Friend Visit Payouts
They didn't announce why they removed it. Consensus is that it wasn't working how they wanted to because of the friend glitch.
Forum Discussion
PhoenicianSn wrote:
I'm not sure about the veracity of the claims that the issue caused severe instability either; I have not read anything to date, and within the parameters of my research, that corroborates these statements. Although, that does not necessarily mean that the problem didn't exist or didn't contribute to client crashes and server instability as claimed. The only issue I had read causing severe instability to the point of consistency with client and server crashing is the problem with the Silent Bob character.
Regardless of either position, I am happy that the subject presents a good topic of discussion and to experience contributions tendering both sides of the argument. Some people have offered great insight with their position, even those who have offered a meager two word conclusion. Without question, each person subjectively enjoys different aspects of the game, and it is interesting to learn of each individual's experience.
For me, part of my enjoyment was aiming to increase my friend base as a result of the increasing payouts with each visit. Now, although I do visit friends daily to vandalize their buildings in an effort to contribute towards each friend's maintenance of the respective trait relative to that action with their Conformity Meter, the process does not feel as rewarding with the lack of any holiday patch rewards.
Nevertheless, I greatly appreciate everyone's contributions! Keep 'me coming!
Has anybody ever told you that you "type" like a lawyer?
Ooo....that was hard to read! I kind of gave up half way through it, sorry but it just reads too much like some dissertation or thesis.
The friend bonus - the cause of much debate on this forum. Some even threw fits, deleted all their friends, and left the forum over it. What a mess. I was glad to see it go away. I'm on the side that believes it caused server instability and just because it didn't seem to affect a couple? Not conclusive enough evidence for me.
So I voted no (although I didn't agree with the way it was worded).
I do not want to see it return.
