Es ist mir nicht klar ob jetzt nur der Strukturstärke der Wall geändert worden ist oder dass auch die im Spiel erwähnten Truppenverteidigungsstärke jetzt gefixt worden ist ?
Es geht ja nicht nur um einen Wall runterbomben aber auch um den wert eines Walles für die Truppen und den Vorteil die es den Truppen gibt... wie dem auch der Fall war als sehr dicke Walle gebaut wurden... (für denen die gerne den Vergleich zum guten alten mittelalterlichen Zeit machen möchten)

Dass Problem mit den Bug der bei einen hohen Wall zu mehr Verluste des Verteidigers führt ist dass es unattraktiv ist so einen Schloss zu verteidigen weil die Verluste dann zu hoch sind... und wie schon eher gesagt: gefechte werden geführt mit Truppen und nicht mit einen Wall

Gute Idee aber ich denke dass die historie nicht gespeichert ist weil es ja diesen umwandlung gegeben hatt von bigpoint zu bitmeup

Hi Dschibait,

Due to the last few topics and discussions it is maybe good to share with the comunity what your objectives are with the game.

Since at this moment everyone here is more or less in the tranquility mode and used to things going at a certain pace and speed...

Introducing new features from a certain perspective are not bad, however one should also take into account the effects and consequences.
For example this double speed troop bonus for capitulators... The last 9 years it was obvious that one needed to be cautious with attacks and that defense had to be organised well as part of an aliance cooperation. The fact that the effect of max max troopbuilding castles is hughe (a lvl 100 castle porduces 10x as many troops as a lvl 71) already gives those who have several of these castles a good recuperation possibility. The military ranking already limits the range of opponents one can attack. So only more or less comparable players can attack eachother. Both loose troops since it costs troops to kill troops (and only for the atacker it is 100% sure the troops lost are only his own). The players that decide to take the risk of loosing an amount take that risk with a clear mind... they are not beginners. And they where prepared to take the risk as well because their recuperation rate is quite good. And it has ever since the beginning of the game been a fact that with buying bonusses troop production even went up.

Now with introducing the quick recovery procedure also the dynamics of the game change significantly. Not only in the posibility for someone to gain 6.6bio bonus troops but also the comparison to other players who are not in the top 25. When someone with 20bilion troops looses lets say 60% of his troop he remains with 8bilion (if he cannot heal). With the bonus he can regain 13bio in 6 months so after 6 months has 21bio troops, whereas in the past he would need 1 year to recover. So this new setting means that the game becomes more dynamic especialy for the larger players since the smaller ones shall never succeed to catch up in 6 months in castles and/or troops.

As i said that is just an example.

Since this sort of changes is being done with a certain goal i invite you to start communicating the long term objectives for the game and gather opinions in order to make sure that people understand what is happening and also can have the opportunity to share their view on it. I think most of us apreciate the job you and your small team are doing and may maybe even are more involved then you think (since otherwise there would not be so much reaction)... For world 1 things are diferent anyway since there all the history from 7 or 8 servers are combined. For making an atractive new server where also new players can start with equal chances the experiences can be of value (if your goal is to maintain Damoria for many years of course).

noticed you changed that already

Hi,

at the moment if one clicks the 3 gold button for troopbuilding every castle gets troop production
Is it possible to change this in such a manner that the castles serviced by this button can be selected ?

Thx
Regards

Quote from Juflo

I have said in the past (changes of reduction of loot and raw materials by demolition castle) that an active fighter is punished in this game. A fighter loses troops, resources per fight and after a period of war (won or lost), he continues to lag behind those who stay outside the war. A strange case for a war game that you are always better off staying away from action than participate in it.
I am pleased that measures are being taken to ensure that fighters can recover faster.
I also think it is good that these measures depend on presence in the game.

Ju(flo)dith, i think it is not really a war game but a 'build your kingdom' game...

The recent changes are making things turn in the direction of a wargame, which has other dynamics. As demonstrated in the last few months one can loose many troops in a short period... changing the buildspeed of troops can increase the dynamics for sure, as long as it is an option for eveyone and not only for those who like to be agressor, by mistake loose more than they can afford and then hide in a cave for 6 months... But i am very happy witht the addition made yesterday which enables EVERY fighter who lost a significant number of troops to regain troops in an accelerated manner.

So thx Dschibait for your quick response

Quote from Ptorrijosj

I do not understand these latest changes well. Now my production of troops appears in negative. Does that mean that I produce fewer troops?

the minus is and indicator for a redution of the time... so production of troop is faster...

Quick solution well done

Quote from Dschibait

I would like to gave small players this benefits, but it is a way between providing this and require it.

Maybe, if that is the goal, it is better to put a 4th condition in the capitulation rules... related to the existing troop building capacity... also that should not be hard to program since this is based on the troop building database. Set a standard for a normal build up capacity (eg 25x lvl 71 production) and relate to that features which a capitulee is allowed to use.
Those who have a sufficient capacity gain less benefits... for example only extended healing facility and those who are lower can obtain an accelerator up to a certain level of troops, with a max of the troops present before losses occurred.

By using the extension of the healers you also prevent excessive troop increase which would occur with an unlimited double troop production speed.
Given the fact that some players alredy play for > 10 years, even on different worlds and with the migration where able to combine accounts from different worlds, it is anyway unavoidable that there are hughe differences. Those who now still play have accepted this.

For the veteran players who have been able to obtain (buy) 25 full production castles i remain to the fact that since they are veterans they are well aware of the ins and outs of the game and the risks involved, also knowing what can happen when you put your battle settings at 100% and accept to loose more troops then you can heal given the max capacity of the treasury (albeit atacker or defender)...

PS
I strongly believe that the emotions around this subject relate to nothing significant happening in the past 4 years, players being encouraged to spend money to improve things, and now once of a sudden changes made in an attempt to 'balance' and 'equalize'... making the money spent of less value ...

Quote from Dschibait

next time i should check your math before using this.The numbers are "almost" correct, im not sure why u using 5.5 if we have 6months ... but ok.
But still, at the end your calculation already contains all premium features so the last part with "1.1*1.25" is wrong - anything contains already the 60% so this 13,2billion is the maximum amount what someone could get from this feature.
Which means a plus of 6.6billion units.

only to get a correct math here

ok the 5.5 was based on the remaining capitulation period for the example (who already is in this modus for 2 weeks) so with this correction we get with the correction of the bonuses 13.2bilion including the bonus of 6.6bilion in 182,5 days (which represents a half year).
Still a big bonus... assuming that not everyone with this production capacity has to be considered a victim... since the cooperation between players also involves sending support troops in order to make an atacker loose troops (which is part of the strategy of the game and again a risk an atacker takes when atacking and using his battle settings)...
The war was initiated because players from JG provoqued it by attacking a relative small aliance named Bockereijders (BR), and this aliance being a part of a larger group (unfortunately for JG also including bigger players)... Before the war started there was no protection for BR players by means of a military ranking, so when talking about victims they are to be found there...

Quote from Dschibait

i only want to say that your suggestions here bring 1 extreme fact also to the baord.

if a player who has a lower military amount can catch up bigger players - ok, this sounds good, but what happend after that ?
A player with a small amount of troops like in your examples will get more and more troops wich can be all fight / we will call it suicide against bigger players. This is not a problem in first 100 battles, but at a point, the bigger player lose more and more troops at the end.
Sure he could also use at a defined point the speed-up of troops, but the "good position" is destroyed - so why this player should keep playing?

With your strategy you want to kill damoria at the end - anyone without troops could easily create them in a low level range - isn't attackable and could fight against bigger players without any reason.
just only to troll them.

only to say this - we already think about this since about a half of a year.
in spaceinvasion we call this whole system "speed-up-system" look here:
https://board.bitmeup.com/inde…1147-Speed-Up-System-FAQ/

So in SpaceInvasion this works quite well, because there you can escape flight anything. But here you could do it, but no one wants to do it.
So finally - this golden idea from you here isnt it at all ... you have also missed many things ingame.

Display More

Hi Dschibait... Space Invasion is quite another game (i only played it for a short while) and yes there one can pick up all his resources in a space craft and fly around to avoid being atacked. In Damoria all is based on being able to build many troops as fast as possible...

As you say yourself the goal is to give a player a chance to recuperate when certain conditions are met... this recuperation should be in line with the basics of the game... which also is the alliance system and that attacking or agression can lead to retaliation. Due to the introduction of the military ranking system you also have created a limitation of who larger players can attack. thus the situation that everyone attacks the same (only available with a green dot) player... this you have created yourself...
When talking about recuperation in my opinion it should be avoided that this recuperation leads to excessive (even an atractive) situation to quickly build troops... hit and run and then again hide for 6 months... so the recuperation should be in balance with reality and the risk taken as inherent connected to the game (this can be achieve by extra healing facilities or a boost) but would never be of the size that one can regain in 6 months to the original level. As you and other say themselves... it should be a last resort and not a part of a strategy... The way you have organised it now is to make it atractive (for those who have 25 good producing castles) to seek for the best option to be able to capitulate and go in a 6 month vacation modus...
So i think that it of course is good to give the last resort option, but then it should be just that and taking time to fully regain losses... (unless it is the goal that everyone seeks for the best option to fullfill the requirements and seek for this because there is the reward of regaining full force with bonuses; but then you change the dynamics of the whole game).

Then also it should be avoided that abuse of the capitulation modus takes place: for example there are now 12bio points castles being transferred to other accounts within an aliance, which have a military strength < 100.000... if one plans correctly these small players can first loose 20% building points from their original small size... then take over 25 full prod castles... kill their little amount of troops and then go in capitulation in order to build an hughe amount of troops.

Wenn du schon so lange spielst dann weist du also auch dass es offenbar gar nicht nötig is viele extra Vorteile zu bekommen wenn mann mal Truppen verliert.. es wird aber ungerecht wenn der eine der truppen verliert und kapituliert mit sehr viele Vorteile ruhig 2 mal soviele Truppen nachhohlen kann wie ein gleich grossen spieler der genau so viele Truppen verloren hatt... mann kann links oder rechts rum argumentieren aber letztendlich ist die matte wie sie ist....

Nein die Kommentare in den Discussion sind nicht darauf Bezogen irgend jemanden Permanent aus dem Spiel zu hauen (obwohl: Ihr hattet ja in den alten welten auch keinen Mitleit mit kleineren Spielern und habt euch auch nicht dafür gescheut Spielern an zu drohen oder sogar zu Erpressen), es ist doch auch so dass jemanden mit 25 vollproduktions Schlösser schon ziemlich gut aufgehoben ist wenn er 6 Monate in alle Ruhe wieder Truppen bauen kann, wass dass zu tun hatt mit 'aus den Spiel kicken wollen' sehe ich nicht.

Dass andere spielern nicht kapituliert haben ist logisch: die letztliche vorteile sind nur seit 2 Tage bekannt gemacht worden... also ich nehme an dass diejenigen die an den Truppenverlust kriterium zukommen jetzt auch sich überlegen ob mann gut daran tut einige Schlösser weg zu geben und damit auch an den Baupunkte kriterium zu kommen.... hoffentlich für denen kann mann auch nachträglich in den Kapitulierungsmodus gehen.

Komm Komm mit 25 12miliarden Schlössern ist ja auch die Rohstoffenversorgung derartig dass da nicht viel verschleppt werden muss...
Dein 4. Kriterium kenne ich nicht steht auch nirgends.

Es werden ohnehin ahfgrund der neuesten Entwicklungen in kurzem jede Menge weitere Spielern aufhöhren zu spielen... Ihr wird dann letztendlich mit einander auf ein leeres Spielfeld gerne miteinander weiter basteln können... ... hoffentlich war es euer Investment wert ...

Einen recht schönen gruss

ein anderer veteran

Quote from Dschibait

we could say that this double troop production is only until you reach 75% of your max. troop value (you need a lower amount of these to capitulate)
But this means that bigger players can still get around 25% troops back with that speed factor ... a smaller player wouldn't get such a good benefit from this, since he didn't lose big amount of troops.

I would like to gave small players this benefits, but it is a way between providing this and require it.

ps: i don't know you but i have still contact to blackmen... finally exp or playtime isn't important for me; if you can show a problem with numbers, and you only play this game for a week, i will still look at you. If you bring no calculations or un-real numbers up, which you dosn't see ingame and also no one else get in game, im not sure what this is pointing to.

This 25% recovery sounds more reasonable and relates in a way to the healer. But this still does not solve the issue in comparison to players that lost a similar number of troops but cannot capitulate... maybe instead of an acceleration you could also consider an extended healing period or a decrease in gems needed for healing (up to the max 25%) ...

Fact of the game remains anyway that one can loose troops and the experienced players know that can add up... In my opinion the damoria kingdom is not based on socialism

Thomas i suggest you check your skype then

Some people are handy in excel and combine info in the game to make a complete picture:

Quote from Dschibait

@Kral_Medvidek_K
this calculation isn't explained such easy ... each unit has a different score (value) which is multiplied by the amount in your account. This sum is the (we called it) troop score. This is a part of your military score.
You have to lose a percentage of this score to get the possibility for capitulation.
Basicly this score dosn't say anything, because you can't say if its 1000 rams or 1002 templers or so ... (just an example - this isn't the right compare values)...
So if you build a bunch of spies your military ranking as well as this troop ranking will not grow like you will build the same amount of rams. Also, if you build troops after you lost them, you could maybe come out of this capitulation range.

@dYvorra
im not sure what your feedback from your post should target here ... but on end ok, you have your opinion and i have mine ... we will see our logs what happend here exactly in the next days - and if we need to adjust anything you can clap into your hands and enjoy yourself ...
But talking with a self called veteran about numbers who you didn't get in the last years isn't the right way for me.

Display More

When talking about opinions and sticking to them a solution will never be found.
A focus on military ranking points as such is ineffective. And i am sorry to read your last comment as if i was talking for myself.. which is not the case... you ask for a contribution which i give as general thinking starting from the idea behind the game... The numbers are correct and based on a database shared some time ago with Blackman (maybe you remember him)

So as a (as i understand fruitless given your remark (do you really need to make this kind of remarks in order to justify yourself ???)) last attempt: the basis for thinking in terms of acceleration for capitulators should be: 25 full production castles, this as 100% base... starting from there players above this level should get less capitulation bonuss and players below this more...

If you don t know me then your remark is based on ignorance if you do know me then it is contempt (especially knowing then where i come from the last few years)... i play this game for 10 years now...

Quote from Kral_Medvidek_K

Dschibait,

thank you very much for your reply.
Are you giving no choice but to test the amount of loss troops for capitulation?
Then I have to do it.

P.S.: You all give the wrong numbers of troops. Reality is different.

the numbers are based on the production time and the percentages given ingame... no idea if those have been changed in reality but not in the info

Quote from Dschibait

take this math ... i didn't check it... but lets go for it:

ok, 17billion .. lets talk about the following points:

1. other players => other players can get the half amount in the same 6months interval. Means also around 8,5 billion. So finally we talk about a plus of 8.5 billion (the double factor).
If you want, i can put your daily build troops here - but your board nick is another as ingame, so im not sure if you want to keep that secret who you are ingame.
At all, you didn't get 1/3 of this value with a double speed at this moment in 6months - and you use some of our extras.

It is not specially about me (anyway you know me ;)), this is about the injust appropriation in general. What is happening here is that the attacker(s) who also lost a significant number of troops (we can see that in the hall of fame) and who cannot capitulate are being placed in a disadvantage since their recuperation leads to half number of troops regained compared to a capitulator (it costs troops to kill troops). With this comes the assumption that due to the military ranking and the limiting of 'targets' as well atacker as defender are in a comparable range before the capitulation. The risk of being first agressor is that you get paid and thus loose troops (that is a calculated risk based on the game specifics). Besides the grace period of 6 months to recuperate it is not bad to think about an accelerator but that should be in balance and not just based on feeling sorry someone lost a large amout of troops.

2. buildings and resources
beside the fact that you have to lose also building points means that you lose more building points as you only need to go into capitulation. maybe you will lose almost anything - you see the last capitulations they have big building / castles loses.
With these loses you have to build up again and also get a resource production back.
Sure you can do this with resources from your allies, but finally, you need a rly big amount of resources to get this numbers of troops.
I already wrote it, maybe we disable trade transactions in capitulation that you only can get resources by your own / the mage.

As others have already posted, the loss of building points can be 'managed' by handing over castles to other accounts, even those so small in military ranking that they cannot be attacked and are easy to defend since only small players are in the same military ranking zone. After dissolving the capitulation period one can easily get these castles back.

3. respect to the team and calculations
finally, we dosn't say, and that i already wrote, that there are still adjustments needed, so we need logs to see how this is working. Maybe we see in the next days already that its rly to much, that we decrease it to only 20% extra or so... but at this moment, we want to have a feature that can hold players.

It s not just about holding players isn t it ? It s about keeping the PAYING players.... anyway of course everyone understands that this game needs income to keep it alive... but that should in my opinion also be balanced and righteous to everyone. The veterans (like myself too) know the game and know how to play it.

beside that fact, yes you bring contra against that feature, at all, yes im on the trip to get feedback with suggestions ... this is maybe a false way i should'nt go, but think about it, should i take your feedback here as sirious as other who may provide me suggestions what should be changed/adjusted?

... then to contribute to a solution... at this moment the military ranking does not make a real distinction between 'troops present' and 'troop building capacity'. What i mean to say is that if one plays for a long time one can have a lot of troops but one might not yet have 25 full production castles. That means that the effect of a significant loss has a bigger impact on those who have not 25 full production castles. If something should be done with accelerators then this should be done related to the recuperation capacity.

Its easy to go into a board and write "idont like it, its crapp, its not work, its false calculated" ... but the boss-like post contains suggestions, calculations and finally a discussion / argument basement. Sry but your first posts dosn't had this.

I shall try to keep balanced

regards
Dschibait

Display More

Comments in bold italic under your contribution

Quote from Dschibait

i already put the math here but the team want to keep this math secret (you already see it in your other thread) ... so finally, i will talk with the team to get a midd way, that we can explain that this 2x troop production isn't such a benefit like you write here.

finally i already wrote it, at around place 120 in military ranking it starts to get a benefit if you have ANY pay feature enabled.

i cannot wait to see the explanation since the numbers i posted are based on the game settings... and sure you do not have to go into detail on mil ranking values... (i think with some clever excel analysis i can get close to it myself; but that is not the point)... fights are not being won or lost by points, albeit military or building rankings... they are determined by troops and that is the only thing that counts... and just there this last change is exagerative in the way it is done now. So i am very curious how you are going to explain where my calculation about the 8.500.000.000 bonus troops is wrong...

Quote from Dschibait

we intorduce the capitulation update before your war here
https://board.bitmeup.com/inde…-and-Capitulation-Update/

and we already wrote to get as goal, to keep this player still in our game / in our community. Did you really want to loose the loosing players in last war ?
Players who spent money to get features, and a future, pay for servers etc ... players who want to fight, who want to play all your loved game..
I also would do that if NATO would lose a war, or KN or someone else .. that these mechanics to keep players are in first line for these players who lost and may will stop playing isn't a secret ... im not sure which steps you / or other players would go here ... but now, we have attractive the option to stay in game and come back.

No one argues about the intention and the inicial introduction... this thread is about the newest update which is giving unbalanced benefits... just do your maths (i gave you the elements for it in an earlier post)... WHY would an agressor have the benefit of 8.500.000.000 extra troops bonus because of a capitulation ?

Quote from 08/15

No, you don't have to know.

This is not a goal worth reaching,
that is one (last) oppertunity to
avoid loosing your hole kingdom.

Before we instaled
military ranking
capitulation
ect.
there was no "escape" of any attack/war.
It ended, when you was "finished".
Now you have the chance of keeping some,
to recover and continue to play - and not
from scratch.

You will notice, when you meet the conditions.

Display More

i refer to my earlier post... one can exaggerate in this, in itself valid, goal... what is happening know is a unilateral benefice based on latest occurances (the last war) and the fact that the 'victims' involved are heavy spenders (so the is a economical motivation to make the changes right know in one direction)

If I am willing to talk about taking over the game and invest in it can i then also ask for certain benefits ?

Quote from 08/15

Let's all calm down and go back to a rational
and honest discussion.

We appreciate and reward activity.
Ask yourself, why

Is it really because we favor some player oris it possible, that these are the most active ones
so they will be again and again in any ruffle we
will make?

Leaving the game as it is, is not an option.
As a matter of fact, the number of player
decreased since the migration. To avoid a
shutdown of the game, we have to adjust.
First we try to handle major, than the minor
bugs. Now we are trying to make it more
attractive - not only for those already playing,
but also for any new player to come.

This is in everybodys interest.
Or do you think, that - to cover the costs - we
should better increase the prize of any feature
or even put a prizetag on everything, making
any play without investing money impossible?
That way, we will run with opened eyes into
the shutdown we are trying to avoid.

Any new feature we made and will make, is and
will be monitored.
If we encounter any "problem" we will do some
adjustments - if it turns out as a bad idea, we
will react too.
But not because some player or alliance is the
opinion that it isn't an improvement.

Look at any new feature and come up with some
reasonable arguments, why you think, that it isn't
good. Try to see what we have as its object and
- at best - come up with another solution to achieve
that goal.

Display More

Talking about repairs and bugs... instead of introducing new elements overnight maybe it would also be just to spend energy in repairing the most disturbing flaw and deliver as is promised:

Since at this moment there is no defense bonus... even worse... there is a defense discount: the higher the wall level the less defense value the troops have...