Feedback: Olympus

From the DevBlog:

Author said:
One main difference is that a conquered temple will not have its ownership associated with a player, instead it will be associated with an Alliance. This means that players do not need a city slot to conquer a temple.
Source: https://devblog.grepolis.com/?p=2565

Just to be sure: Does this really mean that a player can start the siege of a temple although he does not have a city slot? And even if it is supposed to work this way: Has this been tested?
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
Does this really mean that a player can start the siege of a temple although he does not have a city slot?
That's indeed what it's written in the quote, yes. Temples are not considered as towns that can be owned by a single player, hence a slot is not required to do so.

Has this been tested?
Internally, I think so, yes. Soon we will test here on the public beta that is still a testing phase :)
Otherwise, when it will be the time, feel free to open a bug report as usual if something goes wrong ^^
 

JustforFun99

Divine Envoy
IMHO the small temples are far too populated in the moment to get inferesting fights starting around these temples
Don't think that any alliance will start to conquer them since troops are much more efficiently used to conquer normal towns.
Would suggest to divide the number of troops in them by 3 and increase them slowly every week during this stage of the game.
This should get going interest for these temples and start some nice fights around them
Only exception may be portal temples that are strategically very important so may be loaded with a lot of def units from the start

Portal temples: would suggest to limit the number of portal temples an alliance can conquer to 1. Otherwise the advantage for Omympus phase will be too important

For the moment I wasn't able to find the BB codes of the small temples. May be under development
 
That's indeed what it's written in the quote, yes. Temples are not considered as towns that can be owned by a single player, hence a slot is not required to do so.


Internally, I think so, yes. Soon we will test here on the public beta that is still a testing phase :)
Otherwise, when it will be the time, feel free to open a bug report as usual if something goes wrong ^^

Well, since I have a temple under siege, I can show you this:




The siege on the temple is displayed as a "used slot" in the agora, and I am still not convinced that I could have started the siege without a free slot.

Maybe you should take a further look into that matter.
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
I would also wait until the end of the siege to see if the slot is in fact taken or not :)
 
No, the slot is free again, but my initial question was whether a free slot is needed to start the siege on a temple. I did not want to take that risk...^^

Btw, this is the report:



The alliance name should be displayed on the right hand side, not the name of the player.
 

S.G-1

Cerberus
"how the battle points will be calculated"

-Like a regular attack on another player's town.
are You sure ?
because i has troops inside a temple (not conqured yet) and 0 points received ... +/- 500 land defending units lost , 0 BP , and on the wall 0 lost by attacker units ..
its look like defending of "ghost town"
 

Arci

Community Manager
Grepolis Team
are You sure ?
because i has troops inside a temple (not conqured yet) and 0 points received ... +/- 500 land defending units lost , 0 BP , and on the wall 0 lost by attacker units ..
its look like defending of "ghost town"
Uhm... maybe this applies only if the temple is owned by a player