Unless it starts in an event. Then even a player in chapter one has a chance to win one. After that, it moves into the MA. It probably would cost a lot of CCs to craft, but the return on investment over time would be significant, and probably well worth it.If a craftable set building gives CCs, it logically should require a whole bunch of CCs to craft, which a small, new player such as me would neither have access to nor be able to make (if it were that easy to make CCs, which require relics as well as MA time, then new players would not need to craft buildings to give them CCs).
This building would benefit players over time and be accessible mostly by larger, more established players. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, just that it doesn't do much for newer players who need CCs.
I'm looking forward to getting into chapter 3 and being able to do the spire to at least make a start on getting CCs.
Unless it starts in an event.
I don't see a post by Chriger in this thread. Since once the poll starts no changes are allowed to the post that will go to the devs, the objection can't be incorporated in the idea. Giving a reason would allow people to make a different choice or present a reason for a new idea.@Chriger Why the "no" vote?
Simply saying "no" isn't terribly helpful feedback- whatever the objection is could be incorporated into the idea, but if the kitchen doesn't know why you sent back the food it's kinda impossible to make it right..
Come up with a new one, perhaps something similar to the library just not that many scrolls lol
As long as it leaves the moonstone library set alone. I understand why the complaints but there are many of us who love our libraries sets and how much we get out of it.
It's not like that's a legally binding contract.Since once the poll starts no changes are allowed to the post that will go to the devs, the objection can't be incorporated in the idea.
Which is exactly what this proposal is, so a yes vote makes much more sense than a no.Come up with a new one, perhaps something similar to the library just not that many scrolls lol
Which again is exactly what this idea does, it doesn't mess with @jesikrey's existing moonstone set in any way whatsoever, so a no vote doesn't make sense.As long as it leaves the moonstone library set alone. I understand why the complaints but there are many of us who love our libraries sets and how much we get out of it
t's not like that's a legally binding contract.
Nah. I mean think about why that rule exists. You can't have people vote yes to an idea and then change it, that would be dishonest.From the Ideas and Suggestion Forum Guide:
No, it isn't legally binding, but it is against the rules.
- However: No alterations can be made any more to the idea as it's stated in the opening post, so please refrain from coming up with new ideas at this stage.
Even if you're referring to Xelenia, I'm pretending this is directed at me.Our forum mod here is a pretty clever person
Most of the support for it seemed along the lines of "easier is better" to get CCs, and/or giving more goods as a workaround for balancing the Spire set. Not that it adds any value to the game.
Indeed, the entire premise of the suggestion is based on new players not having access to multiple moonstone sets compared to other players.If everyone crafts the set, 3 CC a day seems like a pretty sizable increase
The first post does not say if this set will be limited to a single set, like the chess set or how the moonstone set is now, or if it will be unlimited and make another mess, so I can't vote either way until that is clarified.
I’m thinking that if it starts as an event building, it would be difficult to limit the number that players could get, unless Inno chose to limit players to one iteration of each building. I do think this is probably the best way to start the building, since it would benefit new players most. Those are the players who are most impacted by the change in moonstone in the spire. Once it moves to the MA, I would think it would be limited just like the other non-expiring buildings.