Inno's dealing with push accounts needs drastic improvement discussion

[Xelenia]

It seems you can all post faster than I can clean ^.^ so I will just leave these here and re-emphasize on somethings:

"Constructive criticism carries a discussion, an aggressive criticism stalls it, diminish the purpose, and can result in the discussion ending early for all those involved. That will not be fair to them."

"Please be mindful of the forum rules, if you need a refresher before responding in this thread, here it is:
https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.702/#post-4558"

Also, a cap here and there is fine...but if half of your post consists of capitalization, please edit

Just a general reminder:

Please be mindful of the forum rules, if you need a refresher before responding in this thread, here it is:
https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.702/#post-4558

Constructive criticism carries a discussion, an aggressive criticism stalls it, diminish the purpose, and can result in the discussion ending early for all those involved. That will not be fair to them.

~Xelenia

A friendly reminder to all posters. ​

Please review the rules of the forum before making initial posts, after making initial posts, and while responding to your fellow posters.

https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.702/#post-4558

Even more so, there is no discussing of in-game support tickets. I have attached a snip it of rule #13 for clarity.



~Xelenia

 

[DeletedUser5543]

To ascribe the lack of activity to malice or some sort of internal conspiracy makes you look unhinged.

There seems to be a clear misunderstanding repeatedly occurring as well as some deliberate obfuscation. Let's just break this down for the sake of LOGIC and you can then post counter-arguments should you have any instead of talking about God or religion or Inno's secret intentions or whatever you keep going on and on about. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A "LACK OF ACTIVITY," we are talking about a DESIGN. (Bold font, underlining and CAPS used to insure you don't gloss over the point yet again.) I will SHOW you how easy this is to grasp:

1) Inno is responsible for all game design and there has been NO outside influence. Agree or Disagree?

2) Inno has been aware they created the possibility for players having feeder cities for years . Agree or Disagree?

3) Inno has never made any design changes since creating the possibility for players having feeder cities in the years since. Agree or Disagree?

See how simple that was? Now you can go ahead and say which number you disagree with and PLEASE keep any rebuttal free from personal attacks, additional obfuscation or subjects which are not germane. Are you capable of that because Xelenia and everyone else including you have better things to do with their time.

 

[Ashrem]

The first flaw in your argument is the initial assumption that agreeing with your three postulates requires us to agree with the premise that using it to push is intentional. The way something is designed does not indicate that it is the exact and only way it is intended to be used.

A further flaw is that no-one here knows wither or not there has been outside influence. Also, no-one knows if they have been testing stuff on the back-end to identify or interfere with it. it's therefore not possible for me to agree with one or two.

Since the game only launched in April of 2015, and there were no AWs at that point, awareness of feeder cities having existed for "years" is at best a bit of an exaggeration that I can't agree with. They have had at most, slightly over two years since AWs were introduced (Fall of 2015) to analyze and deal with the problem. For some companies, that's a very long time, for a game that is struggling with player drop-off and not getting prime resources from it's company, it's not very long at all to deal with a problem that doesn't have a large effect on the majority of the target market. If they start running TV adds, and haven't done anything to deal with pushing, then I'll consider the possibility that they just don't care, or actively intend it. At this moment, it is an idea not supported by facts in evidence.

 

[DeletedUser5543]

Thank you for a courteous response!

Again, as others have done previously, your reply is largely focused on intent and seems an attempt to excuse the fact that Inno designed the issue. Their intentions are inconsequential when determining if there is a problem and who is responsible, that is a secondary matter. As Inno, I believe since this games' inception, has PUBLICLY stated players are not to have feeder cities then that means they are aware their program contains the potential for such and under such pretense any assertion that some malevolent entity has subverted the initial design to incorporate "pushing" into the game would appear dubious. It's impossible for me to agree with you if you don't feel Inno has any responsibility for the content they provide, rendering #1 an obvious truth.

Furthermore, you have misconstrued the 3 basic issues mentioned and mutated the statements into stating that I am claiming Inno has "awareness of feeder cities." That was not a matter discussed and you have inserted that yourself if you are simply responding to the 3 statements in Logic that were listed. While, obviously, they do, that was not an issue mentioned in any of the three logical statements that were made and, if you wish to change the subject as that certainly does have relevance to the issue at-large, I assert that claiming they don't know it's going on is an insult to their intelligence, but again, that's NOT the point being made here. The point, for me at least, is to have this issue resolved so that it is no longer a possibility AND just whom exactly is responsible for that?

 

[Ashrem]

One thing which is NOT being addressed is the fact that Inno wants it this way. [editing cut]
So WHY does Inno want it this way?

Again, as others have done previously, your reply is largely focused on intent and seems an attempt to excuse the fact that Inno designed the issue. Their intentions are inconsequential when determining if there is a problem and who is responsible, that is a secondary matter.

I'm afraid it's not really kosher to say that someone did something intentionally and then say their intent is inconsequential to the discussion. My entire side of this debate has been predicated on your claim that they want it this way, now you are saying that I'm wasting my time talking about whether they want it this way or not.

under such pretense any assertion that some malevolent entity has subverted the initial design to incorporate "pushing" into the game would appear dubious. It's impossible for me to agree with you if you don't feel Inno has any responsibility for the content they provide, rendering #1 an obvious truth.

"no outside influence" seems to have been interpreted differently by you than me. There is nothing about my disagreement about outside influence that indicates I think code was surreptitiously inserted by a third party. My unwillingness to reject outside influence is predicated on the possibility that focus groups or other entities involved in the financing and/or play-testing might have made certain suggestions and requirements about the feature that cuased them to insert it without adequate consideration.

Furthermore, you have misconstrued the 3 basic issues mentioned and mutated the statements into stating that I am claiming Inno has "awareness of feeder cities." That was not a matter discussed and you have inserted that yourself if you are simply responding to the 3 statements in Logic that were listed. While, obviously, they do, that was not an issue mentioned in any of the three logical statements that were made

I am at a loss to explain the above in light of:

2) Inno has been aware they created the possibility for players having feeder cities for years . Agree or Disagree?

I am unclear about how these two statements can be reconciled. We appear to be talking at odds, if I interpret correctly that you are saying I made up the part about you saying they've been aware of feeder cities for years? I said it's imposible for them to have known about it for years, re the fact the feature has only just been in existance for a two years.

I assert that claiming they don't know it's going on is an insult to their intelligence,

It would be, but I never said they aren't aware, I said they can't have been aware "for years" because the feature under discussion hasn't existed for that long.

The point, for me at least, is to have this issue resolved so that it is no longer a possibility AND just whom exactly is responsible for that?

I don't think very many people in this thread has ever argued that it is anyone's responsibility but Inno's. Certainly any arguments I have made in this thread have been over assertions by others that we know they aren't doing anything. We don't know any reliable facts about what they are doing or not doing. Some people think they are not doing enough, some people think they shouldn't do anything, Some people think they can't do anything (for various reasons from financial to legal), and some people just don't care.

(edited: I had left out the words " that is a secondary matter." because it seemed a redundancy of the meaning in the line to say that something is both inconsequential and a secondary matter, but since it offends the person I quoted, I've added it back in.)

 

[DeletedUser5543]

Oh Goodness! Now we're cherry-picking statements to substantiate our position! Take 'em to the chop shop! I love it! A word of advice: If you are going to cherry-pick people's arguments to then rearrange them to fit your position then do NOT end a cherry-picking on the user's comma as your first one does. Just a word of advice from someone that deals with these issues regularly. Furthermore, the one above it even contains a chop shop job from an Inno employee so by using re-formulated responses it's clear for all to see a lack objectivity from the proprietor. I'm certain that will help you moving forward.

Let's start off by discussing the prior:

Why are you attempting to claim I said "you are wasting your time talking about whether they want it this way or not." Are you serious??? Where on Earth did I say that??? You've just decided to start making this stuff up as you go? The fact you are attempting to attribute something to me that anyone can look and see that I didn't say is poor form and undermines any credibility you are hoping to accrue. When it is compounded by the cherry-picked statement (that curiously ends on a comma, no less!) "Their intentions are inconsequential when determining if there is a problem and who is responsible, THAT IS A SECONDARY MATTER" it reveals motive, something that should be hidden, if not entirely removed when conducting Logic as it counters the process entirely. Curious that your quote, accidentally removes the part claiming that it is a secondary matter and substituted with an assertion that I told you that "you are wasting your time." Curious, right? Accidentally, right? The best lesson I can teach you right now is to understand that actions divulge intentions and you are not any different than anyone else in this regard. It is of primary importance NOT to be able to be construed as dishonest when formulating an argument based on logic, that is, in fact, the antithesis of the procedure and doing so is an automatic loss.

More importantly, it sounds like you have changed your tune and do finally agree with premise #1, that Inno is responsible for all game design when stating "I don't think very many people in this thread ha(ve) ever argued that it is anyone's responsibility but Inno's." I do appreciate that you clarified and defined your assertion on outside influences referencing the possibility that "focus groups or ... entities involved in the financing and/or play-testing" as a potential source for discord. That may very well be true, and I have speculated that financial issues could be the reason for this condition just as you are doing. That said, though, you're speaking on behalf of the developers with that statement and all three of those are still Inno's creation and, therefore, not absolving them of their responsibility AS A WHOLE. Remember, I'm speaking about the Corporation, a multi-million dollar one, and not about the responsibilities of any certain department. I'm sensing you are ready to concede that #1 is a Given Truth. However, please continue on if I am mistaken as I don't mean to speak out of turn.

It is actually very easy to explain to you the misunderstanding you are having with #2 and I'm certain we can reconcile you without any further issue. To state "Inno is aware they have created the possibility for feeder cities" is not claiming "Inno has awareness of feeder cities." That's a correlation fallacy and, as bright as you obviously are, I'm certain that upon further inspection you would probably wish to modify your response. However, if you still stand by your assertion that saying they are aware that they have created the possibility for feeder cities is saying the same thing as stating they are aware players have feeder cities then you'll need to re-configure your argument and, even in doing so, that does not discount #2 . So, at least until you can provide the requirements that necessitate a viable counter-argument to #2, I am going to claim that Inno's over 2-year old statement stating that "pushing" is inappropriate conduct constitutes awareness on Inno's part for the possibility within their design for players using feeder cities and hence: #2 is a Given Truth.

As far as #3 goes, your statement that "we don't know any reliable facts about what they are doing or not doing," is, in fact, incorrect. It IS a reliable fact that anyone can go start up a feeder city right now so clearly Inno has not done anything to prevent this from occurring. Your focus seems to be on punitive measures while I quite clearly reference design changes regarding the possibility for feeder cities. I'm simply hoping that Inno will rectify it's design moving forward so that I don't have to give bad news to fellow players and am largely unconcerned about what would be appropriate retrospective action for Inno. It should be noted, however, and I will concede this point out of fairness, that Inno DID make one design change regarding this issue that many have glossed over: Now when scrolling over a players score while visiting their city, you can see HOW they have accumulated their tally. It is an extremely useful tool when figuring out if someone is, indeed, "pushing." So, in turn, if you wish, I will clarify #3 to state: Inno has never made any design changes PREVENTING THE CREATION OF FEEDER CITIES in the years since creating the possibility for the creation of feeder cities. That should render #3 as a Given Truth but, as I'm sure you can tell, I love to hear lucid argument and appreciate your participation in attempting to do so and will continue to do the same. Thanks again and a glorious evening to you, Good Sir!

 

[Ashrem]

I can't tell if your repeated alterations of both my and your meanings from one message to the next are intentional or something else, so I simply won't respond any more.

Oh Goodness! Now we're cherry-picking statements to substantiate our position! Take 'em to the chop shop! I love it! A word of advice: If you are going to cherry-pick people's arguments to then rearrange them to fit your position then do NOT end a cherry-picking on the user's comma as your first one does. Just a word of advice from someone that deals with these issues regularly. Furthermore, the one above it even contains a chop shop job from an Inno employee so by using re-formulated responses it's clear for all to see a lack objectivity from the proprietor. I'm certain that will help you moving forward.

Let's start off by discussing the prior:

Why are you attempting to claim I said "you are wasting your time talking about whether they want it this way or not." Are you serious??? Where on Earth did I say that??? You've just decided to start making this stuff up as you go? The fact you are attempting to attribute something to me that anyone can look and see that I didn't say is poor form and undermines any credibility you are hoping to accrue. When it is compounded by the cherry-picked statement (that curiously ends on a comma, no less!) "Their intentions are inconsequential when determining if there is a problem and who is responsible, THAT IS A SECONDARY MATTER" it reveals motive, something that should be hidden, if not entirely removed when conducting Logic as it counters the process entirely. Curious that your quote, accidentally removes the part claiming that it is a secondary matter and substituted with an assertion that I told you that "you are wasting your time." Curious, right? Accidentally, right? The best lesson I can teach you right now is to understand that actions divulge intentions and you are not any different than anyone else in this regard. It is of primary importance NOT to be able to be construed as dishonest when formulating an argument based on logic, that is, in fact, the antithesis of the procedure and doing so is an automatic loss.

More importantly, it sounds like you have changed your tune and do finally agree with premise #1, that Inno is responsible for all game design when stating "I don't think very many people in this thread ha(ve) ever argued that it is anyone's responsibility but Inno's." I do appreciate that you clarified and defined your assertion on outside influences referencing the possibility that "focus groups or ... entities involved in the financing and/or play-testing" as a potential source for discord. That may very well be true, and I have speculated that financial issues could be the reason for this condition just as you are doing. That said, though, you're speaking on behalf of the developers with that statement and all three of those are still Inno's creation and, therefore, not absolving them of their responsibility AS A WHOLE. Remember, I'm speaking about the Corporation, a multi-million dollar one, and not about the responsibilities of any certain department. I'm sensing you are ready to concede that #1 is a Given Truth. However, please continue on if I am mistaken as I don't mean to speak out of turn.

It is actually very easy to explain to you the misunderstanding you are having with #2 and I'm certain we can reconcile you without any further issue. To state "Inno is aware they have created the possibility for feeder cities" is not claiming "Inno has awareness of feeder cities." That's a correlation fallacy and, as bright as you obviously are, I'm certain that upon further inspection you would probably wish to modify your response. However, if you still stand by your assertion that saying they are aware that they have created the possibility for feeder cities is saying the same thing as stating they are aware players have feeder cities then you'll need to re-configure your argument and, even in doing so, that does not discount #2 . So, at least until you can provide the requirements that necessitate a viable counter-argument to #2, I am going to claim that Inno's over 2-year old statement stating that "pushing" is inappropriate conduct constitutes awareness on Inno's part for the possibility within their design for players using feeder cities and hence: #2 is a Given Truth.

As far as #3 goes, your statement that "we don't know any reliable facts about what they are doing or not doing," is, in fact, incorrect. It IS a reliable fact that anyone can go start up a feeder city right now so clearly Inno has not done anything to prevent this from occurring. Your focus seems to be on punitive measures while I quite clearly reference design changes regarding the possibility for feeder cities. I'm simply hoping that Inno will rectify it's design moving forward so that I don't have to give bad news to fellow players and am largely unconcerned about what would be appropriate retrospective action for Inno. It should be noted, however, and I will concede this point out of fairness, that Inno DID make one design change regarding this issue that many have glossed over: Now when scrolling over a players score while visiting their city, you can see HOW they have accumulated their tally. It is an extremely useful tool when figuring out if someone is, indeed, "pushing." So, in turn, if you wish, I will clarify #3 to state: Inno has never made any design changes PREVENTING THE CREATION OF FEEDER CITIES in the years since creating the possibility for the creation of feeder cities. That should render #3 as a Given Truth but, as I'm sure you can tell, I love to hear lucid argument and appreciate your participation in attempting to do so and will continue to do the same. Thanks again and a glorious evening to you, Good Sir!

"Constructive criticism carries a discussion, an aggressive criticism stalls it, diminish the purpose, and can result in the discussion ending early for all those involved. That will not be fair to them."

 

[DeletedUser6219]

[..]When I use the word "sadly" to describe how money is typically the common denominator you can be certain it does make me sad to travel everywhere on this little rock and routinely see that people value money more than self-respect. People will do anything for money and if I have to describe that to you than you are more oblivious than one could imagine. Why would Inno be any different and who, EXACTLY, in this equation is the one wasting words if they are using the word "sadly" and don't mean it? [..] It's obvious the first respondent works for Inno, do you work for them as well?, because your argument only provides further demonstration that Inno created the issue and knows all about it. Attempting to argue that they didn't know what they were doing when designing the issue is NOT a counter-argument and, in fact, is nothing more than an insult you are hurling at them claiming they don't know what they are doing. I disagree with your assertion of Inno's capacity and feel they know full well that the design IS their creation and, hence, their responsibility and admit themselves that they know of the issue, otherwise, why would they be saying not to do it? And this is an issue that has been in place for YEARS, this is not new. Please explain to me HOW it would be possible that they could be ENTIRELY responsible for ALL design and telling people not to use that design then claim to be unaware of the faulty design??? Your argument doesn't hold water and worse yet, please don't attempt to derail a subject with priggishness when you know full well that many people take this matter seriously, [..] The fact of the matter is not changed. They can do WHATEVER they want with the platform and do. The fact they have known about it for YEARS, and have said so, only verifies that they wish it to be this way, particularly when you consider the [..] they have done to the program in that time that do not include any changes to people using feeder cities [..]. [..]

[EDITED BY XELENIA]

If you are trying to be taken seriously you may want to stop using logical fallacies; particularly ad hominem attacks. No amount of bold and underlining will strengthen your "arguments." Since you do not work for Inno and have no idea what discussions have taken place... you are simply assuming to know something you cannot know. If anyone is being priggish in this entire conversation it would be you with your suppositions of the inner workings of Inno. No amount of you using the word "fact" makes something a fact. Instead of trying to emphasize your arguments with caps, bold, and underlining; maybe you should strengthen your arguments with valid and logical statements instead of relying on supposition and fallacies.

 

[DeletedUser3489]

Dear all,

I've accidentally stumbled upon this thread and I shan't hide my amazement at how much effort and emotion has gone into this topic. I'll be brief.

Putting on my law professor hat and borrowing from principles of corporate governance, this problem doesn't seem so difficult to fix.

I will presume, for the sake of this post, that as a policy matter "pushing" is (or in certain greater quantities is) undesirable and arguably a violation of the TOU.

Now let's define the problem:

1. Game mechanics allow for pushing to take place.
2. The rules on pushing are vague.
3. Resources and/or mechanisms for adequate enforcement are not available.

In analogous real life situations, the rule of thumb is that the most efficient solution - if you can prevent the offending behavior from taking place - is simply making it impossible for this behavior to occur. Fortunately, this seems to describe this case.

Hence, I would see the following "solution" to your concerns:

1. Place a cap on on the number of KPs that any one city may donate to any other city in any 24 hour period.

-and/or-

2. Place a cap on the number of KPs that may be donated to any single AW in any 24 hour period

-and/or-

3. Place a cap on the number of KPs that may be donated to any individual city in any 24 hour period.

It isn't a perfect solution, but do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Perhaps some of you more familiar with the issue can tweak this idea to make it better.

Looking forward to your constructive comments.

With kind regards,

-Ked

 

[Ashrem]

A cap can maybe stop the most egregious violators, but avoiding trouble for legitimate users would require a fairly high cap, since a fellowship that are pushing hard in the tournament may be trading around 150-200 kp on certain days. Even that doesn't address people who are using up most of their event currency in one day, which may generate another 150 or more in a few minutes.

re 1) For the pushers with large number of cities, who are just logging in once or twice a day, any per-city-donation cap lower than 20 won't affect them at all.
re 2) This really only requires that they spread the donations out between all AWs at the same time, instead of working on one at a time.
re 3) This is the one I see as beeing most workable (again, subject to the difficulty of avoiding hurting legitimate users)

A per-city cap of around 200 received would probably eliminate the majority of the worst offenders while only causing occasional (by which I mean no more than once a week) adjustments for a small number. A cap of 300 received would eliminate a smaller number of the worst offenders, while likely being a rare adjustment for legitimate players. A weekly cap of about 750 per recipient city strikes me, at least superficially, as closer to a fix. That allows two tech-locked players to trade a week's worth of XP (7x24) plus another 300-400 from a hard tournament push.

On the more complex end, though, (and isn't that why we invented computers?) a permanent (all time) cap at the larger of [(500 total received per city) or (20% more received than you've donated)], would allow as much trading as players want to do, with almost no serious pushing possible.

 

[Mykan]

re 3) This is the one I see as beeing most workable (again, subject to the difficulty of avoiding hurting legitimate users)

Except this can hurt legitimate users a lot. Our fellowship on average levels 1.5 members wonders a day, that is a lot of kp going to one person per day. I also know we are not the only fellowship that does things like this and that is counting the KP at the end of a tournament.

I will presume, for the sake of this post, that as a policy matter "pushing" is (or in certain greater quantities is) undesirable and arguably a violation of the TOU.

In analogous real life situations, the rule of thumb is that the most efficient solution - if you can prevent the offending behavior from taking place - is simply making it impossible for this behavior to occur. Fortunately, this seems to describe this case.

Pushing is clearly listed in the TOU agreement as an offence.

Prevention is the best option in theory, the challenge has been to find a method of prevention that does not hurt the regular player base. That is the real catch to prevention as every method I have seen suggested so far will hurt them, those breaking the rules are intentionally trying to circumvent any measures and would continue to look and find exploits. Inno would have to weigh up the damage with a certain method of prevention verse the current damage done by those currently pushing and their current methods of enforcing the rules. It would be silly for Inno to cause more harm than the current pushers are causing.

One would assume they need a combination of prevention and detection tools. For all we know they might as most companies don't reveal their methods of preventing/detecting cheating otherwise it makes it easier to circumvent them.

 

[Ashrem]

Except this can hurt legitimate users a lot. Our fellowship on average levels 1.5 members wonders a day, that is a lot of kp going to one person per day. I also know we are not the only fellowship that does things like this and that is counting the KP at the end of a tournament.

Yes. I knew it would affect those of us that use swap chains less than those who do one AW at a time. I still think, though, that the large permanent limit would work fine for those users. At the beginning, they can receive up to 500 more than they've donated. By the time they are in later chapters, when they have donated 10,000 themselves to other users, they can receive 20% (which means 2,000) more than they've donated. That's a pretty wide band, that gets bigger over time, but puts a stop to funneling thousands in one direction.

 

[DeletedUser4747]

Quick question.

How does a player, creating accounts to upgrade their AWs affect you? Does it prevent you from collecting resources? Does it prevent you from upgrading your buildings? What does it actually prevent you from doing?

You can continue to play the game if others are pushing, correct?

So, since pushing does not effect you in any way shape or form, what's the big deal? There is no PVP in this game, no competition of any sort in this game, so I still fail to understand what the big deal is with pushing. If there was some type of competition, like pvp or something I could understand, but there is not. I don't want to hear "but ranking points". World ranking means nothing, it provides no benefit, it only shows you who spends money on the game and who doesn't.

I'm not a pusher trying to defend myself, My highest AW is 13, the other 3 are below 10 and I've maxed the tech tree. I just don't really care about it either way. I just think it is ridiculous you kids are getting all riled up for things that don't really matter to you or have any impact on your play.

Live and let live.

 

[DeletedUser3507]

The problem as I see it is the lack of enforcement, the player I reported that I can't mention is still doing the same o stuff weekly, and if Elvenar chooses not to enforce it more and more people that are paying customer will quit.
Then the game will die.

 

[DeletedUser4747]

The problem as I see it is the lack of enforcement, the player I reported that I can't mention is still doing the same o stuff weekly, and if Elvenar chooses not to enforce it more and more people that are paying customer will quit.
Then the game will die.

That is unlikely, most people don't care about it because it doesn't impact them in any way shape or form. No point in stressing out over a non-issue.

 

[DeletedUser3507]

That is unlikely, most people don't care about it because it doesn't impact them in any way shape or form. No point in stressing out over a non-issue.

Non Issue lol either you haven't read the thread or are complete lost in the concept. And the ones that due care about it are paying customers are you?

 

[DeletedUser4747]

Non Issue lol either you haven't read the thread or are complete lost in the concept.

I read page one, I am not reading all 9 pages of cry babies whining about something that has no negative impact on their game play.

Tell me this, if someone uses 40 accounts and pushes all of their AW's to 25. Does it slow down your resource production? Does it make it so your buildings build slower? Does it have any impact on you what so ever? The answer is no, it does not have any impact on your game play at all. Ranking points mean nothing in this game. Ranking has no bearing what so ever on anything in this game. It's just an identifier of who spends RL money and who doesnt.

 

[DeletedUser3507]

Like I said do you even spend one dime, if not don't have an opinion of us that do.

After all is said and done if it wasn't for us that do pay you wouldn't have a game to play.

 

[DeletedUser4747]

You've consistently failed to answer my basic question, how does it negatively impact your game play? Give me an example, something tangible.

 

[DeletedUser6219]

Like I said do you even spend one dime, if not don't have an opinion of us that do.

After all is said and done if it wasn't for us that do pay you wouldn't have a game to play.

So you're saying that non-paying players shouldn't have a voice when it comes to game play? You can't cherry pick what they can or cannot have an opinion on - it is all or nothing...

(Grabs popcorn)