BALANCE?

[SnowGirl]

GI states that the hanger reserve 2 will result in balance problem, then hanger reserve 2 will be deleted.
But, a lot of people are waiting for buying a special building which will generate greenes regularly by 300(?) golden token for a long time.
Several message states that no chance to buy this builing any more. In this situation, why not to remove this building for more better balance?
Some people invest more than 700 golden to buy hanger reserve 2 and level it up, which is more expensive than that building.

 

[Olekander]

I'll be honest with you, I think long term players deserve some extra little benefits. I'm a new player and don't really resent people having old buildings.

 

[VdW]

To be honest, I can see one day GI decides to delete those buildings and give some “compensations” back. Like they do with Reserve Hangar 2.

So, if you have them, utilize them as much as you can while you still can.

 

[crescent moon (RIP)]

I'm always a little concerned when GI uses the word "balance". Are they going to take away something that we older players have worked hard for for several years, compensate us for it and call it "balance"? It's their game, they can do what they want, but since the 100 item limit (balance), I'm losing interest in the game, and another "balancing act" like that will probably have me leaving the game.

 

[Junior Sis]

I'm always a little concerned when GI uses the word "balance". Are they going to take away something that we older players have worked hard for for several years, compensate us for it and call it "balance"? It's their game, they can do what they want, but since the 100 item limit (balance), I'm losing interest in the game, and another "balancing act" like that will probably have me leaving the game.

I do prefer balance in a game. If all players do not have the opportunity to be on the same playing field, it causes resentment in the player base. Old players made the game what it is, new players keep the game alive. (Let's face it, if the game isn't profitable, it will be dropped.)

Still, balance does not have to mean taking things away from dedicated players. That is decidedly unfair, and can only lead to disappointment, resentment, and a feeling of futility. But these same feelings infect newer players when they realize that they can not compete on a level playing field.

The major problem here is the pay-to-win model of the game (in my opinion, of course). If the items that marked a veteran or hardcore player had always been neat, pretty, unique, and/or awesome cosmetic items, there would never be a need to remove them. The older players could show off their accomplishments, and newer players could feel competitive.

Alternately, if the game were not competitive at all, then there would be no need to remove well-earned rewards. For instance, instead of rankings that pit players and alliances against each other, we could have set numbers (on a sliding scale by level like the weekly tasks) that anyone could achieve through dedicated grinding or convenience money. I am refering to things like alliance rankings which award chests that drop maps to destinations some of us will never be allowed to fly. People would still have to work hard to reach a goal, make decisions about which goal is important, and work hard to not disappoint their alliance members.

Just an irrelevant and possibly naíve opinion in the long run. I do apologize if it offends anyone. There are parts of the game I have yet to access, so maybe my impressions are misguided.

 

[crescent moon (RIP)]

I do prefer balance in a game. If all players do not have the opportunity to be on the same playing field, it causes resentment in the player base. Old players made the game what it is, new players keep the game alive. (Let's face it, if the game isn't profitable, it will be dropped.)

Still, balance does not have to mean taking things away from dedicated players. That is decidedly unfair, and can only lead to disappointment, resentment, and a feeling of futility. But these same feelings infect newer players when they realize that they can not compete on a level playing field.

The major problem here is the pay-to-win model of the game (in my opinion, of course). If the items that marked a veteran or hardcore player had always been neat, pretty, unique, and/or awesome cosmetic items, there would never be a need to remove them. The older players could show off their accomplishments, and newer players could feel competitive.

Alternately, if the game were not competitive at all, then there would be no need to remove well-earned rewards. For instance, instead of rankings that pit players and alliances against each other, we could have set numbers (on a sliding scale by level like the weekly tasks) that anyone could achieve through dedicated grinding or convenience money. I am refering to things like alliance rankings which award chests that drop maps to destinations some of us will never be allowed to fly. People would still have to work hard to reach a goal, make decisions about which goal is important, and work hard to not disappoint their alliance members.

Just an irrelevant and possibly naíve opinion in the long run. I do apologize if it offends anyone. There are parts of the game I have yet to access, so maybe my impressions are misguided.

I agree in priciple, but after spending years and $$ building my airport, it's disheartening to have it dismantled in the name of balance. I didn't have a feeling of resentment (maybe a little bit of envy ), towards the players with 10 planetariums, or 10 of commercial or passenger buildings, although it was a definite advantage for them - they earned them with hard work and $$. Why not give the new players something extra instead of taking away from the old-timers?

I definitely agree that the competition aspect of the game has turned it into a bit of a cutthroat activity. I like the idea of personal and alliance goals, and am no longer concerned with rankings. And, yes, out of the thousands of alliances in this game, it seems somwhat unfair that only 100 of them will ever be able to get an alliance map. There should be another way to earn those maps. But - like I said, it's GI's game, and they can do what they want with it.

 

[Junior Sis]

I agree in priciple, but after spending years and $$ building my airport, it's disheartening to have it dismantled in the name of balance. I didn't have a feeling of resentment (maybe a little bit of envy ), towards the players with 10 planetariums, or 10 of commercial or passenger buildings, although it was a definite advantage for them - they earned them with hard work and $$. Why not give the new players something extra instead of taking away from the old-timers?

I definitely agree that the competition aspect of the game has turned it into a bit of a cutthroat activity. I like the idea of personal and alliance goals, and am no longer concerned with rankings. And, yes, out of the thousands of alliances in this game, it seems somwhat unfair that only 100 of them will ever be able to get an alliance map. There should be another way to earn those maps. But - like I said, it's GI's game, and they can do what they want with it.

I wish that there were better solutions for balance problems, and that they did not always involve taking things away, it's like erasing your achievements and history with the game

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

I think the big issue here is the way GI go about ‘balancing‘ the game.
Yes old players have, and did have a number of things that newer players do not/cannot get. Is this the fault of the old players? Not at all. For a number of years I had 10 rocket gardens. Why? Because a long time ago 10 was the limit for these, along with a number of other buildings. Did I cheat to get this? No. Did it give me an advantage over newer players? Undoubtedly, albeit quite a small one. When the additional 4 were taken away with the update to V7.0, yes it was annoying, but so be it.
I would say the real question here, is why ‘balance’ the game by removing the extra buildings? Surely, from a business point of view, having the ability to place 10 means players will buy more land? And yet GI decided to take things away from the players.
Now when this comes to the topic of planetariums and other buildings that were purchased, more often than not with real money, I think it is damn right wrong that these were taken and not compensated for. Personally I would be chasing the relevant App Store for a refund.
Again, these buildings are expensive to purchase, so why remove the ability to place more of them?

In a game like this that takes so long to progress (and is so bloody expensive) there is never going to be a level playing field for new players - not without years of work first. But personally I dont see this as a competitive game. On the whole it is a game for the individual with competitive aspects to it. In my opinion these are flawed - and there is some blatant cheating occurring within the rankings. GI know this and work to remove it, but unless the game becomes online only this will be very difficult to eradicate completely.

Aiming resentment towards older players won’t make anything different. Is it our fault we’ve been playing longer and picked up 100’s more free weekend codes? No. Is it our fault we’ve been playing longer and have a number of event buildings that new players don’t? No. Whilst these haven't been purchased, a lot of time and effort has gone into acquiring them. Resentment won’t change that. The players that have more are a lot more willing to help out newer players too. This is a strong community, one where we try to raise up the ‘weak’ and make you strong. We try to help you develop in the hope you will do the same for others. We share the hints, tricks and knowledge we have gained through years of play, and help you to progress quicker than you would otherwise be able to. With the exception of a few, no one is trying to lord their position over the weak and keep them there.

I agree with crescent, I think it is a real shame the purple maps are only available to a few via the top 100 alliance leader board. But there are a number of alliances from this forum which you can’t join and collect a steady map or two per week just by flying as a casual player. Remember that the people here have invested years of their resources to uplevel the alliances to accept more players, which gives these newer players access to these rewards they wouldn’t otherwise be able to get.

I, like pretty much everyone else, don’t want to see my achievements stripped away in an effort to balance a game. To have a level playing field everyone must be the same - which is boring and boils down to who has the most free time/is willing to pay/is cheating. What GI should really be doing is introducing better rewards that make the older ones obsolete and/or less valuable. This way no one feels hard done by. However this doesn’t seem to be the case - more often than not it seems like taking things away from the player is the way they go about ‘balancing’ the game. A completely different approach to any other game I play. All the rest add content which makes older perks obsolete.

To conclude my point, I don’t think you should aim resentment towards older players. All we have is a consequence of time and circumstance - the same situation we are all born into. The only people that can change things are the developers. And why not lift everyone one up to a higher level, than try to squash everyone down?

 

[Towelie]

Keeping the top of the Alliance only for passengers transported on the tasks of the Alliance can give new alliances a chance.
I used an automatic translator, is the meaning of what I wrote clear?

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

Keeping the top of the Alliance only for passengers transported on the tasks of the Alliance can give new alliances a chance.
I used an automatic translator, is the meaning of what I wrote clear?

Just about
You are suggesting ranking the top 100 alliance based on passengers flown to the alliance task destinations for the week?

 

[Towelie]

yes

 

[Junior Sis]

I think the big issue here is the way GI go about ‘balancing‘ the game.
Yes old players have, and did have a number of things that newer players do not/cannot get. Is this the fault of the old players? Not at all. For a number of years I had 10 rocket gardens. Why? Because a long time ago 10 was the limit for these, along with a number of other buildings. Did I cheat to get this? No. Did it give me an advantage over newer players? Undoubtedly, albeit quite a small one. When the additional 4 were taken away with the update to V7.0, yes it was annoying, but so be it.
I would say the real question here, is why ‘balance’ the game by removing the extra buildings? Surely, from a business point of view, having the ability to place 10 means players will buy more land? And yet GI decided to take things away from the players.
Now when this comes to the topic of planetariums and other buildings that were purchased, more often than not with real money, I think it is damn right wrong that these were taken and not compensated for. Personally I would be chasing the relevant App Store for a refund.
Again, these buildings are expensive to purchase, so why remove the ability to place more of them?

In a game like this that takes so long to progress (and is so bloody expensive) there is never going to be a level playing field for new players - not without years of work first. But personally I dont see this as a competitive game. On the whole it is a game for the individual with competitive aspects to it. In my opinion these are flawed - and there is some blatant cheating occurring within the rankings. GI know this and work to remove it, but unless the game becomes online only this will be very difficult to eradicate completely.

Aiming resentment towards older players won’t make anything different. Is it our fault we’ve been playing longer and picked up 100’s more free weekend codes? No. Is it our fault we’ve been playing longer and have a number of event buildings that new players don’t? No. Whilst these haven't been purchased, a lot of time and effort has gone into acquiring them. Resentment won’t change that. The players that have more are a lot more willing to help out newer players too. This is a strong community, one where we try to raise up the ‘weak’ and make you strong. We try to help you develop in the hope you will do the same for others. We share the hints, tricks and knowledge we have gained through years of play, and help you to progress quicker than you would otherwise be able to. With the exception of a few, no one is trying to lord their position over the weak and keep them there.

I agree with crescent, I think it is a real shame the purple maps are only available to a few via the top 100 alliance leader board. But there are a number of alliances from this forum which you can’t join and collect a steady map or two per week just by flying as a casual player. Remember that the people here have invested years of their resources to uplevel the alliances to accept more players, which gives these newer players access to these rewards they wouldn’t otherwise be able to get.

I, like pretty much everyone else, don’t want to see my achievements stripped away in an effort to balance a game. To have a level playing field everyone must be the same - which is boring and boils down to who has the most free time/is willing to pay/is cheating. What GI should really be doing is introducing better rewards that make the older ones obsolete and/or less valuable. This way no one feels hard done by. However this doesn’t seem to be the case - more often than not it seems like taking things away from the player is the way they go about ‘balancing’ the game. A completely different approach to any other game I play. All the rest add content which makes older perks obsolete.

To conclude my point, I don’t think you should aim resentment towards older players. All we have is a consequence of time and circumstance - the same situation we are all born into. The only people that can change things are the developers. And why not lift everyone one up to a higher level, than try to squash everyone down?

I explicitly said that taking things away from players was unfair, that i do not support it, and that there has to be a better way to balance the game. I don't resent older players. i do understand how an ambitious new player can become resentful when they realize that they will be forever locked out of certain things. This is not the fault of the old players or the new players. In respect to the game, the one way in which we are equal is that we are all at the mercy of GI. I apologize again. I should not have said anything at all, and will refrain in the future.

 

[crescent moon (RIP)]

I explicitly said that taking things away from players was unfair, that i do not support it, and that there has to be a better way to balance the game. I don't resent older players. i do understand how an ambitious new player can become resentful when they realize that they will be forever locked out of certain things. This is not the fault of the old players or the new players. In respect to the game, the one way in which we are equal is that we are all at the mercy of GI. I apologize again. I should not have said anything at all, and will refrain in the future.

I don't think @Barkmi4 (Mike) meant "you" in the personal sense, but in the general sense. There were some people who actually cheered and laughed when we switched over to the 100 item limit and when the "really old" players lost 4 of most of their buildings. And those same people will cheer if/when we lose our CBMs. You were quite clear when you said "balance does not have to mean taking things away from dedicated players", and we all appreciate that mindset. Your opinions are always welcome!

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

I explicitly said that taking things away from players was unfair, that i do not support it, and that there has to be a better way to balance the game. I don't resent older players. i do understand how an ambitious new player can become resentful when they realize that they will be forever locked out of certain things. This is not the fault of the old players or the new players. In respect to the game, the one way in which we are equal is that we are all at the mercy of GI. I apologize again. I should not have said anything at all, and will refrain in the future.

@crescent moon is right. I wasn't trying to have a go at anyone in particular. Your point of view is welcomed and I certainly wasn't offended by it. I hope you weren't offended by mine. I was careful not to tag or reply to anyone, but to just speak openly. I felt as though my post was pointed towards GI more than anyone individually, I'm sorry if I offended you, or you felt victimised.

For the rest of the post above (other than you refraining from saying anything at all) that I'm replying to - I agree with you.

As @crescent moon also stated, with the introduction of the limit there were a number of newer players that were happy that older players had perks/items stripped from them. I don't really appreciate that attitude from others, but they are welcome to their opinion, as I have expressed mine. Those are the 'you' reffered to in my previous post.

As I said before, I would far rather that GI brought everyone up to a level playing field, keeping the older perks, introducing new content which is superior in terms of reward. Stripping content away seems backwards to me, and quite frankly a lazy attempt to keep the game interesting rather than providing fresh content.

 

[exwhy]

Hi, I had a closer look at the 7.15 preview and may have a different view towards the change.

• The Ground Control building will be removed from the game. Airplanes will be maintained automatically by default. Owners will be provided with refunds.
• Reserve hangar and Reserve hangar 2 will be merged together in one building. (For balance reasons and one BIG upcoming change ). Number of available slots will remain unchanged. All players who already have reserve hangar 2 will be compensated.

They say that the RH and RH2 will be merged and number of slots remain unchanged. So RH2 is merged into RH, not being deleted. To me it looks like a positive change for all players. Those who bought will get refunded and keep all their slots. Those who have not bought do not need to pay the hefty amount of tokens when buying slots in future. It also saves us a 2x2 land, which is in the same spirit as removing the Ground Control while keeping its features.

Anyway, I agree that the word "balance" is very vague and open to interpretations from different viewpoints. Let's see how it pans out.

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

Hi, I had a closer look at the 7.15 preview and may have a different view towards the change.

• The Ground Control building will be removed from the game. Airplanes will be maintained automatically by default. Owners will be provided with refunds.
• Reserve hangar and Reserve hangar 2 will be merged together in one building. (For balance reasons and one BIG upcoming change ). Number of available slots will remain unchanged. All players who already have reserve hangar 2 will be compensated.

They say that the RH and RH2 will be merged and number of slots remain unchanged. So RH2 is merged into RH, not being deleted. To me it looks like a positive change for all players. Those who bought will get refunded and keep all their slots. Those who have not bought do not need to pay the hefty amount of tokens when buying slots in future. It also saves us a 2x2 land, which is in the same spirit as removing the Ground Control while keeping its features.

Anyway, I agree that the word "balance" is very vague and open to interpretations from different viewpoints. Let's see how it pans out.

If it is in fact a refund I will be very happy. However the wording is compensated- and GI’s view of compensation often differs from the players.
Otherwise I agree with you and your interpretation of the post, I think the total number of slots will remain unchanged.

P.S. Sorry for P10 today - misclick.

 

[SnowGirl]

Yes, the most non-balance thing is that new players can not buy CBM, but old player is keeping CBM.
To old players, if your CBM will be removed out, do you will continue to play this game?
If the answer is NO, how about those NEW players who can not buy CBM.
Hopely, everything should be considered of balance also.

 

[Jim G]

What even worries me more is some time at the beginning of the year where Ur Quan said there will be a lot of changes coming this year.Have nothing against changes but,to me, should this changes negatively alter what drives me to keep login back to the game,I ll be out

 

[crescent moon (RIP)]

If it is in fact a refund I will be very happy. However the wording is compensated- and GI’s view of compensation often differs from the players.
Otherwise I agree with you and your interpretation of the post, I think the total number of slots will remain unchanged.

P.S. Sorry for P10 today - misclick.

I'm not aware of anyone ever being compensated in gold and silver tokens, which is how we paid for the RH2. Will be interesting to see if we actually get those tokens back.

 

[Captain WH Rollins]

I'm not aware of anyone ever being compensated in gold and silver tokens, which is how we paid for the RH2. Will be interesting to see if we actually get those tokens back.

I'm also not aware of this ever happening, gold and silver tokens, being paid back for a building. It is something which would have stayed long in the memory of forum members.

Regards
Captain WH Rollins