Since many players don't want this to be shared for an actually valid but not starter friendly (not reffering to me) reason, yes you schould stop explaining. 
-
-
Yes We have been in the same alliance. And you know we tried to find out information there and shared it on the alliance forum. That you could not find this information in your current alliance is a major loss. But I don't think it's the job of the owner of the game to explain this lack to you. If he wants it to be known, he must communicate it to everyone, for example in an explanation of the game. Not in an answer to one person in this forum.
Believe it or not, I found our old forum (http://www.dehogelanden.smffy.com/index.php ) and managed to log in to it
Let's see if I can find further information there.@alucard, pls don't
-
Ah nice to hear you again Juflo, I think we even were in the same alliance if I remember correctly. You're Dutch right?
I'm playing this game for 10 years now, got completely destroyed in GE2, started again after some years, then played, stopped again and now I'm back again for a year or so. I knew the rules on how the battle stuff was working, yet it seemed they were changed, but apparently not. So yes I ask here how it works, and apparently I'm not the only one that could use this information.
-
Ok, so the archers attacks first, and they managed to deal the 25% of the damage to the attacker, why is it that the attacker is not running away but still attacking the other defense forces?
Suppose the attacker attacks with 100mil cavalry and the defender has 200mil archers and 100mil armored cavalry:
The archers attack first and can deal the 25% damage, yet the attacker is not running away but keeps attacking those 100mil armored cavalry. What's the use of the archers then if the attacker keeps attacking anyway? -
Ok good, it's clear now and I understand how it works! Thanks!
So the attacker can do his damage which is good. In case of the cavalry, it can do (for example) 1000 units * (130 (base attack strength) + 3*26 (extra laboratory strenght)) = attack strength of 208.000
but now the defender which was light infantry, axemen, archers, knights templars, armored cavalry and paladin: 1000*(15+3*2) + 1000*(40+3*2) + 1000*(50+3*10) + 1000*(80+3*16) + 1000*(200+3*40) + 1000*(100+3*20)= 755.000
208.000 is more than 25% of 755.000 so the defender flees. Now I understand.
Still it doesn't feel logic in my opinion, can't we work something out that the attacker and defender start fighting at the same time in stead of first the attacker and then the defender? At the moment the attacker has an insane advantage over the defender, eventhough the defender spend way more troops defending his castle. I'm not a fan of the idea that 800 defending units have the same effect as 6000 defending units on the attacker. -
Ok now we're getting somewhere:
I'm just going to answer inside the quoteDisplay Moreyou didn't read my answer; my example with the door and 10/100 is based on your example.
The simulator is the same code base like the battle "main" script. So there are only definitions which are handled an other way.
I didn't calculate your example at all, there are different atk / deff strange; and losing something based on the sum of incoming damage and not on pure values (like you did) ...So basicly on your example:
case 1: same size => ok its logical
case 2: defense increase
Attacker first strices against the defender,
- you got the damage dealed but its capped at 25%. So you can't get more damage => logic
- your defense units deal damage and can also don't kill more than 25% => logic
Based on the battle settings; the attacker deals more damage, because he could do more damage BEFORE your battle settings are triggered
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER:
Ok, so what you're saying is that if the attack would have send only one unit, it could deal 25% of it's damage, so it could kill 25% procent of the defenders army? Bcs that is what happened in the simulator with those 100 mil cavalry. Do you really think that is logic? An attacker schould be able to deal soo much damage when it's so heavily outnumbered in my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------case 3: 50% deff battle settings
Attacker first strices against the defender,- you got the damage dealed but its capped at 50%. So you can't get more damage; the damage from attacker isn't much higher as 25% of your => logic
- defender deal the same, still lose only 25% (attacker settings)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER:
Ok, so attacker strikes first, his settings are exactly the same, but oops, somehow he can't do that much damage any more, why? Not because of the battle settings of the defender apparently because you just stated "the attacker deals more damage, because he could do more damage BEFORE your battle settings are triggered"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
case 4: 50% both sides
Attacker first strices against the defender,
- you got the damage dealed but its capped at 50%. So you can't get more damage; => logic (see above)
- you deal now much more damage because you could also deal more damage before, but now the battle settings form attacker is on 50 => logic
So thats why you can deal more damage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER:
Ok, the attacker can now deal 50% of his damage, but still manages to do less damage than when it was on 25%. Why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So and now, tell me why this isn't logic at all. -
this is logical.... There are rounds in an defined amount strikes against an defined amount. If you run all to one door ... one side with 10 ppl, other with 100 ppl... there are still fighting 10/10 in the door.
Nice example on how it is in real life, is this how the simulator works as well?
-
All the things you just summed up isn't about this subject at all, pls anwer on the question.
If you're 100% sure the simulator works as it schould, good! Yet I don't agree on some things with it. For example, a battle is way too fast a draw when both forces have their surrender setting at 25%.
Do you wanna look into that? if the answer is yes, good! Then we can discuss further how we can change it.
If the answer is no, at least give us all te information on how the simulator works so we know what we're doing.I'm not offending you buddy, I just wanna make the game better as you do. You never know if there is a bug in the simulator that has been there for 10 years. I just ask you to look into it and come with a solution I wrote above.
-
An answer to my message please? I'm not saying you changed it by the way, some things are just not logic and I want them to be fixed; even if this is in the game for already 10 years.
-
Hello guys,
I've been playing with the battle simulator and some things doesn't make sense at all to me.
Suppose both attacker and defender have everything build to max (3x20, etc) and both have their surrender setting at 25%:
The attacker attacks with 100 mil. cavalry and the defender has 100 mil. heavy cavalry -> it's a draw and both lose 25% of their troops. that's logic in my opinion.But now, the attacker attacks with the same amount, but the defender now has 100 mil of light infantry, axemen, archers, knights templars, armored cavalry and paladin. -> The battle still ends in a draw eventhough the defender outnumbers the enemy 6:1, and both sides lose 25% of their troops. which means the defender loses a lot more. In fact, it even loses so much, that 1 cavalry unit could kill 1.25 units while the cavalry was actually outnumbered 6vs1. This is not realistic at all and really schouldn't be possible in my opinion.
If the defender puts it's surrender setting on 50% it suddenly wins the battle and loses almost nothing compared to the 25% setting. But when the attacker puts it at 50% as well, the attackers still loses the battle and only being able to kill 0.822 units with 1 cavalry unit. Where is the logic in this again?
A battle is just a gamble at the moment on how you have to set your surrender setting in stead of actually fighting with the troops you have.
So, is it possible this can be changed? If not, I want a detailed report on how the battle simulator works so we can calculate it properly ourselves, if necessary, just give me the coding and I'm fine with it. But now it's way too complicated and not even realistic at all.
-
I don't wanna sound rude, but you need to work on your English communication then. You said in the damoria mail this: "There are value “jumps” from the step range 1-20, 21-50 and over 50."
You just stated that there are only jumps at lvl 21 and 51. Why do you mail us that there are over lvl 50 some jumps as well?
Step range 1-20 means that at lvl 21 there is a jump, 21-50 means another jump at lvl 51, and over 50 we schould just forget then?If we have to try out what you are trying to say to see we understood you correctly... well ehm, let me just put it this way; that's not very professional.
-
@-araluen-
we look into many cases and we saw many times that players raise up the wall and no one can handle this. With this the wall is still important but not the main functionallity.if we got more numbers here we can also adjust this
An what about the value "jumps" over level 50?
-
Yep, I do like the new update as well! But it would be nice if we could know the value "jumps" of the wall above level 50.
Making the wall weaker for a contested castle is a good idea as well, but is -95% not a bit too much?
-
what? a multi acount is defined by his name... 1 player can play 1 account in a world ... not more ...
I'm not going to call any names, but there are a decent amount of players that controll more than one account on the same server. You might wanna investigate this a bit better.
-
I fully support these ideas!
As you said Dschibait, this schould already have been implemented.Yet I don't think it's a good idea for relocating your secondary castles ones a month. That would take too long if you took over an inactive player that had +-10 castles.
-
All these castles in black I can't attack any more sadly
-
Yeah, I can attack players that are 12 times bigger (in points) than me but simply because they have so much more castles that player gets into my attack range, eventhough I'm sure he has 10 times the amount of troops.
-
Then first we need to be able to attack each other.
I can't attack more than half of the players that took castles from my friends in c29 any more. -
@Ybeswar
this many of this attackers (aggrassors) are still in top 50 and still attakable by most of top players (like before). Smallers players are now safe that this pl players can't attack them.
This is what players want in that war discussion thread.I can't attack the agressors in c29 anymore while I was actually having succes taking over castles or demolishing them. Thank you for not being able to attack them anymore
-
I am not a supporter or opponent of Polish players. But. The probability of this is <10%.
я не сторонник и не противник Польских игроков. Но. Вероятность этого < 10%.Yet she has a point that money is more and more important in this game. I've seen multiple people building there walls from 0 -> 80 in a couple of minutes for example.
