Warum sollte das so schwierig sein? 44 Schlösser in 3 Monaten auf 100/100 aufzubauen - das ist nicht so schwer, wie du das denkst.
We have all seen you go from being the fifth military player in the world to the first one in a few months, with military growth greater than the sum of the top 3 players, I'm sure you will be able to achieve it in 3 months, the rest of the players we don't know how to play as well as you
Dear Urotsukidoji,
You admit it is good that the top players are limited in their troop production. Can you also indicate what you think is a fair way to achieve this? Please also give solutions .
There is another post where I have given 3 options, please rescue it and your question will have been resolved.
All that option that implies a percentage of loss of production equal for all the top I'm sure that it will be welcome for all.
By the way, thank you, I'm flattered by a good response from the damoria team.
Urotsukidoji, gib mir 200 goldene Schlösser mit guter Ressourcenproduktion (über 3 Mrd. Punkte pro Schloss) und ich helfe dir 44 normale Burgen mit 100/100 Produktion aufzubauen. Wir werden bis zum 1. September fertig sein. Nein, ich denke, dass wir schon viel früher fertig sein werden! Aber danach werde ich die goldenen Schlösser für mich behalten! Deal?
Sounds good, when do we start?
Although until September there will be players who will create 44 more castles than me, why is it said that this is legal and equal for all the top?
How easy it is to laugh at the injured players when you are one of the benefited players, I would like to see everything you would say if you were the one injured and you would see how players who until yesterday produced the same as you begin to produce much more and you need months or years to modify your entire account and strategy and spend hundreds or thousands of euros to get to match them.
you are talking since 10 posts about that these changes are not good for you.Sry but just one players strategy isn't compared with so many players who dont reach your numbers before this update.
So sry, that i ignore your meaning. When you think that you stop - i dont know any other word - "crying" thatn we can talk about adjustments.
And we continue with the disqualifications, great administrator!
And no, I'm not saying for 10 posts that this change is not good for me, I'm saying that this change is not fair for everyone and doesn't imply the same losses for everyone, it is an unfair change and should be illegal.
I explain it again because it seems that there are some people who are hard of hearing, or rather who don't want or are interested in understanding what I say:
Before the changes:
1 Top player produces a similar amount to another top player, that is... Player 1 = Player 2
Player 1 for example produced troops in 120 normal castles and 100 baldurs, in total he produced troops in 220 castles.
Player 2 for example produced troops in 50 normal castles and 170 baldurs, in total he produced troops in 220 castles.
So far fine, no one got lost? We continue...
After the changes:
Player 1 produces troops in 100 normal castles and 30 baldurs, in total he produces in 130 castles.
Player 2 produces troops in 50 normal castles and 30 baldurs, in total he produces in 80 castles.
For those who don't understand much about mathematics 130> 80.
Overnight, Player 1 produces troops in 50 more castles than Player 2.
Equality for all right? fair for everyone right? totally legal this change? really?
Now players will start to come out complaining about the inequality of the fusion of worlds, that the top players are top because they have been very lucky and not because they are good players, that the top players deserve this reduction, surely I will receive some disqualification or threat, I'm starting to get used to it... but the question is not that, the question is... because overnight 2 players who produce the same, stop producing the same due to a change in the rules? Why does one benefit and the other lose? because the game adapts like a glove for one, and for the other it implies months or years of adaptation and loss of equality with the other?
Do you want to reduce the troop production of the top players? perfect to do it, I even agree, but that the reduction is the same percentage for everyone. That some lose 10% of their production and others lose 60% of their production when both produced the same thing is far from being the same, fair and legal.
first to the 2nd "cry"-post again:
You dont understand free2play games at all - you can CHOOSE between spending no time and 3 gold or spending much time and no gold. Whats your problem with that?
I have no problem with that and I totally agree, can you tell me where I complain about something like that?
There are tousends of recruitment clicks manualy in gold castles. Thats a big problem because we do that step here. Im pretty sure and im gonna go for bot detections next updates, that many of these clicks are by bots / auto clicks - so thats why many players with many gold castles has such advantages - and you tell me here, that clicking makes no sense when having so many baldurs like you. Thats simple not true and im pretty sure that you know that.
We go back to threats and finger pointing? good example of a great game manager
i think that point 1 and 3 are the same basicly - are they?
It is not like that, point one seeks a temporary flexibility so that all players can adapt to this drastic change, where overnight you leave some players creating with 100 castles at 100 and 30 baldurs at 100 and you leave others creating with 50 castles at 100 and 30 baldurs at 100, that is... overnight you leave players who produced the same with a difference of 50 less castles producing at 100.
Point three seeks permanent flexibility, where each player can decide to have many castles in which they can recruit quickly by spending 3 gold but not be as effective in a war, or they can have many baldurs in which they can recruit manually spending a lot of time daily but being more effective in a war. I also emphasize that there are hundreds of intermediate strategies between these 2 strategies as each player decides to spend more time recruiting or being more effective in the war.
You have to click - you tell me that this is the difference between a good player and a active better player. Now you want me to remove clicking that anyone can do it with one click without spending gold= I didnt get it - why i should do that?
At no time have I said that, I don't know where you want to go.
2nd point of these 3 points:
i can understand that idea and will forward it. But in general - when we talking about a removing of the gold status, we have also talk about removing buildfields on that castle.
A 1300 fields normal castle is too strong.
I have no objection to that, if they return to being normal castles that they once again have the lots that they had, always ensuring that the lots have not been exceeded when they became Baldur and important buildings are accidentally removed. I'm sure you can find a solution for that.
I understand that at that point, we would regain our normal castles and regain our conversions to special baldurs. Let no one lose or gain anything that does not belong to him.
You dare to use the wordt "priviledged"Players??????For years, a number of players were able to make troops in more castles than any other player could ever own. The gap between these "previleged" players and the rest kept widening. Is everything taken from these "previleged" players as you constand claim? No, they keep the castles and troops. They are limited only with troop production to the same number of castles that each player can build. (every one who spent enough years in Damoria to build 100 normal and 30 gold with 3x100 troop production) Now look at it from a different angle. You are a player who, for all sorts of reasons, has not been able to make the switch to BitMeup with 300 castles or more. You had to pay thousands of gems to conquer or build Castle no 88 while the player with 300 castles could do that for less. This was equated and every player could get castles up to 120 castlepoints for the same price. But some priviledges players still had more castles and produce troops in them. The top is inaccessible.And yes, it is very annoying that those privileged players now have to adjust their accounts. But it has been admitted that The Damoria team are looking at a slow progression to 100 normal and 30 baldur castles for troop production to help them.
With that, you are still a privileged player with more castles and more resource production than most players can ever build.
So maybe you should shut up about players that are the "priviledged players" according to you.
Judith I don't even know what you are talking about, here each player to his subject... the question is to criticize me even if it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. For your interest, and for you to stop making mistakes, the privileged players are those players who have been talking and deciding these changes with the administrators in secret and behind the back of the other players in the game. And now if you want, keep talking about who brought more castle from where and all those things that have nothing to do with what I'm talking about...
blame in german and also english and all other languages i know was and is simply "blaming" (blamieren), you blame me with your again and again focusing "stupid admin" comments.
So what you expect - that i take you serously ? When you kick my ass, i ignore you and your posts.
is that what you want?
be respectful to me and the team and we will answer your posts, and you can take part of the discussion. Start blaming me, flaming me, kick my ass - we will ignore you!
When such important decisions are made with a small group of players behind the back of the other players in the game and that especially benefits that small group of privileged people, you may receive complaints from the rest of the players, and more if they have been unfairly sanctioned simply for following another totally legal gambling tactic.
If even on top of that, all the players who disagree with the decision of that small group of privileged players are continually disqualified by those players and the administrators, perhaps it is even reasonable that some comments are raised in tone.
thats not what you ask in your blame posts in that other thread.
And we continue with the disqualifications... blame in Spanish is not a pleasant word, and above all it is not a disqualification that an administrator should use...
Display Morethe problem with flexibility (you may dont read that german stuff from caligula)
with more baldurs (like you have) you dont need to have normal castles.
This means you have no costs on certificates - what is a big advantage in war - you could take whatever you want!
So thats why we leave this for normal castles that you need to have normal castles to reach the maximum troop production.
and, did you have a solution for that?
I can tell you an possible solution - but this is also nothing what you want to like:
we could say that just 30 castles counts for 0.1 for your gold castles - anymore castle will count regular as 1
than you would have the problem that you reach 500 castles - thats what you want?
In short, I understand that the game has lost the flexibility to choose various game tactics, now the Top if they want to produce to the maximum they have to play all the same, they all have to spend 3 gold coins and 0 lost time and they will be rewarded, those who prefer to spend their time and waste several hours a day recruiting manually will be penalized, we are having a very fun game in the Top zone. In the diversity of the tactics is the fun of the game, who wants to spend 0 time recruiting in 100 or even 120 castles will hurt his pocket, who wants to save money will hurt his finger. Whoever decides to play farmerama will have many castles that they will recruit quickly but will have a disadvantage in the war, whoever wants to play a war game will have a hard job but will be more prepared for war, and I'm sure that in between those 2 tactics there are hundreds intermediate tactics to implement, depending on the daily time you want to invest in the game or not.
You want flexible solutions to your restrictions, here are some, I hope that this time they don't receive more disqualifications:
- Flexibility during a prudential season so that all players disadvantaged by the sudden change of the rules can adapt to the new rules without loss of advantage with respect to the rest.
- Allow for FREE, that those disadvantaged players or even all players can convert their baldurs that were converted from normal castles, it is illogical that for years we are adapting our accounts to have fewer castles turning them into baldurs, giving them away and demolishing them, so that now we are penalized for it.
- Allow flexibility where within the limit of 130 castles / baldurs, the player can choose that he prefers to have a large number of normal castles producing troops that can be re-enacted automatically and without loss of time using 3 gold coins, or that on the contrary he prefers to use other totally legal tactics where he is penalized in having to recruit manually with loss of a lot of daily time but without the cost of those 3 gold coins.
Display More
yes, i see that you have many baldurs. And yes, we already decided that you can go for more baldurs in the recruit list - but in general - you dont want to see the basic problem?
There are NO solutions in all your posts - they are just "cry" and "blame admins, caligula or anyone else writing 1 post before you" ...
please, stop this, give us some explaination why you think that you are the one with the biggest losts here - what you think we should do? Let this running, that you and other big players get more and more and more troops and no one can beat you?
Im pretty sure that you would like that - but this isn't fair - and im sure, that you know that.
But in general - you have bring no solutions, no dicussions, no arguments since - ah - lets be fair and say 2 years here in forum. Balancing update you "anything is crapp" - wall update "buah, thats bad for me" - other updates "why you change anything so fast, that i have to adjust again and again"
you want a world where you dont have to adjust ? Than play tetris.
but stop this "admin likes some players more"-crapp - you know that this is a good solution to stop this disadvantage of some big ones - otherwise let us know your solution!
I have given you the solution and several other players who both you and Caligula don't stop making fun of and disqualify them. I repeat that the solution of limiting production to 130 castles / baldurs seems good to me, but if it is applied flexibly so that no player suffers more than another, or do you still see logical that an arbitrary decision overnight leaves in disadvantage to certain players who so far produced the same as the rest?
We are not asking for an increase in the number of castles and baldurs that can be recruited, we are asking for flexibility when adopting such an extreme measure, if the limit is calculated at a total of 130 castles, 100 castles + 30 baldurs, that this extreme measure is flexible for at least a time and allows us to adapt to all players, for example 6 months or 1 year where the total number of castles / baldurs in which they can be recruited is 130, that is to say... for example 70 castles and 60 baldurs, this would allow some players time to adjust. But overnight they have made players who created the same troops as their nearby Top, lose almost all their production and stop playing under the same conditions. A reduction in the percentage of troop production of, for example, the first 50 players would be an equitable measure for those 50 players, they would all stop producing an equal percentage of troops, a rule such as the one applied without flexibility makes some players of those first 50 stop to produce for example 10% of their troops and others stop producing 60% of troops, what is the equality in that?
Display MoreDu hast 56 normale Schlösser und 30 goldene Schlösser. Alle mit Vollproduktion. In der Summe sind es 86 Schlösser. maximal wären in deinem Fall 130 möglich. Du hast also 66% von der maximal möglichen Truppenproduktion. Wenn man also annehmen würde, dass LTW die maximale Produktion besitzt, dann müsste doch dein Militärpunktezuwachs bei 7.700.000 Punkten liegen und nicht bei 2.598.000 Punkten. Mit 7.700.000 Militärpunktezuwachs würdest du Rang 3 mit Graf_Orlamünde teilen. Wo ist das Problem? Rang 3, obwohl bei dir nur 86 Schlösser Truppen produzieren. Das ist doch ein ausgezeichnetes Ergebnis! Was willst du mehr?
Du hast also entweder zu wenig produziert (den 3 Gold Button nicht betätigt oder wenig geklickt) oder du hast im Account irgendetwas umgebaut.
Außerdem gibt es viele Faktoren, in die Militärpunkteberechnung miteinfließen, weshalb der tägliche Zuwachs an Militärpunkten nicht bei allen Accounts miteinander verglichen werden kann. Zum Beispiel kann Höhe des Walls die Militärstärke verändern.
PS: Warum hast du nur 56 normale Schlösser? Du hattest doch erst vor wenigen Monaten um die 70 gehabt, wenn ich mich richtig erinnere. Du hast also deine Anzahl normaler Schlösser absichtlich reduziert, um günstigere EU-Kosten zu haben. Das ist reine Strategie-Überlegung. Dafür können die Spielbetreiber nichts. Und auch andere Spieler können nichts dafür.
Wenn du mehr produzieren willst, musst du nun versuchen wieder normale Burgen aufzubauen. Und wenn ich sehe wie viele Schlösser du mit maximaler Ressourcenproduktion hast, so denke ich, dass du in nur 3 Monaten 100 normale Burgen haben könntest. Für dich - gar kein Problem!
I have spent all day in front of the computer as I normally do, except that I have only been able to go through 29 castles and 30 baldurs every hour and a half, someone has decided that my strategy does not like, that the thousands of euros and hours spent on my strategy is not in their interest, and they have made it clear that they are not interested in being flexible so that we can adapt, that is... I'm one of the few players who will need months or years to adapt, that in the meantime I will create troops at the level of a medium player, that they are not going to return my thousands of euros invested in demolishing castles for my tactic, in changing them to baldur, in raising hundreds of baldurs to 100 that are useless... they don't even give the option that I can return them to transform into normal castles, that for a while I can adapt to the new rules, I'm not interested, again... thanks Damoria team!
I see that Caligula speaks as if he had helped the administrators to make those decisions, now I understand why such an important change has only been discussed with a small group of trust, and that small group doesn't stop justifying that this change is very good, making fun of those who disagree, badmouthing them and other notices and threats privately... I repeat, thank you Damoria team, for implementing a change behind everyone's back, to favor some and destroy the strategy of others, and above all thank you for your flexibility so that we can adapt, when that flexibility is not of interest, is not of interest.
[Blocked Image: https://i.ibb.co/gvndFZX/Military.png]
Well... exactly 24 hours have passed, and these are the results, now I understand that some players don't complain and others even defend these changes. If it were not wrong, I would say that these changes have been made to disadvantage some Top, and favor others. Thank you Damoria team for removing me from the game. It would have been better to create a rule where it said that Urotsukidoji stop creating troops, it would have caused less trouble.
Also habe ich an 2 Events teilgenommen, aber ich habe jedes Mal Hunderte von Gold ausgegeben, um Tausende von Gold zu sehen, und sollte ich dafür bestraft werden ??? Doch das Gold, das ich ausgegeben habe, habe ich gekauft, wodurch Sie Geld für das Spiel erhalten haben. Wenn ich das richtig verstehe, haben wir das Recht, Geld in das Spiel zu investieren, aber im Gegenzug werden wir sanktioniert. Diese Logik wird dazu führen, dass Damoria so viel verschmilzt, dass niemand invertiert
I think you start to understand what it means to be a Top in this game and get sanctioned for it 
Your logic can be applied to all the changes that are being made in recent years.
I have a question? why 100 normal castles and 30 baldurs? why not just 130 castles or baldurs?
There are players who have had to adapt their strategy over and over again after so much change in the game, now it turns out that there are great players, including me, that we have much less than 100 castles to be able to have a reasonable cost when buying certificates of conquest. That is, there are players who can now only recruit troops in 50 or 60 normal castles and 30 baldurs. Is that equality, fairness or chance? If the limit is going to be a total of 130 castles, I recommend that it be in 130 normal castles or baldurs. If not, coincidentally some of the TOPs are at a disadvantage again.
Better leave for another post and other players to talk about what we do now with the thousands of euros, thrown away, spending gold to raise hundreds of castles and baldurs to 100 that now are of no use to us.
Display More@'Juflo
You speak of the right to other playing styles but condemn mine.
We all know that the Poles attacked the many times weaker BR with the help of your then alliance WP and with the help of HH.
What was the excuse back then ... oh yes: "BR helped the Russians in the past".
This was just an ordinary retaliatory war.
We also all know that the poles would not adhere to the Damoria rules, testify their actions of multi accounts and kamikaze accounts in war by moving several 1 castle account with many troops right next to an opponent's castle.
Not illegal at all, but says a lot about the way of playing that you now glorify and support here.
@Calicula
Ahh Caligula, there you are.
I was wondering how long it would take before you would react.
It is already a very old and very outdated tactic to try to ridicule someone with a different line of thought, if you do not want to fight someone on arguments, in the hope that his argumentation will no longer be taken seriously.
And of course also quickly twist the argument so that it sounds ridiculous.
You do that not only with me but with all players who have a different opinion.
Read through all your posts.
It has also been proven that your old tactic of disbelieving and ridiculing someone in that way achieves just the opposite.
Everyone is now looking through that and seeing your true character and purpose.
Very poor and not worthy of such a great player and leader of one of the largest alliances as you.
Be careful not to contradict Caligula or put a few truths, my last post was deleted and it was very similar to yours.
If you don't follow the line that Caligula marks, they will not let you express yourself.
Tja, 08/15! Jetzt hast du die Quittung! Du hättest meinen Post von Gestern Abend besser stehen lassen sollen, denn da habe ich genau dieses Thema schön zur Sprache gebracht und seine Unterstellungen an die Admins widerlegt.
I see that your thing is the threat, I think that I begin to deduce which player you are in the game
Display Morepost deleted by 08/15
I guess I did make myself clear.
Any "you did that" and "I didn't do this" isn't helping at all.
We are tryng to find a solution to a problem on hand.
Any contribution finding one is weicome.
Go create a new threat where you can blame each other
or argue over some fake facts (or maybe some true).
08/15
Only my post is deleted? I see that Caligula has good friendship between the administrators 
