DeletedUser6595
Guest
FIX IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
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
DeletedUser5521
Guest
As I said, if you voice something, you're just voicing it. Because it's true for you. However many or few people voice the same or opposite or completely different opinion/truth than the one you post here doesn't really make it any more true or false because on this forum? You're the guy trying to convince the masses the world is not flat or round, but is actually square, and not many are ready to go there..
**Sometimes "it just is what it is", really just is.**
DeletedUser1996
Guest
Amen !!
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
No. Voicing something doesn't mean it is true for you. It usually means that you believe it. Sometimes it means you want others to believe it whether you do or not. That doesn't make it true. True has nothing to do with belief, it is an absolute.
I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I'm sticking to facts and my opinions, because I like a good discussion about differences. Whether the hundred or so people who've been posting here agree is immaterial to me. I don't think that the current reaction is going to cause enough people to leave to be anything more than a minor hiccup for the game, and I think the game will be better for the changes.
I'm not, however, a fan of "me too" posts, especially when one person makes two or three dozen of them over less than a week. Even after some of ruffe's multiple posts were edited into single ones by the moderators, there remain about two dozen that are completely void of any content other than things like "amen" or "wow" or a smiley following a quote of someone else's post. I feel like if people don't actually have anything to say on the subject, one "me too" post is enough.
DeletedUser2963
Guest
Me too, me too!
uh.....<insert content>
Edit:I am avoiding this discussion. I was not on the forum for three or four days and did not even notice the change to the whole seller until I logged into the forum. It didn't even blip the radar in my FS chat. So, not impacted by it at all. It has always just been an expensive dump, and one I rarely use. So, since all I have to say is "meh", I am letting those who have an opinion hash it out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
That's your free one for the week.....Me too, me too!
uh.....<insert content>
DeletedUser1996
Guest
better than .. Just blowing smoke out of there mouth -like some really do . You see it --lots of words--but its just smoke.
DeletedUser2870
Guest
I got a response from @Marindor on another post stating that there MIGHT be a reconsideration on the amounts, but that the change is permanent.
Im waiting till the end of the month. If the change by then is not undone, Im gone too, from all worlds
DeletedUser2870
Guest
That would indeed be the only thing that will make me stay
DeletedUser4778
Guest
Ugh. Guess I better check beta again to see what new comments have been made. Seriously! Talk about stubbornness!
DeletedUser6890
Guest
So to put some context into the situation here... I'm going to put this in the "eye of a developer".
All the whole 'apocalypse is coming, players are leaving' talk isn't going to be what sways them. Because as long as they maintain advertisements, new blood will continue to come in. People come and go all the time and while yes, this is a sudden and noticeable shift, because it's people you know leaving, more folks will come in and probably not even notice the forums and drama.
What you actually need to do, to convince them, goes a little deeper than "me/my friend are taking our ball (of cash) and going home!" Make a business model. Paint some statistics on what it cost when you joined, versus what it would cost now. Show how unlikely it supposedly will actually be for people to invest that at an early phase. Otherwise? You're in the wave of a million complainers before and after with other games. We can talk about "learning lessons" once all games and profits of theirs simultaneously collapse, which isn't going to happen any time soon.
By no means do I support the change, but really the only way for this to make any sort of significant impact on the developers if it it maintains as an enduring, long-term, many-user conversation that just doesn't go away from the front page long enough that it becomes natural negative press. Even a few users boycotting isn't but a small chip in the cash flow. So if people want to discuss, let them discuss; but make sure discussion doesn't end with *storms out* because that's as far as that attitude will get anyone.
All the whole 'apocalypse is coming, players are leaving' talk isn't going to be what sways them. Because as long as they maintain advertisements, new blood will continue to come in. People come and go all the time and while yes, this is a sudden and noticeable shift, because it's people you know leaving, more folks will come in and probably not even notice the forums and drama.
What you actually need to do, to convince them, goes a little deeper than "me/my friend are taking our ball (of cash) and going home!" Make a business model. Paint some statistics on what it cost when you joined, versus what it would cost now. Show how unlikely it supposedly will actually be for people to invest that at an early phase. Otherwise? You're in the wave of a million complainers before and after with other games. We can talk about "learning lessons" once all games and profits of theirs simultaneously collapse, which isn't going to happen any time soon.
By no means do I support the change, but really the only way for this to make any sort of significant impact on the developers if it it maintains as an enduring, long-term, many-user conversation that just doesn't go away from the front page long enough that it becomes natural negative press. Even a few users boycotting isn't but a small chip in the cash flow. So if people want to discuss, let them discuss; but make sure discussion doesn't end with *storms out* because that's as far as that attitude will get anyone.
DeletedUser3507
Guest
Really I have no clue to why they screwed it up, I use it 1 time a day to get rid of excess coins, I use to use it 4-6 times a day to dump supplies.
It would be nice if they would explain the change. But I really doubt that would occur.
It would be nice if they would explain the change. But I really doubt that would occur.
DeletedUser3949
Guest
The new wholesaler is AWFUL for a new player. Inno obviously doesn't want us to buy from the wholesaler but when you're brand new, before you are part of a fellowship or understand how useful trading is, it's one of the main ways to advance. Now, it's useless for a new player because the prices are so high. 2000 gold for 5 marble/silver/plank. WHAT???
I always tell my fellowship that Elvenar isn't actually a game, it's more like a garden that you water and weed a few times a day. You tend it. You don't play it. At first I bought diamonds because I believe in supporting "free" games that I like and plan on playing. I believe that I should spend as much on a "free" game as I would if I had to buy a boxed version. BUT, I will no longer give money to Inno. I understand they need too make money, I've played loads of "free" games that have in game purchases. The changes in this one are ruining the game.
I always tell my fellowship that Elvenar isn't actually a game, it's more like a garden that you water and weed a few times a day. You tend it. You don't play it. At first I bought diamonds because I believe in supporting "free" games that I like and plan on playing. I believe that I should spend as much on a "free" game as I would if I had to buy a boxed version. BUT, I will no longer give money to Inno. I understand they need too make money, I've played loads of "free" games that have in game purchases. The changes in this one are ruining the game.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
The first purchase is exactly the same price as it was before. Buying T1 was always 400 coin each. It's only if you buy more than once a day that you pay more than before.
DeletedUser6933
Guest
Outside of the subject itself, since I haven't even unlocked a trader yet (yes, I'm that new), I don't know how good or bad it is. The quote above though is fairly narrow. What is true to you may not be true for me, it's perception. You are looking at the game from your POV, and how this affects [insert player/group here], but it might not be for me. I'm sure if I stick with this game long enough I'll figure it out, but just because you consider something to be an "absolute fact" does not always make it so. As an example, you can make a number mean anything you want in an argument, depending on your POV, so by all means if someone wants a post to say "I HATE THIS" etc, why stop them?
DeletedUser6890
Guest
So you assert that you have less knowledge of the game than others, but still assert your statement as truth and fact. This defies the laws of reason and intelligent thought. So before this devolve into a circular argument of who's truth is actual truth, or whether actual truth can exist, let's point out: You are stating OPINION. Opinion is not fact, and therefore personal truth is not actual truth.
The Laws of Thought
The Law of Identity: "Everything is what it is."
The Law of Non-Contradiction: "Two or more contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time."
The Law of Excluded Middle: "Everything must either be or not be."
The Law of Reason and Consequent: "Of everything that is, it can be found why it is."
A subject is equal to the sum of its predicates, or a = a.
No predicate can be simultaneously attributed and denied to a subject, or a ≠ ~a.
Of every two contradictorily opposite predicates one must belong to every subject.
Truth is the reference of a judgment to something outside it as its sufficient reason or ground.
A is A.
A is not not-A.
A is either A or not-A.
If A then B (A implies B).
First, that nothing can become greater or less, either in number or magnitude, while remaining equal to itself ... Secondly, that without addition or subtraction there is no increase or diminution of anything, but only equality ... Then, that what was not before cannot be afterwards, without becoming and having become, and reason to have become or to be.
For those of mathematical mind, let us reduce these four laws to two algorithms,
⊦ ∀xf(x) ⊃ f(y)
⊦∀x(p ⋁ f(x)) ⊃ (p ⋁ ∀xf(x))
As what is true in all cases is true in any one case, and that the logical sum of a simple proposition and predicate implies the logical sum of each separately. To reduce only to the points of four:
I. x = y, if, and only if, x has every property which y has, and y has every property which x has.
II. Everything is equal to itself: x = x.
III. If x = y, then y = x.
IV. If x = y (x = y =def ∀f
f(x) → f(y))) and y = z, then x = z. If x = z and y = z, then x = y.There cannot be separate objects or entities that have all properties in common. That is, entities X and Y are identical if every predicate possessed by X is also possessed by Y and vice versa; to suppose two things indiscernible is merely to suppose the same thing under two names. No two distinct things can be exactly alike, and no conflicting statements can simultaneously be actual truth as much as observed truth.
To take this exercise via reasoning via reductio ad absurdum,
1. Entities X and Y are identical if and only if any predicate possessed by X is also possessed by Y and vice versa.
2. Entity X is the secret alias of Y; that is, they're the same person, but people don't know this fact. Thus X=Y
3. Entity # believes Entity X is mundane.
4. Entity # believes Entity Y is a great maester.
5. Therefore Entity Y has a property Entity X does not have, namely the abilities of a maester.
6. Therefore, entity X is not identical to Entity Y.
7. Since in proposition 6 we come to a contradiction with proposition 2, we conclude that at least one of the premises is wrong.
-- Either this law is wrong
-- A person's knowledge about X is not a predicate of X
-- The application is eronious; the law is only applicable in cases of monadic, not polyadic properties
-- What people think about are not the actual objects themselves
-- A person is capable of holding conflicting beliefs.
In theory these undermine the argument of the Identity of Indiscernibles, but instead use this fallacy to understand our own fallacious universal understandings. If entity # is unaware that Entity X/Y is secretly a great maester behind a mask, it does not remove the fact that Entity X is a great maester and not mundane; rather, it is our ignorance of understanding that presents us the illusion that one holds a property the other does not.
Ignorance of the property does not make for the inexistence of the property, no more than ignorance to traits of reality does not make the inexistence of traits of reality.
The statements engaging that this makes the game an entire game entirely come from observation and long-term awareness of the situation Whether or not you've discovered this yourself does not remove this as being a truth (any more than knowing if someone has a secret identity prevents them from having the secret identity.) This is not a Schroedinger's Cat. This is simply "What is."
While this may seem divergent from the core topic, I find one of the absolute ways that people manage to dilute discussion is by the idea of "all observations are equal truths regardless of history or length of the observation."
It is fair to voice an opinion; you may have an opinion, but the opinion is not inherently truth simply because you hold the opinion. Nor am I stating any other opinion is naturally truer simply because it is a different opinion than yours. But it is dismantling to a case when people argue devil's advocates and divert the actual content of constructive conversation based on the idea that all opinions are truths. When users are concerned about the value of their past, present and future invetments of both money and time, it's by and far unfair to state that an opinion is just as factual of a representation while simultaneously admitting that you have less experience. It's not fair to the people who have devoted time and, in context, the longer-term evaluation. While certain aspects of their observation may still be lacking and flawed, that doesn't mean another that is even more lacking and flawed needs to dismiss the concerns of the longer-term case study.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
Truth is narrow. No, it doesn't change with perception. Values change with perception. Beliefs change with perception. Values and beliefs are not "true". "Murder is bad" is not true, it is a value. If it isn't true for everyone, it isn't true. And that doesn't mean you can make something not be truth by saying you don't believe it. Regardless of what anyone believes, or claims they believe, the earth is round (approximately) and is not the center of the universe.
DeletedUser6933
Guest
We could sit here and discuss truth all day. The only thing I know is it would take absolute arrogance to pretend that two sides to any issue or debate cannot both be held true, depending on the perception of the other, and the only thing I see at this stage is arrogance.
PS - Your maths are incorrect.
PS - Your maths are incorrect.
DeletedUser6335
Guest
Okay - philosophy, mathematics, values, and all aside - can we *please* get back to the original topic of the post? Can we at least agree that some changes (minor, major, whatever - changes none-the-less) are being asked for and seem to need to be made?