"a solution for the "not even fights" in last weeks ...
you wrote that i do the exact other wise as the team or the community thinks ... i dont thinks so. so what?"

Aye you did the exact opposite, I suggested that the players and the game developers schould be arround the same table to discuss the game. In stead you come up with something new, unannounced and push it through the same day without warning WHILE there is a war going on. That's what I call the exact opposite!

And I like you're looking for a solution to have some kind of a fair fight, but this ain't it, like, at all.

Quote from Dschibait

@-araluen-

there was no rly good idea or solution for that. Why you think that i do the otherwise than our team or you expect? I read many times that even fights are a good way...
I read that the alliances think about a police system where only a range attack +- troop value is may come up. And i don't think that you could your troops such secret like you think.

to the senate stuff... read the above stuff.

A solution for what? I called out a lot of problems in my message...
What do you even mean with "Why you think that i do the otherwise than our team or you expect?" and "range attack +- troop value is may come up."?

BitMeUp, pls I beg you to be reasonable and delay this update with at least two months.

I don't get this at all! I proposed to sit arround the table with the players and game developers to work out the problem we have with the game at the moment (see killing the game topic) and now bitMeUp does exactly the oposite! Very well done...
https://board.bitmeup.com/inde…illing-the-game/?pageNo=4

Not only the solutions, which I will discuss a bit further, but also the timing is just horribly bad. We are at war, I have attacks running on my castles and if I lose I can't even take them back again next day. Seems about right

Not only because of the implementation of that military strength thing, but also because of the senate. I won't be able to re-attack my castles that might be overtaken because the player is in game way stronger than me. Eventhough he is situated on the other side of the map so he doesn't even have time to sent support to defend the castles he just took from me, which meant I could simply retake my castles. Oh but no, wait a minute, even if I'm able to attack him, I can't take back my castles because I only have five main attack castles and that won't be enough bcs of this senate change. I wonder who I'm fighting now, JG &co or BitMeUP.

Also, my entire game plan was to stay small but build up an army the enemy doesn't expect, I guess I can throw that plan with the rest of the dirt you just implemented.
Sorry I'm so harsh, but I'm really furious about this, we didn't even get a warning!

Let's end with a positive note, I do like that barbarian thing, if it wasn't for the bad timing...

Quote from Dschibait

i didnt talked about your idea ... your idea wasnt such good ... to many options to break this out by adding tousends of small players to get a bad average or if you dont go for average anyone can go out of war range by dont joining an alliance or creating a 1men alliance...

Then we can add the function that when a war is declared, it is impossible to leave your alliance. That schouldn't be too hard to program.
And talking about adding a thousand players... ehm, I don't think we even have half that are active in this game so that is kinda irrelevant.

Quote from Dschibait

i also didn't talk about newbies protection.. i only said that this function u want is already impelemented (not 25% - its only 10%)

How can you even say that the function I want is already implemented in the game? The function we now have is only player based which is (sorry for this) kinda stupid since everybody is in an alliance.
I'm talking about a system where it is possible to start a war officialy on paper with some rules (programming by devs) that I stated above. The 10% protection is not even coming close to what I'm trying to say.

Quote from Dschibait

there is no bigpoint ... and game devs / the team is reading this here also.

We already had an 3Mill and 10% rule in the game...
So based on this, this isn't a problem at all.

Ehm yes, BitMeUp I mean
I'm not talking about protecting new players here, I'm talking about making a system for a fair war proces.

Quote from Lord Dragoon

BigPoint did try something years ago where they tried to make PvP more balanced by making it so you could only fight other people with around the same troop strength as you, I think it was within about a 10 - 25% range. The idea was decent but it failed miserably and I can only imagine how full their inbox was because after they implemented it one alliance declared war on the entire server to prove that it didn't work and the biggest players were still able to attack smaller and weaker players simply by dropping their troop strength. The protection they implemented was removed within a couple of days of being introduced.

That's why we have to get the game developers and the players arround the same table so there won't be any mistakes.
What we can do as well is implementing the rules ourselves and hand it out to BigPoint. If they don't wanna do it we will have to register it ourself in excel and just play it fair.

We can keep discussing this but it all comes down to one rather complex problem:

In the past (GE2 for me) almost all alliances were still growing at a similar rate and it was possible to start a fair fight because the alliances had almost the same amount of points. This is not the case anymore because some players (including me) stopped playing for a year or more and got behind what lead to this unequal situation. How do we solve this? We don't because it's impossible.

So, what can we do then?
1) Fight anyway which will lead to the downfall of a big union -> someone ends on top and starts "ruling the game" and we're back in the same situation as we are now. NATO didn't become the biggest alliance by just playing farmera, they actually won a big war.

2) Play farmera which made me stop playing this game.

3) We can sit arround the table WITH the game developers and start building a system that makes a war fair again; this will be game changing though. For example (these are just some ideas so don't destroy them but please try to think how we can make them better):

Declaring a war schould be officially implemented in the game. Declaring war can only be possible if the sides differ a certain amount of points (max 1.5:1 for example). After this war declaration, other alliances won't be able to intervene in this fight so it stays fair.
The war is won when a side lost "30-40%" of it's points. After that, that side can't be attacked any more and will get an attack protection of a certain time (3 months, example). This way, the lost side can regain strength and try to avenge his attacker after the attack protection.

A side can contain multiple alliances or individual players. The only problem is that this has to be registered or there will be problems, that's where the game developers come in handy.
--------------------------------

I don't really see another solution. The game grew too big and implementing both worlds kinda caused this problem to be honest. There has to be rules that can put this game on it's rails again like it was in the times of DLL and the Russians and after that Jendrzej&co. At the moment it's just one big mess where people are playing the (yes-no-yes-no) game. So pls stop the attacks, try to sit arround the table in that skype council thingy you guys have, try to add some game developers to see what is possible and save the game!

Kind regards,
-araluen-