• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Great Buildings Make high era GBs require two-lane roads

DeletedUser111351

@ih8regin it cracks me up that you continue to argue whether or not these game pieces make sense or would work in the real world. This game is not the real world. In the real world every day doesn't see the creation of multiple new civilizations. New cities don't look at the currently modern world around them and say I'm going to revert to the stone age and start from scratch with the goal of hopefully one day learning as much as is already known by all the people around me. This is a game. Nothing about it is real. It doesn't work based on real world physics. To claim that something shouldn't be in the game because it doesn't work in the real world is to claim that every part of the game must be deleted because none of it works.

Yes, I argued your made up reasons why the airplane couldn't work with my own made up reasons of why it could (because debating ideas and finding solutions for how they could work is fun). None of it matters for the game though. You are the one that started the chain of discussion on "how could this work in the real world." The rest of us discussing it are just playing along. None of it has anything to do with whether or not it would make the game better or worse. Academic discussions of this nature happen all the time and I imagine you can keep on happily finding people willing to debate the concept, but you are just derailing your own thread further and further from the point.

Give specific detailed points as to why the current design lessens the GAME (not how it doesn't mirror real life). Name how your suggestion will alter game play. List negative and positive effects it will have on the current player base as well as on future players. Why is current gameplay bad, and how would the proposed gameplay be better?

All your current proposal does is say, "This game wouldn't work in real life. Players are going to hate this idea. If this change is implemented it will force players into only playing the game one way, that of continually advancing eras." That's a synopsis of your entire proposal.
 

DeletedUser110195

Yes, I argued your made up reasons why the airplane couldn't work with my own made up reasons of why it could
The funny thing is, when anyone sells tech to a people who didn't possess it, they send people with that tech to teach the buyers how to use it, how to maintain it, how to power it, etc.

Further, on his 'point' about lacking the infrastructure to maintain these buildings, where's the food storage in ANY city, most ages don't have farms or any manner of food production as their supply buildings, so what are the people eating? How are they getting their water in the later ages when there are no pumping stations. Populations into the hundreds of thousands and no piped water? Yeah bloody right. At no point do cities in this game function in a logical manner.
 

Vesiger

Monarch
I doubt the game was actually designed with the idea that players would get access to Great Buildings from an era which would normally require many hundreds of FP in research for them and their neighbours to reach, and which requires goods that they have no means of manufacturing or trading for by normal means - being able to do so is basically an unintended exploit on the players' part, and the game isn't really balanced with that in mind. They don't give us access to troops eight or ten ages beyond our era (though it might theoretically be possible, I suppose, by buying advanced goods with FP to get far ahead on the continent map)...
 

DeletedUser111351

I doubt the game was actually designed with the idea that players would get access to Great Buildings from an era which would normally require many hundreds of FP in research for them and their neighbours to reach, and which requires goods that they have no means of manufacturing or trading for by normal means - being able to do so is basically an unintended exploit on the players' part, and the game isn't really balanced with that in mind. They don't give us access to troops eight or ten ages beyond our era (though it might theoretically be possible, I suppose, by buying advanced goods with FP to get far ahead on the continent map)...
My understanding is that neighborhoods being created based on current era of the player is a fairly recent change. From what I have heard the game originally put players of all eras into every neighborhood. So it would have been quite normal for players to get a full set of blueprints for GB simply from aiding neighbors long before they ever reached that tech era (it would have been practically impossible not to). For that matter, Inno does contests outside of the game in social media and such which sometimes give away blueprints (regardless of player age). So they are, in fact, enabling/encouraging early GB building.

The only real hurdle is in collecting the goods to build it. In fact I imagine early age GB building is actually something Inno specifically designed into the game. They want and expect people to make GB early. The only "exploit" in the whole thing is that they want people to get the blueprints; find that they can't produce the goods needed; find that the 2:1 trade standard per age makes trading for goods too expensive; and then spend real-life money to get diamonds to buy the goods directly. It needs to remain theoretically possible for people to do it all without spending money, but they want enough things available that some players will spend money.

Whether or not it's good for the game is a different debate entirely.
 

Vesiger

Monarch
My understanding is that neighborhoods being created based on current era of the player is a fairly recent change. From what I have heard the game originally put players of all eras into every neighborhood. So it would have been quite normal for players to get a full set of blueprints for GB simply from aiding neighbors long before they ever reached that tech era (it would have been practically impossible not to).
Not all eras, but it was normal for a neighbourhood to spread across a couple of eras, and occasionally some Bronze Age players would turn up at the bottom of a Colonial-Era neighbourhood, say, and get thoroughly stomped on before the support team could rescue and relocate them :hide:
Not really an enviable position...

Looking back through old threads, I'm amused to note that the immediate response to the neighbourhood merge changes was "this will punish all successful players and reward weak and lazy players" - sounds familiar at all? :P
 
Last edited:

Kwisatz Haderach

Chief Warrant Officer
This is ok, that you can build GB some era ahead of yours, but thats not, if you know some players, or you are in strong guild, that gives you all the goods for free and you do nothing..only to collect or buy that BP.

You cann se how many players is in the LMA and has all important GB-s. Why is player in LMA and has all GB-s? Can someone tell me? This is not normal :)
 

DeletedUser111866

All I see here is: I didn't have the foresight to aim for advanced age GBs so you shouldn't be allowed to have them OR I'm too lazy to do what's needed to build advanced age GBs so you shouldn't be allowed to either, and punish anyone who already has built these things because if I couldn't be bothered to do it you should have to stagnate for my narrow vision, not me!
Please kindly point me where did I say "not allowed". If you can't read properly, this is not my problem.
Give specific detailed points as to why the current design lessens the GAME (not how it doesn't mirror real life). Name how your suggestion will alter game play. List negative and positive effects it will have on the current player base as well as on future players. Why is current gameplay bad, and how would the proposed gameplay be better?
Stagnating one's development in order to accumulate FPs to build an Arc by trading in FP for goods does lessen the game experience for people that have read about the Arc and its impact to the game, guild and their own progress FP wise. Same for building a CF in Iron (CA can at least trade one age up and get goods for goods as intended) Still, this proposal is a fully negative one by design (a nerf without any buff), so everyone will be impacted negatively, if using my way to mitigate the issues of higher era buildings working in low eras, and the majority of players (those aged PME and below) will be impacted if using "low era - half efficiency" approach. Also tell me, why should a proposal be positive AT ALL? Maybe it's Inno's work to make changes that only nerf, maybe not. Yes, I'm openly proposing a nerf, a MAJOR nerf, and you are probably oppose to it because it's a nerf, nothing more. Sure, you are right to oppose, but I let it be as an expected negative.
If this change is implemented it will force players into only playing the game one way, that of continually advancing eras.
This is a lie, however it will surely make advancing more appealing to players, so that their high-age building will work to their full potential, one way or the other. Staying early - sure do stay, but don't rely on high-tech without having a baseline to work all the time as expected.
The funny thing is, when anyone sells tech to a people who didn't possess it, they send people with that tech to teach the buyers how to use it, how to maintain it, how to power it, etc.
Yup, but they do not also sell power stations in case the receiving side does not know electricity as a tech.
Then pray say how does a statue of Zeus increases attack and defense of attacking army even for players thousands of years in the future?
One word: Patriotism. Over the ages such monuments become a reminder of how did their ancestors fight for freedom, glory and wealth, thus they still serve a purpose of building up morale of those that have to take weapons and fight again. The better example would be CdM in this logic, pray tell ME how it should effect people that they'd fight better, and when attacking ONLY? Again, absurd vs absurd, neither wins.
 

DeletedUser111589

Patriotism? Its just one freakingly large statue. Americans won't feel a tinge of patriotism by seeing a Zeus.

Units within CdM repelled an attack, they will be motivated enough to raise their ability. Or perhaps they were stuck in there for too long, that will make them savage and they will go berserk once outside. You wanted reasons, there you go.

Because this IS a game, your absurd reasons miss the mark. The only thing that connects it to real world are some GB that are based on real ones. Besides, we wouldn't be able to build one had Inno not made it possible.

Also, what use of Dynamic tower would be if it was like you say? Pretty much no one needs few goods from their or era below. I'm making bunch of goods of my era that trading even two ages up wouldn't be too costly (I'd lose goods for GE though)
 

DeletedUser111866

Patriotism? Its just one freakingly large statue. Americans won't feel a tinge of patriotism by seeing a Zeus.
Americans? Are we still talking in-game?
Units within CdM repelled an attack, they will be motivated enough to raise their ability. Or perhaps they were stuck in there for too long, that will make them savage and they will go berserk once outside. You wanted reasons, there you go.
CdM is a prison, not a defensive building, as it's described in the game. So no, this doesn't work.
 

DeletedUser111589

@ih8regin when you mentioned patriotism I thought you meant about Greek. Thus I mentioned a civilization that has no connection with their history and won't feel anything upon seeing their statue.

Even more of a reason for units to go berserk, especially if they were prisoners. Enraged people are often showing increased strength and mindless forwarding.
 

DeletedUser653

Its far too late to do such a massive nerf as this and players will leave who have worked hard to get a Traz etc as such its got to be
-1
But this is doable and very difficult to get around and will restrict some GB's to later ages. so for this:-
-1
better would be
use of special goods
so Kraken would need Orichalcum to build
(and they could introduce new special goods in eras below arctic future which then will be required to build the GB
..........
QUOTE]
i would say +1
 

DeletedUser653

PS please remember in bigger guilds we actually have programs to give lower age players goods for Traz and also have guild sponsored FP donations to ensure that the lower age player gets it up to a useful size, so its not that rare to see HMA players with a traz
 

Kwisatz Haderach

Chief Warrant Officer
PS please remember in bigger guilds we actually have programs to give lower age players goods for Traz and also have guild sponsored FP donations to ensure that the lower age player gets it up to a useful size, so its not that rare to see HMA players with a traz

I think, that this is the main reason why was this idea proposed...strong Guild, easy advance, no funn at all... :)
 

DeletedUser110195

Please kindly point me where did I say "not allowed". If you can't read properly, this is not my problem.
Who in their right mind would build ANY advanced GB if it working, or even working properly required something they couldn't possibly build? Requiring 2 lane roads for anything above modern? That's a pretty massive statement that YOU MAY NOT HAVE THIS if you are below progressive, and don't even try to give me that crap that 'oh they can still build it, it just won't be worth anything', having these things have their benefits cut in half for not being able to build 2 lane roads because SOME people like to rush ahead in the ages where they get stomped into the dirt by everyone who DID wait? Get real.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser111351

Stagnating one's development in order to accumulate FPs to build an Arc by trading in FP for goods does lessen the game experience for people that have read about the Arc and its impact to the game, guild and their own progress FP wise. Same for building a CF in Iron (CA can at least trade one age up and get goods for goods as intended) Still, this proposal is a fully negative one by design (a nerf without any buff), so everyone will be impacted negatively, if using my way to mitigate the issues of higher era buildings working in low eras, and the majority of players (those aged PME and below) will be impacted if using "low era - half efficiency" approach. Also tell me, why should a proposal be positive AT ALL? Maybe it's Inno's work to make changes that only nerf, maybe not. Yes, I'm openly proposing a nerf, a MAJOR nerf, and you are probably oppose to it because it's a nerf, nothing more. Sure, you are right to oppose, but I let it be as an expected negative.

This is a lie, however it will surely make advancing more appealing to players, so that their high-age building will work to their full potential, one way or the other. Staying early - sure do stay, but don't rely on high-tech without having a baseline to work all the time as expected.
Building an Arc is development. You are acting like the only form of growth/change/advancement is the tech tree (thus my comment on you saying there is only one way to play). I could put all my efforts into my military and become ruler supreme of my era. I could put all my efforts into my goods and do massive tradings on the market. I could put all my focus into building mine and/or other's GBs. Just because the tech tree isn't moving doesn't mean stagnation has set in.

As for my view on this proposal, yes, I think the arbitrary magic cut-off of good-bad coming from a 2-line road requirement being added is a poor one. It has nothing to do with nerfing. Do I support the nerfing of your idea? That I haven't offered any opinion one way or another here. I haven't seen anything you've said actually say how early obtainment of GBs are actually bad for the game. I've seen two arguments: 1. It isn't like the real world (this isn't the real world and I don't accept this as a valid argument). 2. Players aren't advancing in the tech tree fast enough (there isn't a right or wrong speed for tech advancement).
 

DeletedUser111351

Also tell me, why should a proposal be positive AT ALL?
Sorry for double-posting, but I forgot to explain to you the difference between buffing and positive. I never said all changes require making players stronger. I never said power can't be removed from one area unless extra power is given somewhere else. I never mentioned buffing at all.

Positive means, "good/better/improved in some way." Depending on one's perspective positives can range from easier to understand, more of a challenge to win, more money in Inno's pockets, more flexible schedule to still get collections and perform activities, less of a divide between pay-players and non-pay-players, more of a divide between same, and on and on.

A rose is a rose. Take a rose with thorns and propose removing them. The positive might be that people will no longer get injured while handling the rose. Take a rose without thorns and propose adding thorns to them. A positive might be that the rose must be handled with more care and thus receive less damage and last longer.

And yes, all proposals must have a positive. If the game will not be improved by the proposal then it should not be implemented. Generally speaking, changes get made when the positives outweigh the negatives.
 

Kwisatz Haderach

Chief Warrant Officer
Building an Arc is development. You are acting like the only form of growth/change/advancement is the tech tree (thus my comment on you saying there is only one way to play). I could put all my efforts into my military and become ruler supreme of my era. I could put all my efforts into my goods and do massive tradings on the market. I could put all my focus into building mine and/or other's GBs. Just because the tech tree isn't moving doesn't mean stagnation has set in.

First you must learn how to walk and only then how to runn. So if i build a super tech ARC in LMA, and have soldiers who are fighting with spear...wtf dude? :D

I am not saying, that this is wrong to build GB-s ahed of your tech progress, because it is a very very nice aspect in the game, and all player like this who are make an effort to do this, but this cann be very much exploited by old players and strong guilds. Older is a world, more players cann very easy, boost young ones, and must think how to fix this in the future, agred?

You cann be without building GB-s ahead your tech tree, supreme ruler in millitary or in trading. This GB-s that you cannot build before you progress, are only making different to guilds (goods to treasury) and player (making more FPS...) and stagnating the progress, because why go to new era, IF cann my teamnates add me goods for free? :)

But one more time....its exciting to build GB-s 5 or more era before yours and this cannot be taken from players, but must be further adjust, because the exploiting will be increasing with time.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser17180

-1

i already dont have enough space in my city and on top of that 2x2 lanes are difficult to work with.
 

PomPoms

Sergeant
-1 There is nothing wrong with lower Era players having higher Era GB's. They take some work and determination to get if you don't use diamonds!
 

DeletedUser111815

-1

You can't undo this. Although it might not be good for lower era players to build future GBs, it happened. If they'd now nerf them or even remove them, I'd immediately stop playing.
 
Top