View Full Version : Exotic Wood Tree Nursery changes
Change name and production from Exotic to Mahogany.
Reasons:
Would better fit the graphics of that building - Exotic Trees are obviously not red in this game, but Mahogany seems to.
There are no longer a need for Exotic Wood Logs compared to Mahogany Wood Logs - this building would sell better.
Conclusions:
Many has bought this building as an expensive and fancy decoration. Changing graphics to better match it's production are out of discussion - name and production changes suggested in this post should therefore also be implemented on already constructed buildings.
Those who buy EWTN just for production will probably empty it within 2 months (sooner if they'd do some upgradings) - I know some playing like this;
Almost every still existing EWTN are there just for the show - a decoration that can't be moved or taken down to be constructed elsewhere.
This do not exclude the possibilty for BB to add a new EWTN using corrected graphics, nor that a new EWTN could be added way before what suggested here would be implemented..
Perhaps an "upgrade buff" from EWTN to MWTN would be the best compromise.
Bluesavanah
16.10.15, 11:37
unlikely to happen but betting at some point a Mahogany version will hit the merchant, another trick missed by BB tbh they would of sold like hot cakes if they had been in merchant from day 1 of xxl.
unlikely to happen but betting at some point a Mahogany version will hit the merchant, another trick missed by BB tbh they would of sold like hot cakes if they had been in merchant from day 1 of xxl.
you have 500 mahogany wood for 795 gems. with x4 buff = 2k planks = 120K gc (on my server currently)
795 gems for 120k gc best gem items, if you selling gems items for gc.
about suggestion
bb can only add mahogany something, they will not replace exotic wood tree nursery
So just because you no longer need something you feel entitled to demand it's changed for something else. What about players below level 50 who can still get use from the building as it is.
So just because you no longer need something you feel entitled to demand it's changed for something else.
Nope. Try read again.
What about players below level 50 who can still get use from the building as it is.
Ask yourself.
Please keep your language civil.
Bluesavanah
17.10.15, 02:10
you have 500 mahogany wood for 795 gems. with x4 buff = 2k planks = 120K gc (on my server currently)
795 gems for 120k gc best gem items, if you selling gems items for gc.
about suggestion
bb can only add mahogany something, they will not replace exotic wood tree nursery
just noticed this on the offer page that pops up at reset, think I'll still burn a few thousand cav to get mine.
bb can only add mahogany something, they will not replace exotic wood tree nursery
Of course they can change a building's production/behaviour.. Do I really have to link examples?
Of course they can change a building's production/behaviour.. Do I really have to link examples?
I can think of many examples where cycle times or input and output ratio's have been changed, but can not recall even one example of what it produces has been changed so feel free to put up your links.
Of course they can change a building's production/behaviour.. Do I really have to link examples?
They only change times, resources needed, but they never change production. villages school will always produce settlers.
also change production is very bad. if BB do that we will never know what we buying. i think i buying watermill for water, but tomorrow that can be something else. sorry but that is very bad. we always must know what we buying.
always will be "out of date" buildings and resources, because game need changes and upgrades. they can't stay same forever
Of course they can change a building's production/behaviour.. Do I really have to link examples?
I can think of many examples where cycle times or input and output ratio's have been changed, but can not recall even one example of what it produces has been changed so feel free to put up your links.
Flour mills producing water....... (http://forum.thesettlersonline.com/threads/30240-Flour-mills-producing-water.......)
Settlers Headquarters functions as a storehouse. (http://forum.thesettlersonline.com/threads/31640-Settlers-Headquarters-functions-as-a-storehouse.)
They only change times, resources needed, but they never change production. villages school will always produce settlers.
also change production is very bad. if BB do that we will never know what we buying. i think i buying watermill for water, but tomorrow that can be something else. sorry but that is very bad. we always must know what we buying.
Your examples doesn't make sense here as you compare a depleting building with nondepleting.
Those who buy EWTN just for production will probably empty it within 2 months (sooner if they'd do some upgradings) - I know some playing like this;
Almost every still existing EWTN are there just for the show.
As stated in the original post, there is an issue about EWTN doesn't produce what it seems it would. Fixing that by changing the EWTN graphics would cause more complaints than doing as suggested here in the original post.
Then I wonder how you think your last sentence should stick to what you previous wrote, as they contradict each other..
always will be "out of date" buildings and resources, because game need changes and upgrades. they can't stay same forever
Flour mills producing water....... (http://forum.thesettlersonline.com/threads/30240-Flour-mills-producing-water.......)
Settlers Headquarters functions as a storehouse. (http://forum.thesettlersonline.com/threads/31640-Settlers-Headquarters-functions-as-a-storehouse.)
Do what, are you actually serious.
Do what, are you actually serious.
Try learn to read.
Bluesavanah
17.10.15, 22:26
the settlers hq does act as storehouse atm, can't think of any building outputting anything other than what was intended by design. I think some had the input/output ratio's changed pvp weapons come to mind. The OP would of been better aimed at increasing the output of the granite pit and nursery rather than going for a change in material, never saw the logic of taking 3 from total and outputting 1.
Ozzymandeus
17.10.15, 23:05
Been trying since I first saw this thread, but I have failed to come up with a single reason why Blue Byte would choose to do as the OP suggests rather than producing an entirely new Mahogany Tree Nursery in addition to the existing Exotic Wood one.
The object of gem items is to entice as many people as possible to spend money on gems. From a business perspective, turning a building useful to anyone of level 31 or above into a building only useful to someone of level 52 or above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
the settlers hq does act as storehouse atm, can't think of any building outputting anything other than what was intended by design. I think some had the input/output ratio's changed pvp weapons come to mind.
Intended or not, that's not the question.
Technically everything placed on the map and using up building space is a building. (Hence Colls using BL issues, eg Footballs cost a building licence (http://forum.thesettlersonline.com/threads/28490-Footballs-cost-a-building-licence)). BB devs may add w/e funtionality they like to a building - no extra code needed.
The OP would of been better aimed at increasing the output of the granite pit and nursery rather than going for a change in material, never saw the logic of taking 3 from total and outputting 1.
Why should I? There's already plenty of threads about that.
Been trying since I first saw this thread, but I have failed to come up with a single reason why Blue Byte would choose to do as the OP suggests rather than producing an entirely new Mahogany Tree Nursery in addition to the existing Exotic Wood one.
Yes, and that's what would bother EWTN owners. If BB would fix this EWTN outfit issue and add a MWTN using the old EWTN graphics.
The object of gem items is to entice as many people as possible to spend money on gems. From a business perspective, turning a building useful to anyone of level 31 or above into a building only useful to someone of level 52 or above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Not true. EWTN ain't that useful to anyone above level 52 as a MWTN wouldn't be useful to someone of level 31 or above. By your logic none should get granite until they actually can use it up on constructing/upgrading buildings.
Also original post do not exclude the possibilty for BB to add a new EWTN using corrected graphics.
I bet none of the negative replies here are coming from owners of an EWTN nor from someones who know anyone who'd used one.
Ozzymandeus
18.10.15, 00:33
EWTN ain't that useful to anyone above level 52...
But it is not totally useless to them whereas a MWTN would be for anyone below that level.
By your logic none should get granite until they actually can use it up on constructing/upgrading buildings.
No.. by my logic nobody should consider buying a Granite Pit until they can actually make use of the granite it produces.
Actually, IMO, no-one should consider buying a Granite Pit at all, but that's a different argument... the point here is that there is a big difference between earning resources in game (from explorers/loot/etc.) and using gems to obtain them. Anyone below level 52 who owns an EWTN is likely to be more than a little annoyed if your suggestion was to come to pass and a building they paid gems for suddenly stops producing a resource they can use and instead produces one they can't.
Bottom line: If your suggestion was to produce new graphics for the EWTN and use the existing graphics to produce a new MWTN building, then I would have no issue with it. However, changing the resources that a gem-bought building produces from one type to another would, in my opinion, set an uncomfortable precedent and I strongly suspect that Blue Byte would feel the same, as it could open the door to an lot of "that's not what I paid for" complaints, particularly from anyone closer to the level 31 end of the spectrum of potential purchasers.
...
the point here is that there is a big difference between earning resources in game (from explorers/loot/etc.) and using gems to obtain them. Anyone below level 52 who owns an EWTN is likely to be more than a little annoyed if your suggestion was to come to pass and a building they paid gems for suddenly stops producing a resource they can use and instead produces one they can't.
Bottom line: If your suggestion was to produce new graphics for the EWTN and use the existing graphics to produce a new MWTN building, then I would have no issue with it. However, changing the resources that a gem-bought building produces from one type to another would, in my opinion, set an uncomfortable precedent and I strongly suspect that Blue Byte would feel the same, as it could open the door to an lot of "that's not what I paid for" complaints, particularly from anyone closer to the level 31 end of the spectrum of potential purchasers.
And obviously you're not an owner of an EWTN or know anyone who'd used one.
As I've already answered corona88..
Those who buy EWTN just for production will probably empty it within 2 months (sooner if they'd do some upgradings) - I know some playing like this;
Almost every still existing EWTN are there just for the show.
As stated in the original post, there is an issue about EWTN doesn't produce what it seems it would. Fixing that by changing the EWTN graphics would cause more complaints than doing as suggested here in the original post.
Ozzymandeus
18.10.15, 01:50
You have expressed your opinion and I have expressed mine and it is obvious we are not going to see eye to eye here.
-1 ... over and out!
You have expressed your opinion and I have expressed mine and it is obvious we are not going to see eye to eye here.
-1 ... over and out!
Yes, and I do not express opinions about things that do not affect or matter to me - a huge difference between us two.
Ozzymandeus
18.10.15, 02:30
Yes, and I do not express opinions about things that do not affect or matter to me - a huge difference between us two.
The precedent you are asking to be set matters to me a great deal because of the potential ramifications it has on my future gem purchases. I can't help but notice that you have completely avoided replying to that point.
Now, please stop making personal attacks and stick to addressing the arguments. This is not the first one you have made in this thread, nor am I the first person who has been on the receiving end of one here.
The precedent you are asking to be set matters to me a great deal because of the potential ramifications it has on my future gem purchases. I can't help but notice that you have completely avoided replying to that point.
Here's a big bomb for you.. BB has already messed a lot with what you get for gems compared to what you used to get for gems and/or could expect to get for gems (eg The Master Architect boxes).
That said, there's actually no need for me to reply on such a matter as that's your concerns about something else.
I've made suggestions about changes to a depleting building - a non-lasting building if used for production.
My suggestions does not exclude the possibilty for BB to add a new EWTN using corrected graphics, nor that a new EWTN could be added way before my suggestions would be implemented.
Can you help yourself getting the point of who'd been buying an EWTN for what reason and how it had been used?
Now, please stop making personal attacks and stick to addressing the arguments. This is not the first one you have made in this thread, nor am I the first person who has been on the receiving end of one here.
Sure, if you'd stop using rhetorical nonsense to try cover up your own misunderstandings.
Houri3_old
18.10.15, 07:28
Please respect the opinion of other players and try to be constructive even while disagreeing about something. Thank you.
Bugs are not an intended feature especially when they don't do what they appear to do. Yes if you click on the right buildings the S2HQ looks like it's acting as a store house but that's a graphics bug only because if you bother to check eco or mayors you see it has not added any storage capacity.
You obviously see a need for the EWTN to be retooled as a MWTN, however let me make a counter suggestion based on my needs. Lets turn it into a HWTN. My logic is just as valid as yours so you have nothing to argue about.
First I have to give -1 to the original suggestion. The EWTN is sold as such and should remain as such.
I do see how BB ( or at least the English translation of the two production chains ) have muddied the waters now, and can see some newer players getting confused to what they are buying when they look at purchasing the EWTN. This does need looking at, and a simple colour change on the graphics `might' be a solution.
As for the production of these purchased buildings, we were all a little vocal in our disapproval when they were tested, and the fact they were destroyed on depletion. BB probably thought that to do otherwise would un-balance the amount of `rare resource' in the game at the time. However with the expansion and level increase the requirement has doubled over night with no increase in supply. This has the exact same effect of un-balancing the game but in the opposite direction of going from being to easy to being to hard. My solution would be to make these buildings input to production linked to their upgrade, lvl 1-4 = 3:1 ; lvl5 = 2:1 ; lvl6 1:1.
This would be a win win solution as BB would sell more of these buildings and refills for gems, and players would get a reasonable return in exo logs from EWTN and granite from pit.
Your examples doesn't make sense here as you compare a depleting building with nondepleting.
Those who buy EWTN just for production will probably empty it within 2 months (sooner if they'd do some upgradings) - I know some playing like this;
Almost every still existing EWTN are there just for the show.
As stated in the original post, there is an issue about EWTN doesn't produce what it seems it would. Fixing that by changing the EWTN graphics would cause more complaints than doing as suggested here in the original post.
descriptions is correct they produce exactly for what you/we paid
Then I wonder how you think your last sentence should stick to what you previous wrote, as they contradict each other..
no it's not.
this buildings now is out of date. one day maybe that will be watremills or schools. then again you (or someone else) will ask for switch production?
you paid for EWTN you know what you buying and you got that.
also when you buying watermills you know exactly what you get and for what you pay.
If BB start with switch productions, you will never know for what you giving your gems/money and that is bad.
bb can only add mahogany something (technically is possible switch productions), changing productions is bad.
descriptions is correct they produce exactly for what you/we paid
You're looking at the numbers. I'm stating the issue about the look of that building. Please read what has been written instead of turning it into something else - start a new thread if you really need to discuss your point of that.
no it's not.
this buildings now is out of date. one day maybe that will be watremills or schools. then again you (or someone else) will ask for switch production?
you paid for EWTN you know what you buying and you got that.
also when you buying watermills you know exactly what you get and for what you pay.
If BB start with switch productions, you will never know for what you giving your gems/money and that is bad.
bb can only add mahogany something (technically is possible switch productions), changing productions is bad.
As a buyer of EWSM I can say I bought it for the look, not the numbers in production.
Changing the look will give me the reason to claim refund of gems.
I do see how BB ( or at least the English translation of the two production chains ) have muddied the waters now, and can see some newer players getting confused to what they are buying when they look at purchasing the EWTN. This does need looking at, and a simple colour change on the graphics `might' be a solution.
And that's exactly what this issue is raised about. Changing the look of already constructed EWTN would not be a solution, as many has bought and keeping them just for the look.
Bugs are not an intended feature especially when they don't do what they appear to do.
Intended or not, that's not the question.
Yes if you click on the right buildings the S2HQ looks like it's acting as a store house but that's a graphics bug only because if you bother to check eco or mayors you see it has not added any storage capacity.
The functionality of a storehouse is not only to add storage. S2HQ do act like a storehouse in all other ways, if you bother to check w/e building close to it.
Technically everything placed on the map and using up building space is a building. BB devs may add w/e funtionality they like to a building - no extra code needed.
You obviously see a need for the EWTN to be retooled as a MWTN, however let me make a counter suggestion based on my needs. Lets turn it into a HWTN. My logic is just as valid as yours so you have nothing to argue about.
Really?
Are you an owner of an EWTN or are you just trolling?
Your counter suggestion and logic are just as valid as if I would suggest all nonowner of an EWTN should have all their buildings using retro skin.
Exotic tree is not a species. There can be different types of exotic tree, so the ones found on the archipelago are just a different species. By the way, IRL mahogany is characterised as "hardwood" as well (and also consists of different species).
I can't see BB selling mahogany nurseries for the same gem price as exotic tree nurseries, so if they change the existing exotic wood nurseries, should they also automatically deduct the difference in the gem price too? That seems problematic.
I can't see BB selling mahogany nurseries for the same gem price as exotic tree nurseries, so if they change the existing exotic wood nurseries, should they also automatically deduct the difference in the gem price too? That seems problematic.
Perhaps an "upgrade buff" from EWTN to MWTN would be the best compromise.
Perhaps an "upgrade buff" from EWTN to MWTN would be the best compromise.
It would be probably less work if you could get some gems back upon demolition that could go towards buying a mahogany nursery (when it's available).
And that's exactly what this issue is raised about. Changing the look of already constructed EWTN would not be a solution, as many has bought and keeping them just for the look.
We only have your word that they want it changed, not one of them has stepped in to support your stance.
Intended or not, that's not the question.
I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply.
The functionality of a storehouse is not only to add storage. S2HQ do act like a storehouse in all other ways, if you bother to check w/e building close to it.
Technically everything placed on the map and using up building space is a building. BB devs may add w/e funtionality they like to a building - no extra code needed.
Function of S2HQ to add population space, function of storehouse to add storage space. The fact that clicking on a nearby building shows a path leading to the S2HQ does not make the act like a storehouse in any other way apart from that.
Really?
Are you an owner of an EWTN or are you just trolling?
Your counter suggestion and logic are just as valid as if I would suggest all nonowner of an EWTN should have all their buildings using retro skin.
You are talking about setting a precedent, a dangerous one. Ownership of any particular building is not important when precedents are set. But the idea that buildings can have there functions changed just because a vocal group demands it is unacceptable.
I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply.
Function of S2HQ to add population space, function of storehouse to add storage space. The fact that clicking on a nearby building shows a path leading to the S2HQ does not make the act like a storehouse in any other way apart from that.
Learn to read and understand what's been written. Then you can dignify a reply. You're just acting like a troll now.
You are talking about setting a precedent, a dangerous one. Ownership of any particular building is not important when precedents are set. But the idea that buildings can have there functions changed just because a vocal group demands it is unacceptable.
Point is that BB has already started doing that.
I'm stating it's not ok changing the look of this depleting building no one keep unless for it's look.
Please, write something contructive next time, instead of trying to break down others suggestions by trolling.
To avoid further warnings and infractions, this thread is now closed.
I am sorry to have to resort to this, but you were asked to be constructive and the situation keeps getting worse in my opinion so we will stop here if we obviously can't agree to disagree.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.