• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Yesterday, 1 player of my alliance who had just connected recently was attacked while he was doing the training battle that I had made available. He got away with a victorious defense. But it would be nice to know if this is due to a bug where if the system does not see us connect during this time.
  2. bientôt tous les joueurs inactifs seront remplacés, ils n'y a plus beaucoup de place
  3. bravo les alliances B, vous êtes une nouvelle fois encore en course pour une place sur les podiums "ligue alliance"
  4. l'alliance recommence à se remplir avec des joueurs actifs, si vous voulez nous rejoindre, ne tardez pas, d'ici peu il n'y aura plus de place
  5. bravo pour vos places de 1er et 3ème dans vos ligues alliances respectives et pour vos futur classements dans les saisons à venir
  6. I'm not against waiting. Then it will be necessary to see if the arrival of the players "android" will raise this average of crowns per player where the impoverish it. I think very few will attack them. And they will certainly attack players already having crowns. I'm not sure they'll generate a lot of free crowns. But I can be wrong and hopefully.
  7. Please excuse my English, but I used a translator. First, we must ask ourselves the question of the "why" of this debate on crowns. It's simple, everything is based on them. We want to make a place in individual league, we need crowns. We want to make a place in league alliances, we need crowns. The alliance wants to progress in the rankings, we need crowns. Individually, we want to progress globally where to go in the individual leagues above, we need crowns. I experienced the inflation of the crowns. During this period, few complained of the "MM". The developers have stopped this inflation (certainly rightly), but as the crowns were in the circuit, few complained about the "MM". But now that players have come out of the "MM" with several hundred crowns, we are entering, not in a balance, but in a recession. Then yes, more and more players want another "MM". But is it he who is evil? where but is it the average number of crowns per player that is no longer good? Then either we must accept the current situation with the risk that the number of crowns in play continues to fall with the stoppage of new players who will come out at a time of the "MM", or we must find a way to reinject crowns. That is why I reiterate a proposition I had already made: "Like any player who has stopped playing for a while and has only a few tens or hundreds of crowns are out the matchmaking, the crowns of these players begin to lack the functionality of the game. I propose that 1 crown be taken every day to all players (The players in the "MM" and the players out of the "MM".This would prevent designers from creating a database that they should continually update) and redistributed in chests. This would make it possible to put back into circulation the crowns which are no longer there and we would be certain that they would be on accounts of active players." I do not think that would cause high inflation of crowns unless we actually have tens of thousands of players who are out of the "MM". But if this is the case, designers should ask themselves the question "why" all these abandonments and make necessary modifications to prevent this continuing. To reinstate the crowns of players who have come out of the "MM" with about 300 crowns (which is not uncommon), it will take almost a year. It will always be time, if indeed inflation starts again, to stop where to suspend the principle of reintegration of crowns in the circuit. On the other hand, the proposal of "joyson jay" seems very interesting. In fact, players who voluntarily descend from "lord" or "duke" to 1000 crowns, or less, increase even more this dissatisfaction of the "MM". In fact, once they get down, they go up taking 500, 600 crowns, see more to players who sometimes try to progress painfully. After these players will, for a large majority, obliged to spend a moment on the "MM" to compensate for their loss of a defeat by 5 or 6 battles. Keep the system of number of crowns in play by including a clause that the total won in the battle can not be greater than 12% (figure to see) of the total of the crowns of the attacker would certainly brake this practice. It is not so often that a 3000 crowns having a correct castle for this score crowns find opponents who offer 360 crown in play, nor a 4000 that would see 480 crowns, a 5000 that finds a 600 and I do not speak to you Not of those who are higher. The real penalties would be the Lvl 10 castles which voluntarily descend and which afterwards would have more difficulty to ascend. This practice of voluntarily lowering and then quickly recovering had settled down a little with the gold system for all in the individual leagues, but seems to start again. Luckily it is not a majority of players but they do not even realize that they are harming the system by participating in the disgusting game of other players unless that is what they are looking for.
  8. j'ai relayé ta proposition dans l'alliance "France A" et auprès d'un joueur de France B
  9. sandmassala, si tu es tout(e) seul(e) tu peux aller dans celle que tu veux, si vous êtes plusieurs et que vous voulez rester ensemble, il faut aller dans celles de "bains" où il reste de la place pour plusieurs :-)
  10. bravo, les 2 alliances ont terminées 3ème de leur ligue alliance respective et sont encore en bonne position pour faire chacune un nouveau podium cette saison
  11. les places vont bientôt devenir chères. dépêchez vous si vous voulez nous rejoindre :-))
  12. si vous voulez nous rejoindre, dépêchez vous, la 2ème alliance B commence à bien se remplir :-))