PDA

View Full Version : Changing Sabrules?



cowboy_from_hell
9th August 2009, 09:43 AM
So I send an email to Rocco about this, for I had an idea to make sabrules different, to make the game a bit faster and challenging. I decided to post this email here to get a discussion going and to get maybe even better ideas to improve the game..



Dear Rocco,

I have been playing koc since Age 7, untill now, some periods I've been really active, some I have been less active, but in the meantime I climbed up to Relentless Family leadership. However, after playing this game for so long, it feels like a routine that is getting boring rather fast these days. So I have been thinking of ways to improve the game and an idea a came up with was to change the sabotaging rules next age to a mix of this age sabbing rules and Age 7 sabbing rules.

So here it goes:

Like in Age 7, you get 10 tries to get a succesfull sabattempt in. However unlike in Age 7, the cap on amount of weapons to sab shouldn't be just a number, but a % of the persons inventory like now. A good % would be 0.03% of a persons inventory you can sab in 1 attempt. For every person you sabotage, you are most likely to get in 3 or 4 times ( This makes the damage you suffer is around the same as now, which seems pretty good ). Though I would make it more rare to get more than 4 in, than to get less in, to have a better balance?

As for n00b protection, you can make it so that, someone with a value around 150 times or more bigger than his opponent, has 30% less chance to get a succesfull sabattempt.

The Spy you need to get a succesfull sabattempt, I would keep the same ratio from 3:1 which seems pretty fair to me.

After sending you the email, I will also post this on GUA, so the playerbase can comment and see wether it would fit the game. Personally I think it would make the game more actractive, fast and fun. You won't have to spent hours sabbing, because you only get 10 tries instead of 50. On top of it, using like 8 or 9 tries, you can trick people to think you got in, while you haven't, making people have to think more instead of just pressing the sab button.

Greetings,
krisv
Relentless Family HardCore / long time KingsOfChaos player

PS: My English may not be perfect considering English isn't my native tongue.

PPS: If possible, you should reduce the amount of captcha we get now, almost every time I want to bank my TBG, I get one. This is pretty annoying to not only me, but to almost everyone while it hardly stops cheaters I think.


Discuss ...

Lopina
9th August 2009, 10:23 AM
I agree the sabrules need a change.

And I'm particularly fond of limited sabruns. This way, sabbing would stop being n00b's toy and became to call it "weapon of precision".

However, I do not agree completely on n00b protection. It has to be revised, but it need to be tweaked in a way that no more n00bs can chain alliances with getting away with minimal damage.

I'm OK with everything else.

However, this would mean another KoC beta, because if these changes were to be implemented, they need to be tested before.

cowboy_from_hell
9th August 2009, 10:28 AM
This age probably still runs for around 3-4 months? You can easily have a beta running during the last month or so to test possible changes ;)

HungryMan
9th August 2009, 10:29 AM
ummm wtf are you talking about... i don't know what you said. but i will say i rather have 50 tries than 10!!!!!!!


after i posted others already had and.....i don't know what you guys are suggesting........

cowboy_from_hell
9th August 2009, 10:43 AM
Now you have 50 tries, but can only get in twice. With these rules, you get 10 tries and can get in 10 times or 0 times depending on your luck ;)

HungryMan
9th August 2009, 11:03 AM
oh yeah i would rather be able to get in 10 times, but with the ratios these days i am lucky to get in once every 25 tries so that gives me my 2 times to get through. i would not like have 10 tries that i can use when it takes 11 tries to get through

capkop
9th August 2009, 11:19 AM
I think its a bad suggestion. 0,03% getting in an avarage of 3 or 4 times, would mean sabotage would be 10x less effective as it is now so you might as well not sab the first 5 months of the age with rules like that, and at the very end, sabs would still do hardly anything unless done in huge numbers (way to kill smaller alliances' power even futher).

Besides that, it was already reduced to 50 attempts, and with some of the sab scripts going about, it really isn't timeconsuming at all to sab, so I see no reason to reduce it to 10 attempts.

cowboy_from_hell
9th August 2009, 11:26 AM
The damage to your account will be around the same, now you loose 0.1% per person. So If you get 0.03, 3 times in, it's the same amount of weapons gone. Right now sabbing takes no skill or tactics at all and is the same thing over and over again.

NardHipples
9th August 2009, 06:18 PM
who gives a shit about what the rules are for sabbing when the damages are so high that no one even dares to sab anyone? and that people that do sab are only relevant for a few hrs before they are completely pwned and waiting around for next age

BloodBullet
10th August 2009, 03:31 PM
I agree, sabrules suck right now, but who gives a shit, its not like they will change them

Fernando
11th August 2009, 01:58 AM
Haven't played in a while but IMO:

If AAT is calculated per total account percentage, it should be fixed to be depending on specific ammount of weapons, as in 1000bpms = xAAT etc.
This helps to increase specific AAT in certain areas, which helps people to drag down whoredoms of SA, spy etc while preventing balanced accounts to have other stats as sentry and da be sabbed to the ground with the rest of the values affecting on it. It also gives the chance to build other stats while another one is being sabbed.

Also tweak the percentage in spy and sentry AAT to at least 50 - 30 % of DA - SA. As soon sentry and spy is completely destroyed there's no other way to keep on, so yeah, it should be made so much slower, DA and SA would still be there to be sabbed and have good runs in a war.

Maybe this'd prevent top accounts to be butt fucked and make wars last more than 3 days. Should also give smaller chains a chance to stand a war with the big ones while they come to an agreement or wvr without letting one totally screwed for the rest of the age.

cowboy_from_hell
11th August 2009, 04:56 AM
Also tweak the percentage in spy and sentry AAT to at least 50 - 30 % of DA - SA. As soon sentry and spy is completely destroyed there's no other way to keep on, so yeah, it should be made so much slower, DA and SA would still be there to be sabbed and have good runs in a war.


I kinda like the idea, now it's true when your sentry is done, your account is as good as done.

nagrach
11th August 2009, 05:08 AM
why not go back to age5 sab rules?
glory days it was :)

Fernando
12th August 2009, 10:41 AM
I kinda like the idea, now it's true when your sentry is done, your account is as good as done.

I'd go with getting rid of covert stats in the sab thing but that ain't to happen so I guess it's an easy solution. Also to point out these rules would still allow an account to be destroyed, just with more time and dedication.

ThOrN-
19th August 2009, 01:05 PM
I wonder... does anyone actually use like 25 spies to sab ever?

I find ive never used more than one spy to sab.... if you use any more you lose so so much... O.O

cowboy_from_hell
19th August 2009, 02:51 PM
If you sab bpm or IS, you need a spy for around every 15 weapons you sab. So if you want to sab 150 BPM aat, you need 10 spies ;)

Son_Of_Sam
19th August 2009, 11:07 PM
Actually I prefer the sab rules which are on right now but with one exception. When someones being chain sabbed by an alliance, he immediately switches his armory to BPM's and then just sits there nice and comfy. Once the sabbings are over he just sells BPM's according to how much may have been sabbed and recovers most of his gold as well.
Now what I really would like to see is, can we sabotage attack weapons and actually break them as well??????? Would make things a lot more interesting! :)

Fernando
19th August 2009, 11:51 PM
What a dumb idea.
Getting rid of whole the protections of an account would just make more people leave over the stupid rules. Who the fuck would even click ten minutes knowing its account can be destroyed in a matter of minutes ..

Son_Of_Sam
20th August 2009, 05:49 AM
At least KOC would not be so boring.. with tanking rankers just enjoying themselves at the top and the slayers becoming an obsolete breed. It was just a suggestion u numbskull, go play on pony if u are not in agreement...or perhaps eating a poison pineapple would help?

MFnBonsai
20th August 2009, 05:50 AM
Actually I prefer the sab rules which are on right now but with one exception. When someones being chain sabbed by an alliance, he immediately switches his armory to BPM's and then just sits there nice and comfy. Once the sabbings are over he just sells BPM's according to how much may have been sabbed and recovers most of his gold as well.
Now what I really would like to see is, can we sabotage attack weapons and actually break them as well??????? Would make things a lot more interesting! :)

Why do people get sabbed by an alliance??? Because the alliance has enough retarded rules that the player cannot do anything against....

1 screw up (in the eyes of the alliance) and an alliance can wipe a player out.... the only protection 1 has against this is to keep BPMs....

Now you want to take away the only protection 1 person has against many.... Why not just get rid of solo players altogether.... From signup either be in an alliance or you are not allowed to play....

Because if you dont join an alliance why spend months of work just to be destroyed by a bunch retards who think their alliance rules dictate KoC gameplay....

ThOrN-
20th August 2009, 07:38 AM
I agree with them two above :)

I played solo for manyyy an age.. but its true if your a solo player and you do the slightest thing wrong you HAVE to revert to bpm's...

Breaking weps straight of the sab is dumb......... it takes the whole tactical cleverness of a player...

Clever and tactical players calculate how much can be sabbed and what to sell and people who are stupid enough to post what theyve sabbed on AA's and Forums, the player can sell those weps...its part of the game. Breaking weps straight away is dumb... you can do it anyway with Defense sooo let players keep BPM's protected. :)

You're looking to take every defense of a player away? nu uh.

fistsofthor
20th August 2009, 08:04 AM
In answer to the original post:
no, i do not like your idea at all. An average destruction of 1 weapon in 1000? no thanks. Back in the day, I remember being able to take 40% of a mid range players ISs or BPMs. Now that was fun. Sab rules have certainly hurt a low less now than they used to.

In answer to someones wish to end breaking weapons:
NO! In fact, I would like to see it such that if tools can still be broken, that all tools need to get broken in response to something:

for example, if you sab a players LTs, you need to either yourself, or someone else put up a failed recon against that player. When a player fails a recon, the sentries are clearly using the LTs, and thats when the LTs "break"

For nuns, they could break when sabbed tools are used in a recon or sab attempt.

Now, to put power back in the hands of the little guys, I would do this:
Make spy unsabbable. Reason:
Your spies are out spying, and they do not leave their nuns lying around your armory. They are spread out over the battlefield and are in other players armories snooping around... as their tools are not in your base, they cannot be sabbed.

However, in order to compensate, I would do at least one of several things:
1) double or triple the amount that can be sabbed. Maybe give players 20 sab turns, OR make sabbing BPMs and ISs easier & outright increase AAT to 1% as opposed to 1 in 200 weapons.

2) triple the amount of spies and sentries killed per successful attack. However, both the elvish -40% casualties and the undead -50% casualties should apply to covert casualties.

That is what I would recommend.

I think KoC needs to have more solo players that alliances do not want to touch. I remember that back in the da, that if a solo player had 400 mil spy and 10k steeds, then that player was left alone for most things.

What I am suggesting is that the sneak attack should not be completely devistating in that it can also prevent retaliation. Lets face it, its pretty uncool for a large group to sab someones entire spy and sentry away while that player is offline.

As for the alliances who are whining about solo players being a pain and constantly sabbing them, all I can say is this:
1) make your bf policy so that it does not irritate noobs outside your alliance
2) think before you approve
3) your smaller players losing 1% of their armory worth really isnt that bad unless they can do it for weeks and weeks.

cowboy_from_hell
21st August 2009, 09:01 AM
fistofthor, the main part about the idea was to change the way sabbing works, I put in the ammount to give rocco an idea of how to implement it :p Bassicly you can switch the % the way you want. What I did was put the % in the post, so they equal to the damages you can do to an account now ( if the % I used where wrong, feel free to correct them and do a better job in maths than me ).

The point of my first post wasn't really to discuss how much/what you can sab of an account. What I wanted was to change the way you sab, to make it more interesting and tactical. Right now you just push the button till you get in.

Fernando
21st August 2009, 12:35 PM
At least KOC would not be so boring.. with tanking rankers just enjoying themselves at the top and the slayers becoming an obsolete breed. It was just a suggestion u numbskull, go play on pony if u are not in agreement...or perhaps eating a poison pineapple would help?

You fail at life, idiot.
Who do you think would be at the top anyway ?
Who do you think would sab the bpms to clean down an account ?

Your great idea would just end killing up slayers and let the rankers stay way more on top. People need to realize it was the protection against sabbing what brought joy to this game.

Also, poison pineapple ? lol kid

Son_Of_Sam
25th August 2009, 11:53 PM
Sigh.. Fernando Fernando Fernando... KOC is just a game, not life ma friend. Perhaps u should go out more, socialize, become somebody important (like the milk man / garbage man etc.).

This is just my opinion as I am entitled to it same as the rest of u, so u know where u can stick the pineapple right? (hope it fits)

Lopina
26th August 2009, 01:47 AM
OK, after doing some quick thought while doing nothing at work, here are some of my suggestions. You'll notice that some of them are almost identical to Krisv's, which means I agree with him.

[1] Spy to Sentry ratio required to sabotage someone

I think 1:3 is fair and widely accepted ratio so it shouldn't be tampered with.

[2] Limited sabotage turns per player

Make 15 sabotage runs available to be launched at a particular target in a 24 hour period. Make each sabotage turn can take 0.2% out of target's armory value. Make 5 the median number of successful runs. Meaning, if you're lucky enough, you'll be able to take out up to 3% of target's armory value. Use Gaussian bell curve algorithm, of course, modified, or anything similar to determine the statistical probability of success.

[3] Limited sabotage turns per day

Make a total of 750 sabotage turns available to be launched by a player in a 24 hour period. This way, you would be given an option to spread your damage (if sufficiently lucky) over more than 150 players with some strategy and calculations, or you could focus all your fire to the minimum of 50 players you think will suffer the most. If you decide to spread your damage over more players, you will act in a way to decrease player morale (not the thing you click, but real stuff) so they might quit or bribe you with morale (the shit you click) to stop. Alternatively, you can focus your fire to a minimum of 50 players you think deserve your attention the most. Giving you this option would introduce the change to warring too, where you'd be able to choose if you'd rather break the opposing chain or inflict the damage to big accounts.

[4] Breaking weapons

The current situation with sabotaged weapons is kinda stupid, at least from my point of view. No offense, Rocco.

Let's go quickly through the weapon types.


Attack weapons

I think most of us have been in a situation when we start to sabotage someone, and she/he reverts to BPM/Knife/Stick mode and just sits and stockpiles them for 2-3 weeks and then goes for a quick, but somewhat painful, sabotage spree. This way, the individual can make immense amounts of damage to a chain of players while taking almost none.
My suggestion is to make attack weapons deteriorate with time. More precisely, make sabotaged SA weapons break themselves after, let's say, 3 days after they have been tampered with, if not used within that period. If they are used, they should break as they do these days.

Defense weapons

Again, same thing, make a deterioration option here, as well. This way, the breaking of DA weapons would be automatic after 3 days, so breakers would save some of their attack turns, which they could use for attacking.
Once again, if the target with sabotaged DA is hit in that period, the sabotaged weapons break.

Spy tools

Given that you would denote renegades their BPM mode with changes above, a proper compensation should be made. That's why I suggest that the maximum of 0.1% armory value can be sabotaged per turn. This way, you'd encourage sabbers to keep their tools armed and ready instead of selling and reselling because they would lose much more that way.
Also, I'm fond of deterioration option here. They break themselves in 3 days or if they are used in a recon or sabotage, regardless of success.

Sentry tools

I would also like to apply 0.1% value per turn here.
Regarding breaking, sentry tools should be broken on successful sentry action or after 3 days of still. Meaning, someone would be required to either make a failed recon or failed sab attempt on you to break them immediately.

[5] Conclusion

With these rules in effect, you'd actually be able to strip any type of player from their primary force. In more details, you'd be able to take out banker's DA, therefore, making him a nice turn-farm. You could take out slayer's SA, making him lose his way of gaining priofit. You could take out sabber's Spy, without making him reverting to BPM mode and back.

Feel free to comment, change, adjust these suggestions, or whatever you wish to do with them.

cowboy_from_hell
26th August 2009, 06:38 AM
I'm not too sure about those weapons breaking and sabturns tbh. Sabbing is already way to powerfull these days. What took months to build up, can be destroyed in a few days. To me that's the reason why koc became more boring the last few ages. Chains won't war so easily anymore as they used, because when you go to war, you must be ready to lose it all in a blink. Considering to me, the times at war are the times I have the most fun playing koc. If sabbing was less painfull perhaps people would go to war a bit easier.
Perhaps making is harder to sab tools than weapons would help here ( now it seems to be the other way around, and well I guess we all know when you have decent aat, your sentry is gone in no time and then the rest will follow even faster. ) I can see lone sabbers are quite annoying but in the end they don't do much damage, so I don't see why we would limit them even more. Old ages, people had sabaccounts hell there were even sabchains. Now what's left are people that are able to do a sabrun every few days but that's it. I think a way should be found to make sabbing less painfull, but for people to have a way to actually play as a sabber. Bassicly it's an attractive playingstyle that was killed of, leaving the way for only Slayers and Dawhores/rankers now.

We had sabotage turns a few ages ago, and well they dissapeared rather quickly and with reason imo. One should be able to sab as much targets as he wants in a day.

Carnage
26th August 2009, 06:57 AM
see this: http://www.giveupalready.com/blog.php?b=144

cowboy_from_hell
26th August 2009, 07:15 AM
1) Turns.
The current system is confusing an unneeded. Drop turns all together. Instead, each player may make one sucessful attempt per 24 hours and has 10 tries per player to get an attempt to succeed

I assume with that, you suggest something similar to what I suggested? I'd go further into it, but my brain is currently foccused on studying for the exams, so hard to have a real thought about the maths and figures in your blog.

However what would be good is to have a beta, in the beta admins could implement new sabrules and see how they work out. If they don't work out, it's only beta right?

Carnage
26th August 2009, 08:29 AM
There should be no real need to have a beta IF you analise the rules mathematically.

Most of the blog post was to make sabbing more intuitive rather than changing it to suit one or other group of players (rankers/sabbers)

with the point you quoted, the idea was that you dont have to sit there on every target making 50 attempts. Ten tries is more than enough if the probabilitys are set correctly. Only being able to make one sucessfull attempt is far more logical than having 2 as it currently is.

You suggest that you can get upto 10 sucessful attempts, however i think this is a bad idea. Part of what i like about current sab rules is you can ghost people. having to make ten attempts makes it far less likely to ghost someone.

essentially what i was thinking was a system the same as it is now except: 10 attempts intead of 50 and no choice in how many turns you use; you always use the equivilent of 10 turns.

cowboy_from_hell
26th August 2009, 08:50 AM
hmm but that'd give you a quite likely % not getting in at all no?

You can still ghost people with what I suggested. In Age 7 it was done all the time, you get in once or twice at first 2 tries and left it at that for the other to break the weapons. Perhaps a few hours later you used the other 8 turns.

Carnage
26th August 2009, 09:53 AM
You have to increase the chance of getting in by 2.5 times.

As its using 10 turns, its simlar to having 25 attempts to do 1 sab

x the %age by 2.5 and its roughly equivilent.