PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion for age 9



LordCounter
6th January 2008, 06:29 PM
well im having this fascinating idea o_0
since sabbing got out of hand, there was a need to change that, and i dont think any of us can say that there has been a single change since then that was even close to ok. Sabbing turns, losing tools, sabbing tools, changing formulas. Nothing really works. so i figured, why look at the tools and dont look at the spies that hold the tools? fix that and sabbing should be balanced:
I think this should be changed:
Make spy tools cheap again >> More tools means more spies, more spies means more losses when attacked. Combine this with an increased casualty loss for coverts and sabbers can be hurt a LOT without any basic koc rule being dramictally changed! No more untouchable accounts and no more stupid changes to koc that no one wants.

Why is this the best idea ever since someone invented to put a lil eraser on a pencil?
Because it brings back two most important things of koc:
- Clicking (You need a hell of a lot more coverts to hold your tools)
- Massing (Destroy the sabbers like they were destroyed before, 5x1 after 5x1)

So im begging the admins, get rid of the sab turns, tools loss and let sabbers have their fun back again, but also make sure they think about their actions a little better.

Let me know what comments you all have o_0

NardHipples
6th January 2008, 07:10 PM
sounds good to me, although i would add something about lowering repairs a bit ONLY when attacking low DA's so it doesn't cost as much for the big accounts to participate. i know the merc losses work already that way but i don't think the repairs do.

your suggestion is far better than anything else suggested here.

bloodpirate
6th January 2008, 09:27 PM
gee with ideas like that, why not get rid of sabbing altogether.

you obviously are a ranker.. someone who can't sab or has been punished for your playing style by some war alliance.

when they limited the sab turns to 500 and the ratio 1/3 and the .1 percent sabbed, i thought those were the worst thing. sabbing should be unlimited, like in 9 beta. sabbing tools is fun. changing the percent to 1 percent, wasn't enough, it should be 10 percent like age 7.

LordCounter
7th January 2008, 12:54 AM
gee with ideas like that, why not get rid of sabbing altogether.

you obviously are a ranker.. someone who can't sab or has been punished for your playing style by some war alliance.


If anything, this profits sabbers the most. Sabbers can go back to chaining -the best thing of sabbing. I dont know how the rest of you think about this, but i much rather lose my spies, that can easily be replaced by clicking (that benefits all of us, even the admins) than to lose my shiny spy weapons that i worked so damn hard to get to. So why would this be an attempt to get rid of sabbing bloodpirate?

This also will make the new race, Undead, much more important and even for sabbers a good race to pick.

Habsfan
7th January 2008, 01:23 AM
Good post LC, very good.

I agree with Nard as well, if repairs lower with how much your SA beats their DA i'm fine with it.

It just sucks to be in the top 20 and pay 300m to 5x1 someone once.

What I think should happen is that if you are going to win the battle (ie: there is no way that the random factor can screw you over) you only send in enough men to win the battle.

For example, you are fighting someone with 20m DA, and you have 600m SA. The computer knows you win the battle, but it makes it so you send in 20.1m SA, so in turn you only pay repairs for using 20.1m SA.

This doesn't change much of the ratios the admins have to do, it just takes a few more lines of coding and then everyone, literally EVERYONE is happy.

Great post LC + rep for you.

xAre
7th January 2008, 02:11 AM
Good post LC, very good.

I agree with Nard as well, if repairs lower with how much your SA beats their DA i'm fine with it.

It just sucks to be in the top 20 and pay 300m to 5x1 someone once.

What I think should happen is that if you are going to win the battle (ie: there is no way that the random factor can screw you over) you only send in enough men to win the battle.

For example, you are fighting someone with 20m DA, and you have 600m SA. The computer knows you win the battle, but it makes it so you send in 20.1m SA, so in turn you only pay repairs for using 20.1m SA.

This doesn't change much of the ratios the admins have to do, it just takes a few more lines of coding and then everyone, literally EVERYONE is happy.

Great post LC + rep for you.
You would need more than 20.1m SA to win against 20m SA :p
But if you minimum send in [their DA * 1.25] against low DA's (less than 100mil) would be good.
So if you can keep your DA above 100mil you're "safe" from big accounts 5x1'ing

LordCounter
7th January 2008, 05:56 AM
Good post LC, very good.

I agree with Nard as well, if repairs lower with how much your SA beats their DA i'm fine with it.

It just sucks to be in the top 20 and pay 300m to 5x1 someone once.

What I think should happen is that if you are going to win the battle (ie: there is no way that the random factor can screw you over) you only send in enough men to win the battle.

For example, you are fighting someone with 20m DA, and you have 600m SA. The computer knows you win the battle, but it makes it so you send in 20.1m SA, so in turn you only pay repairs for using 20.1m SA.

This doesn't change much of the ratios the admins have to do, it just takes a few more lines of coding and then everyone, literally EVERYONE is happy.

Great post LC + rep for you.

thanks habsfan
but i think this will work against it. Small sab account should be harmed, not destoyed. If everyone can mass without any serious costs there wont be any restrictions left and the balance will be gone again. The repair costs have been (reasonably) balanced throughout the ages, why change something that isnt broke?

A downside i can think of is that this wont make the top accounts any less vunerable. But all top account rely on their hard working officers anyway, that definatly can be hurt in any age no matter what changes

Habsfan
7th January 2008, 02:17 PM
thanks habsfan
but i think this will work against it. Small sab account should be harmed, not destoyed. If everyone can mass without any serious costs there wont be any restrictions left and the balance will be gone again. The repair costs have been (reasonably) balanced throughout the ages, why change something that isnt broke?

A downside i can think of is that this wont make the top accounts any less vunerable. But all top account rely on their hard working officers anyway, that definatly can be hurt in any age no matter what changes

The problem with this LC is that it still costs 63% of my turns to daily 5x1 only one person, and that is why there should be no real damage at all.

So I can only essentially 5x1 two people a day, so sab accounts won't get destroyed unless they aggravate enough people.

Soldier_Worst
7th January 2008, 03:20 PM
I've always thought that using SA vs sabbing (by beating DA) is the best solution to the prob. It's all together a nice idea, also with the comments to make damage dependable on the difference between the attacks SA and the defenders DA.

I've brought up a more... "innovative" idea once.. which is probably the reason why people won't approve it quickly. People usually are conservative and don't approve things they don't know easily.

In short it was some attack, using SA vs DA too, but then different than a goldhit. An attack meant to kill coverts and damage tools, it can succeed or fail like sabotage.

I think it's fun to bring a whole new (but fun and necessairy) thing into the game every now and then, it makes a game more interesting.

Ephrils
7th January 2008, 08:17 PM
I do agree it's time KoC got a new innovative feature. Not a rule tweak, but something completely new to change the game for players.

Maybe an "actual" bank :P

I doubt that would happen though, plus I'm too set in my ways to use it and would still buy knives...

Volcano
7th January 2008, 08:30 PM
I think something as simple as an interest system for gold would spur the overall activity of the game, first encouraging people to hold more gold, and with that, making the attacking game more active (also giving more people who don't rank a reason to build up their DA, which many people skimp on compltely). But on what magnitude would this best work? Here are some different possibilities:

1%-2% interest on gold held -- every 30 minutes
1%-2% interest on gold held -- every 180 minutes
5%-10% interest on gold held -- every 24 hours
Upgradeable interest???

Even when TBG's become very high later in the age, the interest would be nice to have, to spend toward weapon repairs and miscellaneous unit training.
Thoughts?

Da_D_Master
7th January 2008, 09:17 PM
Well the idea of a bank is good, but then people would waster to much time on trying to get gold not actually cocentrate on the purpose of the game, get a big and huge army and smash everyone. I know it's not always best to get a huge army. Well while we're talking about gold, I reckon u should be able to give gold to other players, then if you got a new officer or would like to congradulate someone, or wat evr you could give them a little gold bonus.

Ephrils
8th January 2008, 12:21 AM
Transfer gold? That's a great idea.

Some other games have features like this already. It'd simply sell-offs making them just transfers... though unless it goes straight to the other player's Bank there's still going to be a free-for-all for the money :D

Da_D_Master
8th January 2008, 12:27 AM
Transfer gold? That's a great idea.

Some other games have features like this already. It'd simply sell-offs making them just transfers... though unless it goes straight to the other player's Bank there's still going to be a free-for-all for the money :D

That's what I mean, go straight to the player

LordCounter
8th January 2008, 09:07 AM
Erm no, my idea wasnt to change the whole game all over again.
Its pretty sad a game like koc has to imitate its imitators now as a desperate attempt to get its members back. All im saying is, age 6 rules with one modification, make the coverts more important.

Every change since age 6 costed the game members, so the admins might need to stop making these drastic changes every time

Stormrag3
8th January 2008, 09:25 AM
Great post LC. I agree.

@Habsfan

For example, you are fighting someone with 20m DA, and you have 600m SA. The computer knows you win the battle, but it makes it so you send in 20.1m SA, so in turn you only pay repairs for using 20.1m SA.

That would create tons of soldiers casualties.
If you attack someone with uberSA, you don't get expensive repairs. When your Counter is closer than your enemies counter, that means, Expensive repairs & Soldier Casualties (or TONS of SA mercs).

LordCounter
8th January 2008, 11:53 AM
That would create tons of soldiers casualties.
If you attack someone with uberSA, you don't get expensive repairs. When your Counter is closer than your enemies counter, that means, Expensive repairs & Soldier Casualties (or TONS of SA mercs).

more casualties when attacking could be a good alternative for high repair costs indeed

Ephrils
8th January 2008, 03:37 PM
Its pretty sad a game like koc has to imitate its imitators now as a desperate attempt to get its members back.

Those games have been able to keep moving forward and innovate. KoC still feels like it's stuck in past Ages. Like a film on pause that won't play again.

If they have to imitate their imitators, its because their imitators recognized a need for changes that would keep their game growing and expanding past the basic rules they originally started with.

Da_D_Master
8th January 2008, 05:09 PM
Those games have been able to keep moving forward and innovate. KoC still feels like it's stuck in past Ages. Like a film on pause that won't play again.

If they have to imitate their imitators, its because their imitators recognized a need for changes that would keep their game growing and expanding past the basic rules they originally started with.

Yes that's right, but I think that the big changes to the game rules not gameplay were the biggest reasons people aren't playing, also cause it's not the greatest and latest thing out there anymore, I mean peple play runescape, not cause it's godd, which it isn't just cause it's one of the latest games about, although it's starting to get old to.