1

(54 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

there you go... deleting his incriminating posts. right-click, open in new tab, for better view.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5942/demonicq.png

2

(54 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

yes... that ALL could be stopped using new rules.. also stops the fun, the legetimate players... and keeps corrupt mods in safety because they think players wont fess up eventually. this is NOT about new rules... this is about YOU being a corrupt mod.

3

(54 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

checked? they cant see what you tell other players... so dont play dumb on me.
we have wolfie here, admitting that you were giving her information you're not supposed to share with anyone except other moderators. unless you're now calling her a liar, which is a big issue.

as far as i'm concerned... she does know an aweful lot for being just a player.

4

(54 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

yeah, and Wolfie is soooo upset she's creating things up... what exactly for?
you have cheated before being a mod, you are cheating while being a mod. end of story.
you should be banned from ever touching this game.

5

(54 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

i think what frodo was meaning... is that different servers are run by different moderators. so what if he refuses to work with yan and demonic? the other server could have its own admin and own set of moderators. it's not written in stone anywhere that mods are the owners of all servers as far as i'm concerned.

edit: and frodo... glad to know you'd pick me over demo, lol. how about we both mod some server? tongue

6

(83 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

i saw 4 reports. and none looked promising... are these the only tests available?

7

(83 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

for what it's worth, i welcome new changes all the time.
i am glad to see changes happening, but of course, change for the sake of change is useless, we need *good* changes. changes that fix imbalances.
reading this thread, it comforts me to read that the new stats were tested and tested and tested as demonic said.
as experience in this game have taught, numbers on paper (or screens) are quite useless without actual battles and simulations.
what i would like to see, are these *extensive* tests demonic is talking about. post them somewhere public in the forum for everyone to read, and so the great minds in the player base and can go through them, and be convinced that the numbers are indeed good.
i say a new thread, since i dont want to clutter this one with battle reports. if the numbers are really tested, one would expect some 20+ battle reports that include gual, mixed with a variety of troops, and attacking a variety of enemies.
you said you did lots of tests, share with us.

8

(16 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

his troops survived 2 fleeing attempts. that's what matters. how many troops you killed is irrelevant. as soon as you killed 10%, it's how many fleeing attempts they can escape which matters, your only way around it is by exterminating the whole regiment.
so his troops refused to flee twice, that's something that happens a lot, and has very good probability of happening to anyone... your knoghts on the other hand... thought the battle is not worth it, and fleed on first chance tongue

9

(16 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

luck is indeed on the defender's side. but it's not excessive and well in the limits of probability of happening.
your use of 1 regiment aggravated the matter. the knights were being beaten twice and thrice every single turn. had you spread them on 5 slots, you could have mitigated the effects of his luck, and beat him dead, even if not a single defending troop fleed, they could have been wiped dead. besides, the spread means you have more chances of getting good luck, if one fails, the others can have better fortune.

10

(16 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

for a starter, how many regiments did you send, versus how many regiments did the enemy have. weak regiment formations CAN bring miracles (without any luck factors) to whoever used them smartly.
the complete battle log, if not too long (< 50 lines), would be much more helpful to diagnose this case. if you need to anonymize it, feel free, but pleeeeease dont make regiment names silly similar patterns, the log needs to be understandable, and easy to skim through.
feel free to email it to me as well, use the emailing feature of this forum, not the messages, as i never check them.

11

(85 reacties, geschreven in Announcements)

sorry for the double post, but i do agree with veronica (unbelievable, i know), "hobbit for admin"

12

(85 reacties, geschreven in Announcements)

i have just received, and from a very credible source a very entertaining chat.
apparently, the admin wants to stop someone from playing on stable1, because that someone destroyed the admin's clan on speed using "TSR runes". quite ironically, the said admin has been trying for weeks to crack open the defense barrier in target's village to no avail. after giving up hope, he's threatening to ban based on "other server incidents"
i will save face and not post the chat. unless it proves to be necessary

13

(59 reacties, geschreven in General chat)

Yan schreef:
Ishtar schreef:

I never, ever attacked one person on a server due to my feelings for that person on another. Quite the contrary, actually.


You have never done anything wrong or unethical in this game Ishtar, we all know that.  We all love you  <3

you got that right... we all love her...

14

(33 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

the REAL question is HOW do troops die from starving? all extra troops die in a second to make food consumption 0 or 1? or do they slowly die, a troop every few seconds till consumption is 0?

let me give an example of its implementation on travian.
once crop reaches 0 in storage, a soldier die (it dies randemly between the several types of troops, and support), once it dies, a small amount of food gets placed in storage, very small, about 100~200 (cannibalism?), once the storage reaches 0 again, another dies.
now depedning how big this negative number is, you can tell how fast this 100 food is going to deplete, and the rate of death.

sending support away is a bad idea. sometimes i DO want them. i have a very dangerous incoming, and i NEED support, and my food is very bad from previous farm losses, my clan sends support, and i'm already in negative, but what is worse? having these troops starve? or losing more runes?
if the implementation is such as all extra troops die istantly, i can see how useless my idea would be, but if they die slowly, sometimes having a bunch die from starving, but the rest fighting is a lot better than losing my runes (and maybe more farms tongue).

15

(2 reacties, geschreven in Questions)

bad connection usually cause this....

16

(15 reacties, geschreven in Pub)

in other games i play... posting battle reports, and stuff like that, without hiding numbers and names.... gets you banned...

17

(0 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

the window currently shows me what equipment do i have, for easier number choices when sendinf, but it displays totals, which isnt really helpful, it should be suggesting the equipment "available".

18

(1 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

right now, when a smith or barrack is training, i cant access the training page again.
what i would like is, be able to access that page, and upon entering a number and hitting enter, the game validates if this can be done now, if not (because it's busy, or insuffiecient space/resources), ask whether i want to queue it.
the ability to queue armour crafting when a smith is already crafting would be a very nice feature.

19

(10 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

haste? increase speed of troops by what? 30~50%? slightly more? for super expensive gem cost....
transports will be moving at a somewhat reduced cavalry speed... well... and you sure can haste the transports, lol

20

(2 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

similar to jla's bug few weeks ago....

21

(10 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

i think this will break the game.... it's bad enough having guals ravaging villages as they are, and they are 5/rune... imagine being able to send executioners along... sure it will be somewhat slower... but consider how slow exe are... that's a HUGE advantage. exe were made slow for a reason, do not underestimate their power... they hit in 12s, a good weapon on these dudes can make them Hulks.

22

(15 reacties, geschreven in Pub)

moved to more appropriate place. thanks for the info Saw.

23

(2 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

"we have NO freaking idea what happened, but it seems that all your troops got pwned"

24

(2 reacties, geschreven in Feedback)

1 troop atacks, or for that matter, any attack that loses all its troops, should NOT be able to report troop numbers, just like it has always used to be, this is a bad regression that still hasn't been fixed. to add more on it, an attack that loses all it troops, shouldnt have an available log (they can see troop numbers there), and it shouldnt be problematic since the game knows from the first second of battle...
players have a right to hide their troops numbers...

25

(4 reacties, geschreven in Bug archive)

i think the timeframe is 8 hours...
it was 24 on normal speed, right? which should be 8 on 3x speed...