to undermine my assertions.
Well, Ive said repeatedly I don't "kinda think" anything specific about Inno's motivations other than they are financial.

In case you need a better understanding of ad hominem attacks, here are a couple of examples:

swear you haven't read a word
Manufacturing a fault in another poster's comprehension of the discussion.

claiming that other players don't have to play the same way you do, when they do
Claiming without supporting evidence that alternate strategies (which work for lots of people, but don't support your idea) are invalid.

It appears that you can contradict yourself just fine without my help. *nods sagely
Twisting another poster's posts (not mine) which suggest multiple alternate strategies which can be successful, but which do not contradict each other, into a claim that they are somehow contradictory, while implying some elevated awareness on your part without supporting evidence.

while the dissenters argue for supposed equity of balance, their main boast is how easy the current model is? Curious, that.
Turning other commenters' examples about why they disagree with your position into "boasts"

for the sake of a bit of shared reality
subtle attack on another commenter's (not mine) grasp of reality which belittled their argument.

but your strawman tactics are quite amusing
which you later acknowledge wasn't a strawman attack, but addressing your actual OP rather than a random tangent, and using it to imply that my points are laughable.

you have yet to posit your own theories to be scrutinize, merely attacking my own assumption by stating I am wrong
[despite the fact that you have previously read, liked, and/or commented on some of them in the past]

Oh wait, you kinda have, in the insistence that Inno is
As above, claiming I asserted something I never asserted in order to use that as evidence I am wrong.

Perhaps you'd care to throw out a third random accusation of fallacial reasoning to see if you can make this one stick?
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
Inno has been modifying the quests to limit nonpaying players from finishing up the line so quickly
How? Are you referring to the addition of 20 more quests last event? The devs specifically said it was so we could have a chance to get a Phoenix to max, they even set it up so that statistically with all those extra ess a large number of players would fall just short which is the perfect set up for getting people to buy a little currency. It even worked on me. granted I used free diamonds from wishing wells, but if an event made me spend diamonds I can assure you that inno did something right.
The upcoming quests that actually seem geared towards slowing players down are the 6 scout quests with research as an alternative that totally screw advanced players and have nothing to do with shanty towns.
, I am suggesting that they do something different than keep adding more of the same, which only serves to promote the shanty town phenomenon.
Such as? I don't love the turd town, but what alternative are you offering? It's very easy to say "I don't like this quest", and if we tried we could probably find someone who says that about each quest, but that doesn't really get us (or the developers) anywhere, does it?

The entire challenge of Elvenar is based on 2 sides of the same coin Space and Time. as lame as building/maintaining a shanty town is, it does require balancing those fundamental resources. Which is not to say I'm opposed to an alternative if you'd like to provide one.
 

DeletedUser20951

Guest
Perhaps you'd care to throw out a third random accusation of fallacial reasoning to see if you can make this one stick?
Well, this is certainly as obvious example right here, as my usage of them (which is fairly retaliatory) doesn't exclude that others are employing 'em, too.

Ah, right, and claiming that because I agreed with a single point, this invalidates my entire stance, which is another fallacy.

Which is not to say I'm opposed to an alternative if you'd like to provide one.
Very first post has one, and I did make an entreaty for ideas to get rid of, or cut down on, the prevalence of the shanty towns, if mine was deemed unworkable, but instead have been told, over and over, that I just don't like the current method and to suck it up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
Very first post has one, and I did make an entreaty for ideas to get rid of, or cut down on, the prevalence of the shanty towns, if mine was deemed unworkable, but instead have been told, over and over, that I just don't like the current method and to suck it up.

The problem is that Inno has already done those in almost all events. Train a mighty amount of troops. Produce a giant amount of supplies. Produce a moderate amount of marble/planks/steel. Etc. Those quests are already based on how far a player is in the game. For me in chapter 14, produce a moderate amount may be 3000 marble, while for my girlfriend in chapter 10, it may be 2000 of her boosted tier 1. So this is not a new idea and seeing Inno replacing all the tasks requiring large numbers of productions with more large amounts of productions is unlikely.
 

DeletedUser20951

Guest
The problem is that Inno has already done those in almost all events. Train a mighty amount of troops. Produce a giant amount of supplies. Produce a moderate amount of marble/planks/steel. Etc. Those quests are already based on how far a player is in the game. For me in chapter 14, produce a moderate amount may be 3000 marble, while for my girlfriend in chapter 10, it may be 2000 of her boosted tier 1. So this is not a new idea and seeing Inno replacing all the tasks requiring large numbers of productions with more large amounts of productions is unlikely.
I admit that it is a bit of a suggestion for more of the same, but the exception for the goods to be collected from your own factories would nullify the effectiveness of level ones, which is my main goal, while still linking the quests to boosted production.
 

DeletedUser20951

Guest
I would like to attempt to redirect the discussion back to what was supposed to be the core of the thread, which is finding an alternative to building shanty towns, not arguing over whether they are a valid quest requirement. That is subjective and a matter of personal opinion. My personal opinion is that it is utterly cheesy, very easy for advanced players and doesn't provide them with an actual challenge, while exclusionary towards newer players, and makes referencing a quest listing mandatory. I would prefer a better option, although I recognize that many feel the status quo is fine as is.
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
I admit that it is a bit of a suggestion for more of the same, but the exception for the goods to be collected from your own factories would nullify the effectiveness of level ones, which is my main goal, while still linking the quests to boosted production.
There is an obvious problem with this though: How many max level factories are we expected to have? I have 1 and am considering going down to zero. Would I then be completely borked by your idea? Same goes for Workshops. Either event buildings & wonders that give massive supplies become useless since we are forced to keep X max level workshops anyways for events, or....?

On a side note, can you please use normal font size and color? Your current bold and grey are a strange combination of hard to read and uneven emphasis(like using all caps)
 
Last edited:

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
Well, this is certainly as obvious example right here, as my usage of them (which is fairly retaliatory) doesn't exclude that others are employing 'em, too.
The difference being, that even though I was fully aware of your use, I'm not the one who tried to shut down disagreement by diversion instead of response.
I would like to attempt to redirect the discussion back to what was supposed to be the core of the thread, which is finding an alternative to building shanty towns, not arguing over whether they are a valid quest requirement. That is subjective and a matter of personal opinion. My personal opinion is that it is utterly cheesy, very easy for advanced players and doesn't provide them with an actual challenge, while exclusionary towards newer players, and makes referencing a quest listing mandatory. I would prefer a better option, although I recognize that many feel the status quo is fine as is.
Understood. But you haven't provided a reason why we should only argue from a position of accepting your premise.

To come on a public forum and expect that you can state your position, and then say "Nobody talk about whether my position is valid, but only discuss how to improve things from the assumption that my position is valid," is as cheesy as it is unlikely to succeed.
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
Understood. But you haven't provided a reason why we should only argue from a position of accepting your premise.

To come on a public forum and expect that you can state your position, and then say "Nobody talk about whether my position is valid, but only discuss how to improve things from the assumption that my position is valid," is as cheesy as it is unlikely to succeed.
That's true, but let's do it anyways.

There are really only 2 possibilities
1. The shanty town is the best possible system.
2. It's not.

If it is, then that's it, discussion over.
If not there are only 2 possibilities:
1. We come up with a viable alternative that is preferable
2. We don't

Since there is possibly some disagreement on the first question, let's skip it and take a shot at the second question possibly giving us the answer to both.
 
Last edited:
Top