Moonstone Library Scrolls

[Far Reach]

The simple answer is just to make keep the exact same set, but change it to boost +1 T2. They could retrospectively change any existing buildings too, probably without much complaint.

I agree that doing this from the start would have worked, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily would now.

It comes down to why people choose to build the set. If goods production is the reason then I'd expect far fewer scrolls boosted players to currently have the Moonstone buildings. If this is true, and we made the above change now, then we'd be left with a deficit of scrolls+1 goods, and a glut of the other two. Of course scrolls players would now be able to address this (by building Moonstone sets), but not if the set is no longer available !

Somehow I don't think they will go for simple, or they would have done it long ago.

Although the idea in simple and elegant in conception, it might hard to program. I can't think of any other winnable building which (for a given level) has effects which depend on the player.

 

[SoggyShorts]

What they need to do to move towards fixing it is to make the new set better than the old one. That way people will eventually delete their old sets.

Isn't this the simplest answer?
If a new set gives SF, CC and goods+1 wouldn't players use it to replace their old sets?
The whole point is that library goods are overly abundant and therefore have less value than other T2, so it makes sense for everyone to do so.
The only people who don't immediately benefit would be the 1/3 who have scrolls as their goods+1, but they are compensated by not having to win a new set to replace theirs.

I struggle to find a significant downside to this fix.

 

[Far Reach]

Isn't this the simplest answer?
If a new set gives SF, CC and goods+1 wouldn't players use it to replace their old sets?
The whole point is that library goods are overly abundant and therefore have less value than other T2, so it makes sense for everyone to do so.
The only people who don't immediately benefit would be the 1/3 who have scrolls as their goods+1, but they are compensated by not having to win a new set to replace theirs.

Pauly talked about making the new set better than the current one. You seem to be referring to the different idea of changing scrolls to goods+1 (which I discussed above).

I'm not sure exactly what the proposal is here. How do people get access to the new set, if not by winning it ? Is it going to be available to everyone from the build menu ?

I struggle to find a significant downside to this fix.

A possible downside is that making a new set which is even better would effectively nerf T2 manufactories for boosted goods (except for sentient goods).

There is a general risk in creating overpowered buildings. The devs *could* have created a new super-building with all the advantages of the Fire Phoenix, Brown Bears and military wonders but being non-cumulative with them. Everyone would delete all of their old military buildings and use this super-building instead. It would certainly have produced more equal tournaments, but a lot of the strategy (arising from the interplay between different buildings) would have been lost.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Pauly talked about making the new set better than the current one. You seem to be referring to the different idea of changing scrolls to goods+1 (which I discussed above)

No, not changing old sets, creating a new set with the same stats except goods +1.
The difference is that no one can complain about their existing building getting changed.

I'm not sure exactly what the proposal is here. How do people get access to the new set, if not by winning it ?

Yes, of course the new spire set would obtained by winning it in the spire.

A possible downside is that making a new set which is even better would effectively nerf T2 manufactories for boosted goods (except for sentient goods).

That's one of the reasons I am not recommending a set that which producers more goods, just different ones(which are inherently better due to supply and demand)

 

[Far Reach]

No, not changing old sets, creating a new set with the same stats except goods +1.
Yes, of course the new spire set would obtained by winning it in the spire.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I was thrown off by the quote from Pauly's which was used in your previous post.

So if I understand correctly, a player with Silk boosted goods could use the old Moonstone set (to get scrolls) and the new set (to get crystal) and wouldn't need to trade T2 goods at all. T2 trading would be focussed on those with scrolls and crystal boosts, but the former would be trading silk (from new Moonstone buildings) with the latter's crystal (from T2 manufactories). I think that both scrolls and crystal boosts are disadvantaged here. Am I missing something ?

 

[SoggyShorts]

Am I missing something ?

Only that I don't think players have enough room for all that and would choose to replace most of their 1-4 sets* with the new ones since scrolls have less demand.
If moonstone sets haven't completely replaced T2 production I don't think that adding moonstone sets2.0 would.

*Yes, I'm aware that players with a dozen+ sets exist, but the other 99% of players don't.

 

[Pauly7]

You can make the new set better without increasing its goods output. If it gave the same amount of goods, but say it was T2 boost +1, but then instead of a bunch of spell fragments it was also dishing out 2KP a day, then many people would clamour to replace the library sets.

That being said, I think that they're likely to make it more complicated than it was before. It's an age old Inno trick to disguise a nerf. So perhaps it will end up giving out a mixture of T1, T2 and T3, then the debates can launch with the players saying they're giving less and Inno saying it's an improvement because the T3 is X amount more expensive to produce.

 

[Gargon667]

But the only nerf that would help is if they took the scrolls away.

The simple answer is just to make keep the exact same set, but change it to boost +1 T2. They could retrospectively change any existing buildings too, probably without much complaint. Somehow I don't think they will go for simple, or they would have done it long ago.

Why they couldn't foresee this issue, I'll never know. Why they didn't limit it to one set each is also a mystery.

That is the only solution that doesn´t cause trouble elsewhere. Even if they didn´t change the old set, the old sets would slowly start fading away and over time the problem would get smaller and smaller, but of course better to just change all the old ones over to +1 as well.

The must have forseen that, if anyone at all has an idea what they are doing at Inno, it is the most obvious outcome of creating a building that produces the same goods for everybody. It was obvious from the start. So I assume they don´t find the issue big enough for some strange reason...

 

[SoggyShorts]

So I assume they don´t find the issue big enough for some strange reason...

And we went through this before. There was an older set.. Maybe the jester one? That game out all elixir and we (Beta) had to beg them to change it to boosted +1

 

[CrazyWizard]

I agree that doing this from the start would have worked, but that doesn't mean that it necessarily would now.

It comes down to why people choose to build the set. If goods production is the reason then I'd expect far fewer scrolls boosted players to currently have the Moonstone buildings. If this is true, and we made the above change now, then we'd be left with a deficit of scrolls+1 goods, and a glut of the other two. Of course scrolls players would now be able to address this (by building Moonstone sets), but not if the set is no longer available !




Although the idea in simple and elegant in conception, it might hard to program. I can't think of any other winnable building which (for a given level) has effects which depend on the player.

scroll players as well have moonstone sets. there nice to have. and the best part you only need to reset them once every 21 hours / daily
a new set, event buildings with other bonusses, more things that ask for scrolls (ther is a reason we got this x million scroll thing in I think chapter 16?) none of that are solutions, at best it shovels the issue a bit further ahead of time. also in the long run this will lead to other issues that might be even worse.

modifying the set to bonus +x is the only real mid to long term solution . (there is no short term solution unless we get the opportunity to once change scrolls for anything else at a 1:1 ratio so that all goods are equalised again)

btw: modifying the bonus to +1 is by far the easiest way to prgram it takes a whopping 1 whole minute of dev time.
Getting the storyline in check takes a bit more time as you need to come up with a new storyline that might reuire you to change the visuals of the building, this takes a bit more time of the art department and the writer. for the dev it's another whopping minute to implement once those are done. changing a text of line, or a string to the correct visual asset ain't that hard
You could do it lol.

And we went through this before. There was an older set.. Maybe the jester one? That game out all elixir and we (Beta) had to beg them to change it to boosted +1

all sets in the beginnen had the same output and as you said people already begged to solve it, as it was "destroying the market"
that was when that "problem" was so little that it was "pathetic" compared to the current library set issue.

I have called the library set a ticking timebomb since day 1.
I also have had the opportunity around that time to personally speak with some people that do have (in)direct access to the game designers.
I had explained that this wet was an issue, not now but when more people aquire these sets and build up there own scroll production that scroll players would eventually be placed outside the game as less and less people would need there goods.

As more than often they never seem to fix issues but let them simmer and destroy the game for certain players untill the moment it becomes so severy they can no longer deny it, this is usually 2 years, so i'll guess there quick now.
Then once the acknowledge it, it's obviously still not a priority.
It still took 8 months!!! to show us any sign of change with the removasl of the set on beta.

And that can't even be called a solution

 

[CrazyWizard]

More recently than that they have said they are dealing with it and that the "fix" is on the way. Right now I'm going to (perhaps optimistically) believe the upcoming alteration in the Spire is the first step towards this - trying not to tread too far into spoiler territory here.

So what will hopefully happen is that they will release a new set that replaces the Spire set. One that doesn't always give out Scrolls. As you say, this may only serve to stop the problem getting even worse. What they need to do to move towards fixing it is to make the new set better than the old one. That way people will eventually delete their old sets. This last part is the most optimistic bit of all though, because it would go against Inno's very ethos to release something that improves on something older, but that's the only choice - unless they want to go down the route of nerfing the existing Library Sets at the same time... and that wouldn't go down well.

Unfortunately I know they did not want to change to +1 8 months ago.
They had a different solution that in my opinion does not solve it in a meaningfull timeframe. years is no solution if you ask me.

 

[MinMax Gamer]

Getting the storyline in check takes a bit more time as you need to come up with a new storyline that might reuire you to change the visuals of the building, this takes a bit more time of the art department and the writer.

This is not a lore-heavy game. Just look at quest lines for the events - there is usually no connection between quest text and the requirements. Or the mana plants/sawmills/etc not producing mana before Woodelves, despite what the name says. They can just change the output and not change anything else, and I very much doubt than anyone would even notice naming inconsistency.

 

[Gargon667]

This is not a lore-heavy game. Just look at quest lines for the events - there is usually no connection between quest text and the requirements. Or the mana plants/sawmills/etc not producing mana before Woodelves, despite what the name says. They can just change the output and not change anything else, and I very much doubt than anyone would even notice naming inconsistency.

I thought the same, but I did actually find it cute that finally some buildings production made sense from the name/story point of view. However I don´t see that as an issue at all, since the rest of the game doesn´t care much about that anyway.

 

[sgjennings]

Easy to say as a person who is not scroll boosted on his accounts.
For a lot of scroll boosted players the game is literally unplayable. thats not a good situation.

Imagine a new player comming into the game, gets scrolls as boosted and no one wants his goods? how long will that player play?
I did quit my secondary account for the same reason, it was just no fun at all to play. contant begging others for goods.

Many players today are in that situation.

I was wondering why it's so hard to get rid of scrolls when trading!

 

[Gargon667]

I was wondering why it's so hard to get rid of scrolls when trading!

because there are too many of them, everybody wants to get rid of them and noone wants to have them.