• 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

Great Building Owner only one to place last FP.

DeletedUser31564

I vote a great big yes to this idea as it is so frustrating to keep everything on the same time schedule, but on one caveat if the owner goes inactive for whatever time specified by the designers then it would be open again so anyone who had put into it would not lose out.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
While this proposal would protect the owner from accidental or purposeful leveling, I often see players donate just enough that anyone wishing a reward slot will have to level it to get that spot. They are counting on a gaming population to show respect and etiquette on GB donations. What this REALLY does is force the owner to cough up the remaining fps or a greater majority than they normally would because one stingy donor won't barf out a measly fp to fully lock it in...I have done the math many times and sent owners notes explaining my strategy and everytime they write back saying thanks....just a tip from an old sniper....
 

DeletedUser15303

I would say NO.
Reason: There are several GBs that don't need to be monitored for that "last FP" (Zues, ToR)
And I don't want to stall my Zues or ToR.
Further, if the double dip were removed, you wouldn't care about that last FP anyway...so..just be happy we have it...because that could be taken away instead.
 

DeletedUser11427

I think this would make it really frustrating if someone you've been contributing to quits or goes inactive, since you wouldn't be able to finish off their building even if it was close.
Vote no. In addition to the point made by Jaelis, placing the last FP is also used strategically against other guilds and players to prevent the very bonus your trying to preserve.
 

DeletedUser28670

Saying no too. What happens if the owner of the GB goes inactive?
 

DeletedUser26154

I vote a great big yes to this idea as it is so frustrating to keep everything on the same time schedule

Lawful Good = "Yes +1."
Lawful Neutral = "No, because it helps preserve balance and diplomacy."
Lawful Evil = "No. I'll get to it first, every single time, to screw him."

Now you know why the voting always seems unbalanced.
 

DeletedUser7406

I think this would make it really frustrating if someone you've been contributing to quits or goes inactive, since you wouldn't be able to finish off their building even if it was close.
How about a 48 hour hold limit?
 
Top