Ich habe bemerkt, dass wenn ich eine Versteigerung gewinne, dass das Gegenstand nicht sofort ins Inventar übertragen wird, sondern als Fund bei einer späteren Mission ausgegeben wird.
Wieso?
Das heisst,
Die gekauften Gegenstände darf man weiterhin nicht wieder versteigern, oder?
Here's a suggestion for making non-Titan items more interesting:
How about a bonus to the values if you equip a knight will all items having the same type of armor, e.g. all demon forged items.
I suppose it would make sense to NOT do that for Titan items, because that would defeat the purpose of trying to make the lesser types more interesting.
I find the price of extra storage slots to be so low as to make the cost meaningless. You'd don't have to think about whether it is worth spending the Thaler or not -- you only have to think about how many slots even make sense.
I'm sure there are many other players who have way more Thaler than me, but I already have accumulated 8M, so I could theoretically buy 8000 extra slots. I bought 10, just to have a small buffer.
Is there any limit to the slots now? Or can you buy until you run out of money?
I can understand people needing more than the original 20 slots. You could have as many as 20 knights, and you might want to keep on hand an assortment of items to experiment with, focusing on offense, defense, blood damage, crits or blocks. If you went nuts on that, and had an alternate item for each slot for each knight, then considering there are 10 items to equip per knight, you would require 20 knights x 10 items per knight = 200 slots, and you would still need another 20 to 40 slots for auctioning items.
I don't bother putting up for auction items that I know no one will be interested in buying. I sell them off to the NPC immediately.
I don't know the purpose of trying to optimally equip 20 knights, at least as regards tournaments. Maybe it is important later when you can deploy them in the game?
You can only enter a few knights in a tournament. So you equip 10 knights in different ways, and then choose 3 of them to fight to see how they perform. After that you might swap a few items around between knights.
All the knights you have which exceed the number which can compete in a tournament are useful for mainly for doing quests to obtain more items, and otherwise act as an extra 10 storage slots.
I am avoiding use of a spreadsheet by doing a hand-me-down method. I have organized my knights from best to worst, and the best knight gets any new item that is better than what he already has. The next knight down trades his item for that one, and on down the list until the weakest knight trades out an item, which is then either auctioned or sold to the NPC.
How I determine if one item is better than another is not based on the market price, but rather me looking at the stats and doing my own mental calculation and weighing what I think will play a bigger role in determining the outcome of a battle. I won't know if I'm right until we start with the tournaments.
Yeah, it was a bit of an adventure. I still got a laugh out of it.
I was satisfied with my 10 attacks. I wasn't at the top, but not far down in the rankings of what I was going for (resources). I was thinking that given the 3 day (=30 attack) playing limit, and the amount of troops to expend, going for less cost efficient but bigger absolute value squares was a good strategy.
I knew that other players would come in later in the day, play slower and more carefully, and push me down in the rankings, but when I checked I was astounded to see how far down. Then I noticed that they all had 50 attacks to my 10 
So it was back to the gold rush, and I temporarily got my ranking back up near the top, but my troops are mostly expended now. I'll pick up a few small squares over the next couple of days.
>> Verstehe ich das richtig, das Du vorschlägst niedrigstufigen Rittern, deren Stärke, Präzision
ect., die durch das, sich an der Stufe orientierende, Training limitiert ist, die Verwendung von Ausrüstung, die diesen Nachteil ggf. negieren könnte, zu verwehren
Ja.
Die Erhöhung von Stärke durch die Stufen macht verhältnismässig wenig aus im Vergleich zu der Rüstung. Stellen Sie folgendes Szenarien vor: einige Spieler investieren viel Zeit, ihre Ritter auf Missionen zu senden, über Monate bearbeiten sie diese auf Stufe 50, und sammeln gute Rüstung.
Nun kommt ein fauler Spieler mit ein Ritter auf Stufe 1. Seine Kollegen kaufen im ein paar billige Rüstungsstücke für zig Millionen ab, effektiv ihm einige hundert Millionen Thaler geben. Dann versteigern sie Stufe 50 Rüstungsstücke, mit der Absicht, nur er hätte genüg Thaler die zu kaufen. So übertragen sie ihm Rüstungsstücke Stufe 50 und erhalten ihr Geld gleich zurück. Nun kann er mit seinen Stufe 1 Ritten im Tournier gehen und mit den anderen mithalten, ohne sich zu bemühen.
Wenn aber, sein Stufe 1 Ritten nur Rüstung bis Stufe 6 oder 11 verwenden dürften, müsste er gleich wie allen anderen seinen Ritter avancieren. Er kann immerhin von der Hilfe seinen Kollegen profitierieren, müsste aber mindesten einige Missionen machen.
Und übrigens, ich sehe wie einige Rüstungsstücke für mehrere Millionen die Hände wechseln. Es sieht aus wie dirigierte Konzentration vom Geld anstatt eine echte Steigerung.
Wie dem auch sei, eigentlich war es der Markt der mir erst zu Denken gab. Wenn die meisten Spieler Ritter auf -- sagen wir -- Stufe 20 oder höher haben, wird der Markt nur von Rüstungsstücke von Stufe 18 und 19 gefüllt. Ein neuer Spieler, der erst anfängt sein Ritten zu trainieren, wird kaum ein Verkäufer für seinen durch Missionen gefundenen Rüstung finden. Wer hat nun interesse, ein Stück Rüstung von Stufe 5 oder 10 zu kaufen? Niemand. Es gibt zuviele bessere alternativen.
D.h. wer später im Spiel kommt hat den Zug verpasst, wenn es um verkaufen geht, obwohl er umgekeht ein Vorteil beim kaufen hat.
Ich habe überlegt, wie man es interessant machen könnte, Rüstung von allen Stufen zu versteigern.
Ritter Level vs. Ausrustung Level
Ich habe bisher nicht bemerk, ob es eine Einschränkung gibt, was für Level Ausrustung ein Ritter tragen kann. Also, wenn es schon sowas gibt, dann gut.
Wenn es sowas nicht gibt, dann erwähne ich die Idee, dass es bzg. dem Markt ältere Gegestände einen Restwert geben könnte, wenn z.B. ein Ritter nicht wahlos alles tragen könnte.
Auf die andere Seite, wenn man die Beschränkung des Inventars auf 20 Gegenstände betrachtet, in Zusammenhang mit der 24 Std. Steigerung, dann müssten die alten Sachen einfach Weg.
Hintergrund:
Ich sehe im Markt, dass es eine Art Kurve oder Welle gibt, bzg. Level. Wenn ein Gegenstand auf dem Markt kommt, ist anzunehmen, dass der Verkaufer für alle sein 10 oder 20 Ritter bereits etwas besseres besitzt. Sonst warum das Gegenstand verkaufen, anstatt einem Ritter zu erteilen?
Das bedeutet, mann kann Anhand des Marktangebots schätzen, was das höchste und durchschnittliche Levels der Ritter sind. Zurzeit z.b. höchstes Level etwas über 20, Durchschnitt 15 bis 16.
Für diese Ritter (oder deren Spieler) gibt es kaum mehr Interesse an z.B. ein Level 9 Gegenstand, egal ob es Qualität 100 aufweist.
Aber auch ein neuer Spieler, der gerade mit seinen Ritter angefangen hat, würde sich nicht dafür interessieren, angenommen, ein Level 1 Ritten kann ein Level 15 Gegenstand billig erwerben und tragen.
Wenn aber ein Level 1 Ritter z.B. nur Gegenstände bis Level 5 tragen dürfen, dann hätten auch Gegenstände mit niedrigen Levels einen Marktwert.
Wie gesagt, ich weisst nicht wie man das mit dem Inventar vereinbaren könnnte. Es ist nur eine Idee.
Feedback
Questions
(1) Are we going to get to keep the knights we are leveling up during the test phase?
I have invested some hours into trying out the features,
At this point, if the knights are going to be reset, any more time I invest would be wasted.
(2) What is the purpose of "Blutungsschaden" ("Damage")?
It's one of the stats that is only displaying in German, but I assume that in English it would be "Damage" or "Battle wounds". One of my knights has a high total, which doesn't seem to go down, i.e. heal up. If the damage exceeds the "Lebel" ("Life"), do I lose the knight?
Should it be only the damage from the previous battle and reset itself for the next battle, or should it slowly heal up?
I know you are still working out the rules for tournaments. I am wondering if you already considered blocking knights who have already fought in a tournament from swapping out equipment with knights who have not yet fought in that tournament?
Now that people are talking about it, I see a mix of English and German, but since I'm fluent in both it didn't bother me once I started concentrating on playing.
I refreshed my browser cache to be sure I'm seeing the latest texts. I set my language in the game to English.
English
German
I find it interesting that completely different strategies had similar overall results.
I used the large number (200) of attacks per day to open paths to sections where I could attack larger, more expensive, residences with bonuses from 0.7% to over 1%. I was in a hurry and didn't spend any time trying to calculate ratios between costs and bonuses to find the most cost effective residences. I used almost all my resources in the first 2 days, and the remaining on the 3rd day attacking smaller squares.
My result: 409 residences, 146.00% resource bonus.
In the past, smaller residences have been more effective, with a better ratio of bonus to cost, but what I see in the tally is other players like this:
Other player: 1400 residences, 146.10% bonus. 7 days of work instead of 3, almost 1000 more times clicking a residence, and... same result
I did get a couple of hundred free mage spells for taking the medium and large residences, which resulted in a fair amount of bonus resources. My understanding is that you don't get free mage spells for the small residences, so in that respect, this time around bigger and fewer was better.
Here are some ideas for discussion:
The stated purpose of the sabotage feature is to allow a player who is presumably close to another player in the rankings to pull the other player down, in order to get up a rank.
Since only the top 30 ranks are shown, and no one knows the rankings of the players lower down, there is no obvious incentive to sabotage an unlisted player. The only incentive would be in the meta-game, to preemptively damage a known capable competitor.
If you are not even close to the top 30, then in the world of the game, sabotaging another player doesn't get your kingdom anything. You're presumably doing as a player it to help an alliance member or ally. And this is precisely the area ripe for abuse.
So one idea might be that you are only allowed to conduct sabotage if you would have a legitimate reason, i.e. you are ranked in the top 30, and looking to get higher, and would only be allowed to sabotage players who are currently ranked higher than you.
This would mean that it is useless for players to join the game with 200% sabotage and not do anything. They'd never get into the top 30 without making any effort, and taking that much sabotage would make it difficult even if they did make an effort. So that would get rid of spoilers, and make it more of an individual battle between the players. There could still be some coordination between alliance members -- if they were both in the top 30. At which point they'd also be competing with each other, sort of like team drivers of a Formula 1 team.
Another idea would be to weaken the effects of sabotage by making it a one-off reduction.
I like the idea suggested about, that the effects weaken over time, as the saboteurs have a greater chance of getting caught the longer they continue.
I like the Crusades game within a game. I have played it 3 times and gotten successfully better with my strategy. This time (game ending on May 14, I think the 3rd one), purely on points I would have ended at rank 5 in the Glory category, but due to massive sabotage, ended up at rank 27.
Once I was below rank 20, with little time left in the game, I don't know why anyone even bothered to add on more sabotage.
However, it is apparent to me that with the current rules, it is a waste of time for me to play the Crusades anymore. My Glory score was taken down close to 30,000 points, which means that there had to be a lot of sabotage, at least a couple of hundred.
I assume that this is going to happen to me every single time I get in the top 20, so what is the point of even trying?
It seems like something that the bigger alliances can easily dominate, because they can tell a large number of members to join the game, take 200% sabotage, and then sabotage any player who isn't in their alliance. They don't have to actually invest any time in playing the game, they can wait until the last hour of the last day, and then put their 200% of sabotage on whoever they are told to bump out of the top 20.
So as a lone player, or a member of a small alliance, you can invest a great deal of time in thinking of a good strategy for allocating your 500%, spend a lot of time looking for just the right squares, build up a big score, and then get little to show for the hours invested.
