Recent content by HossamAly

Ah I see, Thanks for the explanation! Still I'd expect Inno to note that when making the announcements. It's slightly entertaining how this mistake has been happening for years

The main building's dimensions are, as usual, reversed in the announcement. It's obviously 9x6 rather than 6x9. Just out of curiosity though, this has been happening in most announcements for years now, is there any particular reason for this?

The initial ranking unfortunately will not address the matching issues. IMO this is a lazy attempt to fix it, which I don't think will work. It's basically an attempt to start from the end point where the devs hoped the ranking will settle into. This means that while the old system started in a...

I'm very much in favour of these ways to spend diamonds to indirectly increase your chance. This is much better than the current system of just buying attempts, effectively directly buying your ranking place. I'd given up on repeating that though because inno first change was actually to lift...

I'm curious whether this other feedback source had also presented 'strong positive feedback' regarding the Virgo Project GB when it was released on Beta and everyone said it was a bad idea yet it carried on to live? Or is it just the Devs inability to recognise bad design concepts? This is a...

Yes defence is even less relevant now. It is indeed almost guaranteed that people will suffer 5 defeats, but at least this way it's like a daily tax on almost everyone, rather than part of the competition that determines your ranking. Also it avoids absurdities where you can be targeted many...

I have to say that's a step in the right direction. From the start it didn't make sense to have a competition where you have a very limited number of (non prmeium) attempts to gain points, and in principle an unlimited number of ways to lose them. You were completely at mercy of the matchmaking...

I think the 'difficulty' is set by the amount of combat points a player has won, so not a lot to do with how 'difficult' an army is. Another sign of how brilliant this design concept is

Thanks for trying to address our concerns. The thing is, it's not just that this hadn't been requested. It's that it goes AGAINST what the feedback has been pointing out, in a way that makes any further improvements completely irrelevant. This is now an entirely premium feature. The competition...

Amazing work Inno! After all this negative feedback, a lot of it criticising that it's too much pay to win, you decide to make it even more pay to win and spin that as if it's because you're listening to the feedback! Really mind-boggling stuff!

My concern is that this competition concept may actually give an incentive for people to reduce their city defense bonus, even though the intent was the opposite. If your difficulty level when appearing as an opponent for others is influenced by your city defense then that's actually a reason to...

3 massive disappointments: - For players with top attack army bonus there won't be any hard fights (as NPC only provides medium and easy fights which is really puzzling, since medium and easy real player opponents aren't difficult to find). Yet for those players their city defense bonus is...

In which case the units are definitely lost, so the original wording 'vulnerable' would be misleading. Perhaps it's a new mechanic where you only lose the units your opponents kill? But then what happens if you get attacked more than once without being online to replace lost units? Maybe...

To be fair most people were just complaining that RtV seems to be underpowered compared to similar buildings (even ignoring sentinels outposts). Instead of buffing its stats, or adding the fragments to the pool so that it didn't come at the expense of fp rewards, inno opted for the worst...

If you click on a sector, there's an 'owner' slot telling you who it belongs to. There's also information on who's currently sieging and how far the siege went. It's not ideal of course because you have to click on each sector