I don't know who suggested this or how many people did, but in general, no suggestion or feedback to nerf a build should be forwarded, as it reflects poorly on the game design team who roll out these changes after already having discussed and considered their impact. This keeps happening repeatedly, ever since the Trailside Smithy was removed as a daily special, and players should not be given that power. In this case, I'm not even sure if someone created a feedback thread on Discord to suggest this, or if it just got forwarded because a mod was too active and saw people discussing and agreed with it.
And we are providing feedback to the tested change.
That's your prerogative as to each their own.
It seems unlikely it was actually just that one person "deciding" it. Rather I suspect it was somewhat coincidental that their feedback lined up with the developer's own second thoughts. And now the community will blame them for something that might've happened anyways
That's what I said—it aligned with the mod's thoughts, and they decided to forward it. One person suggesting the nerf is enough of an excuse. Developers don't look at Discord feedback. They need to stop forwarding everything people discuss, especially when it's just two people. This bypasses the proper feedback submission process, which involves creating a post and having the community vote on it. What’s the point of those threads now?It seems unlikely it was actually just that one person "deciding" it. Rather I suspect it was somewhat coincidental that their feedback lined up with the developer's own second thoughts. And now the community will blame them for something that might've happened anyways
Ever since they decided to elect YouTubers as community representatives and set up calls with them to discuss game balancing. Maybe the same person, who's always pro-Inno and pro-nerf on most things in the game, commented this on Discord, and Inno honored his feedback as their chosen representative?
I'm saying it could've happened with *no* people suggesting the nerf. But since someone *did* suggest it you're attributing it to that instead of just a developer decision.
I could not disagree with this more. In the interest of the long term health of the game, if players uncover what they think are defects in an upcoming feature they should bring it to the attention of the Mods and the Mods should relay the information to the Devs. Blaming, or shaming, a player for posting a comment that subsequently results in a nerf is unacceptable.
Your examples identify actual mistakes and defects with programming, and loosely ties to adding QI boost to event buildings that can be reproduced. In this case, there is a limit to how many such buildings a player can place in their city.
That's amazing! I was almost willing to bet it would have been them, because I often see their feedbacks being taken quite seriously over others and immediately forwarded. And like I said before, they are often the pioneer for any discussions on nerfs and have their mind set on initiating such discussions.
Was... long ago where that can be true.
I like to think of it as "cookie clicker" game. I've always enjoyed it, although theres a lot of hate for it. They've tried to make it different from St Paddies, you'd really have to give it some different mechanisms rather than just changing the speed of the game to really make a difference from people rightfully calling it St Paddies v2.
Yes, it really is a St Patrick's v2, but as it has gameplay that I can get through and even enjoy, I'm not complaining. ;-) I just can't get on with the kind of mini-game that's in the Wildlife event because it bores me too much and I can't get through the event. I'd rather build something and see how it grows.
