Draba Aspera
Zeus
I guess the US CoMa just copied & pasted the original Beta announcement... ^^
DeletedUser4186
Guest
no he didn´t but his comment suggest something like that or not?
but i have to say sorry, my comment was provoking ant that was not my intention, i think a little bit of fun is always a good think, but i forgot that fun is a thing that inno doesn´t like if it goes against teammembers.
hmmm is that so good? i am able to send a trip to an enemy town
than a smaller allymember attack that town and if he kills my trip i can attack that town even its out of range or not? And what declares a Harbour check? the size? so a full attack could also be a check, and for what time the unlimitid checks are allowed after the trip was fallen? one hour 6 hours one day?
@about the Siege casual on US
perhaps a case of miss communication?
Draba Aspera
Zeus
morg
Manticore
False hope on my part...Nope, we didn't introduce any particular change oriented to the conquest system. It is most likely a typo on the announcement but you should ask on the US forum then
Thanks for the quick answer!
The announcement has been corrected to revolt.
Draba Aspera
Zeus
The "bug" was resolved this morning at 9:00 am via hotfix - they simply had forgotten to activate "account transfer" at all.
No comment.
Mimarifap
Hydra
I sincerely hope there is a way to make this new controversial concept work on conquest worlds as well. Change is nice!
At least there is always some fun to be had.
Mim le Fay
Zeus
One chance for this could be, as @Draba Aspera wrote to skip the 20% rule within alliances or pacts. So it is possible to help within your group against enemy conquering. Another chance could be to excluded all attampt for conquer from the 20% rule
I have to think on it, wether there are a few more ideas, to erase the advers effect of the 20% rule for conquer worlds, so it will work fine.
Any ideas from other side?
lekond
Hera
It's good for conquest to attack alliance's player without 20%... but in revolt worls you can't conquer enemie's city at all: his ally will defend him, but your ally can't help you with attacks
may be 20% rule should be for defence too, not only for attackks? I think it will be usefull for revolt and conquest: only players like you can help you with def or off
may be 20% rule should be for defence too, not only for attackks? I think it will be usefull for revolt and conquest: only players like you can help you with def or off
DeletedUser4186
Guest
after a private conversation i must apologize me, i understood the comment of Draba completly false so i must agree her to 100%^^
Draba Aspera
Zeus
Now there is even more fun, since at the moment players cannot restart on the same world any longer. After losing their last city on a normal game world, they can choose whether they want to transfer their last city to a casual world or make a restart on the same game world - but on confirming the restart option, they will find themselves redirected to the first option, i.e. transfer to a casual world...^^
Bug is confirmed and has been forwarded to the devs.
Kal Gordon
Pegasus
I think the idea is, if we repeat it enough, InnoGames staff may actually act on it. We gave feedback that the percentage ranges were biased in favour of larger players. InnoGames staff denied it. We provided proof, and the InnoGames response was to say "we'll look into it", and then go ahead and release it on live markets without actually fixing the issue. This isn't the only case where negative feedback has been completely ignored:
- Online indicator. Received negative feedback (and no real positive feedback so far as I remember) while it was on the Community Backlog, before it was even made. InnoGames went ahead and made it anyways. GPC and Beta community gave negative feedback when it was announced publicly on Beta. InnoGames went ahead and decided to release it on live markets (where it has received negative feedback before it is even implemented).
- BP-token "rebalancing". The Lead Developer stated that they would be reducing the power of events, such as reducing/removing BP multiplier tokens from them. At the same time as this was being implemented (Pandora and Sparta vs Hades events had reduced power, and reduced BP-token availability), InnoGames released a war package containing 18 2xBP tokens for a significant amount of money. This was criticised as unbalancing the power balance even further (by allowing even greater token use by heavy spenders while penalising everyone else). The LCM seemingly acknowledged this. The Attack of the Hydra event had it's reward (Land Expansion tokens) cut in half compared to its predecessor, while also being harder to complete. And then for Black Friday and Cyber Monday, InnoGames releases expensive packages containing large numbers of Land Expansion tokens of varying strengths, along with packages containing a number of BP-multiplying tokens.
So InnoGames has been "accepting" and "acknowledging" feedback, then ignoring it. I think that we are perfectly justified to continue negative feedback for so long as InnoGames lacks any intention of solving the issues causing this negative feedback.
[Note: The GPC-related information in this post does not contravene the NDA that we signed at the start of the term. The LCM and LD have on numerous occasions stated that we have permission to post the information from the relevant threads.]
galanoulis
Zeus
Well most probably we will have the same scenario as VM and wonders.... as from teh very beggining it was spotted that VM will exploit game experience on wonder islands and after many complaints..... they decided to patch it and exclude those towns from VM.....
Same will happen again... after they get tons of complaints.... they will probably do the obvious....
New Features and Changes
On Casual Worlds, the 20% attack prevention now applies on both directions, in order to avoid cases where a player can attack another but cannot get attacked back.
Feels so nice to be right......
DeletedUser4186
Guest
Feels so nice to be right......
yes/no^^
it should always work like its work in both directions but inno forgot that calcing in line means bigger players have more range than smaller one. this was more a "bug" and they solved that bug.
Now you can attack only player that are 16,67% smaller than you or 20% bigger (or you can say you can attack player that are 20% smaller and 25% bigger its the same^^) that´s the thing behind that change
that´s more than true^^
another reason is, that repeating from me is often a direct response to a post from another player which had probably not read the first thread of the repeaten thing or to repeat it and explain it one more time because is didn´t understand it at the first time (perhaps because of the language barrier from me as a bavarian i must first translate my thoughts into german and than into english^^)
DeletedUser4186
Guest
ok because i always explain why a thing is good or not your last post can´t touch me^^
Problem with good quality feedbacks is that sometimes some of the innostaff don´t believe it or don´t understand it, because they are often not so good players
i have a question:
is that "can´t restart on my old world only transfer to casual bug solved" right now?
Problem with good quality feedbacks is that sometimes some of the innostaff don´t believe it or don´t understand it, because they are often not so good players
i have a question:
is that "can´t restart on my old world only transfer to casual bug solved" right now?
Being a little bit more humble may help
On browser yes, regarding the mobile version I think it will be in the next update
On browser yes, regarding the mobile version I think it will be in the next update