Feedback for The Galata Tower Changes

[LeCron]

We would love to hear your feedback about The Galata Tower Changes!
You can find the announcement here.

 

[MJ Artisan of War]

It would be nice to know what drove the change... Are there too many out there? Are players leveling then too quickly? Why make the change at all?

 

[UBERhelp1]

I liked the questline. It added something unique and new. I think it could still be possible to make it EMA and still have the questline, but oh well. For anyone who is levelling a GT, do it quickly because it only gets more expensive after this change.

 

[Flavius Belisarius]

Only been stopped, once, from Plunder since I built it.
Never stopped (Neverplundered) a plunder.
So Thanks for all the goods I guess.

 

[Algona]

Hmmm. Galata Tower, a GB deployed to help prevent plundering.

Any experienced player knows that plundering is only a problem for new cities run by inexperienced players.

Inexperienced players complain more about getting plundered then every other aspect of the game combined. Frequent forum readers know that.

Now GT is made unavailable to those inexperienced players until they get to EMA.

That seems pretty poorly thought out.

----------

When GT first came out it took about 10 days for anyone who tried to get one. Any player with an established city was able to power them up in days if not in hours.

The players who didn't need GT for plunder protection have them powered.

Newer players will have to pay more to get to the same place established players got to cheaper.

If this is a change to prevent players from getting cheap powered GT, that horse is long since out of the barn, jumped the corral fence, and fled the ranch.

Is this a poorly thought through decision by INNO? A reward for established players who don't need it? Kneejerk overreaction due to a flashback of the Oracle debacle? Something else?

----------

My feedback? If this were a Proposal, err, I mean, Idea, posters would be asking how this is good for the game.

So, INNO, how is this good for the game?

 

[Agent327]

It would be nice to know what drove the change... Are there too many out there? Are players leveling then too quickly? Why make the change at all?

First nobody knew how to get it. Now you do.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[RazorbackPirate]

I look at it this way, had this have been the way it was originally introduced, no one would have said much about the new structure being the structure. Oh cool, a new EMA GB.

No one would have said they were disappointed with the way it was introduced and suggested it be changed to an All Age GB with no goods requirement, made available to new players through and obscure questline triggered only at first plunder.

I'm old enough to remember when it was introduced that way, there was a whole lot of, how do we get it, and why did Inno do it that way. So, they listened and here we are. Back to the way it probably should have been since the beginning.

I've no issue with this change.

 

[Algona]

No one would have said they were disappointed with the way it was introduced and suggested it be changed to an All Age GB

Agreed, (almost) no one would have objected had INNO done it the way you describe. Pretty sure there are a lot of reasons why this might be.

Spoiler

ToR and Oracle are the only other GBs introduced to the game not through the advent of a new Era or added to the newest Era. Not a lot of players think about the process of adding new GBs through other methods..

No one who doesn't read the forum regularly would recognize that plundering causes a lot of angst with a lot of new players.

Almost no one would recommend an anti plundering GB be available for new players, say right about the time those players unlock PvP.

New players, the ones who need it the most, would not suggest it. They wouldn't know.

After a few months of Collecting On Time experienced players forget what a pain plundering was until they learned to do that, that forgetfulness is readily seen by reading the forums.

I don't have an objection to most of the changes aside from postponing it to EMA.

Maybe this is part if a relatively new anti comping initiative to get players to steadily move up in Era?

Goes back to the question, how is this change good for the game?

The Announcement seems mighty short on that information.

Does INNO owe us an answer to that question?

No, but every time they have made mistakes that required changes of this nature (RP change, Rail Gun Nerf, Oracle debacle, et.al.) INNO explained why they made those changes and how those changes were for the good of the game.

I wonder why that process got thrown out the window?

INNO doesn't owe us an answer to that either, but it can't hurt to ask, eh?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

I don't have an objection to most of the changes aside from postponing it to EMA.

Maybe this is part if a relatively new anti comping initiative to get players to steadily move up in Era?

Goes back to the question, how is this change good for the game?

The Announcement seems mighty short on that information.

Does INNO owe us an answer to that question?

No, but every time they have made mistakes that required changes of this nature (RP change, Rail Gun Nerf, Oracle debacle, et.al.) INNO explained why they made those changes and how those changes were for the good of the game.

I wonder why that process got thrown out the window?

INNO doesn't owe us an answer to that either, but it can't hurt to ask, eh?

This is where we're on the same page. It would be nice to hear a bit of why. I suspect there might be some tidbits to be found from the Beta forum, but agree, it would be nice to hear the reasoning from Inno.

 

[Flavius Belisarius]

So will it be renovatable? one upable? Produce current level goods?

 

[Agent327]

So will it be renovatable? one upable? Produce current level goods?

It's a Great Building.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[Agent327]

Yeah I think it should be made clearer than just saying it is a Great Building. If they did not know that to start with they may not understand why it being a Great Building makes what they asked meaningless. Great Buildings always stay the Age they are from. (the few with no age stay no age) Great Buildings are improved by adding Forge Points and leveled up. Each level added improves the rewards. Whatever they may be.
The Great Buildings I know of that DO change with the age it is in are the rewards for Goods changes when they hits a certain Era. and then Space Carrier rewards also changing once it is in Arctic Future

You are now explaining how Great Buildings work to someone that has been playing since 2015.

 

[Markrayth the Enlightend]

Ok, so if I read this right, it's changing to EMA contribution rewards but didn't mention the cost changing to EMA, suggesting to me that it's staying at... No age I think? So close to HMA costs? Not certain, I never build it. Anyway... Don't care which way, but I feel like it makes sense for that to be consistent unless they have a reason for it to not be.

 

[s7catshire7]

I certainly hope, though likely that will be dashed, that Inno powers-that-be take heed of the sensible feedback so far from the beta & EN forums (was linked there from beta & got lost for a bit) to also change the cost structure to match that in EMA. Reducing the rewards for spots, but keeping the level costs the same means the owner will, most likely, have to make up the difference from (what will be) lower outside contributions. As it is, it costs more at 10 than CoA. It just seems unbalanced if not reducing the costs also, especially considering how far levelled power players have gotten theirs. Reducing the costs has the potential to keep owner contributions/outside contributions more in balance to how they are now. It's always an uphill battle to get GBs levelled up, but shouldn't that be just as much of a battle, in terms of priming fps amounts, for new owners compared to those who did so previously? In terms of swapping, well, if they're getting less shouldn't they have to pay less as well?

On the goods side, while I'm on the topic of the GT, I s'pose I could blame the lower goods production of the GT compared to LoA to size difference, but the GT (will be) EMA & it costs more so shouldn't it pump out at least as many goods as the LoA?

Is there any win-win in any of this change?

 

[Nice2HaveU]

Good one, but Iron age people who places GT already, what will happen now. Is it a goods building? Also after unlocking "Architecture" which is in iron age, they can get the GT great building prints from guild mates by forge point contribution. Sorry myself confused with EMA logic. How it will be prevented from guild side while contributing forge points in the Galata GB, users can able to place the GB still in that way if it is not throwing error or warning.

 

[RazorbackPirate]

Good one, but Iron age people who places GT already, what will happen now. Is it a goods building? Also after unlocking "Architecture" which is in iron age, they can get the GT great building prints from guild mates by forge point contribution. Sorry myself confused with EMA logic. How it will be prevented from guild side while contributing forge points in the Galata GB, users can able to place the GB still in that way if it is not throwing error or warning.

Galata will work like every other GB. One you open Architecture, you can contribute and earn BPs just like any other EMA GB and build it in Iron Age if you'd like.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

Galata will work like every other GB. One you open Architecture, you can contribute and earn BPs just like any other EMA GB and build it in Iron Age if you'd like.

And you can also get BPs while in Bronze Age by aiding EMA buildings. (I know that you know this, but just clarifying for the uninformed.)

 

[Iggy112]

Perhaps I am being thick, but the wording for FP rewards is confusing me. Can we be provided an example for a sample GT level (say level 10) both before and after the change? What are the FPs required for each slot and to level the GT? Similarly, how will rank scores be affected by the change to goods and FPs now required? Will legacy GTs rank score not change or would an established GT owner see a one time realignment in rank score?

Otherwise, I don’t have a problem with the change per se, but as others have observed, would be nice to understand the whys.