• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Feedback Space Age Asteroid Belt (SAAB)

.RSS.

Farmer
So I do hope that this is the section for this.
I'm concerned about the negotiations and I'm shocked that no1 is talking about it.

H.Castle has more or less the same bonus as this new Great Building.
Where is the difference? It can be activated everyday, fighting vs neighborhood, Gvg or expeditions.

Negotiations require:
speedy (from tuesday up to when they are over)
guild battleground (from thursday, when there isn't any locker around your sectors).
(so on monday without BG is not possible to use this GB!!!!!!)


the easiest negotiation requires only 1 good, but to get it passed I guess you spend at least 10 if not 15 goods.
with this great building at lvl58 you have 9 try out, so it means at least 100-150 goods, gone just to get the opportunity to see this rewards.

This is b******. Does not have any sense. In the servers I play, I do have H.Castle exactly to make goods, and it is way better than Frontenac or any other Great building with just few actions. This GB is like spending every day (6 times a week, on monday is not possible) hundreds of goods just to get the opportunity to "convert" them in PF?
I better sell goods for pf if i want so.. or I just turn them in guild to build something during the battlegrounds..

Negotiations are NOT a requirement in this game. For example building correctly during the battlegrounds or fighting smartly negotiations are not necessary.
This bonus should be modified exactly as it was done for Virgo. at the beginning Virgo could mess every defence up, and they modified it.
It should be possible just to pass successfully any battle in any style, no matter if negotiating or fighting.
 

DeletedUser9815

Guest
IMHO the new LB is exactly the point where "Level Down"-Kits should be introduced.
The LB is about negotiation - and that's where these kits can jump in (as long as they are rare) - strategic downleveling of buildings to collect goods from a specific era.

And yes, the LB has some kind of strategic weakness as long as no GBG is open.
 

qaccy

Emperor
RSSkin said:
So I do hope that this is the section for this.
I'm concerned about the negotiations and I'm shocked that no1 is talking about it.

H.Castle has more or less the same bonus as this new Great Building.
Where is the difference? It can be activated everyday, fighting vs neighborhood, Gvg or expeditions.

Negotiations require:
speedy (from tuesday up to when they are over)
guild battleground (from thursday, when there isn't any locker around your sectors).
(so on monday without BG is not possible to use this GB!!!!!!)


the easiest negotiation requires only 1 good, but to get it passed I guess you spend at least 10 if not 15 goods.
with this great building at lvl58 you have 9 try out, so it means at least 100-150 goods, gone just to get the opportunity to see this rewards.

This is b******. Does not have any sense. In the servers I play, I do have H.Castle exactly to make goods, and it is way better than Frontenac or any other Great building with just few actions. This GB is like spending every day (6 times a week, on monday is not possible) hundreds of goods just to get the opportunity to "convert" them in PF?
I better sell goods for pf if i want so.. or I just turn them in guild to build something during the battlegrounds..
Click to expand...

You do bring up a pretty good point here. Negotiations always have a cost, unlike battles. Is it possible to rebalance the GB taking this guaranteed cost into account? It sheds new light for me on the diminished value of receiving goods as a reward when it costs goods to only have a chance of receiving them.

I know many are ultimately perfectly fine with the GB as-is simply because it has the almighty FP rewards in there, but the more time I spend looking at it, the more I realize that just copying Himeji Castle's effect over to another GB (except for one reward change) and making it activate from negotiations instead isn't really a very good design. It's gotta be a bit more nuanced than that for me. Perhaps removing the chance of activation and making it guaranteed for the first X successful negotiations would be a good start?

I do disagree with this though:
Negotiations are NOT a requirement in this game. For example building correctly during the battlegrounds or fighting smartly negotiations are not necessary.
This bonus should be modified exactly as it was done for Virgo. at the beginning Virgo could mess every defence up, and they modified it.
It should be possible just to pass successfully any battle in any style, no matter if negotiating or fighting.
Click to expand...

The bonus should remain strictly for negotiations. It shouldn't just be another HC that can ALSO activate on negotiations. There might be players who balk at the idea of negotiating, but it's still a core part of the game just as much as fighting is and this GB even in its current flawed design goes along with that.
 

xivarmy

Overlord
Perk Creator
qaccy said:
I know many are ultimately perfectly fine with the GB as-is simply because it has the almighty FP rewards in there, but the more time I spend looking at it, the more I realize that just copying Himeji Castle's effect over to another GB (except for one reward change) and making it activate from negotiations instead isn't really a very good design. It's gotta be a bit more nuanced than that for me. Perhaps removing the chance of activation and making it guaranteed for the first X successful negotiations would be a good start?
Click to expand...

It's not really a flaw - more of a nuance as is to getting good use out of it. i.e. you build it because you negotiate regularly, not you start negotiating because you build it. Your negotiations are already filling other aims - the GB is just providing a bonus.
 

dannymac12

Farmer
The new era needs 11500 Mars ore. 2 buildings I built will produce 8 in a day. That means it will take almost 4 years to complete the level. Are they trying to get people to quit the game?
 

xivarmy

Overlord
Perk Creator
dannymac12 said:
The new era needs 11500 Mars ore. 2 buildings I built will produce 8 in a day. That means it will take almost 4 years to complete the level. Are they trying to get people to quit the game?
Click to expand...

Why stop at 2? It's not like you're some tiny iron age city. Pick some stuff you don't really need and sell/store it and crank it up to 10-40 buildings.
 

Osserc

Merchant
xivarmy said:
Why stop at 2? It's not like you're some tiny iron age city. Pick some stuff you don't really need and sell/store it and crank it up to 10-40 buildings.
Click to expand...
That's a workaround for the problem, but it would be better to just rebalance.

They've essentially released a goods building with a huge footprint. It takes 5 to produce at the rate of a normal goods building so that's a 5 x 3x3 = 45 tile equivalent. That's at pre-SAM production rates and tech tree requirements. At SAM and later rates It's 15 x 3x3 = 105. That's just absurd.
 

999danny999

Farmer
I agree that the mars ore production needs to be increased. I am not saying to increase it tremendously but it is like using un-boosted goods to do something, people have been trained to avoid doing that.

I don’t think suggesting now for the people that have played long enough to get to SAAB sell or store enough buildings to produce in 90 squares footprint (3x3x10) a total of 80 Mars ore per day. 11500/80=144 days. Almost 5 months. If you compare that a single battle in Mars for the good can give more with no space being used in the main city.

I doubt when you bring it over to live server it will go over very well in the current form.
 

xivarmy

Overlord
Perk Creator
Osserc said:
That's a workaround for the problem, but it would be better to just rebalance.

They've essentially released a goods building with a huge footprint. It takes 5 to produce at the rate of a normal goods building so that's a 5 x 3x3 = 45 tile equivalent. That's at pre-SAM production rates and tech tree requirements. At SAM and later rates It's 15 x 3x3 = 105. That's just absurd.
Click to expand...

Well I mean I think it's absurd to think 2 3x3 buildings and 16k population is an appropriate investment for a space age player. With a building that tiny, if you need it of course you're going to need multiples. I mean even if you go back to the beginning of the game and saw a player with two potteries complaining that they couldn't make enough supplies, what would you tell them? That they probably need more than 2 potteries. The exact same thing applies here, only the space available to an advanced player is even larger. Building 20 3x3s is not an issue! (or shouldn't be)
 

Dan 49 the fearless

Merchant
xivarmy said:
Well I mean I think it's absurd to think 2 3x3 buildings and 16k population is an appropriate investment for a space age player. With a building that tiny, if you need it of course you're going to need multiples. I mean even if you go back to the beginning of the game and saw a player with two potteries complaining that they couldn't make enough supplies, what would you tell them? That they probably need more than 2 potteries. The exact same thing applies here, only the space available to an advanced player is even larger. Building 20 3x3s is not an issue! (or shouldn't be)
Click to expand...

Who wants to waste that kind of space on something like this?
 

Osserc

Merchant
xivarmy said:
Well I mean I think it's absurd to think 2 3x3 buildings and 16k population is an appropriate investment for a space age player. With a building that tiny, if you need it of course you're going to need multiples. I mean even if you go back to the beginning of the game and saw a player with two potteries complaining that they couldn't make enough supplies, what would you tell them? That they probably need more than 2 potteries. The exact same thing applies here, only the space available to an advanced player is even larger. Building 20 3x3s is not an issue! (or shouldn't be)
Click to expand...
The question is not whether a player is able to make space, it's whether it's a smart game design choice. What is the point of reducing the production to 1/5th the normal rate and 1/15th the SAM rate? Where's the upside to a huge nerf? Make it 6x4 and produce 90 per day and there's no problem.

This change creates disincentives to playing the game, and that's a dangerous thing especially for a game this old. Asking players to camp for weeks to gather enough ore or pack up a big chunk of their city is a horrible idea. Why spend money on event buildings when there isn't enough room to place them? Why bother with cultural settlements or battlegrounds when there's no room to place the buildings?

This will cost them players and money. Beta is mostly advanced and well prepared players and it's pretty damn unpopular here. The average player will absolutely hate it.
 
Emberguard

Emberguard

Emperor
RSSkin said:
the easiest negotiation requires only 1 good, but to get it passed I guess you spend at least 10 if not 15 goods.
Click to expand...
Space Carrier is designed so you get something back when you would have negotiated anyway. If you want to farm negotiations then on the easiest negotiation use coins and supplies only. Abort and redo if you find it asks for goods on the third turn.
 

xivarmy

Overlord
Perk Creator
Osserc said:
The question is not whether a player is able to make space, it's whether it's a smart game design choice. What is the point of reducing the production to 1/5th the normal rate and 1/15th the SAM rate? Where's the upside to a huge nerf? Make it 6x4 and produce 90 per day and there's no problem.

This change creates disincentives to playing the game, and that's a dangerous thing especially for a game this old. Asking players to camp for weeks to gather enough ore or pack up a big chunk of their city is a horrible idea. Why spend money on event buildings when there isn't enough room to place them? Why bother with cultural settlements or battlegrounds when there's no room to place the buildings?

This will cost them players and money. Beta is mostly advanced and well prepared players and it's pretty damn unpopular here. The average player will absolutely hate it.
Click to expand...

A game needs to have challenges - which will often masquerade as things players don't really *want* to do (getting rid of some of their worst event buildings to make space for some mars ore synthesizers) - but are necessary in order to accomplish something they *do* want (get to the end of the most recent age).

It's healthy to have churn in your city. To have a pressure to pick what you don't really need anymore (to make space for what you do).

And then once you no longer need them to have that space to accumulate new event stuff.

It has been an issue for a while now that people *haven't* needed to use buildings from the ages and just have had cities full of event junk. I don't consider it a bad thing at all that there's a potential pressure to actually use a decent amount of space on buildings in your city. It may be a bit of a culture shock since they let it go too long - but i think it's good for the game that they do take steps to have people want to use 'normal' buildings in some quantity again.
 

Osserc

Merchant
xivarmy said:
A game needs to have challenges - which will often masquerade as things players don't really *want* to do (getting rid of some of their worst event buildings to make space for some mars ore synthesizers) - but are necessary in order to accomplish something they *do* want (get to the end of the most recent age).

It's healthy to have churn in your city. To have a pressure to pick what you don't really need anymore (to make space for what you do).
Click to expand...
Challenges need to be fun. It's a game. Roadblocks with no other redeeming value, that are solely designed to slow down your progress, are never well received.

You won't need those buildings only because they arbitrarily reduced the production rate of a key resource. Asking people to give up 200% attack or 50FPs or whatever just because Inno feels like it is a non-starter. Especially for people who have spent money to get those buildings.

If you think that players will be accepting of this change I think you're sorely mistaken.
 

Dan 49 the fearless

Merchant
CrashBoom said:
the funny thing is
it punish the players who played the game as it was designed: use Mars Ore on Mars to produce goods
and it rewards the players who ignored the colony and collected the Ore. and even worse: they didn't collect it to be prepared for later. they only made those battles because they wanted to make battles.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I have so much of it. I have a high level Chateau so I have no need to produce goods, I have nearly 30k of each SAM good without ever producing SAM goods in the colony. I was only interested in the ore for the battles.

This is a problem that is ticking off a lot of people on Beta and will tick off even more on live. I do agree that some people may leave the game bc of it especially if they entered SAAB without realizing what would happen to the mars ore on the map. It does have a simple solution. Credits aren't Mars credits they are space age credits. Those credits transfer to SAAB and any other space age era. Then reopen the Mars ore on the campaign map. That will solve all of these problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top