yes, i am.
the team and also me are checking this the whole time... did you think we are closing our eyes if many players may gone from this game which has such a less amount left?
Well then...
If 43.1 billion military points against 9.1 billion military points is a fair fight according to the team I have nothing else to say.
Good luck.
thats not true ... we already had this military strength value before you started your fight and your battle was rly even ... you only thought that you have an not even fight because of simple one point.
Your players are not prepared for an fight. You have inactives, you have farmerama players. The polish alliance with more active players hasn't not more points like your whole alliance - but you can't bring them up in that fight.
the war between BR and PL would also happend with this update... the military points are to even that this would protect you.
Are you sure it was an even fight?
I also did not receive anything yet. Also is it even worth it to attack them?
I attacked a camp with a fear for paladins.
I received very few resources and lost a bunch of paladins (Which you can't even heal 25% from like a normal attack??).
its (like i wrote but you can't maybe read english well) a first step... so we want to bring here something up to safe players from bigger ones. This was maybe a bit fast and not fully working - thats why we wrote thats the first dev status.
Finally - players who are in the attacking position don't like this step, players in the opposite are like this... You can't get all of them lucky. We want to hold as much player as possible in the game (maybe you don't saw it, but damoria hasn't so many players anymore)
It is a shame then nothing was done when an alliance was attacked by a 5 times larger union. But when these aggressors get attacked by other players all of a sudden there is a new protection. Where was this protection when it was needed then? Why wasn't it introduced when they were the attackers? Why did it take 3 weeks to do this? Why is this put in place when the most aggressive player (that made a LOT of players quit) seem to be losing? We lost a lot of our castles during these last 3 weeks and can't even get them back in time now...
I understand that the team is doing there best, but if you see the reaction from all players, should this been done differently?
World 2 start event...
It's true. This is "Dragon Poker"Это правда. Это "Драконий Покер"
A well thought through update...
i will talk with the team if we provide you some additional build fields for a rebuild.But in general, you only need more attacks to get the same effect as before.
Maybe a solution/work around could be to not let the Senate count in your building places or maybe 0.1 like golden castle in the castle limit?
That way players it is possible to rebuild castles in a decent manner?
Display MoreHI,
1. yeah, but we had discussions about military stuff - so who should know what you have in this discussions; so anyone knows an military strength but - maybe - you miss that there are also buildings involved, you you didn't know the exact value of his troops - here are still surpises possible
2. yes, we call it unfair if a bigger player helps here. So you need anough men power in that level range to get this wall down
3. at all, yes you need more attacks if you don't want to build a senate building. If you want to build one, you need not soo much. So the senate (building) has an real functionallity.
4. i didn't understand this part - maybe you could explain what you want to know here
5. you didn't try it ... if you don't want to try it, its ok - you didn't need to pla yany event
6. yes we thought about this - but we didn't found a good solution for that without an longer attack protection. But we think that this cases are not so many.
regards
Dschibait
1) How long do you think until the formula behind this is found?
2) So 25 smaller players attacking 1 to take down the wall is allowed, but 1 bigger one helping is not?
3) Maybe give everyone 100 extra building spots then? Because a lot of people don't have these places available...
4) When you take over a castle, the combat settings always go to 100% standard (also when building a new castle). This can give some unpleasant surprises sometimes. There could be something in settings where you can put standard settings when obtaining a new castle?
5)/
6) It is not because there are only a few that those few have to be screwed over?
Hello,
First off all, why did these sudden changed not get polled? Why wasn't the opinion asked from the players?
As stated in the message it was put together fast to solve an issue, well I am terribly sorry to say so it is a very bad solution.
I am pleased that Bitmeup is working on making the game better, but these updates made some aspects of the game a lot worse.
Here's why:
1) This is a strategy game, it is important that your opponent does not know how many troops you have, so he can sometimes expect a surprise, now all those numbers are in an overview?
2) When someone builds a big wall, a bigger player can no longer help it down? So his castles can not be taken?
3) The sudden changes to the senate screw up a lot of people!
a) You now need 100 extra building places to build senators and keep the building at that level?
b) When not keeping the senate that high, you need 10-15 attacks to take a castle?
4) Nothing is done about the standard settings when taking a castle? Maybe a default option should be put in place?
5) The bandit event seems one big mess and very unclear.
6) Ongoing attacks just remain, so when someone takes a castle, you can no longer recover it??
I hope some of these points can be changed to help the game.
Kind regards.
When did the 'so called' leader ever say what others have to do?
NO ONE WANTS to make players quit and that is something where we are all battling for.
NATO finds it unfair what an other union is doing (making players quit). And they jumped in to make it stop and all or a sudden they are the boss???
IF it was a FAIR fight they wouldn't have to jump in!
It is really funny to see that JG union sees no problem in destroying players from BR that are now leaving the game.
But when they get attacked by someone stronger they start crying that they are killing the game and are all using multi's...
this option isn't plan as a "i want to use this as a strategy" its planned as "this is one of my last steps before i leave damoria"..
Captitulation didn't should be a part of a strategy or a "pause", it should be some kind of re-organization and re-buildment of your base account to get into a fight again.
Your idea sounds like "after a week i go for a week into capitulation and after this i will join the fight again"
I don't like this, but i will read here, what other player thinks about this.
Here you make it seem like someone would go into capitulation every week or so. But they are unable to do so if they get locked out of capitulation for 5 months and 3 weeks. It might be a bit more strategic then it was in the first place, but you can't use it to your advantage...
If you decide to exit the capitulation, you are even more in a disadvantage then before.
Hello,
A lot of members from our alliance have a suggestion to change the capitulation option a bit.
Right now it is just too punishing for yourself to use it because you are 'in a prison' for 6 months with no way to get out of it.
This seems a bit unnecessary but I understand it is done to make sure people don't abuse it.
But what if it could be done this way:
When you exit the capitulation option after x amount of time, you can NOT enter it again for 6 months minus the time you were capitulated.
So for example if you only were capitulated for 2 months, you would be unable to capitulate again for 4 months.
This would make people really think if they want to remain capitulated or want to re-enter combat stage (with some kind of punishment).
Kind regards
Das war schon immer so. Dies wurde in der Vergangenheit bereits mehrmals gemeldet ...
Das Seltsame daran. Wenn Sie über genügend Ressourcen verfügen, um sie zu 10% zu senden (und Sie nicht genug zu 100% haben). Nur 10% werden abgezogen.
Entschuldigung für mein schlechtes Deutsch
Display Morethis player explained this several times here on the board.
So, it brings nothing to explain the situation of this player again and again - someone would call this spam. There are some players who has no benefit from this changes; but we need to think on the mass ... and these 15 players who has more castles as our 120 max value, has no benefit at all - and can maybe lose anything.
But on the end, it brings nothing to write "i don't want to pay here", "im stop playing" ... its ok, stop playing - so we lose maybe 1 player who don't want to accept that Bugs / account merges etc etc will be unfair for new players.
Do you want many new players or 1 old player - who will quit since years?
regards
Dschibait
New players will not come to a world where other players have been playing for years and are much stronger then them.
New players don't want to spend hunderds of euro's on some microtransactions to be as big as older players.
New players want new worlds with maybe seasonal events.
Because they only want to punish us with "don't pay anymore" or other suggestions.
Some of these discussions are already closed, and i didn't understand why this is come up again and again. There are ZERO suggestions, there are only allegations and suspicions.
We want to improve Damoria and don't want to let users call us "useless" - this is a kind of respect.
regards
Dschibait
Why is a topic deleted which gives critique about an update?
Just explaining that bigger players (which have more then the castle limit) are doomned once they get attacked?
I didn't see any allegations or suspicions there.
Only an open discussion about this topic.
If there are no open discussions possible, how can we come up with suggestions then?
When using the vacation substitute function, you keep seeing the mage bonuses as you have on your own account.
I am not sure if the bonus actually works over there, but still it shouldn't be showing up when visiting your vacation substitute.
Okay thanks for fixing it.
Will keep an eye on it!
Can you then check again now?
Should have received 158k paladins, but they are not there?
2390k - 2379k is only 11k extra and not 110K.
And that seems a logical number to be normal production?
