• 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

Discussion Rebalancing of select (old) event buildings

DeletedUser12171

Guest
You're exaggerating. I doubt anyone's city is entirely built around event building. That might have been the case when certain buildings first came out, but that naturally fell away over the following months, as it should. I have a pretty large collection and cutting them in half still only represented about 10% of my population, and even that was partly made worse by the fact that that I get quite a bit of population from Ancient wonders, which dropped along with the other drop. I think most of the frustration is about the standard poor handling of the rollout. They specifically introduced the news function so players could be informed of important updates, but they never seem to remember to use it for the things that players most need to know. The only thing in my news is that there will be a fellowship adventure starting on the 10th of May. To quote a certain Commander-in-Chief, "Sad."

I wish that I was exaggerating, but the collective reaction towards the changes (notwithstanding those directed towards the communication issues) suggest otherwise.

Like I said, if peoples' cities didn't hinge on having event buildings, this should not have been a big issue to begin with. Soggy said he got 50% population from event buildings. That sounds like event buildings are at least as important as residences in his city if not even more.

It's like the CL/BS issue. If the goods provided by the AW were just a minor, cursory amount, why would people have been up in arms once the production rate was capped?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
I wish that I was exaggerating, but the collective reaction towards the changes (notwithstanding those directed towards the communication issues) suggest otherwise.

Like I said, if peoples' cities didn't hinge on having event buildings, this should not have been a big issue to begin with. Soggy said he got 50% population from event buildings. That sounds like event buildings are at least as important as residences in his city if not even more.

It's like the CL/BS issue. If the goods provided by the AW were just a minor, cursory amount, why would people have been up in arms once the production rate was capped?
Lots of people who play online games have learned long before this that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. There's no point saying "this change makes me a little sad but everything will turn out okay." The people who might say that aren't going to visit the forums. We've got the 50ish people who are always here, talking about everything that ever happens, and the other thirty or fifty who noramlly never bother with the forums but were annoyed enough to say something, virtually every one of which are going to make it sound like a bigger deal than it is, because they hope it isn't too late to get a better deal and they know they need to sound like their world is ending or they'll be ignored (which they will anyway). Expecting anything different is ignoring the entire history of the internet.
 

DeletedUser12171

Guest
So you mean that I ended up with an exaggerated conclusion because these people exaggerated their situation in their complaints.

Lol, ok, I can accept that
 

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
Exactly, so if people would take event buildings for what they are, maybe this change wouldn't be such a big deal. People say the event buildings were not game breaking and might not even have needed rebalancing. But all these wails and shouts seem to indicate otherwise - that they are indeed a game breaker for many because they build entire cities around having event buildings
This is a logical fallacy. You are making a huge leap from players being upset at losing something to "then it must have been too good for you to have".

Your normal residences give you population, right? What if they suddenly gave you 40% less? Your city would be quite broken, and then someone should come on here and say you shouldn't have built your city around normal residences, and should have built more event buildings? Clearly if losing 40% of your pop from a residence nerf hurts you, then they are game-breakingly overpowered, and in need of rebalancing, right?
To me, this is exactly proof that event buildings have been used beyond their intended purpose and need to be rebalanced
Unless the devs tell us how much of our population from each possible source is acceptable, it is impossible to know that getting x% of pop from one source is "beyond the intended purpose".

9.32% (240 squares) of my city is residential. (42,000 pop)
12.52% (315 squares) is population giving event buildings (47,618 pop)

So per 1% of my city, residences give me 4,506 pop (3,839 if you count roads)
and per 1% of my city, event buildings give 3,803 pop

Certainly not game breaking, but if either one of those gets a significant nerf, that would break my game.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser12171

Guest
This is a logical fallacy. You are making a huge leap from players being upset at losing something to "then it must have been too good for you to have".

Whoa whoa, slow down there Mr. Shorts, you're making quite the leap yourself

The devs never said, and I never insinuated, that the reason for the rebalance was that people were abusing (using beyond their intended purpose) event buildings. In fact, I did affirm that using the mechanic is perfectly fine. What I did say, summed up in one sentence, is:

If people did not build their cities around having so many event buildings, they would not have been so affected by the changes

You can disagree, that's fine.

Adding on to that, in fact, the mechanic is still in place. The rebalance was done because with the new to-be-introduced mechanic of upgrading event buildings, the building stats had to be scaled accordingly. According to what? According to the devs' intention of how good these buildings are supposed to be in relation to other buildings in the game. You yourself said that you got a slight buff because you were at the endgame. In other words, event buildings are still as good as, if not better than residences at an equivalent stage. Adding to this is the fact that the affected buildings have not been taken out of the game. If anything, it is indication that they will continue to be offered as prizes and available for upgrade as new content is added


Now about this point:
Unless the devs tell us how much of our population from each possible source is acceptable, it is impossible to know that getting x% of pop from one source is "beyond the intended purpose"

This, sir, in my opinion, would be excessive and unnecessary. I think there is no doubt the devs have a list of what everything should be. How else would they, for example, decide that 30 provinces worth of free goods is the appropriate cap for CL/BS production? Do they have to let us know what that intended purpose is? Well, I say no, but it's their prerogative. Anyway, this is not the point of this thread and is an unrelated issue so I don't think we need to discuss this further here

Back to the topic - I never said anyone abused anything, neither did I say they were wrong to build their cities that way. It is exactly as I stated in the bolded sentence above. So please, let's come back to the focus instead of arguing for the sake of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3507

Guest
I tend not to use many event buildings unless they fit into my culture/pop plan, Inno/Elvenar is known to fubar event buildings. The major reason I quit playing on Beta 6 months ago, I disagree with there changes they said sorry about your luck so I quit Beta
 

DeletedUser17837

Guest
The thing i find most amusing in this is how everyone keeps getting drawn into the idea that its about upgrading the event buildings...Fewer than 10% of the FS's can and do open 10 chests so its never been about the blueprints its been about the players not accepting the new lower grade event building that have been being offered in the events over the old ones. so they are not spending enough money for INNO
 

GroomerWoman

Active Member
LOL! Unbelievable how many times it has been said that this has been in the conversation pinned to the top of THIS forum since April. I guess it is like a dog with a bone syndrome even when proven wrong :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
This dog is growling! Top of the forum or not, labeling it.... may contain spoilers does NOT give anyone heads up that this is a must read! Your event buildings are about to be nerfed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As mentioned before many of us have LIVES! And do not read every little thing on the forums. I do love this game but not the way changes are done. I get why people are ticked! Been working since the change and am now down 2000 pop. I am deleting all event buildings and will not build another no matter the enticement due to the way they handle things. Will not get caught like this again! I am soothing ruffled feathers in my fellowship as best I can. Many of us are stalled and so far nobody has left but wont be surprised if I lose a couple people. :mad:
 

DeletedUser3507

Guest
I totally agree. the concept of lower value set building that I have opposed for so long, forces me to buy what I need and skip there events...
 

DeletedUser17837

Guest
I am deleting all event buildings and will not build another no matter the enticement due to the way they handle things. Will not get caught like this again! I am soothing ruffled feathers in my fellowship as best I can. Many of us are stalled and so far nobody has left but wont be surprised if I lose a couple people. :mad:

i wish you luck there our FS lost 2 already and there is alot of upset people... losing page 1 members of a FS rank in the 30s should tell INNO just how bad they screwed the pooch and i am not sure how if its over or even if i am staying myself and i spent alot of money here which isn't happening anymore cause they lost my trust with this
 

stephenr10

New Member
Inno does not want unbalancing, so they made these changes, but that is not true. They only want you to be unbalanced if you buy/paid for it, not win it. A Magic Residence in level 9 gives 2100 pop, a regular residence on level 9 only gives 1200 pop. That is way out of balance, they take up the same space. So this is all nonsense, it is only a way to slow people down, who don't buy things. If you buy things it is OK to have an advantage, but if you work an event and get one it is not OK. Balancing or Baloney?
 

DeletedUser12171

Guest
This is a logical failure that assumes the chosen path was the only path. There were several options available that did not require the scaling.
Yes sir, but discussing this after the fact is not likely to change things, especially given the way Inno has responded on similar things before. I don't assume anything, I just say this matter-of-factly - the published reason for the rebalance is because of the introduction of building upgradeability, and I make my points from this factual standpoint. I'd rather not get into an endless discussion of "what ifs" and "could haves", so I'll leave it at that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser17837

Guest
Inno does not want unbalancing, so they made these changes, but that is not true. They only want you to be unbalanced if you buy/paid for it, not win it. A Magic Residence in level 9 gives 2100 pop, a regular residence on level 9 only gives 1200 pop. That is way out of balance, they take up the same space. So this is all nonsense, it is only a way to slow people down, who don't buy things. If you buy things it is OK to have an advantage, but if you work an event and get one it is not OK. Balancing or Baloney?

correct thats why they nerfed the old buildings no one wanted the set buildings they are bulky, can't be moved stats are low and are far inferior to the older building so everyone was keeping what they had and not spending the money to buy new ones... What INNO will find out now is no one will want any of their building because they will know that they will be nerfed the next time they have a change in cash flow
 

DeletedUser12171

Guest
The thing i find most amusing in this is how everyone keeps getting drawn into the idea that its about upgrading the event buildings...Fewer than 10% of the FS's can and do open 10 chests so its never been about the blueprints its been about the players not accepting the new lower grade event building that have been being offered in the events over the old ones. so they are not spending enough money for INNO
Might well be true.

I've also seen at least two ideas originating from player requests that this update addresses:

1. Additional use for blueprints other than only upgrading magic buildings. People who asked for this are primarily those who get blueprints from tournaments but don't buy magic buildings

2. Upgradeable buildings - because some people like their event buildings and want them to remain effective as they progress further in the game
 

DeletedUser17837

Guest
Yes sir, but discussing this after the fact is not likely to change things, especially given the way Inno has responded on similar things before. I don't assume anything, I just say this matter-of-factly - the published reason for the rebalance is because of the introduction of building upgradeability, and I make my points from this factual standpoint. I'd rather not get into a meaningless discussion of theories and semantics, so I'll leave it at that.

Upgradeability that far less than 10% FS can achieve and this is supposed to be a valid reason? i don't doubt they will introduce a tourney difficulty increase shortly to slow down the game as well that will further make the 10 chest option harder on most members of the game
 

DeletedUser12171

Guest
Upgradeability that far less than 10% FS can achieve and this is supposed to be a valid reason? i don't doubt they will introduce a tourney difficulty increase shortly to slow down the game as well that will further make the 10 chest option harder on most members of the game

It could have been upgradeable in a way other than blueprints. But in doing it this way, they offer a single solution for two issues. Whether that is a good solution, well, that's what we are discussing here

Regarding the accessibility of this feature to players, if, as you say, only 10% of FS currently are able to get blueprints from tournament, and if everybody continues playing as they have been, then yes - few people are going to be able to benefit from the feature. To this, I offer this response which I have posted in another thread:
I'll just venture an intelligent guess and say that since the new spell replaces blueprints, it will probably be obtained similarly - by completing 10 chests in tournaments. If anything, the function (and thus value) of the item has increased, meaning I'd expect it to be at least as rare (valuable) as before, if not even harder to obtain.

This means that if you're serious about getting all that the game has to offer, you'd have to buck up in playing the game and being involved. It doesn't take spending diamonds to hit 10 chests but it does take a FS of fully participative members who pull their individual weight. One can always continue to cruise, of course, but it could mean settling for less than you had up to this point. The pay2win option continues to be available for those so inclined

As for your final statement, that's a plausible assumption. We'll see.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top