Well, it has been asked for years by several thread and agreed by every members.
They have still done nothing else than telling : " We are curious to know the opinion of everyone about it " ...
If they was planning to consider it, they would have done it already, so it's a waste of time.
In any cases, expecting any positive changes from the staff is a waste of time and energy, and of course a source of disappointement.
You mean the fact that we get goods by attacking them is good ? yes, it's not the point actually 
Assuming that it's directed at me.
I get it, that's why I say that (at least in my opinion) rework of game mechanic is unnecessary, because main outline of the mechanic is fine.
From my experience most people who complain about camps try to set some rules within their kingdoms, but with current mechanic they are almost impossible to enforce. It is enough to give ability to have working rules (but without forcing everyone to have ones) to drastically reduce amount of complaints against camps.
Ok
You didn't get it.
The solution is to change the game mechanics, not to add rules.
Every leaders have tried to make rules for camps and it has always been a waste of time cause no effects on the gameplay.
• Force to involve the hero to get treasures would make the players think twice before target a camp, it would also avoid that they split their armies and by then give a chance to anyone online to get some.
• Make it a team event would be also fair enough, I didn't think about this idea until Tokmak said it but I feel it a good idea.
About the point number 1 you mean the tutorial then ?
I agree, this tutorial is pretty annoying, especially when the server is laggy, and at some point we are able to build a barracks and train 3 def troops without being helped
About the point 2, clickers and bots have both been pretty much removed by now, their new tool is pretty efficient it seems.
The main problem remain the abuses of mechanics and of course multis.
Personally I don't want to fight against multis all around, I mean even more than we have now, because I won't play with 2 accounts, one is already enough as I tryhard on it.
what is shaer ? Share ?
You are talking about dual I think.
Only the owner of the account getting achievements and prestige of the account, the dual won't get anything.
It has been asked thousands times but they on this point they are refusing to change it, once again.
I'll try to be as nice as possible..
1) What do you mean by "training" ? This point need to be explained I think.
2) Are you really asking to make multi-accounts a payable feature ?
Cheaters are able to use multis for free already, how it could change just by making fair players pay for it ?
It would mean that cheaters will still cheat for free and fair-players would pay ?
3) Robbers camps are a social internal problem source indeed, but the staff refuse totally to do anything to change it, it has been asked many times for a long time now.
The kings have enough to do already tbh.
I have suggested a long while ago to involve the hero to get treasures in the camps, to avoid players split their armies on too many camps.
I also like the idea of sharing the benefit of camps to all members, it can be a solution too.
The "sitter" (meaning dual) you mean ? Regarding to the achievements ?
There is often scouts who dies while a scouting, it depend on the number of scouts of both sides.
Scouts are by definition not fighters, they are just collecting intel.
It would not be possible, since this information would only be updated once a day at midnight. So this would not be an issue with the API.
I am talking about hero XP, since hero attributes are not public knowledge for the other players.
Getter is updated only once a day for pratical reasons I think, it has been proven in the past that it is possible to get infos in the minutes after the request.
It was possible to use the infos of the game to know who is the attacker, from which village and to which village of which player, for example, the infos came relatively quickly.
I don't really see how it would be different there but I can be wrong tho.
In any cases, the only reason why someone would want to automate that is to use in def OP, if there is any other reason I'm curious to know which.
Are we talking about attribute points or hero xp?
pasted-from-clipboard.png
Good question indeed, I was obviously talking about hero xp myself but I'm not sure about what was the subject finally now.
About heroes points I wouldn't agree personnally, it would be too easy to make an external bot (Discord or whatever) and send scouts in mass, just waiting for the bot to enlight any change in the list of heroes and you have the infos you was searching for without checking anything.
This part of the game is not the most fun I agree but making it too easy would make it worse.
I mean, the players steal treasures which produce the VP's, at start I mean.
Before the merging there is no OP, so the king could be barely active or sitter access or anything.
My point is that sometimes the vice king could help much, if the king become inactive or at any point not active when it matter.
There is some important differences between the king and the vice king.
An update will be made, which will make it more fair and logical.
There is a thread about Disbanding Kingdom Union, the vice king actually cannot set menhirs and several other things that cannot be made, so when it happen that the king is inactive then there is a problem.
Before the merging, the king of the kingdom with the most VP become king of the merged kingdom, but there is no OP at this time usually, the king isn't the one who make the VP, but the players, so it's not really logical currently.
Don't wait Santa Claus it's my dad, I found out back childhood, and I'll drink with him at chirsmas. Would be risky for him to go deliver anything after drank.
3 jours pour un compte de moins de 100 pop
7 jours pour un compte de plus de 100 pop
Mais comment cela se fait dans ce cas là qu'il a tapé moins de Haches et de béliers (images 1) que prévu dans la vague (image 2) ?
Désolé j'ai lu trop vite, sur le screenshot du camp de brigand on ne peut voir que les troupes de ce camp, alors que sur le rapport on peut voir toutes les troupes, y compris celles en assistance.
Edit: Théoriquement si tu calcules le pourcentage de perte en défense il est exactement le même. Si l'attaquant n'a pas tout perdu alors il semblerait qu'il à attaqué en pillage, si ce n'est pas le cas alors il y à un bug mais j'en doute.
Il est possible de savoir en posant le curseur sur les épées jaunes dans le rapports d'attaque.
parce qu'il à retiré ses troupes entre temps.
Le lapse de temps entre les attaques est souvent court.
Il me semble qu'il est possible de défendre les camps de brigands, j'en suis pas certain cependant mais ca pourrait expliquer.
'I think this thread should be moved into FR part'
