Latten wrote: »
Nah, our players are really clever for figuring this out, no discussion here. It was us who missed this completely, that's why we'll have to change up the game for it to work with everything else.
Latten wrote: »
It's never 100% fair to take away something from a player, be it as little as it hopefully will be. So yeah, if you pin that question down on me, I will of course say that it isn't fair for players who are at 100% right now, if you look at them apart from everything else.
But, in the bigger picture, yes, I'd say it is fair for the playerbase as a whole, due to the reasons I listed.
I honestly don't know if there would be an option that would be fair to absolutely everyone. I know though that our game designers and balancers tried to touch this issue as fair as possible, and to come up with a solution that is probably best for the game alltogether, even if it might raise some questions first.
Latten wrote: »
Of course those players didn't break rules on purpose, we are completely aware of that. If we wanted to actually "punish" them, we could just have set up a building limit for production buildings, some weird "you have to build more deco" messages, even just banned those players without further explanation (and yes, I have indeed seen that on other online games when players discovered a "exploit", in lack of a better word).
Foxenas2 wrote: »
Calm down? Why? Moderators spent so much effort infuriating us, it would be unrespectful of their hard work.
EricaJ wrote: »
Firstly - the pop-up / covering the screen with offers insanity seems to have subsided, so thanks for that. In their absence, I'm back to playing and enjoying this game again - if you continue with the current rate, I might actually start reading them again, and perhaps even take you up on some of them.
On Topic: From a game designer's point of view, I believe these changes are desirable and necessary.
It never made much sense to me that I could reduce my operating costs to zero by placing decorations. It also created a false economy in the minds of many players who believe that -100% is a worthwhile goal, when the truth is that in many cases, their farms could be both more productive and more profitable if they built more production facilities and paid a little in operating costs.
On the other end of the scale, +300% operating costs was an arbitrarily chosen bottom. I would think that a farm with massive numbers of workers and production facilities with no decorations whatsoever would have workers going on strike and walking off the job, and production halted on at least some of the buildings. Of course, +500% is also an arbitrarily chosen bottom - I would think the strategic value of those decisions would be more interesting if the actual bottom would make the farm lose money. At that point, players would need to decide how much $ they could afford to lose on that farm in exchange for a little more production - but I suppose a bottom is necessary for those players who don't want to do the math calculations to figure it all out.
So - although I do agree with the changes in the formula, I can also appreciate the frustration and anger of those players who will be instantly impacted in a very big way by it. I think GGS should have given much more than a few days' notice for a change of this magnitude.
i don't see it as a gold grab - the best decorations in the game are offered for free by completing events - and most of the people who have built +300% farms probably also have a lot of decorations in their inventories and dropboxes. If they cannot accept the +500% operating costs, they need only to destroy a few buildings and replace them with decorations already in inventory.
A few general notes about spending real money on game gold: It's entertainment expense. GGS does give players some gold options that offer long-term benefits: such as the water tower, workshop, blue-roofed housing, library boosts, land expansions, and decorations. Gold spent to rush building or production is not an investment, but an expenditure to receive an immediate benefit in not having to wait for the cycle to complete. (I admit it does feel a little different when the Architect comes calling, though - because rushing building at that time makes it possible to get more upgrades in the same Architect visit.)
Online gaming is all about change, and adapting to it. While I don't really like all of the changes, I do applaud GGS for keeping the game fresh and interesting. GGS is not really moving the goalposts, because they did not set those goalposts - players are free to set their own personal goals in this game. I suppose it is true that something that was formerly achievable (zero operating costs) will no longer be possible, thus causing players working toward that goal to be unable to get there - but that goal was chosen by the players, not GGS.
Anyhoo - JMHO.[/QUOTE
My thoughts exactly. I think people are overreacting to the situation and should wait until the update happens to voice their opinion. What pains me the most is that these comments are influencing others that do not understand how little this will effect everyone in the grands scheme of things.
Colburk552 wrote: »
What? GGS is now requiring people to have decorations on their farm? This is awfully like the government requiring U.S. citizens to have health insurance. Never mind that not everybody can afford health insurance, or even if they could it wouldn't pay anything when they needed it. It was never stated that I had to have decorations. Only that it would be good idea since production costs would be less that way. At any rate, with a maxed farm like mine with almost twice as much production I make the same amount of cash because the +300% eats half my income. Why are you changing the "penalty" to +500%? Is it because farms like mine are "unfair" to other players? How so? Because I can produce more? Like I said I get no benefit for a maxed farm although my co-op does because I can help to finish co-op projects better. Do you know what actually is "unfair" to other players? Gold Barns! Fertile Fields! Gold Decos! The stupid gold mining licenses that one can only get by buying extraordinary amounts of gold! These things allow golders to produce a heck of a lot more stuff and a heck of a lot more cash with it that non-golders have to try and compete with. These are the things that give "unfair" advantages to certain players; especially during the missions. If maxed farms are "unfair" then blue farms are much, more, unfair. At any rate, maxed farms are the only way that non-golders can even try to compete with golders. Please don't change the happiness bar from what it is now!
Latten wrote: »
I have to say I never thought of the option to play the game this way It's great what you guys are able to figure out over time, really!
uksharon3 wrote: »
exactly meaning demolish more cow shed and chicken coops and apples to free workers to be able to demolish the houses then when i have the correct amount of houses and get the architect to upgrade the rest that are left i could then start and build some cow shed back erm no way how do i delete my account from the forum i know how to delete game.
Colburk552 wrote: »
Now he condemns it as "unfair." Latten, which is it now? Is maxed farming a "great option to play the game" or is it "unfair to other farmers"? GGS is displaying communist tendencies under the cover of fairness.
Marcella59 wrote: »
I'm wondering if this doesn't have something to do with how quick those of us who run +300% farms are finishing these events. I'm on step 5 and no gold was involved. I always run 2 cherries, I built 2 extra. I saved those cherries until I got to the blossom step. I run 4 pigs, I built 4 more. My farm is totally set up to run events, and yes, this means I run at +300. Which means I help my co-op in the process. Just something to think about.
Instant Ocean wrote: »
JAYSTAR : As usual, so well put my friend. You are a witty one and expressed part of what I was about to say.
LATTEN: Explain this one to me because so far, you have failed to do so. I get that GGS wish to correct a screw up that THEY designed and never foreseen... Why am I not surprised here... I dunno. But this is FACTUAL as you said it numerous times. Now, to me that is fine and by looking at how the game is set up, it is true that it was most def not intended to be played with no decos. So let's say I'm fine about that part of the GGS solution of making it to -500% if you play this way. BUT...
What I do not get, and this is what I want you to answer me please: Why do you penalize players that ARE PLAYING the game the WAY GGS WANTED TO and achieved -100% happiness? WHY? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And please don't tell me that your team of genius devs cannot figure out a way to make it so this correction doesn't affect players that are playing the game as intended. I will not buy it. NEVER.
For one thing, and trust me, I almost fell off my chair, I agree with Monica here. You guys keep giving us things we never asked for and give some BS stuff we don't want and to top it off, GGS always finds a way to screw it up with bugs and are not fixing them. Why don't you fix the damn game and then, implement stuff players want. But no, this would be too logical. Instead, turn around and penalize the whole group for a small group of players you claim are exploiting the game... Well sorry mate, but if it is allowed, it is not an exploit. Now you decide to change it as it was not your intention. FINE, change it.... But don't penalize players that are not using that FAULT that GGS created.
I am eager to hear you on that one mate... and please, be precise.
PS: I'm not angry at you Latten as you have nothing to do with all this... but sorry mate, you are the First Line of GGS and our go-to person. Also, I might sound a bit "demanding". Well guess what buddy... I have spent hundreds of dollars on that game... I'm entitled to DEMAND a clear and logical explanation as why my investment will now lose its value. How the hell will you compensate me? If you were a company that I hired for services, I'd sue your.... "rear-end" (talking about GGS here, not you personally).
Leader of Funny Times