Hello,


    I am sorry to say but do you know what you are saying?


    Quote from Dschibait

    Of course we want to provide a reconstruction as well as protection. What we do not want is that this feature becomes a must-have, so everyone has to capitulate. The players who lost, still have hard work to get back into the game or rankings - but we want to give you the chance to be an active part again and at the forefront.During a capitulation, the player gets a 2x troop-production acceleration. This acceleration factor decreases by 0.25 with each additional capitulation

    Quote from Dschibait

    During a capitulation, the player gets a 2x troop-production acceleration. This acceleration factor decreases by 0.25 with each additional capitulation


    So the new meta is going to be sending just the right amount of troops on a suicide mission and then let some of your friends take a few of your castles and then capitulate to create even more troops?
    You lost a battle/war and get 6 months to recover, you don't need the extra troop speed!
    It is not like your opponent didn't lose any troops at all and...

    Please, do you know how many percent of the troops I have to lose to fulfill the surrender capitulation?
    In the terms of surrender it is written:
    1. Lose 20 Percent Points - ok.
    2. Lose troops - Not How Much ??? Do I have to lose all the troops? This is not the case when production is active. I must stop production ???
    3. No New Castle - ok.


    THANKS

    • Official Post

    there is a score like the military score ... we take the maximum score (of only your troops) and compare this to get a percentage... With a bit thinking / testing you will get a ca. amount what you have to lose or not. We don't want to provide any information about any feature - sometimes you have to test or try and error it by urself.


    finally @vanmorris
    existing big players (which is the focus here) will lose more troops ( to can go into capitulation) as they could produce with that extra speed afterwards.
    Small players could - and maybe will - have the oppertunity to grow faster with a self made capitulation. But this will end in a 0.25 reduction - im not sure if you may need it later, so using this earlier could also cause in issues.


    regards
    Dschibait

    So the real focus is bigger players?
    Let's do a calculation.


    The bigger players have 25 castles with all productions at level 100.
    This creates 700,000 troops in each castle per day or 17,500,000 in all castles.
    This for 6 months (about 180 days) is 3,150,000,000 troops.


    But if you ad the paying bonuses to this: you create 7,875,000,000 troops in total (x2.5)
    Get an extra x2 troops speed in this and you are able to create 15,750,000,000 troops in those 6 months.


    Now this is why I think the 2x troops is not justified:
    1) Your opponent also lost troops, but maybe a bit less then you? Now by creating this you make it so that the capitulated player comes out of capitulation stronger then his opponent and you want him to take revenge?
    2) This only widens the gap between non-paying and paying customers.
    3) Right now you want players to sacrifice some of their troops to find out the number of troops you have to lose before being able to capitulate?

    • Official Post

    its the double of the amount wich a other player can build ... so basicly its about 6months more than your 6months in capitulation. So yes, if your opponent lost troops and isn't going into capitulation, its so that he hasn't this bonuse, but he can still attack anyone, can farm anyone...
    Did you think that the resources to get this troops are grwoing on your trees ?!


    basicly i didn't think that we talk on the same level; you think its too much, but you havn't any idea about how many looses is the correct one to get a benefit from this.


    in 6month, sure a player could get 15,7mrd - a normal player could get 7,8mrd still with this.
    Beside the fact that the capitulating player also lost buildings / castles ... but lets ignore this.


    So ca capitulating player has to lose less than this 7,8mrd troops. All players from last days lose much more than this amount.
    For example OSTRY lost alone in this battle report here the half of this possible reward:
    https://damoria.bitmeup.com/ba…IKUhtD6n6Qn71owcL85R54Lqs


    So - we didn't think that anything works what we plan here, we also have adjusted things... but crying (sry but its so) like this, after about 4hours, isnt the right way.

    Oh yea sure OSTRY lost those troops there.
    It certainly weren't the troops from a multi account that jumped closer to that castle :)


    I am not saying your work is not good but why don't you use the polling system a bit more?
    I am not crying, I am trying to help you save the game.
    If you see my critics as crying and you can't handle a bit of critics then I will no longer do this.
    You can find out what players really want then.

    In percentages yes.
    But you have to look at the total amount of troops produced per x amount of time, not the percentage :)


    Suggest you have 1 minute and 100% is 10 seconds.
    Normal: 60 seconds/10 seconds = 6 troops
    Normal capitulated: 60 seconds/ (10 seconds * 0.5) = 12 troops
    Payment: 60 seconds / (10 seconds * 0.4) = 15 troops
    Payment with capitulation: 60 seconds / (10 seconds * 0.4 *0.5) = 30 troops.


    So you still get 2.5x more troops when paying :)

    • Official Post

    why i dont use a poll system ? I can tell you why :)
    Im in about 20 ally chats on skype and also 1 on whatsapp... yes, im doing this because i want to know more about my community... and anytime there is a vote here on board (like yours) and also ingame, i get on 15 of these 20 channels a message which tells me what i should vote for.


    There are many things what we could do better; but this voting system would just a blame for anyone... only the biggest alliance would get there opinions there, no one else.
    I would also like to see smaller parts of our community saved ... maybe you don't like the polish players, i also didn't understand anything about the last war, buts its so - im still impartial ...


    Its ok if you don't want to be that.

    So... Why am I not impartial?


    Some members of my alliance also capitulated?
    I could also use these changes to my advantage?


    For me this has nothing to do with which players get an advantage and which players don't.
    All I am trying to achieve is a fair game for everyone.


    I think I am allowed to have my opinion and I am allowed to also express that opinion?
    If you have good facts or I see things that are against my opinion I sure do change my opinion.
    If you don't want players to express their opinion when they feel something is done wrong then just tell me.


    All we can achieve is a better game for all and this has to come with some ups and downs.

    • Official Post

    sry but you talk about a fair game but
    1. you cant say which amount of troops you have to lose to capitulate
    2. you can't even calculate the exact strangth of player who will get a benefit from this or not


    if we talk about a feature and fairness and you want to have an own opinion so let us know with FACTS (i know from the past, that you didn't know that word) why you know that this is such a stupid way that we go.


    i will promise that you don't have any fact here except your "feeling"

    Dschibait:


    Given the fact that with a military instructor only max 25 castles can be serviced... and the fact that one has to loose a percentage of troops... supposing that those 25 castles at max production level remain after a capitulation... did you also calculate with 6 months free double recruitment speed (possibly positively influenced by the packages to 4 or 6x) ... what the net output is ? (for example if one asks friends or deliberately on a suicide run kills all his scouts and/or lancers, the fast and easy to build troops, and asks the ally to take some castles this can be achieved... then have 6 months to rebuild the scouts and lancers and even multiply the quality troops in a rapid manner)


    Resources are no problem since you ask your 'friends' or multis to permanently supply those


    In this way the capitulator is being favoured above the players that lost troops in attacking...
    Well done 'balancing'

    Edited 3 times, last by dYvorra ().

    Like 7
    Quote from Dschibait

    sry but you talk about a fair game but
    1. you cant say which amount of troops you have to lose to capitulate
    2. you can't even calculate the exact strangth of player who will get a benefit from this or not

    How would I supposed to be able to calculate that?


    I am not saying you are calculating wrong, all I am trying to do is making sure that you cannot benefit from being capitulated as a bigger player (--> Producing more troops then a normal player when even losing troops first).
    The fact that you have to 'loose' castles can be easily tricked by some friends.


    I am trying to keep this friendly and help the game forward.
    But calling me going stupid really helps!

    Quote from Dschibait

    why i dont use a poll system ? I can tell you why :)
    Im in about 20 ally chats on skype and also 1 on whatsapp... yes, im doing this because i want to know more about my community... and anytime there is a vote here on board (like yours) and also ingame, i get on 15 of these 20 channels a message which tells me what i should vote for.


    There are many things what we could do better; but this voting system would just a blame for anyone... only the biggest alliance would get there opinions there, no one else.
    I would also like to see smaller parts of our community saved ... maybe you don't like the polish players, i also didn't understand anything about the last war, buts its so - im still impartial ...


    Its ok if you don't want to be that.

    i can hardly imagine that the peer groups you talk about voted unanimously positive on this


    And it is not impartial because your main motivation is to keep players (well paying ones??) in the game... so far impartiality

    • Official Post

    @dYvorra
    did you understand the calculation of our military ranking ? There - and also on the capitulation score for troops - any troop get a value wich is based on the effectivity. So spies or lancers get a small amount where other units get a higher value.
    So its not easy to say that you should lose 50% of your troops... but a percentage of this (hidden, unkown) value, which we defined.


    maybe a capitulated player could write here how many troops he lost and what he could get from this update ... we will see that the strength of the player is rly low, where you get a rly benefit.


    BTW: i look for solutions; you only want to flame on other ideas. If you think that these players shouldn't get resources from friends, why not disabling also the trades in capitulation?
    Its easy to say that something could be arounded, but to make improvements isn't going into a forum and bring only contra without any suggestion.

    @Dschibait


    it is a bit of your standard to counter attack everyone here with the statement that no solution is suggested... of course solutions are being posted (if you read well)... 10 years of experience with the game and seeing how new settings are being abused to ones unintended advantage makes a lot of players think this way... that is why also comments are being posted...


    you say you are talking to 20 groups of aliances... to me it is hard to believe that the recent changes are being backed by them...


    and yes i am also posting critisizm but also giving the opportunity to react... since i believe that solutions can be found in adressing the problems and not by confronting users with ever new settings mainly to prevent paying clients to leave the game... i wonder how the larger group of also paying clients who cannot capitulate think about this and in how far they think they want to keep spending money on a game that disadvantages them. Maybe it is your goal to remain the game alive for only 20 players i don t know... however i do know that given this new feature i personaly feel even less motivated to spend a lot extra since it shall not give any benefit.


    then talking about a specific case: you mentioned Ostry as an example... how is it possible that this capitulated player already regained about150mio military strength in 2 weeks ? If that is caused only by troopmaking then it is worriesome to know that now with double the capacity this will lead in the remaining 5.5months (=24weeks) to increase with 300mio per 2 weeks, which is 3.600mio in total... whereas others that also loose troops but not enough to capitulate can never achieve this (even worse: the capitulated player gains in 6 months more then a normal player with 25 full castles can achieve in a year)... This means that an atacker, who might have lost as many troops as the one who has capitulated, also has to capitulate if he does not want to be overtaken/overrun 6 months later... The fact that a player takes the risk of loosing more troops then he can heal is a personal choice and probably also based on the 'recuperation power'... so from that viewpoint there is simply no need to 'reward' in such a generous manner personal choices.


    Normal production (level 100; 25 castles) in 1month is first number... with double speed is x2 number for the coming 5.5months is x 5.5number
    Lances 228mio x 2 = 556mio x 5.5 = 3.058mio
    Swords 114mio x2 = 228mio x 5.5 = 1.529mio
    Axes 152mio x 2 = 304mio x 5.5 = 1.672mio
    Archers 101.5mio x2 = 203mio x 5.5 = 1.116mio
    Templars 124mio x 2 = 248mio x 5.5 = 1.364mio
    Spies 182.5mio x2 = 365mio x 5.5 = 2.007mio
    Light cav 76mio x 2 = 152mio x 5.5 = 836mio
    Heavy Cav 57mio x 2 = 114mio x 5.5 = 637mio
    Rams 45mio x 2 = 90mio x 5.5 = 495mio
    Kats 39.5mio x 2 = 79mio x 5.5 = 434mio
    Total gains during capitulation: 13.148.000.000 troops of which half is capitulation bonus...
    When using the bonuspackages this number rises with 1.1*1.25 to 16.954.000.000


    SO i repeat... 'So far the fair balancing'

    Edited 17 times, last by dYvorra ().

    @Dschibait
    Why not make it so that every day when a player is capitulated some kind of 'check' is run.
    The 'hidden' maximum troop number he had before he capitulated is tracked, so it should be easy to say that players who are capitulated get the 2x troops until they reach a certain percentage of their max troop value again? I won't do any suggestions on numbers because I would be Imparitial then.
    But this would solve the issue of capitulating to gain more troops.


    If this player does reach this number, he gets the normal x1 production.
    If he doesn't reach it, too bad for him but he at least gets the x2 troops for the full 6 months