Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 128

Thread: [Feedback] Change Log - 23/02/2016

  1. #91
    Aunt Irma’s Favourite Writer
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Mariehamn
    Posts
    657
    World
    Newfoundland
    Quote Originally Posted by BB_Ravel View Post
    This was passed on. Thank you for the very detailed report!
    Cannot have been a surprise to you (to BB) as it was reported on tsotesting.

    Or maybe those reports were not detailed enough...

  2. #92
    Erudite Pioneer
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    86
    World
    Northisle
    Quote Originally Posted by Urgh123 View Post
    After the "improvement", or call it however you wish again, what happens to them affected building chains ? Can we expect buildings disappearing or being put back to star ? We did use a considerable amount of resources to upgrade, our time, and after all, our real money, to make those building chains as we wish for and WHERE we wish for, since the opportunity was already been given and here for years.
    Will we get any assurance bad things will not happen to our buildings ?
    You've been replying on my post ages ago when changes to the zone led to the disappearing of buildings. Buildings go away, not into star. Support will not offer refunds. "Official" replies do not take effect. There are no assurances that bad things will not happen as a result of changes... should have been clear to you by now. All of us agreed to the terms and conditions which exonerate of all errors...

    To play or not to play, that is the question

    PS: great, no more uploading (small) images on the forum...

  3. #93
    Ruler of the Land BB_Ravel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,852
    World
    Newfoundland
    Quote Originally Posted by Tage View Post
    Cannot have been a surprise to you (to BB) as it was reported on tsotesting.

    Or maybe those reports were not detailed enough...
    I am sure the CM on the test forum has read it and passed it on.
    Keep in mind that it takes more than 2 days to prepare deployment and the version on test is different than the one on live.

    Later update: The limited building space is intended. The reasons behind it have to do with the improvements trying to reduce the frequency of locked zones. A suggestion on improving building placement has already been posted here, so please feel free to add your comments there if you approve of the suggestion and your feedback will be passed on.
    Regardless, your comments about the missing building space are being passed on.
    Last edited by BB_Ravel; 25.02.16 at 11:23. Reason: adding info on building placement

  4. #94
    Aunt Irma’s Favourite Writer Larili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    657
    World
    Sandycove
    Quote Originally Posted by BB_Ravel View Post
    ILater update: The limited building space is intended. The reasons behind it have to do with the improvements trying to reduce the frequency of locked zones. A suggestion on improving building placement has already been posted here, so please feel free to add your comments there if you are unhappy with the change and your feedback will be passed on.
    I've always understood that the game was set with limited building space as something the player had to deal with. I can also begin to understand the reason for removing the `exploit' of building on `un-intended' spots IF they are indeed causing zone lock ups. However I think what many of the players are now referring to, is the fact that some previous building spots, without any shrubbery or muddy areas have been caught up in the `fix' and in doing so has reduced the number of perfectly `legal' building spots. It appears that the devs have once again failed to either do the fix properly or failed to `balance' the fix so the players are not paying an un fair price for that fix.
    Given that players have to spend gems to remove rocks and mountains and buy islands to increase the building area, it should have been part of the fix to ensure that the investment made was protected and given a high priority when implementing this update. It simply is not good enough for BB to charge players for more space on one part of their island and then later take some away elsewhere.
    I have not used the deco/bush exploit on my island, so in theory all my buildings are `legally' placed, but given the reports I am now somewhat reluctant to move any buildings for fear of not being able to put them back. This means while this is hanging over our heads, part of the game is no longer available to me in trying out new building chain set ups....this can not be right so please pass these concerns back to the devs Ravel in nice big bold text
    Are we to be told of adventure changes or not? 1 Month on and still SNEAKY RB changes have not been mentioned

  5. #95
    Keen Commentor Urgh123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mayor's House
    Posts
    158
    World
    Sandycove
    maybe it's time we forget using language channels and start using thumb channels instead, at least we'll investigate the stone age methods of old

  6. #96
    Nifty
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    63
    World
    Newfoundland
    Quote Originally Posted by BB_Ravel View Post

    Later update: The limited building space is intended. The reasons behind it have to do with the improvements trying to reduce the frequency of locked zones. A suggestion on improving building placement has already been posted here, so please feel free to add your comments there if you approve of the suggestion and your feedback will be passed on.
    Regardless, your comments about the missing building space are being passed on.
    this got no sense at all!
    but what got even less sense is that the placing of some buildings (such magnificent residence) is no more possible on some location even if there is a lot of free space and no obstacles as bush, tree or road!
    From my point of view this last one looks as if your developpers just seriously messed up not as an intended feature. Regards

  7. #97
    Aunt Irma’s Favourite Writer
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Mariehamn
    Posts
    657
    World
    Newfoundland
    Quote Originally Posted by BB_Ravel View Post
    The limited building space is intended. The reasons behind it have to do with the improvements trying to reduce the frequency of locked zones.
    Come on! Isn't that a rather lame excuse?

    If placing a building on a texture with some dirt on causes locked zones to appear, why not replace the underlying texture in that case? The purpose of this game is to place buildings. If you find that placing buildings causes stability problems in the game, the fix is not to disallow us to place those buildings, is it?

    Many people have buildings placed on spots which are inaccessible now. What guarantees can you give to those players that they will not face an increased risk of getting locked zones after this?

    Please, change whatever is under the building instead, that's what needs fixing!

  8. #98
    Ruler of the Land Xibor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,258
    World
    Sandycove
    Quote Originally Posted by Tage View Post
    Come on! Isn't that a rather lame excuse?

    If placing a building on a texture with some dirt on causes locked zones to appear, why not replace the underlying texture in that case? The purpose of this game is to place buildings. If you find that placing buildings causes stability problems in the game, the fix is not to disallow us to place those buildings, is it?

    Many people have buildings placed on spots which are inaccessible now. What guarantees can you give to those players that they will not face an increased risk of getting locked zones after this?

    Please, change whatever is under the building instead, that's what needs fixing!
    I couldn't agree more. As an experienced programmer I don't accept this explanation as the whole picture. You shouldn't fix an error in a program by removing features - you fix the underlying cause. If that's not possible - it's just bad code.

    At the very least, the visual graphics should match the physical capacity. If the spaces needed to be reduced (which again I don't really accept), then what you see should match what you get. If for some reason a space shouldn't be built on then something should be there to make it look like it can't be. Otherwise there will be endless confusion.

    This sounds very much like a programmer we had where I work. He was getting complaints about his programs crashing all the time. So he modified the programs and put in a global error handler that suppressed all errors. The program was still crashing but now nobody knew. Problem solved!

    Can we at least trust this will be the LAST change to the building spaces? it's very difficult to plan a long term economic game that takes a lot of time to advance in without at least knowing what you can and can't plan for.
    Last edited by Xibor; 25.02.16 at 20:10.
    Sorry, but I've slept since then...

  9. #99
    Veteran Communicator
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    790
    World
    Newfoundland
    Yeah the fixes are done to totally illogical places. If there are offending spots on the island, you fix em by removing/moving the elements that cause it, it's just a matter opening the map editor and doing the change. If there are too many spots or you are unable to find them with code analysis, error reports or game analytics then fix the buildings to be identical to buildings that work without problems.

    I'm referring to Witch tower here for example which was changed so it can't fit in to any normal spot anymore where normal noble does. Technically there should not be any difference vs noble in regards of reserved space and the visual part is just a texture that can overlap anyway it wants. Cherry tree is another example, it takes very small building space while the texture is way bigger. They could also put Arabian tower or Camel stable decoration to reserve only one tile like flowerbeds do but instead the chose to make em 2x2 tiles. Island storehouse was already nerfed few weeks ago, after being unchanged for 2 years if you count the initial reveal from 2013 and include the few months after xxl launch.

    Maybe all the changes are done so we wont be able to put so many buildings on the map and they can sell the dynamites, gem island, etc. easier or maybe all these are related to some upcoming merchant items or other stuff

  10. #100
    Ruler of the Land
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,563
    World
    Newfoundland
    Quote Originally Posted by Xibor View Post
    Can we at least trust this will be the LAST change to the building spaces? it's very difficult to plan a long term economic game that takes a lot of time to advance in without at least knowing what you can and can't plan for.
    A fresh survey shows that car salesmen are no longer the least trustworthy. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to link to it.
    25/11-14 , 23/02-16 .. The end is coming and it will look like this .

Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. [Feedback] Change Log - 22/03/2016
    By BB_RobinHood in forum News Feedback
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 23.03.16, 11:55
  2. [Feedback] Change Log - 15/03/2016
    By BB_Ravel in forum News Feedback
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 17.03.16, 08:53
  3. [Feedback] Change Log - 04/02/2016
    By BB_Ravel in forum News Feedback
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04.02.16, 19:52
  4. [Feedback] Change Log - 26/01/2016
    By BB_Ravel in forum News Feedback
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 27.01.16, 12:03
  5. [Feedback] Change Log - 19/01/2016
    By BB_Ravel in forum News Feedback
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 22.01.16, 14:46

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Ubisoft uses cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our websites. By continuing to use this site you agree to accept these cookies. More info on our privacy.