I agree with that. That is actual real problem that needs to be fixed.
but not by making game even less cooperative and by taking away the island wide wonder dynamic
didn't you say you're in a quiet server surrounded by friends?
wonder what you would say if you had to deal with strangers doing this.
Just be sure no one drops out, the ones Im dealing with creeped in over years as people ghosted out of the game.
I wonder how hard it would be to implement a bonus for going over the requirements? I mean right now 1 priest converts 5 citizens. What if that stays the same for your own population, but if you've got more priests than you'd need, every extra priest converts 10/20/??. Wouldn't completely solve the problems of people being dicks, but would make it easier if your neighbor suddenly decides to take all priests out.
Or would that create problems with people having "praying multis"?
Just my 5 cents
LG
Boros
Edit: Additionally I'd love it, if the size of your tempel would have an impact as well. Like 0.5% per level or something like that.
Im guessing the faith multi's are already a thing
along with the donation accounts, parking lots, etc
There's a lot of utility in an account when you don't actually care about it's progress.
this merger should be fun.. more multi's than ever.
I agree with that. That is actual real problem that needs to be fixed.
but not by making game even less cooperative and by taking away the island wide wonder dynamic
didn't you say you're in a quiet server surrounded by friends?
wonder what you would say if you had to deal with strangers doing this.
Just be sure no one drops out, the ones Im dealing with creeped in over years as people ghosted out of the game.
It does not affect me personally, that is true. For me having multiple people share same wonder is actually good thing (as i explained above).
But i can see that multi-abuse can be real problem and has to be solved somehow, there you are 100% correct. But not by removing this multiplayer aspect of the game.
Display MoreI would like to suggest a rework to the wonders.
First of all there are many problems with wonders i would not discuss today, especially regarding the usefulness of some (Hephaestus) and uselessness of others (Ares). Nor will i discuss the "faith-nuking" with multi accounts. Both of those topics are valid and important so they require separate discussions.
1. Problem i see with miracles is that you can only upgrade them to level 5, and that they are only way to donate luxury resources in game currently. their upgrade cost is relatively small - which is good, since this means that even new players can quickly get them working at max level.
2. I would add 10 extra levels, each costing more than the others:
Lv.6 - 500.000
Lv.7 - 1.000.000
Lv.8 - 2.000.000
Lv.9 - 4.000.000
Lv.10 - 8.000.000
Lv.11 - 16.000.000
Lv.12 - 32.000.000
lv.13 - 64.000.000
Lv.14 - 128.000.000
Lv.15 - 256.000.000
3. So what would those extra levels do? They would provide various small, but constant bonuses. They could apply: A - based on your own faith level in your town. B - based on faith level on island. C - constant boost for the entire island.
4. Now about the bonuses of various gods:
Hephaestus: up to +10% counter-espionage (1%per level)
Hades: Corruption reduction up to -5% (0,5% per level)
Demeter: extra happiness up to 200 (10 per level)
Athena: research points production boost up to 10% (1% per level)
Hermes: port loading speed boost up to 10% (1% per level)
Ares: troop training speed up to 10% (1% per level)
Poseidon: Transport ship speed boost up to 10% (1% per level)
Colossus: gold production boost up to 10% (1% per level)
5. Of course the cost of upgrades and various bonuses are merely suggestions, and not set in stone. i just wanted to start a discussion regarding this topic.
Feel free do add your ideas how to improve the miracles, so maybe some changes will happen in the future.
Buddy,what a great idea,I am 100% in for extra bonuses at any aspect of the game.The need in materials is very large,so any improvements are in need.
I agree with that. That is actual real problem that needs to be fixed.
but not by making game even less cooperative and by taking away the island wide wonder dynamic
The only way to fix that problem, is to drastically reduce or remove their impact. Therein lies the problem, the multis break the game. They always have. They create problems, that the only resolution to is doing things that other players find problematic. You could liquidate the multis and credit the resources to a single account and limit players to a single account. You could allow gold pillaging. You could do things that limit the utility of using multis in a negative way. The problem is, someone will always cry foul loudly and vigorously... As it would screw up their gameplay.
I will always be glad I saw this game in its heyday, When the forums were so active that it was hard to even keep up with what was going on with a single server. My own had 13K players. I had a crap account, but I was aggressive and able to accomplish what I wanted to. It would have been difficult, perhaps impossible to accomplish with an account what I have now. But, the game was more interesting and exciting.
I agree with that. That is actual real problem that needs to be fixed.
but not by making game even less cooperative and by taking away the island wide wonder dynamic
The only way to fix that problem, is to drastically reduce or remove their impact. Therein lies the problem, the multis break the game. They always have. They create problems, that the only resolution to is doing things that other players find problematic. You could liquidate the multis and credit the resources to a single account and limit players to a single account. You could allow gold pillaging. You could do things that limit the utility of using multis in a negative way. The problem is, someone will always cry foul loudly and vigorously... As it would screw up their gameplay.
I will always be glad I saw this game in its heyday, When the forums were so active that it was hard to even keep up with what was going on with a single server. My own had 13K players. I had a crap account, but I was aggressive and able to accomplish what I wanted to. It would have been difficult, perhaps impossible to accomplish with an account what I have now. But, the game was more interesting and exciting.
I am not against eliminating multi accounts.
And i 100% agree that we should limit usage of multi accounts to cause negative effects to other players.
Do you have any specific suggestions how to achieve this?
It seems like the biggest issue is wonder nuking. The potential solutions to that is to make faith city specific instead of island specific, allow the wonders to be upgraded past level 5 that require less faith, or both.
I am not against eliminating multi accounts.
And i 100% agree that we should limit usage of multi accounts to cause negative effects to other players.
Do you have any specific suggestions how to achieve this?
I have made quite a few suggestions over the years, as have others. The impression is that this decision (allowing multis) was made by someone of a high enough paygrade as to never directly interact with us, nor directly be aware of any one of us or our specific desires. Unfortunately, my understanding is they are here to stay for the foreseeable future. They were the grudging compromise made in consolidating accounts into ever fewer servers. The only thing we can be somewhat grateful for is they placed an upward limit on how many.
The only realistic ways i see for resolving negative impacts are limiting participation in mines/mills based on donations, limiting impact on wonders from specific accounts (read one single account with a high level Town Hall/Temple could not have a significant impact on the island's faith %). I have no suggestion on the whole Piracy game, as that is just a shit show and I can't see any reasonable solution other than limiting players to only use one of their accounts to use piracy. If gold pillaging (in some form) were part of the equation, it would limit the viability of multis as it would require just too much work to realistically manage that many accounts. Although, It might be interesting if one had temples that were leeching faith, that the gods would get pissed and it would impact all of their other accounts negatively. That might be difficult to implement, however.
It seems like the biggest issue is wonder nuking. The potential solutions to that is to make faith city specific instead of island specific, allow the wonders to be upgraded past level 5 that require less faith, or both.
Pretty much what I was suggesting.
It seems like the biggest issue is wonder nuking. The potential solutions to that is to make faith city specific instead of island specific, allow the wonders to be upgraded past level 5 that require less faith, or both.
problem goes a lot deeper than that actually I don't want to go into to many details to give anyone ideas but there is a ton of was to abuse multis some are obvious some are less obvious but even with an IP treat the gate is pretty wide open for what doesn't cross the line.
Biggest key factor is with multi accounts if you aren't concerned about proper development of an account and use it as a tool it opens up a whole new world of what should be abuse but isn't under the rules.
There isn't a good way to combat it at this point not without cracking down on people who legit share an IP to play together and are already hamstrung by having not fleet contact.
Then again this all about what people do with the confines of the rules.. people circumventing the rules are even more abusive, and while im sure someone like lagu or badidol would come in and claim they will catch you.. i've ran into players that have played for a long time skirting the rules.
even reported a few but nothing happen because there is no evidence otherwise GF would have discovered them already.
So their policing is not as strong as they claim although I can't fault them as if someone wants to cheat they'll probably find a way to do it and they'll never catch them all.
You could get draconian about it and require something major like RL identification.. you'd think a phone number would do but no that's not enough.
Gov. ID would probably as close to as you could get to preventing multi's but no one in their right mind would attempt such a thing at GF and I for one wouldn't continue playing but that's probably what it would take.
that wouldn't stop multi's on the same lobby though which was legit from server mergers, so you'd have to liquidate multi's into 1 account like scythe suggested but that's a messy thing to because people will want the ambrosia they spent, etc.
perhaps the best way to go about this would be to create a new server and enforce multi's there, no IP shares period, that would at least stop the majority.
But it's like banning guns, the ones obeying the rules with IP shares will be gone but not the ones operating without one... the criminals will still have guns multi's
Then I come back to the.. well GF created this situation by creating so many servers that didn't have a population to support them and then fold them up in mergers.
In my opinion GF owns about 90% of the blame for this current situation but it is what it is, I don't see any way to clamp down completely on it.
But the new server with no IP shares would probably be the closest we could get in practical terms.
Outside of nuking wonders and clogging up island slots while not donating, there's not much else they can do.
Yes, when someone doesn't care about growing their account, the rules don't matter. Attacking you for a loss doesn't matter, etc., because they aren't trying to grow.
You just ain't using your imagination.
You just ain't using your imagination.
I'm not. If I was that upset about what someone did to me on a browser game, I'd take a step back and re-evaluate my life.
"There isn't a good way to combat it at this point not without cracking down on people who legit share an IP to play together and are already hamstrung by having not fleet contact."
Even more so, given the current method employed to prevent fleet contact. 2 examples of fleet contact which aren't, but are still barred:
1. My wife and I discover an inactive, say, and want to pillage. I send my ships to one town, she sends them to another. Cannot be done, even to and from completely different islands.
2. I try to send my ships to pillage a town, but I cannot because my wife has SPIES, not ships, in that town.
I've always felt that the programming in this respect is lazy.
Display More"There isn't a good way to combat it at this point not without cracking down on people who legit share an IP to play together and are already hamstrung by having not fleet contact."
Even more so, given the current method employed to prevent fleet contact. 2 examples of fleet contact which aren't, but are still barred:
1. My wife and I discover an inactive, say, and want to pillage. I send my ships to one town, she sends them to another. Cannot be done, even to and from completely different islands.
2. I try to send my ships to pillage a town, but I cannot because my wife has SPIES, not ships, in that town.
I've always felt that the programming in this respect is lazy.
It's not lazy, it's intentionally strict. While in your scenario it's you and your wife playing, there's plenty of scenarios where one person would use two accounts to take advantage of those situations.
Display MoreDisplay More"There isn't a good way to combat it at this point not without cracking down on people who legit share an IP to play together and are already hamstrung by having not fleet contact."
Even more so, given the current method employed to prevent fleet contact. 2 examples of fleet contact which aren't, but are still barred:
1. My wife and I discover an inactive, say, and want to pillage. I send my ships to one town, she sends them to another. Cannot be done, even to and from completely different islands.
2. I try to send my ships to pillage a town, but I cannot because my wife has SPIES, not ships, in that town.
I've always felt that the programming in this respect is lazy.
It's not lazy, it's intentionally strict. While in your scenario it's you and your wife playing, there's plenty of scenarios where one person would use two accounts to take advantage of those situations.
OK, but don't call it FLEET contact then. And you wouldn't be allowed to trade those goods between the 2 accounts anyway. And yes, we do both play/exist and have IP sharing enabled 
Display MoreDisplay MoreDisplay More"There isn't a good way to combat it at this point not without cracking down on people who legit share an IP to play together and are already hamstrung by having not fleet contact."
Even more so, given the current method employed to prevent fleet contact. 2 examples of fleet contact which aren't, but are still barred:
1. My wife and I discover an inactive, say, and want to pillage. I send my ships to one town, she sends them to another. Cannot be done, even to and from completely different islands.
2. I try to send my ships to pillage a town, but I cannot because my wife has SPIES, not ships, in that town.
I've always felt that the programming in this respect is lazy.
It's not lazy, it's intentionally strict. While in your scenario it's you and your wife playing, there's plenty of scenarios where one person would use two accounts to take advantage of those situations.
OK, but don't call it FLEET contact then. And you wouldn't be allowed to trade those goods between the 2 accounts anyway. And yes, we do both play/exist and have IP sharing enabled
It can easily be fleet contact, though. She ships res to player X and then you attack player X to get the res.
It might not be explicit fleet contact, but it is potential fleet contact.
It also prevents someone from 11 accounts attacking 1 person.
Before IP sharing, you'd simply get warned/banned/etc if you both attacked the same person.
Display MoreDisplay MoreDisplay MoreDisplay More"There isn't a good way to combat it at this point not without cracking down on people who legit share an IP to play together and are already hamstrung by having not fleet contact."
Even more so, given the current method employed to prevent fleet contact. 2 examples of fleet contact which aren't, but are still barred:
1. My wife and I discover an inactive, say, and want to pillage. I send my ships to one town, she sends them to another. Cannot be done, even to and from completely different islands.
2. I try to send my ships to pillage a town, but I cannot because my wife has SPIES, not ships, in that town.
I've always felt that the programming in this respect is lazy.
It's not lazy, it's intentionally strict. While in your scenario it's you and your wife playing, there's plenty of scenarios where one person would use two accounts to take advantage of those situations.
OK, but don't call it FLEET contact then. And you wouldn't be allowed to trade those goods between the 2 accounts anyway. And yes, we do both play/exist and have IP sharing enabled
It can easily be fleet contact, though. She ships res to player X and then you attack player X to get the res.
It might not be explicit fleet contact, but it is potential fleet contact.
It also prevents someone from 11 accounts attacking 1 person.
Before IP sharing, you'd simply get warned/banned/etc if you both attacked the same person.
And if my grandmother had wheels she could become an automobile (I cleaned up that joke). But potential is not actual and as you say, warnings and bans would still be available. Sorry, I'm going with lazy on this one. Not worth prolonging this thread hijack; have the final word if you want 🙂
Display MoreDisplay MoreDisplay MoreDisplay MoreDisplay More"There isn't a good way to combat it at this point not without cracking down on people who legit share an IP to play together and are already hamstrung by having not fleet contact."
Even more so, given the current method employed to prevent fleet contact. 2 examples of fleet contact which aren't, but are still barred:
1. My wife and I discover an inactive, say, and want to pillage. I send my ships to one town, she sends them to another. Cannot be done, even to and from completely different islands.
2. I try to send my ships to pillage a town, but I cannot because my wife has SPIES, not ships, in that town.
I've always felt that the programming in this respect is lazy.
It's not lazy, it's intentionally strict. While in your scenario it's you and your wife playing, there's plenty of scenarios where one person would use two accounts to take advantage of those situations.
OK, but don't call it FLEET contact then. And you wouldn't be allowed to trade those goods between the 2 accounts anyway. And yes, we do both play/exist and have IP sharing enabled
It can easily be fleet contact, though. She ships res to player X and then you attack player X to get the res.
It might not be explicit fleet contact, but it is potential fleet contact.
It also prevents someone from 11 accounts attacking 1 person.
Before IP sharing, you'd simply get warned/banned/etc if you both attacked the same person.
And if my grandmother had wheels she could become an automobile (I cleaned up that joke). But potential is not actual and as you say, warnings and bans would still be available. Sorry, I'm going with lazy on this one. Not worth prolonging this thread hijack; have the final word if you want 🙂
What's easier from a solution perspective? A GO to manually review reports every time there's fleet contact or an automated solution that simply prevents you from doing it? The automated solution. Just because you wouldn't abuse it doesn't mean everyone else wouldn't.
Again, it is fleet contact, so don't pretend like it isn't. Your wife is interacting with the account with her fleet, troops, or spies and you can't interact with the same account at the same time.
