Update to Version 2.233 Discussion Thread

[Shuri2060]

What should or shouldn't happen when a player leaves an alliance while holding a temple siege is undocumented behaviour.

This is easily a common occurrence with changing to other pact alliances for alternate Temple buffs or for temple handovers from one alliance to another, or even a betrayal, etc. It was never mentioned this behaviour was unintended and due to be fixed up until now.

If true, this might have been worth bringing up all the way back to this update 3 months ago https://en.forum.grepolis.com/index.php?threads/update-to-version-2-227.62953/ (4 months from when announced in Beta - 03/11/20).

• The maximum number of temples an alliance can conquer will not be exceeded where two temples are being conquered at the same time anymore.

• It was possible to own more than 5 small temples under some circumstances.

The only way this capacity bug could occur was with alliance switching during a temple siege. If the currently claimed 'bug' of players being able to leave/rejoin alliances during a temple siege is to be patched, it should've been patched all the way back then. It was not --- the fix to the capacity issue was that the siege would end with no effect when the alliance temple capacity was full.

By fixing the capacity issue (which could only be caused by leave/rejoining) in that way and not giving further remark, the developers essentially acknowledged that being able to leave/rejoin alliances during a temple siege (without cancelling it) is intended behaviour.

 

[Thooury]

nobody talking about the fact that Olympus endgame has been around since June in live worlds and March in beta worlds the suggestion that it would take 6 months to a year to fix a game-breaking bug that has never been mentioned anywhere (not even in the community preview of 2021, even though you mentioned the Olympus world) in open forums, nor has even been complained about in open forums?

I mean even if all this is true, you guys realise that a moderator is playing in this world. The opponents of this moderator stand to lose significantly more from this "bug fix" than her alliance is.

When I saw this, knowing how close 128 is to finishing, I did ask if it were possible to delay this. The developers said no. In terms of Beta I just asked about this and I am told this wasn't bypassed the coding was there from February 12th.

even though this wasn't mentioned anywhere in any of the changelogs?

As the cherry on top. link to forum post

 

[Baudin Toolan]

The bug wasn't game breaking, it was just a normal bug that the developers decided to fix. As the Olympus game mode is still relatively new compared to World Wonders and Domination and the developers are still working to close loopholes and other bugs related to the game mode which is why not every bug is noticed and addressed in the first few months of a game mode being released. It is an ongoing process. If the information about the bug fix was left off the beta changelogs that is likely an accident or an oversight.

 

[0ZZZ]

The original bug was the fact a temple isn’t shown as under siege if the player has no alliance. The reason it does not show is that a temple cannot be owned by an individual and therefore logically can’t be besieged by an individual who is not part of an alliance. When the developers reviewed this they realised that the ability for an individual to hold the siege and jump back later was an unintended loophole and they made the decision to close it.

When I saw this, knowing how close 128 is to finishing, I did ask if it were possible to delay this. The developers said no. In terms of Beta I just asked about this and I am told this wasn't bypassed the coding was there from February 12th.

Debates about 128 specifically should be in 128 forum.

Sorry but with your reputation I suspect this post has More eraser marks than taylor swifts algerbra final.
One more reason community managers/mods should not be allowed to play the game they function as judges for.
Its not about whether or not you are corrupt. It is about how it looks to your customers/competitors.
It is called CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

 

[Thooury]

The bug wasn't game breaking

oh my bad... I must be talking about the other game mode where you can get a an insane bonus to your offensive/ defensive capabilities depending on the alliance you are in

If the information about the bug fix was left off the beta changelogs that is likely an accident or an oversight

oh right... so you didn't communicate critical info 9 days before the grand final of the world.
"oops"

 

[DeletedUser21560]

Sorry but with your reputation I suspect this post has More eraser marks than taylor swifts algerbra final.
One more reason community managers/mods should not be allowed to play the game they function as judges for.
Its not about whether or not you are corrupt. It is about how it looks to your customers/competitors.
It is called CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

They should most definately be allowed to play the game they function as judges for. Otherwise, how would they be able to judge anything.

Not Hydnas fault how you decide to view things, i would argue you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST commenting here as if you care about the games wellbeing. Especially when your actions ingame (spam) are toxic as they can be.

 

[Thooury]

They should most definately be allowed to play the game they function as judges for. Otherwise, how would they be able to judge anything.

Not Hydnas fault how you decide to view things, i would argue you have a CONFLICT OF INTEREST commenting here as if you care about the games wellbeing. Especially when your actions ingame (spam) are toxic as they can be.

conflict of interest: a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result
seeing as players don't make gameplay decisions they cannot have a conflict of interest.

Doesn't mean they can't be biased against certain players or aspects of the game though.

 

[DeletedUser21560]

conflict of interest: a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result
seeing as players don't make gameplay decisions they cannot have a conflict of interest.

Doesn't mean they can't be biased against certain players or aspects of the game though.

Players do make gameplay decisions every single day. You decide to spam, and in the process ruin the game for others.

But i get what your saying. He is definately biased tho, he's not really known for being a positive force in the game, more rather the opposite. You know, just going of by people's reputations

 

[DeletedUser57043]

Innogames

Can't stop new accounts from breaking BP early so their customers don't get spammed by bots, an ongoing problem for years.

Can fix a unique feature that raised the skill ceiling of the game mode before the decisive round of an endgame (doesn't matter CM Silver Witch is a participating party, it makes no sense to throw a wrench in things either way).

The interpretation for how the mechanic should work is loose at best. Temples are supposed to be able to be conquered like any other city, but also an unallied player cannot conquer a town.

It is not stated an unallied player cannot siege a temple, the necessary prerequisite before a city (temple) is conquered after the ticker has run down.

This decision nerfs the creative and operational efficacy of teams willing to put in the work, because it is work. Want to cry it doesn't make sense? That is a matter of opinion, but it makes no less sense than our beloved harbor checks, where-in dead troops can report back the contents of a city's harbor. Makes no less sense than how you can't found a city unless you have a slot, but once you have a single slot you can send out as many CS' as you own to block anchors and give your mates the landing times so they know when to send. Makes no less sense than how if two teams are both above 40% for the domination value, the team that wins is the one that initiates last stand first, even if the other team has a higher % value. Its a game, not everything will make sense, and its laughable how some things are ignored for years and this is addressed in months (weeks?) At least temple-siege management gave some variety to this dull game mode.

Anyway, you want our feedback, this is our feedback. Your justification for changing the ruleset while active Oly worlds are running (even though by your own admission, you state it is not game breaking) is disappointing at best and ethically questionable at worst.

Whatever the case may be, there was a one-sided discussion in deciding how temple sieges should be run, and the community at large was not privy to the conversation because of an unfortunate oversight, per CM Mike's own words. Had the community known beforehand, your developers might have had a chance to hear opinions from more players. At least then we could have peace. Now you get resentment - and a few pats on the back from CM Silver Witch's team.

Have more respect for your player's time.

 

[Shuri2060]

They should most definately be allowed to play the game they function as judges for. Otherwise, how would they be able to judge anything.

Sure they can, but perhaps in servers other than the one they oversee? Or at least to step down for the duration they play at the very least. I don't see what's wrong with testing and trying out new stuff in just Beta, for example.

Like I honestly didn't care about it at the start of this world, and now I'm finding it harder and harder to care about the game, so not much difference, I guess.

 

[Shuri2060]

The bug wasn't game breaking, it was just a normal bug that the developers decided to fix. As the Olympus game mode is still relatively new compared to World Wonders and Domination and the developers are still working to close loopholes and other bugs related to the game mode which is why not every bug is noticed and addressed in the first few months of a game mode being released. It is an ongoing process. If the information about the bug fix was left off the beta changelogs that is likely an accident or an oversight.

I'm interested in why they decided to essentially 'refix' this bug after 4 months. Like I said - it was basically fixed back then, so why do it again now?

 

[OutOfCharacters]

Here's some interesting reading. A real life example when a change was delayed for a world in progress, given the impact on current players and the investment they'd made in the product. My position on all such changes, from LMD to this one, stem from a higher expectation for results like those you see here. Inno not only CAN do better, they've DONE better, and it's documented here. Not to mention discussion among alliances in the world for how to maybe inoculate against the change if it were forced upon them, with everyone recognizing it was "wrong".

For those who haven't been around since then, also look at the discussion. Sparring, trash-talking, but actual productive discussion that's lacking from so many external forum strings now with all the trolls. WE can do better too.

Discussion:

https://en.forum.grepolis.com/index.php?threads/update-to-version-2-126-discussion-thread.58637/page-11

Results:

https://en.forum.grepolis.com/index.php?threads/update-to-version-2-126.58638/#post-1004265

 

[DeletedUser21560]

Sure they can, but perhaps in servers other than the one they oversee? Or at least to step down for the duration they play at the very least. I don't see what's wrong with testing and trying out new stuff in just Beta, for example.

Like I honestly didn't care about it at the start of this world, and now I'm finding it harder and harder to care about the game, so not much difference, I guess.

Hydna is NOT overseeing 128.

Are you sure your lack of "caring" doesn't stem from you losing olympus twice in a row?

I believe you were caring a few weeks ago tho, 128 externals and gameplay prove that. I know how it feels, we went through the same period not long ago. Losing motivation can be a killer for any teams, but I'm sure you will manage. No way you are letting us win the last spawn without a fight

INNO definately did not communicate this properly, should had been handled way differently imo. But this is not on Hydna

This effects us the same way it does you. Now it's down to whos the best at adapting.

Let's all care about the last spawn and let the best team win

 

[Shuri2060]

Hydna is NOT overseeing 128.

Are you sure your lack of "caring" doesn't stem from you losing olympus twice in a row?

I believe you were caring a few weeks ago tho, 128 externals and gameplay prove that. I know how it feels, we went through the same period not long ago. Losing motivation can be a killer for any teams, but I'm sure you will manage. No way you are letting us win the last spawn without a fight

INNO definately did not communicate this properly, should had been handled way differently imo. But this is not on Hydna

This effects us the same way it does you. Now it's down to whos the best at adapting.

Let's all care about the last spawn and let the best team win

They are the CCM, not just an ordinary moderator assigned to some worlds. The CM/CCM has an impact on the community as a whole --- they are likely privy to future changes ahead of time as they need to discuss them, etc, etc. How things actually are and how they look to players are two different things.

I can promise you I was already losing interest when the midworld LMD change happened - in fact I was absent for most of this world because of it.

I agree that the main issue here is with the apparent communication or lack of between players and devs - this hasn't been brought up in just this thread, but an ongoing issue for a while now. We express our dissatisfaction in the hopes that it'll change some time soon. There is little way to pass on feedback without it going through the moderators here, so it is inevitable they take some of the heat when players are dissatisfied with certain aspects or updates of the game. That's how things are.

 

[OutOfCharacters]

Thizz, that's not really fair to say "let's see who is best at adapting" a week before spawn, when we didn't even have one bit of advance notice, since it was inadvertently left off of all logs and discussions. It's not fair because our strategy is different than yours, and you know it relies on heavy temple use to counteract your 50%+ more size advantage. The change hurts us far more than it does DV. You've always been the frontrunner with the power/size advantage, and we had to be creative. We aren't disengaged at all, we're working hard to prepare. The fact that Oly dropped in your lap for the third time last spawn hasn't discouraged us one bit (unless you count discouragement with inno's definition of 'random'). I wouldn't like being on either side of this new change, to be honest-- if it causes us to lose it's frustrating, but if it causes you to win it feels empty. I hope it doesn't come down to that.

Read the post from Zancle-- it would be nice to see all players pressuring inno that changes like this shouldn't be allowed to impact the end game this far in a world. Triad argued against the change there, even discussing ways to defease it if it had to happen-- and it would have given them the win. That... is something.

 

[DeletedUser21560]

Innogames

Can't stop new accounts from breaking BP early so their customers don't get spammed by bots, an ongoing problem for years.

Can fix a unique feature that raised the skill ceiling of the game mode before the decisive round of an endgame (doesn't matter CM Silver Witch is a participating party, it makes no sense to throw a wrench in things either way).

The interpretation for how the mechanic should work is loose at best. Temples are supposed to be able to be conquered like any other city, but also an unallied player cannot conquer a town.

It is not stated an unallied player cannot siege a temple, the necessary prerequisite before a city (temple) is conquered after the ticker has run down.

This decision nerfs the creative and operational efficacy of teams willing to put in the work, because it is work. Want to cry it doesn't make sense? That is a matter of opinion, but it makes no less sense than our beloved harbor checks, where-in dead troops can report back the contents of a city's harbor. Makes no less sense than how you can't found a city unless you have a slot, but once you have a single slot you can send out as many CS' as you own to block anchors and give your mates the landing times so they know when to send. Makes no less sense than how if two teams are both above 40% for the domination value, the team that wins is the one that initiates last stand first, even if the other team has a higher % value. Its a game, not everything will make sense, and its laughable how some things are ignored for years and this is addressed in months (weeks?) At least temple-siege management gave some variety to this dull game mode.

Anyway, you want our feedback, this is our feedback. Your justification for changing the ruleset while active Oly worlds are running (even though by your own admission, you state it is not game breaking) is disappointing at best and ethically questionable at worst.

Whatever the case may be, there was a one-sided discussion in deciding how temple sieges should be run, and the community at large was not privy to the conversation because of an unfortunate oversight, per CM Mike's own words. Had the community known beforehand, your developers might have had a chance to hear opinions from more players. At least then we could have peace. Now you get resentment - and a few pats on the back from CM Silver Witch's team.

Have more respect for your player's time.

You are totally right, just not about who to blame here. The CMs are just adapting to a move made by developers, pretty much just like the rest of us.

You are right to be upset, just direct it the right place.

Theres several fixes that should be made with olympus endgame in the future, hopefully those changes get communicated properly.

That's some useful feedback the CMs can bring to INNO.

 

[DeletedUser21560]

They are the CCM, not just an ordinary moderator assigned to some worlds. The CM/CCM has an impact on the community as a whole --- they are likely privy to future changes ahead of time as they need to discuss them, etc, etc. How things actually are and how they look to players are two different things.

I can promise you I was already losing interest when the midworld LMD change happened - in fact I was absent for most of this world because of it.

I agree that the main issue here is with the apparent communication or lack of between players and devs - this hasn't been brought up in just this thread, but an ongoing issue for a while now. We express our dissatisfaction in the hopes that it'll change some time soon. There is little way to pass on feedback without it going through the moderators here, so it is inevitable they take some of the heat when players are dissatisfied with certain aspects or updates of the game. That's how things are.

Definately, but if the CMs didn't receive notice of this and was not in privy talks about it, then they would be just as surprised as the rest of us, no?

So yes it is a communication issue, but not between the devs and players only, but also with devs / CMs

Mike is "overseeing" this server so that hydna has nothing to do with it

 

[DeletedUser21560]

Thizz, that's not really fair to say "let's see who is best at adapting" a week before spawn, when we didn't even have one bit of advance notice, since it was inadvertently left off of all logs and discussions. It's not fair because our strategy is different than yours, and you know it relies on heavy temple use to counteract your 50%+ more size advantage. The change hurts us far more than it does DV. You've always been the frontrunner with the power/size advantage, and we had to be creative. We aren't disengaged at all, we're working hard to prepare. The fact that Oly dropped in your lap for the third time last spawn hasn't discouraged us one bit (unless you count discouragement with inno's definition of 'random'). I wouldn't like being on either side of this new change, to be honest-- if it causes us to lose it's frustrating, but if it causes you to win it feels empty. I hope it doesn't come down to that.

Read the post from Zancle-- it would be nice to see all players pressuring inno that changes like this shouldn't be allowed to impact the end game this far in a world. Triad argued against the change there, even discussing ways to defease it if it had to happen-- and it would have given them the win. That... is something.

It is about adapting, your relied heavier on that strategy so naturally it affects u the most. That's just life

You really think we knew where olympus would spawn lol?

I know i will be pressuring INNO in whatever way i can. Just gotta do it the right way. This is not about bias / corruption, this is simply bad implementation of good game changes.

 

[xFate]

Hydna out here changing the game to secure the win

omegalullll

 

[Shuri2060]

It is about adapting, your relied heavier on that strategy so naturally it affects u the most. That's just life

You really think we knew where olympus would spawn lol?

I know i will be pressuring INNO in whatever way i can. Just gotta do it the right way. This is not about bias / corruption, this is simply bad implementation of good game changes.

Yep, it's life, and of course we'll adapt to it. Not like we're going to get a choice now, are we?

Getting blamed for stuff that isn't your fault is life too - like I said, it's all about what it looks like, not what it actually is. Like it or not that's how things are and will be - if 3 players are banned in an alliance, the rest will easily be labeled cheaters to the rest of the world. In the same way, it is too easy for players to lay the blame with the mods even if they have nothing to do with changes because they are the 'face' of innogames for us. It's part of their job to receive all feedback be it positive or negative. Which player isn't going to complain when they think they've got the short end of the stick in changes like these? Not me. Doubt you would as well if they stopped it spawning from the same ocean twice in a row in this update.