PDA

View Full Version : Killing for Money



GreenArrow
8th March 2005, 07:12 PM
I think it would be a really nice idea if we could get money for killing people's soldiers.

Say for every 1 soldier we kill, we get 1 turn of TBG on the next turn. And if we kill humans, then we get 34 gold ( I think that what humans get per soldier) for each human killed on the next turn. Even if we loose, as long as we kill something, we get gold the next turn.

This would also act as a reward for people successfully defending if they killed any soldiers.

greengimp
9th March 2005, 09:32 AM
i like this idea a lot, i am a fan of getting something for being on defense and this seems like a good way to do that

Danielf
9th March 2005, 09:37 AM
i think it's a kinda random idea.
with KOC, i prefer having things someone paralleling real life.
so when you get TBG by killing someone, it's kinda unrealistic, therefore i don't like it.
it would probably be more likely for your TBG to fall for a while after a battle, because your soldiers are recovering. adding that would put a little twist on people's strategies

Laudimir
9th March 2005, 11:47 AM
I think I like Danielf's idea. I prefer realistic games, as well. I would have to say that whoever won the battle would have the least fall in tbg, since the other army took the most damage. Perhaps the tbg fall could be calculated by (damage_recieved-damage_dealt)/(total_soldiers). That would be interesting.

GreenArrow
9th March 2005, 12:28 PM
You telling me a dead body isn't gonna have any money on it? If that's how you think, then that's unrealistic.

Xer0n
9th March 2005, 01:09 PM
i like the idea :) we should get gold for killing soldiers :)

Antioch
9th March 2005, 01:57 PM
True dead bodies will have valuebles on them. By the winning team scavenging the field after the battle it makes sense that you should get TBG for it. I like the idea. Especially since I play a mostly defensive game. I don't think the losing team should lose money though. They already do this because they have less soldiers getting income on the next turn.

Laudimir
9th March 2005, 09:20 PM
I think the entire idea of losing money when you fail at defending your camp is based on the fact that the men will have money on them. I think in most battles, the bodies are generally not left behind, either. Unless it is an awful bloodbath, usually you don't leave your slain comrades behind. Second, how much money would you carry with you if you were going to war and the possibility of death loomed large? Third, even if the possibility of death of "nonexistent" in the soldiers conscious mind, the less he carries with him, the more he can carry back in the form of booty.

So, yes, it would be "realistic" to think that the men would have little to now money on them.

GreenArrow
9th March 2005, 09:59 PM
true they wouldn't have much money on them, but what about charms, and jewlery, or even family air luhmes (however you spell it). Alot of peoples saw these as good luck charms, and I'm sure 1 turn of TBG isn't gonna do that much harm.

It would even give incentive for large armies to attack 1 another... so long as thye kill more than their opponent. Besides, does it make sence that we get money out of no where just for having a large army? Or does it make sence that clicking a link constitutes 1 soldier? Everything in this game makes no sence, so back off of the reality crap. You want realism, then go watch Survivor, or Real World. Reality TV suxx, and reality suxx, and that's why I play this game. Nothing makes sence.

All I was really looking for w/ this idea was some way to either compinsate for a loss, or to reward a successful defend. All it would do is motivate people to attack more, and I think that would be a good thing. Not to mention people sitting on thousands of soldiers would be getting hit just so people could kill them. Sorta like an unofficial mass attack. I think it would be a great idea and bring some new aspects to the game.

Seriously, if you have a weak attack, atleast go attack LS, and get a bunch of money back, but that's consideringthey don't run. Go attack some1 w/ 10,000 soldiers, and kill about 80 of ehm, and get and extra 2k. Do that 5 times w/ 1 attack turn each, and you get 10k gold. Heck for weaker people, you might be better off just using 1 attack turn at a time. It would put less of a stress on spying people since people would throw out 1 turn, and even if they loose, they're compinsated a little bit, and if people worry less about spying, then sabbing becomes less of a problem.

Salidos
9th March 2005, 10:56 PM
First, a few ways I imagine the game:

Besides, does it make sence that we get money out of no where just for having a large army?The way I see this is from the things your army does while not fighting or training or what not. Like farming or blacksmithing. Then they pay taxes or something.
Or does it make sence that clicking a link constitutes 1 soldier?I see this as a click representing someone being recruited (or conscripted from the countryside) into your army. It's not realistic insofar as it's the same people clicking, but meh.

Anyway, I kind of like the idea. I mean it's not too far fetched that you could loot the dead; however, if you are losing you probably wouldn't get the chance to. That aside it makes sense that a soldier would be carrying one turn worth of TGB. They aren't just going to leave it all at home, and they have trinkets like GreenArrow said.

Maybe I missed it, but where does the gold come from? Does it just appear like your TGB, or does it come from someplace else? I could potentially see how it would come from the person losing the soldier and also if it appears like normal TGB. I will attempt to explain both:

Gold comes from:
Dead soldier's commander (king? whatever): the commander would give each soldier pay in advance--equal to 1 turn of TGB--as an incentive to fight. Soldiers are paid in real life anyway, so it should make some sense.

Normal TBG mechanics: like in the aforementioned rant, soldiers (at least in my mind) already make money themselves and carry it with them, as well as trinkets and heirlooms.

Finally, would this be in addition to the gold stolen if you win? If so, perhaps the amount you get for killing an attacking soldier could be increased? I mean perhaps the attacking soldier is carrying more gold or trinkets to keep their morale higher. Anyway, good idea.

Stevebacca
9th March 2005, 11:00 PM
if we are talking midevil style fighting that is exactly what they did, they left their dead behind or burned them after the battle.bringing home the dead was not really practiced until modern warfare. think about how many headstones there are at places like gettysburg. they were buried where they died. most often by the victor of the battle because they controlled the ground. most armies are on foot. they walked hundreds of miles over several months. carrying their dead home was not realistic. even if they didn't have gold, they would have weapons and armor and clothes. all of wich has a value to it. so a bonus for success is very realistic. how much realism do we need when our elven army attacks an orc army with invisibility shields and dragonskins and mithril?

GreenArrow
10th March 2005, 12:50 PM
I was gonna say something like that, but I wanted to see if any1 else would say it for me. So thank you very much. you are absolutly right.

Monsuco
10th March 2005, 04:28 PM
If this idea went through then you would be able to pick up weapons enemies drop when they fall. I don't think it is worth the admins doing.

Danielf
12th March 2005, 04:04 AM
true they wouldn't have much money on them, but what about charms, and jewlery, or even family air luhmes (however you spell it). Alot of peoples saw these as good luck charms, and I'm sure 1 turn of TBG isn't gonna do that much harm.

It would even give incentive for large armies to attack 1 another... so long as thye kill more than their opponent. Besides, does it make sence that we get money out of no where just for having a large army? Or does it make sence that clicking a link constitutes 1 soldier? Everything in this game makes no sence, so back off of the reality crap. You want realism, then go watch Survivor, or Real World. Reality TV suxx, and reality suxx, and that's why I play this game. Nothing makes sence.

All I was really looking for w/ this idea was some way to either compinsate for a loss, or to reward a successful defend. All it would do is motivate people to attack more, and I think that would be a good thing. Not to mention people sitting on thousands of soldiers would be getting hit just so people could kill them. Sorta like an unofficial mass attack. I think it would be a great idea and bring some new aspects to the game.

Seriously, if you have a weak attack, atleast go attack LS, and get a bunch of money back, but that's consideringthey don't run. Go attack some1 w/ 10,000 soldiers, and kill about 80 of ehm, and get and extra 2k. Do that 5 times w/ 1 attack turn each, and you get 10k gold. Heck for weaker people, you might be better off just using 1 attack turn at a time. It would put less of a stress on spying people since people would throw out 1 turn, and even if they loose, they're compinsated a little bit, and if people worry less about spying, then sabbing becomes less of a problem.


Well although you think reality, in all forms, sucks, what about this?
You get some money (jewellery, lucky charms, family heirlooms or whatever just changed into TBG for the game) from each dead soldier, but only if you decide to bury the dead.
Because if you're going to bury the dead, you're going to have to deal with each body, and therefore you're going to be able to get all the $$$.
Burying the other army's dead would be done out of respect in the real world, and in the game, it would mean you could steal all their stuff.

Gladii
12th March 2005, 08:48 AM
I'm sorry but it is a really stupid idea. Why? This will encourage mass-attacks. Nobody likes to be massed, right? :)

greengimp
12th March 2005, 09:48 AM
i like the idea but i think it needs some modifiers, first 1 TBG is a lot of money for killing one guy, i mean i killed 400 soilders yesterday and took only 8 loses myself 400 turns of TBG just yesterday for me? that would be one hell of a lot of money, i think that for every 25 men you kill you should 1 turn of TBG

another thing though is that it should not be based on your TBG but on your opponents TBG because they are the ones who you are "looting" from so what you are making every turn should play no part in it

Kirin
12th March 2005, 10:22 AM
Dead bodies wont have much money.

But Dead bodies will contain weapons eventhough they need repair.

GreenArrow
12th March 2005, 05:14 PM
ok... you guys completly missed the point. For every soldier you kill, you get 28 gold if they are non-human, and 34 gold if they are human. You get that gold on YOUR NEXT TURN added to what eve rTBG you would normally get. So if you killed 400 soldiers, and they were all humans lets say (humans get their asses reamed daily) so that's 34*400 13,600 gold you would get FOR 1 TURN added to your TBG on the next turn. That's nothing man. It's simple compinasatio gold, and to say a dead body won't atleast have 28 gold on him (that's like rations, and clothing... the basic crap EVERY soldier has) is just absurd.

And what's so wrong about mass attacking? I think that's what makes this idea so great is that a player who clicks for a living, will get hit ALL the time just so his soldiers can die, and random people can get MORE money off of him assuming they can win. It's an unofficial mass attack. Any idea that can bring random people together to have a common enemy for no other reason than the fact that that person has ALOT of soldiers is a great idea to me.

It's become quite apparent to me that many people w/ thousands of soldiers don't even have them all trained let alone equipped. So basically they just have the soldiers there for extra TBG. They have no other use than to just sit there and collect. While my super effecient army of 10 attack soldiers w/ 10 BPMs can take down a guy w/ 6,000 soldiers. So because those extra soldiers aren't being used, and apparently aren't needed for what their current rank is, I think those extra soldiers should be killed off, and this is just the incentive people need to do that.

Not only that but players who just sit back on defence do deserve atleast a little reward for killing.

Besides, why does the money have to come off the dead bodies? First off how does having a large army generate more TBG? I suspect the "government" gives you more money per soldier to help maintain your army. Your training soldiers, not farmers, so I don't think they are earning any money through labor (aside from attacking and pillaging other players). You are given money for no reason based on how many people are in your army. So who's to say this money for killing soldiers wouldn't come from the same "government"? The head hanchos of what ever Kingdom you are defending decide to give you a little commision for each person you kill in battle. Mabey that's a better explination for how we get money from killing soldiers. It would also explain how we get money from sitting around on our asses too. They just decide to give you 20% more for killing humans, cuz nobody likes humans. Not even humans like humans. Seriously, if elves really existed, you know more than half of you would be like, "yo those pointy ears are so hot!!"

atrox_acies
13th March 2005, 11:08 AM
Isn't it a better idea to have weapons as loot for the defending player, if the defends the attack?

GreenArrow
13th March 2005, 05:09 PM
Isn't it a better idea to have weapons as loot for the defending player, if the defends the attack?

OMG... like that was never brought up b4. that would be a great idea. Lets make it so that dead bodies carrying weapons loose their weapons, and are given ownership to a different account. that would be awesome, cuz then I could take my 20 different accounts, and get them all to the point where they can bring in enough TBG to buy BPM's, and IVS's, and have my main account w/ mad def, and atk, and about 30 untrained soldiers on the side prepared to die, and I can send my weaker accounts to attack my main account, and then I just GAVE myself a BPM, then I can attack my 20 other accounts, and GIVE myself free IVS's. that would be great, cuz surely any idea that gives incentive to start multiple accounts is awesome.