• 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!

Rebalance of evolving buildings/unfairness towards newer players

Rill

Active Member
@Dl. Goe I still don't understand how this affects you. Yes, there are theoretically a few people who have multiples of an item you cannot. (There are also people who have Father Christmas trees and Kirit sets, etc. that you will perhaps never have.) But there are perhaps 10-20 people on each world who have those benefits.

In looking at your city on the Russian server, I see that you have multiples of a number of powerful buildings, including the Witches Hut. You have three Mermaids Paradises. You are one of the "few special ones" but it seems like you feel like you should be even more special.

It seems like your main concern is that you don't have each and every advantage that a few others have, not newer players who won't be able to obtain even the multiple copies that you have. I don't find your argument that the game should be altered in a way that benefits you to be particularly persuasive.
 

Dl. Goe

Active Member
Simply put, it throws me into a caste system; and I dislike such kind of segregations.

Rill, I don’t know why did you look for me on a russian server, the romanian one would be appropriate. And about your point of view: all buildings that you mention were offered on a regular basis (at least if you count buildings of similar power in the same category). While two of the buildings I mention (that heat this subject more than I expected and make people suddenly blind) are way more powerful than anything else and are the only ones that never appeared again (or something at similar power); that’s way I call it unfair; the difference is clear.



Mihai
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dl. Goe

Active Member
Little bee, based on your last post, I’m ready to believe you are talking in “good will and with common sense” and that’s already something good…at least for me :)


Now, what I don’t understand/agree with you, is why do you consider turning a blind eye as the best solution? At least if you accept that multiple such kind buildings are game changer….especially so as everyone could find multiple solutions: either limit pet food use for only one building of a kind, or allow multiple “powerful buildings” but keep their advantages in check through another term like in squad size formula (could be adopted even for research too, if needed), and these are just two. But until now, no one said I’m right.
 

Rill

Active Member
@Dl. Goe the way I framed my comment was intended to point out the hypocrisy in your attacks on others and suggestions that they are "special" and trying to protect their own interests. It seems that you perceive the parallels.
 

Dl. Goe

Active Member
sorry Rill, but I will end the dialog with you here; you have insulted me and without any reason; if you cannot/don’t want to understand that fair means equality of chances, not of end-results, that’s not my problem. The fact that you peeked on me and then tried to insult me speaks relevantly about you and your practices.

For your information, hypocrisy implies a difference between what you ask the others to respect and rules for yourself; I declared and still believe true that players with multiple bears/phoenix are a “special class”, because the rest of the players don’t have the chance to acquire them; while what you found in my city are buildings offered a few time per year; and by the way, even if I had multiple goodies, it still is inappropriate to call it hypocrisy, as long as I’m asking for the same chances for everyone.
 

palmira

Well-Known Member
Having 2 browns bears and being able to feed only one is the same as having just one brown bear, so basically DI. Goe wants Inno to take away buildings people payed or worked (a lot) for in events. I can understand someone asking for new similar event buildings I really can't figure out how someone thinks is OK to ask for the removal of someone else legitimate buildings
 

Dl. Goe

Active Member
Palmira, believe me, affecting the other players has never been my first option; that’s why my main idea was of a constant increase of prizes value’. On the other hand, whenever devs. agreed that something require a fast a bloody fix, such solutions were implemented (remember the downgrade of the Golden Abyss , when some unlucky people experienced a negative population, or the more recent change in squad size formula, when again some people were heavily affected, to name only two).

Important for me at this moment would be people to agree it is a clearly abnormal situation (two worlds in the same game) and that change should take place; and also, people should agree an such situation must change, regardless if the alternatives are not perfect either….because it is a clear difference between having something with some defects (imperfections) and something that involves segregation (even adopted for a good cause).
 

palmira

Well-Known Member
Important for me at this moment would be people to agree it is a clearly abnormal situation (two worlds in the same game) and that change should take place; and also, people should agree an such situation must change, regardless if the alternatives are not perfect either….because it is a clear difference between having something with some defects (imperfections) and something that involves segregation (even adopted for a good cause).

I guess as for me english is not your first language but it should be obvious that we shouldn't agree with somebody else just because that somebody wants it and uses loads of hyperboles to stress it :) I can't even begin too imagine how you think I or anybody else should agree with you on this

I would suggest you ask for better event buildings and not to remove buildings some players payed for. It is not a good policy
 

edeba

Well-Known Member
It is amazing the number of times we've seen rebalancing for something relatively trivial but the fire phoenix really is as beneficial as having about 5 fully leveled AWs, without an penalty. You get 50% attack on everything.

Needles maximum benefit will give you 40% attack for light range only.
Hero's forge will give 40% attack on heavy melee only.
Dragon abby will give 40% attack on mage units only.
Temple of the the toads will give 40% attack on heavy range only.
Victory springs will give 40% attack on light melee only.

5 AWs will increase your squad size over the minimum by about 45%. So there is a second benefit, and it is difficult to assign value for that second benefit, but for most of them the second benefit is nice.

The squad size increase will make far less of a difference to a player with 2 or 3 fire phoenix that one because far few troops will be lost, and you can get further with far less troops.

This is a massive imbalance.

I think they should set it up so players can get two, or even unlimited, but something like if you have 1 it gives 50%, if you have 2, they are 35% each, and 3, they are 30% each, and 4 25% each, or the second one feeding effect gives 20%, then 15% for the 3rd and 10% for the 4th and each one after that.

At the same time the tournament needs to be fixed so it isn't so stupid in what happens with game advancement.
 

Lelanya

Well-Known Member
Our first clue is the prickly attitude.
Our second clue is the sentence 'you should have looked at my city on the Romanian server'. Scuttlebutt says there is a very extreme version of Elvenar played on their Arendyll and Winyandor. I don't speak the language so I've never been tempted to check for myself.
I have to agree with @palmira in the end. No deal.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Well-Known Member
Quite simple.....allow another Brown Bear and or Fire Phoenix up to a maximum holding of 2 to be introduced....

No, the opposite, sort of. Do not take away the extras, but make it so the same feeding effect no longer stacks. But it is really only the Fire Phoenix that is the problem with all the balancing talk. But how many players, from across all the servers, got more than one set pf Phoenix bases in the event two years ago? One hundred? Two? No one even knew more than one set of bases was even possible until a few players got all the artifacts and there was no prize after that, so they contacted Support and were given another set, and then they were added into the event. Extra Brown Bears are not an issue. Someone has five and feeds them all? Cool, extra troops, not easier battles. But one Pet's feeding effect cannot be limited unless all of them are at the same time.
 

salandrine

Well-Known Member
Isnt it always so, if you are late, you wont get all stuff, others are bearing.

If I start a job, I am a beginner and cant tell the bosses to cut off their salary because I am not getting some percent of their salaries. If I'm diligent, I can earn a lot more with luck at some point. but that just takes time and my diligence. First I have to invest and then maybe I can achieve more.

So, its the same with this game. If you start late, you can get a phoenix and a bear, with some luck, diligent and waiting for month I am able to get some artefacts to level my phenix and my bear.

All players, who startet earlier and got phoenix and bear, worked hard for them and a lot of players even paid with real money. So why should a newby get all these things very easy?

As we used to say in Germany: "You have to be born with a golden spoon in your mouth" to get a phoenix or a bear very soon. Its really fine you are able to work for it and to look forward to see them grow.
 
Last edited:

palmira

Well-Known Member
Men, we really like not hyperboles ( I was being nice there) but fallacies. I specially like comparing the ones that don't agree with you with prosecutors in rigged trials even though the segregation one is a tight second :)

I would think it should be a no brainer that nobody likes to have stuff taken from them specially if by people that didn't realize their importance when that stuff was introduced. And that bother us no end quite aggressively when we don't agree with that removal.

As I said time and again, ask for something, better event buildings, a wonder with a similar effect to the phoenix/Bbear not to remove things from other players. As for the language, fallacies are never a good argument and aggressivity is always a bad idea
 

Dl. Goe

Active Member
No salandrine, you missed the point; obvious someone new has to catch-up; but those 2 building (that bring so much attention) if you have them in multiple copies are “game changer”; and no one (new in the game) has the chance to obtain multiple of them (as most people who yell/insult me have)
 

little bee

Well-Known Member
First of all: Could we please all stop with the personal attacks? We should try to consider an argument based on its merrit and not try to guess an ulterior motive. Nor is it o.k. to classify every opposing oppinion as a personal attack.

Secondly: Dl. Goe I will never agree with you on this.
I am not a very competitive player and picked Elvenar exactly because it is not a competitive game. That means I do not care about ranking lists and I am not bothered by the "unfair advantage" of an other player unless it effects the balance of the game, and thus my own game experience.
For example, when players have multitive libraries, they are destabilizing the global trade and thus harming other players. Therefore I support almost every measure to limit the libraries. But this is not the case with the phoenix or bears. Neither the troops, nor the tournament winnings will directly effect other players. And as I have explained before, there are currently far to few players with multiple fire phoenixes to affect the decisions of the developers. Therefore I do not see a problem with the "unfairness" you are describing.
On the other hand, the "solutions" you are suggesting could quite possibly effect the balance of the whole game. And, in my oppinion, this would result in a worse game for everyone. I have already explained, why I would oppose a powercreep and the resulting gap between event and non-event buildings. But I also belive that a widely available second fire bird would be a bad thing. First of all, it would increase the difference between fighters and traders even more. And there are already a lot of complains about this, as some players simply do not like fighting. Secondly, it would one again increase the tournament winning of the average players. And this would eventually affect the balancing of future chapters. And thirdly, it would effect the actual fighting to much. Personally, I enjoy manual fighting for the actuall game play and the challenge it provides. If I can simply one-hit everything, it would not be fun anymore.

So to summarize, I can not support fixing an "unfair" situation at the cost of damaging the whole game.
If you really want a second fire phoenix, I suggest you contact the support and ask them to offer you a second base for real money. I'm sure, if enogh players ask for that, INNO will eventually will make you all an offer
 

Dl. Goe

Active Member
You are one of the very few who said why they consider something appropriate and not only what they want. I find your opinion acceptable apart from one point: fairness should take precedence over game-play experience, unless you deny something like this exists; and about solving the problem (if it exist) let’s devs. to break their heads with (the truth is none of us has a good one)

And 2 smaller problems:

  • I don’t want a second…something, I consider fair that everyone has the chance to acquire as many as he/she wants (like some players have done it); and no, do not talk about me specially, I have just told you my situation.
If the phrase “we should try to consider an argument based on its merit and not try to guess an ulterior motive” has something with me, please show me where and I have to apologise for that.
 

little bee

Well-Known Member
I find your opinion acceptable apart from one point: fairness should take precedence over game-play experience, [...]
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

If the phrase “we should try to consider an argument based on its merit and not try to guess an ulterior motive” has something with me, please show me where and I have to apologise for that.
I had the feeling you were trying to do something like that in this comment:
But from the way you write, I am almost confident you belong to the special class and only try to defend it by all means…otherwise one could agree for such powerful buildings activating the fed effect should be allowed only for one building at any time.
Personally, I was not offended by the comment, but I have the feeling that others might have been. And it seems to have spiraled a little out of control. Hopefully everyone can try to calm down a little.
 

Dl. Goe

Active Member
little bee,
Ok, you found one, yes, it was fishing, my bad; all that I can say in my defence is that next answer to you says: I believe you talk in good will and with common sense; but if you look at the rest of the posts…

And yes, agree to disagree, game-play over principals, if you say so; my only hope now is that a great person might appear and say: “Let justice be done though the games fall.” ;)
 

GrayEyes

Active Member
I am a player Elvenar.tr . I have one fire phoenix and a brown bear, my tournament is dead, I'm only in the game for my friends.
And yes, agree to disagree, game-play over principals, if you say so; my only hope now is that a great person might appear and say: “Let justice be done though the games fall.” ;)

“Let justice be done though the games fall.”
 
Top