Age 24 New age changes startup feedback....

Post Reply
User avatar
bon
Game Owner
Posts: 78
Joined: 2 months ago

Age 24 New age changes startup feedback....

Post by bon » 2 months ago

MFnBonsai
Age 24 New age changes startup feedback....

For the new age with only a month to go I am going to give you some idea of what the start of the age will look like.... Feel free to give feedback but stay on track with what I have listed.... I am giving you this info so that you can see what I am thinking of doing for the new age....

New Age Changes to keep or change to:-

-Initial start gold set to 5m
-Initial UP start at 0
-Initial turns changed to 2000
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm)
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age.
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have.
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click

Change of Age name....

Due to it no longer owned by previous owners and hoping to bring new players in we have discussed changing the Age 24 to something along the lines of Era 1.... basically KoC looks old with Age 24 and we want to make it look somewhat new and appealing.... Do you think the change would be good as a new look??

Remember please stay on subject as this is not to discuss what else should or shouldnt be done this is purely for the initial start of the age....

24th July 2018, 12:13 PM
_RoGuEsHaDoW_

What about Revolution or Reign instead of age. Just because they sound war related.

24th July 2018, 12:22 PM
Vredesbyrd

Like everything except the Alliance thing. Its 100% sure one of the first idiots to register will claim as many alliance names they can just for the hell of it.

24th July 2018, 12:22 PM
SpiderWoman

How about epoch for a new way of saying age.

24th July 2018, 12:29 PM
krieper

Keep in mind a lot of players don't have English as their first language. Age is very recognisable, Era somewhat is too, but things like epoch will not really ring a bell.

I would be ok with removing all alliances, but maybe set a restriction for the first few days, so you may only make 1 alliance at a time.

I would also consider removing all officer-commander ties to start the age. Otherwise, removing alliances won't really matter much (at all).

24th July 2018, 12:31 PM
serpantsalot

As far as age numbers, I don't think anyone really cares any more about the specifics of that. the game itself said age (insert infinity symbol here) for a while if I remember right.
SOOO... Era 1 I am fine with I suppose.

As far as looks go:
Are you meaning a glorified paintjob (aka color schemes, maybe slightly changed art) or potentially a different layout entirely? I think I would be down for trying either option. Personally I have a hard time getting excited about the paintjob option but the layout I don't have a problem with so... I don't know... perhaps a scrolling table for the attack screen rather than 20 per page? thats all I can really think of.

The other proposed ideas I'm fine with, though gaining 15-20k morale a day seems a bit much if there is no adjustment to trickle. When you admins have been seeming to support smaller alliances and accounts more as a general rule giving mains that much growth seems antithetical towards that goal.

I already have stated my ideas on race change in another board, though I will quote it below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpantsalot View Post
I say 1... only 1... it gives potentially new players options... and there is still strategy involved... "do I change and hope this passes?"

Someone months ago brought up splitting the bonus's... having race and profession... I would be for that and having no race changes... but 1 or 2 profession changes... say like:
Humans: gold, dwarves: defense, elves: spy, Orcs: Attack, Undead: casualty...

then professions like:
Spy: covert Engineer: defense, Merchant: gold, Priest/Doctor: casualty, Soldier/Gladiator: attack

Something like that I would say no race change, but profession 1 or 2, maybe up to 5, IDC really... In reality your army couldn't all go and get a race change as easily as say a sex change, but jobs are easier to change. I have had 3 so far this year.
I do like the limited commander changes... I know we in solace often took advantage of the unlimited commander changes to aid in attacks or sabs when needed, and I doubt we were the only ones to do so. It is something that can be and probably was abused though. even 10 I think is high, but I won't argue that.

24th July 2018, 12:53 PM
Shredmeister

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWoman View Post
How about epoch for a new way of saying age.
I suggested that (and Era) a few days ago in the Whatspp. Apparently others didn't have as much love for Empire Earth/Age of Empires games like we did.

10 does seem really high for commander changes.

24th July 2018, 01:01 PM
masterscow

Quote:
New Age Changes to keep or change to:-

-Initial start gold set to 5m
-Initial UP start at 0
-Initial turns changed to 2000
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm)
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age.
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have.
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click
i'd like to see UP start with at least 100

Race changes: 5-10 at least while we get used to the game again with the new features

i like the commander changes set for 10 (though i have loved the unlimited!)

clicking i like as it is now. i do not have time for the 10x links. maybe 2x links.

no matter what does or doesn't happen: i know we will all adapt and explore and roll with it all
so having changes now reminds me how we eagerly anticipated changes in previous ages ---adds a bit of excitement on how to achieve goals

thanks for asking for input....it take a community to make a good game


alternate names for "age" i like Era. i also thought of Battlefield .............since the battlefield changes every "age"

24th July 2018, 01:17 PM
ra_1

dont 10x click, may be 2x clicks with twice bonus is good, more than that will see main grow too fast ahead of other accounts.

24th July 2018, 01:37 PM
Umbrus

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post

New Age Changes to keep or change to:-

-Initial start gold set to 5m
-Initial UP start at 0
-Initial turns changed to 2000
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm)
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age.
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have.
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click

Change of Age name....
First UP should be at least 100 or so just to get the ball rolling, a very slow start is boring imho
Turns sound good
Love the no race change idea, bring back some consequence for your choices
Unlimited commander changes. I never understood why they were limited to begin with
10x links sounds...excessive but then again I'm lazy. I'm OK with anything under 5x definitely OK with 2x morale per click (maybe you can upgrade this somehow by paying XP or gold)

10x links and 2x morale is huuuuugeeeee very definitely against this combo. Mains will grow so big it'll be boring as balls. ALTHOUGH I'm ok with 10x links and 2x morale IF you make a hard limit on maximum trickle per day i.e you can only receive 10-20k growth per day from trickle and the rest if your clicks and UP. This way it'll be more about personal effort than chain effort.

Give the ages an actual name rather than a number i.e this upcoming age can be "The Age of Rebirth", the next one "The Age of Strife" etc etc

24th July 2018, 02:01 PM
MFnBonsai

If players want it more about individual effort trickle can always be removed....

24th July 2018, 02:38 PM
krieper

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
If players want it more about individual effort trickle can always be removed....
It'd be fun to wake in a KoC where officers are capped to 10, and trickle restricted to your own officers. That way, there will be no "mains" and the field will be pretty open. Would be very interesting to see who came out as an agewinner.

Removing trickle all together would be excessive I think. It's part of the game.

24th July 2018, 03:54 PM
Shredmeister

I agree with the others saying they don't want too much clicking. Just lore wise, for a fantasy medieval setting, multiple million man armies just doesn't seem realistic. Look at actual medieval figures. During the hundred years war, the biggest build up of troops France or England ever had, France had about 50,000 men in their combined armies, and England had about 30,000. Then we can look at the Holy Roman Empire, at their most I believe, during the crusades they still only had about 100,000 men in their own army - and this figure included support roles, meaning not every one of those 100,000 were fighting men.

Then we can look at something closer, something also medieval fantasy, like Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire (the books). During the War of the Five Kings, the (false) King Renly Baratheon had 100,000 men under his command. Had he not been been killed, his army would have rolled over all the other kings with hardly a fight (with the only exception being King Robb Stark because he had a massive defensive advantage at Moat Cailin, but that's a story for another time). The biggest army to ever be fielded was the ancient Rhoynar, fighting the expansion of the Valyrian Freehold being lead by their dragonlords. They were slaughtered of course, because the Valyrians had countless dragonlords in their prime, but that was still the biggest (breathing) army to ever be fielded in that universe.

I felt the game was way more fun during the ages were army sizes were considerably smaller. Obviously we can't go back to people winning with just 10's of thousands of men from ages where 10,000,000+ men armies weren't unknown to exist. I'd like to find a happy medium, more towards small though, as it leads to funner gameplay, and fits better lore-wise.

Just my two cents.

24th July 2018, 04:38 PM
bloodpirate

10x is too much. one or two time 2X is all that is needed.

i am fine with no race changes. but will the race bonuses stay as they are now?

alliance names. i think the first people to log on will pick classic names like SR or LACN for some alliance with only two people .. and maybe sell the names to the original alliances. so i am not for deleting all the alliances. maybe delete all alliances with less than 10 people in them.

24th July 2018, 05:19 PM
Brandonito

I like clicking going back to being big. It definitely needs to be bigger than it is now at least. We're down to 900 players, that's only 9000 links per day, probably 8000 by the time we get to next age. We had more than that in age 18 and I'm guessing a hell of a lot more than that before age 18.

Right now conscription is completely overpowering any clicking. The more links you have the more power you give individual players to build themselves up.

I'd also like to remind people that the amount of trickle was reduced earlier in the beta. Reducing it further, removing it completely, or giving officers trickle from commanders as well are always options.

Starting gold looks fine - starting turns looks fine, commander changes looks fine.

I hope if you do a 0 race change age you keep it short or people will get supremely fucked over and then have to wait another 6 months before the age ends and they get to try again. I posted an idea elsewhere of race changes costing turns, i.e. you have to pay 5k turns to change race (maybe increasing cost each time you change) that you could consider as an option.

My idea for a new term for 'age' is boring, but they're called 'Rounds' in the games I played before this :p.

24th July 2018, 05:59 PM
TheRealVivlady

10 commander changes is good. You need to think wisely about where you bounce to.

Def for no race changes.

10x clicking no. But agree with others 2x.

Do not delete alliances. Some asshat will log in and take names. I'm not for deleting those with smaller amounts in their alliances as well but maybe clean house. Delete old threads, give alliances a chance to archive.

24th July 2018, 06:03 PM
Darth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonito View Post
I hope if you do a 0 race change age you keep it short or people will get supremely fucked over and then have to wait another 6 months before the age ends and they get to try again. I posted an idea elsewhere of race changes costing turns, i.e. you have to pay 5k turns to change race (maybe increasing cost each time you change) that you could consider as an option..
That's not bad, though it kind of favors the bigs who have trouble spending turns. I'd suggest instead allowing new players to change their race for like 10 days so newbs just learning the game don't have to restart or be screwed if they picked before understanding the mechanics.

24th July 2018, 06:14 PM
Umbrus

Darth brings up a good point regarding newbies, a bit of flexibility in the first couple of days after making an account would help new players figure stuff out.
Maybe would be nice to have a guide in either text and or video format to take new players through the rules and mechanics so they can make an informed choice

24th July 2018, 06:27 PM
4ndr3x

I don't mind clicking personally, but 10x seems like a bit too much, especially if you're gonna get multiples of that in morale.
I agree that trickle should be limited, more individuality is good.

24th July 2018, 06:41 PM
Lancelotnl

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
For the new age with only a month to go I am going to give you some idea of what the start of the age will look like.... Feel free to give feedback but stay on track with what I have listed.... I am giving you this info so that you can see what I am thinking of doing for the new age....

New Age Changes to keep or change to:-

-Initial start gold set to 5m sounds good
-Initial UP start at 0 good
-Initial turns changed to 2000 good
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm) I'd say 3-5 changes. Definitely not 0. Starting out wrong can fuck up the age, although you wouldn't know what 'wrong' would be at the start of an age. I think with 0 changes alot of players will play safe and be undead. It could be a viable option to choose any other race, in case you are a constant clicker and the clicking as suggested by you below stands. That would probably make up for alot of losses. But to be sure how it turns out, I think it needs to be tested (not sure how)
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age. 10 is good, 5 would be good too.
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have. Like mentioned here, I think people might 'abuse' it by registering all wanted names. Maybe it should be limited to the current "owner" or "admin" of an alliance to create one with that exact name.
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click 10x seems alot, but 'i'd give it a go. Especcially if the suggested change comes into effect that one can give a certain % of morale to his officers

Change of Age name.... I guess your reasons are valid. I would choose an easy name then indeed Era or Round

Due to it no longer owned by previous owners and hoping to bring new players in we have discussed changing the Age 24 to something along the lines of Era 1.... basically KoC looks old with Age 24 and we want to make it look somewhat new and appealing.... Do you think the change would be good as a new look??

Remember please stay on subject as this is not to discuss what else should or shouldnt be done this is purely for the initial start of the age....
See above :)

24th July 2018, 06:43 PM
king_archibald

I agree with everything except that the race changes should not be implemented.
Make it 0 changes because otherwise if the trickle stays the same and that clicking does change,
what will be the effect of raiding someone if he can click 15-20k a day and also benefit from a nice trickle?
They'll just change to undead and keep on growing..
Let someone stay humans if they go humans and go for a large account.

10x links does sound like a lot.
I'd make it 2x and quadruple the amount of morale per click so there's still only like 2k clicks to go.

24th July 2018, 09:10 PM
orc000

-Initial start gold set to 5m: yes
-Initial UP start at 0: yes, people who wants to start with more UP, can spend their startmoney to buy UP
-Initial turns changed to 2000: yes
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. : i would go for 1 change
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age: yes , or less.
-Remove all alliances ,(i don't care)
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click: noooooooooooooooooooooooooo , max 2x links , first make sure you can detect all autoclickers if you chose for 10x.
-Change of Age name....(i don't care)

24th July 2018, 09:14 PM
Stes_The_Destroyer

Quote:
Originally Posted by orc000 View Post
-Initial start gold set to 5m: yes
-Initial UP start at 0: yes, people who wants to start with more UP, can spend their startmoney to buy UP
-Initial turns changed to 2000: yes
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. : i would go for 1 change
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age: yes , or less.
-Remove all alliances ,(i don't care)
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click: noooooooooooooooooooooooooo , max 2x links , first make sure you can detect all autoclickers if you chose for 10x.
-Change of Age name....(i don't care)
exactly my opinion

24th July 2018, 09:29 PM
ROTTENSOUL

Initial start gold set to 5m: Yes
Initial UP start at 0: Yes
Initial turns changed to 2000: Sure
No race changes: Yes,
Commander changes set to 10 for whole age: Waaaay too much. Especially with the shorter ages I think 2 is more than enough and I would be ok with none.
Remove all alliances: No, why? Seems stupid, just clean up the alliances and save yourself the hijacked alliance drama at age start.
Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click: NO. Terrible idea. Encourages cheating and adds boring gameplay. I'd absolutely 100% would hate this change, terrible terrible idea..
Change of Age name: I don't care much, but no point. I.m.o. the changes are too minor to warrant this.

24th July 2018, 11:02 PM
Night``

I agree first up should be at least 100.
Turns .. awww c'mon .. give us some more. Have sabbing count as turns.
Race changes: I think six, because it gives one a chance to try out the races for fit, and only one change per race until final choice is made to the one the player likes best. Perhaps no race change if at war.
Clicking: What we have now suits me fine.
Commander changes: One per month, with exception at any time can ditch commander and go solo without it counting as a change. The one change per month not to be accumulated.
Alliances: Limit the number of players in an alliance, perhaps base the number of players upon ranking of the alliance. I know that's probably not practical as players will find ways around it .. like handshake or partner/allied alliances. If you really want to break up the old alliances and make it a new playing ground .. no player can be joined to or in same group that player was allied to previously (oh what a isp challenge that would be. Ha)

24th July 2018, 11:10 PM
MFnBonsai

Quote:
Originally Posted by Night`` View Post
Alliances: Limit the number of players in an alliance, perhaps base the number of players upon ranking of the alliance. I know that's probably not practical as players will find ways around it .. like handshake or partner/allied alliances. If you really want to break up the old alliances and make it a new playing ground .. no player can be joined to or in same group that player was allied to previously (oh what a isp challenge that would be. Ha)
I did not mention anything about limiting alliances.... I meant remove all alliances from the alliance page and have everyone creating a new alliance to get rid of all the crap that is in the alliance page....

We will not be limiting the amount of players in an alliance.... why you ask??? the aim of the game is to be the king of chaos, to build an army to destroy all your enemies.... restricting someone by allowing only a certain amount of members would not be right if they want to put in the effort to build up an alliance....

25th July 2018, 12:25 AM
Lady_Rowan

There are quite a few other factors I'd like to know more on for a new age but I know some of those have been kept secret until the new age start or not said at all eg race bonus and age length. So that and the rest .. I am going on being same as now in my reply eg trickle, sab power, exp & conquests. Use of scripts/inclusion ingame is another major factor I'm taking as same as now.


-Initial start gold set to 5m .. ok

-Initial UP start at 0 .. ok

-Initial turns changed to 2000 ... seems a bit low (I think they used to be 5k) but ok

-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. ... 5 race changes seems fairer than 0 to allow strategic play for new and veteran players (we have had 4 for many ages in the past I think) or set a trade to buy for turns

-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age ... Seems quite high for a 4/6 month age) but ok

-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have. Tricky as you would likely have some messing about on that kinda change but I can understand the need for a tidy up. Perhaps to show on the battlefield an alliance needs to have 3 primary members minimum ? Thats something you could set in motion before age end imo.

-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click .. I could handle that clicklist but i doubt many would want it. Better to go the other way around imo. Say 1.5/2x players clicklist and increase the morale per click to 10x. It's enough for most to be able to do daily ingame even without an external clicker but the multiplyer would help avoid clickerfingers, perhaps encourage recruitment and be enough to grow a decent sized army over the age. Some may pfft large armies but you need gold generators to give slayers something to aim for or your game aims a bit dead in the water.

Change of Age name.... Era sounds fine to me

25th July 2018, 03:50 AM
TheRealVivlady

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
I did not mention anything about limiting alliances.... I meant remove all alliances from the alliance page and have everyone creating a new alliance to get rid of all the crap that is in the alliance page....

We will not be limiting the amount of players in an alliance.... why you ask??? the aim of the game is to be the king of chaos, to build an army to destroy all your enemies.... restricting someone by allowing only a certain amount of members would not be right if they want to put in the effort to build up an alliance....
You are going to be bombarded beginning of age if any of these alliances have their alliance name taken by people in KOC jusy being a dick.
It will be a mess. I just dont think its smart.
Let's say I log in and decide my new alliance will be called SR ... ;)

25th July 2018, 05:30 AM
srh420

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
For the new age with only a month to go I am going to give you some idea of what the start of the age will look like.... Feel free to give feedback but stay on track with what I have listed.... I am giving you this info so that you can see what I am thinking of doing for the new age....

New Age Changes to keep or change to:-

-Initial start gold set to 5m (this is probably fine, maybe 10m)
-Initial UP start at 0 (Would be nice if it started with 1200 or 2500 so that the battlefield grows gold from accounts that dont click. THis is mainly for smaller less active players who sign on once or twice a day to attack. Doesn't truly matter to me personally but thought id provide some input)
-Initial turns changed to 2000 (This is fine)
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm) (I dont care either way)
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age. (This is fine)
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have. (Dont care)
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click (maybe 2-3x clicking with 2x morale, would be too much for most players to keep up with more then that)

Change of Age name....

Due to it no longer owned by previous owners and hoping to bring new players in we have discussed changing the Age 24 to something along the lines of Era 1.... basically KoC looks old with Age 24 and we want to make it look somewhat new and appealing.... Do you think the change would be good as a new look??

Remember please stay on subject as this is not to discuss what else should or shouldnt be done this is purely for the initial start of the age....

Bon- Please remove officer bonus entirely just provides unfair advantages, and consider removing or severely limiting trickle. I liked your post that you would consider removing it entirely. It would definetly make the game far more interesting to play. :<3:

25th July 2018, 08:35 AM
SpiderWoman

If we are going to have smaller armies because of clicking or trickle then please lower the cost of everything accordingly. Otherwise no one would even get the 5k UP or HOG.

25th July 2018, 08:53 AM
serpantsalot

I actually wouldn't be upset if people could never afford the upgrades... things like 10k or 20k are the only gambles in the game right now... everything else is expected.

25th July 2018, 09:53 AM
ThirtySeven

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
-Initial start gold set to 5m
If you are going to keep this, make sure you don't make the same mistake you made at the start of the beta age. I had fun being #1 for a while, but the hatred was unreal. Even though 5m is not 50m, it would still be profitable the first week. The real question is if it's exploitable in combination with the additional turns if 15 guys sell their 5m to their main. That is pretty much why I'd stick to 50k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
-Initial UP start at 0
Regardless whether it's 0 or 'something low' - the first upgrades are basically worthless, both in amount of gold required, as in the fact that it's completely insignificant with regards to the first week of major clicking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
-Initial turns changed to 2000
This is something I actually like. More chance of intercepting 'small sells' at the beginning of the age. Chaos galore. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm)
I like the mentioned idea of a short 'changing period' for noobs, and people like me that don't think when registering and end up with the same race as previous age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age.
No real opinion on this one. Unlimited would be fun for a change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have.
Maybe make it such that the alliance names of previous age can only be registered by the accounts owning the alliance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click
There should always be a balance between tactics and invested time. This one pushes it right to invested time only. The only tactics here are 'don't show up at work and click click click'. In case you don't have a job: found something you could excel at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
Change of Age name....

Due to it no longer owned by previous owners and hoping to bring new players in we have discussed changing the Age 24 to something along the lines of Era 1.... basically KoC looks old with Age 24 and we want to make it look somewhat new and appealing.... Do you think the change would be good as a new look??
You could use some creativity here with also some new achievements. Begin an 'age of the dragon' where you also mention the 10 accounts with most dragons/dragonskins on the front page.

25th July 2018, 12:31 PM
KR_TUE

Maybe make it to where only Bon and the mods have control of creating an alliance. Once an alliance leader tells Bon an company to establish an alliance, then give the ownership of that page to the leader... just a thought.. would prevent people trolling too much at the start..

25th July 2018, 12:36 PM
DarkMirage

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
For the new age with only a month to go I am going to give you some idea of what the start of the age will look like.... Feel free to give feedback but stay on track with what I have listed.... I am giving you this info so that you can see what I am thinking of doing for the new age....

New Age Changes to keep or change to:-


-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click

....
I'm not crazy about clicking that much but I'd be up to it provided I was sure that my competitors were also players who are really clicking and not using auto-clickers. Many people would say that spending that much time clicking would be too much of a waste of time but I'm OK with competitive clicking. But to me, that much clicking against bots WOULD be a waste of time.

26th July 2018, 01:16 AM
SpiderWoman

Agreed if there is no way for auto clickers to be used I'd be happy clicking 10k or 20k a day.

26th July 2018, 09:44 AM
ThirtySeven

Zooming in on the clicking:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkMirage View Post
But to me, that much clicking against bots WOULD be a waste of time.
This is the main issue. Not the bots though.

I know how this game works with clicking, and how sensitive the feelings are towards changing that. But, let's face it, clicking basically feels like a waste of time on itself without looking at competition. It is no fun decrypting barely readable letters after the first 100 times, and if you are really honest, there are tons of other things you could do that would be either more useful or more enjoyable. I seriously cannot imagine people enjoying the current clicking form, but I have the same feeling with sadomasochism and that still happens, so there are probably some.

(Side thought: maybe you could actually get paid for decrypting letters like that? Maybe something for bon to look at if he ever wishes to get some returns on investment. )

With respect to the expressed hope to increase player count, clicking is not appealing at all. It's tough to explain 'it's fun to play, but you have to spend 3 hours a day pushing the corresponding keys on your keyboard if you wish to compete'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWoman View Post
Agreed if there is no way for auto clickers to be used I'd be happy clicking 10k or 20k a day.
20k a day? Saying that you're well trained and can get an average of 100 per minute, that's 3.5 hours a day clicking. And you'd still be happy? Damn. I'm pretty sure 920 out of the 925 other users are not looking forward to competing with that.

-------------------------

If you wish to make clicking more attractive, I'd suggest making clicking a more prominent part of the competition. Not by investing time, but by quality. Ideas vary from 'improve click rate by successful streak' to 'put a beat under it, basically play Stepmania but with letters in stead of arrows, and register highscores'.
Image

User avatar
bon
Game Owner
Posts: 78
Joined: 2 months ago

Re: Age 24 New age changes startup feedback....

Post by bon » 2 months ago

26th July 2018, 11:46 AM
krieper

Not sure why it would be necessary to go back to x10 clicks. Meh. I like this game, however, I can't commit to wasting hours a day clicking random letters anymore. I think the average koc player is older than the average gamer, which means they are likely to have a professional carreer and/or a familylife. Wouldn't be a good thing to ask of them to commit to hours a day of clicking.

I know there are exceptions. Spiderwoman balanced her life in favor of KoC and milking goats, so for people like her, clicking more means more fun... however, I think the majority of people who want to click, are satisfied with a hard cap of 2-3k clicks. Not 10k or 20k.

26th July 2018, 03:04 PM
chrisl7605

Just my two cents but I think we should go back to clicking and sabbing the way they were. We don't really need to debate if they worked or not we know they did.

One thing I think we should change is how much spy it takes to sab. It seems as though people want to have the ability to damage big accounts but also don't want big accounts and alliances to have the ability to destroy them. People also don't want to others to get maxxed too quickly that way everyone has a turn in sabbing. I think reverting back to the old % and only two sabs a day does that but make it so players only need 1/3rd spy to sab.

26th July 2018, 03:53 PM
Karina

New Age Changes to keep or change to:-

-Initial start gold set to 5m - OK
-Initial UP start at 0 - ok
-Initial turns changed to 2000 OK
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm) I say allow 1 change, cuz people will mess up on accident and choose wrong race and 1 allows a bit of leeway
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age. Whatever, think 5 is enough, there are a few alliance jumpers who probably abuse this, but I don't think is a huge deal
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have. You referring to GUA alliance threads or In Game alliance name? GUA stuff, archive it. in game, I think could create an issue and may create more work for you at the beginning with players "stealing" alliance names, but if you're ok with that, then go for it.
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click If this is a casual game for the casual player, I don't think 10k will be a good idea. small click list is best. You already have certain bigs complaining about how they are too big to slay, too big to use turns, too big for just about everything in game, now having 10k clicks will give them more to complain about. Small click list, please!

Change of Age name....go for it

26th July 2018, 07:40 PM
xeros2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
For the new age with only a month to go I am going to give you some idea of what the start of the age will look like.... Feel free to give feedback but stay on track with what I have listed.... I am giving you this info so that you can see what I am thinking of doing for the new age....

New Age Changes to keep or change to:-

-Initial start gold set to 5m I have no issues, but could be open to abuse as was seen earlier this age
-Initial UP start at 0 makes sense starting from scratch, gives players the opportunity to decide how they want to play
-Initial turns changed to 2000 Again no issues, but I'd suggest a turn cap at 20k. Would promote activity to keep on top of your turns
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm) This would be a really interesting change. Though, as I've stated elsewhere, a good addition to this would be to have unlimited changes for the first week after creating your account to give you some time to decide how you want to play (especially useful for all these newbies we're hoping to bring to the game)
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age. Think that's a little high personally. As above, maybe unlimited for the first week after creating your account then limited to 3-5 from then on
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have. As has been stated previously, this is seriously open to abuse. My suggestion would be to make all alliance names subject to approval from admins. After all, the admins already know the leaders (old farts) of most of the current alliances and it would make it easier to weed out some of the rubbish that is there currently.
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click Personally, I think clicking should be tied in with UP. The higher your UP, the less you can click. It gives people the opportunity to play a big account without clicking (providing they want to invest in UP). But like anything to do with clicking, it would be open to abuse. Trickle also needs to be looked at.

Change of Age name.... Could be worth a poll from some of the suggestions already in here

Due to it no longer owned by previous owners and hoping to bring new players in we have discussed changing the Age 24 to something along the lines of Era 1.... basically KoC looks old with Age 24 and we want to make it look somewhat new and appealing.... Do you think the change would be good as a new look??

Remember please stay on subject as this is not to discuss what else should or shouldnt be done this is purely for the initial start of the age....
See my 2 cents above

26th July 2018, 09:42 PM
RMFz-

-Initial start gold set to 5m - fine
-Initial UP start at 0 - set it at 320 so we have something to start with and new players get started faster too.
-Initial turns changed to 2000 - no comments
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5 - I personally think UP should be wee bit easier and maybe have more levels so that the lesser value required is balanced out with more levels.

27th July 2018, 01:12 AM
ReallyMe

-Initial start gold set to 5m
I like the idea. Gives the player more to start with.

-Initial UP start at 0
Starting with some UP would benefit slaying I think? Wouldn't be a bad idea to consider.

-Initial turns changed to 2000
Sounds good

-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm)
Not a fan of 0 changes at all. There needs to be room for players who regret their choice or want to try a different way of playing. Resetting an account would be too much of a punishment as players would lose their XP progression.

-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age.
I'm okay with that.

-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have.
No opinion.

-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click
I like the x2 morale. Please stick to that at least.

-Change of Age name
As you're breathing new life into koc, it would be a nice idea. Just keep it simple. Era is good.

Thanks for the topic.

27th July 2018, 04:52 PM
ghoulavenger

I think unless the races are rebalanced to have no casualty reduction in them you're going to see some very one sided account structure favoring fewer casualties with no race changes. Basically going from humans to undead. So I'd generally advise against it.

On the subject of removing all alliances, I'd only do this if you were rewriting the alliance structure -- simple upgrades will probably translate pretty easily, and if you're not changing it at all it only seems like it'd create whining. Doesn't seem to be much benefit to do it otherwise (faster than deleting individual alliances like USA that might resurface anyway?).

To those crying about clicking: Time investment is always necessary to be competitive in any game you play so I don't feel this is a valid concern. Although I admit I never did like clicking much, so I'd rather it be replaced with something more interesting. What that something is though, I don't know, so I'm fine with clicking staying.

The rest I don't have any strong opinion on.

27th July 2018, 06:23 PM
RMFz-

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghoulavenger View Post
I think unless the races are rebalanced to have no casualty reduction in them you're going to see some very one sided account structure favoring fewer casualties with no race changes. Basically going from humans to undead. So I'd generally advise against it.
I second this, race changes should remain at at least at two or 3. An unintended consequence of no changes may be that everyone goes for undead and the whole game becomes a massive bore with turtle sentries and ineffective raiding. IMO, that could get really really boring, more so than any other restrictions.

27th July 2018, 07:44 PM
krieper

As if everyone would go undead lol...

27th July 2018, 11:44 PM
_RoGuEsHaDoW_

Quote:
Originally Posted by krieper View Post
As if everyone would go undead lol...
Lol honestly if you are playing main, with no changes, and dont pick undead you are asking for a beating

28th July 2018, 12:43 AM
vedkasse

Quote:
Originally Posted by krieper View Post
things like epoch will not really ring a bell.
Spanish/portugese: Época
German: Epoche
Norwegian/Danish: Epoke
Swedish: Epok
French: Époque
Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian: Epoha

28th July 2018, 01:54 AM
krieper

Quote:
Originally Posted by vedkasse View Post
Spanish/portugese: Época
German: Epoche
Norwegian/Danish: Epoke
Swedish: Epok
French: Époque
Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian: Epoha
Fine, I just don't like it xD

28th July 2018, 01:57 AM
krieper

Quote:
Originally Posted by _RoGuEsHaDoW_ View Post
Lol honestly if you are playing main, with no changes, and dont pick undead you are asking for a beating
I'm sure many mains will yes. Didn't know everyone was a main these days though xD

I'm sure the peaceful rankers, like LGC will consider humans or orcs.

I'm sure each alliance will appoint one big elf.

It will be a lot more interesting to fight for top race with 0 changes. Who will pick dwarves? :-P

3rd August 2018, 10:18 PM
MFnBonsai

Quote:
New Age Changes to keep or change to:-

-Initial start gold set to 5m
-Initial UP start at 0
-Initial turns changed to 2000
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (not finalized atm)
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age.
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have.
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click

Change of Age name....

Due to it no longer owned by previous owners and hoping to bring new players in we have discussed changing the Age 24 to something along the lines of Era 1.... basically KoC looks old with Age 24 and we want to make it look somewhat new and appealing.... Do you think the change would be good as a new look??
Above is what my initial ideas for the new age were going to be.... after seeing responses here this is where i am at at this point in time....

-Initial start gold set to 5m (unchanged)
-Initial UP start at 0 (unchanged)
-Initial turns changed to 2000 (unchanged)
-No race changes, choose a race and stick to it for the entire age or max 5 race changes. (leaning towards at least 3-5 race changes)
-Commander changes set to 10 for whole age. (unchanged)
-Remove all alliances (Alliances must create a new alliance) If this goes ahead I suggest trying to archive all your threads that you currently have. (will not remove alliances but will worm out not actively recruiting alliances)
-Clicking changed to 10x links and 1.5-2x morale per click (clicking will be lowered to 1-2x with 2x morale per click)

Additional changes....

UP will be massively reduced.... we have something in the works and if we can bring this new addition UP will not need to be so high nor will it cost as much as it does currently....

We also have something in the works regarding recruiting or how players will be able to gain morale.... which is why above I have changed what I plan to do with how many links can be clicked per player....

Covert level costs will also be increased.... that will be sorted out during the downtime and implemented ready for the new age....

Fort and Siege Upgrades will have more levels....

3rd August 2018, 10:23 PM
Lancelotnl

Cool, Im curious how it works out. Looks good.

3rd August 2018, 11:04 PM
RMFz-

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
UP will be massively reduced.... we have something in the works and if we can bring this new addition UP will not need to be so high nor will it cost as much as it does currently....

Covert level costs will also be increased.... that will be sorted out during the downtime and implemented ready for the new age....
I hope that you have thought about this holistically bon. With 2x click lists, 2x morale and trickles, you're might just unintentionally promote clicking and large alliances as the mainstay of growth in the game, which may be to the detriment of every other style of game play. There should, ideally, be a way for players to grow in a small alliance setting or without clicking. Clicking by itself does not grow the game any more (as it did earlier), and is now just a measure of how much time and effort you can devote to it and whether you've got a nice large chain doing it too.

Good UP is one of the ways smaller alliances and players seek to grow as the age progresses, and also allows them to complete at some level with larger chains, at least when it comes to maintaining their accounts in war. If you're not undead and at war, the covert and general losses are very steep and without UP, I doubt non-clickers stand a chance. I'll give you an example - Let's say a player has 5000 UP and needs 50,000 coverts to hold sentry and spy tools. With 10x10 raids a day during war (on the lower side for even a mid-size war), the player would lose at least 5000-5500 coverts daily as elves, and around 7000-8000 as humans. Therefore, the player will always be barely even or actually degrowing. If you increase the raids, the player would definitely have to start training down. The TBG decreases with the training down as well, impacting ability to maintain and grow.

If this is your intention, then it is okay. Since you have not detailed the specifics of the new system, I will not be presumptuous. However, I did want to put this out there for your consideration.

Thanks.

3rd August 2018, 11:28 PM
LinguiniFresh

I really hope a solo player can compete to be the king of chaos because they should be just as strong as a group of people that work together to boost their main!!!

4th August 2018, 12:27 AM
SpiderWoman

The changes sound all good to me!

4th August 2018, 02:11 AM
bloodpirate

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMFz- View Post
I hope that you have thought about this holistically bon. With 2x click lists, 2x morale and trickles, you're might just unintentionally promote clicking and large alliances as the mainstay of growth in the game, which may be to the detriment of every other style of game play. There should, ideally, be a way for players to grow in a small alliance setting or without clicking. Clicking by itself does not grow the game any more (as it did earlier), and is now just a measure of how much time and effort you can devote to it and whether you've got a nice large chain doing it too.

Good UP is one of the ways smaller alliances and players seek to grow as the age progresses, and also allows them to complete at some level with larger chains, at least when it comes to maintaining their accounts in war. If you're not undead and at war, the covert and general losses are very steep and without UP, I doubt non-clickers stand a chance. I'll give you an example - Let's say a player has 5000 UP and needs 50,000 coverts to hold sentry and spy tools. With 10x10 raids a day during war (on the lower side for even a mid-size war), the player would lose at least 5000-5500 coverts daily as elves, and around 7000-8000 as humans. Therefore, the player will always be barely even or actually degrowing. If you increase the raids, the player would definitely have to start training down. The TBG decreases with the training down as well, impacting ability to maintain and grow.

If this is your intention, then it is okay. Since you have not detailed the specifics of the new system, I will not be presumptuous. However, I did want to put this out there for your consideration.

Thanks.
some good points, but large alliances will get their UPs faster, and therefore grow even faster than small players.

4th August 2018, 03:58 AM
Vredesbyrd

Quote:
Originally Posted by LinguiniFresh View Post
I really hope a solo player can compete to be the king of chaos because they should be just as strong as a group of people that work together to boost their main!!!
Right now its too easy to be a solo player actually compared to the good old days of KOC ..

7th August 2018, 01:57 PM
Krad

Smaller clicklist sounds great and will bring me back to the game

7th August 2018, 07:17 PM
krieper

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krad View Post
Smaller clicklist sounds great and will bring me back to the game
Same here.

9th August 2018, 11:39 AM
Krad

I dont know where to post this so i will put it here. Has there been any thought on changing the minimum % you can steal from someone when slaying? Allowing slayers to steal more gold will make for alot more chaos surely.

Just a thought i had

9th August 2018, 02:52 PM
Brandonito

That has already been increased.

9th August 2018, 05:59 PM
Krad

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonito View Post
That has already been increased.
Oh my bad. Sorry :punch:

13th August 2018, 06:25 AM
Rudden

Hi,

Will the new costs for each segment of the game be published prior to the beginning of the new age?

13th August 2018, 04:11 PM
xeros2.0

Nice bon.

Looking forward to seeing costs/strength of fort, siege, covert and UP. Could make for some interesting strategy changes ;)

15th August 2018, 05:23 AM
MrHARDCORE

Make in game recruiter best and only recruiter, increase new account starting point, turns, gold, up, starting tff, tech as time goes to to discourage new players from starting because they are to far behind.

26th August 2018, 01:20 AM
bloodpirate

what happened to sab turns, i can only use one and have to reenter it each time

26th August 2018, 01:47 AM
Jankster

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodpirate View Post
what happened to sab turns, i can only use one and have to reenter it each time
Seems it turned from 4x5 turns to 20x1 turns
The amount I dunno?

26th August 2018, 06:15 AM
bloodpirate

over 5 times as long to sab each person. need 20 turns but only have 50 tries. the sabber looses more stuff too.

26th August 2018, 08:07 AM
king_archibald

Takes me a lot more time now to do it at work.
But hey, at work i should be working amiright.

26th August 2018, 10:39 AM
kaoz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jankster View Post
Seems it turned from 4x5 turns to 20x1 turns
The amount I dunno?
You can use a maximum of 13 successful sab turns against a player every 24 hours.

26th August 2018, 12:27 PM
_RoGuEsHaDoW_

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaoz View Post
You can use a maximum of 13 successful sab turns against a player every 24 hours.
They just dropped to 10

26th August 2018, 12:34 PM
The_Sovereign

Sabbing is now tedious, weak and ineffective. I guess I'm done for the beta

26th August 2018, 01:46 PM
MFnBonsai

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sovereign View Post
Sabbing is now tedious, weak and ineffective. I guess I'm done for the beta
Care to elaborate??? Or just going to have a cry and go sulk in the corner....

26th August 2018, 01:58 PM
bloodpirate

yes, 10 turns per person, one at a time. will be great for large alliances warring small ones. now it will take about 20 people to max sab someone. only large alliances will be able to come up with 20 sabbers. my only complaint.

26th August 2018, 02:13 PM
Karina

im not a fan of the current sabbing. It takes longer to sab, which defeats the purpose. While it alleviated the issue of people getting maxed quickly, this only benefits larger chains who have more players and therefore a higher chance of having active players and it catering to the rankers who were complaining of not being able to sab. The loss of tools is higher as well. This would be an ok compromise if spy/sentry tools were to be made unsabbable. As it is, this will diminish the amount of sabbers currently in the game and eliminate sabbing during wars, as it takes longer and most players are casual and would be unnecessary. Also, protects big accounts as it takes more players to sab them now than before.
I remember someone saying (and im paraphrasing here) What are rogues? They were simply called sabbers back in the day.

The game has changed much and I have hope it will improve...this change however, it is not an improvement, not on its own. Make spy/sentry tools unsabbable along with this change and see where it goes.

26th August 2018, 02:23 PM
MFnBonsai

Making tools unsabbable only makes it better for rankers and large accounts.... don’t know how many times I have to say they won’t be made unsabbable but it’s irking my gerkin having to repeat myself over and over....

26th August 2018, 02:40 PM
Brandonito

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodpirate View Post
yes, 10 turns per person, one at a time. will be great for large alliances warring small ones. now it will take about 20 people to max sab someone. only large alliances will be able to come up with 20 sabbers. my only complaint.
It requires 10 people to max sab someone currently. It used to be 20 before this age, but the max armory loss was lowered from 10% to 5%. So 10.

26th August 2018, 02:40 PM
The_Sovereign

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
Care to elaborate??? Or just going to have a cry and go sulk in the corner....
I just wanted to share something I learned as a business owner like yourself. We are the customers and how you deal with complaints will determine the health of the business. Criticism with anything you do is normal but please don't have to take it all so personally.

Sabbing takes twice as long and is half as effective. I would rather have the same amount destroyed, but it only takes 2 successful attempts. I got bored and quit after sabbing two people.

26th August 2018, 03:02 PM
MFnBonsai

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sovereign View Post
I just wanted to share something I learned as a business owner like yourself. We are the customers and how you deal with complaints will determine the health of the business. Criticism with anything you do is normal but please don't have to take it all so personally.

Sabbing takes twice as long and is half as effective. I would rather have the same amount destroyed, but it only takes 2 successful attempts. I got bored and quit after sabbing two people.
Why didn’t you say that in the first place instead of nothing constructive.... I am not a mind reader after all :)

This is a beta after all and we are making some changes to sabotage before the new age starts....

With other changes we have made that will come into effect next age the current sabotage mechs might just work perfectly....

26th August 2018, 05:16 PM
kaoz

Players using scripts to inject 5 sab turns as an option have now be warned. These scripts are illegal, players found will be banned. We are logging ID's

Why is there still a dropbox to select only one option (of 1 sab turn)?

26th August 2018, 06:28 PM
Mielinski

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodpirate View Post
yes, 10 turns per person, one at a time. will be great for large alliances warring small ones. now it will take about 20 people to max sab someone. only large alliances will be able to come up with 20 sabbers. my only complaint.
10 instead of 5 , can you really not count at all? Or is it in your nature to twist around every fact?

26th August 2018, 10:18 PM
krieper

Gj bon. I think this does bring some balance back.

27th August 2018, 02:16 AM
bloodpirate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mielinski View Post
10 instead of 5 , can you really not count at all? Or is it in your nature to twist around every fact?
i stand by my numbers .. it used to take 20 people to max someone using 2x5 turns .. then they changed it to 5 people times 5 turns twice a day, then 5 people using 5 turns once a day .. then they changed it to 20 times using one person, now they changed it to 10 times using one person

so, yes, i can count .. tell us facts instead of slagging me. if you have nothing constructive to say, keep your mouth shut

27th August 2018, 03:12 AM
SpiderWoman

I really like this new sabbing policy of 1 turn but can do it 10 times. It makes it so you most likely get caught at least once so you know who sabbed you.

27th August 2018, 05:51 AM
kaoz

Ghosting is so much more fun!

27th August 2018, 06:52 AM
Mielinski

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodpirate View Post
i stand by my numbers .. it used to take 20 people to max someone using 2x5 turns .. then they changed it to 5 people times 5 turns twice a day, then 5 people using 5 turns once a day .. then they changed it to 20 times using one person, now they changed it to 10 times using one person

so, yes, i can count .. tell us facts instead of slagging me. if you have nothing constructive to say, keep your mouth shut
Facts as in whatever you claim to be a fact is a fact? Like the last 100 posts you made?

On topic: good changes, let the sabbers work for their results. I hope this is the beginning of more changes to be made on sabbing in general. Something more creative would be appreciated like being able to sab more of a person's weapons type based on the race he chose.

27th August 2018, 08:03 AM
jackdaw

It's an interesting attempt to change the balance. If you choose to be nothing but a sab account you have to work harder and don't generate the experience. And in the past too many large alliances who set "minimum" hit rules or they will sab you out of existence.

Alliances have been trying to establish their versions of order. We need more chaos.
Image

User avatar
bon
Game Owner
Posts: 78
Joined: 2 months ago

Re: Age 24 New age changes startup feedback....

Post by bon » 2 months ago

27th August 2018, 09:01 AM
kaoz

A wise man once said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdaw View Post
We need more chaos.
+1

27th August 2018, 04:51 PM
xeros2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karina View Post
im not a fan of the current sabbing. It takes longer to sab, which defeats the purpose. While it alleviated the issue of people getting maxed quickly, this only benefits larger chains who have more players and therefore a higher chance of having active players and it catering to the rankers who were complaining of not being able to sab. The loss of tools is higher as well. This would be an ok compromise if spy/sentry tools were to be made unsabbable. As it is, this will diminish the amount of sabbers currently in the game and eliminate sabbing during wars, as it takes longer and most players are casual and would be unnecessary. Also, protects big accounts as it takes more players to sab them now than before.
I remember someone saying (and im paraphrasing here) What are rogues? They were simply called sabbers back in the day.

The game has changed much and I have hope it will improve...this change however, it is not an improvement, not on its own. Make spy/sentry tools unsabbable along with this change and see where it goes.
How does it defeat the purpose? It means people actually have to spend time sabbing now. Rather than jumping online for 15-20min a day.
Everyone is crying about how people who invest minimal time in their account can do so much damage so in that regard, this is a great change.
Haven't tested it myself yet though, so overall.... who knows?

27th August 2018, 04:58 PM
Vredesbyrd

I like it. ^_^ Spending more time sabbing? Well thats why I play so I don't mind at all. Besides most targets will soon enough drop under the limit as they sell. The only thing that worries me is that its going to take some time to get sabbable the coming era/age without the inflation. When will the first war start? :wtf:
But fact of the matter is that more players can sab same target now from what I understand and thats a good thing !!

Regarding balance it will still be unballanced regarding raiding. No change there.

27th August 2018, 07:07 PM
RMFz-

Changing game mechanics to be able to sab less or require more players to max a target is perfectly fine, but just forcing everyone to sab 1 turn at a time and use up a lot of time is a lazy attitude from the admins. With the halving of sab turns and more players required to max, big alliances will be empowered further as they have the active accounts to max others, whether in war or as an "approval". Be that as it may, being the admin's choice, but forcing everyone to sab 1 turn at a time? War will be very difficult in terms of sabotaging, it will take thousands of missions daily per player to sabotage entire alliances. Is this what the admins intend "chaos" to be? Requiring hours daily?

27th August 2018, 07:46 PM
MFnBonsai

Sabotage using turns is no longer.... 5 turns or 1 turn is irrelevant now as the using turns to sabb is no longer a part of KoC....

27th August 2018, 08:04 PM
RMFz-

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
Sabotage using turns is no longer.... 5 turns or 1 turn is irrelevant now as the using turns to sabb is no longer a part of KoC....
Sure. You can say it that way too, but that doesn't take away from the fact that sabotage has become an extremely tedious process. You can allow people to sabotage the same amount with lesser tries, say 2-4.

As an analogy, everything should be made tedious in the game so that all styles of play are equally affected. Remove full attacks altogether and keep only raids so you need to attack 10 times to steal the gold? That's directly analogous to what is happening here. To extend this further, why not make banking also in increments of 1/10th of the total gold you have? Click "buy weapons" 10 times to buy what you need to?

My sole point is that reduction in sab limits and requiring more players to sab is fine, but making the process tedious on top of that is not done, IMO.

27th August 2018, 08:05 PM
Endtime

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMFz- View Post
Changing game mechanics to be able to sab less or require more players to max a target is perfectly fine, but just forcing everyone to sab 1 turn at a time and use up a lot of time is a lazy attitude from the admins. With the halving of sab turns and more players required to max, big alliances will be empowered further as they have the active accounts to max others, whether in war or as an "approval". Be that as it may, being the admin's choice, but forcing everyone to sab 1 turn at a time? War will be very difficult in terms of sabotaging, it will take thousands of missions daily per player to sabotage entire alliances. Is this what the admins intend "chaos" to be? Requiring hours daily?
It took me 2 mins to max my 10 attempts out, get a faster computer.

We don't force you to play, we don't force you to sab, but like attacking - sabbing should take time.

27th August 2018, 08:08 PM
ROTTENSOUL

Sabbing already was very time consuming compared to raiding or slaying, this only makes it that much worse. It will work but that doesn't mean it's a good solution. A lot less people will be sabbing now cause it will be boring af. I said it before, there really needs to be some sort of team to judge any changes before that get implemented. Just include a couple of people with different playstyles and a good set if brains, it would be good for everyone.

27th August 2018, 08:08 PM
The_Sovereign

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtime View Post
It took me 2 mins to max my 10 attempts out, get a faster computer.

We don't force you to play, we don't force you to sab, but like attacking - sabbing should take time.
Multiply that by 100, every day, for a month.

27th August 2018, 08:10 PM
Endtime

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMFz- View Post
Sure. You can say it that way too, but that doesn't take away from the fact that sabotage has become an extremely tedious process. You can allow people to sabotage the same amount with lesser tries, say 2-4.

As an analogy, everything should be made tedious in the game so that all styles of play are equally affected. Remove full attacks altogether and keep only raids so you need to attack 10 times to steal the gold? That's directly analogous to what is happening here. To extend this further, why not make banking also in increments of 1/10th of the total gold you have? Click "buy weapons" 10 times to buy what you need to?

My sole point is that reduction in sab limits and requiring more players to sab is fine, but making the process tedious on top of that is not done, IMO.
The previous system you could sab double x 4, with 0 major losses from sabbing. Making sabbing the easiest option apart from raiding to cause the most significant damage at the lowest loss.

Do you want 4 sab turns with chances at loosing 50 nuns per fail? Because that is the only option we see, you want it easier, we will make it at a heavier loss for the sabber. Same as raiding.

27th August 2018, 08:16 PM
Endtime

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sovereign View Post
Multiply that by 100, every day, for a month.
Then don't sab? So far, as usual there has not been 1 good feedback with an idea behind it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROTTENSOUL View Post
Sabbing already was very time consuming compared to raiding or slaying, this only makes it that much worse. It will work but that doesn't mean it's a good solution. A lot less people will be sabbing now cause it will be boring af. I said it before, there really needs to be some sort of team to judge any changes before that get implemented. Just include a couple of people with different playstyles and a good set if brains, it would be good for everyone.
I have never been against this, but how are we suppose to trust the updates won't be leaked?

27th August 2018, 08:20 PM
RMFz-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtime View Post
We don't force you to play, we don't force you to sab, but like attacking - sabbing should take time.
It would be nice if you didn't resort to arguments in the nature of "quit if you don't like it". In any case, your point is that sabbing should take time just like attacking. When you say attacking, I assume you refer to raiding. Now, in raiding, as long as you are within the range in which your army doesn't flee, a raid will ALWAYS go through (defended or successful is a different matter - the idea is always to just raid and not for it to beat the defence). In sabotaging, even if you are in range for sabotaging successfully, you will not succeed every single time. And that increases the number of missions. You can easily find anecdotal evidence which others members can post in this regard. Further, for raiding, you can simply raid again 10 times instead of going back to the attack page. In sabs, every time you succeed, you have to go back and sabotage again. This again increases the number of clicks.

Quote:
The previous system you could sab double x 4, with 0 major losses from sabbing. Making sabbing the easiest option apart from raiding to cause the most significant damage at the lowest loss
You had problems with players losing too much - for that, you reduced the sab amount and number of players to max. The 10x successful sabotage change does not fit in with the raiding analogy for the reasons highlighted above.

27th August 2018, 08:23 PM
ROTTENSOUL

I don't believe an alternative needs to be that extreme but I for one much rather take way higher losses. I don't even want to imagine sabbing for 8 hours when I have 200 people to sab. It's absolutely insane. It to me seems we have people who are working very hard on the game, but have implemented a lot of stupid changes which resulted jn problems that could gave easily been forseen.

27th August 2018, 08:25 PM
The_Sovereign

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtime View Post
Then don't sab? So far, as usual there has not been 1 good feedback with an idea behind it.



I have never been against this, but how are we suppose to trust the updates won't be leaked?
I dont have much choice since I am in a war. With this, you will kill wars. The time commitment is feeling like a full time job. And not even a fun job at that.

If you want feedback, not many really complained about sabbing early beta or pre-beta. It was balanced, encouraged teamwork, and was intuitive. There was a change at first that made it OP, and then a nerf in reaction that made it super weak

ROTTENSOUL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtime View Post
I have never been against this, but how are we suppose to trust the updates won't be leaked?
It's a small risk you have to take I guess. I could name a few intelligent players i'd trust for a job like that, rankers and sabbers but you guys would have to trust them. For starters they would not have to be the ones to come up with ideas, just say what they think the cosequence from a certain change would be and if it's a smart thing to do or not.

27th August 2018, 08:35 PM
Endtime

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMFz- View Post
It would be nice if you didn't resort to arguments in the nature of "quit if you don't like it"..
I have said 4 times so far, twist my words and i won't be active on GUA. Choose the way you respond more carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROTTENSOUL View Post
I don't believe an alternative needs to be that extreme but I for one much rather take way higher losses. I don't even want to imagine sabbing for 8 hours when I have 200 people to sab. It's absolutely insane. It to me seems we have people who are working very hard on the game, but have implemented a lot of stupid changes which resulted jn problems that could gave easily been forseen.
Stupid, indeed. Sounds like we should all take a break, i mean hey, i do this in my *free* time for *no reward*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROTTENSOUL View Post
It's a small risk you have to take I guess. I could name a few intelligent players i'd trust for a job like that, rankers and sabbers but you guys would have to trust them. For starters they would not have to be the ones to come up with ideas, just say what they think the cosequence from a certain change would be and if it's a smart thing to do or not.
I will discuss this with bon, but i don't trust many people and i bet he doesn't either.

27th August 2018, 08:53 PM
Aggie

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROTTENSOUL View Post
It's a small risk you have to take I guess. I could name a few intelligent players i'd trust for a job like that, rankers and sabbers but you guys would have to trust them. For starters they would not have to be the ones to come up with ideas, just say what they think the cosequence from a certain change would be and if it's a smart thing to do or not.
I don't like that idea one single bit.
Tbh, I trust VERY few people in KOC. And I don't have trust issues, but experiences in the past are making me very cautious.

The latest sab change is a very good change imo. If you really want to go to war, you should work for it imo. So it takes a little bit more time,
And sabbing 200 people with these numbers of active players is kinda bs.
Let's wait what the new age brings and discuss it along the way instead of burning down new changes the day after they were made. tyvm! :)

27th August 2018, 08:58 PM
MFnBonsai

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROTTENSOUL View Post
It's a small risk you have to take I guess. I could name a few intelligent players i'd trust for a job like that, rankers and sabbers but you guys would have to trust them. For starters they would not have to be the ones to come up with ideas, just say what they think the cosequence from a certain change would be and if it's a smart thing to do or not.
Everyone has their own opinion on the changes.... whose opinion do we trust to be fair to all.... there are players that like the changes and players that dont.... a change favors the rankers then the players that choose to war complain.... a change favors players that war i get flooded with bitching from rankers....

As seen with the change to sabotage there were players that continued to use an illegal tool to circumvent KoC mechs.... there are also players using ACs, ABs and numerous players over the ages that have been banned.... I am meant to trust those players??? To be completely honest I do not trust anyone and thats part of the course over what I have seen while modding the game....

Remember this is a learning experience for me now that I own the game.... I am going to make mistakes and also have players disgruntled because changes dont suit you or your playstyle.... If you really just want the game to go back to how boring it was before i took over and have no changes at all and no contact with the admins at all I can do that.... But I am trying a few things out that is different from the normal.... things are changing.... good or bad we will see next age....

27th August 2018, 09:14 PM
RMFz-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtime View Post
I have said 4 times so far, twist my words and i won't be active on GUA. Choose the way you respond more carefully.
You can say it the fifth and the hundredth time too - I did not make any threat of quitting the game or anything of that sort, *you* came up with the "we're not forcing you to play" statement. I have at all times given constructive feedback from my perspective, you threatening to go off GUA is not a commensurate reaction to my feedback. I agree you are doing this for free and are short on time and patience, but please - either address my points or don't respond. There is frankly no point in engaging in this back and forth about your time and my time and the way I should be addressing you but which you will not follow yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie View Post
And sabbing 200 people with these numbers of active players is kinda bs.
200 players is overkill, but 70-80 is not. In the FOD~RL vs DEMK war, we sabbed 70-80 people daily (admittedly, also a lot of smaller players, but that is the point of war). That came to 280-320 successful missions a day, probably more like 400-450 taking into account failed sabs. Now we're talking many multiples of that. The work would be humongous, it would actually be the most difficult thing to do in the game. Now the response to this would be - pick and choose who you want to sab, you can't have everything. To that, my response would be that if the admins wish to moderate wars in this fashion, then they should say so. I have no problems with intended changes, but sometimes the impact of intended changes on actual gameplay is not immediately apparent to players and admins alike. My effort is to ensure these decisions are taken keeping all aspects in mind, that's all/

27th August 2018, 09:27 PM
MFnBonsai

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMFz- View Post
The work would be humongous, it would actually be the most difficult thing to do in the game. Now the response to this would be - pick and choose who you want to sab, you can't have everything. To that, my response would be that if the admins wish to moderate wars in this fashion, then they should say so. I have no problems with intended changes, but sometimes the impact of intended changes on actual gameplay is not immediately apparent to players and admins alike. My effort is to ensure these decisions are taken keeping all aspects in mind, that's all/
We are not interested in moderating who someone wishes to war.... dont know how you got that impression....

This is my take on this....

Sabotage should not be easy or fast....
You should not expect to ghost accounts.... if you are going to sabotage someone there should be a chance you get caught....
10 attempts to sabotage takes too long??? come on be serious....

27th August 2018, 09:32 PM
krieper

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
We are not interested in moderating who someone wishes to war.... dont know how you got that impression....

This is my take on this....

Sabotage should not be easy or fast....
You should not expect to ghost accounts.... if you are going to sabotage someone there should be a chance you get caught....
10 attempts to sabotage takes too long??? come on be serious....
It takes longer. I think if you add sabrankings to the eoa rankîs for example, or add a topsabber mention on the homepage after the eoa, you'd make the disgruntled sabbers happy again ;-)

27th August 2018, 09:35 PM
MFnBonsai

Quote:
Originally Posted by krieper View Post
It takes longer. I think if you add sabrankings to the eoa rankîs for example, or add a topsabber mention on the homepage after the eoa, you'd make the disgruntled sabbers happy again ;-)
Not this age.... Next age I have no issue with adding sabb rankings or top sabber....

27th August 2018, 09:41 PM
RMFz-

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFnBonsai View Post
We are not interested in moderating who someone wishes to war.... dont know how you got that impression....
Sabotage should not be easy or fast....
You should not expect to ghost accounts.... if you are going to sabotage someone there should be a chance you get caught....
10 attempts to sabotage takes too long??? come on be serious....
Understood. Now my last 2 cents on this:

1. A sabotage run is not 10 attempts - it is around 15 attempts (can also be 20) including unsuccessful tries. Over an entire mid-sized alliance, that is a lot of attempts. Also consider that players have to go back to the attack page for every attempt *after* a successful attempt. That's a fair bit of steps to get through in war, day after day, week after week.

2. To mitigate the impact of the above, you could at the very least consider making the sabotage again option the same as the raid again option? Which is to say, if you have a success sabotage, a sabotage button should allow you to repeat the result if the same amount still remains sabotage-able.

I think the above should not detract from your objective of making sabotage cost more time. It does, however, put sabotage on a similar effort level as raiding (which has currently been retained as it was). Surely, this is not unreasonable?

27th August 2018, 09:44 PM
Endtime

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMFz- View Post
You can say it the fifth and the hundredth time too - I did not make any threat of quitting the game or anything of that sort, *you* came up with the "we're not forcing you to play" statement. I have at all times given constructive feedback from my perspective, you threatening to go off GUA is not a commensurate reaction to my feedback. I agree you are doing this for free and are short on time and patience, but please - either address my points or don't respond. There is frankly no point in engaging in this back and forth about your time and my time and the way I should be addressing you but which you will not follow yourself.

You are right, i will respond to those who can show proper constructive feedback, not bicker, bitch and slander.

27th August 2018, 09:53 PM
Endtime

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMFz- View Post
Understood. Now my last 2 cents on this:

1. A sabotage run is not 10 attempts - it is around 15 attempts (can also be 20) including unsuccessful tries. Over an entire mid-sized alliance, that is a lot of attempts. Also consider that players have to go back to the attack page for every attempt *after* a successful attempt. That's a fair bit of steps to get through in war, day after day, week after week.

2. To mitigate the impact of the above, you could at the very least consider making the sabotage again option the same as the raid again option? Which is to say, if you have a success sabotage, a sabotage button should allow you to repeat the result if the same amount still remains sabotage-able.

I think the above should not detract from your objective of making sabotage cost more time. It does, however, put sabotage on a similar effort level as raiding (which has currently been retained as it was). Surely, this is not unreasonable?
1. We will streamline the sabotage process.

2. We wanted to keep some features for next Era, make it feel like we actually *did* something. -.^

27th August 2018, 10:18 PM
RMFz-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtime View Post
1. We will streamline the sabotage process.

2. We wanted to keep some features for next Era, make it feel like we actually *did* something. -.^
Understood, thank you.

27th August 2018, 10:40 PM
Vredesbyrd

A great thing here is that it now takes 10 players to sab instead of just 5. When it was 5 it was pretty much always the same players that sabbed and the rest just stopped caring about the war. That's not how it should be. And 10 players is not that much but it doubles the chance for everyone to get sab in and feel part of the wars. But to say this benefits the big alliances is bs. It benefits almost all alliances except a few. Surprised to see all the DEMK players whining about this. Thought you were in it for the sabbing? Shouldn't be a problem for DEMK to get 10 of their 36 players + allies actively sabbing? If so you should maybe start ranking instead :rofl:
And the few alliances that has less than 10 members should do as people have done since the stone age, just allie to another smaller or bigger chain. That's actually what happened in the early ages even with unlimited sabbing. Stand together against common enemies. To cry about this is just for the sake of crying it seems. And no Im not extremely happy about having to spend more time on the same targets than before, but its allot better than what it was. For me the raiding and covert loss was an even bigger issue than the sabbing but you don't see me whine about it .. :redface:

28th August 2018, 02:05 AM
Brandonito

I don't necessarily dislike these change. But I guess I'm wondering, what are you trying to accomplish with them? (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic snarky way just to be clear).

I'm guessing the thought was that if you have to make 10 successful attempts rather than 4 successful attempts you'll lose more spies/nuns, and therefore have a harder time sabbing a large number of people with the additional losses. But I feel the number of losses goes from a negligible amount to a negligible amount still. The last war I fought ~1 month ago I sabbed 75-100 people daily for 300-400 missions. I lost on average 6 nuns per day doing this. With the new changes, unless I'm missing something, I'd lose ~15 nuns per day doing this. That's still only like 6 minutes of gold income, a fairly negligible amount. So if that was the goal - I don't think this was a sufficient enough change.

Sabbing does take more time now, so 'rogues' can't so easily sab everybody, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing...though I'm not sure it's how I would have approached the 'rogue' problem.

'Rogues' only being able to sab 10 turns instead of 20 from people is a good change. It's also a good change for wars in general.

I still feel raids are a problem from rogues, and i still think that the 5% maximum armory loss per 24 hours is too low. It was 10% for a long time and I don't recall people wanting it to be lower. It's still too easy for someone to maintain a kamikaze account only invested in SA or spy - with 0 sentry - and just rely on maxed mechanics to protect themselves. Sentry still feels useless with such a low maximum loss.

edit: A thought popped into my head that max armory loss could be based on the % of your account invested in sentry so sentry didn't feel so useless for non-big accounts. Small accounts could still protect themselves from big accounts despite the fact that they can never outgrow their spy this way. Something like, if you have 9% or less of your account invested in sentry you can lose 15% per day, 10-19% in sentry you can lose 14%, 20-29% 13%, 30-39% 12%, 40-49% 11% 50%+ in sentry 10%. Or something like that. Something to make sentry feel useful for everybody if they buy some and discourage full kamikaze rogues.

Anyways, apparently there will be more changes by next age, so I guess I'll just wait and see. Just posting my thoughts.

28th August 2018, 04:21 AM
LinguiniFresh

Nice idea for sentry Brando. I also don't see why the 10% max was changed to 5%. Its clearly too low

28th August 2018, 05:45 AM
Mielinski

Quote:
Originally Posted by LinguiniFresh View Post
Nice idea for sentry Brando. I also don't see why the 10% max was changed to 5%. Its clearly too low
True, 10 was good or something more creative.

28th August 2018, 06:52 AM
Endtime

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonito View Post
I don't necessarily dislike these change. But I guess I'm wondering, what are you trying to accomplish with them? (and I don't mean that in a sarcastic snarky way just to be clear).

I'm guessing the thought was that if you have to make 10 successful attempts rather than 4 successful attempts you'll lose more spies/nuns, and therefore have a harder time sabbing a large number of people with the additional losses. But I feel the number of losses goes from a negligible amount to a negligible amount still. The last war I fought ~1 month ago I sabbed 75-100 people daily for 300-400 missions. I lost on average 6 nuns per day doing this. With the new changes, unless I'm missing something, I'd lose ~15 nuns per day doing this. That's still only like 6 minutes of gold income, a fairly negligible amount. So if that was the goal - I don't think this was a sufficient enough change.

Sabbing does take more time now, so 'rogues' can't so easily sab everybody, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing...though I'm not sure it's how I would have approached the 'rogue' problem.

'Rogues' only being able to sab 10 turns instead of 20 from people is a good change. It's also a good change for wars in general.

I still feel raids are a problem from rogues, and i still think that the 5% maximum armory loss per 24 hours is too low. It was 10% for a long time and I don't recall people wanting it to be lower. It's still too easy for someone to maintain a kamikaze account only invested in SA or spy - with 0 sentry - and just rely on maxed mechanics to protect themselves. Sentry still feels useless with such a low maximum loss.

edit: A thought popped into my head that max armory loss could be based on the % of your account invested in sentry so sentry didn't feel so useless for non-big accounts. Small accounts could still protect themselves from big accounts despite the fact that they can never outgrow their spy this way. Something like, if you have 9% or less of your account invested in sentry you can lose 15% per day, 10-19% in sentry you can lose 14%, 20-29% 13%, 30-39% 12%, 40-49% 11% 50%+ in sentry 10%. Or something like that. Something to make sentry feel useful for everybody if they buy some and discourage full kamikaze rogues.

Anyways, apparently there will be more changes by next age, so I guess I'll just wait and see. Just posting my thoughts.
It's funny, people think i intentionally changed sabbing so it would take *longer* to sab, or more times. That actually wasn't the case, it was unintentional. But because of the responses, i haven't felt like fixing it - So far ive had a dozen say they enjoy the new changes, and the rest, besides yourself and maybe 2 others have given bad (but good criticised) feedback.

AND then, you have the majority who started rambling, name calling, bickering, judging and just outright being completely unnecessarily rude - so i decided hey, i do this shit for free so you can now simply wait :)


Our goal with sabotaging was this;

We wanted to make sabotaging a weapon, we have taken it from several points an achieved an outcome we want - We created the all fearless rogues but understood it was too harsh, we created unsabbable targets who were constantly maxed, no one could retaliate - so we fixed it.

So we achieved the new rule and made it more open, yes the armory is 2.5%, i never changed it just FYI (from 10%) and why would i? I think you should loose a big chunk for wars, damn right it's clearly too low - but adding an extra 7.5% armory loss days before age end? That is NOT going to happen.

I have one final update for Sabotaging and it will go live soon & before EoA but will not consist of anything major, i would like to cut down the *time* spent sabbing, but will increase the losses.

Just remember, i will react badly against you guys calling me out for being an *idiot* for not testing shit, i will snap back and you should all remember i will win that fight, simply because i have the abilities to shut your comments down. I am an easy going bloke and i wish to see KoC achieve a bit more.

Otherwise, you can go back to have 0 updates.

Sentry will not feel useless soon.

28th August 2018, 07:46 AM
bloodpirate

people hate getting ghosted. hahaha .. how about making ALL sabs visible, even the successful ones? no more people from page one sabbing people on page 30 without consequence. sab me, i raid you...


also a box, so when i click on a persons name, i can put something to remind me about the person. eg: knew this person in age 2 .. or he sabbed/raided me on jan 22

28th August 2018, 07:40 PM
ROTTENSOUL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtime View Post
Stupid, indeed. Sounds like we should all take a break, i mean hey, i do this in my *free* time for *no reward*.
Let me ensure you I very much appreciate all the work both you and Bon are putting in.
My only issue is the changes so far are often very unbalanced and over the top. To implement more balanced changes you need feedback from a small core group of people with a good set of brains and which aren't selfish. You guys decide what the changes will be and let them help you figure out the numbers.
When asking all of koc a lot of the changes they would suggested would be for their own benefit which is not helping anyone.

At this point i'd say most things that got adjusted needed adjustment, and some of those needed adjustment because of other changes.
It's like everything that got adjusted needs to be atleast doubled or cut in half. A few examples.

Cut wizzard gold in half
Cut turn costs for attacks in half
Double xp on attacks
Sab 4 or 2 times more than before
Get maxed 4 times as fast
Make raiding cost 5 times less turns
Make sabbing x times more tedious (edit: Which I just read wasn't intentional)
New conquest level that gives 4 times less xp than attacks etc.

The numbers could have been a lot more balanced for better results, something that's not easy to do, especially with 2 people.

28th August 2018, 09:49 PM
Endtime

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodpirate View Post
people hate getting ghosted. hahaha .. how about making ALL sabs visible, even the successful ones? no more people from page one sabbing people on page 30 without consequence. sab me, i raid you...


also a box, so when i click on a persons name, i can put something to remind me about the person. eg: knew this person in age 2 .. or he sabbed/raided me on jan 22
I don't know why successful sabs were never logged in intel, but then if your good enough you should be able to get away with it. Catch 22, not sure where bon stands on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROTTENSOUL View Post
Let me ensure you I very much appreciate all the work both you and Bon are putting in.
My only issue is the changes so far are often very unbalanced and over the top. To implement more balanced changes you need feedback from a small core group of people with a good set of brains and which aren't selfish. You guys decide what the changes will be and let them help you figure out the numbers.
When asking all of koc a lot of the changes they would suggested would be for their own benefit which is not helping anyone.

At this point i'd say most things that got adjusted needed adjustment, and some of those needed adjustment because of other changes.
It's like everything that got adjusted needs to be atleast doubled or cut in half. A few examples.

1. Cut wizzard gold in half
2. Cut turn costs for attacks in half
3. Double xp on attacks
4. Sab 4 or 2 times more than before
5. Get maxed 4 times as fast
6. Make raiding cost 5 times less turns
7. Make sabbing x times more tedious (edit: Which I just read wasn't intentional)
8. New conquest level that gives 4 times less xp than attacks etc.

The numbers could have been a lot more balanced for better results, something that's not easy to do, especially with 2 people.
1. Too much gold gained? Is that due to the age being expedited a bit? example faster turns etc?
2 & 7. So reduce the turns used overall? To be honest the only reason that should be worth considering is getting rid of these *big* numbers. I'd prefer 15 per *attack* and 2 per *raid*.
3. More exp, was this cut down prior for attacks?
5. By maxed do you refer to both raiding and sabbing? It would require a few more SQL variables, i honestly don't have the time right now. (see why below)
8. I don't personally like Conquests, so i don't have any say on it - maybe bon can shed some light.


I am off for 3 days and back 2 hours before age end, then work is flying me out 24 hours later for a week - hopefully the updates suffice, i am never certain about changes to sabotage.

29th August 2018, 07:57 AM
LinguiniFresh

Rotten was listing all the changes that have happened. All of them either halved or doubled something (or more), when a less drastic change was more appropriate

29th August 2018, 10:37 AM
bloodpirate

combating rogues is good .. making it so large alliances can decimate solo players or small alliances is bad.

29th August 2018, 10:40 AM
krieper

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodpirate View Post
combating rogues is good .. making it so large alliances can decimate solo players or small alliances is bad.
That can hardly happen now, though. The soloplayer can inflict tons of more damage. That's ok I guess, but i don't think that even if acc's could get zero'd out, it would be solo players who'd have to worry.

29th August 2018, 12:06 PM
bloodpirate

You can now only sab with 1 turn as default, no other option is viable. .. fare to everyone
Max recon has also been reduced, be more thorough when spying now. .. more people in large alliances to get all of a persons stats, solo players will miss stuff when recons on anyone
Spy missions from 25 to 20. .. large alliances can max sab people, solo players will miss max sabbing people
Recon missions from 25 to 20. .. same as number two

29th August 2018, 12:46 PM
krieper

Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodpirate View Post
You can now only sab with 1 turn as default, no other option is viable. .. fare to everyone
Max recon has also been reduced, be more thorough when spying now. .. more people in large alliances to get all of a persons stats, solo players will miss stuff when recons on anyone
Spy missions from 25 to 20. .. large alliances can max sab people, solo players will miss max sabbing people
Recon missions from 25 to 20. .. same as number two
Most solo players I know don't sab people and are not being sabbed, unless some rogue sabber decides to pick on them or when they have an aggressive playstyle themselves.

Recons were 15 before, worked fine then.

29th August 2018, 03:14 PM
bloodpirate

before a person was unsabbable with 399 major items and nothing else, now they can hold 1999 items and not be sabbed.
Image

Post Reply