DeletedUser7406
Remind me to add him (proposer) to my great wall of whines, along with all the players who think it is unfair to plunder when they haven't collected for a week.I don't bully. I take out the garbage.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Remind me to add him (proposer) to my great wall of whines, along with all the players who think it is unfair to plunder when they haven't collected for a week.I don't bully. I take out the garbage.
First off I will be surprised if I get any yeah votes for this because frankly I doubt this suggestion is going to be at all popular. Heck I kind of like the exploit myself but when I look at it in the light of the Prime Directives put down by the Game Designers for proposals this one blatantly exploits a loophole that I feel ought to be stitched up.
I addressed that in the first two paragraphs and countered it by going to the closest source who was Anwar on what was then Closed Beta when Great Buildings were created, the guy he cited wasn't even playing the game at that time.You forgot one thing. He is using the EN "Prime Directive" cause that is closer to the source of the game. The US forum and server are nothing but poor mirrors of the real game. Strangely enough, he does all his discussing here and not on the EN forum. You would think the "Prime Directive" would require that. Actually there is a German Forum and server. Shouldn't that be the place for the "Prime Directive"?
I addressed that in the first two paragraphs and countered it by going to the closest source who was Anwar on what was then Closed Beta when Great Buildings were created, the guy he cited wasn't even playing the game at that time.
Interesting idea. I haven't read through all 11 pages but I do agree that I feel a bit of imbalance is caused by being able to build any GB in any age. However, the genie's already out of the bottle on this one and it's unlikely to change at all. Even under the premise of hypotheticals it's out of the question to simply remove any existing 'forbidden' GBs under a new rule, as well as allowing them to remain while disallowing new players from building them the same way. However, what if level limits were implemented instead? A GB beyond your city's age cannot go beyond level 10, and upon reaching that age you gain the ability to unlock additional levels. That way you're still able to build any GB you're able to acquire the materials for regardless of age, but reaching the appropriate age unlocks the 'bonus content' of infinite levels.
Another Cat->Bag scenario and, as per another recent proposal rife with ignored players, would undooobitably violate the Prime Directive! How, I’m not so sure, but everything else does so why not this?!?You gave the answer yourself already. Like removing existing GB's it would mean removing existing levels.
The nice thing when new to a forum is that all you have to do is present an unpopular stance that is backed by facts and you can quickly weed out a good number of the Trolls -- thank you for showing your true colors.
Actually that is untrue -- I am not particularly in love with the idea at all -- however no one has even tried to provide any proof just out trolling -- most of whom I have ignored.
This is the one and only warning for everyone. Please respect each other. It's a good conversation, I would hate to close it.
I vote for closing it. Please Snowbelle, close this thread.
Why... you can just ignore it... but why would you wish that on the rest of us?
You're right. Why should I want the fun to end? Who knows, maybe there's 11 more pages of entertainment yet to come.
I can't believe I went through the whole thread! Though you had me concerned that I missed the release of the new age. I assume you were referring to the beta server where "exploits" are supposed to be detected and fixed?If you can convince other players to trade the Goods with you, then all the power to you.
I know players in Iron age with a Terracotta Armies GB.
I assume you were referring to the beta server where "exploits" are supposed to be detected and fixed?
Well, she hasn't gotten a response yet telling her she's wrong and that it is an exploit per the Prime Directive and anything she provides to the contrary is a lie troll comment that will be reported to mods.^^ This ^^
You gotta love this post. She reads the proposal, goes right to the vote, skips all the nonsense in between. +1 for Ravia the Kind.