No backwards movement in Fellowship Adventure?

[Pheryll]

My fellowship is going through map 2 by completing 5 green waypoints, switching over to blue at the crossroads, and then planning to finish on the blue route. What was discovered in the process was that the fourth blue waypoint was not unlocked when we completed the fifth blue waypoint. That is movement from the crossroads is only forward, and backwards movement is not supported. Any plans on allowing backwards movement?

 

[DeletedUser2424]

We were also a caught off guard by this.. It's unintuitive.
But, at the bottom of the list in terms of features i'd like to see added to the FA IMHO.

 

[Ashrem]

Why do you want to do a leg backwards? You can do that green leg from the bottom up, why would they put effort into making it so you can do it from the top down?

 

[Pheryll]

The reason to go backwards would always be for more points. This is helpful especially when the event is close to ending.

 

[Ashrem]

The reason to go backwards would always be for more points. This is helpful especially when the event is close to ending.

For the small number of points it gets (doing one or two at the top of a path instead of doing all three from the bottom up, it requires a complete design change. Right now, each way point unlocks the one above it, they'd have to reprogram so that it opens either side. that might not be tough programming, but I bet less than 1% of the players care about getting an extra 100 (or 500 or whatever) points for going backwards.

And lets be clear, if you can do it, then everyone else who has about the same points as you will be able to do it, too, so it really doesn't gain anything.

 

[Pheryll]

it requires a complete design change.

Care to elaborate? It is not like the waypoints are all setup in a single unlock system. The crossover points show that multi-direction unlocking is in play.

 

[Ashrem]

Care to elaborate? It is not like the waypoints are all setup in a single unlock system. The crossover points show that multi-direction unlocking is in play.

I already did, but will expand for you. The current code for basic points assumes that you can move forward and nothing else. The code for the crossover points is also to move forward on one path or the other, either up the track, or across the track. None of those permits movement backward. Getting any of them to allow movement backward requires some programming. Possibly very little programming, but some. The program offers nothing to anyone except for a select group who think they can squeeze out a few more points over fellowships that aren't paying attention. it doesn't get you closer to the prize, it only gets you a little higher placement in the standings, which you can already get by spending a few diamonds to move higher or to throw in the whirlpool. it doesn't gain Inno anything. In fact, it takes away that small impetus for players to blow diamonds to get a few more points.

It's the sort of niggling little rules-twist that people request, thinking it will gain them an advantage, when in reality everyone who wants those points is going to do exactly the same thing, picking and choosing various waypoints according how they can squeeze the maximum points from the minimum badges. It offers a tiny advantage to the rules-lawyers, while offering exactly nothing to the average player who just wants to get to the top and get their prize.

 

[Pheryll]

It's the sort of niggling little rules-twist that people request, thinking it will gain them an advantage, when in reality everyone who wants those points is going to do exactly the same thing, picking and choosing various waypoints according how they can squeeze the maximum points from the minimum badges. It offers a tiny advantage to the rules-lawyers, while offering exactly nothing to the average player who just wants to get to the top and get their prize.

Could we dispense with the ad hominem statements? To be clear, no one has voiced in any way that they were seeking an unfair or unequal advantage. That the end result of the feature is just as fair as from not implementing the feature, really, is not a reason for voicing dissent.

Getting any of them to allow movement backward requires some programming. Possibly very little programming, but some.

If the only difference is the data matrix, then the forward backward logic is not a true necessity of the code.

 

[DeletedUser2424]

Ehh... I think my screenshot is unintuitive and possibly a bug. I see no "rule" based explanation for why i can't go what appears to be a lateral move to the right. Perhaps i misunderstood what the op was after.

 

[Pheryll]

Your screenshot was correct. The "forward" and "backward" directions are labels which are not discussed in the FA description.

 

[Ashrem]

Could we dispense with the ad hominem statements? To be clear, no one has voiced in any way that they were seeking an unfair or unequal advantage.

There's nothing ad hominem about my statements, and I never said it was an unfair advantage you were seeking. I never used any variation of the word "unfair" at any point in the discussion.

You said the whole reason for wanting it was to get more points. Unless everyone is getting more points, that is an advantage. It is an advantage only to those who think to try something counter-intuitive to a typical race. Not unfair, just unusual. It is a pointless change that will only affect people who who think to try it or who are trying to eke the greatest possible number of points out of their badges. The vast majority of players will not place in the top 50 fellowships. Those who do, have to have over 5000 points. Most of those teams will have completed all three paths, so order of travel is of no consequence to them. Points have no effect on anyone who isn't in the top 50, which is 2/3 fellowships and anyone who is not in a fellowship. It therefore has no practical value to the vast majority of players. Most of those who seriously want to compete for the top 50 and are so close that a couple of hundred points will make the difference will be aware of it, and it will have very little (if any) effect on the final standings. It has no real value to any but a minute fraction of the server population, and it is a deviation from the normal method of conducting a race, which is not that you can come in 28th on points instead of 34th by going backwards in a few select spots.

 

[Pheryll]

You said the whole reason for wanting it was to get more points.

If the feature is implemented, the only reason one would take advantage of it is for more points. There are considerably more reasons for implementing the feature than those that would take advantage of it.

 

[Ashrem]

There are considerably more reasons for implementing the feature than those that would take advantage of it.

That doesn't seem likely to be the case. How many reasons (other than points) for programming the ability to move backwards can you list?

 

[Pheryll]

The lack of intuitive movement can give rise to the following:

1) Needless bug/support requests
2) Diamond refund complaints
3) General confusion as to what else might not work intuitively

 

[Ashrem]

The lack of intuitive movement can give rise to the following:

1) Needless bug/support requests
2) Diamond refund complaints
3) General confusion as to what else might not work intuitively

I think the direction of movement is completely intuitive to more than 99% of players, and a few arrows added to the map by an artist would be less effort and generate far fewer complaints and refund requests than changing the program so that people can accidentally go backwards, which i feel comfortable predicting would happen more often than people intentionally going the wrong way.

Will you honestly say you think it would improve "confusion" if people could accidentally go backwards on the map and spend badges but get no closer to the prizes?

 

[Pheryll]

and a few arrows added to the map by an artist would be less effort

I am not sure that this is even the case.

 

[Ashrem]

I am not sure that this is even the case.

Face it, other than taking that leg out of context, by cropping it closely, it's pretty tough for someone to interpret going in the direction as moving forward. The winner flag is pretty obvious, and by no stretch does moving to that waypoint bring them anything like closer to it. It's a hill. Going down the hill is not likely to be mistaken for getting you closer to the top. And preventing that unlikely possibility is a bigger customer service win than making it easier. Your points based on people complaining less if they are allowed to waste their progress than if they can't do it accidentally is baseless. Do you want to offer some advantages to making it so people can accidentally go the wrong way?

 

[Pheryll]

@Ashrem, you took my quote out of context. I made the claim that it may well be easier to allow "backwards" movement, than to add arrows to the map.

 

[Ashrem]

@Ashrem, you took my quote out of context. I made the claim that it may well be easier to allow "backwards" movement, than to add arrows to the map.

I'm confident you'd be happier focusing on whether arrows are more work than programming, but it's not going to get you a free pass on the "considerably more reasons for implementing" the ability to move backwards on the map. So far you've provided three customer service related claims that I'm quite certain would all be worse if players could move backwards in the map.

You can't claim I took your quote out of context by trying to get you to talk about your point, instead of red herrings like how you think it's possible that arrows on the map would be harder than programming.

 

[Pheryll]

It sounds like you would be perfectly happy with a toggle button that could be used to turn on and off backwards movement.

I really do not understand all your heated vitriol. It is as if you intentionally want this topic to get locked.