Standardized Event Buildings(with tiers)

[ajqtrz]

Soggy, I commend you for being a "best of" collector, but you've collected
yourself right into a corner, where there's nothing good to win anymore.
I see this as your Kobieahhshie Maru senario, and just like Capt Kirk, your
solution is to change the rules (cheat), then its no longer a no-win senario

I'm not questioning your analysis or Soggy's either, but suggesting that it's things like this that can be easily mis-understood. I agree that Kirk's solution to the Kobieahhshie Maru scenario was cheating (and I cringed when it was revealed in one of the Star Trek episodes/movies/series/comics/graphic novels/short stories/fan fiction/books, magazines, articles, documents or holograms -- did I miss anything?), but linking Soggy's suggested changes to the term "cheat" implies too much, I think. Changing the rules without the authorities knowing is one thing, suggesting the authorities changes the rules is quite another. Just thought I'd point this out as so often in making a point we unintentionally overstate the case a bit, and, as too often is the case, offend needlessly, right?

AJ

 

[SoggyShorts]

Is that a subjective one as in I view one as better than the rest and you view a different one as best?

No, it's not subjective unless you count aesthetics.

When comparing numbers one is objectively higher than the other.

These buildings should IMO both be 14k, 14.3k, or 14.6k whatever inno decides, as long as they are equal-- then winning one doesn't feel like losing.

I also see the issue with RR as my first thought is great, don't need RR anymore I just get replacements in the next event (or 2 or 3).

Not all tiers of all buildings need be offered in all events, and the chance to win top-tier buildings can also be tweaked.

For example, Christmas could remain the only event where you can get the best culture buildings(Legendary), BUT Father glitter trees and frozen father trees being different by 4% if offered in the same event with the same odds would be fixed.

 

[SoggyShorts]

The winter event is PO box style, therefore No percentages for dailies.
That also means No events 30 days long will be effected, just the 22 day ones.

Think outside the box a little: Prizes can be multiplied.
E.g. On days with the most powerful prizes, you can have 1 on the board, but on days with slightly weaker prizes you can have 2.
Ta-da! Try and be a bit of a problem solver instead of just whinging, eh?

The reason players choose certain chests to open is because they have
a big % chance of hitting the daily, now that is cut by 3 ?

What? No, that's not in the proposal, you're either making something up or misunderstanding.

Soggy, I commend you for being a "best of" collector, but you've collected
yourself right into a corner

This isn't about me and never was.
I "beat" the game a long time ago, but still have an interest in it from a theoretical perspective because I find it interesting, and I stick around because I've made friends here.
I'm never making suggestions for just myself, remember I'm the guy who placed 154 wishing wells (like genies) right before taking a hiatus on purpose. I have 100% of my Goblin Gift Shops in storage and could happily turn them to spell fragments since they're not much better than my dozen magical residences(also in storage).
I see what I perceive as flaws in the game or room for improvement and make suggestions accordingly.

You, for some reason, both take and make things personal. It's weird, and you make it hard not to respond in kind.

 

[BrinDarby]

You, for some reason, both take and make things personal.

I've actually gone outta my way to only discuss the proposal,
specifically not to make it personal. Yes I did use you as an
example of a collector and high chapter.

Some things you say, just like you and Ed say about me, just make
no sense the more times I read it. Part of this is basically a discussion
by snail mail. Its not fluid, thus where if it were, there would be easy
ways to ferret out misunderstandings as ya go along.... Part of it is the
fact that we both are pretty smart and can see very small holes in other
ppls suggestions, including each others.

You quote me talking about the chest events, yet reference PO box.
You say I'm lie'n or misunderstood, when clearly you misunderstood
my comment you quoted.

I'm very glad you returned, enjoy your posts, and respect your intellect,
thats not to say I always agree with your posts.

As I have said this really does Not apply to the Winter event, it effects
the chest and fog events. In 1 post you say 1 thing, then 2 pages later
you contradict that. Am I supposed to... just not point that out ?

I'm still trying to understand something you refuse to explain.
Let me try it this way..... Normally strategy dictates a GP centric OR
a Daily centric approach. To that end players choose chests with a
much higher % chance to win option, if they are on the Daily plan.
They basically take what they get if on the GP strategy.

So, in 1 of your examples.... the % went from 6% to 6/4/2% depending.
That also means, I guess, that a 30% chance would turn into 30/20/10%.
Why would a player spend xtra currency for the 30%, yet be forced into
only a 10% chance ?? The RNG is notorious for going on long binges of
not hitting the low % item. Taking something from 6% to 2% , is like just
saying..... "dream on" to get that prize. The whole reason players only
play certain days is win those dailies. ( ya know the good ones, or the
ones that help that player the most )

How is this not just making it 3x as hard to win anything great, forever on ??
Old players got to collect best of bldgs the easy way, so now make everyone
else suffer from now on ??

You cannot use the winter event as the example, you need to use the chest
events. The Winter event already gives 2 xtra prizes daily that are basically
daily strength bldgs, well most of them are.

When we talk about standardization, I already see it occurring. For example
if a bldg gives pop/culture, and its the same size, then it has a max pts value.
Those pts are allotted into either pop or culture. Say 150/450, 200/300, or ohh
250/150. So, its hard not to see this as a solution searching for a problem.
But, across the board it makes everything great alot harder to win and more
prone to gettn hosed from a bad RNG. It also would lead to less variety of
prizes offered, in general.

Soggy, have a great xmas, that goes for everyone, but I see mostly "cons" here
and since implementation matters, I'm still having a hard time see'n how this
helps or makes anything better, or even would work at all.... can u help me Soggy ?

 

[SoggyShorts]

As I have said this really does Not apply to the Winter event, it effects
the chest and fog events.
In 1 post you say 1 thing, then 2 pages later
you contradict that. Am I supposed to... just not point that out ?

That's how troubleshooting works...
You point out a possible issue, and I address it.
That's not a contradiction, that's fixing a problem.

Postbox doesn't have % chance, so it would require a slightly different system.
It could be as simple as only offering the uber-powerful building early in the event when it's impossible(for free) to have maximum currency available, or as I said giving just 1 legendary (like now) and on other days 2 epics or 3 rares.
There are multiple solutions to problems if we just think a little.

I'm still trying to understand something you refuse to explain.

So, in 1 of your examples.... the % went from 6% to 6/4/2% depending.
That also means, I guess, that a 30% chance would turn into 30/20/10%.
Taking something from 6% to 2%
How is this not just making it 3x as hard to win anything great, forever on ??

Simple, as I've posted multiple times

"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."

So, if the chance now is 6% for any building it could change to 6, 12, 18% or 4,8,12% or 25, 50 , 100%.

Personally, I think that the very best prizes should become slightly more powerful than anything offered right now (like 5% if you must put a number on it), but those should be truly rare. So, nothing changes for current stuff, but something is added that players can choose.

Spoiler: To be clear

"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."

Spoiler: To be clear

"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."
"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."
"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."
"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."
"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."

 

[TomatoeHu]

So if i understand correctly, the event would offer an Epic building on one day, a Rare one on another day, and a Legendary one on another day.

The game would need to standardize the values on existing buildings, making the value per square, standard within a tier ( rare, epic, legendary). All Epic "pop-cultures" would have the same value per squares, all Epic "culture-only" would have the same value per square, All Epic "seed givers" would be the same value per square. We would still get different looking Epics, but the values per square become standardized. The game already has many similar valued buildings so the discrepancies that currently exist, would tidy up and simply give more equal values for players to compare and strategize for. Inno has enough different size buildings and themed events varying the buildings, so having the same value per square doesn't limit you as a player, you as the player just don't have to do so much math. You still decide if you want to go for the 3x3 or the 5x4, if you want a seed or pop building.

Different buildings are offered every event, options for esthetics, strategy wouldn't change, but you may decide you need more variety of buildings rather than going all out for just one building type. if you knew you couldn't win 15 of the "Legendary" types anymore players would be less likely to exploit or capitalize on the current system's unbalanced rewards. We all still have to battle it out with Inno's RNG system....

Not having access to winning higher quantities of one building in an event, could reduce the number of players stagnating in a chapter if they have less access to over powered population buildings. The need to upgrade residences could make a comeback. The need to unlock the next population research could be made more desirable than the current event's legendary value, so a player sees the advantage to continue on in the research tree. Later chapters have become boring and tedious, watching paint dry for a year can be more interesting to some, so fixing stagnation isn't going to happen with or without, the standardization of buildings.

RR's would still be needed. No one can wait for years for a specific building. some have never repeated. some buildings have repeated and many have never again been seen. Winter stars are not offered every winter, and if you want to wait a year or three to get one, would be silly. As lovely as it has been to get repeats every now and then of a favorite or more popular building, I am glad you cant win a winter star every event or every winter event. Standardizing would mean i could try for any legendary during any event and not have to wait for a winter star, but i might need to wait 2 or 3 events to find one appear in the category I wanted ( seeds, culture, pop ) and i would still need to carry them up with me to the next level or go with something completely different. If anyone is completely attached to a building has the RR to save them and if the Legendary is rare enough, there wont be any logical waiting, as in those who are going to wait, aren't doing it for the chance at a Legendary.

 

[BrinDarby]

Different buildings are offered every event, options for esthetics, strategy wouldn't change, but you may decide you need more variety of buildings rather than going all out for just one building type. if you knew you couldn't win 15 of the "Legendary" types anymore players would be less likely to exploit or capitalize on the current system's unbalanced rewards. We all still have to battle it out with Inno's RNG system....

Having hard limits on # of 1 bldg possible to win is much better
that making it much harder to win (1) bldg..... Yes, those who get
15-20 of something would only get 6-8.... but someone barely
getting 1-2, too often wouldn't even get 1....

Much better to put hard limits on winning prizes,
than to lower the % chance to win, on every event bldg.

We all still have to battle it out with Inno's RNG system....

So when now its proposed to cut % to win by 2/3rds for
great bldgs, the average player just gets hosed bigtime.

 

[StarLoad]

Brin hard limits can only apply to game-changing items like the fire chicken, all others would inevitably cause less $$ to be spent by players wanting 4 or 5 of a building specifically. I dont see INNO blocking the path of those wanting to spend to win.

Ed

 

[Pheryll]

Brin hard limits can only apply to game-changing items like the fire chicken, all others would inevitably cause less $$ to be spent by players wanting 4 or 5 of a building specifically. I dont see INNO blocking the path of those wanting to spend to win.

Ed

The ice giant hag, for example, had hard limits when it was a grand prize as first introduced. No reason why they couldn't go back to that system.

 

[SoggyShorts]

So when now its proposed to cut % to win by 2/3rds for
great bldgs, the average player just gets hosed bigtime.

Never happened, no one proposed that, you are making that up again.

Spoiler: To be clear

"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."

Spoiler: To be clear

"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."
"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."
"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."
"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."
"**Note all numbers are for illustrative purposes only, using round, easy numbers rather than balanced ones."

 

[BrinDarby]

Never happened, no one proposed that, you are making that up again.

Wrong..... taking a 6% chance to 2% IS cutting it by 2/3rds.
So is taking something from 30% to 10%......

 

[SoggyShorts]

Wrong..... taking a 6% chance to 2% IS cutting it by 2/3rds.
So is taking something from 30% to 10%......

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills LoL.
You keep bringing up YOUR 6% example
And saying it's a bad thing

And I keep trying to explain that
The 2,4,6 numbers aren't a suggestion.
They are just random examples.

If its 6% now, the new numbers can be
6,12,18
So you get the same or more, not 2/3 less
or
12,18,24
so you get double or more, not 2/3 less
or
2,4,6<----this is the one you hate
So you get 2/3 less
or
30,60, 100
So you get 5x as many at least!

I'm not actually recommending any of those.
They are for illustrative purposes.
Please tell me you now grasp the concept.

All I'm showing is that the chance for best
would be lower than the chance for slightly weaker buildings,
not necessarily lower than now though.
Maybe 90% lower, maybe 90% higher

 

[TomatoeHu]

Much better to put hard limits on winning prizes,
than to lower the % chance to win, on every event bldg.

Maybe just for you? If there is any standardization, Inno will take care of the numbers and the numbers will be speculation until an actual change happens, too far away from this proposal

Wrong..... taking a 6% chance to 2% IS cutting it by 2/3rds.
So is taking something from 30% to 10%......

First give me the math behind your 6% and then lets pretend its relevant? It will be whatever % chance Inno decides is fair

 

[BrinDarby]

Please tell me you now grasp the concept.

I used an example, you then ran with .... and had a big
post on. Since then we both quote it, yet we're far
from on the same page here, Soggy.

We must eliminate what we agree on....
Standard event, chests, 22 days, 11 days of bldg prizes.
Can we start there ??? can we agree... I won't continue
this post till I hear a reply...... Do we agree on that ?

 

[SoggyShorts]

We must eliminate what we agree on....
Standard event, chests, 22 days, 11 days of bldg prizes.
Can we start there ??? can we agree... I won't continue
this post till I hear a reply...... Do we agree on that ?

Agree on what?
Are you saying you want to start with a specific example using exact numbers?
That seems like a backwards way of approaching an idea, but sure, we can do that.
List out all of the prizes from a recent 22-day event, and chest percentages, and I'll tell you how I would alter them going forwards.

 

[Momonar]

Looking at this idea and thinking "what is the root cause that Soggy is trying to solve?"

I think the root cause is "most of the event buildings I win are crap for me". I tend to agree with that. I play events mostly for the instants or boosts like pet food, troop health revitalizers, occasionally resources like seeds, mana, troops, and I don't mind kp instants or troop instants either. But buildings? Rarely do I see one that interests me enough to be worth re-arranging my city to add it, or picking something to replace.

This does bring up an interesting idea.... Right now, the only "upgrade" you get on a building is using RR's to increase it's chapter.
What if instead you make the building customizable by awarding "building improvements". You can create building types that allow for only certain improvements (so if you want the best culture building, go for it). Would need maxes on everything of course, so probably the complexity of this idea is too much to even consider. But how cool would that be?

Same thing with customizable art work.... make different skins available to the people who are board with the "same ole same ole" look.

 

[Katwick]

I'm coming at the same issue from the other side, with a Scavenger Hunt:

• That's a cool looking building, I wonder what it is??
• Why in the World does she have 14 Marble Quarries?? What's going on??

The game already has a open-ended design philosophy that's gorgeous, but we seldom any reason to visit the existing art museums.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Looking at this idea and thinking "what is the root cause that Soggy is trying to solve?"

I think the root cause is "most of the event buildings I win are crap for me".

Close, but not quite.
My annoyance is when I am offered an event building that is just slightly worse than another event building.
If some events give awesome culture buildings and others give awesome goods makers, and yet others give awesome population that's fantastic, even if I don't need any of them(I don't)
BUT
When the same event gives 2 or 3 different pure culture buildings and they all give just slightly different values (2-5% spread) I think that sucks.

 

[Katwick]

just slightly worse

I have two related concerns about the whole tier concept:

1. We can't even agree about the relative values for cross-tier trades; defining some sort of tier equivalence that covers esthetics, culture, coins, goods, and military benefit would seem to be a hopeless task
2. If tiers were somehow established, it would just be one more constraint on the game designers, who probably already have a surfeit of well-intended advice

I'd much rather encourage the game designers to explore the possibilities that "should" make the game more interesting, in their opinion, and especially so if it's something unlike what we've already seen in seventeen different flavors.

 

[SoggyShorts]

We can't even agree about the relative values for cross-tier trades; defining some sort of tier equivalence that covers esthetics, culture, coins, goods, and military benefit would seem to be a hopeless task

Apples to apples.
A building that gives no benefit other than culture is very easy to compare to another that gives just culture.
Per square culture vs per square culture

If tiers were somehow established, it would just be one more constraint on the game designers, who probably already have a surfeit of well-intended advice

Not a constraint, but rather a simplification. They can still make any building they want, just not one that is 1-4% worse than an existing building.
As an example, if the best [pure culture] building for your chapter gives 100 culture per square then all [pure culture] buildings would give either
100,95,90, or 85 culture per square. no 99,98, or 91.
Then all the devs have to decide is "do I want this to be Legendary, Epic, rare, or common?"