Refining the "Aid" Algorithm

[Salsuero]

when they don't get put into use

This is in no way an attempt to argue against the merit of this proposal... but they don't get put into use? I think they more than get put into use. There are many, many players who build towns with decos... in fact many (making me cringe) spend all their free diamonds on premium decos. If you mean to argue that they would become "more" useful, that's a fair point, but they are hardly being ignored.

I still believe this would make it much easier to gain useful happiness without the existing consequence of having to trade motivation for polishing based on random chance. And don't forget, this would affect the cultural buildings too. So you could build fancy happiness structures, but not worry about them stealing your aid from SoKs (for example). In my opinion, if you want all of your SoKs motivated, you should build a solid friends list and limit your attacks on your hood so they aid you. If you can't/won't do that, then you should build less "other" buildings. The bottom line for me is that you should have to strategize your build priorities, not just have a setting that gives you whatever algorithm you want. With this proposal, you get to have your cake and eat it too. This is a valid reason to be against such a proposal in my opinion (as is any attempt to make the game easier to strategize, even if only as a side effect), and so I remain a no. I am fully aware that I am in the minority on this, but when people say they can't imagine "any" sort of abuse/drawback, I don't feel like my point is well understood.

I have a compromise. You should be given a setting to enable or disable happiness for decos/cultural buildings. When the happiness is turned off, they can no longer be polished. And it should be city-wide, not on a per-building basis. All or nothing. Then if you want to build unlimited decos and cultural buildings, you wouldn't be penalized. But you don't get the benefit of happiness from them if you enable this setting. If all you really want is to beautify your town, and not actually make the aid function "easier" -- then this would solve that problem.

 

[Freshmeboy]

Yeah, I like that Sal...players who wish to make their cities grand spectacles of beauty are free to do so without losing valuable motivation. There is a desire among players to see a regimented park like city and super efficiency be damned...Let them bring decos back into the game and make the prizes worthwhile again.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

How many times have people asked to be able to pick their aid order? So many times that:
•Ability to prioritize which buildings in your city you want aided first
is right there, blazing bright on the DNS list.
The second post on the thread pointed that out. You should also read the 3rd post if you don't understand why it's on the DNS list.
/thread

 

[Salsuero]

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

I do believe that my approach would be a side-step of that mandate. It wouldn't prioritize anything... it would simply turn polishing on or off (with an off setting disabling all happiness from all affected buildings that would normally be subject to polishing).

 

[DeletedUser32389]

I do believe that my approach would be a side-step of that mandate. It wouldn't prioritize anything... it would simply turn polishing on or off (with an off setting disabling all happiness from all affected buildings that would normally be subject to polishing).

That's a good point. It could even just cut the happiness rating in half, and make the building "worthless" when you sell it. I also don't think it should be a setting, but permanent. Even I would plant trees in my city now and then when my space fluctuates. Either way an idea like that (one with checks and balances) is far more likely to gain approval.

 

[DeletedUser31882]

That's fine. I believe it is also important to weigh the value of a proposal against developer resources and more important agenda items, especially if I don't see the proposal as "necessary" -- but you don't have to share in that opinion. To me, things that make the game easier, when easier isn't necessary, just water down the enjoyment of the challenge and homogenize the player base. I like that I've found a way to have decos and cultural buildings, but not suffer by people clicking the aid button. I think it's a success of mine. I would not vote no to this proposal just for the sake of voting no, but regardless of developer time constraints, I just don't like the idea of making the game "unnecessarily" easier. I don't believe that is lemur's intent. I believe he wants to have decos for the pretty factor. But, his proposal would have the side effect of making the game easier in a way that he doesn't intend. That is why I am arguing my points. I hope it makes sense that I am not interested in having the developers "waste their time" (in my opinion) on a barely-needed feature. I'm sorry if this sounds selfish, but honestly... I could argue that the proposal is a bit selfish, could I not?

Why are you performing unnecessary extra logical work to justify your vote by augmenting your no argument by bringing up "developer resources and more important agenda items"? That shouldn't be a factor in our discussions and decisions. Bringing those points up is to devalue the proposal and make it appear "less worthy" of our attention. Is that your intent?

There are many, many players who build towns with decos... in fact many (making me cringe) spend all their free diamonds on premium decos.

The fact that premium decos being bought with diamonds makes us cringe is a good indication that decos are 'broken'. Buying diamond residential or production buildings has a clear benefit. If another game mechanic is limiting the use of decos, then maybe the mechanic is the flaw in the system.

I still believe this would make it much easier to gain useful happiness without the existing consequence of having to trade motivation for polishing based on random chance. And don't forget, this would affect the cultural buildings too. So you could build fancy happiness structures, but not worry about them stealing your aid from SoKs (for example). In my opinion, if you want all of your SoKs motivated, you should build a solid friends list and limit your attacks on your hood so they aid you. If you can't/won't do that, then you should build less "other" buildings.

If I understand you correctly, you like the unintended consequences to the happiness/Motive/polish strategy layer that the Aid algorithm created. I see no issue there, but you don't address the issue that decos were MADE non-optimal with the change, while before they were a non-issue. So, the strategy for SoKs you speak of, do we know if that was the intent of the change? Do you believe it was the intent of the Aid button implementation?

The bottom line for me is that you should have to strategize your build priorities, not just have a setting that gives you whatever algorithm you want. With this proposal, you get to have your cake and eat it too. This is a valid reason to be against such a proposal in my opinion (as is any attempt to make the game easier to strategize, even if only as a side effect), and so I remain a no. I am fully aware that I am in the minority on this, but when people say they can't imagine "any" sort of abuse/drawback, I don't feel like my point is well understood.

Interesting point. I believe that the proposal would add strategy back to the game. Right now, there is no legitimate strategic use of decorations other than to 'not' use them. This is because of the RNG of Aid Algorithm. That RNG is what makes using decos a 'waste of space' because they soak up more useful mo/pos. With your language of 'making the game easier', I worry that your opinion is biased towards keeping a system that harms players that use decos.

We get to choose whatever buildings we want, why not have some control over incoming aid? How is a strategy that was developed in reaction to a game change better than a feature that allows the player more decisions and control?

I have a compromise. You should be given a setting to enable or disable happiness for decos/cultural buildings. When the happiness is turned off, they can no longer be polished. And it should be city-wide, not on a per-building basis. All or nothing. Then if you want to build unlimited decos and cultural buildings, you wouldn't be penalized. But you don't get the benefit of happiness from them if you enable this setting. If all you really want is to beautify your town, and not actually make the aid function "easier" -- then this would solve that problem.

Eh, Compromise only occurs when there is a tug of war. If you are the minority opinion, then you lose the tug of war by default. [A Random Semantic, Pedantic Note: brought to you by the arrogant professor]

I'd agree with your idea, if the only concern was 'decos are for pretty cities'. The implementation of your idea would further the division between 'pretty' cities and 'warehouse' cities. There is no strategic benefit analysis for flipping a switch and turning off all your happiness generators. There is strategic depth to a slider a player controls.


However, I DO like modifying your idea to allow for turning off/on INDIVIDUAL buildings; more player control! But, that falls directly into the DNSL realm while lemur's proposal...

How many times have people asked to be able to pick their aid order? So many times that:
•Ability to prioritize which buildings in your city you want aided first
is right there, blazing bright on the DNS list.
The second post on the thread pointed that out. You should also read the 3rd post if you don't understand why it's on the DNS list.
/thread

I argue the proposal gets through on a technicality. It does not designate a 'first specific' building to be aided. So the question becomes, what is the spirit of this law? To preserve the RNG nature of Aid's Time saving QoL feature?

The 100% Motivation/Polish setting part of the proposal does make it fall closer the realm of 'specific first building' realm, but it's about the interpretation of the law. If the mod team deem this as a DNSL item, then that'll be that. Till then, I'll enjoy the logical arguments we can come up with.

The issue I've boserved is the 'hate' on decos and 'pretty cities' being justified with 'but there is a strategic choice to be made!'.

If the strategy stems from an unintended consequence from a Quality of Life feature, then the argument is nonsensical. It strikes me as someone arguing that because capital punishment exists(Aid's Mo/po strategy), people should just avoid doing crime(Decos). It misses or dismisses the ethical argument of 'SHOULD' punishment work that way(Are decos supposed to be THAT hated)? I agree with you @Hootengoben that decorations are a crutch, but I think their strategic penalty should be the 'lower happiness per square' ratio. The penalty should not be augmented with the 'remove them to maximize useful po/mo' strategy. Especially if that strategy only emerged as an unintentional consequence of a new feature.

I don't see why the current meta-strategy needs to be maintained. Especially when everyone agrees that decorations are not optimal. So, a question to players that played before Aid was implemented: Were decorations used more often back then? Did they make the game 'easy'?

 

[Freshmeboy]

While I wasn't here I have been told some of the history of FOE when it was first released...Aid performed manually and no GBs. That in itself shows the evolution of the game pushing decos and CBs out of the mix as happy GBs and the aid button came into play. Whether it was an unintended consequence or a calculated sacrifice is up for debate but Lemur makes a good point with his proposal: Changing the aid algorithm along with the evolution of the game does no serious harm, benefits every player and can bring back some of the devs original vision to the game that has been lost...

 

[DeletedUser]

I see no issue there, but you don't address the issue that decos were MADE non-optimal with the change, while before they were a non-issue.

I've been playing for almost 3 years, and Decorations have been non-optimal since I started, although it took me a few months to realize it. And the reason has nothing to do with the Aid algorithm. It has everything to do with efficiency, and I'm not just talking about Happiness or motivating/polishing. Cultural buildings and GBs provide all the Happiness you need, so Decos are irrelevant for that. So that leaves the only reason (other than aesthetics, which is a poor reason to change part of the game) to have Decos is to fill random 1x1 spaces. And those spaces are put to much better use with Watchfires and/or Victory Towers. I feel you have a choice to make when it comes to Decos. My choice is not to use them except to fulfill quests/events. If you choose to use them extensively, that is a choice to not play the game of empire building, but to play the game of "pretty city" building. And why would you choose FoE for that? Makes no sense. My vote is, was and always will be "NO".

 

[DeletedUser31882]

I've been playing for almost 3 years, and Decorations have been non-optimal since I started, although it took me a few months to realize it. And the reason has nothing to do with the Aid algorithm. It has everything to do with efficiency, and I'm not just talking about Happiness or motivating/polishing. Cultural buildings and GBs provide all the Happiness you need, so Decos are irrelevant for that. So that leaves the only reason (other than aesthetics, which is a poor reason to change part of the game) to have Decos is to fill random 1x1 spaces. And those spaces are put to much better use with Watchfires and/or Victory Towers. I feel you have a choice to make when it comes to Decos. My choice is not to use them except to fulfill quests/events. If you choose to use them extensively, that is a choice to not play the game of empire building, but to play the game of "pretty city" building. And why would you choose FoE for that? Makes no sense. My vote is, was and always will be "NO".

Thank you for the perspective, especially for the new knowledge! I did not know/consider GB implementation being a variable in the mix.

I have the same mentality/strategy when approaching placing decos vs literally anything else and think that is the intended game design. What is amiss is how the Aid Algorithm goes further and makes decos a mo/po 'tax' along with the sub-par use of land. For me, that seems unbalanced and an unnecessary 'nerf'. I also find it counter-intuitive to the potential revenue stream of premium decorations. It also cheapens any reward delivery of decorations. GE relic deco complaints have been a meme here since before I joined the forum. I read on the wiki that those had to be nerfed as well... which leaves me scratching my head on decos. Probably why my arguments all stem from design intent.

My take away from this thread's no/yes arguments thus far: 'Go play pretty city building elsewhere because decos are not important & not optimal', & 'Proposal change that could add more strategic depth which would allow a player to eliminate/mitigate one of the reasons to not use decos'. With a dash of 'The current strategy is good, don't rock my boat, darnit!'

I'm not considering 'DNSL' as a yes or no argument, but wanted to give it a shout out with these typed words that you just read.

Anywho, Hopefully I made sense and remembered the thread correctly. I blame any lapse of my memory on my participating in New Years rituals.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you for the perspective, especially for the new knowledge! I did not know/consider GB implementation being a variable in the mix.

I have the same mentality/strategy when approaching placing decos vs literally anything else and think that is the intended game design. What is amiss is how the Aid Algorithm goes further and makes decos a mo/po 'tax' along with the sub-par use of land. For me, that seems unbalanced and an unnecessary 'nerf'. I also find it counter-intuitive to the potential revenue stream of premium decorations. It also cheapens any reward delivery of decorations. GE relic deco complaints have been a meme here since before I joined the forum. I read on the wiki that those had to be nerfed as well... which leaves me scratching my head on decos. Probably why my arguments all stem from design intent.

My take away from this thread's no/yes arguments thus far: 'Go play pretty city building elsewhere because decos are not important & not optimal', & 'Proposal change that could add more strategic depth which would allow a player to eliminate/mitigate one of the reasons to not use decos'. With a dash of 'The current strategy is good, don't rock my boat, darnit!'

I'm not considering 'DNSL' as a yes or no argument, but wanted to give it a shout out with these typed words that you just read.

Anywho, Hopefully I made sense and remembered the thread correctly. I blame any lapse of my memory on my participating in New Years rituals.

So, here's the thing with me. There's really no drawback to using a few decos if you keep a balanced city and have a decent friends list and a good guild. The only time decos would really be a problem from a motivate/polish standpoint is if you build a ton of them and/or have a deficiency in your friends/guild area. And the whole red herring about premium decos is kind of ridiculous, because only noobs spend Diamonds on premium buildings of any kind. Experienced players know that Diamonds are best spent on Expansions, with occasional use in healing troops or an extra turn in a GE negotiation. Anyway, I just fail to see the Aid algorithm and decos rising to the level of an issue that needs to be addressed. It might be irritating to some people with unbalanced cities and/or small friends list/guild, but to most players it is a non-issue.

 

[DeletedUser32328]

I've been playing for almost 3 years, and Decorations have been non-optimal since I started, although it took me a few months to realize it. And the reason has nothing to do with the Aid algorithm. It has everything to do with efficiency, and I'm not just talking about Happiness or motivating/polishing. Cultural buildings and GBs provide all the Happiness you need, so Decos are irrelevant for that. So that leaves the only reason (other than aesthetics, which is a poor reason to change part of the game) to have Decos is to fill random 1x1 spaces. And those spaces are put to much better use with Watchfires and/or Victory Towers. I feel you have a choice to make when it comes to Decos. My choice is not to use them except to fulfill quests/events. If you choose to use them extensively, that is a choice to not play the game of empire building, but to play the game of "pretty city" building. And why would you choose FoE for that? Makes no sense. My vote is, was and always will be "NO".

I see another value in decos: every day they give 2 opportunities to your guild mates and friends to get an aid good from the Dynamic Tower. That, in my view, gives them some value from a social interaction perspective.

 

[Salsuero]

Why are you performing unnecessary extra logical work to justify your vote by augmenting your no argument by bringing up "developer resources and more important agenda items"? That shouldn't be a factor in our discussions and decisions. Bringing those points up is to devalue the proposal and make it appear "less worthy" of our attention. Is that your intent?

No? Could be a side effect. We don't agree, but I think it's important. I don't require you to agree though, so we can just not agree. Agreed?

The fact that premium decos being bought with diamonds makes us cringe is a good indication that decos are 'broken'. Buying diamond residential or production buildings has a clear benefit. If another game mechanic is limiting the use of decos, then maybe the mechanic is the flaw in the system.

Oh boy. That's another opinion I disagree with. You see a benefit in premium buildings in any category where I do not. I cringe at all of them.

If I understand you correctly, you like the unintended consequences to the happiness/Motive/polish strategy layer that the Aid algorithm created. I see no issue there, but you don't address the issue that decos were MADE non-optimal with the change, while before they were a non-issue. So, the strategy for SoKs you speak of, do we know if that was the intent of the change? Do you believe it was the intent of the Aid button implementation?

My belief is that the aid button was implemented to get people to aid more since you no longer had to open each individual town, which was (and is) very time-consuming. It affected the usefulness of certain items. #1) I wasn't here before to be affected, so I only know them as they are, meaning I'm not bothered by any "change" and #2) I wouldn't mind it as a trade-off to the benefit of the aid button improving the game in the way I described.

Interesting point. I believe that the proposal would add strategy back to the game. Right now, there is no legitimate strategic use of decorations other than to 'not' use them. This is because of the RNG of Aid Algorithm. That RNG is what makes using decos a 'waste of space' because they soak up more useful mo/pos. With your language of 'making the game easier', I worry that your opinion is biased towards keeping a system that harms players that use decos.

We get to choose whatever buildings we want, why not have some control over incoming aid? How is a strategy that was developed in reaction to a game change better than a feature that allows the player more decisions and control?

All I can say to this is: agree to disagree.

However, I DO like modifying your idea to allow for turning off/on INDIVIDUAL buildings; more player control! But, that falls directly into the DNSL realm while lemur's proposal...

I don't think so. I believe it is the opposite and is not subject to the DNSL. I guess it's up to whoever decides the reality of such things.

The issue I've boserved is the 'hate' on decos and 'pretty cities' being justified with 'but there is a strategic choice to be made!'.

This is so completely false. I have decos. I focus MAJORLY on the beauty of my town. I also appreciate the strategic element. I'm not hating on anything related to decos or town beautification... only changing the game to make that easier.

 

[lemur]

You should be given a setting to enable or disable happiness for decos/cultural buildings. When the happiness is turned off, they can no longer be polished. And it should be city-wide, not on a per-building basis. All or nothing.

The implementation of your idea would further the division between 'pretty' cities and 'warehouse' cities. There is no strategic benefit analysis for flipping a switch and turning off all your happiness generators. There is strategic depth to a slider a player controls.

Yes, that's an excellent rebuttal. And it's simply a different proposal, which distracts from the discussion about this one.

The issue I've observed is the 'hate' on decos and 'pretty cities' being justified with 'but there is a strategic choice to be made!'.

If the strategy stems from an unintended consequence from a Quality of Life feature, then the argument is nonsensical. It strikes me as someone arguing that because capital punishment exists(Aid's Mo/po strategy), people should just avoid doing crime(Decos). It misses or dismisses the ethical argument of 'SHOULD' punishment work that way(Are decos supposed to be THAT hated)?

It's as if the existing algorithm has become so ingrained that questions of "should" are ruled "out of order" or exiled to the realm of "unnecessary" speculation, especially among players who have no experience with how the game was played before push-button aid.

So, a question to players that played before Aid was implemented: Were decorations used more often back then? Did they make the game 'easy'?

My recollection is that small decorations were used much more by all players. In 2014 I was in a large guild that had a specific rule against polishing them. Players were required to follow the requested order of assistance that everyone indicated in either their village description or in the title of the their village. For example, "SPC" meant that the player preferred supplies motivation first, then polishing cultural buildings, and then coins motivation. Players were strictly forbidden from "wasting" assistance on 1x1 decorations.

Using decorations did not make the game "easy"; it gave the game a greater amount of attention to design and appearance. There was still a penalty for using decorations, because they still consumed small amounts of valuable real estate. But their presence did not interfere with the motivation of production.
.

 

[lemur]

In my proposal at the top of this thread, I posed this question with regard to small decorations:

Why bother creating quality artwork if the game process then discourages players from creative design?​

The opponents of the proposal have offered no answer to that question.

Titris then asked:

The more important thing is, who is being harmed with this proposed change? What play style would suffer?​

Again, there is no answer.

I think the attempts to argue against the proposal have been primarily red herrings — distracting readers from the core issue, which is the glaring inconsistency in the game between designing and promoting game decorations, on one hand, and then punishing players for actually using them.

That punishment is delivered every day by an "Aid" algorithm that assigns equal merit to a large amount of production and a tiny amount of happiness, although that equivalence is clearly false. My proposal would remedy that unintended consequence of what was introduced three years ago. It would do so without any possibility of abuse, without changing the random nature of push-button aid, and without affecting the playing style of anyone who likes the status quo.

Ultimately, the proposal would encourage a greater diversity of playing styles — which I would again point out is a major and undisputed strength of Forge of Empires.
.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

In my proposal at the top of this thread, I posed this question with regard to small decorations:

Why bother creating quality artwork if the game process then discourages players from creative design?​

The opponents of the proposal have offered no answer to that question.

Titris then asked:

The more important thing is, who is being harmed with this proposed change? What play style would suffer?​

Again, there is no answer.

I think the attempts to argue against the proposal have been primarily red herrings — distracting readers from the core issue, which is the glaring inconsistency in the game between designing and promoting game decorations, on one hand, and then punishing players for actually using them.

That punishment is delivered every day by an "Aid" algorithm that assigns equal merit to a large amount of production and a tiny amount of happiness, although that equivalence is clearly false. My proposal would remedy that unintended consequence of what was introduced three years ago. It would do so without any possibility of abuse, without changing the random nature of push-button aid, and without affecting the playing style of anyone who likes the status quo.

Ultimately, the proposal would encourage a greater diversity of playing styles — which I would again point out is a major and undisputed strength of Forge of Empires.
.

I would argue that you don't have a proposal at all. First of all the AID system works by targeting the buildings of highest age first. These are your newest buildings, and this makes some sense. What would your proposal DO EXACTLY? I mean exactly... How does it work? where does it go? how do we interact with it? This doesn't encourage a greater number of playing styles at all, it just makes it easier for you to place decorations, which, even after your aid change, are still arguably the most worthless buildings in the game (and always have been)
Your "lost artwork" argument is the true red herring here; the only reason people really use decos at all is because they like the way they look. That IS their value. Period. You're (once again) asking for something for nothing. No seasoned player would ever back this idea.

 

[BruteForceAttack]

Pretty alternative cities can be built in city planner and shared

 

[Algona]

the AID system works by targeting the buildings of highest age first.

This is wrong. Era of the building is one of the criteria, but it is NOT the first priority.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

This is wrong. Era of the building is one of the criteria, but it is NOT the first priority.

From the wiki:

How exactly the order of aid works? It's very simple system:
Buildings like “Shrine of Knowledge” or “Tigers’ Den” that trigger an additional effect when motivated/polished (most recent age) are prioritized.
If there are no such buildings available or all of them are already polished/motivated, the feature will enhance a random building from the most recent age.

What I said was broad I'll admit, but wrong?
If you want to split hairs that's fine, but are you saying you agree with this proposal?

 

[Algona]

are you saying you agree with this proposal?

What part of:

This is wrong. Era of the building is one of the criteria, but it is NOT the first priority.

states in any way that i have an opinion of any sort on this Proposal?

What I said was broad I'll admit, but wrong?

Yes. This is wrong:

l the AID system works by targeting the buildings of highest age first.

In addition, the Changelog 1.40 Announcement you quoted omits an intermediate step in Aid Priority. If you have older polish targets in your city it's easy to see in Event History.

 

[DeletedUser32389]

Why would you argue like this over a technicality if you didn't care about the proposal?
You know exactly what I was trying to say, if you want to clarify a detail for us then by all means...

This is wrong. Era of the building is one of the criteria, but it is NOT the first priority.

This adds nothing to the conversation. What I said isn't perfect, but it isn't misleading or "wrong"
The Aid system works by targeting the buildings of highest age first. It ALSO gives priority to special buildings. If you want to correct me, then correct me. I'd expect better from a member with your numbers.

In addition, the Changelog 1.40 Announcement you quoted omits an intermediate step in Aid Priority.

Please Educate us, I'm not embarrassed at all to find out that I don't know exactly how this process works. You want to add anything useful to the conversation?