New problem to look forward to

[SS1]

As we all know, the game is unplayable in higher levels with the 100 item limit. Since it has been a year now and GI has stood by what is so grossly unfair it must be working for them from a revenue standpoint. In other words,, since once a player reaches levels in the 50's and for sure by 60,, the game becomes unplayable with the 100 item limit and has to stop playing or be playing and going nowhere,, it means that this is GI's plan. They are looking for new users to get in and spend however much and then reach the point the game is unplayable and quit. This makes room for the next sucker to start and repeat the process. They have no use for all of the longtime players that have near unlimited resources. They are a load on the system with limited return. They clearly want higher player turnover then there was a year ago. There is no other explanation. My personal feeling is this is short sighted because as long time players quit there is no one to take their place and it's these long time players with awesome cities that inspire the new beginning players. The long time players are actually the lures GI needs to entice new players to grind away in hopes of having a city like that someday. But that too is flawed,, because at some point reality hits the new player,, and they realize they have been duped and are playing a completely different game then all of the high level players with awesome cities they had admired and that they will NEVER have a city like that. It's a real shame.

 

[Navigata07]

As we all know, the game is unplayable in higher levels with the 100 item limit. Since it has been a year now and GI has stood by what is so grossly unfair it must be working for them from a revenue standpoint. In other words,, since once a player reaches levels in the 50's and for sure by 60,, the game becomes unplayable with the 100 item limit and has to stop playing or be playing and going nowhere,, it means that this is GI's plan. They are looking for new users to get in and spend however much and then reach the point the game is unplayable and quit. This makes room for the next sucker to start and repeat the process. They have no use for all of the longtime players that have near unlimited resources. They are a load on the system with limited return. They clearly want higher player turnover then there was a year ago. There is no other explanation. My personal feeling is this is short sighted because as long time players quit there is no one to take their place and it's these long time players with awesome cities that inspire the new beginning players. The long time players are actually the lures GI needs to entice new players to grind away in hopes of having a city like that someday. But that too is flawed,, because at some point reality hits the new player,, and they realize they have been duped and are playing a completely different game then all of the high level players with awesome cities they had admired and that they will NEVER have a city like that. It's a real shame.

The high turnover may certainly help in terms of revenue, but it would eventually hurt their reputation and ratings. I dont think that's the reason. I think they simply wanted to "increase the difficulty" and make it more difficult to do certain things such as fly maps and do alliance missions, which all require stocking up on fuel before doing so. Remember, there was a time when GI got a kick out of a challenge (past events were so difficult that waiting until the following year to complete an event was considered normal). Even their drop rates for some flights are nearly impossible unless you log in hundreds of flights. These all feed into their love of making things difficult. They have now eased up on the events, so now they are actually doable. They've also given us repair items for the larger planes....another step in the right direction. All they have to do now is get rid of the 100 item limit, and watch the clientele of this game grow

 

[Arggers]

Hang on...

Are they not saying that it's only those that aren't claimed that will be lost? There's no requirement to actually *use* the gift, once claimed, in that time?

To be honest, if you're not logging in just once every 14 days to play, you can't really complain at losing gifts.

 

[Navigata07]

Hang on...

Are they not saying that it's only those that aren't claimed that will be lost? There's no requirement to actually *use* the gift, once claimed, in that time?

To be honest, if you're not logging in just once every 14 days to play, you can't really complain at losing gifts.

But remember, claiming the gift when you've already reached your limit means that you'll probably lose the item. You would have to use the amount in storage to make room

 

[Arggers]

But remember, claiming the gift when you've already reached your limit means that you'll probably lose the item. You would have to use the amount in storage to make room

Very true, but I guess that if one isn't logging in to collect gifts at least once a fortnight, they're not that committed to the game, so also aren't that bothered about losing items for having over 100...?

 

[Navigata07]

Very true, but I guess that if one isn't logging in to collect gifts at least once a fortnight, they're not that committed to the game, so also aren't that bothered about losing items for having over 100...?

Even frequent players with the 100 item limit have these uncollected gifts for weeks. Its a form of storage for them. With the two week limit, the amount they can store via this method will be capped

 

[andy8758]

Well now, here we are again discussing the 100 item limit.

Why 100? When you set me an alliance target of 167, or 251 or 400 flights. So why not a 500 item limit?

I have never been a fan of storing gifts. Too easy to get confused, lose sight of the gifts you really need, accidental clicking of stored items as you flick through the gifts. If I have 100 items and you gift me I lose it. Never used the stored gift strategy to circumvent the 100 item limit. So here is my strategy.

I spend a lot of time checking my warehouse, building up one flight item to 100, then building up another items stock. I change flight destinations a lot - I now tend to go for just 1 star at a time, then change destinations. I completed all the Delta plane destinations but still always keep between 1 and 3 Deltas permenantly flying to South Observatory, Paris, Moscow, and Nice. My first S2 aircraft was a Delta, and it remains a crucial part of my fleet. I change my game name twice a week to reflect the changing needs in flight item gifts. I never request Landing Lamps - I can recover 100 of these with four turboprops in two days. Turboprops have been my base alliance aircraft for several months - I am always able to maintain 100 items of these in stock most of the time. When I have to complete over 100 flights I then request gifts of the required flight items - I cannot remember the last time I failed to achieve 1 alliance task. I can achieve two alliance tasks if I can devote the time, bonuses, and use at least four aircraft. I work full time, but make a lot of use of Vintage Weathervane bonus - I always buy these from Duke Croker, and often buy the Mystery Bonus (Vintage Weathervane and Family Ticket appears frequently). That means I spend money every month on greenies - something some players cannot afford to do.

I am keeping the anti-100 limit banner in my signature because, whether you are willing to pay to play or not, it is a restriction on the game that makes me and everyone who suffers the limit, unable to compete at the highest levels. And the explanations from GI for imposing the limit are bland statements that fail to adequately justify their actions.

So come on guys - revisit your restriction, consider a higher limit if necessary and send Kate on a Customer Service Training Course.

 

[Red Fox One]

Gi gets 2 benefits from these new rules:
1. Players can't stock up on items and thus may have to purchase greenies
2. To reduce their server load. Because these gifts data are stored online, gi's servers probably can't handle the burdens from all the players. I have noticed fast loading gifts from accounts without gifts (only from madleen), and slow loading from account where I have many neighbours. This aligns with their explanation that is to reduce loading time of the gifts section.

I think no 2) is gi's main purpose of implementing the 100 limit and now 2 weeks limit, with side benefit of no 1)

 

[Navigata07]

Gi gets 2 benefits from these new rules:
1. Players can't stock up on items and thus may have to purchase greenies
2. To reduce their server load. Because these gifts data are stored online, gi's servers probably can't handle the burdens from all the players. I have noticed fast loading gifts from accounts without gifts (only from madleen), and slow loading from account where I have many neighbours. This aligns with their explanation that is to reduce loading time of the gifts section.

I think no 2) is gi's main purpose of implementing the 100 limit and now 2 weeks limit, with side benefit of no 1)

Well if that's the case, then say so! They don't need to give the runaround. Be real! Because they keep dancing around the issue, it makes us as players suspicious as to the real reason. I do believe you though....that very well could be it. I wonder if they could set it up that the items can store locally on the device instead...or simply make the tasks a lot easier for those with the 100 item limit

 

[fertob]

Gi gets 2 benefits from these new rules:
1. Players can't stock up on items and thus may have to purchase greenies
2. To reduce their server load. Because these gifts data are stored online, gi's servers probably can't handle the burdens from all the players. I have noticed fast loading gifts from accounts without gifts (only from madleen), and slow loading from account where I have many neighbours. This aligns with their explanation that is to reduce loading time of the gifts section.

I think no 2) is gi's main purpose of implementing the 100 limit and now 2 weeks limit, with side benefit of no 1)

So why they dont impose the limit to all players?

 

[Navigata07]

So why they dont impose the limit to all players?

Money. Vets have been spending a lot of money for years. If they impose that limit on vets, a majority of them would stop playing, because it's such a significant impact on the game. A lot already left when the limit was imposed as well as when the GD/planetarium bug was fixed. Also, when they switched between f20 and p10, a lot left then too. Only the true fans of the game have persevered