@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'

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

I suggest we all go in capitulation mode

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'

Quote from Dschibait

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

Quote from juanjosear

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 ?

Quote from Dschibait

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 (<-- 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)

Hi Dschibait, apparently this hall of fame has a funny effect... if i get a spy attack and i loose it i normaly do not get to see the atacker... now if i, as defender, decide to publish the report in the hall of fame, once of a sudden all details are revealed including the name of the atacker... was this meant to be so ?

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

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

Quote from Dschibait

es ist also ein "unglücklicher" Nebeneffekt wenn mehr Spieler Damoria spielen ... interessante Denkweise.

Ja sonst höhrt es nie auf

Quote from Dschibait

the report from this
https://damoria.bitmeup.com/ba…l0VCrZp4ua5wade5xtVwPLvgd

is also ingame with the detailed number of troops; thats because the defender has capitulated. The attacker knows the exact number of troops by calculating this backwards.

the other cases:
also supporters can post these reports - supporters had the fully report with any informations.

a capitulation of the defender does not automaticly lead to a normal arithmitic calculation since it depends on the defense settings as wel as the settings of the attacker who also can capitulate. In this report it was a spy attack that was not won so there was no info for the atacker...

and how about this one ( i know the defender did not publish the report) ? Nor do i have support there

plus i can see some infos in reports from which i know that the defender had not given permission to put it in the hall of fame... so how do these reports become fully available with all details of defending troops ?

In other wordings: who decides and has this been tested thouroghly if it works ?

for example:

Quote from Dschibait

if you don't win, you will not see this.

i have no support in any of these castles but in my hall of fame i see the info

and how can the info of a lost castle be revealed ? since there is no defender anymore to make a decision to publish ?

and did the players who put a report on this hall of fame know this in advance ?

since i have a large number of reports of which i can see defending troop numbers

ah ok so if the defender decides to publish his defending troops are being revealed ?

so why can i see all infos on each of the attacks in the top 10 ?

Uhhmmm i don t want to spoil the efforts you make to get something going in the game ... but until now it was a good habit that attackers who loose battles did not get infos on the troops inside the castle they attacked unless they won a spy attack... now in the hall of fame i see you give away this information for free ?