Posts by Amazon

    I like the idea of some kind of signalling system, but I don't think it should have to be another building, or that it should be restricted in use or cost resources many people don't have.
    I would much prefer an icon at the bottom of the screen that flashes when an ally is under attack and that gives all the pertinent data (attacker, attackee, army if known, time of arrival). To keep it somewhat fair, the information would be the same as the attackee would get, so depends on tower level etc, but would activate automatically, rather than the attackee having to do any specific action. This is similar to the way your own icon would flash when an attack is on the way. The program does it whether you are online to see it or not.
    This would allow anyone who could get there on time to support their ally.

    The game must be balanced and enable everyone to play. A player who has a lot of free time does not need paid options. He spends a lot of time in the game and has fun that way. A player who does not have a lot of free time to spend in the game uses the paid options.If a city move is removed or restrictions are introduced, it can deny players who do not have much time to spend in the game.In conclusion, my opinion is that the game needs to be maintained with these options. You will always be dissatisfied.

    There is a way to protect your army even when moving a city, just find it!!!

    You seem to think someone either has money or free time. What if you have neither? I certainly can't be online for long hours, nor can I afford to buy protection. The real issue is balance. And IMHO that boils down to numbers. Someone with 1 million troops can still attack someone with 100k troops and of course will win. It's fine if people want to pay to move their cities around. Just make it so it's a fair fight.
    And as for constantly walking troops and resources, IMHO again that takes all the fun out of the game.
    On one server there was a player literally next door to me who attacked repeatedly. I spent all my time trying to evade her, but if I was not online at the exact instant my troops returned home, I lost them. There was no enjoyment for me on that server.
    I no longer play there.

    I have probably given away as many troops as have been given to me and I feel it all comes out in the wash. However at this moment I have troops I can't return to their previous owners. Some were even from a different server, where, again, I gave out probably as many as I received. And I have never used my troops to take unfair advantage of a weaker player.

    I may be banned when this measure goes into effect, but if so I feel it would be an injustice.

    We are aware that some players do this, but sending your entire army to another player when leaving is technically pushing, so while we may have turned a blind eye to minor cases of this kind, we don't consider it fair play and don't intend to endorse or support it in the future.

    We get that abandoning an army like that when leaving the game is not ideal, but having someone playing with an army of three people for his level is not a great scenario either.

    So is everyone to be penalized who has ever been the recipient of such troops in the past? When it is no longer possible to return the troops because the original owner is no longer playing? Or you don't remember who gave you what? If so, you will probably be banning a large proportion of players.

    It is one thing to say "this is the rule henceforth" and another to make it retro-active.

    That warning was on Firefox when I checked out the add-on a few days ago.

    Read the warning carefully. "Access to all browser functions and data without requesting your permission." Maybe they would do more than you suggest and maybe they wouldn't, but to me it isn't worth the risk with the amount of cyber-crime out there.

    And what about the armies that were given to you when someone quit? Will those also be cause for banning?

    I like to think what goes around, comes around. When you are small, your tribe may gift you troops. When you are bigger, you in turn gift to smaller members.

    I think this new rule will make joining a tribe useless.

    I looked into adding this extension, but it has a warning on Firefox:


    Some add-ons ask for permission to perform certain functions. Since you’re in control of your Firefox, the choice to grant or deny these requests is yours.
    Please note this add-on uses legacy technology, which gives it access to all browser functions and data without requesting your permission."

    Since I am not about to hand over all my data for unknown uses, I don't consider this safe.

    In any case, you should not have to go to an outside program for basic functionality within the game.

    I have no issue with this in general, but there is one particular instance when a player should be able to transfer his troops to another or several other players, and that is when he is leaving the game.

    Someone has spent time and energy building an army. Why just abandon it to be demolished by raiders?

    There are frequent weekend events where one type of troop or another changes sides. Personally I hate this. I understand the devs are trying to inject some variation and/or excitement into the game, but IMHO this is not the way to do it.

    I would prefer something that helps everyone, such as:
    -instant collections without buying feathers
    -extra barbarian attacks

    The reduced recruit, building or research times are great also.

    Referring to rule 2b:
    Can you please clarify what you consider advertising or link to advertising? Is posting a link to a you-tube video considered advertising? Or is it more specifically advertising to sell a particular product or service, as most people would think?

    Often we need to move resources from one city to another. At this time we can only push from the city that has extra, not pull from the city needing them. And often we need to do careful calculations to work out how much to send.
    I would like to see a market feature like "request resources". Say City 1 has extra and City 2 needs them. In City 2's market you should be able to request resources. The maximum you can request is the least of 3 things: the amount the poloms or poches in City 1 can carry, resources that are not needed for buildings or troops already in City 1's queue, or City 2's warehouse space. You should be able to mix what resources are sent. That could be any combination of limestone, obsidian, cacao and corn.

    I think it's a terrible idea. The game is already complex enough. Why add more complexity? The prestige idea is OK, but not to have it go down over time. I do like that prestige earned would be based on how heroic the battle is, with no prestige for attacking a much smaller player.
    The way to balance the game is not by adding such complexity, but something simple, like a handicap for attacking smaller players.

    Respectfully, Bert, I don't think it's food shortages that cause the problem. The real issue is that the game mechanics seem to be heavily weighted in favour of the attacker. Just look at what it takes to defeat a barbarian for proof of this. 15k jags attacking 15k jags: the defender will always lose. That is my experience. The defender needs many more troops and has to have all his supporting buildings at a high level to beat off an attacker. The best he can hope for is that the attacker loses enough troops that he doesn't want to attack again soon.