Search Results
Search results 1-20 of 305.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Dear users,
please note that we have a new forum now. You'll find it here.
The old forum is set to read-only mode now.
Your Ikariam Team
-
Yes, as already shown, board is one for everybody, and just "language" labels can filter contents. We too have to become confident with new procedures, organisation of contents, etc. and clearly we will have to move some contents from this board to the new one. In particular, now we share space with our friends at US. Please, be careful and post on the correct community area, when possible (our one is EN - not US). So please be patient... we are doing our best, surely in next days things will ru…
-
Yellow message sent. We all are waiting for new forum
-
Dear players, we want to remind you that email address stored in your account guarantees ownership of account itself. This means that you must keep email updated, and protect your account with a strong password, that you don't have to share at all. You can check your account data via in-game "Options" page, tab "Account data" . Recently a hacker sent out a IGM asking to answer to a poll in exchange of Ambrosia. Poll was bringing you to a fake Ikariam page, used to steal your account data. That's…
-
Hello, just a note. A player opened a ticket recently about a new account that did not ghost as stated in Guide to the Ghosting Phases of the Game (incidentally, this is the "official" page about this matter). It is because user activated some Ambrosia-related features: in this case, ghosting is delayed until Premium feature expires. I will add further details on our Board page. Kind regards.
-
General rule is that any action forbidden by IP-Sharing can't be exploited by mean of a 3rd party. So, if A1 and A2 can't interact directly due to IP-Sharing restriction, you can't "force" interaction by mean of B1. The same in piracy (but in normal raids too). If B1 raids A2, then A1 cannot raid B1. A exception is when B1 raids both A1 and A2. Then both A1 and A2 can raid B1. As usual, on doubt feel free to open a ticket via Support System EDIT: @Pepi - Yes, it is circumvention of multi rule.
-
A little clarification. We normally do not care if amount exchanged is (about) in range +/- 5% e.g. 100.000 wine vs 105.000 sulphur. The same, if score of players is (about) in range +/- 5% we accept shipment in both directions without considering pushing. E.g. a player having a score of 100.000 can "push" a player having 105.000: we consider such 5% as a "grey area" where players can be considered substantially equal. Finally, if you need to have a trade with another player that can be consider…
-
Forum downtime
PostDear players, you will have noticed that our forums have been secured in a way that made them inaccessible for you since Friday night. We'd like to apologise for this inconvenience, especially since the forums are our number one method of conveying information to you. However, this was necessary to maintain a high level of security and caution. There has been a security issue which needed to be addressed in a quick and reasonable manner which made it necessary to fully restrict access to the inv…
-
Hello, since a question was placed, answer comes. We intervene when there is a rule violation. If you, Master Blaster, create 10 accounts, and you declare them IP-shared, and another player reports you, nothing happens. Even if you build fortress on each of them. Even if other player posts screenshots on board showing what is happening and complaining that GOs do not intervene. No, we do not ban you and your accounts, be sure: you have the right to build 10 accounts, and if you use them properly…