small castles vs military range

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • small castles vs military range

      Hello, I would like to report the misuse of the norm for the defense of players with a small military rank. However, there are many players who have created small castles or conquered grays. It is the circumstance that players with billions of points, obtain in this way a very small military range, being able to attack weaker players and being safe from big players. Some people have more than 30 of these small castles.I propose the modification of this rule and eliminate these castles from the algorithm. regards
    • If it is that easy to influence military strength then you have a point.... In that case the goal of the militairy strenght idea would be simple to bypass...: 'build rapidly 50 small castles to lower your mil strength... get out of the attack zone of equally sized players and enter the zone of weaker players...'

      I truely hope the algoritm behind calculating the militairy strength involves more variable then this :D


      I wonder if it is that simple and if Dschibait could say something to this ?

      The post was edited 1 time, last by dYvorra ().

    • one part of the military strength is the amount of castles and also the military buildings (stable, wall, troop place etc etc) ...
      So, sure, in every calculation you can reduce your strength to be "safe" - and loosing castles in damoria didn't means at all that you "lose" them. But in general, we try to get a system where smaller players are more protected. If we see that there are problems / issues or miss-calculations in your algorithm here, we can and we will adjust them.
      For that, you need to explain that case as good (and deep) as possible. Creating a thread and telling "someone losses castles to get a smaller range" isn't the right way - explain it with numbers; if he lost 20% of the strength - i think this is ok - if he lose more than 90% without loosing many troops - its a problem.
    • Dschibait wrote:

      one part of the military strength is the amount of castles and also the military buildings (stable, wall, troop place etc etc) ...
      So, sure, in every calculation you can reduce your strength to be "safe" - and loosing castles in damoria didn't means at all that you "lose" them. But in general, we try to get a system where smaller players are more protected. If we see that there are problems / issues or miss-calculations in your algorithm here, we can and we will adjust them.
      For that, you need to explain that case as good (and deep) as possible. Creating a thread and telling "someone losses castles to get a smaller range" isn't the right way - explain it with numbers; if he lost 20% of the strength - i think this is ok - if he lose more than 90% without loosing many troops - its a problem.
      Hello Dschibait,

      I don't think the problem is losing a lot of castles. I think the problem is when a player demolishes all his castles (until he has 30 left or so) and then builds a lot of really small castles to get a very low military strength. I can't do the numbers since the algorithm isn't known. But could you check the case where a player has a lot of troops and decided to demolish his castles to build a lot of smaller ones? I personally think this should not have a big effect on the players military strength because he didn't build these castle to defend them but just to lower his strength.
    • I don´t really understand what is the problem here...

      Someone reduces is military rank by demolishing castles and build new ones. That person is not using a bug or being unfair - He uses the algorithm to is favour - strategy! Or not. Demolishing big castles also reduces is hability to create troops.

      I dont really understand the problem. The algorithm is equal to all players - I supose. I supose developers tried it hard before implement. Everyone can try to understand the algorythm. Maybe we should forbid matematical regression knowledge also...

      Is this a war and strategy game or not?
    • Dschibait wrote:

      one part of the military strength is the amount of castles and also the military buildings (stable, wall, troop place etc etc) ...
      So, sure, in every calculation you can reduce your strength to be "safe" - and loosing castles in damoria didn't means at all that you "lose" them. But in general, we try to get a system where smaller players are more protected. If we see that there are problems / issues or miss-calculations in your algorithm here, we can and we will adjust them.
      For that, you need to explain that case as good (and deep) as possible. Creating a thread and telling "someone losses castles to get a smaller range" isn't the right way - explain it with numbers; if he lost 20% of the strength - i think this is ok - if he lose more than 90% without loosing many troops - its a problem.
      The problem is in gaining a lot of small castles (either by building new ones or by capturing grey ones) which makes the average lower and with that reduces the military strength... enabling strong players to become part of a weaker group in military strength... this has 2 effects... it can safeguard from being a 'green dot' to equal strong players + allows simultaneously that you have easier preys...

      so the military strength becomes more a goal to 'balancing of averages' instead of real balancing of forces to protect the real weaker playes :)

      Maybe it would be an idea that the military strength issue would not apply when someone is part of an Aliance and the status of this Aliance is 'in war'... this would prevent the situation that for example only 1 player in an aliance has a green dot and the rest is red :whistling: (<-- this suggestion would imply that the leadership of an aliance formaly has to declare war by means of a button, before being able that players who are member of another Aliance can be atacked, which then also would make all players of his/her own aliance targets as well)

      The post was edited 7 times, last by dYvorra ().

    • I do not have the formula to explain it with a number, if you want to pass it to me privately and I tell you the negative effect that it produces in the protection of weak players.On the other hand, I have not said at any time that it is to destroy large castles and build small, but since the update of protection through the military rank, I have seen many accounts of large players with a structure of for example 30 castles of 5 million points. This has caused that players of billions have remained in a military rank equal to someone of 10,000 million.Therefore, I believe that a rule created to protect the weak player has made this player an easy target.If it is an update it does not work with the purpose of its creation.I pray that it be reviewed. Greetings and thanks
    • finally you say that the troop amount should be a bigger part in the end result for this calculation?
      So that buildings / castles has not such an impect?

      im not sure what you didn't get on that fact that we don't want to share the formular for this. Sure i could, but if i would do that you are the only one who could calculate the almost EXACT numer of troops in a account. This isn't what we want.

      So if you see a strategy like that someone destruct many castles or give them away, to get a smaller rank, this means at the end that the amount of castles / buildings are a to big fact of the whole algorithm.
    • I say there is an account design in which there are 40 very large castles (more than 1000 million) and 33 very small castles (from 2 to 12 million points). This should cause a drop in rank.Try to eliminate from the algorithm these castles so small and that are not usual in large accounts. For example, castles that do not reach 20% of the average score do not take into account their buildings, or those that do not reach 70 million points.Yes, a very important part should be the number of troops.If you want by private I indicate you some accounts so that you see it.
    • juanjosear wrote:

      I say there is an account design in which there are 40 very large castles (more than 1000 million) and 33 very small castles (from 2 to 12 million points). This should cause a drop in rank.Try to eliminate from the algorithm these castles so small and that are not usual in large accounts. For example, castles that do not reach 20% of the average score do not take into account their buildings, or those that do not reach 70 million points.Yes, a very important part should be the number of troops.If you want by private I indicate you some accounts so that you see it.
      maybe it is possible to put in the military ranking only a limited number (for example the top 10) of castles ?
    • Dschibait wrote:

      finally you say that the troop amount should be a bigger part in the end result for this calculation?
      So that buildings / castles has not such an impect?

      im not sure what you didn't get on that fact that we don't want to share the formular for this. Sure i could, but if i would do that you are the only one who could calculate the almost EXACT numer of troops in a account. This isn't what we want.

      So if you see a strategy like that someone destruct many castles or give them away, to get a smaller rank, this means at the end that the amount of castles / buildings are a to big fact of the whole algorithm.
      it is not about destruction... it is about adding worthless castles in order to reduce military ranking (since it is based on an average of all)... Remarkable that you not seem to understand that by doing this players are being enabled to attack by far weaker players and also are being protected from attacks from players who technically are equal in strength... and yes strength is mainly based on troops and the capability to recruit
    • Hello, there is a fundamental value that is the number of troops, the others must not exceed 10% of the total calculation of the military rank.Being a war game, the fundamentals are the troops.If you have prepared castles with military structure or if they are farms of materials it is the player's problem.Another potential factor is the player's total score.Greetings.
    • juanjosear wrote:

      I do not have the formula to explain it with a number, if you want to pass it to me privately and I tell you the negative effect that it produces in the protection of weak players.On the other hand, I have not said at any time that it is to destroy large castles and build small, but since the update of protection through the military rank, I have seen many accounts of large players with a structure of for example 30 castles of 5 million points. This has caused that players of billions have remained in a military rank equal to someone of 10,000 million.Therefore, I believe that a rule created to protect the weak player has made this player an easy target.If it is an update it does not work with the purpose of its creation.I pray that it be reviewed. Greetings and thanks
      The amount of small castles in a big players account, in most cases, hasn't anything to do with lowering military ranking.
      In time of the event they where 'for free'.... no ruby's and lvl4 construction wagon for almost no resources (don't know the exact amount anymore).
      So many players build the castles.... to demolish and win resources later.
      Also the 'old castles' had limited building spots.... max 800 before upgrade.
      The time of event was first time the building spots are 1000 max before upgrade.

      Stop seeking problems in every thing you see happening in the game!