New Building Idea: Bank

Quote from Rastan

More builders than fighters in this game, i bet if we took a poll the majority would be happy to never have to fight, should we eliminate military altogether?

assuming what I said holds true.. it sure seems that's the case by your logic.

No, but we should not add features majority of people don't want. Military was always integral part of the game and has other uses other that pure fighting other players (barbarians, achievements, and now fighting hydra)

It was in the game long ago, but it was removed long long time ago, and vast majority of current players have never been part of it. most people have started playing after this feature was removed. For people who want gold pillaging there are war servers. (it is shame that people cannot migrate from normal to war servers, but that is different topic)

LOL.. very interesting gymnastics you got there.

Don't add it unless the majority wants it, but don't' remove things the majority don't like.

have you thought of running for office?

Quote from Rastan

LOL.. very interesting gymnastics you got there.

Don't add it unless the majority wants it, but don't' remove things the majority don't like.

have you thought of running for office?

Not really sure what you mean.

Here i will make it simple so you can understand:

NO, don't remove military altogether

NO, don't add gold pillaging

Besides Rastan imploding himself on the thread, the discussion was fairly interesting

However on the suggestion itself, I still fail to see the need to add such a building.

Prerequisite for it is that gold pillaging is brought back, but for what purpose do you need a scalable building that functions as a gold warehouse?

It appears to me more as something new for the sake of being new. You could just run gold pillages as they work in Ares - why the building itself, and the other jambo on moving gold between cities to store in town X over town Y for whatever purpose.

If the core idea is that you can only build one of these per account, giving a designated gold pillaging target town (others immune to gold pillage) then I would again ask why. Why put in place such a limit over the broad access, akin to current Ares?

Yes, you can attempt to 'force' fights into that town - but why is concentrating on one town arbitrarily better than all of the towns, and if it indeed is the case of bank in any and all towns, why is it necessary to begin with?

If the purpose is protecting X amount of gold reserve to aid the player, then have that scale off something else naturally (say, existing warehouse).

I don't really get it. You eat a building spot (granted there is enough) and fleet space (there definitely isn't enough) for what purpose?

I'll give you the leeway that this was a veiled suggestion of just bringing gold pillaging back in general and the building was some sloppy coating work.

I'm a fan of gold pillages myself, but it's already ruled out so that's case closed.

Quote from Scythe

Use the same dynamics for this, as you would for the warehouse (but using a different set of numbers). However, it is more specialized. I'm trying to introduce a bit of strategy and a way to make it interesting. Additionally, it does allow the defender a means to take part in protecting their own resource. By your argument, we should only have a single type of resource reducer or booster per town that applies to everything. As we have seen in the past, this is a game of making the hard decisions and prioritizing.

Also, it is not just about how much gold it can protect... But how much can be actually stored at all.

Capping gold makes this an even worse idea.

Sorry not sorry, gold pillaging is good as is and this supposed new strategy element is merely an unnecessary hindrance.

And please, what's the gripe of players extending their own fantasies of "by your argument" and then going on a goose chase. Apples to strawberry cakes, but whatever supports the narrative.

Quote from Scythe

Quote from Madmadic

Quote from Scythe

Use the same dynamics for this, as you would for the warehouse (but using a different set of numbers). However, it is more specialized. I'm trying to introduce a bit of strategy and a way to make it interesting. Additionally, it does allow the defender a means to take part in protecting their own resource. By your argument, we should only have a single type of resource reducer or booster per town that applies to everything. As we have seen in the past, this is a game of making the hard decisions and prioritizing.

Also, it is not just about how much gold it can protect... But how much can be actually stored at all.

Capping gold makes this an even worse idea.

Sorry not sorry, gold pillaging is good as is and this supposed new strategy element is merely an unnecessary hindrance.

And please, what's the gripe of players extending their own fantasies of "by your argument" and then going on a goose chase. Apples to strawberry cakes, but whatever supports the narrative.

Display More

While I am sorry that you feel that way... I have learned that any new changes added to the game have to add something. They will not bring gold pillaging back as it was. I was looking at a means of compromise. Builders like to build, often just for the points of building. This is a building with a purpose, and those that want large hoards of gold would need to build these and keep building them to store gold (like we do with warehouses for other resources), and keep a portion safe.

This would serve the purposes of both Gameforge setting caps on how much gold can be stored at all, and also how much can be safe from pillage. It also creates a dynamic where gold becomes something else to move around, becomes a choice one has to make (decide to move gold or other resources) and creates a reason for there to be more cargo ships. It also makes mobiles/floaters less practical to use for gold pillaging, as there would need to be a bank there to store the gold in. Which means that warps just became more valuable and Gameforge can make money off of it. Therein lies the rub.

Display More

While I would support the suggestion of simply bringing gold pillaging back as it currently functions, this building and what comes with it has too many downsides to my liking. Each to their own though, some like what others do not.

I cannot support an idea that transforms gold as currently a boundless/storageless unit to something that not only has to now be moved and stored.

Issues here are that transporting resources is already difficult unless you wield a few hundred freighters, so allocating that space to yet another resource is not a hindrance I'd be willing to support suffering.

Another, perhaps bigger point is introducing yet another storage issue. Storage is already a problem, and warehouses take the maximum amount possible to build as is. It's not very exciting to be again trumped by lack of space.

Furthermore I do not support the notion of capping gold to a storage limit. While yes, this serves to nerf the ability to store gold in gold banks (popular combat against gold pillaging) it also severely hinders the active player as well.

If you were to make the storage a considerable amount, then it has no effect at all to begin with and the purpose falters.

While you can make a point for a strategic element that you choose to transport gold over resources and you choose to increase storage of gold over resources, I simply think these are new additions that make the game worse to play than it currently is.

Making things more complicated, while perhaps strategic, is not necessarily a benefit.

Gold pillaging in its current form already adds the necessary layer of applying military to defend it. All the further components on top of it that this suggestion entails do not enhance the gameplay in my opinion.

The discussion has been interesting as I mentioned before, but my summary take is that the suggestion would not improve on the current version of gold pillaging, and thus I'm against it.

It's an interesting question to ponder if I'd be supportive of this suggestion in an ultimatum to bring gold pillaging back to regular servers, but I stand heavily against introducing this to Ares that already has said feature enabled.

As for the points you mentioned about the necessity of introducing something new to lure GF, as well as the point on mobiles and town warps, those I do quite agree with. Helps to sell the idea, for sure, but I stick to my guns with the regular implementation of the feature, given choice.

Quote from nosorog

Quote from Rastan

LOL.. very interesting gymnastics you got there.

Don't add it unless the majority wants it, but don't' remove things the majority don't like.

have you thought of running for office?

Not really sure what you mean.

Here i will make it simple so you can understand:

NO, don't remove military altogether

NO, don't add gold pillaging

Display More

Im aware of your stance pointing out your argument is majority rule, but only as far as bringing things back not taking things away.

if you can't see the hypocrisy of your argument then there isn't much more to discuss here.

You have no consistency, Governed by emotions not logic.

Quote from Madmadic

Besides Rastan imploding himself on the thread, the discussion was fairly interesting

So you wanna explain your comment or do you just want to get into a flame war with me?

Quote from Scythe

I'm not suggesting bringing this to the war server, just the others.

Just like the warehouse, only a percentage of the gold stored would be protected. This also places a cap on how much gold can be considered safe by turtling. I'm good with the Bank being able to store considerable amounts, as long as it only protects a small percentage of that. I'd even suggest lower levels be fast and cheap to build (so they can be implemented early on and allow a smooth transition, as well as allowing early players the ability to build). This would also add another research to the Economy section.

I probably should have made my suggestion clearer, in that this was something that I intended for "normal" servers, rather than the "war" server. This is for where gold pillaging isn't currently part of the game and intended to balance the concept of gold pillaging,

Honestly, my biggest problem with the removal of gold pillaging is that it removes the necessity of players defending towns. It leaves them free to run and hide their military. At this point, I would be glad if they didn't even let the attackers keep the gold and it just increased the amount of resources you could take from the barbarian village. It's more about being able to take it away, than it is about keeping it (for me).

Display More

I understand, I brought up Ares to highlight the comparison between the current gold pillaging feature to compare to this suggestion. Perhaps I should've clarified that part.

I'd choose the Ares version over this suggestion version, both are essentially takes on how gold pillaging functions.

If the storage capacity for gold is going to be large, I don't see much reason to restrict it purposely to begin with. You would just create the storage capacity hassle, which already is awful in the game as it is. I don't think it adds anything meaningful, just a storage cap for the sake of storage cap - I think we're better off without a gold storage/cap.

I could agree to a building that increases the safe limit (call this the builder galore) but I do find it unnecessary. Capping the gold storage I'm not in agreement with at all. This serves the purpose of mitigating the punishing nature of gold pillages in most assaulting scenarios, and personally I like that aspect of it. I'd be fine with this iteration, but rather go without.

Quote from Rastan

Quote from Madmadic

Besides Rastan imploding himself on the thread, the discussion was fairly interesting

So you wanna explain your comment or do you just want to get into a flame war with me?

It's pretty self-explanatory. Take your own cup of advice and don't be governed by emotions and you'll find there's no discussion here.

Quote from Madmadic

It's pretty self-explanatory. Take your own cup of advice and don't be governed by emotions and you'll find there's no discussion here.

Ah, someone who can't articulate there own insults, ah well.. let's see if I can figure out the block feature then.

Quote from Rastan

Im aware of your stance pointing out your argument is majority rule, but only as far as bringing things back not taking things away.

if you can't see the hypocrisy of your argument then there isn't much more to discuss here.

You have no consistency, Governed by emotions not logic.

1. For most people it would not be "bringing gold pillaging BACK" but introducing it a new. Since the majority of players started playing the game when there was no gold pillaging. And most servers never had it to begin with. so form most this would be introducing a NEW feature

2. I am not sure that "majority" of people want to completely remove the military. I actually never heard anyone say that to be honest. Myself as a hardcore builder, and lets be honest bad fighter, don't want that either.

why are normal servers so popular and war servers empty? CHECKMATE!

if you want gold pillaging go play on WAR SERVER that is the point of them

Quote from Scythe

Quote from Buck Turgidson

why are normal servers so popular and war servers empty? CHECKMATE!

Most people do not want to start in an established server like that and in that environment, against established accounts. I strongly suspect that there would be a different reaction, if people could go there for the merge.

That said, as someone that was actually here for when gold pillaging was removed... GameForge does not care what the majority of the players think. So, the majority rules is a moot point. They have their own vision for the game, and they will do what they want. This message was made very clear when people were losing their collective minds at gold pillaging being removed. I can assure you that the servers were thriving and there were generally 10K players (we didn't have the thousands of multis that are allowed in the game today) or more on most servers. Players simply lost interest with the current game mechanics.

I only came back out of a sense of nostalgia and wanting to test out a few theories I had on account development.

The boards were more active, as well. Quite frankly, war is a joke in the current manifestation of the game. There is no reason to concede to the declarer, as there is only so much they can do. Eventually it becomes boring and it becomes more of a punishment for those that are fighting.

I want there to be a point to fighting and warfare in the game. As it stands, there really isn't.

Display More

Why did they change it then? My guess would be that the majority of players did not like it so they removed it. all those players you pillaged did not like that one bit, so they are the majority (more than 50%). People who were losing their minds were people like you, who attacked and "won" the game in a perpetual loop paying for massive army by constantly looting others, while having huge deficit in their own gold production. Now you have to actually earn your own gold to fight, what makes wars in my opinion more meaningful.

There was a lot more activity in game because it was new game, not it is 16 years old browser game, so that is why there are now less players. And by changing it again this wont bring those original players back. they would have to start all over and compete against even more established accounts. if they wanted to start over they would already have started on war server.

And by creating war servers they allowed people like you to play the game with gold pillaging. They should probably allow people to transfer to war servers but that is other topic.

The point of fighting is to pillage resources. I really don't get what else there is, if your opponent stops resource production, so you cannot steal anything from him, you kinda win, don't you? What more would you want? Destroy his buildings, drop his total score, remove research, completely destroy the account... If that is your intention, i am sorry but you should play another game.

Quote from Scythe

Quote from Buck Turgidson

if you want gold pillaging go play on WAR SERVER that is the point of them

I recall when gold pillaging was simply part of the game, on ALL servers. The implementation was flawed, however instead of fixing... They removed it. Which had some unfortunate consequences to gameplay overall. It turned all fighting/warfare into the silly cat and mouse guerilla warfare we see today.

The problem with the war server, is that people can't go to them in the merge. No one wants to start a NEW account in that environment, with established accounts already there.

It might have been interesting if they had simply made no gold pillaging on some new servers and told everyone that didn't like gold pillaging to go there. I suspect it would have achieved a similar level of "whatever" that the war server has garnered.

Display More

Why should every server get gold pillaging "back". As i said i and most players started playing after gold pillaging was removed and started playing on a server that never had gold pillaging in the first place. so why should every soul that started playing in the last 14 years have to deal with gold pillaging. so that handful of players who disliked that change can get that back.

As i said before i fully support moving from normal to war server - and that should be the debate, not completely transforming the game just because few players don't want to start all over on war server.

Quote from Scythe

Quote from nosorog

Quote from Scythe

Quote from Buck Turgidson

why are normal servers so popular and war servers empty? CHECKMATE!

Most people do not want to start in an established server like that and in that environment, against established accounts. I strongly suspect that there would be a different reaction, if people could go there for the merge.

That said, as someone that was actually here for when gold pillaging was removed... GameForge does not care what the majority of the players think. So, the majority rules is a moot point. They have their own vision for the game, and they will do what they want. This message was made very clear when people were losing their collective minds at gold pillaging being removed. I can assure you that the servers were thriving and there were generally 10K players (we didn't have the thousands of multis that are allowed in the game today) or more on most servers. Players simply lost interest with the current game mechanics.

I only came back out of a sense of nostalgia and wanting to test out a few theories I had on account development.

The boards were more active, as well. Quite frankly, war is a joke in the current manifestation of the game. There is no reason to concede to the declarer, as there is only so much they can do. Eventually it becomes boring and it becomes more of a punishment for those that are fighting.

I want there to be a point to fighting and warfare in the game. As it stands, there really isn't.

Display More

Why did they change it then? My guess would be that the majority of players did not like it so they removed it. all those players you pillaged did not like that one bit, so they are the majority (more than 50%). People who were losing their minds were people like you, who attacked and "won" the game in a perpetual loop paying for massive army by constantly looting others, while having huge deficit in their own gold production. Now you have to actually earn your own gold to fight, what makes wars in my opinion more meaningful.

There was a lot more activity in game because it was new game, not it is 16 years old browser game, so that is why there are now less players. And by changing it again this wont bring those original players back. they would have to start all over and compete against even more established accounts. if they wanted to start over they would already have started on war server.

And by creating war servers they allowed people like you to play the game with gold pillaging. They should probably allow people to transfer to war servers but that is other topic.

The point of fighting is to pillage resources. I really don't get what else there is, if your opponent stops resource production, so you cannot steal anything from him, you kinda win, don't you? What more would you want? Destroy his buildings, drop his total score, remove research, completely destroy the account... If that is your intention, i am sorry but you should play another game.

Display More

You apparently just dislike the idea and didn't even bother to read what I have previously posted, prior to giving a knee jerk response. It's not keeping the gold that is the issue for me (and players amassing huge amounts of gold was the issue that GameForge had a problem with). The issue I have is not being able to take gold away. I'd be ok with not even being able to keep any significant amount of gold pillaged.

There really is no way to force someone to actually fight with their military. They can run all around the map with it, if they want to. There are no consequences to leaving cities undefended. That is my issue. I suppose the same result could be had by removing safe limits from warehouses.

However, I thought that adding the Bank as a Building/Research would add something to the game and that is why I proposed it. It would protect some of the gold, and more gold could be safe by building up the bank or building multiple banks per city. It becomes a matter of choices made and sacrifices to achieve goals.

Display More

But why exactly is that the problem, if people don't want to fight you they will find a way not to. Most players have a lot of resources unprotected way above warehouse safety limits. Especially now with huge exponential increases of storage capacity, but same levels of safe storage. So i really don't see the problem with normal pillaging. Why take their gold? what difference would it make?

What even is the point of the game - it is not staying in "gold mode" and not producing any resources and having empty warehouses. You can literally attack them and steal all unprotected resources, you can blockade their ports so they can't transport their goods or trade. You can force them to run out of wine and have their population drastically reduced - producing a lot less gold in addition...

So if you force your enemy to hide and run away you win. I really don't get why you are not happy with that.