Era 3 War Feedback

Post KoC Questions Here

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
CrazyDave
Player
Posts: 4
Joined: 7 months ago
Alliance: The Firm
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by CrazyDave » 4 months ago

May I ask how the sentry loss is calculated when you are being sabbed?

in my opinion, i believe it to be a little too much. it sucks to come back to a few thousand dead sentries every time you get sabbed x6. even when i get sabbed for 250(ish) lookout towers from 1 persons sabs, i find that theres sometimes 1,500+ dead sentries from the successful sabs.

Shouldn't it be that sentries only die trying to defend the sab? if you are being sabbed for a specific amount of weapons, wouldn't it make sense to have only that many sentries die when they are successful?
  • IE: someone sabs 35 Nunchaku's on each attempt = 210 total weapons = 210 dead sentries trying to "save" the weapons from being sabbed?
    someone sabs 100 Skeleton Key's on each attempt = 600 total weapons = 600 dead sentries
more info and opinions on this would be greatly appreciated
Image

RVD713
Player
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 months ago
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by RVD713 » 4 months ago

I agree that the number of sentries that die from successful sabs is a bit high.
I don't agree that the number of sentries should be equal to the number of weapons. Story-telling : if a spy gets into an armory undetected, he can kill one guard and destroy countless weapons. I think it should be in a formula dependant on the number of spies sent and how often that guy was sabbed - if he's been sabbed before that 12/24/48 hours, the sentries are more alert, hence they shouldn't die as easy.

and 25% sab cap is too high - as has been noted and was expected, the one who throws the first punch has a major advantage. Sab formula and also raid formula should be in such a way that a 5 vs 100 or 100vs 100 war should be a bit more balanced. I actually enjoyed era2 end-of-era war more, because noone got steamrolled like it happened now.

also, i think it would be nice to have something like you can sab 3x if you're not at war, and 6x if you're at war... or something to that effect.

35 daily raids/attacks are too many.

The RMFz
Player
Posts: 45
Joined: 9 months ago
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by The RMFz » 4 months ago

General feedback on warring:

1. The increase in TBG and easier UP was a welcome change to BF dynamics, a lot more gold available to sustain and fight. However, clicking is way too powerful this age. UP should be the primary means of increase in army size supplemented 30-50% by clicking (at max UP). This ties in with feedback #2 below.

2. However, the increase in sab limits to 25% is far too much IMO. As can be seen from the recent war, a lopsided fight means complete destruction of the opposite party. There is no counter to it, no hope for survival. I believe sab limits at 10-12% were good earlier and if the TBG/UP dynamics are maintained, would lead to wars that are more sustainable and which will be decided based on strategy and activity rather than brute strength and first mover advantage.

3. Raids are too powerful and 35 is too many. It gives too much advantage to alliances with more members. Anyone can be obliterated with sufficient numbers and there is no point where raiding becomes too expensive for the larger party.

4. The loss of sentries on being sabbed is quite interesting, but I believe the losses are far too high. A player with a lot of sentry tools with many sabbers on him will lose upwards of 25-30k sentries daily just on sabs. This is not including raiding losses. It makes things unsustainable. Losses around half of the current levels would be okay.

5. The safe feature doesn't seem to add much value. Larger TFFs have gold to distribute for free, so do inactive accounts.

Rowe
Player
Posts: 6
Joined: 9 months ago
Been thanked: 3 times

Era Winner

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by Rowe » 4 months ago

1) Sentry losses - I like the idea but I think the losses should be less OR more spies be required to and subsequently be killed. There is a huge mismatch here.

2) Attacks - I would reduce to 20 maximum and consider reverting to 10

3) Sab cap - I think 15% sab cap with 15 sabbers needed would be a better gameplay. This ultimately depends on the trickle structure

4) Sell value - I still don't like selling, I like the idea of fighting for themselves and would increase the losses substantially :D

Whilst the idea that chaos is good, it is better to find a slightly better balance to enable some tactical play for sure.

bloodpirate
Player
Posts: 394
Joined: 9 months ago
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by bloodpirate » 4 months ago

with the safe feature, there is very little need to sell weapons/tools for upgrades. make the sell percentages 50 percent vice 70 percent. the more a persons tbg is the faster his safe fills up. almost forcing people to have larger accounts. even slayers would have to have larger accounts to use safe more and sell stuff less for upgrades. more gold on bf. we all hate the percentage people get when slaying, but to offset people selling their safe content to others, make the slaying percentage even worse. slayers get less. more turns would mean more slaying and people get less gold for slaying. so need to slay more for same amount of gold. maybe give more turns then... catch 22

Macmoney
Player
Posts: 21
Joined: 6 months ago
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by Macmoney » 3 months ago

Sabbing
-Id be open to each sabber able to sab more, but it takes less sabbers to max sab. Currently only alliance that can max someone/ does max someone is SR. Thats not going to allow balanced game play....

******a idea to counter this is to set how many people it takes to max a account to the size of alliance/ chain. This is determined by at your highest peak, so chains cant just rent other alliances and not have any negativity for it. So if you set it to 25% and your chain is 100 accounts at any point of the age, you need 25 accounts to max it. Where as if your chain size is 25 accounts, it takes 6-7 accounts (rounding up would be fair) This would really balance sizes and still gives a advantage to bigger alliances since they can still out raid, as well as out click small alliances, but it will allow for more diversity on the BF, as well as stop chains from creating growth deals (which imo is bad for koc). This would still allow chains to gang up on other people like what happened this age, lacn chain being smaller than sr means lacn would be able to sab more then SR but they'd still beable to work together and even makes it so they have to work more together as they'd want certain alliances sabbing certain weapons if they wanted to 0 DA's or something like that

add to what RMFZ said, if you think raids are too powerful you can do the same for raids also, or attacks for that matter. Which would make for a huge shift in having huge chains, and make accounts want to stay either solo, or allow small chains to actually have a fair chance in it all******


-Earning gold from sabbing was awesome and I think heavily under used by alliances for a second income.
-Losing Sentries from getting sabbed is awesome. Keep it
-taking 100 tries to sab someone was a pain in the butt, I get having the sentry to weapons ratio is nice, but maybe tone it down a little.

Slaying
- Slayers getting like 1-5% of stolen gold put into their safe..... safe is great IMO, its adds a element to watch people that are going to sell towards the later parts of ages when they hit 3b. Or in the beginning of the ages when they're close to upgrades. Just think its weighted too heavy for mains

Raiding
-Possibly lower the cost of mercs. Raiding 35 times on one account for a mid sized account's ~2k mercs a raid.... I did like being able to raid and get raided 35 times tho. Getting 0 XP really cucked alot of accounts that have been warring for 3 months, as opposed to 1 month. Im not saying they should get the 2.3 xp, but a happy medium of say 1:1 even for defends would be acceptable imo.
Last edited by Macmoney 3 months ago, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Spiderwoman_LaCN
Donor
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 months ago
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by Spiderwoman_LaCN » 3 months ago

I think the Era went good. I know there are changes in the works for Era 4 and will be interesting to see what they are.
Image

Spiderwoman aka Kokyanwuhti in Hopi, creator & weaver of life, the great teacher, sacred guardian, overseeing the welfare of all those in need to southwestern Native American cultures.

Macmoney
Player
Posts: 21
Joined: 6 months ago
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by Macmoney » 3 months ago

I thought about the sabbing based on chain length some more....

This will also give small alliances better chances on fighting when bigger chains send rouges on smaller chains. Even if they funnel gold to that rouge, it wouldn't help as much as it would now, as their sabbing % would be less.

User avatar
bon
Game Owner
Posts: 133
Joined: 9 months ago
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by bon » 3 months ago

Thanks for all the feedback so far regarding how wars were fought.

Some of the info posted has been used to help us with the changes for Era 4.

We will open another thread like this for Era 4 so more information can be gained.
Image

bloodpirate
Player
Posts: 394
Joined: 9 months ago
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 23 times

Re: Era 3 War Feedback

Post by bloodpirate » 3 months ago

so .. warring rlrbnwoglad was boring, not much to sab. aats were low. BUT

when fflop asked me to chain them, a huge difference. what i was amazed with was the gold to be gotten when sabbing people with a decent aat and not using turns to get it. getting enough gold to buy mercs and repairs needed when i raided their bigs. of course getting gold from the raids was good too.

Post Reply