alphahydranoid
Minotaur
Is there a plan for Olympus worlds with revolt?
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.
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.Does this really mean that a player can start the siege of a temple although he does not have a city slot?
Internally, I think so, yes. Soon we will test here on the public beta that is still a testing phaseHas this been tested?
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 ^^
2 min and we will seeI would also wait until the end of the siege to see if the slot is in fact taken or not![]()
I think it might be related to the fact that the temple is still shown that has no owner.Btw. I have not received the award for the conquest of a small temple,,,^^
I think it might be related to the fact that the temple is still shown that has no owner.
Depends on where you look...^^
![]()
"how the battle points will be calculated"
-Like a regular attack on another player's town.
Uhm... maybe this applies only if the temple is owned by a playerare 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"