Update to Version 2.233 Discussion Thread

[Baudin Toolan]

On Wednesday the game will be updated to version 2.233. Please post any feedback or questions about the update in this thread.

Spoiler: changelog

Changelog 2.233

Dear Community,

On Wednesday March 3rd Grepolis will be updated to version 2.233. As always there will be a brief downtime while the update is applied.

Important information

In this update, we've invested a lot of time into some changes which are just around the corner! We also finalized some of the open tasks and fixed some bugs connected with our new god, Ares, who we're currently testing on our Beta server. If you'd like to take part in testing Ares, check out the full announcement here.

Bugfixes

• Ongoing temple sieges will show once more in the temple info window on Olympus worlds. Furthermore, if the besieger of a temple leaves the alliance they are currently in during the siege, the siege will be canceled.
• The background image and layout used in the confirmation windows for casting spells has been restored to the correct layout.

* Found on beta, did not occur on live worlds.

We hope you enjoy the update and would love to hear any feedback you have here.

Best regards,
Your Grepolis Team

 

[Shuri2060]

Furthermore, if the besieger of a temple leaves the alliance they are currently in during the siege, the siege will be canceled.

How is this a bug when it is a key strategy used by many alliances during Olympus???

 

[Shuri2060]

This changelog doesn't even exist in any of the recent Beta logs, when normally all updates are tested in Beta first before being deployed on main markets???

 

[Baudin Toolan]

It is a bug because it was unintended behavior in regards to how sieges should work on the Olympus endgame mode. It being a key strategy does not make it less of a bug. As for the beta logs I can't speak to that but bug fixes do get added to the main changelogs if they are fixed in time for the main release.

 

[Thooury]

it's march 1st guys. Not april 1st.
Think you are a month too early with your April Fools joke

 

[Shuri2060]

It is a bug because it was unintended behavior in regards to how sieges should work on the Olympus endgame mode. It being a key strategy does not make it less of a bug. As for the beta logs I can't speak to that but bug fixes do get added to the main changelogs if they are fixed in time for the main release.

Hard to tell what is and isn't intended when the intended behaviour itself isn't documented.

Sounds more like a change of game mechanics to me.

 

[Shuri2060]

In the same way, when conquering an ordinary city, I don't lose my siege when I switch alliance. The siege ends as normal and becomes a new city for my new alliance.

If this were Domination, the new alliance gets the % from that take.

Not a bug, I hope.

 

[OutOfCharacters]

A change this big is not a "small bug fix" shortly before the deciding round of olympus months into a game.

When LMD was suddenly removed mid-server on this very same server, your argument was that "we've been discussing a while and it affects all teams the same'. I heavily disagreed at that time since it affected teams very differently pending the strategy they employed, and because game mechanics affecting strategy so strongly should only occur before teams have invested in it. And I suggested it is a slippery slope setting the precedent that such changes are okay.

This time, there has been zero ongoing discussion or notice, yet is considered an important "bug" to suddenly fix, mere days before such a big end game play in 128? How about the glitching out of the temple overview on incoming attacks as a more important starting point? Or any other of a number of things players have discussed as being faulty and needing improvement? And how about testing them more thoroughly in an already very glitchy environment before introducing it too quickly at a critical time?

This change, which I disagree is necessary due to @Shuri2060 's comments above, if made, should be made in a more thoughtful way with beta testing first, and deployed when no worlds are in the LT or OLY stage of play, if it cannot be delivered to new worlds only. Or announced that it will start on X future date and apply to all worlds-- a date far enough out that people joining new Olympus worlds can modify strategy when they start.

It's highly disappointing that inno either does not recognize this as a critical game feature, or does not care because of the alliances and players it is impacting.

This needs further reconsideration.

 

[Shuri2060]

Oh and before any DV come in and say we're crying about this because we're the ones who utilise this mechanic the most -

If they suddenly introduced prng for Olympus drops --- ie. it can't drop close to the last drop 2 times in a row, doubt you'd be ok with it yourselves.

Not that such a thing would happen unless it spawned 3x in O45, anyways.

 

[Hobbie Q]

Furthermore, if the besieger of a temple leaves the alliance they are currently in during the siege, the siege will be canceled.

yessss, remove handball rule 10 min before full time

 

[OutOfCharacters]

lol, at least if we managed to pull out a victory after this change, it would actually BE a huge victory, with the deck continually being stacked against us with inno's "randomness" and "important game changes". We've been pretty good sports along the way, but this one leaves a pretty bad taste.

This 100% changes the end game potential for us and hands it to you @Silver Witch. Congrats.

 

[GanTja]

So can we please get a thought process behind this, why this "small bug fix" should be implemented at such time? Surely the problem has been around from the beginning of the first Olympus based world, why "fix" this just before the last Olympus drop of 128? Wouldn't the smart play be to postpone it until this world ends so you dont have a HUGE impact on the ongoing worlds?
I sure haven't seen anyone complaining about it being a problem or were there hidden complaints in the last few days from certain individuals which made this "problem" so important to fix?
Based on your reply @Baudin Toolan this problem has been fixed in time for the main release, hence why it wasnt put in beta, which sure does imply you havent been working on this for a long time and this just adds more fuel to the already burning fire of suspicious actions.

 

[Shuri2060]

Yeah, I find the timing odd. 2 months earlier, 1 month later, no one would have as much of an issue.

The point of testing is to raise as many of these balancing issues/bugs as possible, and I find it incredibly hard to believe this slipped anyone's notice in Beta or even during the development process. This was the first of many things I tested myself on the release of Olympus in EN servers. For it to be considered a bug? I don't think so.

Lot's and lot's of year old bugs/things that should probably be changed that have never been addressed to this day. To list a few:

- Olympus temple being inaccessible in the ~1st hour of spawn. SURELY this is a much bigger problem that should have been addressed ASAP.
- It is the alliance that begins last stand, not the one with the higher percentage that wins Domination. An example to highlight the issue: 2 alliances are above 40% at the start of Domination Era. It becomes a clicking war to see who can click that button first and win the world.
- DEF boost from Grepolympia almost never working properly or consistently for sieges.

To name but a few more pressing issues from the top of my head.

 

[Hydna]

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.

 

[Shuri2060]

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.

Thank you for enlightening us, and yes.

In any case, I believe the point OOC made stands (and this goes back to the morale change) in that changes should avoid disrupting live worlds where possible, and where they do, they should be announced in advance. That is my feedback to the development team.

 

[Hydna]

Thank you for enlightening us, and yes.

In any case, I believe the point OOC made stands (and this goes back to the morale change) in that changes should avoid disrupting live worlds where possible, and where they do, they should be announced in advance. That is my feedback to the development team.

I take your point and I will feed that back.

 

[OutOfCharacters]

Wouldn't an easier/ better solution be to have it show "Temple X is in siege by [null]" if a change simply must be rushed that completely changes. the end game for an existing world if done differently? Rather than fixing on the side without time for feedback on how it impacts players/worlds?

 

[Hydna]

Wouldn't an easier/ better solution be to have it show "Temple X is in siege by [null]" if a change simply must be rushed that completely changes. the end game for an existing world if done differently? Rather than fixing on the side without time for feedback on how it impacts players/worlds?

I think from the developers point of view the fact that players can jump in and out of alliances was unintended. Therefore this was changed. I don't think it was rushed in any way this issue has been there a long time. The changes affect all servers and all Olympus worlds so most likely there would always be a few worlds that are more affected than others.

 

[GanTja]

Okay a quick question. Most "fixes" include player comments and a well thought out impact of what it will do - clearly since strategies evolved with this in play, then it should warrant more discussion and should be discussed thoroughly with the players to see what they think, not just give a notice of "we are doing this, you can give us feed back, but even tho its all negative we are still doing as we decided". What good is then the feed back? Best case scenario you'll decide to revert the changes in a few weeks and it will make no difference to those who are actually giving feed back atm. Also why then weren't then the new founding system and aphrodite released into current worlds or at least been up for a discussion? Is it because they'd change gameplay too much part way through?

And no offence but i'd prefer if the answers to these questions come from one of the mods that is not an opponent of us in 128, since i fear opinions tend to be biased no matter how much a human tries.

 

[Baudin Toolan]

While this may change the gameplay of the Olympus endgame it is important to note the distinction that is is the result of a bug fix and not just a change to how the mechanics of the game mode function. As this fix originates from unintended behavior and closes a loophole/exploit it's not the same as adding a new God to the game. A new God is not a bug fix which is why when Aphrodite was released it was not added to all currently ongoing worlds. As for the new foundation blessing that was a world specific blessing that we were trying out to see how the community liked the change to city foundations, it may or may not be active on all newly released worlds from here on out.