Join the official Goodgame Big Farm Discord today!
Are you looking for a community of like-minded farmers to discuss your farming experience with? Look no further than the GoodGame Big Farm Discord Server!
Our server is the perfect place to connect with other farmers from around the world. Whether you're looking to chat about strategy, share tips and tricks, or just make new friends, our community has got you covered.
And that's not all - as a member of our Discord server, you'll also have access to exclusive giveaways and other special events. It's the perfect way to stay up to date on all the latest news and updates from GoodGame Studios.
So what are you waiting for? Join the GoodGame Big Farm Discord Server today and start connecting with fellow farmers from all over the world. Just click here to join the fun!
Comments
I dont get why players don't understand that buying rep points is wrong. My group actually won the coop challenge but only because it was agreed between my team and the team in second place that we would not lower ourselves to cheating and buy rep points and the victory.
The responses by the mods in this thread so far suggest that Yes, there will be another shameful hot deal. It wont upset me to the point of boycotting the challenge but I still think its cheating and GGS need to take a long hard look at themselves. Some players compete in missions hours upon hours putting in hard work to help their team and that can be wiped away by a few mouse clicks from another player using the Hot Deal. That isn't wrong???
If it will help your cooperative I don't care. As long as GGS is supported by it I am fine with others "winning." They just get better rewards. Without it cooperatives still get rewards too. I hope they have it again.
And why is it wrong? If you don't like it then don't use it. If you think it isn't fair then who said it had to be? This is a farming game. Some people are at higher levels than others, isn't that unfair?
As to the comment of company needing money, this game is the most expensive game I"ve ever played, and the one with the most brutal push to spending. There might be worse than this, just saying I don't know any.
As the old saying goes: "Love of money is the root of all evil." And here we go ..................
I do agree with those saying that buying a victory is a form of cheating and as such spoils the game. That the company (especially as greedy as this one) abuses their powers in this way I can sort of understand. What might seem harder to understand at first sight, that even some players would fall for this fake. But everywhere there's always been people who wanted to buy everything without actually working for anything.
As a side note: Wonder when our olympic atletes will start winning the races based on who pays the biggest sum of money. No sweat in prep needed no more, just have big sponsors. Instead of wathichng race tracks all we will need to do is just watch cash flow board.
Good side? I can live without co-op cherry. And hopefully they don't mess up this growing difference betwen spenders and non spenders (or big and small spenders) to the point that free game looses it's meaning.
Ok, then let's take an example from the real world, let take a running competition, where the runner have to run a 100 meter distance...
But one of the players have payed some dollars to somebody, so he only have to run 50 m to be the winner.
- do you see that as a fair competition?
EDIT: Just noticed, the reward screen in the tent says: "Every cooperative member receives this hard work reward." Really, can't the game makers tell the difference? Blinded by money?
It's no longer just a game issue. It's undoubtedly a moral appeal. Hey, GGS, will you correct yourself and improve your moral standards? Or your company name Good Game Studios is yet another form of deception?.
PS: Brian, your example is great, but let me suggest here: What's promoted by GGS is not just winning 100 m race on 50 m track erazing the remaining 50 m for that cheating athlete by "donation", it's actually the option of winning that race without ever appearing on the racing track at all.
Let take a different example:
You are running for charity. If you finish the race, the Gigantic Ginormous Syndicate will donate $25,000 in your name to the charity. You finish. Yay! As you do, you see that someone else has, instead of running, taken a limo, and earned the charity another $25,000 dollars. How do you feel?
For me, the answer is, happy.
-Y
Edit> Look, I think that buying Rep is inane. I'll never do it, its not worth it to me. I just think the outcry over 'winning' and 'losing' in the competition is overstated. That may be because, despite it being called a competition, I don't care about winning and losing. I care about what my Co-op mates get as a benefit. If one of my co-op mates doesn't want to put in the time, but still wants to help us out by buying rep, that doesn't bother me. And it doesn't bother me if everyone in every other co-op buys their Rep.
Very good point Gizmo.
- And I'm afraid I'll feel "a little" angry, if I have make a lot of rp by hard working, and and then another member push me away from the positiopn to get a fruit orchard, just by a few mouse clicks, without doing any missions.
Yes, thanks you point that out in a better example.
That said, just because I worked hard for my 1,750,000 whatever rep, doesn't mean my 1,750,000 contributed anymore to my Co-op's getting rewards than someone who bought 1,750,000 rep. They count the same in terms of co-op rewards. The difference is, I gave my time. They gave their money.
A lot depends on whether you think time, or money is more valuable. And where you fall on the scale, in terms of the Co-op challenges 'value' is how much of either you will be willing to put in.
-Y
What if that someone taking limo has robbed you of your victory you would otherwise gained by running, taking your reward away? As this is what is actually happening here. By using incorrect examples one can easily conceal the issue.
Cool. I actually don't care about winning either - not at this type of "money champíonship" anyway. Now the thing is, with this purely materialistic approach, what's the point of playing a game or competing at all when we can just buy everything with money? Why would for example two people sit over the chess board for hours using their wits, when at the end someone can just rearange the stones on the board to winning position, ignoring the rules of competition and the whole process of competing at all? Is it really just about "what we can get no matter how?" Is there no other values involved?
EDIT: I had to laugh at myself after posting my response and reading your new post.
It seems like I got my answer already.
Happy "gaming" to everyone.
I'll try to say this again. I feel the point of the Co-op Challenge, is to benefit the co-op. That means the value in it, for me, is ENTIRELY in the co-op rewards for gaining reputation. Thus my charity analogy works perfectly for me.
Your chess analogy works not at al for me (or I feel for the co-op challenge)l, because that is a 1-1 struggle with one reward. Win. Or lose. If you said, just by playing, my whole family, or a charity, or some such, would get a benefit, then it would be equal to how I feel about the Co-op challenge.
I know, and realize that many people get caught up in the winning and losing of the challenge. But compare a handful (less really) of seaweed items earned individually for finishing top 4 to the benefits to the co-op (including yourself) that can be earned. Its miniscule. So, since the top 2 co-op already colluded and agreed not to buy rep, So really all the griping is about the top 15 or so co-ops fighting for the top 10 slots (A very small portion of the people, at least on the US server). I happen to be in one. And let me just say that if we end up 11th, for whatever reason, I'll say, good job! And not care in the least how they did it.
-Y
edit> Oh I should add, the reason I don't care is not one of those top 15 Co-ops, didn't spend gold to get Rep. Whether for library books, rushing in a mission, or buying it. Its all the same.
With respect, I feel that saying the value is entirely in the rewards, is a very materialistic view of the challenge. For a lot of people, me included, much of the value of the challenge lies in the teamwork, planning, strategizing, and winning - or losing - on the basis of merit. It is not all about just buying rewards. Taking that viewpoint to its logical conclusion, why bother to play the game at all? Why not just crack out the credit card and buy everything? It's not just the end result (the rewards) that matters, it's the journey taken to get to that end result. I don't play a game primarily for rewards, but because I enjoy the "journey" of becoming skilled at playing the game and achieving things. Buying RPs with a credit card isn't much of an achievement in my eyes.
No I don't think it would be fair, who said life was fair? If the other runner didn't like the rules then he doesn't have to race. Or he could do the same thing, or he could try his best and take what reward he got. I did very well without spending any gold on that offer. We don't have members that would waste money on that offer. It is useless, but for the top 10 cooperatives, let them use it and fight for the top spot. It is a war with no end. They can be the top ones if they want. As for my cooperative, we have no chance of making the top 10 so we don't mind. We just do our best as a team for the cooperative. None of us use the offer. In the cooperative we are Equally United. Let the other be what they want, "unfair," "cheater", anything.
It is not win or lose. It is only win. Getting a rewards is truly winning.
Not rewards for myself. Rewards for the Co-op. Its one of the few times and ways that a high level, experienced player can help out lower level compatriots. None of the rewards, barring the trophy, actually help me at all. So I think 'materialistic' in this case is a little harsh.
I play the game to relax, and enjoy myself. I pride myself on picking strategies that aren't the norm. I have 1 ducks, and over -83 costs due to happiness (-89,-93, -83 to be exact. Unlike the prevailing wind of higher level players). And making them successful (i.e. I made enough cash, while doing the Viking farm w/ gold to successfully earn a pearl on Island without spending gold the game didn't give me... Having a top 10 horse in the diamond ladder... etc).
How much of a strategy is it really, if everyone is doing it?
But mostly, anymore, I play for the camaraderie in the co-op chat room. Helping out others. And apparently, though goodness knows why, to comment on the forums and get abused (Not from you!). I must like that for some reason. Maybe I should talk about it with my shrink...
As for the Co-op Championship.... There are three kinds of players, so I'll post a brain teaser (This is for you, Runs!
Player A puts in a lot of time and effort, but no gold in any form (Libraries, fancy housing for more productions, etc), and earns 1,750,000 rep for their co-op.
Player B puts in some time and effort, and some gold, and earns 1,750,000 rep for their co-op.
Player C puts in no effort, and buys 1,750,000 rep for their co-op.
Who benefitted their co-op most?
Who feels the best about themselves?
Who thinks they used all the resources available to them the best?
Who has the most free time during the 6 days?
-Y
It's called championship and hard work reward. And be it individual within co-op or co-ops among themselves (this actually doesn't matter at all) it's not really much of a game, sport, fair play ........... whatever ...........if you can just buy the results with money. Unless it's that spending competition, of course. Purely materialistic/economy approach may prevent people from understanding this in fact a very simple thing.
Btw nicely put, Pingo.
Hint: @Yokoska: Try to view things for what they truly are, not for what you want them to be. That might help.
EDIT: Btw the issue of "corruption" of this type I and others have pointed out is not just with buying rep points, but a lot more widespread in this game, if you think about it. It only become strikingly visible, almost shamefull at this point. Well for some people anyway.
Cash fights moral values. Who will the final winner be?
The first one, yeah, from a competition standpoint. Horrible. But this one, is fair in that you know about it up front.
-Y
That one did make me laugh :thumbsup: .... This is a game, presumably one that people play in their "free time", if I wanted to use my free time to do something else, I wouldn`t be spending it playing the game in the first place lol 8|
*head explodes from thinking too hard*
-Y
Cool. We are getting somwhere I think. Will skip the question if we really know, as moderators didn't confirm anything unless I overlooked.
Now that's exactly what the complaint is about. Paying for position in competition. Whether you know it in advance or not, it still is a form of "corruption".
You go for state exams, and it doesn't matter if you know your subject or not. You know ahead of time you can pay instead of learn.
You go for marathon, and it doesn't matter if you are a world class athlete. You know in advance that you can buy a position in that race with money ............................
Call it whatever, it still is .......... a game spoiler .......... corruption.
It can be justified though as a "spending competition". But I don't think anybody started to play this game as a money game, or did they?
I have never thought it fair that for the Olympics many countries offer full support and a live in village for their team members and support their families while others scrap for every penny but it has and probably never will change.
That's why I said there's more to this "corruption" issue in this game. It just become way too obvious and in a way "offensive" to good moral standards on this specific direct rep points buy issue. Let's say the proverbial cup was filled to the brim. So you are absolutely correct. Competitions can be easily won and many rep points gained by just repetedly finishing production with gold. Which is basically the same thing, but at least you still have to play. While with direct rp purchase you just come, pay (not play), win, grab the reward and go. Thanks very much for this type of game.
I'm trying to think of a real world situation where any of your examples actually exist. The exam one is closest I guess. Lets say I am a poor student studying hard to get a good grade and I earn an A on an exam. Nice, I feel great about myself, and theoretically I have learned a lot that I can put into practice.
Now I'm a rich student, I study some, my parents buy me the best tutors, so I don't have to work that hard to get an A. I learn the tricks of test taking, etc. I feel like I have manipulated the system to my advantage. I have gotten what I need out of it. Primarily happy parents.
Now I'm a student athlete who values football above learning. I know this school offers 'shortcuts' to kids like me and I take advantage. I get an A. And I'm happy because I can focus on what is more important to me.
All these kids get A's. And none of them should, in my opinion, feel cheated. They each got what they wanted.
-Y
Edit> Anyone not aware that money is a part of this game before getting past the "crate dropping from the sky" part of the early levels simply wasn't paying attention.
We seem to be talking/thinking on different lines. What you say may be viewed as sort of an unfair advantage for those having money, but is still nowhere near to actually buying the exams or buying the position in a race. The difference between getting help for training/study and paying for exams/race result should not be so difficult to see. Neither should the moral implications of each case. As I suggested, try to see things for what they are, without softening the issue by unrelated false paralels.
To tease you by yet another example, let me ask you, how happy you would be to go to a dentist, who just payed for his licence, without studying.
Btw all I was trying to point out to you by these examples is the fact, that knowing before the race/exam/competition that you can cheat by paying doesn't change anything about the fact that it still is a cheat. And the society which allows/supports that is understood to be a corrupt society. And before you try to invent yet another false justification for cheating read my first paragraph again.
Anyway, I think I've posted enough about such a simple issue already.
Yes they can join and will get any gifts you earn after they join (not those earned before they came to coop). Their rep pt count for coop starts when they join not when the challenge starts. If they leave during the challenge their pts are deducted from your coop total and have to be re-earned by remaining members. Gifts are not taken back but you have may have to rebuild the total for that one again.
Furthermore let's be real here, this isn't a true intent to make competitions fair and square because clearly this outcry is nothing more then some wanting to selectively cherry pick the use of gold, while clearly not wanting to give up their own preferred use of gold and the benefits they reap from it in competitions.....yet they claim to want a upright fair and square competition...rolmao...hogwash!!! seriously how do some of you keep a straight face. If you truly wanted upright fair and square competitions, you would have asked that all gold use and gold add on's be blocked during competitions...not selectively blocked.
ALL FTP games are designed to earn money through in-game purchases. I knew this when i signed up for the game and so did the rest of you complaining. I understood that promotional gold offers were to be expected at just about every aspect of game play because......that's right....((( it's a FTP game )))
No hard feelings at all. Your justifications and parallels ring just as falsely to me. Shrug. Oh well.
As for the Dentist, I don't go to a dentist whose diploma is from the online university of a county I've never heard of for just that reason. If you want to equate GGS to an irreputable university, that's your prerogative. I don't see it, which is why I enjoy my visits to Big Farm.
-Y
Edit> DeAnna, there does seem to be some element of truth in your comment about cherry picking the use of gold.