• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Disallow the Ability to Build a Great Building beyond your Age

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser7406

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.

OK, 1st you are posting to the wrong forum topic. This section is for serious proposals, not to vent your frustration.
I suggest you do a search for "whines & rants" to make your voice heard!
 

DeletedUser26965

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.
 

qaccy

Well-Known Member
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.

Also, side note, I disagree that it's actually difficult to acquire a high-age GB in early ages. It's as simple as finding a player willing to take the FP:goods trade, which can be done in as little as a few minutes if you have access to the browser version of the game and can use the chat feature.
 

Agent327

Well-Known Member
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.

You gave the answer yourself already. Like removing existing GB's it would mean removing existing levels.
 

DeletedUser3882

You gave the answer yourself already. Like removing existing GB's it would mean removing existing 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?!? :)
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
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.

If only you had an opinion backed by facts. So far all i've seen is an opinion backed by supposition. So please, point me to the facts you've presented that support your position. Each link to each post. I've yet to find one - fact that is.
 
Last edited:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
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.

What a great strategy. Once you've ignored everyone who disagrees, thinks you're wrong, or has presented facts that counter your argument, you can delude yourself into believing your proposal has overwhelming support.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
No, don't close it...I'm waiting for Joker to show some integrity and come back to this thread after reading the links that prove his philosophy is false and his proposal unfounded...afterall, he disputed 99% of the posts on this thread by claiming they were irrelevant, false, off topic or without merit......
 

DeletedUser13838

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 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?
 

DeletedUser26965

^^ 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.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top