Again, your wording is wrong. It doesn't damage the game. And it doesn't penalize you, you penalize yourself by choosing a playing style that you know is not going to be optimal with the current game mechanics. Which brings me back to the point about proposals that are not about improving the game, but instead about eliminating drawbacks to specific styles of play. If every proposal of that sort were implemented, this wouldn't be a game anymore, it would be a bunch of people essentially twiddling their thumbs on the internet.
To be fair, I'd argue all timer based games are people twiddling their thumbs on the internet... The optimal play style is to play multiple timer games or do dishes in the 'twiddle' phase.
On topic: I am leaning towards Lemur's side of the argument.
From my understanding, the aid button was implemented as a Quality of Life improvement for players who wanted more thumb-twiddle time instead of mindless thumb mashing. The intent for the change was to not affect play styles, but assist players save time with their long friend/guild/hood lists. Before the change, players used their judgement to polish/motivate and there was no 'priority' script. Once Aid was implemented and the algorithm understood, play styles/strategies emerged. This is the critical part for me because:
The nearly universal response of players to this penalty has been to purge their villages of small decorations.
There was no 'penalty' to decos before the change. There was no 'optimal' strategy of avoiding decos before the change. The Aid Button change CREATED these 'play styles' and 'strategies' we are talking about. Since the Aid button was implemented as a QoL change, and not a strategic balance change like PvP tech unlock or Hood balancing, I see any arguments on the play style & strategic vein as missing the bigger picture of game design or advocating for personal play style. Or both. Or something. Or Oars are boring boars. *reboots brain*
Seeing how and why the current play styles emerged is important. I do not think the Aid button's intent was to create decoration avoidance behavior. I do not believe decorations are meant to be a indication of 'not optimal' city design. Only armed with the knowledge of how 'optimal' play is under the aid button do we judge city's as not optimal for having 1+ tree decorations. That aid could have been used on a hut! Optimal! 'Optimal' is a play style, if you advocate for 'no change' to the 'optimal', you are advocating for a play style. This is why I get a faceplam/sigh/headache when our arguments drift into play style discussions.
We all advocate play style, which is fine, but we should recognize it when we do. The more important thing is, who is being harmed with this proposed change? What play style would suffer? I have not seen an objection argument that addresses who is harmed. I have seen a lot of people advocating that decorations are a 'bad' play style that people can 'choose' to do. Why are decorations not a viable strategic choice for happiness again? Because of
unintended consequences of a QoL feature that was introduced.
If Inno has stated the Aid Button was intended to be a strategic balancing nerf to decorations, then I ask for a link to the proof! Please and Thank you!
You choose your playing style, and you live with the consequences of that decision. Except for you and others that come here making proposals to change the game solely to benefit your particular playing style. My opinion is that you should reconcile yourself with the realities of the gaming world.
I agree with everything you say, except for a small twist. My opinion is that the realities of the gaming world is design outcomes and design intents. Hopefully I've explained above that the reality does not match the intent, which is why I support a change in this specific area.
Ideally, I would prefer
@Algona 's Theme Park idea I came across earlier this week. Someday I'll see if any proposals have addressed it, or steal his idea and make one myself. That way Warehouse managers & Sim city builders can have their cakes and throw it in each other's faces! Or something.
I see this as not a penalty, but as a consequence of play style. The decos provide cheap and easy happiness. As a consequence, you get them polished (and the reward is double the happiness, so "consequence" is sort of wrong too in that it usually holds a negative connotation). The alternative is to play a more challenging way and find methods of gaining happiness that don't involve polishing stealing motivation. I just don't agree that this is a negative in the game. It's just a game mechanic that exists. Using cheap decos as a visual component has a drawback. It's not a penalty in my opinion, it drives a challenge to overcome or an acceptance of the "consequence". It's 100% perception-driven.
The problem is 'cheap & easy' is no longer true once you consider the 'consequences'. There is no challenge, because there is the 'optimal way' and the 'obviously not best use of space and mo/po' way. That's not a strategy or challenge, just a push to use a specific play style for success. Analogy: You can choose to use the 'cheap & easy' spear fighters for EMA c-map fights, but the consequence is you must have absurdly high level ATK GBs. Sure, you can 'choose' this play style, but the design intent is clearly not meant for a player to use spear fighters, but to use Iron Age or EMA units. This is the problem with decorations. There is a clear 'best use' for them because of the way Aid works. I don't think the Aid Button was meant to make decorations the spear fighter of happiness.
what the real bummer is that these decos need research on the tech tree and are deemed by INNO to be valuable prizes in events yet I never use them because they are inefficient for my city.
Yar. The question is, what city ARE decos efficient in? If the answer is 'just people who like them or choose to play in a non-optimal fun way', then I see that as a problem in game design, not of player choice & consequence.
