Posts by nosorog

Quote from Boros

Quote from Luky

In any case, general banks exist because they can plunder all the gold they want without any problems.

They can plunder any player's polis to steal gold, without that player being able to do anything to protect it.

In fact, no normal player is able to protect all his polis.

The protection of gold compared to the protection of resources is hugely disproportionate in a negative way.

But that's ONLY on the Ares server, which was expressly opened because some players wanted gold stealing back (because they didnt believe it was a bad idea). On most servers you cant plunder gold and if you're on the one, where it's possible you cant complain about it in my opinion.

Exactly. War servers are less popular for a reason

one thing has changed. Before this change all resources on market traded for 3-4 gold, and the market was dead. now after the change the resources trade for 4-4 gold still, with only 1 exception of marble which trades for 22-50 ... guess why.

Quote from User12996

Have friends that have more points than you and are willing to buy your wood at a high gold price then turn around and sell it back to you at a low gold price over and over.

Yes .... friends .... right....

More likely some very convenient accounts that just happen to play with VPNs and are making some very terrible market trades ... oopsie

What about the wall. do new levels also increase armor or only hit points? and if so is it theoretically possible for wall to became immune to attacking troops?

I liked that the part of the gave had "endgame". It provided certain visible goals for people to achieve. Like upgrade troops to 3/3 - that was achievable in early game, then there was research all non future researches (basically you complete the early part of the game) then there was another level once you got all futures, meaning you de facto reached endgame phase any you could demolish your academies.

I really don't see the reasons for unlimited building levels for all buildings. i believe having some of them hard capped was better than soft cap we have now (no one would build them past level 50 - and there are a lot of other buildings to dump resources into)

This is a wonderful idea. Basically a must have for all new colonies.

Lets be honest on international servers there should be international prices.

As for country specific servers let there be country specific prices.

Also if i am not mistaken whole eurozone has same ambrosia prices despite gdp per capita being almost 3 times larger in Netherlands than Latvia for example.

And lets not go into rabbit hole of regional differences. Even in turkey people in large cities or western regions have a lot higher salaries than in rural areas.

The less used miracles just need an update

Quote from Killjoy

Like I said on previous pages, I used to raise lots of gold by bargaining with strangers. Do you want sulfur for 10 gold a piece? Cool, let's make a deal. At that time, because gold and general banks didn't exist, they usually traded with me because that was the only way to get resources fast. When a player was very nice to me, I used to give him a discount, and that led to friendship. That's cooperation.

On server i am plying on the market is completely broken. you can only buy/sell resources for 3-4 gold. and with such low prices no one is selling.

At least give us 10 gold range (2 - 12) and not 2 range (3-4) if there is dynamic pricing involved

Nice 1. april joke. but on serious note is another iteration of Abyssal Ambush event actually happening soon or was that part too a joke?

Lets be honest if you are top 1% globally that you have to be manually transferred you have probably spent a lot of money on ambrosia so for those few people lack of free town wraps is not such a big deal.

Could you 2 guys continue this pointless beef in private. there is a "conversations" button where you 2 can complain and accuse each other.

Quote from The crow

Quote from Rastan

I hear what you're saying and I understand.

My point was I've only ever encountered 1 person using them so they're not widespread, they're not immortal, if you find an opponent with Spartans, sit down, grab a spoon and dig in.. accept they're going to win on damages in game and you're winning on damages to their bank account.

My alliance has seen a lot of accounts(all same alliance) that have half a million or more spartans. I think one had 1.3 million of them.

Most likely due to exploit to multiply units.

They fixed it recently:

Hotfix 14.03.2025

Maybe not the battlefield size, but i would love for there to be an option for you to choose what units have priority. so you could start battle with rams and steam giants, and then in later round switch to hoplites and mortars. Or perhaps to not use artillery for few rounds, you could decide to keep them in reserve.

I know you could already do that by waving units, but this way same effect could be achieved easier

No need for ballista in my opinion, just change the unit size of catapults from size 5 to 4. so if you want most survivable backline you would pick rams, if you want to destroy the walls you choose mortars, and catapults would be middle line that are most effective against line infantry assuming no enemy bombers.

Quote from Lili

I remind you that the wall has a function: To buy the player some time if they are not in the game 24/7....like it is a GAME AFTER ALL, people do tend to have lives, remember?


Currently lv 48 wall falls in 5 hits. That's all. 1 hour 15 minutes, been so for decades.

With the new upscaling x20 atk, hefest 20% and upgrades, wall falls way sooner. So the question is, do you want for that building to buy time for players who are not online to come and play or do you want them to log into see massacre.

Currently, with the new meta, walls are weak, hateful players occupy the whole island in 45min and then attack you.
The defender is the weakest position, you can only watch and wonder would you need to change government or go vacation mode, for there won't be another choice as a defender. It feels really good to kill 5k Gyrocopters in 3 hours for an example, because walls are such trash XD

Display More

In your opinion what would the ideal time be for walls to be holding? assuming max level of wall?

There are many variations of it:

-Is there no one inside the town (so basically you just need 1 breech)

-Is the town defended with army (destroying attacker siege equipment)

-Does attacker have Hephaestus active? Does defender too?

I am not disagreeing with your point, i am just curious what do you think.

Maybe they are planning to increase the wall max level. since currently it is only 48, and is relatively cheap compared to other buildings max levels.

Short answer: it is not, unless you have a spare sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia lying around.

Quote from tnt2ultra2000

Isn't already happening with the multi accounts or even the just a bigger account vs a small one?

What is the difference from Present and the future?

At the present, what can do a player against all these? As far I know.. nothing

I agree, the abuse of multi accounts is indeed a huge problem. but now imagine in addition to that, a bigger player now even has units that are much stronger individually. for example if you could have 17 upgrades on hoplites, they would be immune to to new player upgraded ones (18 armor vs 18 attack). with swordsmen it is even more apparent in 10 upgrades difference the swordsmen became immune to un-upgraded ones (10 armor vs 10 attack) - i know this is extreme example but even 5 more attack and armor is a huge deal in combat.

Quote from Rastan

so looking at the bits and pieces that have been posted I see where they're going with it, not that I like it, but here's my take.

Boost stats on all units

Unlimited upgrades on units, +1 at a time.

If they didn't boost the stats the units would become very strong after say 10 upgrades to non units.

but if they boost the stats then the upgrades become diluted, 10+1 is 10% but 100+1 is 1%

it's creating more busy work for players who are already developed, just like with the ridiculous building level/costs

the problem here is there are psycho's who will focus on maxing out their units and they'll do it to such a degree that they'll have a big advantage over even other less insane established players.

Even in MMORPG's which are highly competitive there is always a maximum obtainable level.. a cap.. something.

It doesn't seem like this will be the case here, yes the costs/time might be come ridiculous but theoretically there is no limit.

Although I suppose a storage capacity softcap might come into play depending on how the upgrades cost scale.

What this is going to really do is absolutely crush small players, the ones who finished their research and upgrades may not be able to field as big an army as larger players but at least tactically they're on the same level.. not anymore.

I hope im wrong but I don't think I am and I am opposed to this change if im correct in the dev teams thinking.

but from a business sense this is logical, despite what badidol or anyone else from GF wants to claim, we know the game is dying.
This happens to all old games where the player base declines with time.

I doubt they are attracting very many "new" players to the game new accounts are likely just new accounts for existing players like 90+% of the time.

So play to the desires of the top players the ones that will dump cash to get or stay on top.. there is where you make up the money of a declining base.

we'll see how it goes but im pretty sure im barking up the right tree on this.

Display More

Exactly my concerns.

My fear is that big fish players would have such overwhelming military stats advantage that a smaller player couldn't do anything. not even fight back. there should definitely be a hard cap to unit upgrades. in my personal opinion i wouldn't go more than 5 new upgrades (so 8 max).

Of course i am talking about only military units, for transport ships and freighters you could go higher