• 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.

Forwarded: (Great Buildings) Flame & Tower GB's

  • Thread starter DeletedUser111907
  • Start date

Do you support this Idea

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Agent327

Legend
I'll assume that you won't deny that you've complained about "cheaters" before. In this specific thread, you've referred to practices you clearly view as unfair advantages:
Your position here, and elsewhere, clearly express that you find effective use of GBs to be abuse, and that you believe that the proposed GBs will be abused in the same manner. You have a point, though. For the sake of precision, I should've written that you believe they "are abusing advantages", rather than "are cheaters". There's a difference, and I was imprecise.

So "most players" is the same as "the players"? If I say I get beaten by players that cheat you turn it in to all players that beat me cheat. All you do is turn my words around.


Complaints in the forum, that's your definition of "hard evidence"? If so, I'm not surprised that Inno "will not do anything" about your reports. If not so, I wonder why you keep refusing to give even the simplest description of the evidence.

It's my definition of hard evidence that can not be delivered and once again you are turning things around. It is impossible to report, so Inno has to do nothing about it.

Whether something is irrelevant or not, isn't decided by anyone. It either is, or it isn't.

In order to know that you must decide.

However, if something is irrelevant, I do have the power to point it out. I even gave the reasons for my conclusion.

Same poweer I have to stick to my argument.

You know, something that you could actually present arguments against, rather than just make snide comments.

Those snide comments have a mind of their own. They love to follow condescending comments.

Not that I mind snide comments, obviously. It's just that I believe they need to be backed up with some reasoning.

Then it must hurt you can not control that.

That would be true, if the new GBs weren't balanced properly, for instance in the ways I've mentioned. However, with proper balancing, not having the building will become a disadvantage, which makes the game harder.

Like it is now?

All GBs make the game easier, if you have them, just as it becomes harder if you don't have them.

Don't have a Colosseum. It makes the game a lot easier, not harder.

The challenge is in picking the advantages that your strategy requires, and accept the disadvantages that your strategy can tolerate. Not to mention, pick a strategy where such a balance is possible. Assuming that they will be balanced, these new buildings will add to that challenge.

Assuming that. How has that worked so far?

That algorithm is intended for those who feel uncomfortable with a thread, and, honestly, you seem much more annoyed and harassed by this thread than I am.

Actualyy I haven't had this much fun for a while.

For your next reply, would it be too much to ask for some reasoning behind your statements?

If I give you a reason you wil turn it around and explain it the way it suits you. Wouldn't it be to much to ask you stop doing so?

I feel like we're being stuck in endless repetition

Maybe your algorithm will work on that.
 

DeletedUser110131

So "most players" is the same as "the players"?
My apologies. You don't believe that "the players" who beat you, do so by cheating or abusing the game mechanics. You only believe that "most players" who beat you, do so by cheating or abusing the game mechanics. Much better.

Must work wonders for your self esteem. It doesn't do your credibility any favors, though.

If I give you a reason you wil turn it around and explain it the way it suits you. Wouldn't it be to much to ask you stop doing so?
It's called "argumentation", @Agent327. It's hard to avoid encountering it, in discussion forums. If you say something that implies falsehoods or comical assumptions, someone will usually point out those implications. I know you won't believe it, but argumentation isn't cheating.

Maybe your algorithm will work on that.
I won't go quite that far. However, unless you make a case for your stand on the actual topic, I'm afraid I'll have to apply a somewhat similar algorithm to any further comments by you, in this thread.
 

Agent327

Legend
My apologies. You don't believe that "the players" who beat you, do so by cheating or abusing the game mechanics. You only believe that "most players" who beat you, do so by cheating or abusing the game mechanics. Much better.

You really still do not get it do you? I never spoke of players that beat me. Those are your words.

It's called "argumentation", @Agent327. It's hard to avoid encountering it, in discussion forums. If you say something that implies falsehoods or comical assumptions, someone will usually point out those implications. I know you won't believe it, but argumentation isn't cheating.

Now what if someone never said certain things, but you make it look like they did so you can have an argument. Would that be cheating?

I won't go quite that far. However, unless you make a case for your stand on the actual topic, I'm afraid I'll have to apply a somewhat similar algorithm to any further comments by you, in this thread.

Please not. That would really bother me.
 

DeletedUser110131

Can we please keep on topic.
Absolutely.

Assuming that Inno finds these ideas interesting, or any ideas related to a obsolescent GBs, what are the arguments for and against using the ideas to revive them? In this case, that would especially be the Colosseum. Is the Colosseum missed as a useful GB? As a more general issue, what's the implications of altering the function of a building that people have already made the decision to build, or not to build? It would be a form of anti-nerfing, a tampering with choices and efforts already made.

Myself, I've never built the Colosseum, and never planned for fitting it in. If neighbors who have already made the previously unwise choice of building it, suddenly gained this advantage, that would be unfair to the rest of us. If it happened with a defensive building, Deal or Saint Basil's, players without the one in question, would have to scrambe. They'd need to abandon other projects, to boost their offensive capabilities, as well as their defensive ones, in order to deal with emboldened neighbors.

Whether using an old, or a new GB, it'll turn Watchfires, Flames, and Towers back into rewards for those who are drowning in them. It's also a new idea, to combine buildings in this way. The general concept of the idea may be applied to other buildings. I think everyone agrees that SoKs, Sky Watches, and production buildings for FPs are ill suited for combining, but are there any other that could benefit from a GB or other building to combine with?
 

DeletedUser107476

Absolutely.

Assuming that Inno finds these ideas interesting, or any ideas related to a obsolescent GBs, what are the arguments for and against using the ideas to revive them? In this case, that would especially be the Colosseum. Is the Colosseum missed as a useful GB? As a more general issue, what's the implications of altering the function of a building that people have already made the decision to build, or not to build? It would be a form of anti-nerfing, a tampering with choices and efforts already made.

Myself, I've never built the Colosseum, and never planned for fitting it in. If neighbors who have already made the previously unwise choice of building it, suddenly gained this advantage, that would be unfair to the rest of us. If it happened with a defensive building, Deal or Saint Basil's, players without the one in question, would have to scrambe. They'd need to abandon other projects, to boost their offensive capabilities, as well as their defensive ones, in order to deal with emboldened neighbors.

Whether using an old, or a new GB, it'll turn Watchfires, Flames, and Towers back into rewards for those who are drowning in them. It's also a new idea, to combine buildings in this way. The general concept of the idea may be applied to other buildings. I think everyone agrees that SoKs, Sky Watches, and production buildings for FPs are ill suited for combining, but are there any other that could benefit from a GB or other building to combine with?
The Colosseum would be made useful if the OP's idea was combined with. it. The biggest mistake InnoGames made with Great Buildings was allowing players to get them before they reach the era the Great Building is from. Many players now sit back in eras having learned it is better to level Great Buildings. Now if you could not get Deal Castle until you reached Colonial Age it would change the value of the Colosseum immensely. As players who wanted extra medals would need it to help expand whilst sitting in lower eras.

I have seen reports on how this is not possible now as players already have advanced Great Buildings. I wholly disagree, because the Great Buildings could be put in storage until you reach the correct era. With all forge points invested still in them and level kept until you do.
 

DeletedUser110131

@markp27
I actually think Inno made the right call on that one. With only two new buildings per era, people would get bored too quickly, advance too quickly, and we'd all end up in OF too early. Strategies would also become more uniform; everyone would build the same GBs, in the same order, at the same pace. Currently, their method for pressuring people forward in eras is mostly space restriction and quests, otherwise leaving players with a lot of strategic options. It works, as most players will eventually find that the restrictions of staying too long in one age are too onerous.

It might be an idea to place some era related restrictions on buildings, though, where a GB can reach its full potential only once the player reaches the appropriate era. That would maintain the wealth of options, while having some of the effect you want. I believe it would also be technically simpler than storing GBs, and a lot less upsetting to players. It could be implemented simply by removing and replacing the GB with another GB with the same size, same name, similar appearance, and similar, though better, stats.

Storage of GBs should be possible, but probably not easily done. The database would have to be altered, since I doubt they can be stored in the same tables as other buildings. Introducing a new table means the schema would have to be expanded. Some new code would have to be written, both for the server and client, though that might be the easier part of it. It may be possible to tie it into the functions existing for BPs, FP packs, and/or upgrade kits, but it would still be a significant effort, I believe.

The idea in this thread, introducing the entirely new concept of using both other buildings, and FPs, to upgrade a GB, will also present technical problems. It may entail creating an entirely new class of buildings, with many of the same problems. It would be more of a novelty, though, which should make it more attractive to Inno.

Considering how many, much easier ways there are to create new content, most without upsetting too many players too much, and most without the need for overcoming many technical problems, most or all of the ideas here are unlikely to be put on a fast track. At best, it will take a good, long while. Still, players giving ideas attention, and discussing them, can't hurt. I'm on record as being convinced they have some function in place, to make them aware of anything they consider relevant, happening on the forums.

Colosseum, as it is today... I wouldn't build it, with or without Deal available. It's simply not a good building, worth neither it's space, or the necessary FPs. It's outclassed by other sources of medals, even in the early eras. They need to do something about the building itself, if they want it to be anything other than a punishment for bad judgement. Mind you, I don't mind bad judgement being punished in a strategy game.

Colosseum is no part of the original idea.
It's on topic, because it's an expansion on the original idea. It's about it. That's pretty much the definition of being "on topic" in a discussion. You, on the other hand, were getting entrenched in a meta-discussion, absolutely refusing to address anything directly on-topic, and moving further and further away from the topic. It was barely a meta-discussion of the discussion of the topic, towards the end. Well, not the end, as you're still on about it.
 

DeletedUser107476

One thing everyone is always talking about is more city area or more expansions, well what about if you created two new Great Buildings that give the opportunity to create more space without adding more expansions or city area?
Well i'm sure some great names can be found but for simplicity sake we will go with the Flame and the Tower.

Flame GB
5 x 5 area
Allows all Ritual Flames & Watchfires to be added to a single Great Building which accumulates the % of what is donated to it
There is no room for Abuse of any kind
It keeps all original items within the game so no changes to the work already done but also allows for more room to be created within cities but does not mean adding more expansions or city area and also allows for any future developments in this area to simply be added to this GB over time giving you more options for rewards in future events

Tower GB
4 x 4 area
Allows all Victory Towers to be added to a single Great Building which accumulates the medal rewards of what is donated to it
There is no room for Abuse of any kind
It keeps all original items within the game so no changes to the work already done but also allows for more room to be created within cities but does not mean adding more expansions or city area and also allows for any future developments in this area to simply be added to this GB over time giving you more options for rewards in future events

As each level is opened it allows x amount of Flames or Towers to be added to the GB, as with most GB's these would have a secondary bonus which I think should be added defence attack bonus for the Flame as defence attack is quite hard to gain and extra medals per level with the Tower.

Quite sure that these would be a great addition for all Era's that are currently within the game.
Was the original topic.
 

DeletedUser110195

Whether using an old, or a new GB, it'll turn Watchfires, Flames, and Towers back into rewards for those who are drowning in them. It's also a new idea, to combine buildings in this way.
A solution to this is to have the game stop turning out the old ones and make a new version of these items with this functionality. Towers could be done without any negative impact on anyone exactly as they are, after all medals are only used to buy expansions and pay for sieges on the all ages map.

Watchfires and Ritual Flames are a bit more tricky...do they allow existing ones to be added? Do they make a new version of them which can be added? If people aren't placing fires or flames now, then those things are already worthless to them, so adding a new version of them which could be added to a GB doesn't change anything, now no one's defense just shoots up 500% in an instant.
 

DeletedUser110131

solution to this is to have the game stop turning out the old ones and make a new version of these items with this functionality.
I give that a +1 as an addition to the idea. It would help create a soft transition, allowing people to respond to the change. It may even allow the stats for such a building to be somewhat stronger, as the availability of the flame/fire replacement would be entirely controlled by Inno. Of course, in the end, it's just different ways of controlling the game, but I think fun could be had, hunting for the flame/fire replacement.
 

Agent327

Legend
It's on topic, because it's an expansion on the original idea. It's about it. That's pretty much the definition of being "on topic" in a discussion. You, on the other hand, were getting entrenched in a meta-discussion, absolutely refusing to address anything directly on-topic, and moving further and further away from the topic. It was barely a meta-discussion of the discussion of the topic, towards the end. Well, not the end, as you're still on about it.

It would be on topic if the OP brought it up, but he didn't. At the moment you two highjacked his topic trying to force your own idea, based on his. Bit the same as you now accuse me to be entrenched in a meta-discussion. So glad you did not participate in that, cause it probably would never have stopped.
 

DeletedUser105078

+1 from me

Flame GB
5 x 5 area
Allows all Ritual Flames & Watchfires to be added to a single Great Building which accumulates the % of what is donated to it
There is no room for Abuse of any kind
It keeps all original items within the game so no changes to the work already done but also allows for more room to be created within cities but does not mean adding more expansions or city area and also allows for any future developments in this area to simply be added to this GB over time giving you more options for rewards in future events

Tower GB
4 x 4 area
Allows all Victory Towers to be added to a single Great Building which accumulates the medal rewards of what is donated to it
There is no room for Abuse of any kind
It keeps all original items within the game so no changes to the work already done but also allows for more room to be created within cities but does not mean adding more expansions or city area and also allows for any future developments in this area to simply be added to this GB over time giving you more options for rewards in future events


My thoughts were that each level the GB gains it opens the ability to add another x amount of flames or towers so level one allows 5 to be added, level 2 allows another 3 to be added, so on and so forth. This would give people the ability to use what they have in their inventories and don't have room for as things stand at the moment. The other benefits as I see it is that it allows for further development as the game develops and grows, doesn't affect the current balance of the game and gives players what they are always asking for without actually changing the size of the footprint of the currently available city expansions.
Win, win on all fronts for both Inno and us as I see it :-)

This is an excellent idea, Gwillim.


Agent327 can I ask why you play Foe? lol actually in fact do you play FoE?

Oddly enough, Agent327 does not exist in any of the 14 worlds of the international server listed in http://foestats.com/en/.

This means that he is either not playing the game at all, or has less than 5,000 points, because foestats does not include players with less than 5,000 points.
 

DeletedUser111907

Thanks for the support SylverMoon :-)
Believe we are now at 10 x +1 even after all of the distraction!
 

DeletedUser111299

+1
Don´t have that many watchfires an ritual flames so it would be of use for me yet, but it would even up the playingfield between the raiders and their victims and all that do that is good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top