Quote from Dschibait

ich verstehe dein deutsch nicht.Oben hast du von 150 normalen Schlössern gesprochen.

Weisst du wieviele Spieler auf Welt1 derzeit 150 normale Schlösser haben?
Genau EINER - das heißt, es würde ein Spieler davon profitieren, alle anderen können (wegen des Schloss limits) garnicht mehr normale Schlösser bekommen.
Warum sollte man also 150 normale Schlösser einstellen?

Und dann zusätzlich noch 100 Baldurs.
Das betrifft ganze 12 Spieler auf Welt 1

komm @Chemilla wir wollen eine faire Lösung nicht wieder eine Lösung bei der ein paar Spieler abseits von allen wieder produzieren!

Display More

Dann kann die Anzahl der normalen Burgen bei 100 belassen und die Anzahl der Baldurs auf 60 erhöht werden, da ich denke, dass diesmal viele Spieler 60 Baldurs haben

Wie viele Spieler würde das repräsentieren ???

We are not asking for an increase in the number of castles and baldurs that can be recruited, we are asking for flexibility when adopting such an extreme measure, if the limit is calculated at a total of 130 castles, 100 castles + 30 baldurs, that this extreme measure is flexible for at least a time and allows us to adapt to all players, for example 6 months or 1 year where the total number of castles / baldurs in which they can be recruited is 130, that is to say... for example 70 castles and 60 baldurs, this would allow some players time to adjust. But overnight they have made players who created the same troops as their nearby Top, lose almost all their production and stop playing under the same conditions. A reduction in the percentage of troop production of, for example, the first 50 players would be an equitable measure for those 50 players, they would all stop producing an equal percentage of troops, a rule such as the one applied without flexibility makes some players of those first 50 stop to produce for example 10% of their troops and others stop producing 60% of troops, what is the equality in that?

Quote from Dschibait

thats not what you ask in your blame posts in that other thread.

And we continue with the disqualifications... blame in Spanish is not a pleasant word, and above all it is not a disqualification that an administrator should use...

Quote from Dschibait

blame in german and also english and all other languages i know was and is simply "blaming" (blamieren), you blame me with your again and again focusing "stupid admin" comments.
So what you expect - that i take you serously ? When you kick my ass, i ignore you and your posts.

is that what you want?

be respectful to me and the team and we will answer your posts, and you can take part of the discussion. Start blaming me, flaming me, kick my ass - we will ignore you!

When such important decisions are made with a small group of players behind the back of the other players in the game and that especially benefits that small group of privileged people, you may receive complaints from the rest of the players, and more if they have been unfairly sanctioned simply for following another totally legal gambling tactic.

If even on top of that, all the players who disagree with the decision of that small group of privileged players are continually disqualified by those players and the administrators, perhaps it is even reasonable that some comments are raised in tone.

Quote from Urotsukidoji

When such important decisions are made with a small group of players behind the back of the other players in the game and that especially benefits that small group of privileged people, you may receive complaints from the rest of the players, and more if they have been unfairly sanctioned simply for following another totally legal gambling tactic.
If even on top of that, all the players who disagree with the decision of that small group of privileged players are continually disqualified by those players and the administrators, perhaps it is even reasonable that some comments are raised in tone.

You dare to use the wordt "priviledged"Players??????For years, a number of players were able to make troops in more castles than any other player could ever own. The gap between these "previleged" players and the rest kept widening. Is everything taken from these "previleged" players as you constand claim? No, they keep the castles and troops. They are limited only with troop production to the same number of castles that each player can build. (every one who spent enough years in Damoria to build 100 normal and 30 gold with 3x100 troop production) Now look at it from a different angle. You are a player who, for all sorts of reasons, has not been able to make the switch to BitMeup with 300 castles or more. You had to pay thousands of gems to conquer or build Castle no 88 while the player with 300 castles could do that for less. This was equated and every player could get castles up to 120 castlepoints for the same price. But some priviledges players still had more castles and produce troops in them. The top is inaccessible.
And yes, it is very annoying that those privileged players now have to adjust their accounts. But it has been admitted that The Damoria team are looking at a slow progression to 100 normal and 30 baldur castles for troop production to help them.
With that, you are still a privileged player with more castles and more resource production than most players can ever build.
So maybe you should shut up about players that are the "priviledged players" according to you.

Es ist an der Zeit, das sich dieser Member an seine Kinderstube erinnert (wenn vorhanden ) Wenn wir das, als mehr oder weniger anständige Member.....das lesen müssen, bzw. auch die Admin. Da geht uns innerlich schon mal ein Messer auf.

Quote from Juflo

You dare to use the wordt "priviledged"Players??????For years, a number of players were able to make troops in more castles than any other player could ever own. The gap between these "previleged" players and the rest kept widening. Is everything taken from these "previleged" players as you constand claim? No, they keep the castles and troops. They are limited only with troop production to the same number of castles that each player can build. (every one who spent enough years in Damoria to build 100 normal and 30 gold with 3x100 troop production) Now look at it from a different angle. You are a player who, for all sorts of reasons, has not been able to make the switch to BitMeup with 300 castles or more. You had to pay thousands of gems to conquer or build Castle no 88 while the player with 300 castles could do that for less. This was equated and every player could get castles up to 120 castlepoints for the same price. But some priviledges players still had more castles and produce troops in them. The top is inaccessible.And yes, it is very annoying that those privileged players now have to adjust their accounts. But it has been admitted that The Damoria team are looking at a slow progression to 100 normal and 30 baldur castles for troop production to help them.
With that, you are still a privileged player with more castles and more resource production than most players can ever build.
So maybe you should shut up about players that are the "priviledged players" according to you.

Judith I don't even know what you are talking about, here each player to his subject... the question is to criticize me even if it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. For your interest, and for you to stop making mistakes, the privileged players are those players who have been talking and deciding these changes with the administrators in secret and behind the back of the other players in the game. And now if you want, keep talking about who brought more castle from where and all those things that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about...

so die neu Ankündigung ist raus, soweit hab ich alles gut verstanden, aber mit den Baufeldern nich gilt dies nur für die HS Baufelder das sie verbraucht werden müßen oder auch Normale oder GS Baufelder?

Quote from Dschibait

you are talking since 10 posts about that these changes are not good for you.Sry but just one players strategy isn't compared with so many players who dont reach your numbers before this update.
So sry, that i ignore your meaning. When you think that you stop - i dont know any other word - "crying" thatn we can talk about adjustments.

And we continue with the disqualifications, great administrator!

And no, I'm not saying for 10 posts that this change is not good for me, I'm saying that this change is not fair for everyone and doesn't imply the same losses for everyone, it is an unfair change and should be illegal.

I explain it again because it seems that there are some people who are hard of hearing, or rather who don't want or are interested in understanding what I say:

Before the changes:

1 Top player produces a similar amount to another top player, that is... Player 1 = Player 2

Player 1 for example produced troops in 120 normal castles and 100 baldurs, in total he produced troops in 220 castles.

Player 2 for example produced troops in 50 normal castles and 170 baldurs, in total he produced troops in 220 castles.

So far fine, no one got lost? We continue...

After the changes:

Player 1 produces troops in 100 normal castles and 30 baldurs, in total he produces in 130 castles.

Player 2 produces troops in 50 normal castles and 30 baldurs, in total he produces in 80 castles.

For those who don't understand much about mathematics 130> 80.

Overnight, Player 1 produces troops in 50 more castles than Player 2.

Equality for all right? fair for everyone right? totally legal this change? really?

Now players will start to come out complaining about the inequality of the fusion of worlds, that the top players are top because they have been very lucky and not because they are good players, that the top players deserve this reduction, surely I will receive some disqualification or threat, I'm starting to get used to it... but the question is not that, the question is... because overnight 2 players who produce the same, stop producing the same due to a change in the rules? Why does one benefit and the other lose? because the game adapts like a glove for one, and for the other it implies months or years of adaptation and loss of equality with the other?

Do you want to reduce the troop production of the top players? perfect to do it, I even agree, but that the reduction is the same percentage for everyone. That some lose 10% of their production and others lose 60% of their production when both produced the same thing is far from being the same, fair and legal.