New Farming System

[sunsvortex 599]

This game is based on freedom to follow your chosen path. Realistic simulation and hardships are not mentioned anywhere in the games general description on the home page. That ideal is part of something a select group of players wants to see.

 

I disagree that dev should ignore customer's desire and push their own agendas. What devs should be doing is looking at the suggestions forum and find things the community wants, assessing ROI is worthwhile -- coding difficulty versus customers gained or retained, and how it might break game balance.

 

I wish we had an in game voting system that attaches statistics to each players vote. Then all majority claims can be laid to rest.

Any sandbox game allows freedom to follow your chosen path...No its not mentioned but then why dont we have gingerbread houses and candy cane trees? Oceans of cheese and wheres the yellow brick road?.

 

Trying to turn WURM into Sims or WOW is kind of strange with the simpleton paths and oversimplified mechanics. Oversimplification is overdone...EVE...arguably the most complicated game ever...has 500,000 subs..so clearly keeping things realistic and complicated doesnt inhibit game growth.

 

Voting system would never work...it would be gamed. All web based polls can easily be manipulated..couldnt use accounts in game as there would be multiple accounts per person. IP Addresses can be changed and spoofed as well as MAC addresses. No way to do voting that could not be gamed.

 

I disagree that dev should ignore customer's desire and push their own agendas  - Nothing like that has happened...Proof??? Or are you still going to maintain you dont need facts to make accusations?

 

What devs should be doing is looking at the suggestions forum and find things the community wants, assessing ROI is worthwhile -- coding difficulty versus customers gained or retained, and how it might break game balance. -

 

No reason not to look at suggestion forum..also no reason to implement anything on it. I have put stuff on it..but its up to them to choose what can be done and what they think will add the most value to the game. There are plenty of ways to keep the community involved..none of which require the use of pitchforks and tempertantrums nor does it require the community to be involved with every change.

 

And as far as ROI is concerned...every time you make a coding change you alter ROI..so it has to always be a priority. Ultimately changes will be made...people will leave..the game will go on..with or without the people that leave. New people will come in to replace those that leave. Rage quitters always come back..its the silent ones who if they leave...wont come back. This has been proven. There is no reason to cater to the mob..so if they do..they do so as a kindness..nothing more.

Edited June 28, 2013 by sunsvortex

[Enola 53]

Oversimplification is overdone...EVE...arguably the most complicated game ever...has 500,000 subs..so clearly keeping things realistic and complicated doesnt inhibit game growth.

 

That is the whole point. Wurm isn't complicated. And increasing the time it takes to do x doesn't make x any harder or more challenging. It just turns it into a friggin grindfest, which Wurm is already. There's absolutely no depth.

[Syleth 19]

True Story Enola.

[joedobo 1,187]

 

Voting system would never work...it would be gamed. All web based polls can easily be manipulated..couldnt use accounts in game as there would be multiple accounts per person. IP Addresses can be changed and spoofed as well as MAC addresses. No way to do voting that could not be gamed.

 

 

A voting system would work where you cast your vote with a Wurm toon and the game attach statistics to the vote. These values might include whether premium, days played (/time) and others. With a vote and statistics like this we could easily see what paying customers want, what free to play want, what veterans want, what new players want, and many other assessments. This works because a paying customer is a paying customer. In order to "game" the /time value you'd have to hack the server. I sure there are more reason then those two but that is what came to mind immediately.

 

 

You tell me I'm not providing proof, well neither are you. Your opinionated long winded statements aren't facts. I see no scientifically designed poles that inquired of thousands of gamers. No references to accredited academic studies detailing success and failures of sandbox mmo.

[sunsvortex 599]

 

 

That is the whole point. Wurm isn't complicated. And increasing the time it takes to do x doesn't make x any harder or more challenging. It just turns it into a friggin grindfest, which Wurm is already. There's absolutely no depth.

I hear people say this alot...but I have never ground any skill..I have always just let them raise naturally. If I were forced to have to grind..id never play this game..so I guess its just the playstyle.

 

Im sitting on 82 digging 71 carp 72 masonry 68 mining a handfull of 50's and a bunch of 30 to40's.

 

But ill agree if things are mishandled..it very well could turn into that...but I just dont see any sign of it yet.

[Kediec 280]

To balance that out I think that regardless of skill level you should be risking a 0 harvest. There are too many factors involved that could realistically give a 0 harvest. Everyone should be risking that..it makes for a level of realism in farming thats missing.

 

I don't play GAMES for realism. I play them for fun and enjoyment.

 

Rolf not too long ago made the minimum yield on fields be 2 to help RETAIN new players, and now this farming change has completely undone that change.

 

I tested with a free char with 20 farming on 30 fields using 20ql potatoes and a 10ql rake, if i didn't rake for 1 day of them growing , i got 1 crop back .... please tell me how that equates to FUN.

 

Now consider a new player may have a horse or 2 on there as well, this would result in a loss of crops ( from animals eating them away).......

 

In a game where eating is needed to be able to do anything , and a nutrition system involved that means you can't just eat any old crap you find , then you NEED to be able to sustain yourself at a basic level from farming ( doesn't matter if it is a free character or not ).

 

Yes, players can forage and fish as well, but that doesn't mean we should nerf farming for those players.

[sunsvortex 599]

 

 

A voting system would work where you cast your vote with a Wurm toon and the game attach statistics to the vote. These values might include whether premium, days played (/time) and others. With a vote and statistics like this we could easily see what paying customers want, what free to play want, what veterans want, what new players want, and many other assessments. This works because a paying customer is a paying customer. In order to "game" the /time value you'd have to hack the server. I sure there are more reason then those two but that is what came to mind immediately.

 

 

You tell me I'm not providing proof, well neither are you. Your opinionated long winded statements aren't facts. I see no scientifically designed poles that inquired of thousands of gamers. No references to accredited academic studies detailing success and failures of sandbox mmo.

 

Nope..that voting system could be gamed easily..multiple toons per account (people have had thier priests alts for years..people have had multiple toons for years)..it would skew the statistics and would not be an accurate reflection of those voting...not to mention youd have to force a vote from everyone...and thats not going to happen. Otherwise its just the vocal minoroity again. Voting systems dont work unless everyone can show up face to face and drop a paper  ballot. And even then..this doesnt always work..even with threats of incarceration and fines...these do not exist in an MMO. I have 5 live IP addys that I own..I could subnet those into as many IP's as I wanted to and essentialy create hundreds of accounts and own any voting system on the web including any that would be on WURM. And no one would be able to tell..there would be no way to accurately define whether i was 1 or many. I have been in networking for 14 years. I can speak with authority..polls and voting online are not possible.

 

Long winded..Ill give you that one..but these are complex issues..so they require complex answers. They are not 1 dimensional black and white cut and dry issues. So they require a bit more thought..a solid foundation in logic and where facts can be garnered..applied.

 

Youll never see a scientific poll on an MMO. Polls cannot be done online..they can and will always be manipulated. Its very easy to do. they mean nothing..I dont even buy the polls on here that support my viewpoint..they are meaningless..to many forum alts.

 

And there are academic studies on MMO's..they all have to do with phsycology though. If Im understanding you correctly..you would like to apply a more mainstream MMO ideaology to WURM. I could not disagree with that enough. Why would anyone want to take a decidedly unique game and apply WOW and Rift ideaological concepts. There are plenty of simpleton games out there..there are no end to them. If you like a simpler version of WURM...Minecraft is available. why not go there? you have Sims...Everquest, WOW, RIFT, then trions new First person that has a SYFY show based on it..Definace. That market is saturated...why in the world would anyone want to go in that direction. Theres no reason to financially, the game was never based on those Idealogical viewpoints...WURMS closest comparison is to EVE...and even then you have to stay on a very high level when comparing them. WURMS potentially biggest market is from the EVE crowd.

 

It really should get more complex..each "Path" not class..(everyone calls them classes..but thats a mainstream MMO concept, they are more correctly described as paths) should bestructured so that you have a carrer path one can choose to follow that is and unto itself its own independant fully fleshed out way of experiencing WURM.Farming should be farming...not a variant on the facebook farm game. Blacksmithing should be blacksmithing...and have its own fleshed out little world. All you have to do is look at EVE and see the parallels.

 

If I want to do alchemy..there should be a huge section on it..a lot of features and ways thier products interact with the rest of the carrer paths. dependency, at high levels, between each of the paths. this is the way the game was founded..there is no reason to move away from that direction. I have allready stated in a different post on a different subject that I think that WURM needs to move thier marketing away from the minecraft crowd of preteens and teens and move to a more adult oriented 25+ age range. thats where this games market lies...below age 25 the vast majority of kids will move from game to game anyways. the grass is always greener and A.D.D. is the driving motivator. your always going to have to be doing something to keep thier attention. And for a small dev group..thats near impossible. So they might as well rely on their strengths and simply abandon the demographic of 24 and below.And then move to a demographic that best suits them..where the profit lies.

 

Im far from the first person to say this would be a good direction..I have seen it posted many times.

Edited June 28, 2013 by sunsvortex

[Noizhead 622]

"But realism" is a stillborn argument in my eyes.  This is a game, and all of a game's mechanics are contrived in the end.  Even the most grueling slogs with the most complex mechanics are only chasing after an apparition of reality.

It's as simple as this:  until a raking action is as good for the final yield as sowing in the first place, it's never going to be incentivized for serious production.  As of this writing, if I rake a tile five times, its yield doesn't even double.  That is garbage, and it fails to reward the extra effort.  "Do I rake this whole plot five times throughout the week, or do I just sow a few more tiles today?" is an easy choice.

My ideal system would be one where default yields are decided by skill and stuck at a low number, where successful raking acts as a multiplier.  If one action of sowing a seed gets you two crops at the end of the week, then every time you successfully rake should get you another two.  I think this because, if raking's effect is not pronounced, it will never stack up against making a bigger farm that you sow & ignore, and remain an action reserved solely for farmers who are still working on their skill.

 

In such a system, the two extremes for such a farmer would be, when seeking a harvest of a thousand crops, to sow 500 tiles and ignore them, or sow 85 tiles and rake them five times for a harvest of 1020.  In the end, both are around 500 actions (510 for sowing and then raking 5x, to be pedantic), but meticulously caring for your field rewards you with markedly more output from a smaller plot.  At either extreme, and at all points in between, the field's output scales linearly with the work you put into it.  A side benefit of this system would be an end to all the enormous farms that are sown and then ignored, because they would not have so decidedly a greater benefit than a smaller and tended field.  "Realism" apologists are invited to reread the first paragraph.

These problems have been with farming for a very long time.  1.1's halfhearted changes failed to address how pointless it is to rake instead of just making your farm larger.  Over the years, my advice to any fledgling farmer has always been this:  rake the crops that give you the most skill until you are happy with your skill, and then make your farm as big as you want your output to be, because raking for production isn't worth it.  Post 1.1, my advice would still be the same.  If the developers' goal with changing farming was to reward tending to your field, it did not do enough.

[sunsvortex 599]

I don't play GAMES for realism. I play them for fun and enjoyment.

 

Rolf not too long ago made the minimum yield on fields be 2 to help RETAIN new players, and now this farming change has completely undone that change.

 

I tested with a free char with 20 farming on 30 fields using 20ql potatoes and a 10ql rake, if i didn't rake for 1 day of them growing , i got 1 crop back .... please tell me how that equates to FUN.

 

Now consider a new player may have a horse or 2 on there as well, this would result in a loss of crops ( from animals eating them away).......

 

In a game where eating is needed to be able to do anything , and a nutrition system involved that means you can't just eat any old crap you find , then you NEED to be able to sustain yourself at a basic level from farming ( doesn't matter if it is a free character or not ).

 

Yes, players can forage and fish as well, but that doesn't mean we should nerf farming for those players.

 

  I don't play GAMES for realism. I play them for fun and enjoyment. -  Ok so thats a playstyle..plenty of games out there that cater to just that....ive listed them in one of the above posts.

 

Rolf not too long ago made the minimum yield on fields be 2 to help RETAIN new players, and now this farming change has completely undone that change. -  Ok 2 things...show me the post where Rolf stated this was the reason he made that change...and 2. Foraging..if youll give it a quick try...now is the easiest method of garnering food for new players as well as players who have below 40 farming. No ones going to starve....unfortunately.

 

I tested with a free char with 20 farming on 30 fields using 20ql potatoes and a 10ql rake, if i didn't rake for 1 day of them growing , i got 1 crop back .... please tell me how that equates to FUN. - 2 things here as well..your definiton of fun is different than mine..and 2..less farm products for the new guys = more foraging...less farm products for the rest of us  = a better market and better prices. your going to say that someone paying you 3 or 4 sil per 1000 farmed goods wont be satisfying? if you were to get say 4 silver for 1000 pumpkins..wouldnt you deserve that?..sounds like incentive to me..sounds like in the process youll gain renown as a farmer. Lots of ways to look at that. As I have stated in an above posts...facebook has farming you can play WOW Rift Minecraft..all of those are oversimplified games that attract a certain demographic.

 

Now consider a new player may have a horse or 2 on there as well, this would result in a loss of crops ( from animals eating them away)....... - Horses can be put on grass..no reason to have them on crops. or for that matter Cows Bison deer..all the grazing animals can be put on grass.

 

In a game where eating is needed to be able to do anything , and a nutrition system involved that means you can't just eat any old crap you find , then you NEED to be able to sustain yourself at a basic level from farming ( doesn't matter if it is a free character or not ).  - you can use foraging to get the stuff you need to eat...no one will starve..I would invite you to try foraging a bit to see what you come up with...Im sure youll see its a quick and easy way to find the stuff you need to feed yourself.

 

Yes, players can forage and fish as well, but that doesn't mean we should nerf farming for those players. - I dont believe it to be a nerf..its a rebalancing. farming has always been too easy and out of line with other paths.

[sunsvortex 599]

"But realism" is a stillborn argument in my eyes.  This is a game, and all of a game's mechanics are contrived in the end.  Even the most grueling slogs with the most complex mechanics are only chasing after an apparition of reality.

It's as simple as this:  until a raking action is as good for the final yield as sowing in the first place, it's never going to be incentivized for serious production.  As of this writing, if I rake a tile five times, its yield doesn't even double.  That is garbage, and it fails to reward the extra effort.  "Do I rake this whole plot five times throughout the week, or do I just sow a few more tiles today?" is an easy choice.

My ideal system would be one where default yields are decided by skill and stuck at a low number, where successful raking acts as a multiplier.  If one action of sowing a seed gets you two crops at the end of the week, then every time you successfully rake should get you another two.  I think this because, if raking's effect is not pronounced, it will never stack up against making a bigger farm that you sow & ignore, and remain an action reserved solely for farmers who are still working on their skill.

 

In such a system, the two extremes for such a farmer would be, when seeking a harvest of a thousand crops, to sow 500 tiles and ignore them, or sow 85 tiles and rake them five times for a harvest of 1020.  In the end, both are around 500 actions (510 for sowing and then raking 5x, to be pedantic), but meticulously caring for your field rewards you with markedly more output from a smaller plot.  At either extreme, and at all points in between, the field's output scales linearly with the work you put into it.  A side benefit of this system would be an end to all the enormous farms that are sown and then ignored, because they would not have so decidedly a greater benefit than a smaller and tended field.  "Realism" apologists are invited to reread the first paragraph.

These problems have been with farming for a very long time.  1.1's halfhearted changes failed to address how pointless it is to rake instead of just making your farm larger.  Over the years, my advice to any fledgling farmer has always been this:  rake the crops that give you the most skill until you are happy with your skill, and then make your farm as big as you want your output to be, because raking for production isn't worth it.  Post 1.1, my advice would still be the same.  If the developers' goal with changing farming was to reward tending to your field, it did not do enough.

 Even the most grueling slogs with the most complex mechanics are only chasing after an apparition of reality. - I agree..this can be said of any game. But all that realisim has garnered WURMS closest parralell 500000 subs.EVE. After how many years of going after the minecraft crowd...how many subs..no idea..I see 34 players on my server atm. hmm 500000 or say 1200 1300. EVE has 30k players on at any given time. So since there are all kinds of games that cater to the simple side of gaming..and only 1 sandbox that caters to the complex side of things...Financially and realistically..the direction is clear. Complex =subs.

 

It's as simple as this: until a raking action is as good for the final yield as sowing in the first place, it's never going to be incentivized for serious production. As of this writing, if I rake a tile five times, its yield doesn't even double. That is garbage, and it fails to reward the extra effort. "Do I rake this whole plot five times throughout the week, or do I just sow a few more tiles today?" is an easy choice. - Its not been tweaked yet...and it will most likely need multiple tweakings..Id wait until its pronounced done before Judgment.

 

And again to your other points..id simply wait untill the farming is pronounced done....its not even been tweaked once..and will in all likelyhood take multiple tweakings.

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

Farming is screwed up now, and it needs fixed.  No need to put it to a vote, there are enough upset to see it needs worked on.  No need to argue about 'realism' either.  I'm a 99.25 skill farmer, and I'm tending 290 tiles as often as I can (they have to go untended before you can rake them again), and all I see is a drop in my production of 25-33%, no matter what I do or what tools and seed I use.  This was supposed to make a good rake and good seed make a difference, it does not.  All it has done is make it necessary to farm more tiles to keep up with the production levels I had before.  After all, none of the skills that use farm crops use less materials than before.  And there is an imbalance in getting rares.  It seems those with middling skill get lots of rares, but those at low skill and those at high skill see none.  This makes being a middling farmer better, as they are actually having better yields than I am.  So why did I get my skill so high?  To get nerfed back behind those with less skill?  I'm not demanding that you revert the changes, but if you can't get it to work out properly, then revert until you get it worked out right.

 

And don't forget about those at the top, who still have a little way to go to get to 100 skill.  Before the change, I was only getting 0.007 skill a day anyway and it was going to take a year to get that last 0.75 skill.  Now in order to get a 1/2 decent harvest I have to use a good rake instead of a skiller, so my gains are more like 0.000046 a day.  I should not have to choose between gaining skill and getting a good harvest, you should be able to get both.

[joedobo 1,187]

 

 

 

 

Nope..that voting system could be gamed easily..multiple toons per account (people have had thier priests alts for years..people have had multiple toons for years)..it would skew the statistics and would not be an accurate reflection of those voting...not to mention youd have to force a vote from everyone...and thats not going to happen. Otherwise its just the vocal minoroity again. Voting systems dont work unless everyone can show up face to face and drop a paper  ballot. And even then..this doesnt always work..even with threats of incarceration and fines...these do not exist in an MMO. I have 5 live IP addys that I own..I could subnet those into as many IP's as I wanted to and essentialy create hundreds of accounts and own any voting system on the web including any that would be on WURM. And no one would be able to tell..there would be no way to accurately define whether i was 1 or many. I have been in networking for 14 years. I can speak with authority..polls and voting online are not possible.

 

Each account is a paying entity. It doesn't matter if one person is funding 5 premium accounts. I agree you can spoof your IP but what you can't do is spoof your /time on Wurm servers or whether your toon has premium (assuming you're not going to try and hack the Wurm server). At best you could skew the F2P statistics for a vote. It wouldn't be necessary to force everyone to vote. As long as people have the opportunity to vote anonymously and the tally system relies mostly on things completely controlled by the wurm server (premium, /time, farming skill, ect ect) the pole would be a good tool.

[sunsvortex 599]

Each account is a paying entity. It doesn't matter if one person is funding 5 premium accounts. I agree you can spoof your IP but what you can't do is spoof your /time on Wurm servers or whether your toon has premium (assuming you're not going to try and hack the Wurm server). At best you could skew the F2P statistics for a vote. It wouldn't be necessary to force everyone to vote. As long as people have the opportunity to vote anonymously and the tally system relies mostly on things completely controlled by the wurm server (premium, /time, farming skill, ect ect) the pole would be a good tool.

More accounts does not = more votes..thats a bit of cheating the sysem. I person =1 vote. You cant use time as you would then take new people to the game out of the voting system....so using time doesnt work either...If your goal is a true vote..then you would have to force everyone to vote. your going back to only a few make the decisions..the vocal minority. doesnt work.

[Protunia 735]

Farming is screwed up now, and it needs fixed.  No need to put it to a vote, there are enough upset to see it needs worked on.  No need to argue about 'realism' either.  I'm a 99.25 skill farmer, and I'm tending 290 tiles as often as I can (they have to go untended before you can rake them again), and all I see is a drop in my production of 25-33%, no matter what I do or what tools and seed I use.  This was supposed to make a good rake and good seed make a difference, it does not.  All it has done is make it necessary to farm more tiles to keep up with the production levels I had before.  After all, none of the skills that use farm crops use less materials than before.  And there is an imbalance in getting rares.  It seems those with middling skill get lots of rares, but those at low skill and those at high skill see none.  This makes being a middling farmer better, as they are actually having better yields than I am.  So why did I get my skill so high?  To get nerfed back behind those with less skill?  I'm not demanding that you revert the changes, but if you can't get it to work out properly, then revert until you get it worked out right.

 

And don't forget about those at the top, who still have a little way to go to get to 100 skill.  Before the change, I was only getting 0.007 skill a day anyway and it was going to take a year to get that last 0.75 skill.  Now in order to get a 1/2 decent harvest I have to use a good rake instead of a skiller, so my gains are more like 0.000046 a day.  I should not have to choose between gaining skill and getting a good harvest, you should be able to get both.

 

 

tell that to miners, woodcutters etc.......so you think farming should have a qlty system instead or added to it?

 

lack of tending, lack of tool Qlty, seed qlty, etc... equal reduced qlty of crops??

Edited June 29, 2013 by Protunia

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

tell that to miners, woodcutters etc.......so you think farming should have a qlty system instead?

 

lack of tending, lack of tool Qlty, etc... equal reduced qlty??

 

FYI, I'm also a 92 woodcutter, and my alt is 91 miner, so I know what those skills are like too.  Why does EVERY skill in this game have to be the same difficulty?  You use crops to make meals, ropes, and cloth items.  With the steps it takes to make those items, you mostly lose the ql, and in the case of ropes and meals you can't imp them so the losses are much higher.  I have 70 or higher in those skills, and the same for the carp and smithing skills too, so I know how it all works.  Some skills are easier than others, and it should be that way.  It makes some skills, such as weapon smithing highly valued, but others are skills everyone needs to have, so you don't ever get to have a big market value on those items, and then only in bulk sales.  Digging is a prime example.  The skill is easy to get, the ql only matters if you are making charcoal piles, and bulk sales will be for any ql, so as a digger you will never get rich.  And neither do farmers.  I have made a few bulk sales, but made minimum coin for it, so I use most of the crops for myself.  And now I have to make more fields to keep the supply I had before coming in, even though I work at it every day.  You don't get to 99 by planting and harvesting only.

 

And if they want to keep this new system, fine, but make it make sense.  They said ql of tools and seed was supposed to make a difference now, and how often you tend.  I've been trying it all ways, there is no difference in my yields.  It's broken and needs fixed.  If they want us to work at it (which I do already), then it needs to reward the work.  I don't mind the idea that the sow and harvest only folks get less yields, but those of us who are doing the job right do not need to be punished with lower yields from this change.

[Protunia 735]

Oh I agree you should get the maximum "intended" yields for the effort and skill you have.

 

Was it intended to reduce yields overall or just reduce yields for lack of effort??  I have no idea.

 

My biggest question in this whole deal is what exactly is this maximum yield supposed to be??

 

We have some people getting 16 crops while others are getting 1 or 2 or 3.........

 

I guess that's why Tich needs all the info to balance this out and see if there are any bugs in the new system that was designed.

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

That I agree with.  We really could use some hard info on what is supposed to be expected, to let us know if it is working as intended or not.  I have noticed that those with middling skills seem to be getting the most 16 crop yields, while those at the bottom and top end of skills seem to get none at all.  If that is based on rares (rare actions while farming or using a rare rake), skill should have nothing to do with the frequency of a rare, it should remain totally random.  Also, is it just me, or are crops taking a lot longer to grow now?  I don't seem to be harvesting as often on any 1 tile.

[Hussars 511]

My only real comment on it is that the output needs to be balanced without the use of rare or better tools and events.  At the mythical 100.00 skill with a 100.00 non-rare tool and 100.00 seeds, if you perform the maximum raking actions you should get the baseline maximum yield.

 

Rare or better tools and actions should only add to this value, not be used to reach it.  But in the write up, it is suggested they are NEEDED to maximize the yield and that is where I have an issue with the changes.

 

Lower the base yield maximum value if there is too much produce in production, not the base yield minimum.  Balancing aimed at lower level yield rates breaks higher level production by limiting the scaling or misaligned scaling (as seen in the reported numbers so far), balancing aimed at higher level yield rates allows you to set a better curve since there is an "ideal" value you can achieve in a "perfect" world situation, while maintaining what ever "quality of life" you want to impose on lower skilled characters.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Hussars

[sunsvortex 599]

I think if we knew "exactly" why the change went into effect we could then better discern what the ultimate end change would be. It would be interesting to have just a bit more insight into exactly why this change is going in. I think the intended was for a base yield min at 1..iirc. But I have seen reports of 0 harvest..no idea if those are true or what the circumstances were surrounding the 0 harvest. I have a few tiles I planted and just left to ripen..I got 1 and some 2's..but its too small a data set to draw any conclusions off of other than its possible to get 1 @ 44 farming skill.

 

If I am to interpret the numbers I have seen thus far and translate those into sentences I think it would go something like this - It should be rare to get  pre 1.1 harvest numbers. The rare actions contribute to an average thats cloose to pre 1.1 numbers. New people can forage till they get enough farming to support themselves with it.

Edited June 29, 2013 by sunsvortex

[joedobo 1,187]

More accounts does not = more votes..thats a bit of cheating the sysem. I person =1 vote. You cant use time as you would then take new people to the game out of the voting system....so using time doesnt work either...If your goal is a true vote..then you would have to force everyone to vote. your going back to only a few make the decisions..the vocal minority. doesnt work.

All paying accounts are by no means a minority. We can also easily tally what percentage of premium accounts voted on an issue. And this is something that can't be gamed or spoofed. Each paying account contributes equally to the game and each should get a vote. I disagree with your opinion that its 1 vote per person. The point is to collect statistics and analyze what various trends occur throughout different demographics.

 

/time would not remove new people from the voting system. It could actually clearly show what new players want versus veterans. As an example, if we were to make a bar chart where /time is used to define x-axis categories and y-axis tallies total votes. We would divided each category or bar into however many vote options there were.  With such a chart we could at a moments glance see what new players want, long time veterans want, and all players in between.

 

The server could also tally up data for accounts that didn't vote when ballot time has cesses. With this data we could add another subdivision of a bar from the above example showing what percentage of a group didn't vote.

[Protunia 735]

All paying accounts are by no means a minority. We can also easily tally what percentage of premium accounts voted on an issue. And this is something that can't be gamed or spoofed. Each paying account contributes equally to the game and each should get a vote. I disagree with your opinion that its 1 vote per person. The point is to collect statistics and analyze what various trends occur throughout different demographics.

 

/time would not remove new people from the voting system. It could actually clearly show what new players want versus veterans. As an example, if we were to make a bar chart where /time is used to define x-axis categories and y-axis tallies total votes. We would divided each category or bar into however many vote options there were.  With such a chart we could at a moments glance see what new players want, long time veterans want, and all players in between.

 

The server could also tally up data for accounts that didn't vote when ballot time has cesses. With this data we could add another subdivision of a bar from the above example showing what percentage of a group didn't vote.

 

 

LOL!! I can prem 10 accounts a month easy right now in game with silver and keep others going with referals.

 

So basically I could get any where from 15-20 votes in one month.

 

There is basically no system that cannot be gamed unless you went into ID's and proof.

 

You could go with paypal accounts....but that can be gamed too.

 

I doubt you can find a system people will go for that would not allow someone who wants to vote many times to abuse it.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Protunia

[joedobo 1,187]

@ Hussars  I don't think its a good idea to penalize high skill folks with some diminishing return based on effort spent. Then again maybe I misunderstood your comment. I agree with you on the rares situation.

 

A better solution for low skill players is to go back the minimum 2 harvest yield regardless.

 

If we used a linear relationship its equal for everyone. People will rake more if raking time boosts yeild more than when compared to just sow+harvest times. This what I been supporting all this time and it appears I'm not the only one who is realizing its the correct path forward.

[joedobo 1,187]

LOL!! I can prem 10 accounts a month easy right now in game with silver and keep others going with referals.

I said I don't support one vote per a person. Premium accounts are voting entities that equally support the game.

 

At this point I'm fairly confident you and Sun don't want ingame voting because you know it won't be favorable for your parties goals.

[Protunia 735]

I said I don't support one vote per a person. Premium accounts are voting entities that equally support the game.

 

At this point I'm fairly confident you and Sun don't want ingame voting because you know it won't be favorable for your parties goals.

 

 

I do not think the players always have the best interests for the game as a whole and are more concerned with what benefits them most many times.

 

This is why the Devs should not go with any kind of system that uses only player voting and should always consider their goals and what they want the game to be.

 

Sure they can listen to player input and make changes if needed or to correct something, but they should not let the players decide how the game is developed completely through voting only.

 

What player is going to vote against their own agenda really?  rarely any of them.

 

That is why the Development of the game must be primarily controlled by what the development team have planned.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Protunia

[sunsvortex 599]

All paying accounts are by no means a minority. We can also easily tally what percentage of premium accounts voted on an issue. And this is something that can't be gamed or spoofed. Each paying account contributes equally to the game and each should get a vote. I disagree with your opinion that its 1 vote per person. The point is to collect statistics and analyze what various trends occur throughout different demographics.

 

/time would not remove new people from the voting system. It could actually clearly show what new players want versus veterans. As an example, if we were to make a bar chart where /time is used to define x-axis categories and y-axis tallies total votes. We would divided each category or bar into however many vote options there were.  With such a chart we could at a moments glance see what new players want, long time veterans want, and all players in between.

 

The server could also tally up data for accounts that didn't vote when ballot time has cesses. With this data we could add another subdivision of a bar from the above example showing what percentage of a group didn't vote.

No way..thats a pay to win..thats complete BS.

 

I do not have sympathy for players are at the top nor near the top..I dont care about how manyaccounts you have...good for you....doesnt give you any more say than anyone else..take this argument to someone wholl listen to such crap..it will not be me.

 

1 person = 1 vote or its all a BS system...period -no reason to discuss it further.

Edited June 29, 2013 by sunsvortex