Quote from RAGAYEL

Hello, I would like to give my opinion about these changes that you propose.
1. It seems wrong to put and take truce at your whim without warning in advance. You show little respect for those of us who keep the game alive, that is, we the players.
Would not it have been better to wait for the Christmas truce to propose this update?
2. It seems to me an aberration that you make changes of this caliber without first asking the players, that I repeat again that we are the ones who after years keep this game active. You must learn from other games like Spaceinvasion (Also from this house) where you ask before making important changes. Some are better or worse received, but we vote for them.
3. It seems right that you want to change and boost the game, but I think you should do it in the coming world, you can not a player who has been in damoria for 10 years in which in many cases he has lost effort and money to change the rules of the game. overnight. Test the changes in new worlds and ask if they want to be introduced to the oldest worlds.
4. Finally I want to give you several ideas to make Damoria more fun.
- You want that the players do not attack one another to be able to raise our castles faster?
Strengthen the merchants, make a building where merchant cars can be recruited and so the player can move the resources generated between their castles to make a bigger empire, so nobody would have to attack another player to raise their castles.

-You want to limit the castles.
Make a ranking of troops added to the ranking of constructions, so players will not only seek to be well placed in the ranking based on constructions, so the value plus troops would have an important sense in the game. Climb the fields of the castles so we can build more buildings, give the possibility of the wizard of solar prizes to the castles. Propose more new constructions that help to play more, but that does not affect the current rules.

-You want to make the game more active.
Change the strategy of the game. Forget that a player can lose their castles, you give a lot of value to them. "Revolutionize the game"
Empower the most active player to grow, give prizes for player attacks from one to another. As an example, you could say that when a player attacks another resource, they also take resources for killed troops or even take gold.

I have a lot of ideas that would change the game, they would make it more fun and dynamic, but they would not have to change the current rules of the game. I do not understand what you propose, you excuse yourself in what you do to help the new player, but it is not like that. Many old players help us grow with the system we have now that the only thing is to attack each other. If you do not increase the merchants and reduce the% of the farms, having castles with buildings at 100 will take much longer than before because nobody uses the merchants because it is useless with this system.

Display More

Damoria used to have a page where it showed who had the largest army, biggest castle, most points, etc. It was nice to see that, especially when it was my name on it. I'm not sure why they ever took that away.

Damoria was once very active, at least on the English server where wars were constant. Guilds had to constantly prepare for war, be diplomatic, plan strategies, because at any time you could be given marching orders or have to defend your castles. I remember those days well, I loved going to war with other guilds, helping to plan the strategies to take down our enemies, giving the marching orders, speaking with the other guilds, exchanging banter here in the forums with their leader and members. I don't believe the answer to making Damoria more active lays in finding peace but in interacting with other guilds as well as your own, waging wars and having a bit of fun in the forums taunting guilds without bullying them too much. Just don't get too carried away like I did, the game becomes extremely boring when you run out of enemies.

Quote from Lord Dragoon

Damoria used to have a page where it showed who had the largest army, biggest castle, most points, etc. It was nice to see that, especially when it was my name on it. I'm not sure why they ever took that away.

Help/ World statistic Its still in the game

Nice. It was brought back, changed a bit but brought back.

Quote from Dschibait

you criticize the way we publish / announce that?What do you think would happen when we didn't enable the attack protection; i can tell you what happen

- anyone go for there multi castles to get all certificates to zero
- anyone demolish these castles from there multies to get most benefit from these castles

You didn't got the "certificate" and "max amount of castles" - things into your mind.
I saw players who can got more than 600 castles in the next week.
See our team comments - we didn't would plan that this way if could we have an other option here. These players have got many certificates from bugs (i didn't call him bug users - you can't avoid any bugs - but there also bugs who could be produced many times) and the takeover.
You need to define an "max" castle amount here. There are many players with much less amount of castles and many many old (most of them on w1 because of the fusion) players who has hundreds of certificates in back, for a possible war.

You didn't see these amount- they didn't come up in any ranking or statistic.

regards
Dschibait

Display More

I think you have not understood me ...
There are changes that are necessary. Go ahead with them.
But there are other changes that you propose that I do not share and this is a thread of discussion.
If there are players with thousands of certificates and you think that he got them for some bug, remove him.
If you want to limit the castles do it. But if players currently exceed that limit of castles you should not take away what it has cost them years to achieve.
For the record, it's not my case, I only have 70 castles.
But I think that we players of the game should be part of voting some changes that radically change the strategy that has taken us years.
I appreciate that you go looking for new things for the game, but if you want there are no accounts or farms, change the system of merchants in which it is a troop that we can build and move the resources between our castles, do not let you have accounts with same ip and give the possibility of merging or doing something about it and from there account that share ip, ban it. These are some of the ideas that come to mind.
Accept my constructive criticism. I hope they are received willingly.
A greeting raga.

Let's suppose then that we have the 120 castle max but the golden castles can exceed that cap. We now face a new problem of the veteran players with 120 normal castles and 50 or more golden castles, the veteran players still have an edge in wars because of the golden castles. A player wanting even more castles will target weaker players that hold the golden castles and take them from them knowing that they won't be able to defend them against a stronger player so the strong only get stronger so where's the fairness? Newer players that hold golden castles will become targets, some may even become farms for stronger players.

Guilds in many cases will help newer players become stronger as that helps them strengthen their guilds and in the long run, better protects them and their guild. A lot of that help comes from teaching newer players how to play and supplying them with resources to help them build while veteran players and their guilds protect the newer players. With the way things have worked for years, I'm sure a lot of members of guilds have allowed newer members to attack and plunder their own castles to help build them up quickly but with changes to plundering, you're making that way of helping newer players useless so why even bother changing the plundering if that's a way veterans are helping new players?

Increasing the marketers is great but with construction sites, castles that are built for battling aren't as willing to waste precious construction sites on building high level marketplaces that take away from from troop or resource production which are both needed to sustain a strong army, especially once you reduce what we can plunder from other castles.

Castles are won, lost and destroyed in wars, believe me, I know. I've taken many castles in wars, plundered many and even left a few with nothing more than a wall standing that were very disrespectful and vulgar. If a player has 600 and hasn't exploited a bug, I'd guess they're a long time player that knows how to play and has earned their spot so why restrict them even more than what they've already been?

Would you really like to be fair? Try removing the construction sites.

So if you admit that there's no difference, why are you wasting your time with it and restricting veteran players even more? What is the logic? To drive away vets with even more restrictions?

So you reduce what we can plunder and increase our traders? Do you honestly think a multi can't work around that simply by setting up trade castles with level 100 quarries, sawmills, mines, storages and markets nearby? Why not just make it to where you can't trade or battle with the same IP address? Makes more sense to me, just saying.

Why don't you ask your 10 year veterans? They've seen every change, some even remember me. Kind of funny how a player with only 10 points was able to join a top guild a few months ago and now has nearly 15 billion points without using exploits or multi's isn't it? Pretty obvious that I have old friends here.

I believe it's fair because the veteran players have endured every change in Damoria which basically restricted them more and more and they've worked their way up to where they are now, some of the biggest because of their hard work and having played for so long. Would you want to see more players like me rapidly growing and be where they are within a year or two, maybe less? Where's the fairness for your long time players?

If you want to counteract the farming of multies, replacing attacks for trade is not effective. The multies will simply use the trade. By increasing trade by only 10 you limits the multies but players will not get rid of surpluses in the bigger castles. Limit the direct trade to only own castles and increase it by 1,000 or even 10,000. This allows players, within their own account, to move the raw materials more easily and makes breaking down a castle level for level achievable.

My opinion:There isn,t sense limit 100 warhouse talking in thounsand millions and trading in millions , the rate increase will be 1000.

So you just tell players make sure you have less then 120 castles from next week onwards.
But they are not able to get their troops out of their castles so they can demolish them?

120 Castles limit seems arbitrary, how did you come to that number? Was there some programming or design reason, or did you pick it out of a hat?

Want to make farming uninteresting without penalizing actual wars? First attack on a castle gets full resources from it, second get's 50%, third and subsequent gets zero. Reset counter after 6 months.

Another way: First attack gets full, second and subsequent gets the percentage of attack strength/defense strength,, again, reset after 6 months.

As noted elsewhere, slow castle tear downs leave the resources in the wrong place. We need a way to get them elsewhere. Even faster traders with very high capacity do no good if the castle is all the way across the map. And tearing down a high level building could take many trips. Perhaps resources from all reductions could be sent at traders speed (or arrive in some arbitrary time frame) without actually using traders. Maybe they arrive via wormhole. Or a wizard did it.

I'm really afraid that these changes are going to make veteran players less likely to buy gold. And you aren't going to draw enough new players to make up the difference. Would be a shame to see the servers shut down because of bad design changes.

Perhaps neither one of us is understanding one another very well, Dschibait. Your English is a bit rough so it's a little difficult to follow at times, especially when I'm tired. Let's try this again.

If golden castles do not count towards the 120 max castles this means that a player could have 1,000 of them plus the max 120 normal castles, correct? The only thing that's changed here is once players hit their 120 max castles, the only way to get more is by having golden castles so what do you think players are going to go after and which players are better suited to take those? I can tell you now that if I wanted to keep expanding, they'd be the way to go just like it was when they were first introduced, long before your time. The golden castles were intended to break the limits, that's what I love about them.

I do not agree with them being demolished.

I understood multi's just fine, you're just speaking of a different way of using multi's and there are many ways for people to cheat, they'll just get more and more creative and you'll end up changing things more and more to try and keep up with them which will more than likely just frustrate your player base because it'll mean more restrictions and having to adapt again to new ways of playing, it's an endless cycle.

Would you like to eliminate the construction site restriction? That would be nice, we could then have high level marketplaces without it taking away from our castles. Also it would be nice if we could send out lots of resources like we've done in the past by using our troops since higher level buildings require resources by the billions, not millions and I doubt anyone wants to play constantly just to transfer resources back and forth, boring and I can see people losing interest in the game if they had to do that all day just to build a castle.

Hello Damoria team,

I'm glad to see that they're trying to make changes, and what that means, that their owners have not yet lost hope of improving it.

Removing the fact that they are trying to improve it, I think they are making a mistake in the way they do it.

For a long time it seems that it is looking to punish veteran players, I remind you that thanks to those players Damoria currently exists, those players have made many friends and family join the game, these players have convinced many of their colleagues not to to leave the game, those players have left thousands of euros over more than 10 years, those players have helped the new players grow in record time, those players have kept Damoria alive, and lately, those players have only receive punishments for being simply veteran players.

I see that they want to eliminate the multi-account farms, for this their solution is not to make the attack attractive, a war game where it is not attractive to attack because you do not gain raw materials, if you win the attack, even spend a certificate of conquest that is worth hundreds of thousands of emeralds, in which, if you manage to keep it for 2 long days so that its owner does not recover it, by demolishing it you receive much less raw materials than it is worth, do you seriously believe that this is the solution to end the multi-accounts? Those multi-accounts the only thing that they have to do is to raise market to 100 in their farms, and they will continue doing the same thing that until now, on the other hand the other players makes us less attractive to attack, I think that that is not the solution, I have no solution to make the mult-accounts disappear, but I assure you that it is not.

That there is a limit of 120 castles seems good to me, and even less, what I do not see well is what is intended for players who currently have 300, 400, 500 castles ... if the rules from that the game was created (more than 10 years ago) allowed it and those great players have invested years and thousands of euros in having all that, now you want they lose it by magic. Treat good those great players who have kept Damoria alive, give them the option of adapting to the new rules without having to lose thousands of gold coins and billions of points along the way.

It is illogical that if a player now has 600,000 million points and 300 castles, 180 castles will be demolished based on spending thousands of gold coins and that even in the demolition, most of the raw materials will be lost. That player, when he finishes adapting to the new rules, will surely be left with little more than 200,000 million points, 120 castles and thousands of gold coins lost along the way.

Solution: Give them the option of being able to demolish the castles / baldur's surplus free of charge or by sending you a list of the castles / baldur's to make disappear, and to be able to fully recover the raw materials of those castles / baldur's, for example through free fillings of warehouse. So that same player of 600,000 million of points will still have the same score with 120 castles and will have adapted to the new rules without being punished, without losing score and money along the way.

The baldur's if they can be demolished I think they lose their essence as a special castle, they give a lot of play at the time of conquest and reconquest between enemy players, that game disappears if you simply make them disappear.

That you lose half of the raw materials when demolishing a castle I think it's a bad choice, it's very expensive in troops and time trying to keep a newly conquered castle for 2 days, if we even add that you receive half the profit, we are encouraging to attack even less, I think what you have to do is the opposite, that it is attractive to attack and conquer, is what gives life to the game.

Solution: To have more activity and fun in the game, in the demolition you still get 100% of the raw materials, the certificates of conquest do not exist or their value is very small, we encourage everyone to attack without fear of staying without certificates.

I think that the biggest stoppage of activity in Damoria comes from the last update in the costs of the certificates of conquest, now the majority of players do not attack because they want to keep the few certificates that they have, since getting new ones is very expensive or impossible.

If finally the limit of castles / baldur’s is fixed at 120, the objective by which the conquest certificates were created loses almost all its value.

I remember when we were more than 20,000 active players in a single server and the list of lost castles was just 1 or 2 pages, now there are tens or hundreds of pages of lost castles, which are not conquered because the costs are prohibitive, we must encourage that even the smallest castle is attractive to attack, many wars began with the discussions between alliances at the time of conquering those lost castles, now that does not exist ... simply nobody attacks them.

To avoid that there are no eternal lost castles, to disable it would be good if they lost 90% of their troops. Losing score does not make them attractive either.

The protection noob currently does not help, as soon as a small player enters an alliance enters under the protection of this, no one will attack a small player without fear of starting a war between alliances.

You want to prevent big players from helping small players grow by making it unattractive to attack them. I think it's a mistake to put obstacles in the way of small players growing quickly with the help of their peers.

Solution: If you do not want small players farm large players, let the market regain the utility it has, expand 100 lots to all the castles and baldur's of the game, allowing all players to move from current market level 1 to 100 that we should have, that the level 100 of market can transport important quantities (billions) and so the big players can continue to help their partners through the market as it should have been from the beginning.

That does encourage new players to continue in the game, see how it is helped by dozens of colleagues and see how billions of points grow in a few weeks.

The other changes seem perfect to me, I think they are good for everyone.

Please focus on encouraging small players to grow quickly without harming the great players that ultimately help them grow fast, motivate them and teach them all of the game's attack and defense tactics.

Quote from Urotsukidoji

It is illogical that if a player now has 600,000 million points and 300 castles, 180 castles will be demolished based on spending thousands of gold coins and that even in the demolition, most of the raw materials will be lost. That player, when he finishes adapting to the new rules, will surely be left with little more than 200,000 million points, 120 castles and thousands of gold coins lost along the way.

Maybe i read it wrong. But if you have more than 120 normal castles you do not have to demolish. You lose all the deeds you have ( get some gems back for them) So you can not get new normal castles because you can not get new deeds to conquer one. And you can no longer send a construction wagon. You still will be able to get special castles.
The problem is that you will not be able to take back a normal castle if one is stolen. But as the bigger players have enough troops to completely splatter the one bold enough to attack them, i do not think it very likely to happen. Besides there must be some players in all alliances who still can get deeds and take the castle back.

Quote from Juflo

Maybe i read it wrong. But if you have more than 120 normal castles you do not have to demolish. You lose all the deeds you have ( get some gems back for them) So you can not get new normal castles because you can not get new deeds to conquer one. And you can no longer send a construction wagon. You still will be able to get special castles.The problem is that you will not be able to take back a normal castle if one is stolen. But as the bigger players have enough troops to completely splatter the one bold enough to attack them, i do not think it very likely to happen. Besides there must be some players in all alliances who still can get deeds and take the castle back.

Judith, just the limit of 120 castles or less I see it well, less difference between large and medium players, what I do not see logical is that I continue playing as any normal player (conquer new castles, or reconquer castles that take me away), I have to demolish, 200 or 300 castles that until yesterday was allowed, assuming the expenses.
If the administrators want to implement that, I repeat that it seems good to me, at least that those affected can adapt to these new rules without losing score and without spending thousands of gold coins.

I'll give you a very simple example, tomorrow you have 15,000 million troops together in your main castle, overnight they put a truce and announce that you can only have 5,000 million troops per castle, so directly 10,000 million troops are erasing to you, while your comrade, who had his troops distributed among all his castles, still keeps his 15,000 or 20,000 million troops.

Surely you would see it as unjust as me, because your partner keeps all his troops and even having more than you, and you lose most of them simply by having them gathered in the same castle.

In my case it is the same, why the player who has 500 or 600 million points spread over only 50 or 60 castles still retains all his score without spending a single gold coin, and I was following another type of tactic (totally legal until yesterday), I have to lose most of my score and spend thousands of gold coins to adapt to the new rules?

It's very simple... if after more than 10 years of play the rules are changed, I repeat that for good, that at least those affected can adapt for free without losing score and thousands of gold coins.

I'm not refusing to make the changes, I like them, but I deny that my adaptation is very expensive with large losses of score and money, while the game adapts to other players who have not had to spend or lose anything to adapt.

I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing it.