If you read the original post you'll be able to see why I'm speaking here.

That's one way that you can do it but there are better and more effective methods than just spamming support and single troop attacks.

You wouldn't have seen a fight from me because...

#1. You weren't a target.
#2. With the new update, you and I aren't able to fight.
#3. Battle reports were probably spammed.

Just as you're able to make your arguments as to why the spy trick shouldn't be changed, I'm able to argue why it should be. I've listened to everyone's arguments here addressing it and I'm not swayed at all because a lot of the arguments in favor of not changing it are weak.

Just because everyone's used it means that it shouldn't be changed?

The last part of your post is irrelevant to the discussion and adds nothing to it so rather than trying to make yourself look any more foolish, why not try adding something constructive here?

Quote from Juflo

It is normal that when you send troops as support, that the troops report the battles they see to you. They are still your troops. They are not from the owner of the castle.
If someone doesn't control the support he gets, he can't control the reports that are send.
The spy trick is NOT a bug.

I think this topic needs to be in "Discussions Game" and not here

If that's the case then you'd get a battle report revealing an enemies troops if you had the surrender option on as the attacker since some of your troops return to you, right? After all, they were in the battle and seen what happened.

Just because something can be done in a game doesn't mean that it's functioning as it should be. Take for example the glitch some people used to build massive armies, I heard plenty of people complaining about that one and accusing NATO members of exploiting it recently.

If you can't get a spy report when you lose a spy attack using actual spies, why should you get one for losing? That really doesn't sound like a part of the game that's functioning properly, does it? This is a function multi's have easily taken advantage of many, many times.

Quote from Juflo

I see nothing fair and reasonable in limiting the use of one of the troops. Some troops have some hidden talents. And with spies one of them is that 1 well-placed spy can sometimes come with just as much valuable information as an entire army of attacking spies.
Finding out the hidden values of troops is a great thing in this game.
Having more knowledge of the game than your opponent is a fair advantage
If your opponents can spend more time in the game sending spies to your castles, then you can send back, is a fair advantage for the opponents.

But a player that sends for example, one light infantry to an enemies castle as support to collect a battle report of every troop in it is the game functioning as it should be? It's not even a spy unit.

I will correct you on your one statement highlighted above. When using the spy trick the only information that you can get is how many troops are in the defending castle, it doesn't tell you research levels, building levels, construction sites, resource amounts, etc. so there is no way that they can give you as much valuable information as a successful attacking army of spies.

You're saying spies when any unit's capable of being used for the spy trick. If you were sending actual spy attacks against defending spies it'd be a different story because you need to actually win to get a spy report instead of losing the battle to get one like you do with the spy trick. Does anyone really believe that that's how the mechanics of this game were meant to function? Do we really get spy reports when our spies can't successfully win a battle? No.

Quote from S-in-Wonderland

Lord Dragoon: to be honest, it is linked to the fact that those who send troops in supports in friendly castles can thus receive reports of battles
but some variables make the strategy game much more exciting
Do you really want to prevent players from helping themselves with support? if this yes, I consider this unfair
btw, sorry for poor english translation

My suggestion above doesn't suggest making it so that your alliance and its allies can't support you, it actually states that they're the only ones that would be able to with the way the game currently works. It would still allow your guild and its allies to see your battle reports but it wouldn't allow for an enemy guild to send a single troop to your castle and have it attacked by someone else to get a battle report revealing the troops you have their, it'd actually make your enemies have to win battles with their spies to see what you have in your castle.

I'm not stopping players from supporting themselves or from letting their alliance or allies from stopping them, my suggestion stops enemies from sending support troops to their enemies castle to get battle reports revealing how many troops are there whether they win or lose the battle. If makes an enemy alliance or player win a successful spy attack in order to see how many armies are in the castle.

What exactly were you trying to add to this conversation, Beule?

There's no problem with the spies, the thing we're discussing is the spy trick.

The way you've just explained it, it sounds a bit one sided. Smaller members of an alliance can send the support without fear of retaliation? So what you're saying is that it's ok for people to take part in a trick to get information on an enemies castle without fear of retaliation?

Explain to me how this is supposed to bring about fair play and balance for the now and future of Damoria. After all, that is the goal, right?

I will throw an idea out there that I believe is fair and reasonable.

Support may only be sent to members of your own alliance or to alliances that your alliance is allied with in your alliance's diplomacy. Support may also be sent to inactive castles. If at a later time the developers decide to add a "Friends" function support could also be extended to people you're friends with.

My argument is simple.

I may not be a novice player as I've fought in many wars here in Damoria and ran a very successful alliance in my day but, I will say that wars aren't won with just bits and pieces of information such as just knowing how many troops are in a castle.

An alliance that works together effectively can gather a lot of information on their enemy before the first attacks are made and during the war. If an alliance is not capable of successful spy attacks against an enemy, they really shouldn't provoke them using a simple spy trick as back in my day it was considered an act of aggression and met with consequences that either had them kicked out of their alliance or had war declared on their alliance.

Once an enemy alliance sees that you're using that trick it can become far less effective because they'll just watch for and send your support troop home.

That's the difference between a novice player and an experienced player, experienced players know cheap battle tactics and how to avoid them, novices are still trying to learn them. Alliances really shouldn't be teaching their members such simple things, they should actually be teaching them how to work together, play and how to really fight so that thy can defend not only themselves but help defend their guild as well.

I do agree that something should be done about the spy trick as it has made spies less necessary since the beginning of Damoria. That trick alone can really turn the tide of battles and wars taking away from the strategy the attacker needs to use to win.

Quote from NikolasSA

This is just one of several selling methods. There are two sides - the seller and the buyer. What side are you on? Are you a player or game owner?
Это просто один из нескольких способов продажи. есть две стороны - продавец и покупатель. Ты на какой стороне? Ты игрок или владелец игры?

I, just like yourself am a customer. I pay for goods or services provided to me by bitmeup.

I'm free to make complaints, make suggestions, etc. but I'm not about to sit here and demand that they do things my way just because I say so.

Let's say that I go and buy a new radio from a store, just because I buy that radio doesn't mean that I have any right to demand that they have to put bigger speakers in it or modify it in any way. It doesn't mean that as a customer that I can tell them how to run their store. If I don't like the goods or services they provide me, I'm free to take my business elsewhere, know what I mean?

This concludes todays class. Common sense 101.

Quote from NikolasSA

The alliance system is long dead. We have a game conflict (as a business conflict in real life) between several groups of players. All alliances must be disbanded. Worlds must be reorganized - Active Veteran players (without alliances and restrictions on attack and support) - World 1 and Farmers-Novices (all players are in alliances, rules of attack of war between alliances and players are defined) - these players must be sent to World 2 The rules of transition between worlds should be defined. We, the players must decide what the game should be! Discuss, vote and make decisions, and developers must implement our decisions.

Why should all alliances be disbanded? There should be a reason for this.

Why make players move to new worlds when they're already settled into the worlds they're already in?

We have a suggestion thread where the developers may read our ideas to improve the game, we are able to freely use it to post any ideas or suggestions we might have for the game and the developers are then free to implement what they believe will improve the game.

The development of this game is not a democracy, it's run by a business, therefore, their house, their rules and we just have to play by them but we are free to come and go as we choose.

I left you a work around for the attack protection in your private messages, Dschibait.

I won't go blabbing how to get around it but maybe you can brain storm a little and see if it can be improved based off of how the work around works.

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...

i talked about the 25% attack range by @Lord Dragon
maybe it is failed at bigpoint times; but i didn't get why someone should drop there troop strainght?

The way BigPoint had it set up was by troop strength.

------------------------------- Deleted due to work around being exposed.

Quote from Weydie

Wish I was drunk because then the weekend already started.I think you don't understand. And by calling someone drunk or claiming that someone is talking out of their backend is a good way to start a conversation. Better to ask questions first. But hey, maybe that's the way you like to communicate.

I don't want a council where every alliance is working together, but a council to talk about how to save this game. And maybe it is good that the developers of the game will be included as well, like araluen sugested. All together we should make this work.

And to comment on your reason why the biggest are the biggest.
That is not entirely true. Yes players became big because of hard work and winning battles. But that not entirely the case.
- A lot of players did not participate in any war the last few years. That is a very big reason why they have lots more troops then others who are fighting.
- NATO has been a big alliance and with every player that quits, castles got devided. So free castles.
- Playing farmerama is a way to grow without losing troops and grow, and grow.
All reasons that it has nothing to do with skills.

And not whiping out every alliance when they where little is a little of saving the game. And nothing but normal. If this would have happend, there would be 3 alliances left, and no war and no need to build troops, because everybody is save.

But with all the bonds and pacts it is not saving at all.

Display More

You did bash a friend of mine when you said that he was destroying the game so I'm not inclined to show a lot of respect to someone that bashes my friends. If you'd like respect, I ask that you show it, it's a reasonable thing to ask.

I do happen to know some of the members in NATO pretty well, I was once their alliance leader, some others, I was a long time ally. I've seen them war and grow, wars helped them grow into the giants they are today. I know some of them grew much faster during wars, especially compared to playing farmerama as it's called, I grew rapidly during the wars, my empire was paid for with the blood of my enemies which were numerous.

I know the end result of going into endless and countless wars, I've seen it first hand and I'd prefer to not see it again, especially now that Damoria doesn't have a steady flow of new players.

Quote from -araluen-

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.

Before even trying to implement something like that it's always good to have a test run with people on a private server to see if it can be exploited or worked around. If we had to do it ourselves, who would enforce it? People would have to play global police and that in itself could cause further issues.

It's a problem without a real easy solution.

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


I Hope that I'm not overstepping my bounds anywhere but being that I haven't been warned I think I'm safe.

Since the game staff are reading this, there is a way to really take advantage of this new capitulation deal you all have going on here.

Display More

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.

Quote from Jendrzej1

you are such a small player and unknown because I asked. It was not an important question to write here. do not write about it.

Here we talk about situation in war .

Ouch. My feelings are hurt now.

Speaking of small players though, how long have you been playing and you only have 195 billion points? I'm a returning player who is known after years of being away and am still remembered by old guildmates and allies. What do I care if you know who I am or not? To me, you're nobody but you're fun to laugh at.

I do think that I struck a nerve and offended you. I can get you a box of tissues to make up for it if you want? I really didn't mean to hurt your little feelings and all. Maybe you could try being a little less sensitive?

Quote from Jendrzej1

the attacks have come. many have withdrawn their attacks. many like to attack in the night bonus. It's time to start the war.

Lord Dragon - Do not insult me and my players (I'm doing that just fine on my own).
when top 1 is afraid of a war with a small alliance, it means that it is not worth top (I say that after I prove how brave I am when I have to use a union to attack a smaller alliance).

Did I strike a nerve? Have I offended you by putting my name in bold, enlarged and in a colored font? I was just trying to make it easy for you since you obviously couldn't see it above my profile pic. I was making it as simple as I could for you but I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand that.

Which of your members have I insulted? If you guys are insulted because I said something about we should be charitable and start passing out diapers to the whiners then you're just as guilty as I am about insulting your members because you're admitting that your members are whiners since I named none of them in my post but pointed out that there were whiners in this thread.

Quote from Juflo

But JG union wants to fight Nato. Didn't you read that? But Nato does not want to fight without LGH. And LGH didn't mind attacks on BR at first. Only after that BR, the 7th biggest alliance of Damoria with years without war and the possibility to build troops, didn't last for more than a few days they got upset.
Read what Beule writes about BR. in this topic. It is said they lost 900 castles. But those were not all taken. The castles of the active ones were mostly demolished. Even sending some fake attacks was enough. The castles of the inactives were taken. If you do not know the game you played for years, if you do not know how to defend, how to attack , how to conquer in a war game ...... what did you do?

You guys have been NATO this, NATO that, blah blah blah. It goes on and on and on about how NATO sets the rules for the server and none of that seemed to be an issue until JG started a war with a smaller alliance with its union and when JG gets attacked here comes the whining about killing the game and how Hoch is responsible for the downfall of the game, etc. etc.

Maybe we should charitable and start handing out diapers to the ones whining about not getting their way. You start a war, you accept full responsibility for what follows whether you're victorious, get wiped out or end up biting off more than you could chew.

Don't want to fight? Don't fight, it's simple, right?

So... we're friends with everyone and JG and their union wants to war us instead of sitting down at the table and talking? They want to go to war with only NATO like they pick and choose which alliances they want to fight when they go against a union.

Is it possible to talk logically at a negotiations table with these guys?

For crying out loud, the JG leader asked me in a private conversation what my in game name is...
Can anybody here answer that question for him? I'll give you a hint, follow the arrow.

Lord Dragoon <----

I tried to encourage peace talks because I know first hand how much fun Damoria used to be when we could war against big alliances, the battles were great, I loved it! I was saddened when the great wars stopped though because there wasn't anyone left to fight, the game was incredibly boring, I was the biggest player there, the largest army, charging full steam into every war and I'd like to see those days return but how can that happen when you have five alliances ganging up on one smaller one? That's not a war, it's a slaughter!

Our union I can only remember fighting at our side one time, against a cheating admin that started wars with every guild on the server. Other than that, if there was a war we could handle our business and our allies could handle theirs, if they needed us, we were there but each of our great alliances was more than capable of handling itself.

Hoch said himself, we aren't trying to set rules.

I personally would love to see and take part in wars, not slaughters. Those are the kinds of "wars" that destroy games. We already have a dying playerbase so let's gang up on smaller alliances and wipe them out cause that's only helping the issue, right?

English server.

I actually lost count of how many wars we fought but I can tell you that for a few years all we did was warred everyday, sometimes against single alliances, sometimes against unions but we had fun until there were basically only noob alliances left to fight.

I really wouldn't expect an alliance to lose a war when it gangs up on one smaller alliance with several other alliances. I guess we did things a little differently.

I wasn't the founder of DILLIGAF, I started out as a member and in our first war there against SPQR we were losing ground, sadly. I made a friend there on the War Council I spoke to I discussed strategies with him helped in that aspect of the war and after a couple of days the war changed direction and I was promoted to a member of the War Council later to become the head of the War council and leader of DILLIGAF after a few successful wars.