im happy with there improvements. my prob is the lack of communication and the bugs.
im happy with there improvements. my prob is the lack of communication and the bugs.
Yeah. Communication is one thing. Bugs, Well, You never know what will happen with Bugs. Everything can work fine on Test server. But once it comes to live Server. Something is bound to happen. You will never be able to get rid of bugs completely.Originally Posted by jackrack500
Terminex has a guarantee
we will need a couple tons. lol
could they at least double it to 50?
1. I've been trying to find where a BB has said this, can you link it for me please?
2. It just doesn't make sense. How is a 25 slider any different than a 250 or even 2500 slider? Really, adding a digit shouldn't matter, as evidenced by the fact that we can now trade 250,000 increased from the original 400.
3. If someone can explain to us how sliding over from 1-25 200 times in a row is somehow easier on the server than a single slide to 5,000, then I'll move on. How can fewer transactions cause more stress load?
4. Like someone said earlier, if it is in fact somehow not doable, BB can simply post that (preferably in this thread) lock it and done.
5. Suggesting alternatives like defaulting sliders to max is imho not a waste of time.
No, it shouldn't. Couple decades developing code tells me that's true. There are times when there are technical limitations (such as dependency on 3rd party code, hardware messaging, upstream/downstream complications, etc) but within a particular bit of software...it's hard to accept, and doubly so when said software proves it's not true all across the board. It IS technically possible that the slider-control in question does have a 25 position limit; however, not all do so one has to ask: why did they use that control? Good idea at the time, maybe, but not so much now. We have a word for the process of dealing with it: refactoring.
When excuses seem foundationless they almost always are, and most online game communities are savvy enough to know when they're given a nonsense answer. If you want to make a claim that sounds ridiculous, you have to explain it. The community deserves that much. However, 99 times out of 100, the answer is: refactoring would just plain cost too much.
Enter the work-around, which we all know is possible if you've spent any time doing the low-level quests: do in the Barracks what was done in the Provision House: Same silly 25-position control, different increments. Don't believe me? Go build some settlers in increments of 1, 5, or 25.
Why do we keep complaining? Because BB's proven they can work around the limitations in two different ways, so their protests are...well, there's a word we use in the US but it's probably not appreciated here so I'll use a euphemism: Bovine Produced Lawn Fertilizer.
The point is: if management doesn't want to throw the refactoring money at it, just come out and say that. I know it's rare but having some respect for the playerbase is nice, and it breeds respect for the game producer.
and boom goes the dynamite
I actually have to agree with this.
If thousands of players have over hundreds of slots equaling up to thousands of units.
What difference does it make if those same thousands of players have few slots equaling the same amount of units.
At the very least couldn't they check this on the Test Server, to see if it is possible.
====
Although I probably won't be able to get it unless its an event, a New Barracks in general would come in handy.
Dear God, this request chain was started nearly a year ago. It's 20 pages long. Maybe time to listen...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote