Update to Version 2.126 Discussion Thread

maxilex

Phrourach
In my opinion, there is no fair way to implement this change, because it is not a fair and equitable change.

regardless of situations and players, and which side i am on - to change the game completely mid game is beyond understandable.

I have no doubt I will continue to play the game, because I seem to have an addiction - but I dont like this one bit and need to say so. I would urge inno to rethink this urgently - it is great to fix it for new worlds and going forward - so players can change their strategy, but you cant when it is in play.

Here is food for thought - and I will post in suggestions. If the aim is to end old worlds sooner [as I am sure they do not generate revenue like new worlds] - approach it like Wonders. Raise the number of active players required to keep the world alive by 100 every month, six months after WWs starts. Sinope and zancle would both go into immediate shutdown mode...no doubt others too...

But please please, reconsider this move with the wonder islands - and if you, the developers, must go ahead, show us you care about us, the customers, by explaining what the gain is for existing worlds.
 

DeletedUser21774

Guest
No one seemed to like the idea of us with our more active team giving a 24 hour lead time. And it was pointed out to me "When you make such a choice to exploit an obvious bug, you need to realize that there is the possibility that the exploit will be fixed - it is very often the case and inno has been amazingly slow in fixing things so it was rather lucky for some that it took so long". So I will not be asking council to considering cutting slack. Rather light a candle for each duly noted complaint (kind of like an advent calendar).

If inno changes it's mind again, Baudin will let us know, and my team will deal with it through game channels.
 

DeletedUser50451

Guest
Just question out to INNO, why would you re-consider to modify or change this update when nothing was done to rectify the error when it was first brought to your notice.
A large number of players were upset back then too.
The world wouldn't end right away if this update was implemented. Players still have a fair chance to fight to rebuild and defend wonders; it just wouldn't be as easy as a few want it to be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser50451

Guest
SUPERB JOB on implementing the VM rule on players that hit VM while on wonder islands. Surely closed one loophole there.
 

DeletedUser44996

Guest
"When an alliance has complete control of the island on which they wish to build their Wonder, then the Founder or Leaders of the alliance will be able to select which of the 7 Wonders will be built there. Once chosen, the choice cannot be changed."

Does that spell it out loud and clear for you > No error there or mention of how many Anchor points are needed, simply control the Island, so if Inno choose to have islands with 1 x Anchor point or 2 or 3 its within the rules AT THE START of the World, when WW starts no new Anchor points spawn in the World. It comes down to your own interpretation of what is right versus wrong.
For me its pretty plain an obvious its not ethical to introduce a major rule change during WW which will affect some positively and others negatively, take your craving of another Crown out of the picture and see it for what it is.
So how would you feel if Inno had turned around and said , now you have to have 7 WW for the the victor award and we are changing mid game, you would be up in Arms.
In Worlds that are not at WW stage yet they can readjust strategies to suit the new Rule , its kind of different in a world nearly 2 years old and in the Middle/End of WW.
smiley_emoticons_wallbash.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser44996

Guest
And again for the record, Triad won the world pretty convincingly, any point i am trying to make is based on the principle of introducing this in a live WW situation its not taking sides here. The only crown that should really matter is the first one " Victor " . Why don't Inno get rid of the 2nd Crown and then a host of problems would vanish. They could quite easily make it 5 out of 7 WW for the victor award.
 

DeletedUser50451

Guest
Most of us have played 3 or more worlds. NONE of the worlds, that we played, had allowed building wonders with just 1 city.
Our arguments are completely based on that. According to us, it was a flaw that needed rectification right at the start and wasn't rectified and thus our frustration. It wasnt that we did not approach Inno. Ive personally brought it up with them a couple of times.
We surely would be frustrated if they suddenly changed it from 4 to 5 but that wouldn't stop us from playing on. Besides our frustration on allowing 1 city wonder islands, we played on. Its not like is INNO is saying you need to build only 5 wonders instead of 7 and game over. Well, thats not the case.
The update here is rectifying an error which should not have occurred in the first place. Some benefited from the error earlier and others, now.
As i mentioned earlier, the game doesn't finish, There is a fair opportunity to race to building the wonder and still defending the gardens. If some want an easy way out. Hard Luck.
 

maxilex

Phrourach
Just question out to INNO, why would you re-consider to modify or change this update when nothing was done to rectify the error when it was first brought to your notice.
A large number of players were upset back then too.

I also brought this to notice, in January 2016...I was told it was a fair tactic, commonly used. That is why changing it now bites so much. They could have fixed it then, and we all would have saved a lot of time.
Nothing about ths world has been easy, btw, and we have all been in it too long!
 

DeletedUser26772

Guest
Most of us have played 3 or more worlds. NONE of the worlds, that we played, had allowed building wonders with just 1 city.
Our arguments are completely based on that. According to us, it was a flaw that needed rectification right at the start and wasn't rectified and thus our frustration. It wasnt that we did not approach Inno. Ive personally brought it up with them a couple of times.....

I can't speak for your worlds, but I built a 1-city wonder by myself in Nicaea as an experiment, got it up to about Level 5 before it got too expensive to continue by myself. That was about 4 years ago. It was repeated by another alliance in Eubea about 2 years later, where I spent a lot of time analyzing islands for WW sites. Clearer documentation of what exactly happens to invite-only and colonizable city sites would certainly have helped me back then, and I did a lot of reading at the time. So I'm surprised to hear there are worlds that did not allow it.

The ability to build on 1-city islands was just how the game worked. It was never an "exploit", a quirk maybe, but there were also islands with all other numbers of anchor spots short of 20. And I concur with those who dislike making this change on worlds already in or approaching the WW phase, it will impact more than single-city islands in an unnecessarily sudden manner.

As for game flow, I had proposals of having a larger, less common type of island that could host World Wonders, with non-exclusive, less powerful "Island Wonders" available on the islands we know now I felt it would add strategy and interest beyond random bloodletting and treachery during the early to middle part of the game. But the developers were utterly uninterested at the time.
 

DeletedUser21774

Guest
I can't speak for your worlds, but I built a 1-city wonder by myself in Nicaea as an experiment, got it up to about Level 5 before it got too expensive to continue by myself. That was about 4 years ago. It was repeated by another alliance in Eubea about 2 years later, where I spent a lot of time analyzing islands for WW sites. Clearer documentation of what exactly happens to invite-only and colonizable city sites would certainly have helped me back then, and I did a lot of reading at the time. So I'm surprised to hear there are worlds that did not allow it.

The ability to build on 1-city islands was just how the game worked. It was never an "exploit", a quirk maybe, but there were also islands with all other numbers of anchor spots short of 20. And I concur with those who dislike making this change on worlds already in or approaching the WW phase, it will impact more than single-city islands in an unnecessarily sudden manner.

As for game flow, I had proposals of having a larger, less common type of island that could host World Wonders, with non-exclusive, less powerful "Island Wonders" available on the islands we know now I felt it would add strategy and interest beyond random bloodletting and treachery during the early to middle part of the game. But the developers were utterly uninterested at the time.

About a year before that, there were other bugs, more elemental with the Wonders. As they were fixed, people also complained that inno should not penalize the people that were advantaged by the bug in the first place. And so it goes, around and around:

***


Now and ForeverDivine Envoy
Joined:
Jan 20, 2011
Messages:
5
Likes Received:
0

Yesterday Innogames removed all of the requirements for building the Wonders in order to facilitate thier construction, this included the prerequisite for complete control of an island.

As of today the requirement for total control of an island has been reinstated. Anyone building a World Wonder will have it frozen until they meet this requirement.

Sorry for any confusion that may have occured
It is a bad decision to change it so radically since most of the buildings is now stuck and will probably stay that way forever. I thought the purpose was to check out how to build the wonders and find the bugs. Only way now to solve it either to open it again or erase all buildings that have begun.
 

DeletedUser50353

Guest
Right,

If the ''glitch'' is a design flaw which was exploited, but those exploiting it were not made aware that they were exploiting it by the game developers. Who's to blame?

Well, Inno were aware of the issue for over 6 years, failed to do anything. (Failure of Inno ethics)

Inno failed to establish any message which will allow for players to acknowledge that 1 WW city wonders are an ''exploit''. (Failure of Inno ethics).

Now Inno are failing to listen to majority of the players....

Inno then decide to make changes mid-game, sending out a message, that anything of this kind can happen in the future. Demonstrating complete disregard to the contributions the players are making in the discussion of the update as well as demonstrating how quickly years of your time and money spent are disregarded.

Yet, as Herpus believes, we should make it a one sided player issue (despite the game developers failure to both sides).
You need to understand just as Herpus has pointed out ''we have felt this, now it's your turn''. You're completely blind that whilst the two sides are debating/discussing here, Inno are brushing the matter under the carpet, not even addressing it in the appropriate or adequate manner.

Don't worry, certainly something of this kind will occur in the future and you will remember when you were being failed by the developers, but instead you chose to scapegoat the issue rather then confront the issue head on to avoid similar circumstances from occurring in the future.

My comment is very related and is equally appropriate. If a member of staff feels the need to delete my comment. YOU MUST PROVIDE ME WITH AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY YOU THOUGHT THE CONTENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
 

DeletedUser44878

Guest
World Wonder - 20 city update: Again, an unfair change of procedures in the final phase of this game. HOWEVER, and along similar poor logic lines: An equally ridiculous rule Inno could implement in their next change log is that you MUST have Helen to accompany all revolts. Those towns already conquered without Helen will be lost and must re re-conquered. Reverse this announced change of '20 city Wonder Islands,' or have it apply to only New Worlds.
 

DeletedUser49796

Guest
No one seemed to like the idea of us with our more active team giving a 24 hour lead time. And it was pointed out to me "When you make such a choice to exploit an obvious bug, you need to realize that there is the possibility that the exploit will be fixed - it is very often the case and inno has been amazingly slow in fixing things so it was rather lucky for some that it took so long". So I will not be asking council to considering cutting slack. Rather light a candle for each duly noted complaint (kind of like an advent calendar).

To be fair...I don't think it was that they didn't like the idea of Triad giving them 24hours to colonise and get defence ready...I think it was more they didn't trust Triad to follow through on a promise. Could Triad really guarantee no player would colonise? We all know how unstable some of our players are...

And really...I don't think anyone believes Triad Council were going to 'cut slack' for this when all that we've done for months is moan about this one city wonder.

Plus, that's not the point for NWA/Hydra, even if Triad were to let them colonise (and no one went rogue), and give them 24hours to defend the city and build them up...it still means they will have wasted over a year defending Colossus for no reason. (Someone from NWA/Hydra correct me if I'm wrong here). Yes as Agron admits, they have spent a year denying us a win...but I don't think anyone in Triad can say they wouldn't have done the same in their position... I know I wouldn't.

Looking at it from a completely unbiased manner...I can't blame NWA/Hydra for being unhappy with this. Yes, the 'glitch' needed fixing to stop stalemates like this happening again (because lets admit, no way was Triad going to be able to break that wonder, and no way were NWA/Hydra going to be able to take our wonders), but imposing it mid-world isn't the way to go about keeping customers happy. Either address the issue as soon as its brought to your attention, or don't....don't let a world go on for over a year like this and then fix it.
 

DeletedUser43023

Guest
I also brought this to notice, in January 2016...I was told it was a fair tactic, commonly used. That is why changing it now bites so much. They could have fixed it then, and we all would have saved a lot of time.
Nothing about ths world has been easy, btw, and we have all been in it too long!
Agree with you on several points: first: in my experience, nothing of any value has ever come from submitting an issue to the mods and second: this world has dragged on and on and on and on and on. Why? Because of a game design flaw in the game.

All I can say now is that I look forward to when I can walk away from this game (that i have loved for years) after completing my commitments to my alliance.

Looking at it from a completely unbiased manner...I can't blame NWA/Hydra for being unhappy with this. Yes, the 'glitch' needed fixing to stop stalemates like this happening again (because lets admit, no way was Triad going to be able to break that wonder, and no way were NWA/Hydra going to be able to take our wonders), but imposing it mid-world isn't the way to go about keeping customers happy. Either address the issue as soon as its brought to your attention, or don't....don't let a world go on for over a year like this and then fix it.

Amen. I will only add that as I said before, this flaw turns the game into a game of tic tac toe...
 

DeletedUser22977

Guest
My comment is very related and is equally appropriate. If a member of staff feels the need to delete my comment. YOU MUST PROVIDE ME WITH AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY YOU THOUGHT THE CONTENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

Your sense of entitlement is astounding.
 

DeletedUser50451

Guest
Just to start with, a few leaders from Triad had clear intentions of not colonizing the Colossus and they would certainly stayed back on their words.
But be rest assured, given the opportunity, Ill be the first to colonize there. Have made my intentions very clear to them.

As far as Triad able to take over Colossus or not being able to break through, time would tell. But its a big statement coming from a player( unfortunately a Triad ) who has been sitting out at the rims and taking on inactives. These players come out on externals just seeking attention. I say so as these were the same players who had to be stopped from ranting out at Hydra/ Nwa players, earlier in the game. They just swing to the side where they think they would get more attention. Yes, they do appear on the internals too, to rant out fellow players for their mistakes. But besides that they have really done NOTHING towards getting hold of the 7 wonders.
Most of us are convinced of these little pricks, spying.

To Hydra/ Nwa
Peeps, we have wasted too much time at discussing this and we all know that the decision has been made by INNO. Do feel your frustration, but as I said, we have gone through the same thing.
We can keep discussing things out here which is just gonna lead to further frustration. Lets move on out of here.

Just in case Hydra/ NWA are recruiting, a few of us would surely want to recommend a name. Still wondering why she is with Triads?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser21774

Guest
Bee, if Noobs/Hydra/[insert your alliance name here], were not going to trust Triad in the first place (and certainly I have been on the receiving end of much dripping cynicism), I am certain there is nothing that providing them 24 hour notice will do. The kind of pm's I have received throughout the course of the game indicate that if we don't do everything in our power to give every possible aid and help, that is expected, and if we DO provide every possible help, it confirms we feel remorse for some prior unethical play.

I'm rather weary of playing the alleged abuser here. I say, let INNO change their minds like a bouncing ball. If they have a glitch, exploit it. If they fix a glitch, work with it. The game is won, and the only perverse pleasure for us would be to let other players whom have been kind to us have a chance to gamely battle things through.

The only principle INNO need to know is that they should understand the ramifications of their upgrades. Fixing a farming bug, and changing a game ending glitch that can end the hopes of players in 24 hours IS A BIG DEAL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is why I have no sympathy for you.

If you were actually trying to play to win, this would be one thing. But you aren't. You are playing to troll. Even with 4 of the 5 top alliances joined together, this is the best you could manage.

That's not playing. And the fact that you used an exploit to enable the above just validates my belief that you and your alliance mates are just doing what you can not to win, but to keep another group you can't beat from doing so until attrition enables the servers death by atrophy.

If you have sympathy for me or not that's something I cannot change, but not that I really care anyway. Everyone who has seen what has happened in Zancle, can see that NWA cannot win that world, it was well known since the WWs were built. Now, Zancle has been on for about 2 years, and I only mentioned that I've been trying to deny Triad's victory for 1 year (After we built only Colossus).

You see, maybe you've had the opportunity to watch football. One of the teams has the better players, they play the first half and after seeing they cannot do much, the other team they go defensive and try to get a point out of that match.
It's not a troll, it's "not giving up" on something that most of the world called lost cause back then and quit the world two or three days after the wonders were completed!!
 

DeletedUser47067

Guest
Let's just confirm one thing. Triad for all their greatness never attempted to take colossus or even put the city under any serious attack.

The reasons for this only they will know. But we can only assume this is because they knew they could not take it. Bee has only stated what everyone else is thinking.

2 weeks to go until the world ends for a lot of us and colossus will still be standing when we leave.
 
Top