Firstly,
@Herodite : Thank you for your courteous reply, and for trying to obtain an answer to my question. I'm aware that the Powers That Be at Inno may or may not answer any question you put to them, and also that you personally are no more responsible for what they do (or say - or don't!) than any of us players are, but still, I do appreciate your taking the time to ask. It's very kind of you.
It seems they have heard us complain about it the previous time and are currently using the German server to test the new FS Perks feature.
Good point - although this is also a further illustration that not all Live Servers are treated equally when it comes to game updates/changes. I'm not arguing that only the EN Server playerbase should be exempted from 'forced Beta testing'; I find it highly irregular that ANY Live Server is treated any differently from any other with respect to the fundamental rules and features of the game they are playing - and in some cases even
paying to play.
I will say again that I have never before seen any gaming company -
especially not those which operate multiplayer games with competitive elements, like Elvenar - testing different versions of its game on its Live Servers, and I find it to be frankly presumptuous and disrespectful behaviour by InnoGames. If 'secondary Beta tests' are required, I would expect there to be a secondary Beta Server, where the (volunteer) players have agreed in advance to test new updates/changes. And if there are not enough voluntary (i.e. free) Beta testers to provide a realistic test base, as I've seen suggested on this Forum in the past, then I'd say that InnoGames needs either to recruit more free Beta testers from their general playerbase or (shocking suggestion!) pay for professional in-house Beta testing. Many other gaming companies do.
* * * * * * * *
Aaaand here comes another essay (well, an extension of the previous one!)... pretty much off-topic, too, although I can't resist answering your point(s) about Fellowships,
@Hekata, because they are points which actually relate to the very nature of Elvenar (and most other Free-to-Play games), and as such they're something on which I, being a gamer of some four decades, have much to say! Once again, those who can't abide my monologues, please feel free to skip on past the rambling below - and Moderators, if you decide that this is too off-topic to be here,
please don't just delete it (it took me a long time to write!) - I'll happily move it elsewhere, or feel free to do that yourselves, of course, if you prefer. Thanks in advance!
So, to answer
@Hekata's points (and I usually agree with you, too, Hekata - but it would be a dull world if everyone shared identical opinions, and indeed a very, VERY dull game Forum, were it not for debate between players about the game's features, benefits, and/or drawbacks!)...
[...] I consider boosted goods and trading the very bases of this game and don't think it should be altered.
True, and it would certainly be a major upheaval in terms of how the game functions. But consider this: if you had played the game, from the start, with the ability to produce any Goods you pleased, either just for fun, or to enable your City to weather fluctuations in the Trade market (whether caused by Inno, e.g. via the introduction of Goods-producing buildings like the Moonstone Set, by temporary [or even permanent] imbalances in the numbers of players producing X or Y Goods at varying rates, or just by the inherent ups and downs which occur within any marketplace, in games or in reality), would you consider it an
improvement if Inno were to alter the game so that you could [effectively] produce only one-third of those Goods? Would it improve your ability to
strategically build your City - which is meant to be the central point of interest and focus of the Game (even though the Spire and other competitive activities, as well as Events [a primary revenue source in any F2P game] are increasingly being positioned as the
real central focus...), or would it remove a great deal of your ability to choose what
you want to do, as opposed to what Inno wants you to do...?
It's what makes players want to join a FS in the first place. If everyone could produce anything we'd have a lot more people playing solo simply because they have never felt the need to join a FS and see all it's benefits.
I am very big on freedom of choice, in gaming or anywhere else, and so I don't consider this to be inherently a bad thing - although I'm sure that Inno does, since another primary revenue driver in F2P games is peer pressure (and the related psychological trick known as FOMO - Fear Of Missing Out), and there is no better way to produce peer pressure than to
force encourage players into groups - whether that be the players' preference or not. Without peer pressure (and FOMO), the game's competitive elements (the No.1 F2P revenue-earner - worth far more than a few 'whales' buying premium content), and probably also the lucrative Events which we now see with increasing frequency, would both attract much less player attention and engagement (which from Inno's perspective = chance of players spending money, of course - whether directly on the Events/competitions themselves, or indirectly in building a City which will be successful in those at least theoretically 'optional' in-game elements).
And so one of the reasons why Inno would never consider removing the Boosted Goods system - and a far more influential reason than the short-term cost of re-coding the game - is the fact that, as you say, the existence of the Boosts system is a strong driver into Fellowships of players who might otherwise choose to play solo... bearing in mind that Fellowships are provided by Inno not only as a fun addition to the game, or just because they want players to enjoy each other's company, but primarily because, in Social Viral games (which Elvenar is - essentially, it's Farmville with buildings instead of crop fields), in-game groups, and the competition, cohesion, and sense of mutual reliance (and, yes, friendship too) which those groups generate are the foundation of the company's revenue. Sad but true, in the cynical and extremely competitive, high-pressure world of F2P gaming.
Same goes for trading world wide. New players need to join a FS, that's what will make them learn about the game, grow faster, make the game more interesting and hopefully make them stay.
Again... players NEED to join a FS - as opposed to WANTING to (and you're right that they do need to - I just don't find it a very palatable state of affairs, compared with other multi-player games where joining a group is either just a matter of [genuine] choice - those games work equally well for players in or out of groups, not least because temporary groups can be formed for any dedicated 'group content' - or at most an option with a few, minor advantages. The very fact that, in Elvenar, joining an in-game group is more or less enforced by the very structure of the game is just one more reason why I would argue that it is so far removed from a 'strategic' game as to be entirely in another genre - as mentioned, the Social Viral genre, which is known far more for its pressure on players to conform to a pre-set revenue-generating in-game structure than for dedication to building excellent games which people want to play - and financially support - simply
because they're excellent games. And from this root spring most, if not all, of Elvenar's woes, and ALL of its peer-pressure-based tactics, none of which is very conducive to its players feeling - or being - free to
genuinely play as they please.
The more a game railroads me into doing what it wants, rather than what I want (within the rules and inherent nature of the game, of course) the less I like it, but I will spend many hours of my time
voluntarily - not out of necessity, or due to any pressure from the game's designers - researching, discussing with others, and becoming good at any game(s) which I like well enough to do so. In fact, ANY genuinely good game will have no need to bribe, force, or even encourage its players to do likewise... they will do so out of choice, and only because they enjoy the game.
I think most long term players would say that the main reason they've been playing the game for so long is because of FS.
You're absolutely right. But is it really beneficial - for the players (I'm not here to cheerlead for Inno - they employ enough market analysts, PR agents, Social Meeja promoters, and other assorted persons not traditionally found working for a gaming company to do that for themselves!) - to feel that the game itself is not reason enough to stay, and that had those players not made friendships via their Fellowships, they would prefer to leave...? Is it good for the game itself, either, for Inno to rely, for its retention of players, not upon creating excellent new content (and/or improving the content which already exists), but rather upon the players' natural sense of loyalty to their peers? More relevant, though, and as I've already said, is the fact that Inno doesn't just give players the choice of forming groups, for whatever reasons they see fit, but rather manipulates the game itself (and thus the players) in such a way that forming groups becomes effectively a necessity. Freedom of choice is not something which much features for players of this or most other F2P games, in any other than a tiny or, in many cases, illusory manner, and I personally don't find that a good thing.