Moonstone Library should be limited to a single building (like other special sets)

[michmarc]

Summary: Moonstone Library pieces should be limited to a single copy

Details: Other special sets, like the Chess Set or most grand prize event buildings (like the Phoenix) cannot be acquired if you already have that building. I propose to extend that to the Moonstone Library set.

Other topics have touched on how unbalanced the Moonstone Library set is. And it's not really that overpowered compared to other event buildings, but you can fill your city with Libraries in a way that you can't with (say) Gingerbread Houses. It doesn't really matter if the Endless Scroll can make scrolls so much better than a manufactory if you can only have one. But when you can have as many as you like, then you can completely replace your factories with Endless Scrolls.

Spots in the Spire where set buildings show up can either be replaced by additional time/coin/supply instants, or just be removed and the other percentages increased accordingly.

Pro:

• Limits the damage that can be done by a powerful event set by limiting how much of it you can have without having to nerf the buildings for poeple that have one (or fewer) sets today.
• Uses a precedent set by other special buildings.

Con:

• Like the chess set, it would mean that upgrading the library would either mean using Royal Restorations or selling the buildings before you can re-earn them.
• Existing players with multiple sets would have a permanent advantage (similar to those who currently have multiple Phoenix or Bears).

Other thoughts: The upgrade issue could be 'fixed' by allowing multiple buildings to be won, but not allow multiple buildings to be placed. This would allow a new building at a higher level to be won without having to sell the old one first. However, people might accumulate multiple copies in inventory that they can only use for disenchanting. (Yay! more spell shards.)

 

[Kekune]

Instead of taking away the set because it's unbalanced, can't we just balance it? Then if people want to replace everything in their city with it, let em.

 

[Chriger]

I think a problem with making it a limited set, is that'd remove part of the incentive to consistently play the spire week after week. Though obviously some changes need to be made, before it unbalances trading more than it already has.

One option might be to offer more 5-day boost buildings as prizes (either existing or new designs). Or even more of the Trading Posts/Genies that are 50-days. Having them expire would essentially prevent people having months/years worth of spire buildings placed that'll never go away.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

If this set were to be made unique like the Chess Set, then every other set from the past needs to be nerfed in the same way. Like the Winter set that has the Frost-carved Christmas Tree, which some players have many copies of in their cities. Same thing for all the multiples of evolving buildings. Nerf one and you have to nerf them all.

The only plus I could see to doing this to the Library set is that you can then introduce two alternate versions of the library set for crystal and silk. That way, instead of me having five sets of the current version out, I could have one set of each of three variations instead, and the space used by my fourth and fifth sets freed up for something else.

 

[Ashrem]

The options then are:

• Keep giving players who already have the set prizes they can't use. (And therefore possibly assume anyone who has a full set will never bother to play the Spire again until they've finished a new chapter.)
• Come up with some way to put different prizes in the chest of people who already have the set vs people who don't, and then come up with prizes that are worth winning but not as unbalancing as the set.

The former would suck for everybody who has the set already.

The latter would take code that I suspect they haven't figured out, or they wouldn't be letting people win multiple evolving buildings and set buildings in events.

Either way, I don't think the suggestion is practical as it stands.

Spots in the Spire where event buildings show up can either be replaced by additional time/coin/supply instants, or just be removed and the other percentages increased accordingly.

That would guarantee I'd stop playing the Spire.

 

[DeletedUser22644]

I say drop this thread into the recycle bin ASAP

 

[Evening Star Selene]

Huh uh...There's no way I'm for this... I like the idea of rebalancing it to improving your production boost as is being voted on in a different thread, but to limit the library buildings?? There's plenty of other buildings that I have duplicates of (like valorian valor, and the air trader docks), and to limit the library set would get rid of most of the appeal for playing the spire.

 

[Risen Malchiah]

Is this set really that good? I have dozens of pieces of the entire set but I've never used any of them. I'm already boosted in scrolls & tree gum and don't need spell fragments. I still play the entire Spire every week for the CCs, time boosters, Dwarven Armorer, magic buildings and diamonds.

 

[Kekune]

Is this set really that good? I have dozens of pieces of the entire set but I've never used any of them.

Yes, especially if you get creative with the link bonuses. It's stellar, aside from the design flaw of being limited to a specific good for everyone.

Edited to link to CrazyWizard's post on the value: https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/adjust-spire-set-goods-output.24466/post-183882

 

[Deleted User - 4646370]

That would guarantee I'd stop playing the Spire.

Really ? The set is powerful, it's a fact, but not the only reason to play the Spire. The Spire gives wonderful rewards outside of the set, such as dwarven armorers and diamonds. And if you play the Spire for the set, would that mean you'll eventually stop playing the Spire once you'll have enough sets to cover all your T2 needs ?


Plus, I think this limitation would perhaps actually increase the appeal for the Spire (assuming the set pieces are replaced by other rewards once one got one). Not having the possibility to get more SF/CC than needed would make these spire rewards more appealing. And, no more set pieces possibly means better chance to get a DA

Finally, I think being against this because it's undeniably a nerf is the same as being for an idea just because it makes the game easier. And I consider this change makes the game more interesting (see paragraph above), that's wy I'm for.

 

[StarLoad]

OMG this is just a crazy wrong idea

 

[ajqtrz]

@Ed1960 and @ALLANONN

I get your general summation of your opinion, but we don't get the WHY of that opinion. The importance of telling us why does two things: generally it clarifies in you own mind why you are of the opinion you are; and 2) more importantly: it tells us reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with you, and thus, potentially furthers the conversation. So I ask, why do you oppose this suggestion?

AJ

 

[samidodamage]

why do you oppose this suggestion?

I'm not @Ed1960 or @ALLANONN but I'll give you my answer:
Because there are so many other possible methods to address the imbalance caused by this set in the game economy without removing the ability for individual players to make their own choices.

 

[Ashrem]

Really ? The set is powerful, it's a fact, but not the only reason to play the Spire. The Spire gives wonderful rewards outside of the set, such as dwarven armorers and diamonds.

If you go back and look at what I quoted, you'll find I specifically said that in response to

can either be replaced by additional time/coin/supply instants, or just be removed and the other percentages increased accordingly.

I have no need for more instants than I'm already getting:

Nor do I need I higher chance of more "10% Portal Profits" or "2000 spell fragments" or "20/50/75 Diamonds" none of which are worth as much to me as the buildings.

And if you play the Spire for the set, would that mean you'll eventually stop playing the Spire once you'll have enough sets to cover all your T2 needs ?

1. I will never have enough to cover all my T2 set needs, because I can always offer them at a discount to my FS members to assist with tournaments and the spire
2. Every chapter they cease to be as efficient per square as they could be, and every one I replace means I can use one or more RR spells for something else.
3. They are providing me substantial culture and population (144,000 and 30,000[with golden abyss bonus]) which I will want to be more efficient in the next chapter, which I am entering in about a week.

 

[Deleted User - 4565442]

Tell that to people that have 20 bears and win every tournament now because Inno outdid themselves year ago with spawning additional buildings into inventories of players when they run out of prizes in endless questline (6 sets was max).

I have 6 library sets in town and 3 in inventory. I would gladly delete them if Spire started to give something interesting, not portal profit trash that is dropping in hundreds everywhere.

I always told with every building or set, there should be limit 1 maximum, it gives uniqueness to this building. They didn't listen so here you go.

 

[michmarc]

Instead of taking away the set because it's unbalanced, can't we just balance it? Then if people want to replace everything in their city with it, let em.

I can only imagine the outrage of people who already have them placed. It also severely impacts people who have just the one set. If we want the spire prize to be a 'great' set, limiting to a single copy makes sense.

I also agree that the previous events where you can earn multiple grand prize buildings (bears, phoenixes, etc) was a mistake and I think Inno realized that as well since their endless quest events have gone away. It's also not possible for anyone else to get multiple copies going forward since you couldn't craft one in the MA if you already had one.

I have no need for more instants... Nor do I need I higher chance of more "10% Portal Profits" or "2000 spell fragments" or "20/50/75 Diamonds" none of which are worth as much to me as the buildings.

It would also mean a slightly higher chance of magic workshops/residences, genies, and dwarven armouries. [And not wanting more diamonds?]

(I am also greatly in favour of the other proposal to use Boost+1 instead of a fixed resource. That solves balance across resources, but doesn't solve the overall power issue.)

 

[michmarc]

Also, I'm not surprised that it's unpopular because it's just a sign of how strong these buildings are. I suspect that it's not something that players want, but it's something the game needs.

 

[Kekune]

I can only imagine the outrage of people who already have them placed.

Did you mean to quote me here? I don't see how balancing the set (which in my mind simply means that they shouldn't all produce the same goods) and allowing people to use them freely would cause more outrage than your proposal to actually restrict usage.

 

[michmarc]

I did mean to quote you because I assumed that "fixing" it meant "reducing the production down to a level where it is okay to wallpaper your city with them".

["Fixing" the scrolls --> Boost+1 doesn't solve the power problem as I mentioned -- it still lets people fill their city with them instead of manufactories. If anything, it makes it more powerful because the resource it produces won't be devalued anymore.]

 

[Kekune]

Fixing" the scrolls --> Boost+1 doesn't solve the power problem as I mentioned -- it still lets people fill their city with them instead of manufactories. If anything, it makes it more powerful because the resource it produces won't be devalued anymore.

So what if they do fill their cities? Since they're permanently available to everyone, I'd say that's more fair, equal, and reasonable than any possible alternative. People who prefer the set can use the set, and people who don't for some reason can leave it. Who is harmed or how is the game worse from the availability of a (boost-balanced) meaningful prize that people have to work hard to earn and maintain? Anyone who has a bajillion sets is clearly playing the spire hard to fuel that achievement.