• 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

Make optional research not require guest race goods

Xelenia

Senior Forum Moderator
Elvenar Team
So, we're supposed to be mind readers and anticipate everything that Inno may dream up in the future? That's how you see it? I'm stunned, quite honestly, by that view.
Interpret it how you wish. On my personal account, I have the goods to complete every single optional research that has been presented in the game thus far. The developers have a track record of changing aspects of the games that many of you are aware of. We are not here to argue, what I am telling you is that I am reconsidering the approach to this section of the forum if more personalized suggestions keep making it through the pipe no matter how excited you will all be about the suggestion.

Happy Discussing,
Xelenia
 

Darielle

Well-Known Member
I am not Michmarc, but I think I understand what he was saying. His point seems to be that many of us have skipped optional squad size increases in order to keep tournament costs down. Now there is a change in the works which makes this previously sound strategy obsolete. And it now might become worthwhile to go back and research optional squad size increases you had intentionally skipped. The potential issue is: what if that tech requires resources you can no longer make? For example, if you skipped one in Dwarves that needs granite. And now you are in a later chapter and can no longer make granite. There is no way to pick up this tech without rebuilding a Dwarven portal and rebuilding granite mines. I don't think he is asking for something for free, but I do think he is pointing out a valid potential future issue. What I think would be the best solution would be to update older techs you skipped to whatever the current guest races goods are that you are currently on. So for example if you skipped a squad size in Dwarves and are now in Fairies, then the costs for that tech are no longer paid in granite/copper. It is now paid in Ambrosia/Night Essence. So on and so forth for other chapters, depending on where you are at.
I like that idea, Henroo. It would be fair to players in later chapters. While it doesn't bother me much because I only have one chapter affected by it, I know it would affect many others and I feel their pain. To substitute current guest race goods would work, or just have higher amounts of basic goods as substitutes.

Many ain't all, it turs out I did for all except for 1 that I seemed to have forgotten, should I redo the entire race now because of a a gamechange?
I will if I need to (if I still play at that time) but I can also understand that some who are less experienced and were advised to skip them by players like you and me, did not think of preparing it and just skipped it, should they now revisit like 6-7 chapters?

I think it would be a good idea to at least temporarily remove those goods from those researches to give everyone at least the opportunity to skip them, or to allow a temporary rule that untill xxxx you can ask support to finish those researches for you if you skipped those and research the next chapter before it came to live.
Totally agree.

Interpret it how you wish. On my personal account, I have the goods to complete every single optional research that has been presented in the game thus far. The developers have a track record of changing aspects of the games that many of you are aware of. We are not here to argue, what I am telling you is that I am reconsidering the approach to this section if more personalized suggestions keep making it through the pipe no matter how excited you will all be about the suggestion.

Happy Discussing,
Xelenia
I'm not arguing with you. I learned long ago that that was futile. I'm simply stating an opinion and I understand your right to state yours. Peace to you and everyone else here.
 

Pheryll

Well-Known Member
you assume incorrectly. I was referring to 1.12, which specifically refers to switching two squad size techs between optional and required on multiple different servers by multiple different mods in an official communication.
That patch is before the tournaments were based on squad size. The early system (which I thought you knew about) has squad size based upon the distance the tournament province was away from your city.

One or two people using the word optional does not reach the bar of the community characterizing them as such being the reason the developers started doing so. And even had that been the reason, the fact remains they have been officially referring to them as optional for at least four years on all the English speaking servers.
But these early uses of the word are characteristically about what is mandatory to complete the chapter, having nothing to do with the possibility of doing better in the tournament.


which is it? Or does it change depending on what point you wish to make?
Those quotes were in two different contexts. The first was how the players who did not take squad size, now have an incentive to take it. The second is about the early system where squad size skipping had no positive effect because the tournament squad size was based on distance. Those people who took squad size technologies were in for a surprise when the tournament system changed and had a real disadvantage compared to the rest, because their costs were higher and they could not undo the research which they had no idea would be useful to skip.
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
As an outsider here, someone who will not take part in the voting process but someone who has grown accustomed to the developers thinking...I am not exactly sure how you are planning on convincing the developers to change a research requirement. Some of these requirements have been in place for months, if not years, and you had the choice to accomplish them. For individuals who chose to skip optional research because they chose to listen to "more experienced" players made a choice with their decisions.

Lately, I am noticing a lot of ideas being presented here because many of you are wanting to personalize the game to your playing style. I will hate for the developers to begin mentally brushing aside ideas coming at their desks (from THIS server) disguised as personal, or to put it simply, make individuals gameplay easier for them so they can begin to enjoy their personalized game that is made so millions can play it.

I am now reaching a point where I am deciding on completely putting a stop to ideas that serve no purpose, enhance the game in any shape or form, other than to make selective groups or individuals gameplay easy because they are not happy with the choices presented to them and simply wants a personalized the game to play. I realize I have opened a passageway here, but when I start to see that people are wasting time with trivial matters, I have to begin reconsidering my approach even if that means extra work on me. I would hate to become as strict as the moderators on the beta server, but you all have to play your part here as well.

This is a game to play. Why did you not strategize in the event the developers choose to pull another rabbit out of their hat, and strategically prepare yourself for when that optional research becomes mandatory or necessary?
Hey Xelinia, Changes like this have been made in the past, for exactly the same reason as mentioned above, 1 of those changes was related to te rework of the tournament system.
 

Xelenia

Senior Forum Moderator
Elvenar Team
Hey Xelinia, Changes like this have been made in the past, for exactly the same reason as mentioned above, 1 of those changes was related to te rework of the tournament system.
Hey @CrazyWizard ,

Thank you for reminding me, I personally benefited. Though it occurred in the past, I am not sure if will be the same today. This is a feedback that has been raised internally, from me as well. My personal recommendation will be to provide the feedback on beta while the issue is currently present and will receive an immediate response.

You all will discuss this for another day or two. Take two weeks to vote on it and by the time it makes it to the developers through my push, the new feature is already here. Let gives it two months of fruition. Whereas, if the energy that is being presented here right now is taken to beta, in the discussion thread, it will receive an immediate look at.

I have mentioned it in the past on this forum, topics that are currently open for discussion (with discussion thread specifically designated to it), are in a far better position to receive immediate feedback. Even better, on beta, it is far quicker than live forums because that is the purpose of the beta forum.

If you all choose to carry this forward here, I will propose you mention exactly what you stated above: changes have been done to research in the past to address the tournament system. That is something I have forgotten myself and will be adding to the discussion later in the day. What I will also recommend is removing phrases that serve as an excuse as to why they cannot be completed today. Goes back to personalization disguised as suggestion/idea / etc.

Xelenia

P.S I forgot to add, I will not be pushing this forward if all voting process completes before the feature makes it to live. As stated in the past, announcements on beta are different entities from those made on lives. Yes features made their way here without change, but many also made their way here with change. If it is not available on live, I will not push the idea forward as it currently stands.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
That patch is before the tournaments were based on squad size. The early system (which I thought you knew about) has squad size based upon the distance the tournament province was away from your city.


But these early uses of the word are characteristically about what is mandatory to complete the chapter, having nothing to do with the possibility of doing better in the tournament.
Nice try, but the reason they were using it is 100% irrelevant to the fact they were using it. They were calling them optional a long time ago, so the earlier assertion that players are the ones who decided they are optional is false.

Those quotes were in two different contexts. The first was how the players who did not take squad size, now have an incentive to take it. The second is about the early system where squad size skipping had no positive effect because the tournament squad size was based on distance. Those people who took squad size technologies were in for a surprise when the tournament system changed and had a real disadvantage compared to the rest, because their costs were higher and they could not undo the research which they had no idea would be useful to skip.
Context is irelevant to the point. In one place you say the people who took the Extra Squad sizes have been paying a penalty, in another you say the people who take them now will not be paying any penalty. You can't have it both ways. The simple fact is, scouts cost more for the same province vs someone who has a larger squad size, regardless of whether either caters or fights. In the past, that cost provided a benefit in exchange. Now there is no benefit to the cost.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
You all will discuss this for another day or two. Take two weeks to vote on it and by the time it makes it to the developers through my push, the new feature is already here.
That's true, @Xelenia , but this isn't about changing the feature as outlined in the current release notes, it's about making an adjustment to mitigate the fallout from that feature. You're right that it would be better if it happened at the same time, and I agree that encouraging people to get into it on the Beta forums (because more feedback in one place will make a strong case), but whether or not the adjustment is made before the new tournament methodology reaches live servers is a relatively minor inconvenience, as long as it does. and getting the same request from multiple servers is also a strong indicator. Since they just made identical adjustments to some techs in the last release, I feel like it won't take them long to do this request if they decide to.

And I don't think there's anything especially personal about this. Lots of people who have never visited the forums are going to be impacted and the impact, while real, will be small enough that if they aren't overly analytical they may not understand where the difference is coming from. I think that a choice which has no upside is not a reasonable choice.

I'll exaggerate the effect in an example:
An employer had a policy for the last five years that anyone could choose to buy a discounted laptop from by the company but if they did they would have to pay to use the wireless at the work site. Four years later, they make the wireless free for everyone, but if you want the discounted laptop, you have to pay for it with dollar bills made in the year the offer started. You can't use today's money. So now the people who bought the laptop five years ago also get free wireless, but anyone who didn't plan ahead and store a bunch of old dollar bills doesn't get to have a discounted laptop unless they go out and find some.
That is not a way to treat employees if you want them to stick around, so I think it's a reasonable adjustment that is not a personal request.
 

Darielle

Well-Known Member
That's true, @Xelenia , but this isn't about changing the feature as outlined in the current release notes, it's about making an adjustment to mitigate the fallout from that feature. You're right that it would be better if it happened at the same time, and I agree that encouraging people to get into it on the Beta forums (because more feedback in one place will make a strong case), but whether or not the adjustment is made before the new tournament methodology reaches live servers is a relatively minor inconvenience, as long as it does. and getting the same request from multiple servers is also a strong indicator. Since they just made identical adjustments to some techs in the last release, I feel like it won't take them long to do this request if they decide to.

And I don't think there's anything especially personal about this. Lots of people who have never visited the forums are going to be impacted and the impact, while real, will be small enough that if they aren't overly analytical they may not understand where the difference is coming from. I think that a choice which has no upside is not a reasonable choice.

I'll exaggerate the effect in an example:
An employer had a policy for the last five years that anyone could choose to buy a discounted laptop from by the company but if they did they would have to pay to use the wireless at the work site. Four years later, they make the wireless free for everyone, but if you want the discounted laptop, you have to pay for it with dollar bills made in the year the offer started. You can't use today's money. So now the people who bought the laptop five years ago also get free wireless, but anyone who didn't plan ahead and store a bunch of old dollar bills doesn't get to have a discounted laptop unless they go out and find some.
That is not a way to treat employees if you want them to stick around, so I think it's a reasonable adjustment that is not a personal request.
Great example.
 

Pheryll

Well-Known Member
Nice try, but the reason they were using it is 100% irrelevant to the fact they were using it. They were calling them optional a long time ago, so the earlier assertion that players are the ones who decided they are optional is false.
Players were using the term before 1.12, which I already cited with the January date (1.12 is August). What players also did was they reused the term optional to refer to two paths- the path for easier world map, and the path for easier tournaments. Some even called the easier world map path "hard mode." Moderators and developers generally didn't speak of these two paths as being guaranteed.

Context is irelevant to the point. In one place you say the people who took the Extra Squad sizes have been paying a penalty, in another you say the people who take them now will not be paying any penalty. You can't have it both ways. The simple fact is, scouts cost more for the same province vs someone who has a larger squad size, regardless of whether either caters or fights. In the past, that cost provided a benefit in exchange. Now there is no benefit to the cost.
I am not sure why you think the context is irrelevant. For the second point, I clearly stated "before the tournament was balanced on your squad size." We are looking at two different tournament changes. The one of the past where people researched squad size and then later the tournaments were based on squad size, was a clear instance of people being given a penalty based on prior decisions they had no knowledge would affect later performance. Every tournament they had to either fight with about twice the troops that those that skipped were, or cater for much more than twice the cost for those that skipped.
In the current rebalancing of the tournament, it is more about having fewer bonuses. If you do not have troop instants or wonders that produce troops, then the squad size does not matter at all in the new tournament system. This rebalancing is nowhere near as severe as the old one.
 

Kekune

Well-Known Member
I'll exaggerate the effect in an example:
An employer had a policy for the last five years that anyone could choose to buy a discounted laptop from by the company but if they did they would have to pay to use the wireless at the work site. Four years later, they make the wireless free for everyone, but if you want the discounted laptop, you have to pay for it with dollar bills made in the year the offer started. You can't use today's money. So now the people who bought the laptop five years ago also get free wireless, but anyone who didn't plan ahead and store a bunch of old dollar bills doesn't get to have a discounted laptop unless they go out and find some.
Except the costs were transparent up front. So in your example, the employer would have stated clearly that the laptops could only be purchased with certain bills. In which case, it should be logical for employees to consider that they might want to set such a resource aside in case they might someday wish to make a purchase. Policies change all the time, for better or for worse. And so far as I understand it, the tourney/squad size connection wasn't really a stated policy, but a relationship players figured out and started to rely on. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong on that last count; that was before my time. But I've never seen it in offical Inno guidance to players.

Full disclosure: I've skipped optional techs. I do not have the resources to open them. I started saving some, but forgot and built roads. Others I just forgot, or was low on PPs and impatient, so decided to take the risk. If I want these, I'll have to rebuild every affected portal. I'm not crazy about that, but I also feel like it's a risk I accepted. If it wasn't tourneys, some other feature could easily have made squad size upgrades suddenly desirable.
 

SoulsSilhouette

Well-Known Member
@Xelenia

Yes, it is all a choice, however... consider this. You're playing cards. The rules are clear.... (Rummy) you are playing Ace 1, 2, 3. In the middle of the game, the rules change to J, Q, K, Ace with no round the world option. The cards you have on the table are no longer in play and you have to start over. It's the same thing. I'm glad that this happened before I am starting a new chapter in case I have to produce earlier guest race goods. It's like two steps forward, ten steps back.

Edited to add this....

I have skipped the optional squad techs. I will now go back and get them. I don't expect to be 'given' anything by Inno. I realize what I think doesn't count. But this is really a valid point that is being made. Inno's representatives say a lot of things when these changes are coming out. Not to beat the dead horse (sorry Ashrem) but the mods said we would get additional storage for those stupid rune pieces that we now get in event builds, tourneys, AW's.... and we can still only store the same amount. The crafting doesn't come up enough to be even considered a solution for those of us who actually play the tourneys and place the builds. So trusting Inno to have a solution to anything isn't an option for me. I assume that I will have to deal with the dysfunction until I recover and then find a way to deal with it.
 
Last edited:

Pheryll

Well-Known Member
And so far as I understand it, the tourney/squad size connection wasn't really a stated policy, but a relationship players figured out and started to rely on.
There were many attempts by the players to reword the squad size technology to let people know about the benefit of skipping it. The technology was never reworded to reflect this.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
Except the costs were transparent up front. So in your example, the employer would have stated clearly that the laptops could only be purchased with certain bills. In which case, it should be logical for employees to consider that they might want to set such a resource aside in case they might someday wish to make a purchase. Policies change all the time, for better or for worse. And so far as I understand it, the tourney/squad size connection wasn't really a stated policy, but a relationship players figured out and started to rely on. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong on that last count; that was before my time. But I've never seen it in offical Inno guidance to players.
Yes, the costs were stated up front, but the point is that the terms have changed and now the costs which were not relevant to people are suddenly relevant. Changing the costs to defined up front is trivial to the overall mechanic desribed.

Players were using the term before 1.12, which I already cited with the January date (1.12 is August). What players also did was they reused the term optional to refer to two paths- the path for easier world map, and the path for easier tournaments. Some even called the easier world map path "hard mode." Moderators and developers generally didn't speak of these two paths as being guaranteed.
I already acknowledged they were used before. To repeat myself, it doesn't matter why they decided to use that word, the squad sizes have been referred to as optional in official communications for four years. Now they are optional, except there is no positive reason to chose one of the available options because it the only reason to make the choice is being removed.

I am not sure why you think the context is irrelevant.
Sorry, I got my arguments reversed in the flurry.

If players don't take the O.S.S.Ts., they will pay extra for every province they explore for the rest of the game. Players who took the the OSSTs have benefited from cheaper provinces and been penalized in tournaments. Players who did not have benefited in tournaments and paid the penalty in provinces. The techs are no longer really optional because there is no reason to select one of the two options. Players who didn't stockpile 140,000 traps will face basically redoing Amuni or face a penalty for the rest of the game. That's an unreasonable burden.
 

Pheryll

Well-Known Member
If players don't take the O.S.S.Ts., they will pay extra for every province they explore for the rest of the game. Players who took the the OSSTs have benefited from cheaper provinces and been penalized in tournaments. Players who did not have benefited in tournaments and paid the penalty in provinces. The techs are no longer really optional because there is no reason to select one of the two options. Players who didn't stockpile 140,000 traps will face basically redoing Amuni or face a penalty for the rest of the game. That's an unreasonable burden.
The penalty to world map does not apply to catering. For troops it diminshes the more squad size techs you take. At the end of the Amuni chapter, the lack of that research gives you a 4.2% penalty. When you finish Embassies it is only 2.6%. This can be rectified by redoing the Amuni production, but it is still small enough that one would easily prefer combat to catering which means significantly fewer goods need to be produced by your city. This can clear up a significant amount of space, providing more room to focus on the Amuni.
 

SoulsSilhouette

Well-Known Member
Not everyone likes to fight, so catering is the option that appeals most to them. In the tournaments, I run out of troops. I have to cater, so there will be no space saving for me. Maybe Inno should balance this out by giving us the research to open five training slots in each type of barracks. That would be a wonderful solution for me. I will gladly rebuild portals and the specialty workshop/farms/etc in order to get the upgrades.
 

Kekune

Well-Known Member
the point is that the terms have changed and now the costs which were not relevant to people are suddenly relevant.
The situation has certainly changed, as has players' assessment of the costs. But I think players made an unwarranted assumption that we'd always value things the same in an ever-evolving game. I'm not aware that Inno ever presented the optional techs as a "meaningful choice" between two playstyles. It seems more like a design flaw that players capitalized on.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
The situation has certainly changed, as has players' assessment of the costs. But I think players made an unwarranted assumption that we'd always value things the same in an ever-evolving game. I'm not aware that Inno ever presented the optional techs as a "meaningful choice" between two playstyles. It seems more like a design flaw that players capitalized on.
It's either optional or it's not. They call it optional in official communications. Now they are changing it so that the only result from choosing option 2/2 is negative. It's now only optional if you are OK with permanently increasing the cost of future growth.
 

Kekune

Well-Known Member
It's either optional or it's not. They call it optional in official communications. Now they are changing it so that the only result from choosing option 2/2 is negative. It's now only optional if you are OK with permanently increasing the cost of future growth.
It's still optional, in the most basic sense of the word. You are not required to do it. Optional doesn't inherently lead to a meaningful benefit. Perhaps the option simply allows flexibility in how you move through the tech tree.
 

Xelenia

Senior Forum Moderator
Elvenar Team
*mods hat off*

I need to go locate this fancy math to properly access how the addition of squad size will change my tournament aspiration. I am almost convinced to take part in this vote down the line.

Should a moderator vote count as 10 or just 1?