Blande Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 I have no problem with the change in the mechanic. I've always believed the Treasures were useless in as much as their goal was fostering war. The problem I see however is the timing as everyone has mentioned. It is unfair to decide to do this 3 days after respawn and give only a 10 day warning. It is negatively punishing those who played the game best. The bigger problem though is how the change was made. You mention you spoke with players you trust before making your decision. Did you speak with any of the players who had fairly exploited the game mechanics to their benefits? Doing this will have produced a result which was more fairly balanced for everyone involved. All I can really take from this is that your decision making process is extremely poor (at best), or you are actively trying to punish a certain group of players (at worse). Both are bad for someone who is suppose to be neutral and focused on improving the game. Just my 2 cents. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cazaric Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 There was no political motivations, other than to help topple (or at least reduce the support for) the current alliance power structure. Thank you for your unbiased game development. It's top notch. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatkitteh Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 (edited) "Another terrible update," "Where are the perks though?" Edited November 6, 2016 by greatkitteh :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachBunny Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 (edited) Why do I play this game again. You have this tendency to fix things that need fixing but your timing is about as awful as a poop sammich. Edited November 6, 2016 by BeachBunny ☾☆ Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack3top Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 maybe in future, views should be taken from both sides to give a more comprehensive and balaned view. discussion before violence What I post do not represent the views of the alliance unless otherwise stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synesi Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 I really hope people aren't still donating money to this game. But this is what happens when you couple the design and development into the same person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Avruch Posted November 6, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2016 Yes I expect that is frustrating, I had not given this issue any attention until recently and just happened to overlap the spawn. I'm hoping the 10 days will give you and anyone else time to negotiate and sell treasures as they see fit. Maybe you should make it 30 days, instead of 10, since people aren't super slow and negotiations have already completed over the sale of many treasures which are now effectively worthless. If you fully anticipate a backlash to virtually every change, there are two major factors you can attack: (1) the notion that your whole active playerbase is rigidly change-averse, or (2) that there is something wrong with the way you roll out changes. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Maybe you should make it 30 days, instead of 10, since people aren't super slow and negotiations have already completed over the sale of many treasures which are now effectively worthless. If you fully anticipate a backlash to virtually every change, there are two major factors you can attack: (1) the notion that your whole active playerbase is rigidly change-averse, or (2) that there is something wrong with the way you roll out changes. I'd be ok with this. The next treasure respawn should have this change apply. Also, Sheepy, you mentioned earlier in this thread that you didn't make rules to be exploited, but then you have this issue: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17280-game-policy-violation-war-slots-soultaker-npo/#entry289609 Which you flat out admitted that we, as players, could exploit the war slot "rule" - and seeing as how we've very innovative with getting around "rules", this will definitely be done in some manner. There definitely needs to be some consistency here between the fixing/rule calling. 1 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 There was no political motivations, other than to help topple (or at least reduce the support for) the current alliance power structure.So I guess the next update, you'll be putting a cap of 100 nations on all alliances? I mean you wouldn't want alliances to get to powerful, right? Or maybe you'll introduce a cap on nation income. After all, obviously (going by this change) some nations earn too much, making them (and their alliance) too powerful. That was when I checked out who actually held the treasures and was shocked to see how aggregated they have become in so few alliances.Obviously you were not paying any attention at all to Treasure Island and the implications behind it, over the past few weeks. It was immediately apparent to myself (and probably a fair few other players), that they would end up gathering alot of treasures. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 I have thought for a long time that treasures should not offer only economic bonuses, could perhaps split treasures up into a few categories where one category offers the standard gross income boost, another category offers gross production boosts and others could lower disease, pollution or even offer some military bonuses. Keep the same amount of treasures but just split them up into categories so the competition for a specific category of treasure increases and potentially creates the conflicts we were meant to see originally with them. Perhaps even offer an additional bonus on top of the individual treasure bonuses if an alliance could collect a whole set of one particular category of treasures. Throw some chaos in the mix and let the fun occur on its own essentially. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Harrison Richardson Posted November 6, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2016 Guys, this game sucks. I'm only playing it because I like the MENSA people and somehow, Pfeiffer got a critical mass of them over here (probably him seeking another spot of power and wanting to lead something new). We should stop expecting Sheepy to exhibit above-average decision making skills. It will save everyone a lot of heartache. 7 ☾☆ And Dio said unto him, "I trust you. Share my word." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 At this point, you should just remove treasures, deposit 200m per treasure into the bank of alliances that have them. and then never touch them again. Treasures are a poor substitute for Color Stocks and even they had their own problems. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Zaxon Posted November 6, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2016 I think the maximum level sodium content has been reached for the day. Tomorrows headline "When does the bleeding stop?" 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beatrix Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Alex, do you actually read the comments here and think about what has been said? Or do you just not care? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Kemal Ergenekon Posted November 6, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2016 You are introducing this change after the players have spent stupendous amount of money to acquire treasures. You have effectively screwed over many people from many alliances because they TRUSTED you to keep the mechanics as is in the short run. I see no reason at all why you cannot delay this update up until the next treasure respawn round, unless you are really intent on destroying all the trust you have with your player base. 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 You are introducing this change after the players have spent stupendous amount of money to acquire treasures. You have effectively screwed over many people from many alliances because they TRUSTED you to keep the mechanics as is in the short run. I see no reason at all why you cannot delay this update up until the next treasure respawn round, unless you are really intent on destroying all the trust you have with your player base. Top kek. 1 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcKnox Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Guys, this game sucks. I'm only playing it because I like the MENSA people and somehow, Pfeiffer got a critical mass of them over here (probably him seeking another spot of power and wanting to lead something new). We should stop expecting Sheepy to exhibit above-average decision making skills. It will save everyone a lot of heartache. this tbh famalams. The only thing that stopped me/is stopping me from deleting is that it would achieve sheepy's goal of !@#$ing with the hegemoney, albeit in a roundabout way. Praise Dio. Every !@#$ing day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Juan Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 "but where are perks tho." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 This Guy is sounding too much like Bernie Sanders on corporations. All I'm hearing is that we are evil and horrible people just because we have achieved success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 So I guess the next update, you'll be putting a cap of 100 nations on all alliances? I mean you wouldn't want alliances to get to powerful, right?Or maybe you'll introduce a cap on nation income. After all, obviously (going by this change) some nations earn too much, making them (and their alliance) too powerful.Obviously you were not paying any attention at all to Treasure Island and the implications behind it, over the past few weeks. It was immediately apparent to myself (and probably a fair few other players), that they would end up gathering alot of treasures. Its socialism on a global (virtual) level in the game. Knock down the rich and give it all to the poor... then causing the whole system to fall... and the poor didn't get their benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 (edited) Yeah Treasure Island is the natural result of the treasures system. Now the incentive has not actually changed but rather the incentive is now to spread them out evenly through your sphere. The only real change here is procurement services such as Arrgh won't be able to charge so much, but we made bank already so that's fine. Edited November 6, 2016 by Ogaden 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Flame of the Flawed Posted November 6, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted November 6, 2016 First off, disregarding the highly questionable timing, I'll state that this change in itself is fine. t$ has no qualms there. But... After considering how this could be addressed, and conversing with a couple of players whose judgement I trust, I went ahead and made this announcement. There was no political motivations, other than to help topple (or at least reduce the support for) the current alliance power structure. I'll note that I've been a defender of you in the past. No one is perfect, but you invest real life effort into this game, and you value it. I like that. But Alex, you mentioned here that there are "a couple players whose judgement I trust". These two players clearly have a massive amount of influence on this game if they are able to have you make such a drastic mechanical change in such a highly capricious manner. For the purpose of transparency with the player base, could you please let us know who these two members of that player base are? Or, at least, let us know what alliances these players happen to come from? I'd be curious to see if the players you allow to influence yourself so greatly come more so from certain groupings of alliances as compared to others. Also, you mentioned how you understand the displeasure this change is causing. But I hope you understand similarly that a mere change in timing would have made this change quite popular and it would have gained strong support throughout the community. As an administrator who claims to be unbiased, you goal should be to be a consensus builder. When a consensus was so easily attainable, why throw it away and in the eyes of many, de-legitimize your role in the game? This game may thrive on politics, but one thing it doesn't need is a crisis of legitimacy when it comes the perceived bias of the admin, and it was so easily avoidable here. Instead, you publicly acknowledge your intent was 'to help topple the current alliance power structure', while I have a feeling you happen to be more so influenced by players who happen to be in an opposing alliance power structure. But if one of those trusted players you spoke to happens to be within the groups that were excelling in the current mechanic, such as from TI or TEst, please correct me. Really, it isn't as much the in-game money. Those are just pixels. That bothers me far less. It is the real life time which bothers me most about this. Just one example is I know that Jessica Rabbit put so much time and effort into pulling this off for the re-spawn. Alex, I think you under-estimate the complexities of pulling something like this off. We don't have so much power in this game to just simply dictate to people what to do and they do it. Players work for it. And that is hours and hours of work which you just made useless. This may just be a game but your players are real people with real lives, with jobs and families, and with plenty of other things to be doing, just like you. Here is my honest advice: The legitimacy crisis can still be mitigated though. You mentioned you take the advice of a couple players. Look at all the comments here, and show that you take advice from other corners of the game also. Nerf the mechanic, sure, but do it in a time table which is fair for all, rather than doing it at truly the worst time possible, immediately after a spawn. Make this change occur when each treasure re-spawns. Logically it is pretty inarguably the fairest way to do it, and an unbiased admin should do it the fairest way. Still nerfing the mechanic, yet doing so in a manner that reflects the time and effort put in by players at this last spawn, is a sensible compromise to this situation. Honest question: Do you think you could have handled this better? 13 a.k.a. Chaunce Chaunce - Today at 9:55 PM with the watermelons there isn't much space left I still have a lot of room to improve Manthrax Has Venomous Bite! - Today at 9:57 PM Hee hee. Room indeed. Sabriel - Today at 10:01 PM I feel like, if the other AAs knew how we act, they'd feel a deep sense of shame in knowing that they consistently get beat by us. when we talk about how many vegetables we can fit in Chaunce's ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woot Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Everyone expected Alex to do something about this, but I think he should give TI more than 10 days. I don't know how much they paid for the latest round of treasures they just purchased, but today they're worth a tiny fraction of what they were yesterday. Changes like that that could put billions of dollars down the drain seem a little unfair to suddenly spring on the game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 In 57 days or whenever the next treasure respawn is, you should delete all the treasures and the entire treasure system. It's not doing what it was designed to do anyway. Then people can FINALLY just pick colors that they like instead of tying their alliance color to some arbitrary and stupid game mechanic. #StopTheColorOppression 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Turgidson Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 I have an opinion too, and it's even more insightful than any of the other comments above. So there. I hope you're happy. 1 Are you originally from Earth, too? Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now. I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd. Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts