Home EN Discussion Corner for the official announcements

Join the official Goodgame Big Farm Discord today!Join our Big Farm Discord Server


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!

Update Oct 8th - Nothing to see here, move along - Discussion

16

Comments

  • writegirlwritegirl Posts: 8
    edited 14.10.2014
    I'm beginning to feel like a rat in a maze, where they close off every other way out, except the way THEY want me to go.

    You Will play zee game our way, or you WILL be punished!

    "This isn't the way the game is SUPPOSED to be played!"

    Really? I thought a strategy game was supposed to be left up to the strategy of the player. I guess I was wrong.
  • Pameow (AU1)Pameow (AU1) AU1 Posts: 266
    edited 15.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »
    Again, and I said so before: Feel free to discuss the general matter of pro and cons of the "buy wares" button and how a market would change things, but don't make this a discussion about the Brazilian forums.

    Thank you very much.

    Nothing to see here, move along. Going to tell us what to think next?
  • Latten (DE1)Latten (DE1) Posts: 6,246
    edited 15.10.2014
    sdfktgk wrote: »
    How can we discuss an element of which you/GGS give nothing but veiled hints at? We had to drone on and on at great length before you even hinted at it. Maybe tell us about it and we might discuss it. Just come out with an update post of what you plan and THEN you have the right to say if the thread is veering off course. Come on now, we can talk about something you don't tell us what it is? Think about what you are saying and the hypocracy involved.

    But I did, repeatedly. We are testing how removing the "buy wares" button out of a particular menu affects playstyle and behaviour of players, mainly new players who didn't get used to how it usually works. This test will run for 1,2 months, until enough data is collected (I can't say for sure how long it will be, I would if I could), and then the test will be over.
    We will take our findings and use them to create a new option to buy/sell things, which for now we'll call a "market".

    There are absolutely no plans whatsoever to take out all 'buy' options completely, but right now, they hurt the game more than they help, due to various reasons.
    Pameow wrote: »
    Nothing to see here, move along. Going to tell us what to think next?

    The update name was obviously not chosen because of that matter, but as a pun about how there are no real changes regarding this forum's server at all.
  • roadrunnernm (US1)roadrunnernm (US1) US1 Posts: 287
    edited 15.10.2014
    I feel like I am listening to the politicians in Washington, DC with all this double speak about "markets" and testing for 2 months, data collection, play style and player behavior and "no real changes" regarding "this forum's server at all"... really?? and what next... will the game try to sell us a Brooklyn Bridge deco?
  • mariachi (RO1)mariachi (RO1) Posts: 7,850
    edited 15.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »
    We are testing how removing the "buy wares" button out of a particular menu affects playstyle and behaviour of players, mainly new players who didn't get used to how it usually works. This test will run for 1,2 months, until enough data is collected (I can't say for sure how long it will be, I would if I could), and then the test will be over.
    We will take our findings and use them to create a new option to buy/sell things, which for now we'll call a "market".
    This test brings tremendous distress to tens of thousands of players. "Until enough data is collected" could also mean 6 months, if old players quit the game and new players find it to difficult to play with no buying option at all, so they quit too.
    If you need data to "create a new option", it means you are quite far from implementing this new feature. Maybe it will take another 6 months until the so-called market comes online.
    So, the torment of tens of thousands of players will have no immediate result. If you would have created a test-server and ask for new players there, this all process of gathering data would have been quicker and much, much more appreciated by the community.
    Plus, you could have used the server for future testing of whatever craziness comes to your mind next. Small investment with huge benefits. But as we already know, "thinking" and "brainstorming" is not a strong point of GGS developers...

    If, on the contrary, you are close to finish the market, why not test the market itself? Give people some option of buying and adjust the figures on the fly.
    Your choice of testing is simple cruel and brutal. The worse option of them all.
    Latten wrote: »
    There are absolutely no plans whatsoever to take out all 'buy' options completely, but right now, they hurt the game more than they help, due to various reasons.
    But that's exactly what you did!!! Took the "buy" option out completely from entire communities!! You hurt the game, you, GGS, not the players, no matter what they do!!!

    Can you give as sample of those "various reasons"? There are some pretty smart people here on the forum, maybe you should bring the developers here for a talk, I'm sure we can solve your problems fast and without any further damage to Italian and Brazilian servers.
  • SystemSystem Posts: 106,969
    edited 15.10.2014
    hi
    The not buying produce is the worst idea I've yet seen


  • Twiglet (GB1)Twiglet (GB1) GB1 Posts: 1,174
    edited 15.10.2014
    Just like the happiness changes a lot did not like that there was a lot of people who left because they felt they had spent real money on the game for it to just be washed down the pan ( i for one was very unhappy) now this i totally agree that this is another bad idea and more unhappy players but after this there will be another and another until there is no one left to play the game about time you listened to the players. So glad i have decided to delete my farms and move on i have never come across a game that rules change half way through playing. When i sit and think of what i used the gold for that i had purchased throughout playing for 2 years and what i had to show for it after all the changes that wasted my real money makes me realise i will never use real money on any online game again.
  • writegirlwritegirl Posts: 8
    edited 15.10.2014
    We're doing this because of REASONS that we will not tell you!

    Due to various reasons? Would those reasons be that people were not buying enough gold? Not playing the way GGS THINKS the game should be played??? Hurting the game or hurting the GGS coffers?

    That GGS doesn't care about the people who have played the game a while and invested real money into it? That they like to see the monkeys dance? I guess since "experiments" are done on monkeys, that must be what we're seen as.

    Because from where I'm sitting, the players don't seem to feel the game is hurting. Only the people herding us into playing the game one way. Their way.

    Double-talk indeed. Various reasons? For real? REALLY REALLY?

    Most companies would see what a huge mistake they've made, cut their losses, and do a mea culpa. Not GGS. Nope. They're doubling down and making people even more pissed off.
  • Griffith (INT1)Griffith (INT1) Posts: 768
    edited 15.10.2014
    stop the test on the selected few servers,
    either cancel the whole thing or bring the whole new "market" feature on "all" servers first then we'll talk about "reasons", if u need data, make a beta test server.
    atm what u are doing is just killing the game.
  • Trippel (NL1)Trippel (NL1) Posts: 299
    edited 15.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »
    We will take our findings and use them to create a new option to buy/sell things, which for now we'll call a "market".

    There are absolutely no plans whatsoever to take out all 'buy' options completely, but right now, they hurt the game more than they help, due to various reasons.

    If i read this correctly, the buy option is hurting the game and therefore you create a new option and you call it a market. So there will be a market without the buy option?

    Finally i understand why the fairytale tower is a themed deco.
  • Pameow (AU1)Pameow (AU1) AU1 Posts: 266
    edited 15.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »

    The update name was obviously not chosen because of that matter, but as a pun about how there are no real changes regarding this forum's server at all.

    I understand you intended it as a pun and how there were no major changes on this server in the update.

    The big problem is your staff were concurently attempting to hide the biggest, and most nasty change on *other* servers. That is some irony there.

    In order to conduct the most damage control, please allow all players to vent their (justifiable) anger, rather than dictating the topic of conversation at this critical (to your future wages) time. Its no use pretending it will go away. Psych 101 has much to say about ethics in experiments and there are apparent violations here. Who is to say that our servers will not get similar treatment some other time? We have concerns which need to be voiced.

    Simply, your company has been found out. Restoration to the effected servers players with some compensation to them will be the least GG$ can do right now.
  • Latten (DE1)Latten (DE1) Posts: 6,246
    edited 15.10.2014
    Alex_mosu wrote: »
    This test brings tremendous distress to tens of thousands of players. "Until enough data is collected" could also mean 6 months
    It won't. We repeatedly told a very specific time frame, which would be 1-2 months, so it should be end of November at most.
    If, on the contrary, you are close to finish the market, why not test the market itself? Give people some option of buying and adjust the figures on the fly.
    Your choice of testing is simple cruel and brutal. The worse option of them all.
    Because the market is not even close to being ready yet - that's what the test is for, to figure out how to do the market best.
    Can you give as sample of those "various reasons"? There are some pretty smart people here on the forum, maybe you should bring the developers here for a talk, I'm sure we can solve your problems fast and without any further damage to Italian and Brazilian servers.

    Of course. This is the main problem: The game was built around production and organizing said production chains, not about "just" buying everything one needs. When we built in the option to buy all wares as needed, the game was way smaller, the buy option was not remotely as essential to overall gameplay as it is now. With the ship and everything regarding the Farm environment it's now possible to skip a substantial part of the game now, only through buying wares, and that's something we clearly didn't anticipate or want to happen.

    Personally, I also think that the game will change gameplay to be a lot more specialized, so it won't be able to do everything at once all the time, through just buying the ingredients to do so. We might see a bit of a change in this direction as well, but - again - that's just me thinking about various little things I heard and suspect, so don't take my word for it yet.

    We are not trying to hurt the players here. The affected servers just are the best platforms to effectively see how this change is taken by mainly new players. Of course I am completely aware that this can be super annoying for players who use the 'buy' option often right now, but we will stop the test when it's done, and even if we will take out this option to buy wares, we will add another one, in form of said market.

    It's not great for a lot of players, but honestly I think "torment" might be a bit far fetched here.

    Pameow wrote: »
    In order to conduct the most damage control, please allow all players to vent their (justifiable) anger, rather than dictating the topic of conversation at this critical (to your future wages) time. Its no use pretending it will go away. Psych 101 has much to say about ethics in experiments and there are apparent violations here. Who is to say that our servers will not get similar treatment some other time? We have concerns which need to be voiced.

    Simply, your company has been found out. Restoration to the effected servers players with some compensation to them will be the least GG$ can do right now.

    Of course, feel free to discuss everything. I can assure you we won't censor any discussion, or shut it up all together, as long as everyone keeps it on a civil level. Usually this agreement works perfectly, and as long as the discussion keeps away from actually insulting people (including GGS staff) or, well, just goes completely bonkers, I have no problem with leaving it open and free to discuss.

    Also, we will of course compensate all players on the affected servers. I can not tell you what exactly the compensation will be, but of course we will find something appropriate.
  • RunsWivScissors (GB1)RunsWivScissors (GB1) GB1 Posts: 6,633
    edited 15.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »
    Also, we will of course compensate all players on the affected servers. I can not tell you what exactly the compensation will be, but of course we will find something appropriate.

    Thats all I wanted to hear .... Giving them a bit of warning would have been nice, but I am glad they will be compensated. ^^
  • Latten (DE1)Latten (DE1) Posts: 6,246
    edited 15.10.2014
    Thats all I wanted to hear .... Giving them a bit of warning would have been nice, but I am glad they will be compensated. ^^

    We would have loved to give an earlier warning, sadly we hadn't much of a chance :)
  • Trippel (NL1)Trippel (NL1) Posts: 299
    edited 15.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »
    Also, we will of course compensate all players on the affected servers. I can not tell you what exactly the compensation will be, but of course we will find something appropriate.
    Latten wrote: »
    While a 200% PT is definitively out of the question, there may be something coming up on the next weekend :) Keep your eyes peeled!

    Some players may be glad to hear a promise, personally I actually like to see it happen.
  • writegirlwritegirl Posts: 8
    edited 15.10.2014
    Thank you for taking the time to explain everything in a thorough and respectful manner. The more cryptic it got, I think, the more frustrated people got.

    Also, thank you for not censoring the posts as most forums do.

    Perhaps if it was explained to everyone a bit earlier with all of the reasons, it wouldn't have blossomed out of control like this. Just a suggestion, but maybe in the future, these kind of things can be planned out a little better, to minimize the damage. That post would have been great at the top of this section.
  • EstreliciaEstrelicia Posts: 21
    edited 15.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »
    Also, we will of course compensate all players on the affected servers. I can not tell you what exactly the compensation will be, but of course we will find something appropriate.

    This may make all look a bit less wrong, but it will not make right in any way, if GGS wanted the data of live server, the most advisable choice would have been the replication of live servers in test servers and to invite players to play on it, many gaming platforms do it.

    You said that GGS is going to compensate all players in the affected servers, but I have read all 52 pages of this topic in the Portuguese/Brazilian Forum, and I can assure you that compensation was never mentioned there, what we were told there is that GGS won't stop the test and that it will run for at least 2-3 months.

    The way things are going in the Brazilian server, GGS must really come out with a very, very, very good compensation, or the server will soon start to fall apart. Players are very distressed there, which is probably a common feeling to all affected servers, Brazilian server is just an example because it's the reality I know(I have friends that play on it) and I like to comment based on real facts.
  • Latten (DE1)Latten (DE1) Posts: 6,246
    edited 15.10.2014
    Estrelicia wrote: »
    This may make all look a bit less wrong, but it will not make right in any way, if GGS wanted the data of live server, the most advisable choice would have been the replication of live servers in test servers and to invite players to play on it, many gaming platforms do it.

    You said that GGS is going to compensate all players in the affected servers, but I have read all 52 pages of this topic in the Portuguese/Brazilian Forum, and I can assure you that compensation was never mentioned there, what we were told there is that GGS won't stop the test and that it will run for at least 2-3 months.

    We will add some kind of "test server" eventually, but as it is now, we would need a different client software (the part of the game that's actually on your pc while playing) for every minor change, which would make it nearly impossible to work with. This is a plan we have for the future though, so things like this are hopefully no longer necessary. It's actually been worked on right now, as we speak.

    Regarding your other point, I already asked to not discuss the Brazilian/Portuguese forums in here. While I'm sure it has been said over there as well, I don't want to discuss the moderation of said forums in this forum, since it's unfair for all the CMs and Mods that can't defend themselves, and to all other players who can't understand the language. Please let's be respectful and not do that.
  • EstreliciaEstrelicia Posts: 21
    edited 15.10.2014
    [Again and warned: No discussion of the PT/BR CM/Moderation actions in the EN boards. I'm pretty sure I made myself clear at this point, so all future comments on that particular matter will result in another warning | Latten]
  • cristybr01cristybr01 Posts: 3
    edited 15.10.2014
    As a player in a certain affected server I woud like to thank you Latten!
    That was a pretty much quick action! It's there....
  • SystemSystem Posts: 106,969
    edited 16.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »
    There are absolutely no plans whatsoever to take out all 'buy' options completely, but right now, they hurt the game more than they help, due to various reasons.

    I think it is safe to say that you have many interested parties in this thread who would really, REALLY like to know SPECIFICALLY just how the "buy" option is hurting the game. Just what, exactly, are the various reasons?

    ETA: I see this explanation, I do:

    With the ship and everything regarding the Farm environment it's now possible to skip a substantial part of the game now, only through buying wares, and that's something we clearly didn't anticipate or want to happen.

    and I get that it might be possible to fulfill *parts* of the ship's cargo via the buy option (or maybe the entire cargo, if a player hasn't activated the island farm). I understand that. But how else does it allow players to "skip a substantial part of the game" or "everything regarding the Farm environment"???

    I'm sorry, I just really can't understand 1) why buying, even if prevalent, should be considered so "bad" and 2) how it could possibly negatively impact every aspect of the game.

    So thank you for offering some of the "reasons" but the vagueness is still troubling.
  • kbahr007 (US1)kbahr007 (US1) US1 Posts: 1,841
    edited 16.10.2014
    Until recently there was never any mention of the buy issue. Not until the financial report did i start hearing about it, could it be that they are looking for issues? If someone says they did talk about it, please give me the link
  • CM NafaruCM Nafaru Posts: 1,325
    edited 16.10.2014
    starsie wrote: »
    and I get that it might be possible to fulfill *parts* of the ship's cargo via the buy option (or maybe the entire cargo, if a player hasn't activated the island farm). I understand that. But how else does it allow players to "skip a substantial part of the game" or "everything regarding the Farm environment"???

    There are several other things but parts of shipments that can be skipped pretty easily if you have amassed enough dollars in your account.

    If you take Gourmet farms, for instance, our data shows that some players actually demolished their gardens and replaced them for other production facilities (for more $$), because they are able to buy all needed crops right from farm management. So they skip one essential part of the whole gourmet farm production cycle.

    Furthermore, some themed event and task steps are easily finished by just hoarding enough cash to buy and sell products, buy and make available products, buy and start productions, ... I bet you see a pattern there.

    And these things are only 2 examples of many many smaller and bigger problems the 'old buying' system brings along. Due to 'exploitability' I'd rather not mention any more examples - I guess that is understandable.

    Of course, we also considered Balancing changes to keep up the challenge. But in some cases it's almost impossible to find a right balance between beginners and high level players with enormous amounts of dollars to spend, between non-deco and deco players, players who only play casually and players only farming for cash... there is only so much you can do by changing the numbers to keep up the challenge whilst making it fair for all sides - especially since farm management is available right from the start - with the same conditions for all players.

    The new marketplace feature, that this test is a preparation for, will enable us to set different conditions for high and low level players if needed, just like we're already able to with themed events and other new features.
  • Jiesta (NL1)Jiesta (NL1) Posts: 6,557
    edited 16.10.2014
    GGS has insight (of course) in all servers. So they are the first ones to see whether the game is being jeopardized or not. That's why they did the Happiness Revamp in March, because they discovered that some players build "factory-farms", and this was not how the game was meant to be played (accoording to GGS). But, with mentioning that, they shot themselves in their own foot, because all of a sudden more players learned about these "factory-farms" and immediately there were factory-farms build all over all servers! On our NL1 server you can even hardly find non-factory-farms anymore!

    What happens now with ths "buy-button" is similar. Only a few players found a way to get around building fields/gardens, (not producing the basic products), so they could have far more stables on their farms and simply BUY the necessary basic products.... I am afraid that the story will repeat itself: now that all players have this knowledge, far more players will build such farms... And to avoid this, GGS now decided to take out the "buy-button" for all of us.

    So - due to only few players - we all have to suffer the loss of our buy-button! Just like happened in March, because of only a few players, the "happiness meter" was altered for all of us.

    I wonder what would have happened if GGS would just have left these few players be? I myself don't like to rush to the top rankings by buying my way out and I know many more players think the same. I like to figure out the best strategy for each and every feature, all the tricks in the game (as a game befits). Buying myself out with gold or via this buy-button would bore me hugely. I just use the buy-button occasionally, to complete a task of an event i.e.
    But if other players want to do so, I would say just let them do so. But I am not a game developer, so maybe I see things wrong. Maybe GGS has good reasons to rule out this "buy-me-out-way" .... :S


    Edit: was typing at the same moment as Nafaru (her post explains a lot!)
  • mariachi (RO1)mariachi (RO1) Posts: 7,850
    edited 16.10.2014
    Latten wrote: »
    It won't. We repeatedly told a very specific time frame, which would be 1-2 months, so it should be end of November at most.
    Nevertheless, it's too long for them. I wonder how long would you survive if you had to produce everything you need... Game or not, people have needs and if the game becomes stressful and complicated, people will just leave in search for something else. Especially if they are treated like test subjects...
    Latten wrote: »
    Because the market is not even close to being ready yet - that's what the test is for, to figure out how to do the market best.
    If it's not close to being ready yet, why not take a couple of days and put together a test server?
    And don't give that software crap again.. You didn't need a special client-side software for the Italians and Brazilians, haven't you?
    Latten wrote: »
    Of course. This is the main problem: The game was built around production and organizing said production chains, not about "just" buying everything one needs.
    Latten, no one buys everything. If a farm is specialized on milk, it buys apple or vice-verse. But no one buys everything. Farms that don't produce anything do not exist. And even if they were, why do you care? People are playing the game the way they want to. Why do you need to impose a certain chain of action? WHY?
    Latten wrote: »
    When we built in the option to buy all wares as needed, the game was way smaller, the buy option was not remotely as essential to overall gameplay as it is now. With the ship and everything regarding the Farm environment it's now possible to skip a substantial part of the game now, only through buying wares, and that's something we clearly didn't anticipate or want to happen.
    You didn't anticipated, I understand. But why don't you want it to happen? Why do you care so much? Give us the real reason. WHY? Why do you hate specialized farms so much? How are they hurting the game?
    I play for 2 years now and the game is running just fine, there is no need to stop the buying process. You must have some other reasons for that, not those described above.
    Latten wrote: »
    Personally, I also think that the game will change gameplay to be a lot more specialized, so it won't be able to do everything at once all the time, through just buying the ingredients to do so. We might see a bit of a change in this direction as well, but - again - that's just me thinking about various little things I heard and suspect, so don't take my word for it yet.
    Rumors or not, why this strong need of yours to change the gameplay? If you want to make a different game, make a different game, don't change this one.
    Why is it so wrong that we want to do everything in the same time? WHY, GGS, WHY?
    Latten wrote: »
    We are not trying to hurt the players here. The affected servers just are the best platforms to effectively see how this change is taken by mainly new players.
    Funny thing that you are not trying, but succeeding :)
    If new players are what you care for, MAKE A NEW, TEST SERVER!!!
    Latten wrote: »
    Of course I am completely aware that this can be super annoying for players who use the 'buy' option often right now, but we will stop the test when it's done, and even if we will take out this option to buy wares, we will add another one, in form of said market.
    This make no sense, Latten, and I trust that you, at least, are smart enough to understand it and you won't serve this crap on us again.

    So, the buying hurts the game, but you will provide a market. In a market, people BUY staff. So how does it solve the buying problem, that hurts the game so much? They will still buy staff, from the market!!

    You could have implement many different solution to limit the buying process that you are so afraid of:
    - limit the amount of $$ spend daily
    - limit the amount of products being bought
    - increase the prices
    - forbid the buying of products requested by events, like buying apples when you need to donate them

    But no, you make a market.. What will keep me from buying apples from the market and donate them? You put limits? If you put limits, why go to all this trouble and not just put the limits, without the market?

    My only logical conclusion is: THE MARKET will run on GOLD. It's the only possible explanation for everything.
    And the test you are running on Italians and Brazilians are mainly to see how much gold they are willing to spend on speeding up production, so you can adjust the prices in the market.

    You don't care about the buying process itself, you just need a new source of revenue! Only this, GGS, will truly hurt the game. Too much greed from your part will make people leave. And the ones staying will just produce, like you "want" them too (no, not really want them to, but that's what you say), and you will gain nothing... at least, not relevant amounts. So, you will invent new sources of revenue, until you'll crash the game completely.
    Latten wrote: »
    It's not great for a lot of players, but honestly I think "torment" might be a bit far fetched here.
    Read the Italian and Brazilian forums. You will see just how "fetched" it is...
    Latten wrote: »
    Also, we will of course compensate all players on the affected servers. I can not tell you what exactly the compensation will be, but of course we will find something appropriate.
    No compensation would be enough for 2 months of crippled game play. What would give them? 10 Super Humus and 100.000$? Maybe 250 Corn? Get serious, people, weak up! 2 months without buying hurts the players too much for any such compensation. Or, you can give them something like 20.000 gold each. That would be close to a true compensation. But somehow I doubt that you will be so generous with your test subjects, people you have no respect for...
  • Ria_ ()Ria_ () Posts: 280
    edited 16.10.2014
    I wonder why almost everything in the game is set up so that making as many eggs and apples as possible is the thing to do. They give the best amount of $, they seem to be the most asked item in theme events, egg project gives very good points as does egg missions (due to production times it makes sence to save duck eggs) .. Now more competition and difficulty there is more it makes sence to add production so that gourmet farm is full of ducks and main farm full of apples. And then that's not the right way to play the game?
  • sdfktgksdfktgk Posts: 140
    edited 16.10.2014
    ok..... I'll ask the dumb question here because I don't see it.


    Why not adjust the prices on current buy/sell to reflect the playability you seek?

    If corn is say, 50 per unit and you think it is being exploited, adjust a percentage up to compensate, no? I'm not a programmer, but I'd have to assume changing a valuation field from 50 to =150 would have been a snap instead of .....of..... well, I have no clue anymore what you call this. Did nobody come up with a simple explanation there? If so, how or why was it refuted?

    It's a "butterfly effect" of sorts. Maybe bringing a cannon to a knife fight, all of this. Once you add a new element to make another less controllable, you have adverse ( or positive, that's also a possibility, folks. ) reaction throughout the system. Like I said, it may be perhaps a very simple elementary question and view, but wouldn't simple and gentle have solved this?

    Price change to bring an element under control would still allow playability for all involved. If you don't play that style, it doesn't even affect you. If you do, then it brings it to more reasonable level to other stykes. New people won't find the exploits, old people will find in time that it's better to put some fiedls back, etc etc etc.

    A very roundabout way to the original question "why not raise the prices instead of doing away with the system". Sorta like fix the healthcare system and THEN pattern a blanket off of a good model. But that's political and holy moly, I don't intend to get into another blow-up here, lol.
  • farmerjohn 22 (US1)farmerjohn 22 (US1) US1 Posts: 37,770
    edited 16.10.2014
    Why does this company make a change in this game, ever? Can you guess? C'mon, you all know! Give up? It's GOLD!
    As long as I've played the game, GGS has been adding and changing things to get players to buy and spend gold. This is just one more example. Under the pretext of "improving" the game,they will remove the buy option. This will force players to demolish stables and build new fields and gardens to grow crops. Those same players paid gold to build those stables thinking they would be permanent as they were led to believe. But it seems that this company won't leave a single stone unturned when it comes to seeking revenue, even if it means turning their customers against them. And if they didn't envision the game being played as it is presently, what makes them think that they have such foresight now?
  • EricaJ (US1)EricaJ (US1) Posts: 202
    edited 16.10.2014
    Ria_2 wrote: »
    I wonder why almost everything in the game is set up so that making as many eggs and apples as possible is the thing to do. They give the best amount of $, they seem to be the most asked item in theme events, egg project gives very good points as does egg missions (due to production times it makes sence to save duck eggs) .. Now more competition and difficulty there is more it makes sence to add production so that gourmet farm is full of ducks and main farm full of apples. And then that's not the right way to play the game?

    This, I think, is the crux of the problem they are trying to address - and having a lot of egg production also gives distinct advantages in 2 of the 4 existing missions (eggs and dung). When a certain type of build is superior in multiple ways, the game is not well balanced.
    sdfktgk wrote: »
    ok..... I'll ask the dumb question here because I don't see it.


    Why not adjust the prices on current buy/sell to reflect the playability you seek?

    Introducing that would likely have a lot of the same problems as removing the ability to buy altogether - people would login to find that they could no longer afford to feed their animals - and it still wouldn't solve some of the other inherent imbalances. Also, it would hurt most those who can afford it the least - lower level players who are trying to scrape together the farmdollars to buy land and develop it. Thus far, GGS has done a pretty good job of making this game playable for those who don't purchase gold, imho.

    I've no idea what their real plan is regarding this new market, but if it allows farmers to exchange goods based on supply and demand, any farmer with excess feed crops available for sale could find themselves sitting on a gold mine. I find that idea pretty intriguing - although I don't think I would want it to be purely supply / demand, because it would make each individual farmer too dependent on what other farmers are doing.


    On another note - not addressed to either of you - quite a few people are accusing GGS of not allowing them to play the game as they wish, some quite vociferously. The truth is that GGS has always dictated prices, quantities, workers required, space required, etc. for every single aspect of the game. There have always been built-in advantages and disadvantages to every build / buy decision in the game.

    Quite a few people have chosen to run without any pigsties, but they are not able to do the 'feed pigs x times' step in a themed event, nor can they clear the 'collect pigs' repeater task. One could, I suppose, build a farm with nothing but orchards if one was willing to spend the $ on gold to purchase premium fertilizer to operate it. Those are a couple of examples of the different build choices people can make and the associated advantages / disadvantages.

    Personally, I've always thought it might be fun to build a farm focused primarily on field crops - but the abysmal profit margin along with the fact that events, projects, and missions require other facilities and goods make that awfully restrictive, if not impossible.

    If GGS really wanted to provide everyone complete freedom to build their farms as they wish, they would do a lot of things differently... like offer alternatives for events, for example: collect x eggs OR collect y cabbage OR start production of milk z times. If they were to start offering such options and even out the profitability a bit, it would really open up the viability of different builds... although you'd also have people complaining "but why can't I collect half-x of eggs plus half-y of cabbage to complete it?!!!"... so those things tend to get pretty complicated.

    In any case, I'm quite intrigued by what this new market might bring to the game.

    Just my $0.02 worth.
  • rhinanarhinana Posts: 561
    edited 16.10.2014
    Why does this company make a change in this game, ever? Can you guess? C'mon, you all know! Give up? It's GOLD!
    As long as I've played the game, GGS has been adding and changing things to get players to buy and spend gold. This is just one more example. Under the pretext of "improving" the game,they will remove the buy option. This will force players to demolish stables and build new fields and gardens to grow crops. Those same players paid gold to build those stables thinking they would be permanent as they were led to believe. But it seems that this company won't leave a single stone unturned when it comes to seeking revenue, even if it means turning their customers against them. And if they didn't envision the game being played as it is presently, what makes them think that they have such foresight now?


    This.

    And isn't it oh so convenient that there is an option to buy fields with gold ("fertile fields")? Gee, what a coincidence.
Sign In to comment.