DeletedUser338
Guest
Well Mink, I'm curious to hear your awesome 100% problemsolving solution. Please, do tell, what did you have in mind?
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate on the forum by joining discussions or starting your own threads or topics, you need a game account and to REGISTER HERE!
Discussion [Discussion] Release Notes version 0.16
- Thread starter Muf-Muf
- Start date
DeletedUser
Guest
To all the defenders of the announced inactives replacing:
You don't have any idea, if it will work as you expect. We all have hopes, but try a bit more to think about consequences before judging.
All what is said about replacing is NOT NEW, they already experimented with replacing inactives a long time ago, with bad results, as said before.
What the announcement means, as I understand it so far, is that every existing player is stuck at his location, no chance for some grouping of active players (in contrast to some other commentators I focus on activity and not on high ranking). Hard to estimate, but it could mean you have to fill around 1000 totally different neighborhoods with new active players.
You don't have any idea, if it will work as you expect. We all have hopes, but try a bit more to think about consequences before judging.
All what is said about replacing is NOT NEW, they already experimented with replacing inactives a long time ago, with bad results, as said before.
What the announcement means, as I understand it so far, is that every existing player is stuck at his location, no chance for some grouping of active players (in contrast to some other commentators I focus on activity and not on high ranking). Hard to estimate, but it could mean you have to fill around 1000 totally different neighborhoods with new active players.
DeletedUser338
Guest
No one is talking about whether or not to relocate existing players. It could very well still happen in the future.
And just because replacing inactive players didn't work great then doesn't mean it won't work at all. What we do know for sure, however, is that putting new players on the edge of the map most certainly isn't going to make things better.
I really don't know why you're so against it.
And just because replacing inactive players didn't work great then doesn't mean it won't work at all. What we do know for sure, however, is that putting new players on the edge of the map most certainly isn't going to make things better.
I really don't know why you're so against it.
DeletedUser264
Guest
Probably because it won't make the situation much better. Most of new players will turn inactive after a few hours, days or weeks of playing, as they do since the beginning of the game and we will be stuck with them again. 
Also a few thousands of new players will be needed to replace inactives.
The new system is some improvement but doesn't solve the problem at all.
Also a few thousands of new players will be needed to replace inactives. The new system is some improvement but doesn't solve the problem at all.
DeletedUser338
Guest
I'm quite well aware that it's not a perfect solution, but it is a first step. And that's better than not doing anything at all, yet some people make it sound like not doing anything at all would be a lot better.
DeletedUser778
Guest
I think it's a start.
Problems with trading will still occure since new players need weeks/month to get to tier 2 and 3 goods and some of them propably go inactive aswell,
but the chance some stay and we get more neighbourly help is higher.
For a final solution this change is way to less, but i hope it's not a final solution, only the first step in improvements.
Problems with trading will still occure since new players need weeks/month to get to tier 2 and 3 goods and some of them propably go inactive aswell,
but the chance some stay and we get more neighbourly help is higher.
For a final solution this change is way to less, but i hope it's not a final solution, only the first step in improvements.
DeletedUser967
Guest
When your barracks are not busy training troops, they will now show that they are idle, similar to Workshops and Manufactories.
Thanks
Thanks
DeletedUser819
Guest
I thank you for the new Abdate and wish I had more of them ...
DeletedUser1095
Guest
Heavens, LJ - no one has said anything remotely like "doing nothing would be better". The announcement strongly implied that inactives would be replaced; after the update it was clarified that what was meant was that 30 days from now inactives will start to be replaced, gradually, over time, and if you're lucky some of them may even be in your vicinity.
If you feel enthusiastic about that, good for you. You don't need to be aggressive with people who don't share your attitude.
And since you asked me what solution I'd favour: I already answered that:
https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/inde...ase-notes-version-0-16.2508/page-2#post-15980
But I'd also agree that the way they've decided to do it would be "better than nothing" if they'd start the replacement process now instead of a month from now. For now, nothing has happened at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser503
Guest
In the end, despite what WE want, it is Inno's game to decide what to do and what not to do.
I am content that they consider our input at all! And grateful for any good changes. What good
does it do to be so critical of how and when Inno makes changes.? They will structure the game
however they choose. It's free to play, and it's beta, two things that should always be taken
into consideration.
I am content that they consider our input at all! And grateful for any good changes. What good
does it do to be so critical of how and when Inno makes changes.? They will structure the game
however they choose. It's free to play, and it's beta, two things that should always be taken
into consideration.
DeletedUser867
Guest
Deleting an inactive city on the world map, and deleting an account are substantially different things. I suspect that the "city" information is simply archived, and if the owner pops up again they'll be assigned to a new sector.
So their old neighbors have "moved away" if they even remember any of the names. As such, it doesn't follow that they're closing any accounts.
DeletedUser338
Guest
@Mink Aye, sorry for my attitude, but everyone was so damn negative, it was getting annoying. Also, the Penrose Stairs sounds interesting, but your city would have a different place on the map all the time, changing what provinces you would have around you and it would be impossible for people to figure out what your boosted good is (if you have non-boosted factories too). So that idea is definitely not perfect either.
Also, if we'd ever get guilds/alliances, you wouldn't be able to make groups with people who are all in one place, because by tomorrow you'd all be somewhere else.
Also, if we'd ever get guilds/alliances, you wouldn't be able to make groups with people who are all in one place, because by tomorrow you'd all be somewhere else.
DeletedUser1095
Guest
It's not "so critical" - it's feedback like any other feedback. Getting feedback is part of what beta testing is for.
I'm sure the Penrose Stairs need some fine tuning, but I personally don't see moving around as a problem. If people need to know what my boosted goods are they can ask, or watch what I offer in trades, or our boosts could be listed in town-profile-type things. And I don't see why we'd need/want alliances/guilds of people in one area; wouldn't the point of guilds/alliances be to broaden our trading/aiding horizons beyond our immediate vicinities?
But that's all getting off the topic of the update.
Last edited by a moderator:
ophion
Well-Known Member
I don't think that replacing inactive players with new is going to be that helpful to the existing players looking to trade etc.
In fact...it's not going to help us any more than having inactive neighbours.
I would have preferred to have seen existing players fill the gaps so that more trades were possible...but I understand the need for new players to join the game...and maybe receive help from those that have been here awhile.
Overall...any active member is more than welcome rather than having loads of ghost towns.
DeletedUser
Guest
If it's done the same way, obviously it will have the same results.
Luckily not only me, but others are saying, that it wouldn't be a reasonable improvement for advanced players getting those new neighbors.
Who would have nice advantages are those new players, but:
Why doesn't anybody care about those who have big disadvantages, who pay the price?? If the 20000+ inactives are replaced (plus additional new inactives every day), the poor players at the edge of the map will never get new neighbors, their game will be ruined and a process of erosion from the edge of the map to the center will start...
DeletedUser205
Guest
IMHO the base of this game - the links with (active) neighbors - doesn't work.
And the solution is not, to replace inactives with new players, because of the statistical high quote of players who quit after short or some time. Elvenar is obviously not attractive to enough players to stay, to make it then attractive enough for them who try hard to play it with that permanent lack of "good" neighbors.
It is luck, where you start the game - as it ever was -, to be satisfied with a working neighborhood which you can (for example) activate for playing together by using the provided rudimentary mailingsystem.
As a result of this, I think Elvenar will have no future without seriously overwork of the neighborhoodmechanic.
This was a statement of a betaplayer who gives the asked for feedbacks.
And the solution is not, to replace inactives with new players, because of the statistical high quote of players who quit after short or some time. Elvenar is obviously not attractive to enough players to stay, to make it then attractive enough for them who try hard to play it with that permanent lack of "good" neighbors.
It is luck, where you start the game - as it ever was -, to be satisfied with a working neighborhood which you can (for example) activate for playing together by using the provided rudimentary mailingsystem.
As a result of this, I think Elvenar will have no future without seriously overwork of the neighborhoodmechanic.
This was a statement of a betaplayer who gives the asked for feedbacks.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser205
Guest
this is intentionally a new post of mine, because there is
another disappointment after the update Release 0.16:
Barracks are shown with zzzzz for the player in HIS city (if there is no training),
but
if you visit a player, who is not training, the barracks showes to you as active
I have the feeling, that this is, to fake activity of players for visitors -
in case to cover the lots of inactive players
another disappointment after the update Release 0.16:
Barracks are shown with zzzzz for the player in HIS city (if there is no training),
but
if you visit a player, who is not training, the barracks showes to you as active
I have the feeling, that this is, to fake activity of players for visitors -
in case to cover the lots of inactive players
That has always been like that and has already been forwarded for fixing, but it doesn't have a very high priority at the moment. There is no intention to "cover up" anything. It also applies to other buildings, by the way.
DeletedUser205
Guest
you are right, that also applies to other buildings.
you will have your reasons, not to give that a high priority at the moment.
my feelings are not better anyway about that
you will have your reasons, not to give that a high priority at the moment.
my feelings are not better anyway about that
DeletedUser118
Guest
I have neighbors who have buildings being build for ages and I wouldn't say they look active. So better not care about running barracks if you wanna check if a neighbor is really active but keep an eye on his city if it keeps growing or not.