Refining the "Aid" Algorithm

[DeletedUser14354]

Lemur,

In the interests of putting this nonsense fully and finally to bed. The only point I have ever made was that your original proposal falls firmly within the confines of the DNSL. People pointed this out to you. You attempted to argue, and continue to do so to this point, that it actually didn't fall within the confines of the DNSL, because you were not attempting to change the prioritization of how particular buildings get aided, but rather proposing a change to how an entire category of buildings get aided. That is pure semantics.

I don't care what your motivation in proposing it was. Moreover, I don't care whether your proposal had merit or not. As I mentioned previously, Inno has designed certain elements of the game to create a trade off. Decorations add to the aesthetics of a city. If you like them, you are free to use them. The trade-off is efficiency. That trade off is known (or knowable) to all players, precisely because the aid prioritization algorithm is well-established (Note: again, it means well known). They clearly prefer that trade-off, which is likely why aid prioritization is on the DNSL.

Nothing you have written changes those fundamental facts.

Enjoy your strawman arguments....

 

[DeletedUser14354]

Umm yeah, but you're comparing INNO's DNSL list to the constitution, and even though amendments HAVE changed, your argument is nothing on the DNSL should even be discussed?!

I am not comparing Inno's DNSL to the constitution. He was, by quoting you. I responded to that comparison. And while I expect nothing less from Lemur, I would hope you wouldn't automatically equate someone pointing out that Lemur's proposal is on the DNSL with someone arguing that everything on the DNSL is right, moral, etc.

By all means debate the merits of whether the current aid prioritization is best for the game. However, Lemur was arguing that it wasn't on the DNSL. That argument is absurd.

Edit: I should have added that the problem at this point is that he isn't even attempting to make the argument for WHY his proposal has merit. He is reduced to arguing that his proposal isn't what it clearly is, namely a change to the prioritization of aid.

 

[Freshmeboy]

You're killin' me Smalls....

 

[DeletedUser31498]

I am not comparing Inno's DNSL to the constitution. He was, by quoting you. I responded to that comparison. And while I expect nothing less from Lemur, I would hope you wouldn't automatically equate someone pointing out that Lemur's proposal is on the DNSL with someone arguing that everything on the DNSL is right, moral, etc.

By all means debate the merits of whether the current aid prioritization is best for the game. However, Lemur was arguing that it wasn't on the DNSL. That argument is absurd.

Edit: I should have added that the problem at this point is that he isn't even attempting to make the argument for WHY his proposal has merit. He is reduced to arguing that his proposal isn't what it clearly is, namely a change to the prioritization of aid.

Right I agree, but the problem is we CAN'T discuss the merits of current aid prioritization, because the fervent INNO-indoctrinated responses from the puppets here who simply shout, "DNSL DNSL DNSL" and don't allow for real discussion. Surely you see this?

 

[DeletedUser31498]

Lemur,
I don't care what your motivation in proposing it was. Moreover, I don't care whether your proposal had merit or not. As I mentioned previously, Inno has designed certain elements of the game to create a trade off. They clearly prefer that trade-off, which is likely why aid prioritization is on the DNSL.

Nothing you have written changes those fundamental facts.

Enjoy your strawman arguments....

I can't believe @Salsuero and @Stephen Longshanks can like this comment. You of all people have recommended changes, and disagreed with others. All of a sudden, any of the 10 items on DNSL are so amazingly well thought out by INNO that you think they've considered all possible ramifications of all of them?

How are people not shocked by this? Half the time, everyone hates INNO and can't believe they would do something so stupid (OoD rewards, anyone?). And yet something that entails a fairly in-depth debate over intention/marketing of an aid algo that hasn't changed, despite the game evolving in so many ways you all just blindly accept INNO KNOWZ ALL. I mean I don't even know what to say. Sycophant comes to mind. Are Lemur and I seriously the only two people who agree on this? I mean if they JUST created a new GB that was so easily exploited (even after creating dozens of others, so pretty easy template to follow), how is anything infallible?

 

[Algona]

Right I agree, but the problem is we CAN'T discuss the merits of current aid prioritization, because the fervent INNO-indoctrinated responses from the puppets here who simply shout, "DNSL DNSL DNSL" and don't allow for real discussion. Surely you see this?

You're not paying attention, just as those who since this thread was moved have been bringing up that this subject is Dnsl.

So what if it is?

The Dnsl means you can't make a Proposal in the Proposal forum about whatever.

Who says you can't discuss such elsewhere?

It's a fine discussion, it's propmpted a whole new generation of forumers to discuss, experiment, and learn the details of the Aid function. Pretty sure anyone paying attention could have learned some valuable information.

-----------

If i wanted to write a Proposal about a Dnsl topic I'd start here in Forge Hall. I;d work with the mods and forumers to figure out language that 'skirts' the wording of the Dnsl. Then I'd write a Proposal that the Mods have approved if such could be done.

'Cause as hass been seen, you catch the right mod in the right mood you never know quite what will happen.

 

[DeletedUser]

Right I agree, but the problem is we CAN'T discuss the merits of current aid prioritization, because the fervent INNO-indoctrinated responses from the puppets here who simply shout, "DNSL DNSL DNSL" and don't allow for real discussion. Surely you see this?

I can't believe @Salsuero and @Stephen Longshanks can like this comment. You of all people have recommended changes, and disagreed with others. All of a sudden, any of the 10 items on DNSL are so amazingly well thought out by INNO that you think they've considered all possible ramifications of all of them?

How are people not shocked by this? Half the time, everyone hates INNO and can't believe they would do something so stupid (OoD rewards, anyone?). And yet something that entails a fairly in-depth debate over intention/marketing of an aid algo that hasn't changed, despite the game evolving in so many ways you all just blindly accept INNO KNOWZ ALL. I mean I don't even know what to say. Sycophant comes to mind. Are Lemur and I seriously the only two people who agree on this? I mean if they JUST created a new GB that was so easily exploited (even after creating dozens of others, so pretty easy template to follow), how is anything infallible?

A) With 2 off topic posts in a row specifically talking about the DNSL, you increase your total lead in comments about it. Nobody is "shouting" DNSL except you.
B) I don't believe I (or most of the people here disagreeing with you) have ever "hated" Inno. The only thing they've done recently that I had a serious disagreement with was the partial rollout of the Daily Challenge feature. Now the person you agree with on this, lemur, he has a serious hate on against Inno. He only comes out of the woodwork to slam events/updates/pretty much anything Inno does, or to propose changes to the game that would benefit his particular style of play. As someone else said, changes that take away the downside of game choices he makes. You should really take a step back and ask yourself why you would agree with lemur, because at this rate you will be taken no more seriously than he is.
C) The only thing worse than a "sycophant" is the opposite. Someone who automatically distrusts/dislikes whatever Inno does. Once again, lumping yourself in with lemur is not the way to earn respect on this Forum.
D) I have not "all of a sudden" become enamored with the DNSL. Ever since I became aware of its existence, I have respected the right of Inno to make the rules of this game that they created and that they maintain. If you really hate their rules so much, why don't you either make your own game or go play another one that will let you change the rules to benefit yourself any time you want. Good luck with either option.

 

[DeletedUser31498]

You totally misunderstand my point. I don't have an opinion on the aid algo, I do have an opinion that the sycophants here mostly chant, "DNSL": Hey here's one of them, look familiar?!

It is interesting that there are now 72 posts on this "proposal", when it was pointed out in the 3rd post that it violates the Do Not Suggest List. Specifically:
"Ability to prioritize which buildings in your city you want aided first"
Somebody tried to say it "slides by" the DNSL, but it certainly does not. It is exactly what this item on the DNSL is talking about. The ability to change the priority of aid from motivation (residential, production and special buildings) to polish (cultural buildings, decorations and Happiness special buildings) is the very definition of prioritizing which buildings. You all can keep talking about it until a Mod (thinking of you @Dursland ) shuts the thread down, but it ain't gonna fly.

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'.

You neglected to add how the second, in addition to the third comment were both about DNSL. But sure, you're not a pawn to authority.

 

[DeletedUser31882]

*pokes head in*

Anybody read the thread I linked?

Nobody talking about Hall of Fames or how a lot of people were in favor of the 'save the deco movement' back in the day?

Oh, okay.

I'll just head out before I interrupt the DNSL arguments.

*shuffles out, but idly wonders why he isn't included in the lemur/gutmeister camp*

 

[DeletedUser14354]

Right I agree, but the problem is we CAN'T discuss the merits of current aid prioritization, because the fervent INNO-indoctrinated responses from the puppets here who simply shout, "DNSL DNSL DNSL" and don't allow for real discussion. Surely you see this?

I do see it. In fact, I specifically mentioned that I thought the moderator made a good choice in allowing the discussion to continue (after having moved it to Forge Hall).

My statement had nothing to with shutting down debate over the merits of the proposal. My comment had everything to do with Lemur's continued insistence that his proposal wasn't squarely within the confines of the DNSL. It does, which is why it was moved from the Proposal's forum in the first place. Most reasonable person (likely including yourself) recognizes this.

In other words, I would welcome a debate over whether the current aid algorithm is a good thing. The problem is that Lemur's semantics sucked all of the oxygen out of that debate, and instead lead to 30+ posts debating whether the proposal did or did not violate the DNSL.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

I can't believe @Salsuero and @Stephen Longshanks can like this comment. You of all people have recommended changes, and disagreed with others. All of a sudden, any of the 10 items on DNSL are so amazingly well thought out by INNO that you think they've considered all possible ramifications of all of them

Again, you continue to conflate the issue of whether his proposal implicated the DNSL with whether the proposal has merit. Whether I agree with the merits of the proposal IS irrelevant to the issue of whether its on the DNSL. My issue is not with the debate about the proposal. My issue is that Lemur's insistence that it isn't on the DNSL has crowded out any and all discussion about the actual merits of the proposal. The issue of whether or not it is on the DNSL was rendered moot when it was removed from the Proposals Forum and moved to the Forge Hall.

In this case, I don't happen to agree with the merits of the proposal. That is not because it was on the DNSL, but because I think it detracts from the trade-off aspects of the game, which are a part of the game I personally enjoy. I think a lot of the stumbles Inno has made recently are borne out of a desire to simply "give" more to people for nothing. I am thinking particularly about the significant increase in the number of special events.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

Are Lemur and I seriously the only two people who agree on this?

Shouldn't this statement alone give you pause to rethink your position on this issue?

 

[Salsuero]

I can't believe @Salsuero

Go away, troll.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

In other words, I would welcome a debate over whether the current aid algorithm is a good thing.

^This^
I learned that the AID system doesn't work quite the way I thought it did though this thread. I raised a few hackles with my apparent misinformation, but the whole thing has been an illumination. Obviously the original proposal is not on the table here, but I would appreciate a weigh in on EXACTLY how the Aid system works, and I imagine it's been tweaked a few times since its inception. Discussions are great people! I think some of the frustration with the DNSL comes from experienced players hearing the same thing over and over again. Most of the DNSL is the things that noobs whisk right in and suggest like they've "fixed the game" ie "You know this game would be great if you could just rotate the buildings!!"

That said a discussion should be as free of preconceptions and personal interests as possible; when it's not we digress as we have here. I'll ask one more time: Does anyone have a link where I can follow the evolution of the AID algorithm? There's a HUGE difference between a balanced discussion on how a system works, and a proposal that would allow players control over that system

 

[lemur]

This proposal is about no longer penalizing those of us who value the artwork and value village design.

This is a direct quote from the conclusion section of your proposal.

Yes, the proposal is about removing the glaring inconsistency in the game between designing and promoting game decorations, on one hand, and then punishing players for actually using them.

But I see what you're doing. You're making the argument personal. That nicely distracts from the hypocrisy of InnoGames.
.

 

[Salsuero]

and then punishing players for actually using them.

I use decorations and I don't feel like I'm being punished for doing so. It's merely a matter of perception, in my opinion. I enjoy the element of the game that enforces strategical use of different elements. One could create a town built entirely of decorations. It wouldn't be the best use of space, but nothing Inno promotes in its advertising suggests that it is advertising the "best" town possible.

 

[DeletedUser31440]

That nicely distracts from the hypocrisy of InnoGames.
.

Not sure if it's a hypocrisy, but I'm still waiting for the chance to impress Kate Upton with my sweet city designs.

 

[lemur]

You attempted to argue, and continue to do so to this point, that it actually didn't fall within the confines of the DNSL, because you were not attempting to change the prioritization of how particular buildings get aided, but rather proposing a change to how an entire category of buildings get aided. That is pure semantics.

As I already told you the interpretation of any rule is semantics — which is a branch of linguistics that studies the meaning and interpretation of words. Semantics is exactly what people do when they dispute the interpretation of rules.

I don't care what your motivation in proposing it was.

If you don't like it when a respondent criticizes you for impugning motive, then don't do it in the first place. I suggest you try that next time.
.

 

[lemur]

I should have added that the problem at this point is that he isn't even attempting to make the argument for WHY his proposal has merit.

Something that you don't understand is not the same as something that doesn't exist. .
.

 

[DeletedUser14354]

As I already told you the interpretation of any rule is semantics — which is a branch of linguistics that studies the meaning and interpretation of words. Semantics is exactly what people do when they dispute the interpretation of rules.

Great, we now agree that pretty much everything you have written is semantics. That doesn't change the fact that YOUR INTERPRETATION of the rule is irrelevant. The moderators are the ones that interpret it, and they moved it out of the Proposal Forum and into the Forge Hall because it violated the DNSL.

So, your continuing to argue otherwise has accomplished what exactly?

If you don't like it when a respondent criticizes you for impugning motive, then don't do it in the first place. I suggest you try that next time.
.

"I don't care what your motivation in proposing it was". Not sure how much clearer that statement can be. I don't care because your motivation is irrelevant. The objective facts are all that matter. Moreover, I never mentioned your motivation in the first place. I discussed the impact of your proposal. I said you wanted to eliminate the trade-off that occurs when one uses decorations.