Refining the "Aid" Algorithm

[DeletedUser]

It is about the overall structure of the "Aid" algorithm, not about particular buildings.

You make this statement despite repeatedly stating that this is about "particular buildings", specifically decorations? You can try to split hairs all you want and make up whatever reasoning you think is behind the item on the DNSL, but the fact is that one moderator flatly said that this is on the DNSL, and another strongly implied that it is. In other words, it ain't happenin'.

 

[lemur]

specifically decorations

But "decorations" is a very broad category — not a particular building. Why are you having such a hard time with that concept?

but the fact is that one moderator flatly said that this is on the DNSL, and another strongly implied that it is.

And (of course!) the volunteer moderators are infallible. . ... ROFL

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
.

 

[DeletedUser]

And (of course!) the volunteer moderators are infallible. . ... ROFL

No, but they are the ones that make the determination, not you. ROFLMAO.

FALLACY: POSE AS AUTHORITY.

 

[lemur]

FALLACY: POSE AS AUTHORITY.

Nope. I'm not "posing" as anything. Unlike your reply, I have an actual argument that is not based on an obvious fallacy.

I should just ignore you, since this is getting juvenile.
.

 

[DeletedUser]

You specifically addressed my "reasoning," but then your rebuttal is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

Since we are discussing the "authority" of the DNSL, why would citing the statements of the representatives of the authors of the DNSL not be a valid rebuttal? Their view of whether it is applicable to your proposal should certainly carry more weight than your view. And since they've already weighed in on the subject, I don't have to "appeal" to authority, because authority already validated my argument. Have a nice day.

 

[DeletedUser31498]

That seems to be a very poor decision that exhibits the same sort of managerial finesse as using a hammer to swat flies.

Here is the item you cited from "Do Not Suggest List":

Ability to prioritize which buildings in your city you want aided first​

1. Just as the meaning of any legislation is affected by its legislative history, a rational consideration of this forum rule would acknowledge the history that preceded its implementation. This item was placed on the list in the wake of numerous requests for prioritizing particular buildings for motivation or polishing, during the first few months after the "Aid" algorithm was first implemented. My proposal does not do that.

2. My proposal maintains the random selection process and does not prioritize any particular building. It does not violate the spirit of why the prohibition was added to the DNSL list. It is about the overall structure of the "Aid" algorithm, not about particular buildings.

3. It's very insulting to bureaucratically dismiss volunteer efforts to improve a profit-making business venture — not on the basis of the merits of such efforts, but on the basis of a narrow judgment of whether the effort shall be "worthy" of consideration. This dismissal is especially galling in light of the glaring hypocrisy of the current system — as illuminated in the discussion.

4. I have numerous other ideas to improve Forge of Empires. Why should I bother if this is the sort of inflexible treatment to expect?

If this is how imaginative ideas are killed, then you can count me as angry and disillusioned. But if the proposal still has a chance to be considered, then I would like to know how.
.

I'm so surprised/disappointed that we seem to be the only two people on the entire forum who think this way. Everyone else basically just screams
Because they said so!!!" without any internal questioning of if that makes it right.

INNO created a great game we all like/love/hate? But honestly the resignation of these people that no one can improve any aspect of the game mentioned on the DNSL is disgusting. Laws get ratified ALL THE TIME. Constitutional amendments get tweaked, and yet the DNSL is sacrosanct. The crazy part is the moderators are at least rational, and the other members are the ones up in arms. Instead of debating merit, they just scream "DNSL". It really begs the question why, and I'm baffled.

 

[DeletedUser]

and I'm baffled.

Often...frequently.

 

[lemur]

I checked my Event History a minute ago and saw that 19 of my last 20 "aids" have been polishing.

You're having fun now! It's InnoGames!​

.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

You have trees all over the place. I get it; you think it's pretty, but I think your filling "dead space" instead of figuring out how to reorganize your space for more efficiency. I'm looking at your city on O, I'm sorry but it just looks lazy to me

 

[lemur]

You have trees all over the place.

The number of decorations does not change the probability in the "Aid" algorithm. It's a 50/50 split (assuming that InnoGames uses a random number generator that is not streaky as the day is long) — until they are all polished. So whether I have 30 or 130 is irrelevant.

I'm sorry ...

No, you're not.
.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

The number of decorations does not change the probability in the "Aid" algorithm. It's a 50/50 split (assuming that InnoGames uses a random number generator that is not streaky as the day is long) — until they are all polished. So whether I have 30 or 130 is irrelevant.



No, you're not.
.

You can't prove any of that. You have so many decos that it steals the aid from your city. This is 101 stuff and it's not gonna change. You will never compete with your strategy, do better or continue to suffer. The AID system is not the point here, your inefficiency is in your layout. The lack of AID you get is a symptom, not a disease

 

[Freshmeboy]

Before everybody gets upset again, I will try an experiment...I have zero decos in my city because I use that strategy to thwart the algorithm of aid/polish. I have a forge point city and few production buildings but will plant a couple BA decos and see what happens. Supposedly, SoK's are #1 on the priority list..let's see if that's the case...

 

[DeletedUser]

I checked my Event History a minute ago and saw that 19 of my last 20 "aids" have been polishing.

You're having fun now! It's InnoGames!​

.

You do realize that polishes only last 12 hours, so those buildings/decos are going to be eligible for aid more often (frequently) than buildings that get motivated. Especially if you have 24 hour houses and/or use the 24 hour cycle on production buildings.

 

[Salsuero]

Before everybody gets upset again, I will try an experiment...I have zero decos in my city because I use that strategy to thwart the algorithm of aid/polish. I have a forge point city and few production buildings but will plant a couple BA decos and see what happens. Supposedly, SoK's are #1 on the priority list..let's see if that's the case...

I provided a screenshot a while back that showed that it was indeed the case, followed by Sacred Sky Watches. But let us know your results. It would be nice to see corroboration.

 

[Freshmeboy]

I know that when I had several quests for 20 aid/20 motivate I had to hand motivate buildings for the most part as aid was the priority...I'm curious to see what happens...

 

[DeletedUser14354]

At this point, I am really not sure why this thread has continued.

1. The proposal dealt with altering the current algorithm for how motivation/polish is offered. As has been noted, that is on the DNSL. Whether we think the current algorithm is smart, fair, efficient, etc. is irrelevant. The argument that you are not talking about the order in which SPECIFIC buildings get aided or polished is semantics.

2. The current algorithm for motivation/aid is well-established. Certain special event buildings, including SoK are given priority. To the extent there is an unmotivated one of these buildings, the next aid will go towards motivating that building. Once all of the special priority buildings are motivated, step 2 is a coin flip (virtual) between: (1) motivation v. (2) polish. If that coin toss comes up motivation, it will look for unmotivated, non-special buildings (because these have all been motivated) starting with the most recent age and moving backwards. If it finds an unmotivated building, it will motivate that building. If it does not find an unmotivated building, it will then move over to the polish side, and go in descending age order. If the results of that coin toss come up polish, it will start by trying to polish something, and if there is nothing to polish, it will then move over to the motivation side.

In other words, if you don't have any decorations or happiness buildings, 100% of the aid you receive after all of your "special buildings" are accounted for will be motivations. If you have decorations they will, by definition, reduce the number of chances for your other buildings to be motivated. If you receive daily aids that far outnumber the available buildings, it likely doesn't make a difference.

So, if you accept that motivation is preferable to polishing a decoration, you have a choice: (1) don't have any decorations or (2) accept that YOUR CHOICE in having decorations likely reduces the amount of motivations you receive. The field of architecture is a balancing act between aesthetics and functionality. So, too, is city design in this game.

 

[Freshmeboy]

Indisposed you are actually making Lemurs point...efficient cities are designed without decos to thwart the aid/mote algorithm which means decos take a back seat...This is a result of the evolution of the game. All he is proposing is a slider to allow those who like decos to not sacrifice their progress in order to display them...a new mechanic to counter the evolution of this game has been done many times, why not decos...? What can it hurt...? Nothing...Where is the abuse...? There is none...Would it benefit all players...? Yes....

 

[DeletedUser14354]

Indisposed you are actually making Lemurs point...efficient cities are designed without decos to thwart the aid/mote algorithm which means decos take a back seat...This is a result of the evolution of the game. All he is proposing is a slider to allow those who like decos to not sacrifice their progress in order to display them...a new mechanic to counter the evolution of this game has been done many times, why not decos...? What can it hurt...? Nothing...Where is the abuse...? There is none...Would it benefit all players...? Yes....

I am not making anyone's point. My point is simply that there is a DNSL. One of the items on that list is any proposal affecting how aid is distributed. His proposal clearly impacts how aid is distributed.

I agree that the current aid algorithm incentivizes certain players (namely those with more than enough happiness) to avoid using decos. I am agnostic on whether this is a good thing or not. I accept it as the current rule, and I adjust my play accordingly.

The current rules require Lemur (and others) to make a choice. He wants to change the rules to avoid the downside of the choice he has made. Inno clearly prefers the trade-off aspect associated with decorations. That is likely why the issue of aid is on the DNSL.

 

[DeletedUser]

He wants to change the rules to avoid the downside of the choice he has made.

Over half of the proposals fit this statement, including this one. It's a reflection of society. And not one sector of society or the other, all sectors fit this statement.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

Over half of the proposals fit this statement, including this one. It's a reflection of society. And not one sector of society or the other, all sectors fit this statement.

Whether I agree or disagree, it doesn't change the key point. I think its great the moderator allowed the debate. I am not one of those that immediately screams DNSL, but this jumped the shark about 2 weeks ago.