11/5/2016 - Treasure Anti-Trust Act

[Sisyphus]

Just seems like Sheepy underestimating the amount of work and effort it takes to properly excel at this game and taking another two steps backward.

 

Again.

[Ivan the Red]

Rollback the game to the last treasure respawn and apply the changes straight.

[Big Brother]

TI wanted the treasure system to change from the very beginning, most of us recognized that the system was flawed, relatively easily exploited and that it required alterations. From what I understand, treasures were meant to function as incentives for waging war. That's why they exist to begin with. By nerfing the benefits of treasures, you also nerf the incentives they are supposed to provide, thus more or less voiding the very reason they exist. It's not like a lot of major conflicts or wars were started over treasures before the change and there certainly won't be many more such conflicts now. The timing too was just.. horrendous and I feel like it's an issue that could have been easily avoided.

 

But hey, your game, your rules.

[Insert Name Here]

First off, disregarding the highly questionable timing, I'll state that this change in itself is fine. t$ has no qualms there. But...

 

 

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? 

 

 

The bolded part is what's bothering me most about this timing. Sheepy, did you know that Jess made an essay (like a project proposal, if you will) about Treasure Island? She showed it to the t$ membership before Treasure Island came to be a reality. Do you realize the time she spent to put Treasure Island together and negotiating treasures for this respawn?

 

FYI, Jess is a very busy person irl. With this atrocious timing, you're basically just giving her the middle finger and telling her: "hey, sorry you're so brilliant and took time off your life for this game, putting so much effort into be good at it; just conform to being a scrub like most of your sphere's enemies, so they can have a chnace at recovering the hegemoney they once had and lost due to being awful at this game".

 

I'm not disputing the change at all. What I (and most people) are disputing is the timing, which I won't go as far as calling "intentional" or "biased". Because if the admin is deliberately trying to help a portion of the players against the other, I can't see a great future for this game. Which would be a shame because it's a great game and I actually think you're a nice guy, Sheepy.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Insert Name Here

[Eumirbago]

Das p cray

[Roquentin]

The bolded part is what's bothering me most about this timing. Sheepy, did you know that Jess made an essay (like a project proposal, if you will) about Treasure Island? She showed it to the t$ membership before Treasure Island came to be a reality. Do you realize the time she spent to put Treasure Island together and negotiating treasures for this respawn?

 

FYI, Jess is a very busy person irl. With this atrocious timing, you're basically just giving her the middle finger and telling her: "hey, sorry you're so brilliant and took time off your life for this game, putting so much effort into be good at it; just conform to being a scrub like most of your sphere's enemies, so they can have a chnace at recovering the hegemoney they once had and lost due to being awful at this game".

 

I'm not disputing the change at all. What I (and most people) are disputing is the timing, which I won't go as far as calling "intentional" or "biased". Because if the admin is deliberately trying to help a portion of the players against the other, I can't see a great future for this game. Which would be a shame because it's a great game and I actually think you're a nice guy, Sheepy.

 

I'll be honest, it's one thing to complain about it being a change that will negatively impact you and the timing, but this RL time argument isn't really one that holds up.

 

Everyone that participates devotes their time. Things get destroyed all the time that people sunk RL time/money into. Sometimes your efforts will end up being upended and that's part of playing a game.  There isn't really any guarantee of the game staying the same to make sure you get a return on the time invested. More drastic changes than this have the potential of happening. It sucks for Jessica since she's a good person and she's good at what she does but work people have put in goes to waste all the time.  

Edited November 6, 2016 by Roquentin

[Victorio Agila]

I Approve.

[synthesis]

Basically you have just alienated a large number of players in this game - when it could have been done with a lot more tact and discussion before this change was made or at least allowed it to run it's course.

 

It's as if you basically don't care about the time people spend on it, and want to intentionally destroy the game, and you'll be left on your own because you were too naive to understand the consequences.

 

Do you even have a clue?

[Insert Name Here]

I'll be honest, it's one thing to complain about it being a change that will negatively impact you and the timing, but this RL time argument isn't really one that holds up.

 

Everyone that participates devotes their time. Things get destroyed all the time that people sunk RL time/money into. Sometimes your efforts will end up being upended and that's part of playing a game.  There isn't really any guarantee of the game staying the same to make sure you get a return on the time invested. More drastic changes than this have the potential of happening. It sucks for Jessica since she's a good person and she's good at what she does but work people have put in goes to waste all the time.  

 

 

No, not everyone devotes time to this game. Otherwise some people who devote a lot of time to this game are dumb af, since they can't seem to learn how to play it well enough. Funny how these meaningful changes - in this case the timing - always seem to screw the same side, punishing them for their success. 

 

I don't believe many people are complaining about the change in itself. The timing, however... The only fair thing to do would be to compensate alliances that paid a pretty penny for treasures that recently respawned. Idk how that's an unreasonable request, unless we're deliberately trying to help some alliances in detriment of others.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Insert Name Here

[Charles Bolivar]

I'll be honest, it's one thing to complain about it being a change that will negatively impact you and the timing, but this RL time argument isn't really one that holds up.

 

Everyone that participates devotes their time. Things get destroyed all the time that people sunk RL time/money into. Sometimes your efforts will end up being upended and that's part of playing a game. There isn't really any guarantee of the game staying the same to make sure you get a return on the time invested. More drastic changes than this have the potential of happening. It sucks for Jessica since she's a good person and she's good at what she does but work people have put in goes to waste all the time.

 

Shocker incoming...

 

But I actually agree with roq on this one.

 

I think the game should be rolled back to the last update or have these new changes implemented at the next treasure spawn event but I don't think bringing up the amount of time people invest in this game should be used as justification for a particular argument.

 

Plenty people invest a great extent of their time into this game, it really shouldn't mean that they have more say or influence as a result of this investment.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Night King

[LordRahl2]

I think a roll-back would be fitting.  There is a president for rollbacks.  However, there is no president for roll-backs favorably impacting a certain group so I am quite sure that it will not happen.

[dmjohnston]

No, not everyone devotes time to this game. Otherwise some people who devote a lot of time to this game are dumb af, since they can't seem to learn how to play it well enough. Funny how these meaningful changes - in this case the timing - always seem to screw the same side, punishing them for their success. 

 

I don't believe many people are complaining about the change in itself. The timing, however... The only fair thing to do would be to compensate alliances that paid a pretty penny for treasures that recently respawned. Idk how that's an unreasonable request, unless we're deliberately trying to help some alliances in detriment of others.

Or just implement the change at the end of this treasure cycle.

[Fermion]

Interesting change

[Sisyphus]

Everyone that participates devotes their time. Things get destroyed all the time that people sunk RL time/money into. Sometimes your efforts will end up being upended and that's part of playing a game. There isn't really any guarantee of the game staying the same to make sure you get a return on the time invested. More drastic changes than this have the potential of happening. It sucks for Jessica since she's a good person and she's good at what she does but work people have put in goes to waste all the time.

Putting all your time and effort into the game and, say, losing a war, an important political tie, or getting your bank stolen is one thing.

 

Putting all your time and effort into the game and having the administrator actively undermine your efforts is another.

 

Plenty people invest a great extent of their time into this game, it really shouldn't mean that they have more say or influence as a result of this investment.

I agree completely, but they should be regarded with all due consideration and respect, particularly when making changes that negatively effect their experience.

 

And this line of argument really begs the questions: Who are these trusted players Sheepy has mentioned? What have they done to garner such influential range over the direction of this game? Why are they any more important than any of the rest of us?

 

A change to the treasure system is overdue, we all acknowledged that something like this could've happened but that doesn't change the fact that the particulars of how Sheepy has handled this are incredibly disappointing.

 

 

 

Small side note: I think he should've found a way to go the other way with this change and made treasures worth losing friendships over. But that would only serve to make this game more interesting.

 

Make Treasures Great Again!

Edited November 6, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Karrde]

This is what happens when a game admin only listens to people on one side of the game.

 

It seems to be a fairly basic idea to listen to people from all sides, build consensus, and move forward. And if no consensus can be reached, then make a call at that point.

 

If your game relies of the goodwill of players to play and donate, the last thing you should do is alienate a large chunk of them in this manner (and I mean the lack of discussion and compromise, not the treasure nerf itself.)

 

I guess there's nothing common about sense.

[Jon Snow]

All these people !@#$ing about being given a 10day warning when one was never needed to be given in the first place. You're getting a huge bonus for 10 additional days when Sheepy has every right to change any mechanic at any time without warning to prevent people from prepping for it (as has always happened in the past)

 

The point of treasures was to generate war, not to be sold to the highest bidder anyway

[Jon Snow]

Question....would people have rather he doubled the treasure worth and instead caused a manual reset 3days after respawn? I mean, it's only been three days since respawn so it's not like people are missing out :/

[Karrde]

All these people !@#$ about being given a 10day warning when one was never needed to be given in the first place. You're getting a huge bonus for 10 additional days when Sheepy has every right to change any mechanic at any time without warning to prevent people from prepping for it (as has always happened in the past)

 

The point of treasures was to generate war, not to be sold to the highest bidder anyway

Sure he has a right to do what he wants, just as we have a right not to donate or to find the next game to have a go at. This type of approach will needlessly cause good players not to bother playing anymore.

 

For something so avoidable too with a better approach.

 

The point we're making isn't about the decision, or Alex's right to make it. But rather how a more inclusive approach could reach the same conclusion without alienating a portion of the player Base.

[LordRahl2]

All these people !@#$ about being given a 10day warning when one was never needed to be given in the first place. You're getting a huge bonus for 10 additional days when Sheepy has every right to change any mechanic at any time without warning to prevent people from prepping for it (as has always happened in the past)

 

The point of treasures was to generate war, not to be sold to the highest bidder anyway

 

Oh, Sheepy could have made an even worse decision?  Therefore we should be content. 

 

Please, sir, may I have some more.

[Rozalia]

I think some people are making a bit of a meal of this honestly though I can understand. In regards to treasures I've at times cared (like when I helped contribute to getting the old stock changed by making Blue the top colour), and at others not. I think when it comes to people who deal in these matters that is sort of the feeling they have too.

[Flame of the Flawed]

I'll be honest, it's one thing to complain about it being a change that will negatively impact you and the timing, but this RL time argument isn't really one that holds up.

 

Everyone that participates devotes their time. Things get destroyed all the time that people sunk RL time/money into. Sometimes your efforts will end up being upended and that's part of playing a game.  There isn't really any guarantee of the game staying the same to make sure you get a return on the time invested. More drastic changes than this have the potential of happening. It sucks for Jessica since she's a good person and she's good at what she does but work people have put in goes to waste all the time.  

Shocker incoming...

 

But I actually agree with roq on this one.

 

I think the game should be rolled back to the last update or have these new changes implemented at the next treasure spawn event but I don't think bringing up the amount of time people invest in this game should be used as justification for a particular argument.

 

Plenty people invest a great extent of their time into this game, it really shouldn't mean that they have more say or influence as a result of this investment.

 

First off, if you two are agreeing on something then it is clearly wrong

 

But in all seriousness, if that point doesn't resonate with you, that is fine. I feel the rest of my points in themselves already abundantly make certain things clear.

 

As for this point though, I don't agree with you two. You are comparing two different situations. Wilhelm already posted my view in response, but to further illustrate my point, here is a quick analogy.

 

What you two are saying is this: Two players are competing in a game of chess. Both players put quite a bit of time into their strategies. One strategy proves better than the other and the other fails. If the losing player complains about wasting his time, people will rightfully balk. 

 

This is what is happening here: Two players are competing in a game of chess. Both players put quite a bit of time into their strategies. One strategy proves better than the other and the player with the better strategy sacrifices several pieces to capture the other player's Queen, while keeping his own. The judge then in the middle of the match suddenly states that you can only use your Queen for 3 more moves because only one player having a Queen puts the other player at a disadvantage, hence making the player with the better strategy unable to truly take advantage of everything that was done, when the judge could have easily just allowed this round to end, and implemented this change at the beginning of the next round. 

 

Sure, the judge may have the ability to make any change he wants, but if you are being honest, the second scenario goes against everyone's intuitive sense of fairness. It causes the judge to lose the legitimacy and trust of the players. The disadvantaged player has every right to wonder, 'Why did I even bother playing? This has been a waste of my time that I could have spent elsewhere'. 

 

It is an admin's role to respect his players by avoiding such a scenario if possible. And that is currently easily within his grasp if he chooses to listen.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Flame of the Flawed

[Nintendo]

As expected, some love this change others don't. I for one think this is a great update. The treasure system was being exploited outside of their original intent. Alex noticed this and made a change. This happens in literally every game people. I see no harm in continuing to tweak things for better balance.

 

For those calling for treasures to be completely removed....why? Your only argument is that they were meant to start wars, but that initiative failed. And sure, you're probably right on that respect. Instead of starting wars for a logical reason like a game advantage, wars get started for just dumb reasons because people get "bored".

 

I think treasures are still a nice little wrinkle. Just another layer to the game. If you're one that thinks treasures are pointless, then why the hell do you care about this feature!? No one is forcing you to pay attention to treasures.

 

You think you have better idea to help stir up war? There's this handy section on the forum called "Suggestions".

[synthesis]

Question....would people have rather he doubled the treasure worth and instead caused a manual reset 3days after respawn? I mean, it's only been three days since respawn so it's not like people are missing out :/

 

Actually it does - TI has bought treasures which are now effectively worthless.

 

These would obviously not have been bought had it been known this was going to happen - This is main issue at hand here.

 

Therefore either a refund of the money spent or for the treasures to continue out their time at the current rates until the next reset. - both I feel would be acceptable, but anything less is a slap in the face for the many people involved in getting this whole thing organised in the first place, and is basically a big F*ck you to them.

 

This whole thing wreaks of corruption at the highest levels with the trusted advisors having their own agenda at hand here.

Edited November 6, 2016 by synthesis

[dmjohnston]

I don't think anyone is saying the change itself is a bad idea. Our disagreement is with the timing, which Alex continues to screw people over with and seems to not understand why it's a problem.

[Spaceman Thrax]

I'll note quickly that I think it's probably an awful idea to try to figure out who Alex's "trusted players" are. It's nonsense that so few people should have so much influence, sure, and I certainly have my suspicions about their motivations which I think are valid, but ultimately it's not those people's responsibility so much as Alex's for doing a poor job of aggregating.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Manthrax