PDA

View Full Version : What changes would you like to see?



fistsofthor
5th September 2009, 09:51 PM
I am talking about game rules, NOT the rules we players have created

Let me provide an example of a what I am talking about:
I would like to see online indicators restored.

And an example of something I am NOT talking about:
Farming rules should be changed to 1 attack per 12 hours.


Now, i do not believe in either of the above. It would be nice if you wrote a little about how this would change gameplay.

One game change that I would be interested to see is if the rules changed to make spy unsabbable. To be perfectly honest, it is pretty lame that within 24 hours of GTA unleashing a can of whoop-ass on FF that a lot of FF lost were completely 90% emptied of spy and sentry within the first few hours, and therefore unable to sab/fight back so suddenly.

If spy were unsabbable, it would mean that: if the war had happened, then FF would be able to sab back for a little while. I mean, they would still have lost all of their Sentry, and a large chunk of their DA to then become turn farms for GTAs little accounts, but they would still have been able to do SOMETHING.

So, alliances would be more cautious when unleashing their wrath upon smaller targets as those targets would retain their ability to fight back for at least a few days as opposed to being stripped of the ability to sab in the first day, and emptied of everything but SA on the second day and third days.

MFnBonsai
5th September 2009, 09:58 PM
Since this is asking for user suggestions I have moved it to the appropriate area.... I think....

now back to BBQ.... snags are burning....

page
6th September 2009, 06:26 AM
1. Clicking should be limited to 100 per day. The game is Kings of Chaos. Not Kings of Clicking.

2. Limit the trickle to commanders. What is it now? 1 for every 2 that offie generates? How about 1 for every 10? And limit the number of officer a commander can have. Say 20. That way, the top 10 places will be up for grabs, and not limited to the same names who have established strong alliances through the ages.

page
6th September 2009, 06:32 AM
One game change that I would be interested to see is if the rules changed to make spy unsabbable. To be perfectly honest, it is pretty lame that within 24 hours of GTA unleashing a can of whoop-ass on FF that a lot of FF lost were completely 90% emptied of spy and sentry within the first few hours, and therefore unable to sab/fight back so suddenly.

But this would make purely sab accounts virtually invincible! Even now, a rogue sabber that uses the noob protection (unsabble at 199 nuns but with loads of spies) can wreak havoc on the smaller accounts.

But I get the general trend of your point. Maybe a more fair adjustment is to make spy unsabble UNTIL you are able to bring down the sentry to say 100 lookout towers. You can not sab the spy of an account if he still has more than 100 LTs (or some other formula).

Smitty
6th September 2009, 07:55 AM
mmmm, wrong game. Sry

ADMIN: please delete.

Smitty
6th September 2009, 07:59 AM
One game change that I would be interested to see is if the rules changed to make spy unsabbable. To be perfectly honest, it is pretty lame that within 24 hours of GTA unleashing a can of whoop-ass on FF that a lot of FF lost were completely 90% emptied of spy and sentry within the first few hours, and therefore unable to sab/fight back so suddenly.

I mentioned this eons ago. If SPY tools were sabbed and not repaired prior to being used again, then they would be lost forever.

Another possibility would be for one of the spy tools to disappear from the arsenal for each spy caught.

cowboy_from_hell
6th September 2009, 08:17 AM
With spy unsabbable, I'm affraid instead of having 1 chain destroyed, you have 2 destroyed chains.

Bassicly it would mean even less wars would be fought cause no matter how many you can have sabbing the enemy, the enemy will still be able to sab you back in 1,10 or 100 days. And when they can gather enough spy, you'll be fucked. So regardless how you play you'd be fucked.

Clicking is part of the game, wether you like it or not. Limitting it to 100 a day would b just be total fail and ruin the game for about 80% of the people.


2. Limit the trickle to commanders. What is it now? 1 for every 2 that offie generates? How about 1 for every 10? And limit the number of officer a commander can have. Say 20. That way, the top 10 places will be up for grabs, and not limited to the same names who have established strong alliances through the ages.

Why do they even need to be up for grabs? What you don't seem to get is, Chains plan stuff, sometimes ages ahead. Like Baigo bought morale last age for this age. Bassicly if you're limitting the size of alliances, alliances for which people have worked hard and well sometimes the only reason people still play. I know I still play for my alliance. If it was for the game, i'd have quite about 3 or 4 ages ago. Anything that limit's chains will only cause more people to quit then there already did.

paper_mario
6th September 2009, 02:17 PM
lol, you can't make just spy unsabbable. spy AND sentry, maybe, but not just spy. otherwise it gets reallllly gay.

I would like to see online indicators restored.

xjkryex
6th September 2009, 02:25 PM
Instead of making things unsabbable, i think covert tools should have an equal opportunity to be broken like SA/DA weapons.

For instance:

SA: broken by attacking with equipped SA weapons
DA: broken by getting attacked with equipped DA weapons

Now for coverts it only makes sense:

Spy: broken by sabbing or recon's with equipped weapons
Sentry: broken by getting sabbed or recon'd with equipped weapons.

One thing up for debate is how many tools will get broken with each situation? Is it a all or nothing type of deal (since most people only send one spy per covert mission that is). Or some other situation not based on the amount of spy's sent/caught.

Thoughts?

Lopina
6th September 2009, 02:45 PM
I believe that now, after GTA's blitzkrieg on FF, rocco should come to his senses and make sentry unsabbable.

It's pointless otherwise.
Today, wars last about 2-3 days, if lucky.


Also, I believe that morale transfers should be limited daily (5k/day) and to a player (1k/day)
The clicklist size is OK

Those who click by themselves should now get the proper reward for doing so
Those who buy morale will be able to buy, but will have to go through much more trouble to do so.

Also, remove n00b protection, pls.

fistsofthor
6th September 2009, 03:19 PM
I believe that now, after GTA's blitzkrieg on FF, rocco should come to his senses and make sentry unsabbable.

It's pointless otherwise.
Today, wars last about 2-3 days, if lucky.


Also, I believe that morale transfers should be limited daily (5k/day) and to a player (1k/day)
The clicklist size is OK

Those who click by themselves should now get the proper reward for doing so
Those who buy morale will be able to buy, but will have to go through much more trouble to do so.

Also, remove n00b protection, pls.

Well, I like to see the otherside with the ability to fight back, so personally, I would prefer spy to be unsabbable. Why? because then the smaller side, that has lost has a long time to continue fighting.

Sentry unsabbable benefits large players. Spy unsabbable benefits small players.

As the big players are already very very powerful, I would like to see spy unsabbable. Would give something back to the slayers.

Although, allowing spy to be broken when the tools are used seems like a good idea to me.

FallenOne
6th September 2009, 04:04 PM
1) change the AAT amount to something like 1/500th instead of 1/200th
2) get rid of random damage to IS's and BPM's when attacking or defending. why should someone with 1bn strike randomly cause a shit ton of armory repairs to someone who has like 70bn DA; the reverse can be said the same. does that make sense?
3) get rid of 'attacks on you' page; so no one knows who they were last attacked by. this would make AA's mean literally alliance affiliation instead of the garbage written in there. if you want the game to be REALLY chaotic then also get rid of intercepted intelligence operations though i think this one is a bit too crazy.
4) get rid of randomness through sabbings and the sab turns bs. use %ages to calculate successful sabs rather than random successes.
5) make 25 spies option useful or reduce this. why the hell is that 25 spies even there?
is it just a gimmick? has anyone even sent 25 spies out and succeeded?
6) have equal chance to sab strike/defense/spy/sentry rather than some stats being much fucking harder to sab. i find spy and sentry are no problem. strike is a real bitch.

page
6th September 2009, 07:41 PM
HOw about instead of having spy unsabble, just put a cap on how much one account can be sabbed for a given 24 hour period?

This way, Pearl Harbor attacks would not totally annihalate an account to the point of being unable to retaliate. But pure sab accounts can still be made to pay for being a rogue.

If an entire alliance can only sab one account for 10% of it's value every 24 hours, that alliance would be wary of retaliation!

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

I just read from another thread, I believe Shane has made, more or less the same suggestion (putting a cap on how much one account can be sabbed within a 24 hr period).

page
6th September 2009, 09:05 PM
What you don't seem to get is, Chains plan stuff, sometimes ages ahead. Like Baigo bought morale last age for this age. Bassicly if you're limitting the size of alliances, alliances for which people have worked hard and well sometimes the only reason people still play. I know I still play for my alliance. If it was for the game, i'd have quite about 3 or 4 ages ago. Anything that limit's chains will only cause more people to quit then there already did.

Being the leader of a big bad alliance will still have huge benefits. All I am saying is that we should re-formulate rules a little bit so that the end result of the age is not a foregone conclusion by day 1. Like you said, sometimes even before that (with the planning). Having the same names on page 1 of the rankings list, age after age -- and those names UNTOUCHABLE to 99% of the KoC, is not exactly inviting to new players.

And if officers are limited to 20, a commander will choose the BEST 20 and leave the rest to his sub-commanders. If I can use an army analogy, it is quite ridiculous that a private can have direct access to his General. When it should be Generals -> Colonels -> Majors -> etc. etc.

Nasser
6th September 2009, 11:13 PM
1. FIX sab rules , as in bring back unsabbable spy/sentry tools or anything that prevents account from being trashed in a matter of hours by mega chains.
That makes it hard to get rid of rogue sabbers ? Tough luck. rankers and mega chains have got their glory ages against sabbers , time for payback? lol

2. Remove/Limit morale transfer , the way baigo bought his tff is a joke ( so is his winning lol , if he does :P ).
PS- giving Baigo as an example , everyone bought morale - so the way lot of people bought tff is a joke.

3. I liked online indicator , if its not back - give more recons attempts?

GuapoCanoe
7th September 2009, 01:40 PM
eliminate the distinction between attack only and defense only troops...they are tff soldiers and that's that!

you shouldnt be able to hide a million Attack soldiers or their value behind 500 defense mercs. you should be able to train and equip them to suit your style, but not something that keeps them out of any fight, or in this case removes them from harms way...what are they sissys??

they should be always at risk, so you train and equip them like you are commanding an actual army.

Spoils of War
1-morale reward for the victor attack or defense.

2-looting of armories and inventories for the victorious aggressor*, including sentry and spy tools

3-salvage rights of the defeated for the victorious defender* -not including sentry and spy or to a lesser degree as hes in your yard not the otherway around.

- limitless special operation attempts (see #2 above)


-make gold, armory/inventory items and soldiers transferable to other accounts

-eliminate morale transfers, money can buy alot of things...money cant buy 'the love'!

- morale rewards for ranking (top 100) #1 recieves 1% of the total value of all morale clicked in a single day, #2 recieve 1/2 a point, #3 1/3 ,#100 1/100th...if thats too high it can be adjusted but the idea is that people should be killing themselves to be number one or just killing baigo so they can be number one.


please let me know what you think of any of these ideas.

ThOrN-
7th September 2009, 03:12 PM
I just quit a 130k soldier account this age because of the stupid sab rules...

How come someone can sab me that has 60-80 mill less spy than my sentry but i cant sab someone that has 60-80 LESS sentry than my spy....

It sucks i lost 30+ nuns trying to sab one guy that had 20 mill sentry and like 1bill SA and 500M defense...yet because his sentry is low hes untouchable?...sucks so bad.

I think i lost hundreds of nuns just for the fact the sabbing is so bad...whats the point in allowing 25 spies if the only result is loosing like 10 nuns on each failed attack and not losing tools when you send 1 or 2 spies but not being able to be successful...and its not even because im stupid i played since age 1.. sort this mess out . :) ^^

GTA trashed my account thats fair enough but not being able to sab back because some of them had low sentry is just plain stupid..


So what i would like to see to see if i'll bother playing next age is...

*Spy/Sentry tools only being lost by being sabbed not on failed sabs.
*lol even though i was dwarfs '60% Defense Bonus' is a bit un-even compared to other races. :P
*Sabbing needs to be corrected if Player X has a certain amount of spy more than Player Y's sentry..he should be able to sab... new players can get protection by joining an alliance or not being idiots..they dont need to hide behind low sentry.


I was enjoying the age until i had to use sabbing and saw how bad it was.. o_O


Also this is lazy but... when sabbing and you choose a wep/tool to sab it should stay on that tool instead of going back to the top of the list of weps.. its irritating picking that wep to sab 10,20,30,40 time.


From previous suggestions i don't think any stats should be un-sabable and baigo was clever buying morale fair play to that guy :)

GuapoCanoe
14th September 2009, 03:23 PM
looting/salvage of equipment to the victor.

morale rewards to the victor

transferable inventory/gold

rewards for ranking individual and alliance

focus game on promoting aggression and violence, not clicking and buying...perhaps a real list of statistics...like a W-L record or something as well

chaser1
14th September 2009, 04:16 PM
In other words, switch back to age 6, where spy and sentry couldnt be sabbed and sab chains were everywhere.

The rules changed in age 7 to where only 50 maximum tools could be sabbed per attempt because so many accounts were getting raped via sabs. Which made slayer accounts more prominent due to massing accounts that only bought 640 strength weapons and armor, killing troops that held those tools, since players needed more.

Then in age 8, they introduced single attack turns instead of 1-15 turns per target to reduce the amount of meaningless attacks. The sab % were reduced but the 50 item cap was removed.

Age 9, they introduced limited sab turns and sabbable covert and sentry. This was to reduce the number of sab chains. They also removed the 5 attacks per day per account cap so we saw multitudes of massings of top accounts by single players. 250 turn cap with 1 turn every 30m-60m, cant remember which. This made slayers the ultimate dominant fighting force. The introduction of undead from Age 9 beta were implemented.

Age 10 introduced morale to do away with random recruiters, yet, it didnt work, there was no click back because the in game recruiter just blew. The maximum attacks per target was reduced to ten per day. That and the limited sab turns were removed. Now you could sab until you got through. In other words, sabbers were guaranteed a success if their spy was high enough and they had enough time to sit and try over and over. First witnessed in the GTA vs LoA/UNTD war, the chain that massed first, usually won, because the victim ended up with no sentry and spy by the time they could amass a counter attack. Thus, making war virtually one sided.

Age 11, 500 turn maximum and auto clickback were the only real changes that were major. Alliances suddenly began playing a cat and mouse game seeing if one would mass another. Major wars to note that only chains that were ready for immediate counter attack did any good in wars and still were at a disadvantage.

Age 12, online status was removed and a 50 maximum sab attempt was implemented. We now have a game that is based on a combination and mediation of all of us bitching about what we have.

If you ask me, Age 7 was the perfect age except one thing. IT TOOK TOO LONG. An 11 month age that killed the game. The game went from 60k players down to 20k.

Age 9 was the worst age ever. The game hit its all time low trying to make new players happy. The elimination of the sab chains took the main thing about KoC out of the game. Competition and an even playing field. We have ranking chains and war chains and fun chains. The game boiled down to ranking, which everyone now complains that its too boring. I agree. But it's a conglomeration of our griping at them that did this.

If you want the old rules back, petition them, ask for a rollback.

Shane-
14th September 2009, 04:31 PM
Lol....

50 tools does very very limit damage, what is the point of sabbing?... You could have 20 sabbers, and the person buys back what he loses within 1 turn.

A lot of the time it is rankers and big accounts like you which have a problem with tool lose, its because the amount of tools you can lose is a lot bigger than most people, but the fact is, you also have the TBG to recover from the losses.

With your 850,000,000 TBG, I'm sure you would love to be able to lose 42,500,000 per sab, Heck, how about Baigo with his 1,400,000,000 TBG losing 42,500,000

Sabbing is suppose to hurt everyone, Its not suppose to be designed to hurt small people, And to be a tickle to big accounts, thats why the amount of tools that can be sabbed is a percent of your account, not a fixed number.


All you rankers requested x,y,z changes, and the admins did as rankers said, ever since admins started to listen to players, the game went down hill, and it will further down hill if they keep listening to people who only want to look after their own account.

If admins want to change sabbing, then they should speak to someone like Bon, who knows how sabbing is, who knows how the game is, who isnt bias, who isn't a alliance leader, and someone who has played all races, and almost all aspects of the game, Only people like Bon can give a true view on sabbing, Not rankers who think " Omg, i'll lose tools ".

What ever is done - People ain't going to be happy, Like I suggested in the war thread, An idea would be cap the max damage can be done to an account per 24 hours so it can't be totally owned in wars and such, the counter argument was when rouges go sabbing and can't get cleaned out within hours...

Never, will everyone be happy, and I think the admins have learned that if they try and make group A happy, they enrage group B,C and D.

The issue we all face is the fact that a huge chain can destroy a small chain easy, but come on, Thats life, 1000 people vs 200 people, The 1000 person group is almost always going to come out on top fast, the powerfulness of sabbing isn't the problem here, the problem is the size of the big chains these days. More people to bunched in one place rather than spread out like they use to be. - And again, Nobody would be happy is chain sizes, etc where limited, as the point of the game is to build a chain.

Reduce damage per sab will still always work in big chains favor, As they have the larger player base, smaller chains would stand even worse chance at retaliation.


Shane

fistsofthor
14th September 2009, 05:55 PM
Well, I agree with chaser that age 7 was pretty awesome except for the fact that it was to long. WAY to long. I spent the last 5 months or so expecting the announcement of when the age was going to end to come any moment, and then end a week or two later.

Now, I do not like sab caps, and the reason is exactly what shane stated. As for limiting AAT, I am against that because its a temporary solution, all it does is worsen an individual player's ability to hurt another. That isnt very good.

Also, I would like to say this to the rankers: Random sabbers who go and sab all of koc have no impact on the rankings. Its only if they were to sab part of koc and leave players ranked next to you alone that they would affect your ranking. Sab chains have little impact on ranking except that when they pick on one group and not another. If everyone were to suddenly lose 10% of each stat, it would cause no change to the KoC ranks or to the way the game was played.

I feel that sabbers, sab chains, non-rankers, players who liked to train down, and the side that did NOT strike first need some help.

I would propose the following 3 suggestions:

1) give covert operatives 50 tbg. The soldier tbg to covert tbg ratio used to be 33 to 18. Its now 80 to 20. This makes training sentries and spies to hold covert tools cut the tbg of a player. If the ratio was made to be 8 to 5 (about what it was in the old days) with soldiers earning 80 tbg and coverts earning 50, the players who enjoyed playing accounts that train down every day might return to competitive play.

2) Make spy unsabbable. Why, because the players who had lots of fun sabbing can no longer do it. Generally, players describe the fun part of KoC as:
warring
sabbing
slaying

I have NEVER seen someone write: "remember age 5? I used to click every day and bank my gold without getting attacked while I was offline, that was a blast!"

So, we want to allow players to play those aspects of the game that were deemed fun. If a player finds going around and sabbing everyone fun, then that player should be able to play that aspect of the game for a little while longer than a day or two.

3) In order to improve an alliance's the ability to slowly beat down rogue sabbers, I suggest that we double the number of covert casualties for a successful attack. This suggestion serves to counterbalance the other two.

And now, for little ideas that are not to important to me:
1) make all stats as easy to sab as spy or sentry currently is. It strikes me as a little odd that a spy sneaking around holding his nunchaku can have his nunchaku instantly destroyed far more easily than a black powder missile lying unattended in the armory, or as easier than an invisibility shield lying in the barracks can be tampered.

2) possibly modify the sab style back to the old days. In that:
only 0.2% of a players armory can be sabbed per sab turn, and only 0.4% of a particular weapon can be sabber per day.



Rankers have had fun for the last few ages without sabbers or sab chains being able to survive for a full day. Isn't it about time that sabbers got their fun in the sun?

DarthAndrew
14th September 2009, 07:40 PM
Well, I agree with chaser that age 7 was pretty awesome except for the fact that it was to long. WAY to long. I spent the last 5 months or so expecting the announcement of when the age was going to end to come any moment, and then end a week or two later.

Now, I do not like sab caps, and the reason is exactly what shane stated. As for limiting AAT, I am against that because its a temporary solution, all it does is worsen an individual player's ability to hurt another. That isnt very good.

Also, I would like to say this to the rankers: Random sabbers who go and sab all of koc have no impact on the rankings. Its only if they were to sab part of koc and leave players ranked next to you alone that they would affect your ranking. Sab chains have little impact on ranking except that when they pick on one group and not another. If everyone were to suddenly lose 10% of each stat, it would cause no change to the KoC ranks or to the way the game was played.

I feel that sabbers, sab chains, non-rankers, players who liked to train down, and the side that did NOT strike first need some help.

I would propose the following 3 suggestions:

1) give covert operatives 50 tbg. The soldier tbg to covert tbg ratio used to be 33 to 18. Its now 80 to 20. This makes training sentries and spies to hold covert tools cut the tbg of a player. If the ratio was made to be 8 to 5 (about what it was in the old days) with soldiers earning 80 tbg and coverts earning 50, the players who enjoyed playing accounts that train down every day might return to competitive play.

2) Make spy unsabbable. Why, because the players who had lots of fun sabbing can no longer do it. Generally, players describe the fun part of KoC as:
warring
sabbing
slaying

I have NEVER seen someone write: "remember age 5? I used to click every day and bank my gold without getting attacked while I was offline, that was a blast!"

So, we want to allow players to play those aspects of the game that were deemed fun. If a player finds going around and sabbing everyone fun, then that player should be able to play that aspect of the game for a little while longer than a day or two.

3) In order to improve an alliance's the ability to slowly beat down rogue sabbers, I suggest that we double the number of covert casualties for a successful attack. This suggestion serves to counterbalance the other two.

And now, for little ideas that are not to important to me:
1) make all stats as easy to sab as spy or sentry currently is. It strikes me as a little odd that a spy sneaking around holding his nunchaku can have his nunchaku instantly destroyed far more easily than a black powder missile lying unattended in the armory, or as easier than an invisibility shield lying in the barracks can be tampered.

2) possibly modify the sab style back to the old days. In that:
only 0.2% of a players armory can be sabbed per sab turn, and only 0.4% of a particular weapon can be sabber per day.



Rankers have had fun for the last few ages without sabbers or sab chains being able to survive for a full day. Isn't it about time that sabbers got their fun in the sun?



Im totally agree with all that You just wrote, all your sugestions are well thought and have a positive impact for most players, It will be nice to admins to take some of them in mind, specialy the last 2 points

chaser1
14th September 2009, 09:31 PM
Lol....

50 tools does very very limit damage, what is the point of sabbing?... You could have 20 sabbers, and the person buys back what he loses within 1 turn.

A lot of the time it is rankers and big accounts like you which have a problem with tool lose, its because the amount of tools you can lose is a lot bigger than most people, but the fact is, you also have the TBG to recover from the losses.

With your 850,000,000 TBG, I'm sure you would love to be able to lose 42,500,000 per sab, Heck, how about Baigo with his 1,400,000,000 TBG losing 42,500,000

Sabbing is suppose to hurt everyone, Its not suppose to be designed to hurt small people, And to be a tickle to big accounts, thats why the amount of tools that can be sabbed is a percent of your account, not a fixed number.


All you rankers requested x,y,z changes, and the admins did as rankers said, ever since admins started to listen to players, the game went down hill, and it will further down hill if they keep listening to people who only want to look after their own account.

If admins want to change sabbing, then they should speak to someone like Bon, who knows how sabbing is, who knows how the game is, who isnt bias, who isn't a alliance leader, and someone who has played all races, and almost all aspects of the game, Only people like Bon can give a true view on sabbing, Not rankers who think " Omg, i'll lose tools ".

What ever is done - People ain't going to be happy, Like I suggested in the war thread, An idea would be cap the max damage can be done to an account per 24 hours so it can't be totally owned in wars and such, the counter argument was when rouges go sabbing and can't get cleaned out within hours...

Never, will everyone be happy, and I think the admins have learned that if they try and make group A happy, they enrage group B,C and D.

The issue we all face is the fact that a huge chain can destroy a small chain easy, but come on, Thats life, 1000 people vs 200 people, The 1000 person group is almost always going to come out on top fast, the powerfulness of sabbing isn't the problem here, the problem is the size of the big chains these days. More people to bunched in one place rather than spread out like they use to be. - And again, Nobody would be happy is chain sizes, etc where limited, as the point of the game is to build a chain.

Reduce damage per sab will still always work in big chains favor, As they have the larger player base, smaller chains would stand even worse chance at retaliation.


Shane
Thats why in another thread I suggested that they bring the sab cap up to 200-300 per attempt and reinstall the old attack rules or find a happy in between, like only needing 5-10 attack turns for a full on attack. Instead of 15. I remember that age that massing was great when someone was holding 600k elven cloaks or mithrils and a group of 40 people would wipe out a huge chunk of that in 1x5 attacks. It was fun stuff. Also, back then, people could replenish it fairly quickly, now... it would be devastating to lose half of 600k troops.
*******************************
I also think that each race should get the following:

Humans: Restored TBG of 35% bonus. Could care less if spy bonus stays or not.
-maybe an extra class of tools just for humans. but I doubt it, I think 35% would be way more than enough

Dwarves: Unsabbable armors.
-strength: Defense soldiers and mercs have 50% casualty reduction.
-weakness: except to orcs.

Elves: Unsabbable Spy tools.
-Strength: only need 1/4 spy vs sentry to be able to sab
-Weakness: Except against Undead.

Orcs: Unsabbable weapons.
-Strength: Attack Soldiers and mercs have 50% casualty reduction, -Weakness: except against Dwarves

Undead: Unsabbable Sentry AND,
-Strength: Gain troops by claiming the dead of all battles against or caused by combat damage, including mercs and executed spies, as untrained soldiers. Also growth from officers.
-Weakness: That is the ONLY way they can gain troops.
(Note: would make for some interesting strategy and sudden changes to battlefield policy)

New Race:
Goblins: Double Unit Production and Growth from officers.
- Strength: Smaller weapons have higher strength per cost and can sab more than usual % with more spies sent.
- Weakness: All combat and sabotage mission casualties are double!

Yes, the goblins are an idea based on age 0 beta RoC version of goblins but not the same. The concept is the same because most gaming goblins are based on the idea that they are a race that multiplies quickly, are fairly weak individually and generally a nuisance.

Before any of you spout out, "yeah undead getting troops via casualties... watch the multiplaying commence!" And we dont have multiplaying now? People get caught doing it and they get banned. I have confidence in our KoC mods.

fistsofthor
14th September 2009, 10:02 PM
Thats why in another thread I suggested that they bring the sab cap up to 200-300 per attempt and reinstall the old attack rules or find a happy in between, like only needing 5-10 attack turns for a full on attack. Instead of 15. I remember that age that massing was great when someone was holding 600k elven cloaks or mithrils and a group of 40 people would wipe out a huge chunk of that in 1x5 attacks. It was fun stuff. Also, back then, people could replenish it fairly quickly, now... it would be devastating to lose half of 600k troops.

As it has been said before, installing sab caps does nothing to limit sab damage where it does the most harm during wars: to midrange accounts.

Let me put it this way, if everyone was allowed to sab exactly 1 weapon or tool per turn, (Baigo's income is about 200 times a good number of players' incomes for example, so this would be his perspective) regardless of armory worth.

Now, would a big account be affected by sabotage? No.
Would it be devastating to the little accounts by comparison? Yes.

I mean, with a 1 billion tbg that was spent 48 times a day, how many players would it take sabbing to halt that player's growth? More than the number in KoC.

Sab caps are bad for the following reasons:
1) They do not protect players at the beginning of the age
2) As players figure out how to grow a lot faster, the sab cap would have to be adjusted age after age.
3) It provides the most help to players who do not need it: the really big players who almost never get sabotaged. I mean, how lame would the sabbing have been between illkeyone and the top GTA accounts if there was a sab cap of 100 per sab turn? (so 500 AAT, and 1k LTs sabber per fully successful player) It would have been very lame. The damage would have amounted to almost nothing.

Remember, all numbers are relative. If, from the beginning of the age, soldiers earned 8 tbg per turn, and coverts earned 2, and every weapon and tool costed 90% less, it would have NO effect on gameplay.

Remember, changes should be designed to target the groups who are in trouble. The following groups are not in trouble:
Large TFF ranker-bankers who sit and bank all day who have massive AATs and equally massive Sentries. A number of accounts are unslayable, should we make it so that both slaying and sabbing effectively cannot touch them?


Near as I have seen, there was not a need for players to be able to mass more. But, if there was, I think it would be a great idea to give players turns ever 30 minutes, and make it so that 6 turns= 1 full attack. Then, there would be plenty ability to mass targets. So that turns could still be used to beat down sabbers, but to do so slowly.

chaser1
14th September 2009, 10:08 PM
As it has been said before, installing sab caps does nothing to limit sab damage where it does the most harm during wars: to midrange accounts.

Let me put it this way, if everyone was allowed to sab exactly 1 weapon or tool per turn, (Baigo's income is about 200 times a good number of players' incomes for example, so this would be his perspective) regardless of armory worth.

Now, would a big account be affected by sabotage? No.
Would it be devastating to the little accounts by comparison? Yes.

I mean, with a 1 billion tbg that was spent 48 times a day, how many players would it take sabbing to halt that player's growth? More than the number in KoC.

Sab caps are bad for the following reasons:
1) They do not protect players at the beginning of the age
2) As players figure out how to grow a lot faster, the sab cap would have to be adjusted age after age.
3) It provides the most help to players who do not need it: the really big players who almost never get sabotaged. I mean, how lame would the sabbing have been between illkeyone and the top GTA accounts if there was a sab cap of 100 per sab turn? (so 500 AAT, and 1k LTs sabber per fully successful player) It would have been very lame. The damage would have amounted to almost nothing.

Remember, all numbers are relative. If, from the beginning of the age, soldiers earned 8 tbg per turn, and coverts earned 2, and every weapon and tool costed 90% less, it would have NO effect on gameplay.

Remember, changes should be designed to target the groups who are in trouble. The following groups are not in trouble:
Large TFF ranker-bankers who sit and bank all day who have massive AATs and equally massive Sentries. A number of accounts are unslayable, should we make it so that both slaying and sabbing effectively cannot touch them?


Near as I have seen, there was not a need for players to be able to mass more. But, if there was, I think it would be a great idea to give players turns ever 30 minutes, and make it so that 6 turns= 1 full attack. Then, there would be plenty ability to mass targets. So that turns could still be used to beat down sabbers, but to do so slowly.

lemme flush out the original idea fully, take this into account with my above post and take note of the goblin race strengths.

200-300 cap on items sabbed.
55 sab turn attempts PER target per 24 hours. Failed attempts use up sab turns. Notice that higher aat accounts can still have more sabbed from them in this method if you can still sab a maximum of 200-300 items per attempt (using only 1 turn instead of 5). Even if only 1/4 of the sabs made it through average, that's 13 successes at 1 turn a pop for 300 items. thats alot of items still. Now we all know that thats a stretch sometimes to get even 13, but imagine if you got through even half the time....

Now take that strategy and plug it into these changes, not including any other racial bonuses:


I also think that each race should get the following:

Humans: Restored TBG of 35% bonus. Could care less if spy bonus stays or not.
-maybe an extra class of tools just for humans. but I doubt it, I think 35% would be way more than enough

Dwarves: Unsabbable armors.
-strength: Defense soldiers and mercs have 50% casualty reduction.
-weakness: except to orcs.

Elves: Unsabbable Spy tools.
-Strength: only need 1/4 spy vs sentry to be able to sab
-Weakness: Except against Undead.

Orcs: Unsabbable weapons.
-Strength: Attack Soldiers and mercs have 50% casualty reduction, -Weakness: except against Dwarves

Undead: Unsabbable Sentry AND,
-Strength: Gain troops by claiming the dead of all battles against or caused by combat damage, including mercs and executed spies, as untrained soldiers. Also growth from officers.
-Weakness: That is the ONLY way they can gain troops.
(Note: would make for some interesting strategy and sudden changes to battlefield policy)

New Race:
Goblins: Double Unit Production and Growth from officers.
- Strength: Smaller weapons have higher strength per cost and can sab more than usual % with more spies sent.
- Weakness: All combat and sabotage mission casualties are double!




Everyone is focusing too hard on accounts like Baigo, TGF, funnybone and the sort to understand that the OTHER accounts, such as Storm12age of age 10 and alot of FF and LoP earlier this age got thrashed because of the current sab setup. There is still close to a 50 sab attempts but even at illkeys rate, he was losing... It was only a matter of time if he couldn't bring at least a few accounts down with him. It couldnt be done though without his chain to help him. they were gutted. Making it a completely one sided and rather boring looking fight compared to former ages. He was losing roughly 4500 LTs, give or take, aat with five sab turns. Now, that averages out to about 900 aat per turn. This allows the smaller accounts to have a chance of catching up based on their account value and how they play instead of trying to maintain peace. I thought this was a war game. Let's make it fun again. Also, take into account that players in age seven bought smaller tools to reduce the amount of DA or SA that was actually sabbed. Imagine how annoying it would be to have to try and hurt a goblin player... small tools...

Another idea is to put a sab cap on spy and sentry tools.

fistsofthor
14th September 2009, 11:00 PM
Now, chaser1, players like illkeyone had a lot less relative trouble than the rest of his chain. If I had to mention players in FF who needed the sab rules changed to help them out, illkeyone would be on my list next to the player who did not have the account worth to own 200 LTs, and was exclusively in big weapons. I mean, illkeyone survived with his account intact. As for the question: should a determined effort by a powerful group of players be able to eventually bring an account down after several weeks if its 10 players against one?

I think the answer is yes. Why? because all of the smaller accounts whose number of sabbable weapons was below the cap were able to. Yes, illkeyone could have eventually fallen. All big accounts should be able to eventually fall if there are 5 players sabbing them every day, and more being raised up to sab them.

I think the issue are less the accounts that can be destroyed after 2 months of warring as it is the accounts that can be destroyed in 3 hours. Those accounts are the ones that need help.

Also, I think that noob protection, in its current state should be removed. Sentry should help players defend against sabs. If I have a sentry at 0, and I pay to train one sentry, my armory should be better protected than if I had no sentries. If I train another sentry, my armory should be more safe (not less) than it was before.

As for the bonus ideas that you suggest, i think that is to drastic a change. At present there is no system or idea by which the reason for one race being strong against a specific other race would come about. The idea is to drastic a change. Also, the undead idea, cool as it is, denies the premise and point of koc which is to get lots of people to click your link while providing fun for those who enjoy destruction.

As for the goblin idea of "Lets just double everything about them: growth, casualties, their damage to other players, their own damages" I think its a little over balanced. I mean, how often have TGF, funnybone or baigo been successfully sabbed this age?

I think the races are out of balance, and the premise for the races falls outside of KoC. I think that game moves to far outside of the idea of KoC that it would have to be a different game. Remember, the idea of KoC does not allow for any type of insane doubling effects or for one race being able to sab twice as much from another, or for a type of rock paper scissors game to happen between races. Multiple rock-paper-scissors scenarios between types and groups that are able to cause double damages and gain life off of another's losses can be found in pokemon. While it is a fine game for all who enjoy it, its practices should not be brought into KoC.

Nor, do I see races that answer the needs of a group of players. What sort of play style does the goblin race reward that players wish to play? Why aren't the elves just given a spy bonus? The races you proposed, cool as they are, do not seem to address a specific set of issues that player types are facing. In fact, it simply seems to crush many of the player types. What about players who want an SA boost so they can slay better? What about the players who want an increased DA?

As near as I can tell, it levels all player groups.

chaser1
14th September 2009, 11:35 PM
Yes but with a cap, take into account that those same small accounts could buy smaller tools, thus, the cap would be more effective in saving their accounts. Its a check and balance. Also, those accounts, worth more than their TBG could handle, wouldn't get throttled quite as hard if they choose the right strength weapon or armor.

For example. A person with 20m TBG couldnt maintain IS very effectively if he could have 200 IS sabbed aat. That's 150 million gold worth. Yet, if he bought only mithrils, elven cloaks etc, then he would only have 10 mil gold worth total sabbed from him aat. Thus, making his account more manageable against sabotage. However, slayers could hurt him more by killing the troops holding the tools. This, on top of my racial bonus strengths and weakness idea would make each race more desirable and make for more strategies than (rankers build TFF - slayers build SA, 'nuff said, deluded tactic of this age). We would see high TFFs, high spy, high strike, high da and sentry all over the place. We would see different tools. Reconning would be worth more than trying to figure out how many of the biggest tool there was. It would be more geared to figuring out what ALLLL they had.

Take away the spy bonus of humans, take away the the extra bonuses that each race got in prior ages that didnt seem to quite apply to them (Humans with extra spy, dwarves with extra TBG, orcs with DA? and elves with casualty reduction and undead with extra strike) and implement the strengths and weaknesses and I think the game would be more balanced. What is going on right now isnt fun. What little fun people have only lasts for... 1 week maximum. In my eyes, that isnt worth the rest of the six months of just sitting banking and gossiping about who is doing what.

It seems that your major concern is for the accounts that become so enormous that their TBG keeps them alive. See above for why a cap is good for smaller accounts. In age 7 I played Chaser1_TCL. I ended with a fair rank and warred that ENTIRE age. http://www.kingsofchaos.com/age7_final_stats.php?jump=&search_type=s&search=Chaser

Not bad if you ask me. How did i do it? I bought dragonskins because my TBG could handle that. Had I bought invisibility shields. I would have been destroyed in no time. I bought bpms because I could actually calculate an average of how many of them got sabbed and recycled after I got hit to see what I had to replace of dragonskins. Then, I would go slay up more gold to keep ranking while warring. Yes, it could be done back then, it just depended on if people understood how to maintain a war account.

Now with sabbable spy and sentry, it would be a bit more difficult but it still can be done.

fistsofthor
14th September 2009, 11:54 PM
Yes but with a cap, take into account that those same small accounts could buy smaller tools, thus, the cap would be more effective in saving their accounts. Its a check and balance. Also, those accounts worth more than their TBG could handle wouldn't get throttled quite as hard if they choose the right strength weapon or armor.

For example. A person with 20m TBG couldnt maintain IS very effectively if he could have 200 IS sabbed aat. That's 150 million gold worth. Yet, if he bought only mithrils, elven cloaks etc, then he would only have 10 mil gold worth total sabbed from him aat. Thus, making his account more manageable against sabotage. However, slayers could hurt him more by killing the troops holding the tools. This, on top of my racial bonus strengths and weakness idea would make each race more desirable and make for more strategies than (rankers build TFF - slayers build SA, 'nuff said, deluded tactic of this age). We would see high TFFs, high spy, high strike, high da and sentry all over the place. We would see different tools. Reconning would be worth more than trying to figure out how many of the biggest tool there was. It would be more geared to figuring out what ALLLL they had.

Take away the spy bonus of humans, take away the the extra bonuses that each race got in prior ages that didnt seem to quite apply to them (Humans with extra spy, dwarves with extra DA, orcs with DA? and elves with casualty reduction and undead with extra strike) and implement the strengths and weaknesses and I think the game would be more balanced. What is going on right now isnt fun. What little fun people have only lasts for... 1 week maximum. In my eyes, that isnt worth the rest of the six months of just sitting banking and gossiping about who is doing what.

It seems that your major concern is for the accounts that become so enormous that their TBG keeps them alive. See above for why a cap is good for smaller accounts. In age 7 I played Chaser1_TCL. I ended with a fair rank and warred that ENTIRE age. http://www.kingsofchaos.com/age7_final_stats.php?jump=&search_type=s&search=Chaser

Not bad if you ask me. How did i do it? I bought dragonskins because my TBG could handle that. Had I bought invisibility shields. I would have been destroyed in no time. I bought bpms because I could actually calculate an average of how many of them got sabbed and recycled after I got hit to see what I had to replace of dragonskins. Then, I would go slay up more gold to keep ranking while warring. Yes, it could be done back then, it just depended on if people understood how to maintain a war account.

Now with sabbable spy and sentry, it would be a bit more difficult but it still can be done.

Well chaser, it appears that the primary option that you wish to be available is for players to be able to control their sab losses by being willing to settle for smaller tools and weapons. Well, i do agree that that was an interesting feature of the game. That said, I think that the following method would be a superior way of doing it without providing an advantage to the fat and large tff accounts that we do not wish to give any more advantages to:

Every 100 million gold account worth = 1 item that can be sabbed per 5 sab turns. This would accomplish the same thing. It would make sabbing BPMs and ISs slightly more advantageous than sabbing tools and it would not change the amount sabbable in a drastic way for those fatties who are using the biggest weapons. As for helping the little guy who wants to war all the time, I suspect that this would help do that just fine.


Now, the race bonuses establish rock-paper-scissor games that we do not want. The goblin race appears overpowered to me. Additionally, the Undead race seems crooked for the following reasons:
1) It is heavily dependent upon the support a player received for his alliance. All it would take is a main willing to buy a bunch of mercs, not buy BPMs, and send a couple of attacks towards the undead player. If the main was then able to receive half the growth (especially if he was a goblin) It would just be a broken combo. It would translate into mercs turn into tbg earning soldiers and it would be a really annoying thing that would highly disadvantage players who could not exploit it.

I mean, X of the goblin main account's mercs instantly turn into:
X tbg earning soldiers for the undead officer, and X tbg earning soldiers for the main account. It is simply a broken combo, and it is not balanced.

On the otherside, there would be undead players who were unable to get off the ground, and this would be really difficult and annoying for those players. This would be particularly meddlesome for solo undead players.

Now, receiving half of the soldiers your officers get from clicking is a fundamental part of KoC. We cannot get rid of that element, so we could not make it so that undead do not trickle, and we could not make it so that undead do not receive trickle growth without messing with a fundamental concept of KoC. That element is essential to KoC, and to break it would be to change it away from a KoC type game into a new and separate type of game.

But chaser, how does my idea about every 100 million account worth translating into 1 tool per 5 sab turns?

DarthAndrew
15th September 2009, 12:03 AM
Sounds a interesting all your changes chaser1, however, Humans even with no strenght, they also have no weakness and a 35% more TBG will be a huge advantage even with the return of SAB Chains with the reduction of 1:4 to be able to sab.

I see an age of everybody going Humans or Elves.

Undeads will be extinct with no other way to gold other than killing Soldiers to gain units, due that they wont be getting attacked for gold because they will hardly have gold at all, but if they start massing or crazy attacking they will be approved quite fast by alliances.

Also my Programming knownledge tells me that KoC admins will need quite a time to program this changes and also to taste them, se they may dont even bother in doing them.

I will make the next changes:



Humans:
_Bonus: 35% Income
-Strenght: 20 % less Gold Loses when get attacked
-Weakness: 10% less soldier growth than all other races (officers bonus/UP)

Dwarves:
-Bonus: 55% Defence
-strength: 15% less cost buying Defensive Weapons
-weakness: 20% more Casualties Defending (including spies & sentries)

Elves:
-Bonus: 40% Spy Bonus
-Strength: only need 1/4 spy vs sentry to be able to sab (except Undead)
-Weakness: 25% more spies casualties when they get attacked

Orcs:
-Bonus: 50% Attack
-Strength: Able to steal 100% of enemies gold when they attack
-Weakness: 30% more Attack Casualties

Undead:
-Bonus: 40% Sentry
-Strength: Must have 1/2 spy vs sentry to be able to sab them (elves including)
-Weakness: 25% more sentries casualties when they get attacked

New Race:
Goblins:
-Bonus: 50% reduction of Unit Production Costs, 30% more Growth from Officers
-Strenght: Unit Production Up to 2,560 per day
-Weakness: 35% more Attack-Defence Casualties


This changes will make every race to have 1 specific bonus, and their strenghts and weakness related to thier bonus making them specialists on their specific bonus

Comments good or bad are appreciated

chaser1
15th September 2009, 12:07 AM
Exactly why I mixed goblins and undead into the mix. Of course my idea could be tweaked alittle to avoid abuse of the combo, but goblins are by far not overpowered. One dedicated slayer mass would hurt them badly, where sabbing would be about worthless on them.

Ive never seen undead as much of a social race in terms of roleplay, which this game is an mmorpg (massive multiplayer online roleplaying game). Maybe clicking could be done, but I really like the concept of raising the dead. But to do that, you would have to eliminate another form of growth. Unit Production may work, or even unit production and clickback from morale reduced drastically, however, I could see upchain growth giving them a few troops (sacrifices offered by their officers). Of course, upchain growth from undead could be done, but maybe at a penalty due to the ability to mass goblin players (of course, as said before, goblins would be virtually annihilated if they got massed) which is why goblins are able to sab a bit more but at heavy costs each time they fail. In other words, yes, goblins can be powerful, but it doesn't take much to hurt them. The tactical advantage of the goblin race is their growth. They breed like rabbits and rats, thus the gap between the goblin officers and the goblins commander would be as though their growth wasnt even slowed down by the goblin being there, thus allowing for more trickle accounts above alliance main accounts.

fistsofthor
15th September 2009, 12:55 AM
Doubling is way to powerful. And harm because of somebody massing? That doesnt really etch the surface. Allow me to explain:

Imagine if SR was the way it currently is, except that baigo was a goblin, and he was able to find 50 other accounts who were goblins to put in between him and funnybone (who was also a goblin)

With double the growth, baigo would be at 40 mil TFF initially. Additionally, baigo could find 50 goblins in the game who would be willing to be in the trickle line at the cost of paying baigo or officer a ancertain amount per day. What this would lead to is any big account could have a theoretically infinite chain of sell accounts. That would turn the game into a competition to see who can have the longer chain of identical tff sell accounts=not fun. Also, 150 (or more if need be) baigo 40 mil TFF accounts would mean that all of those accounts could overnight strike and reduce any alliance or player to nothingness. Or, an undead officer of baigo could go and mass the top goblin in the chain, quickly doubling and triping the tffs of every member in that chain.

The goblin race you propose is way to much of a power ramp up for people connected into the trickle line. Doubling growth and trickle is just so tremendously powerful that it would be broken. I have played enough games to know that broken= not fun. Doubling growth and the ability to make infinite chains of really high tff may sound fun, but it would quickly become a race to see which alliance can use dynamic ip addresses to create a long string of sell accounts of = tff.

As for the undead feature of bringing back things from the dead, that needs to be undone. It is also overpowered. I would like to remind you that 35% tbg bonus is huge, and would be a better bonus for the top accounts than their current combo most likely. Next, I wanted to say that a 35% growth bonus is just unbelievable. No, the need to ramp up is silly. All of these bonusses are overpowered. A 25% tbg bonus should be amazing, as would a 25% bonus for both spy and sentry. Now, both goblin and undead have the potential to be broken- something no race has ever had the potential to be. I mean, a race with no bonus whatsoever only needs to grow 30% more than the best account to win an age (although that is amazingly tough)

I think the bonuses should maybe drop the tbg bonus from dwarves, and then things would be a little better.

chaser1
15th September 2009, 07:17 AM
so... lemme get this straight, you like the game as it is except for the extra tbg that dwarves get? That's what it sounds like to me.

as for overpowered goblins, id mass every high tff goblin with undead if I had the the chance. If I was a fast growing undead player and I was either elves or dwarves, Id sab their strike so that they lost more with each attack trying to gain more. Maybe even mix it up a little so that they think I sabbed SA. This would cause more Undead casualties than goblin if they messed up and were defended.

Merv_LaCN`
15th September 2009, 07:30 AM
How about making the sabbing of Spy and Sentry tools as limited as the SA and DA weapons are ?

Make it like being able to sab an amount of weapons with a total worth of 42,500,000gold (50 bpms, or 58 nuns) per spy, maximum.

So with 1 spy, u'd be able to sab 50 BPMs or 58 nuns or 56 ISs or 85 LTs or 42,500 knives...
With 15 spies, u'd be able to sab 750 BPMs or 879 nuns or 850 ISs or 1275 LTs or 637,500 knives...

of course using 5 sabturns as the standard..
having to fill in the amount of turns as well, is a pain in the...

mojo_lop
15th September 2009, 08:39 AM
I didnt take the time to read throught this thread so im sorry if I'm repeating anything that has already been suggested.

I would like to see:
-better steal attack/steal percentages
-online indicators back
-the 50 attempt sab limit removed (since this seems to benefit the biggest accounts the most)
-something done about how your account can take months to build and only a day to get destroyed

FallenOne
15th September 2009, 11:18 AM
better steal/attack %ages?! why not just have 100% steal % ages and EXACT SA/DA.
why would i march onto the battlefield to be randomly overwhelmed when i have a better SA than their DA and then if i win decide to take a random shitty %age of gold???

Shane-
15th September 2009, 11:42 AM
How about making the sabbing of Spy and Sentry tools as limited as the SA and DA weapons are ?

Make it like being able to sab an amount of weapons with a total worth of 42,500,000gold (50 bpms, or 58 nuns) per spy, maximum.

So with 1 spy, u'd be able to sab 50 BPMs or 58 nuns or 56 ISs or 85 LTs or 42,500 knives...
With 15 spies, u'd be able to sab 750 BPMs or 879 nuns or 850 ISs or 1275 LTs or 637,500 knives...

of course using 5 sabturns as the standard..
having to fill in the amount of turns as well, is a pain in the...

And keeping the current sab rules (0.1% per sab turn)?

Again, This pretty much helps rankers/big accounts more than it helps anyone else, Lower accounts sabbing each other, etc can get in a very large percent of the time, but when sabbing a big account, its a lot harder, If we have issues now getting in (Due to the 50 cap), then the chances of getting in with more spys are going to be very slim as the more spies you send, the chance of success reduces

The point of changing sabbing is suppose to be helping small/midrange accounts stay alive in wars, not to make top accounts unsabbable. Hence why I think if something is to happen, it should be the same for all accounts, and have the same impact.

Maybe an idea is that sabbing LT/Nuns is made harder(Like Merv said, But without the epic nun losses), and sabbing IS/BPM made easier, so LT/NUNs ain't the only weapon of choice (As right now to sab 500 IS requires 20+ spies, = epic nun lose) - Or the reverse, changing amount of LT per 1 spy (Again, No epic nun loss)

But, Ultimately, Someone is always going to be unhappy with sabbing, because they've been sabbed, lol



Shane

Edit:
Your Chief of Intelligence dispatches 25 spies to attempt to sabotage 800 of TheGodFather_LaCN's weapons of type Invisibility Shield. (Translates into 1200 LT / 827 Nuns)
You lose:
- 12 of Nunchaku
- 7 of Nunchaku
- 6 of Nunchaku
- 12 of Nunchaku

This type of nun loss has encouraged a large percent of people not to ever target anything other than LT/Nuns

MFnBonsai
15th September 2009, 01:10 PM
If admins want to change sabbing, then they should speak to someone like Bon, who knows how sabbing is, who knows how the game is, who isnt bias, who isn't a alliance leader, and someone who has played all races, and almost all aspects of the game, Only people like Bon can give a true view on sabbing, Not rankers who think " Omg, i'll lose tools ".

Shane

Tried and failed for the last 3 ages.... Sent them emails after emails and still failed....

I think I have finally convinced them that sabb is way too overpowering but we shall see when the new age rolls around....

God knows I've tested every aspect of the races and areas concerning them and let the admins know what needs to be done and I haven't done it to benefit any one particular race or aspect of gameplay but to benefit KoC overall....

HARD_CORE
16th September 2009, 07:07 AM
There are only a few things I would like to see. Open the field both ways.

As for sabbing either remove noob protection or allow more to be sabbed with the number of spies used. (it makes I used 50 turns yesterday on someone who is sabbable who sabbed be and lost all 50 times.) Even in doing recons if your spy is so much greater than there sentry why do my supposed superior spies get seen so often.


I think there would also be more battles if large TFF's where able to use only a portion of there army to attack smaller accounts. (now in this there would be room to play with damages cost on percentages to make it where large account don't just pound the smaller ones.)(but can be made with the right % of TFF will get a worth wile %).

P.S. the second one is actually a idea I had last age when i was a slayer.

P.S.S. Humans suck with out the income bonus. LOL

fistsofthor
16th September 2009, 08:30 AM
As for sabbing either remove noob protection or allow more to be sabbed with the number of spies used.

Agreed. The current set up does not help noobs. Instead it helps experienced players who are well aware of the "noob" protection formulas and because of that choose to go without sentry.



I think there would also be more battles if large TFF's where able to use only a portion of there army to attack smaller accounts. (now in this there would be room to play with damages cost on percentages to make it where large account don't just pound the smaller ones.)(but can be made with the right % of TFF will get a worth wile %).

There is already a system by which a player may train gold per turn (gpt) earnering soldiers in such a way that they do not appear in that players tff and earn slightly less gold. It is called "training down." It happens when a player trains more spies and sentries than are needed to hold his tools (or even just the spies and sentries needed to hold his tools).

Now, in order for us to see this tactic employed, the gpt earned by coverts would need to be significantly higher than the gpt earned by soldiers. If you would like to see this tactic employed successfully at high tbg levels, I suggest that covert operatives bring in 50 gpt each as opposed to 20 gpt.

This would make the ratio 80:50 which is similar to what it was long ago (33:18).

FallenOne
16th September 2009, 04:27 PM
if i could pick just ONE change though i have a few
get rid of the 'attacks on you' page.

GuapoCanoe
16th September 2009, 09:16 PM
how about adding some realism?

i dont fault the equipment names, i dont really visualize a spy with a nunchaku bludgeoning a lookout tower until it crumbles.


but how about combining your entire army/tff into just one group that fights both offense and defense...your army

but you spend your gold training/drilling offense and/or defense-'tactics'

you could even add different tactics to train-in: ambush, counterattack, pursuit, run-runAWAY, purple nurple etc..



i have 1million attack soldiers, you have 1 million attack soldiers...lets go hit the 3000 mercs assembling in their shadow...WTF?!

:hey what about those guys over there??>>>pointing at horde of 1million killahs>>>

:oh those guys,well they said they would love to fight but since they didnt think of it first....well, they dont want you guys to think they are copying you...


a superior army should be able to over-run an inferior army and cut them to pieces-including intel and spy


and of course treat morale like 'esprit de corps' and make it a reward for the victor...a non transferable feeling of togetherness,focus and belief in ones organization and self..

make gold and inventory items transferable to other players


make inventory items/military equipment salvageable in wake of opponents defeat consider it a bonus in attacking rich accounts who never seem to have gold laying around, and an opportunity for the victorious defender to profit from guapocanoes folly in attacking them.


i want to be able kill their personnel ANY/ALL of them, and i want to steal their gold and equipment...is that really too much to ask for?

fistsofthor
18th September 2009, 11:43 PM
/me says that guapo changes asic elements of the game. Now, let me say this:

There are essential elements of the game that help define that game as KoC.

These include, the existence of different races. Soldiers bring in turn based gold.
Clicking = soldier gain (or both)
Both attacks and turn based gold come once every so often

Attacking and sabbing, and to some degree how they work. As in, you win an attack and you get gold from the player you attacked.

GuapoCanoe
20th September 2009, 01:40 PM
i would love to change the basic elephants of the game.

clicking = boring gameplay

banking = boring gameplay

no real payoff/reward for ranking or slaying = boring gameplay



which is more feared, slaying or sabbing?

this is a war game that doesnt promote war.

fistsofthor
20th September 2009, 03:13 PM
i would love to change the basic elephants of the game.

clicking = boring gameplay

banking = boring gameplay

no real payoff/reward for ranking or slaying = boring gameplay



which is more feared, slaying or sabbing?

this is a war game that doesnt promote war.

Unfortunately, the origin of this game was just see who could get the most friends to click their link. Then slaying was added, and then the other stuff was added.

So, clicking=purpose of KoC

HARD_CORE
20th September 2009, 03:39 PM
Agree fist but training down is not effective in ever day play. Only time training down is worth doing is if you are ready to change strategy.

page
20th September 2009, 11:30 PM
I like GuapoCanoe's suggestions. One minor adjustment I'd like to suggest, rename Nunchucks to TNT. You can destroy a lookout tower with a TNT (or several weapons with it). Makes more sense doesn't it? You need TNT to destroy a lookout tower in fact, and nothing less will do.

GuapoCanoe
21st September 2009, 02:42 AM
Unfortunately, the origin of this game was just see who could get the most friends to click their link. Then slaying was added, and then the other stuff was added.

So, clicking=purpose of KoC


well pong rocked socks back in 1972 and what... thats just the way it has to be?

their is nothing social about click programs that allow you to click hundreds of links per minute without even knowing who you are clicking on... clicking links doesnt even require you to browse a persons profile or learn anything interesting about them or this game...its impersonal, time consuming and boring- does that sound like a recipe for success for any activity??


thanks for responding to me, i gather you are a long time KoC player...but where did everybody else go?


for 'non-gameplay' changes the whole interface needs a lift, the pm system is horrible and there are far too many screens to KAPTCHA between...

DarthAndrew
21st September 2009, 11:43 AM
for 'non-gameplay' changes the whole interface needs a lift, the pm system is horrible and there are far too many screens to KAPTCHA between...

Well I agree with this ideas, the interface need and update, a refresh to make the game more visual, I would like to see more graphics on the game, I would like to see The Battle Report with some images of lets say for example: the pic of an army of orcs defeating an army of humnas instead of bla, bla, bla Your soldiers march onto the battlefield...

I mean We all ready know how many weapons we have, and if we want to know the armory of the enemy we can spy on them, no need of a bunch of letters on there.

Also the possibility of been able to put a banner of our alliance on the Alliances main page, also this meaning the improve of this feature. ( to make it like the alliance feature of: www.ogame.org)

Maybe also if its not too much to ask pics of the tools, and or weapons, fortifications, siege techs and avatars for the players. ( also like the visual style of ogame, everything is visual in there)

Many will say are you nuts, all the images will make the game slow and such, but come one lets be fair, hte game is visualy TOO PLAIN not even 2D but 1D visual.


AND PLEASE a 50% captcha reduction, I mean banking from a cell phone is already hard but filling a captcha on there is THE WORST, and if admins dont take in mind that a lot of ppl play from their cell phones then they are missing a very important point.

pffft
23rd September 2009, 10:25 AM
Many will say are you nuts, all the images will make the game slow and such, but come one lets be fair, hte game is visualy TOO PLAIN not even 2D but 1D visual.


1D??? lol, if it was 1D, you wouldn't be able to see it.

DarthAndrew
23rd September 2009, 12:47 PM
1D??? lol, if it was 1D, you wouldn't be able to see it.

Lol, You're as stupid as your nickname, lol Don't Take Everything So Literally
:banghead:

pffft
23rd September 2009, 02:38 PM
Cause WORDS mean THINGS
If you don't your them right they mean SHIT.

GuapoCanoe
6th October 2009, 11:56 AM
Declaration of WAR-

notice should be given to all allliance members no less than 12 hours prior to the start of war, thereafter everyone active and inchain should remain active and inchain for the first 72 hours after the start of war.

fistsofthor
6th October 2009, 12:33 PM
Cause WORDS mean THINGS
If you don't your them right they mean SHIT.

This has got to be the single greatest EVER.
"your them right" right after pffft saying how words mean things. Just awesome.

It would be nice if DA and SA were easier to sab and spy was as hard to sab as ISs currently are.

Teh JoKer
8th October 2009, 07:48 AM
Sum sayin make spy unsabable / sum say sentry. I think it shud defo b set to Sentry unsabable... this may help the larger player, but if u want to sab jst boost ur spy more.

Spy weapons cud be made stronger.. atm 1 nun is worth 100.. maybe put it up to 120/150/175/200? keep sentry strength as is or possible a tower stregth of 75/100. Make both, slightly cheaper.. as the strength of spy/sentry to att/def compared to the price is quite alot.

Wen i recon fails.. u shud loose that spy + 1 of ur nuns. Nt a great lose but still, if u keep failing.. its only urself ur damaging.

Maybe add 1 or 2 more seige and fortification upgrade sumwhere in there.. Hand of God/Cannons still at the top but jst add suhhin in there. Cud even add in Level 11 covert... its only went up to level 10 were as new seige and fort wer added after the first few ages. altho level 11 shud cost waaaaaay more than double level 10.. suhhin like 75 mill.. also.. unlike every other covert level were it doubles ur spy/sentry, level 11 wud only increase the strength value of ur tools by say .5% ??

and lastly... less bloody security things. last age i played properly was like 7 or 8 and comin bac and havin to do that is killin me :laughing:

My ideas neway xD

NardHipples
8th October 2009, 05:58 PM
1. resale value for covert tools same as attack and defense weapons
-pretty sure this was put in when covert tools were unsabbable to discourage people from banking all covert tools and have virtually no risk of losing anything other than tbg. doesnt' really make a whole lot of sense any more

2. amount able to be sabbed based on the person you are sabbing's TBG instead of total value
-don't really care how its calculated but time to start rewarding slayers for bringing more gold into their account than just tbg and at the same time keep ALL types of accts from losing 6 months of work in 2 days toward the end of ages. granted small tff people will hardly be able to be sabbed, but they also will have already trashed their accts by training down. works better with #3!

3. some type of attack/probe turns that doesn't steal gold but also doesn't completely murder bigger tff accts with high SA repair costs when massing small accts, designed to kill coverts..
-exact number of them you can use on one person and how often they come i dont know lol

4. get rid of artificial clickback and make the recruiter not eat so much shit
-make the clicklist actually make sense so you dont need the retardedness of artificial clickback. an alliances chainhead ranking should be more of a team effort. basically if you get an initial boost from few people and click like hell on the first few days you can buy morale like a madman. each time you buy morale your TBG increases and you can buy even more morale and the cycle goes on forever. you dont even have to distribute the morale to your officers in order to get the results and the officers become virtually useless. bring back the team aspect of the game and get rid of artificial clickback!

5. race bonuses are stupid.. no reason to go humans at all other than to purposefully choose a weaker race



i dont know what im talking about so these are just random ideas, but basically i think koc needs to allow people to war/sab/attack/mass without having their accounts ruined in a day. even if you can only do very little damage, it makes people less afraid to actually use attack turns and/or sab.. as it is now people are shitting their pants every time they do something other than click links and bank their tbg cuz they are one fuckup away from being trashed. as a result no one does anything at all and the game sucks major ass

ThomasA
8th October 2009, 06:27 PM
More sensible captchas.

More balanced sab system.

DarthAndrew
8th October 2009, 07:55 PM
More sensible captchas.



Clickable captchas, or like they do it on RoC where you select the number right from a number list, it really is a pain in the ass to try to figure what does the images says.





1. resale value for covert tools same as attack and defense weapons

That should change at least a little bit, I mean Nunchakus prices are almost the same as the I.S. and the nunchakus resale value is a joke, resale value of 75% for everything will help to the top accounts but mainly to the mid-low ranked accounts when they sell everything into BPM when they are in a war that they dont want to fight, because their inversion/time effort will not be damaged that much.



2. -don't really care how its calculated but time to start rewarding slayers for bringing more gold into their account than just tbg

It will be better that the admins could fix the % of soldiers lost when You attack and the reparations costs for weapons, The reason why Top/Big TFF accounts use to not attack oftenly is because of the HUGE soldier lost and reparations. right now I lose around 6k-18k mercs everytime I attack.



3. some type of attack/probe turns that doesn't steal gold but also doesn't completely murder bigger tff accts with high SA repair costs when massing small accts, designed to kill coverts..

To implement 1 turn massing (no need to explain it) and a 6-10 Turns Full Raid Attack, this also will need the increase the Max amount of turns a player can hold up to 8,000 like in the old ages.



4. get rid of artificial clickback and make the recruiter not eat so much shit


Back to the times of PR's ClickWhore or SC Clan Recruiter, the click back was quite quick and simple, I just dont get how the click back turn into mess it so quick and so bad since then.

Also they will ban all clickers and ask for the helps of clickers coders like ZupZup, Shane or Bluud to create a Unique KoC clicker that works like YAR. that way no body can cheat or create autoclickers for a selfish benefit.



5. race bonuses are stupid.. no reason to go humans at all other than to purposefully choose a weaker race.

This always have been a pain in the ass, So in this matter there will be always a great discussion.

fistsofthor
8th October 2009, 09:30 PM
Well, i think that spy should be as hard to sab as ISs and BPMs currently are to sab and BPMs and ISs should be as hard to sab as spy currently is.

Teh JoKer
9th October 2009, 06:33 AM
AlsO.. AA shud not b allowed to have morale demands.. min gold hit.. all that p00p.

I dnt care if i was ranked #1 / #1,000 / or #10,000. If i see wat to me is a good gold, recon and can break the DA am takin it.. its part of the game. If you aint online to bank then it is not the players choice if other players can hit them or not :laughing:

use it to inform everyone of wat u had for breakfast, but its not for demands.. seein as it was first put in place for ur Alliance Affiliation (<or watever that word was :P)

:pointlaug

Edit: Also hate the fact that.. DA and SA (sumtimes) do nowhere near the damage they shud do.. EG: wen i had 1bill DA and getting attacked.. only has 600mill couterdamage.. thas just rong :(

fistsofthor
9th October 2009, 12:20 PM
AlsO.. AA shud not b allowed to have morale demands.. min gold hit.. all that p00p.

I dnt care if i was ranked #1 / #1,000 / or #10,000. If i see wat to me is a good gold, recon and can break the DA am takin it.. its part of the game. If you aint online to bank then it is not the players choice if other players can hit them or not :laughing:

use it to inform everyone of wat u had for breakfast, but its not for demands.. seein as it was first put in place for ur Alliance Affiliation (<or watever that word was :P)

:pointlaug

Edit: Also hate the fact that.. DA and SA (sumtimes) do nowhere near the damage they shud do.. EG: wen i had 1bill DA and getting attacked.. only has 600mill couterdamage.. thas just rong :(

Of course you are allowed to hit for whatever you want. Thats part of the game. You know what else is part of the game? Getting sabbed whenever you attack someone. There used to be a lot more players who sabbed everyone who attacked them.

Teh JoKer
9th October 2009, 01:29 PM
Of course you are allowed to hit for whatever you want. Thats part of the game. You know what else is part of the game? Getting sabbed whenever you attack someone. There used to be a lot more players who sabbed everyone who attacked them.

Too rgt, thas y i loved it bac then wen spy/sentry cudnt b sabbed.. cud sab who u wnt :P lol and all they cud do was kill a few coverts :P lolz :laughing:

Im not one to complain.. sum1 sabs me il sab bac, jst the demands r a bit pathetic.

Sleeping_Dogs
13th October 2009, 07:32 PM
Get rid of the individual ranks.

If you don't belong to an alliance it is incredibly difficult to maintain a high rank, and you'd never really compete for #1. Everyone already knows that there are perhaps 5-6 people competing for #1, and unless there are serious changes to the game, it will be the same 5-6 people next Age (who were also the same 5-6 competing last Age). So, if you're one of the other 8K people (and dwindling) playing, what's your motivation?

Also, the individual ranks persuade players to bail on their commanders when a war breaks out, because they're not nearly as loyal to their commanders as they are to themselves. If the game was played with just alliance rankings then it doesn't matter if your account is getting trashed in a war. What matters is to defend the team, i.e. your alliance. If your alliance wins then you win. Now instead of having 5-6 people competing for the top spot you have a few thousand.

Frankly, Baigo got the short end of the stick from his officers in the last war. He paid in morale and sell offs for their loyalty, but because they were bought mercenaries, in essence, they ditched him once their ranks fell. He deserved better from them.

Finally, lose the silly AA boxes and bring some chaos back to the game.

fistsofthor
13th October 2009, 07:56 PM
Get rid of the individual ranks.

If you don't belong to an alliance it is incredibly difficult to maintain a high rank, and you'd never really compete for #1. Everyone already knows that there are perhaps 5-6 people competing for #1, and unless there are serious changes to the game, it will be the same 5-6 people next Age (who were also the same 5-6 competing last Age). So, if you're one of the other 8K people (and dwindling) playing, what's your motivation?

The motivation is to compete for top 20, or to try to get on the first page or to try to get into the top 50 (used to be the same as page 1 back in the day) or to get into the top 100. Also, ever heard of fun? I mean, rank is simply an additional motivation. Removing ranks would just remove the motivation of the top rankers to play. Its not like it would further encourage new players. Plus, new players get all excited when they first break into the top 1000 and then into the top 100 and as the gradually achieve their best rank yet.


Also, the individual ranks persuade players to bail on their commanders when a war breaks out, because they're not nearly as loyal to their commanders as they are to themselves. If the game was played with just alliance rankings then it doesn't matter if your account is getting trashed in a war. What matters is to defend the team, i.e. your alliance. If your alliance wins then you win. Now instead of having 5-6 people competing for the top spot you have a few thousand.

The curent system forces people to choose whether they have the honor and loyalty to fight for their alliance or if they will bail like a selfish coward. Or fight with all they have until they realize that their alliance isnt worth their loyalty. Also, if all there are are alliance rankings, that just screws over new players and individual players over more.


Frankly, Baigo got the short end of the stick from his officers in the last war. He paid in morale and sell offs for their loyalty, but because they were bought mercenaries, in essence, they ditched him once their ranks fell. He deserved better from them.

Loyalty that is bought is not real loyalty. Everyone knows that. And really? He deserves more from officers that he has profited from in terms of growth? I mean, yes he paid them, but I would be willing to bet that he turned a profit on most of them (with the possible exception of his commander disturbia last age)



Finally, lose the silly AA boxes and bring some chaos back to the game.

Would certainly stir things up. Of course, when you change something one way and then change it back, you dont magically bring back the people who liked the old way, but you do cast away the people who like the AA boxes.

Lopina
14th October 2009, 12:27 AM
Change of sabotage rules

Make SA and DA easier to sab, or make Sentry and Spy unsabbable again

Change of racial bonuses

Humans - 25% income
Dwarves - 25% DA
Orcs - 25% SA
Elves - 25% Spy
Undead - 25% Sentry

Change of morale transfers

Limit to 3 transfers per day
Limit the amount to 1k morale per transfer
Limit the amount to 1k morale per day per person

Teh JoKer
14th October 2009, 05:58 AM
Would certainly stir things up. Of course, when you change something one way and then change it back, you dont magically bring back the people who liked the old way, but you do cast away the people who like the AA boxes.

At least a change to take out demands... they r jst pathetic.. :icon_idio

In ur real life, if u wana go hang a sign on ur front door sayin "stay the f*ck away or il batter ur children" Fine! but this is a txt based GAME and if a player aint online to spend gold or defend him/herself.. tough do do's. Jst hit bac wen ye get online again.


/Me hi5's Lopina - Spot on :P But mayb wen u start up u get to add on a small 5% bonus to any other stat.. except that of ur chosen race xD

fistsofthor
14th October 2009, 06:17 AM
I see no reason why artificial caps should be placed upon morale transfers. Generally, there needs to be a VERY good reason why an artificial cap should be imposed in the game. I do not see a very good reason why such a cap should be placed upon morale transfers. And remember, if such caps get to harsh, then KoC players can always go to an external recruiter that does not require log in, and have the whole "outside of koc credits" going which can be transfered in any amount. Yes, the clicklist would be 1/5 its current size, but all the restrictions would no longer be there.

As for the race bonusses, elves used to get 25% spy and 25% sentry bonus. It would seem a little much for them to just lose half of what they had from back in the old days.

Lopina
14th October 2009, 07:26 AM
Well, they did introduce a new race, didn't they :D

fistsofthor
14th October 2009, 07:30 AM
they did. Which makes it impossible to go back to the old set up, unless you give undead:
-50% casualties
-50% covert losses due to lost defense battle
-50% spies lost due to failed sabotage
-50% repair costs on weapons

and leave elves with their +25% spy and sentry bonus. But, I feel like humans are so clearly better than dwarves. Personally, that was ages ago, and I do not think that the old race bonuses are ever coming back. I hope they balance the races a little.

Dwarves have 24% of players and elves have 16% of players. So, it looks like elves need a leg up and it looks like dwarves need a disadvantage. (maybe cut the income bonus to 5% or something)

page
16th October 2009, 02:08 AM
LESS CAPTCHAS. Seriously. I get the feeling that half my time on KoC is spent typing those letters. Anyone else getting as much I am? :banghead:

KrOniKle-^^
16th October 2009, 05:44 AM
LESS CAPTCHAS. Seriously. I get the feeling that half my time on KoC is spent typing those letters. Anyone else getting as much I am? :banghead:

Agreed -,- Hate those, no biggie if i missclick or anything, just pure annyoing to log in fill in captcha, click armory fill in another and bank, then relog after being inactive to do the same thing again -,- quite annoying

DarthAndrew
16th October 2009, 07:40 PM
LESS CAPTCHAS. Seriously. I get the feeling that half my time on KoC is spent typing those letters. Anyone else getting as much I am? :banghead:

Less captchas will be so nice, but i dont see that comming, Even then Captchas could be like in RoC, when you only have to select the number from the list and click ok

fistsofthor
16th October 2009, 07:59 PM
Personally, I would prefer the old 3 to 5 letter captchas.

Interceptor428
17th October 2009, 05:17 PM
1: outlaw clans/alliances and make every player fight for themselves without any backup, it'd kill off some problems with fake accounts, there wouldnt be anywhere near the number of accounts that are getting used by clans for farming, clicking, etc

it'd allow people who understand the concept of strategy instead of schoolyard bully tactics of brute force to fight on even terms

2: bring back the online status..... its claimed it wasnt helping the community...... well not having it isnt helping either

3: remove captcha and simply delete accounts and block the email addresses used to create them if someone is found to be using a bot/script

4: remove the morale feature - it serves no purpose other than facilitating blackmail and extortion

do i expect any of these changes to happen? nope, 1&4 because clans, morale and clicking = advertising revenue, 2&3 because it involves real work on the part of the admins

DarthAndrew
17th October 2009, 06:03 PM
3: remove captcha and simply delete accounts and block the email addresses used to create them if someone is found to be using a bot/script




* Auto Log Off should help to avoid bots/scripts, captchas are the worst thing, and with a any code to detect suspicious activity and captchas will lose their reason to be.

* Permanent Ban if someone is found using them.

* Cheaters should be punished hard in order to kick them out of koc.

I mean admins are not stupid, they now when somebody is using a bot/script to auto: click, sab, bank, and such...

SleepingDragon
17th October 2009, 06:38 PM
1: outlaw clans/alliances and make every player fight for themselves without any backup, it'd kill off some problems with fake accounts, there wouldnt be anywhere near the number of accounts that are getting used by clans for farming, clicking, etc

it'd allow people who understand the concept of strategy instead of schoolyard bully tactics of brute force to fight on even terms

Sorry, buddy, but people will still communicate through IRC and instant message programs to sab you if you hit below AA, online, or return sabs for a "justified sab." It is gang warfare, and the best you can hope for is finding a gang that plays according to how you would like to be treated yourself. You'll know you found the right place if you war another clan and don't think about leaving your clanmates behind. :)

If you'd kill clans, you'd have to kill trickle growth...which means every player clicks for himself and HUGE accounts can't bully small accounts. You might as well kill morale transfers too, and each account is on a fairer playing field. No more ridiculous TFFs, and those that do have big TFFs have worked hard for them and deserve the benefits of ridiculous TFF accounts. That's how you know someone is awesome, when they click for everything they have and bank/slay accordingly. Cuz currently all it's about is buying morale, not much skill there as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. :erm:

fistsofthor
17th October 2009, 09:19 PM
Sorry, buddy, but people will still communicate through IRC and instant message programs to sab you if you hit below AA, online, or return sabs for a "justified sab." It is gang warfare, and the best you can hope for is finding a gang that plays according to how you would like to be treated yourself. You'll know you found the right place if you war another clan and don't think about leaving your clanmates behind. :)

If you'd kill clans, you'd have to kill trickle growth...which means every player clicks for himself and HUGE accounts can't bully small accounts. You might as well kill morale transfers too, and each account is on a fairer playing field. No more ridiculous TFFs, and those that do have big TFFs have worked hard for them and deserve the benefits of ridiculous TFF accounts. That's how you know someone is awesome, when they click for everything they have and bank/slay accordingly. Cuz currently all it's about is buying morale, not much skill there as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. :erm:

Right, but the current strategy of KoC is to build an alliance and work a bf policy that helps you win. If your alliance gets wrecked because other clans war over it being to strict, then its not a good bf policy. If a decent bit of members start leaving because your BF policy doesnt back them up, then its not a good bf policy.

I mean, you are attempting to take away the core of the game. If you wish to turn this into an individual, who can click the most contest, then that's not a very fun game. Alliances add a good layer of strategy so long as solo sabbers can be a thorn in an alliance's side.

xAre
17th October 2009, 09:31 PM
I mean, you are attempting to take away the core of the game. If you wish to turn this into an individual, who can click the most contest, then that's not a very fun game.

Henry would win each age.

Interceptor428
17th October 2009, 11:07 PM
If you'd kill clans, you'd have to kill trickle growth...which means every player clicks for himself and HUGE accounts can't bully small accounts. You might as well kill morale transfers too, and each account is on a fairer playing field. No more ridiculous TFFs, and those that do have big TFFs have worked hard for them and deserve the benefits of ridiculous TFF accounts. That's how you know someone is awesome, when they click for everything they have and bank/slay accordingly. Cuz currently all it's about is buying morale, not much skill there as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. :erm:

indeed, kill clans, theres no trickle growth, and there'll be no huge accounts..... makes everything a LOT closer..... no people with 10,000 troops 24 hours after the start of the age, and thier army growing exponentially

and you'll note i suggested dropping morale.....

GuapoCanoe
21st October 2009, 03:27 PM
looting/salvage of equipment to the victor.

morale rewards to the victor

transferable inventory/gold

rewards for ranking individual and alliance

focus game on promoting aggression and violence, not clicking and buying...perhaps a real list of statistics...like a W-L record or something as well


Unfortunately, the origin of this game was just see who could get the most friends to click their link. Then slaying was added, and then the other stuff was added.

So, clicking=purpose of KoC


Right, but the current strategy of KoC is to build an alliance and work a bf policy that helps you win. If your alliance gets wrecked because other clans war over it being to strict, then its not a good bf policy. If a decent bit of members start leaving because your BF policy doesnt back them up, then its not a good bf policy.

I mean, you are attempting to take away the core of the game. If you wish to turn this into an individual, who can click the most contest, then that's not a very fun game. Alliances add a good layer of strategy so long as solo sabbers can be a thorn in an alliance's side.

:1poke:




:deadhorse:

KrOniKle-^^
22nd October 2009, 03:21 PM
So, clicking=purpose of KoC


who can click the most contest, then that's not a very fun game.

Guapo, well he's rite, even tho he contradicts himself, hes actually right..

If u wanna win u gotta click, i dont click much this age, and well, even after the war with SR im actually still lacking behind on some SA from before the war cuz my TBG is so small.

But the fun part about the game isnt about the clicking, its about what u can achieve after u clicked, if u have a tbg around 25mil, and some1 has a tbg around 1mil, and the one with 1mil has far greater stats than the one with 25mil, the latter will catch up some time eventually
(if the ratio is kept (1:25))

Sab and slay are the fun aspects of the game, the socialicing is an optional bonus.. :P

OT: I would like to see alliance based AA's, i mean the alliance decides what is in everyones AA, then no more whining over "to high demands, and blablabla" But the admins gotta do some fairly coding on this part tho.
An example of an AA could be :

~RandomAllianceHere~
Hit at $steal or else $something

blablabla..

^ - $steal and $something are variables for calculations, like $steal = DA/(TBG*4)

Lets say that in that example that DA is 250mil and TBG is 2mil and 32mil DA "per 2mil" is needed so u would need to steal 8mil (4turns)

If u then have 1b and TBG of 16mil then it would be 1b/(16*4) so you would need to steal around 150mil. (9turns)

This form is just an example, and i can see it doesnt really "fit" into this, if some1 with 2mil TBG just boosted his DA to 2b or so, but its not me making the calls here, but imo what u can hold is decided by ur TBG and DA.. :P

$something is purely the demands for hitting below the min.

fistsofthor
22nd October 2009, 05:46 PM
Guapo, well he's rite, even tho he contradicts himself, hes actually right..

If u wanna win u gotta click, i dont click much this age, and well, even after the war with SR im actually still lacking behind on some SA from before the war cuz my TBG is so small.

But the fun part about the game isnt about the clicking, its about what u can achieve after u clicked, if u have a tbg around 25mil, and some1 has a tbg around 1mil, and the one with 1mil has far greater stats than the one with 25mil, the latter will catch up some time eventually
(if the ratio is kept (1:25))

Sab and slay are the fun aspects of the game, the socialicing is an optional bonus.. :P

OT: I would like to see alliance based AA's, i mean the alliance decides what is in everyones AA, then no more whining over "to high demands, and blablabla" But the admins gotta do some fairly coding on this part tho.
An example of an AA could be :

~RandomAllianceHere~
Hit at $steal or else $something

blablabla..

^ - $steal and $something are variables for calculations, like $steal = DA/(TBG*4)

Lets say that in that example that DA is 250mil and TBG is 2mil and 32mil DA "per 2mil" is needed so u would need to steal 8mil (4turns)

If u then have 1b and TBG of 16mil then it would be 1b/(16*4) so you would need to steal around 150mil. (9turns)

This form is just an example, and i can see it doesnt really "fit" into this, if some1 with 2mil TBG just boosted his DA to 2b or so, but its not me making the calls here, but imo what u can hold is decided by ur TBG and DA.. :P

$something is purely the demands for hitting below the min.

Well, dont forget that getting others to click for you is part of the fun/skill/strategy of koc.

As for alliances controlling players' AAs: they already can tell their members to set a certain AA. Also, the function might be far more complicated. Suppose that the alliance wanted to use the heaviside function (also known as the unit step function) or the greatest integer less than or equal to function. How would KoC know how to compute that.

I mean, I could see:
[H(DA-15*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-35*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-40*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-70*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-105*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-145*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-190*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-240*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-295*TBG)*TBG+H(DA-360*TBG)*TBG]*H(DA-600,000,000)*H(TBG-10,000,000)

+4,000,000*[1-H(DA-40,000,000)*H(TBG-1,000,000)
+[H(DA-40,000,000)*H(TBG-1,000,000)-H(DA-600,000,000)*H(TBG-10,000,000)] * [2*TBG+TBG*H(DA-50*TBG)+TBG*H(DA-100*TBG)+TBG*H(DA-200*TBG)]

or something like that as being fairly reasonable.





FYI: H(x) is equal to 0 for all x<0, and is equal to 1 for all x is greater than or equal to 0.

xAre
23rd October 2009, 02:25 AM
I mean admins are not stupid, they now when somebody is using a bot/script to auto: click, sab, bank, and such...

Wait, are you serious?
They catch maybe 99%, probably a bit more, but not everyone. I'm talking from experience here ;)


The easier it would be to automate it the more people would be using undetectable tools, which would just bring back the captchas.

DarthAndrew
23rd October 2009, 08:23 PM
Well, due that spy and sentry has been two different aspects of the game since quite a long time, I say that the covert technology should be split in two different upgrades:

Spy Technology / Sentry Technology, both of them with the same cost, something like:

Level 0 = free
Level 1 = 30,000 gold
Level 2 = 90,000 gold
Level 3 = 270,000 gold
Level 4 = 810,000 gold
Level 5 = 2,430,000 gold
Level 6 = 7,290,000 gold
Level 7 = 21,870,000 gold
Level 8 = 65,610,000 gold
Level 9 = 196,830,000 gold
Level 10 = 590,049,000 gold

fistsofthor
23rd October 2009, 08:36 PM
Well, due that spy and sentry has been two different aspects of the game since quite a long time, I say that the covert technology should be split in two different upgrades:

Spy Technology / Sentry Technology, both of them with the same cost, something like:

Level 0 = free
Level 1 = 30,000 gold
Level 2 = 90,000 gold
Level 3 = 270,000 gold
Level 4 = 810,000 gold
Level 5 = 2,430,000 gold
Level 6 = 7,290,000 gold
Level 7 = 21,870,000 gold
Level 8 = 65,610,000 gold
Level 9 = 196,830,000 gold
Level 10 = 590,049,000 gold

So, instead of paying double to double spy&sentry, you now play triple per level. Im not so sure about splitting it up (1.18 bil per both) but, I do see that making it more expensive might be nice. After all, since players get level 10 covert now before they are within sab range, it seems like the covert costs could be scaled up in order to become more meaningful.

Is this basically an attempt to correct for the tbg and easy of soldier growth inflation?

DarthAndrew
23rd October 2009, 10:03 PM
So, instead of paying double to double spy&sentry, you now play triple per level.


Double per level will give you the level 10 with 20 million so no big difference from now.




Im not so sure about splitting it up (1.18 bil per both)


Well SA/DA has two different upgrades, so why dont do the same with spy/sentry which is almost the same thing.



Is this basically an attempt to correct for the tbg and easy of soldier growth inflation?

Mmmm well actually I was just thinking in to bring more challenge into the game, covert 10 is way too easy to get...

fistsofthor
23rd October 2009, 10:50 PM
Double per level will give you the level 10 with 20 million so no big difference from now.



Well SA/DA has two different upgrades, so why dont do the same with spy/sentry which is almost the same thing.



Mmmm well actually I was just thinking in to bring more challenge into the game, covert 10 is way too easy to get...


But isnt making levels more pricey just helping our the larger accounts?

DarthAndrew
24th October 2009, 03:35 AM
But isnt making levels more pricey just helping our the larger accounts?

MM some may think that way, but for that instance then admins should have to reduce all upgrade costs to help all mid-lower rank accounts

Interceptor428
30th October 2009, 11:12 PM
They catch maybe 99%, probably a bit more, but not everyone. I'm talking from experience here ;)

from ages 2-6 i ran 6 accounts, all very active, all doing well..... i didnt get caught.....

Gimli_LOP
2nd November 2009, 02:30 PM
THIS age i banked gold for my commander in every two hours when he was not able to bank and played my account also we were both at a high rank top 100 he were not caught............lol he dont play now

getting ONLINE status back will be very nice
we can have more weapons and more fortifications and siege tecnology
after cannons there should be something costlierby the name:: NUCLEAR, GREANADES,
UNIT production-5k per day cost 100billion......lol

MFnBonsai
2nd November 2009, 03:28 PM
from ages 2-6 i ran 6 accounts, all very active, all doing well..... i didnt get caught.....

Mod positions were not made available until the end of Age 6....

Gimli_LOP
3rd November 2009, 12:24 AM
THIS age i banked gold for my commander in every two hours when he was not able to bank and played my account also we were both at a high rank top 100 he were not caught............lol he dont play now


MODS banned me after this message it is unfair

Beddow
3rd November 2009, 12:40 AM
THIS age i banked gold for my commander in every two hours when he was not able to bank and played my account also we were both at a high rank top 100 he were not caught............lol he dont play now


MODS banned me after this message it is unfair

You lose moron

Gimli_LOP
3rd November 2009, 01:10 AM
You lose moron

yea i know :(

BloodBullet
3rd November 2009, 03:17 AM
KoC needs its own clicker so nobody who is admin of a clicker can get unfair advantages like reordening the clicklist, officers first etc

Beddow
3rd November 2009, 03:19 AM
Anyone who makes their own clicker deserves to be able to run things their own way, otherwise where is the incentive?

bravo
3rd November 2009, 05:16 AM
The capcha's annoy me most - if they stay next age, then this would be the last age I play!
*due to some responsibilities I have, I will sing out this age otherwise I wouldn't even be bothered with it!

NardHipples
3rd November 2009, 06:56 AM
lose artificial clickback.. its dumb

LordCounter
3rd November 2009, 06:58 AM
THIS age i banked gold for my commander in every two hours when he was not able to bank and played my account also we were both at a high rank top 100 he were not caught............lol he dont play now


MODS banned me after this message it is unfair

lol lolollol

cowboy_from_hell
3rd November 2009, 07:02 AM
^ pwned? :p

fistsofthor
3rd November 2009, 07:34 AM
KoC needs its own clicker so nobody who is admin of a clicker can get unfair advantages like reordening the clicklist, officers first etc

KoC has its own clicker-- it just sucks. But yes, if KoC made its clicker work (possibly by integrating YAR into the page itself or something, idk) up to the level of external clickers, things would go about a little better.

I like the idea.

Interceptor428
3rd November 2009, 07:45 AM
Mod positions were not made available until the end of Age 6....

whats that got to do with it?

fistsofthor
3rd November 2009, 08:08 AM
whats that got to do with it?

It means that there was no one to check to see if players were cheating. Simply put, before then, players got away with pretty much anything.

Beddow
3rd November 2009, 08:54 AM
It means that there was no one to check to see if players were cheating. Simply put, before then, players got away with pretty much anything.

Wrong again the admins were pretty active up untill the mods were added.

If KoC had a recruiter built in-game like RoC's that would be cool but external clickers are still cool

fistsofthor
3rd November 2009, 11:50 AM
Wrong again the admins were pretty active up untill the mods were added.

If KoC had a recruiter built in-game like RoC's that would be cool but external clickers are still cool

well, from my experience, they didn't really care about multies back before the mods took over. There were also over 100k (although i think it was down to 80k accounts when age 6 started) so it was pretty hard to monitor everyone even if they did care. But, from what I remember, multi accounts were fairly rampant.

I think players were pretty much on the honor system in terms of following most of the rules. (admins couldnt easily monitor every account)

But, that was alright for the most part as there was a fairly fair click system and clicking was tied to an ip. A bigger problem was folks changing their ip and over-clicking.

Although, i dont think folks can really be trusted on the honor system anymore.

LordCounter
3rd November 2009, 05:21 PM
Wrong again the admins were pretty active up untill the mods were added.

If KoC had a recruiter built in-game like RoC's that would be cool but external clickers are still cool

pretty active? define pretty active lol

reasons why mods were added is cause the admins didnt do anything to massive fake account chains. like TLL, they had 3 members but over 200ppl in chain

bravo
3rd November 2009, 05:43 PM
pretty active? define pretty active lol

reasons why mods were added is cause the admins didnt do anything to massive fake account chains. like TLL, they had 3 members but over 200ppl in chain

Well being from a good catholic family myself, all I can say is that all my 13 brothers and 8 sisters (and some of their kids) love that game and TLL too,
Then again, so does my mummy and daddy but also granddad and grand mommy (she died recently, we still do bank for her which is nice because it keep her alive AND we got a sell account! =)
But they are NO FAKES we just have big families!


Back on topic.... I hate KoC capcha's! :shame:

Grinchgreenman
4th November 2009, 01:26 AM
a fucking page without fot :P

fistsofthor
4th November 2009, 07:46 AM
Well being from a good catholic family myself, all I can say is that all my 13 brothers and 8 sisters (and some of their kids) love that game and TLL too,
Then again, so does my mummy and daddy but also granddad and grand mommy (she died recently, we still do bank for her which is nice because it keep her alive AND we got a sell account! =)
But they are NO FAKES we just have big families!


Back on topic.... I hate KoC capcha's! :shame:


a fucking page without fot :P

I was more interested in discussing game mechanic changes. Because, at present the only affect captchas have on players is that it will sometimes allow a sell to be more easily intercepted when the captcha pops up in the armory and then stalls a player who just received a sell.

So, game mechanic wise, what changes would you like to see?

For example: a change in a race bonus; specific change to the sab formula; the ability to recon 50 times a day; that sort of thing.

vegito
4th November 2009, 11:11 PM
Remove AAs

Remove mechanism of Morale Sending

~PeAcE~

fistsofthor
4th November 2009, 11:13 PM
Remove AAs

Remove mechanism of Morale Sending

~PeAcE~

there would be no point of an in-game recruiter if click credits (aka morale) could not be transferred. It might be an interesting idea to simply remove the in game recruiter and remove artificial click back, but that would screw over at least a few players.

Interceptor428
6th November 2009, 03:12 PM
It might be an interesting idea to simply remove the in game recruiter and remove artificial click back, but that would screw over at least a few players.

so it spoils the fun of a few clickwhores who dont have a life away from the keyboard? damn...... im gonna lose some sleep over that one!

blazed420
6th November 2009, 03:20 PM
so it spoils the fun of a few clickwhores who dont have a life away from the keyboard?

Aka a large percentage of the player base.

LordCounter
6th November 2009, 08:56 PM
so it spoils the fun of a few clickwhores who dont have a life away from the keyboard? damn...... im gonna lose some sleep over that one!
the more time you spend on koc the better you will get...

Interceptor428
6th November 2009, 10:54 PM
Aka a large percentage of the player base.

the player base as it appears on paper..... when in reality, it'd upset maybe a tenth of the actual, living, breathing KoC membership once you factored oout multi's and otherwise dormant accounts

Interceptor428
6th November 2009, 10:54 PM
the more time you spend on koc the better you will get...

more accurately:

the more time you spend clicking, the better you appear to be

fistsofthor
7th November 2009, 08:34 AM
more accurately:

the more time you spend clicking, the better you appear to be

I am going to go ahead and say that a large number of the active players click.

sweetnikki
10th November 2009, 08:12 AM
There have been some pretty cool suggestions and some really innovative/creative ones though I think it would be awesome to revert back to something we had back in Age 5-6, I'm thinking age 6, perhaps someone can determine what age is was by the date on the screen-shot, my memory is not so good.

I do remember the days when you could clean out someones armory and that really did make the game. ~CHAOS~
This should still be chaos and reverting back to this it does even the playing field for the little account VS the big accounts and the little rogue accounts and gives the sab accounts a way of fighting back. Or even playing "their game" rather than conforming to a set of, "you can only sab this amount", "you can only sab this amount per day".

This made the game more fun and more chaotic and there were fun wars in those days, I miss those days. In doing this maybe we won't see the same old names on top every age since. There was a lot of competition and A LOT of chaos with several people jockeying for 1st place or even a top 10 end result including TGF, LordStriker, Denny and on & on. Had sab groups that were a blast to be in like ES which I was a part of at some point with Tomsky & Carlos...those were good times. :woot:

Lets get back to Chaos!

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4048/sp3220090425020447.gif

PS: If any of my facts are incorrect, feel free to correct them. hehe :biggrinan

Interceptor428
10th November 2009, 09:31 AM
why bother? at the end of the day, anything that upsets the big clans and the clicker/multi/etc power that comes with them (bringing advertising revenue) will never go through

and besides, why should anyone with the power to change things care? the money will keep coming in, and the same weak, pathetic freaks that make up the clans with thier pack mentality will keep signing up

fistsofthor
20th November 2009, 12:19 AM
Well, it looks like we have gotten the no AAs change that players wanted and of course the no online marker.

So far, that looks pretty nice.

As for things that upset big clans: losing AAs upset the clickwhores, but that did not stop the admins. Also, where do you get the idea that alliances continue to bring in players? If that was the case, its likely that the total players of KoC would go up every age, and not down.

Naked_Robot
20th November 2009, 02:26 AM
I'd like it if you could set the in-game recruiter to click for your officers before your friends/alliance members (but not be set to default) and maybe if the option to load the same person 5 times in a row returned (it loads faster), that would be kinda nice too.

While I'm thinking of clicking, why can't we set it to have an alliance's members come up more/less frequently in the clicking system? I wouldn't want to click any alliance I'm not friendly (or at war) with. Even if it was restricted to one friendly and enemy alliance to see more (and less) frequently, I'd like it. (a thumbs up & down system, perhaps?)

*Edit* If I didn't have to do a captcha every time I login and then every 10-15 minutes after a refresh of the same armory page, I would be much happier. It's understandable that we have to do them sometime, but it feels a bit ridiculous when there wasn't any advantage to be gained by running another human checker.....

fistsofthor
21st November 2009, 10:49 PM
I'd like it if you could set the in-game recruiter to click for your officers before your friends/alliance members (but not be set to default) and maybe if the option to load the same person 5 times in a row returned (it loads faster), that would be kinda nice too.

While I'm thinking of clicking, why can't we set it to have an alliance's members come up more/less frequently in the clicking system? I wouldn't want to click any alliance I'm not friendly (or at war) with. Even if it was restricted to one friendly and enemy alliance to see more (and less) frequently, I'd like it. (a thumbs up & down system, perhaps?)

*Edit* If I didn't have to do a captcha every time I login and then every 10-15 minutes after a refresh of the same armory page, I would be much happier. It's understandable that we have to do them sometime, but it feels a bit ridiculous when there wasn't any advantage to be gained by running another human checker.....

As for the clicking thing on the ingame recruiter:
most players use some sort of recruiter that was programmed by someone other than rocco or another admin. As such, the click list order of the in-game recruiter in terms of loading your officers first means little. However, I believe at least some of the recruiters are set to have you click your alliance (chain) members before you click anyone else. So, that should help you in your wish to click your own alliance before anyone else.

As for the over-usage of captchas: I totally agree.

DarthAndrew
21st November 2009, 11:11 PM
A nice change will be a max number of officers per player, ie 20 officers per player, this will bring new chain structures to many alliances, a bit of fun out there :p :thumbsup:

Also better sab formulas, been able to sab thousands of spy/sentry tools using just 1 spy is dumb.

fistsofthor
21st November 2009, 11:14 PM
A nice change will be a max number of officers per player, ie 20 officers per player, this will bring new chain structures to many alliances, a bit of fun out there :p :thumbsup:

I disagree.

artifical officer caps would not make this game more fun. the only people it would help are those who cannot recruit officers themselves. bigger has equaled better in koc since day 1. Additionallly, aftifical limits in games are almost always a bad idea. Next, doing that would simply remove any insentive of larger players to recruit smaller players as they already have big officers. that would mean less demand for small players and thus less inventive to attempt to pull new players into this game.

So, I am against any form of officer cap.

DarthAndrew
21st November 2009, 11:31 PM
I disagree.

artifical officer caps would not make this game more fun. the only people it would help are those who cannot recruit officers themselves. bigger has equaled better in koc since day 1. Additionallly, aftifical limits in games are almost always a bad idea. Next, doing that would simply remove any insentive of larger players to recruit smaller players as they already have big officers. that would mean less demand for small players and thus less inventive to attempt to pull new players into this game.

So, I am against any form of officer cap.

Yeah, top accounts will not need smaller players, but mid-rank players will be able to recruit or to get those "small" players for their selfs = alliances will need to reorganize their chains, and a lot of players will receive new officers

Pj-
22nd November 2009, 04:17 AM
Yeah, top accounts will not need smaller players, but mid-rank players will be able to recruit or to get those "small" players for their selfs = alliances will need to reorganize their chains, and a lot of players will receive new officers

it has his pro's and con's
but I don't see what's wrong with the main having lots of officers.
afteral we all want our main to get as high as possible, right?

ArxSerpens
25th November 2009, 08:24 PM
Clicking will never be removed from KoC. Clicking has been a part of KoC since the beginning, and while the people too lazy to click, who don't to put the effort in, always complain about clicking taking over the game, need to figure out it isn't going anywhere.


Not exactly a rule change, bit an idea I heard someone else voice a while back. The KoC admins need to make a Facebook/Myspace app that interfaces with KoC, and a mobile page also. That would bring in quite a flood of new players I bet, rebuilding the player base, and that would be great for everyone all around. If they do that, I also suggest taking some of the new revenue that would be generated, and directing it towards a few full time mod/admins to police the game for cheating.

DarthAndrew
25th November 2009, 10:01 PM
Clicking will never be removed from KoC. Clicking has been a part of KoC since the beginning, and while the people too lazy to click, who don't to put the effort in, always complain about clicking taking over the game, need to figure out it isn't going anywhere.


Not exactly a rule change, bit an idea I heard someone else voice a while back. The KoC admins need to make a Facebook/Myspace app that interfaces with KoC, and a mobile page also. That would bring in quite a flood of new players I bet, rebuilding the player base, and that would be great for everyone all around. If they do that, I also suggest taking some of the new revenue that would be generated, and directing it towards a few full time mod/admins to police the game for cheating.

+2 :p

I cant wait to see if there will be a new funny change next age :p :p

GuapoCanoe
26th November 2009, 02:53 AM
Clicking will never be removed from KoC. Clicking has been a part of KoC since the beginning, and while the people too lazy to click, who don't to put the effort in, always complain about clicking taking over the game, need to figure out it isn't going anywhere.


Not exactly a rule change, bit an idea I heard someone else voice a while back. The KoC admins need to make a Facebook/Myspace app that interfaces with KoC, and a mobile page also. That would bring in quite a flood of new players I bet, rebuilding the player base, and that would be great for everyone all around. If they do that, I also suggest taking some of the new revenue that would be generated, and directing it towards a few full time mod/admins to police the game for cheating.

i like the fb idea...but wouldnt this game have to be better to be on fb?

DarthAndrew
26th November 2009, 05:10 PM
i like the fb idea...but wouldnt this game have to be better to be on fb?

not better, KoC just needs to have like 50k more players, all FB games, and applications have around 30k players :P

Pauly_D
26th November 2009, 05:14 PM
koc could use fb exposure, its an addictive game, about as addictive as facebook is for some people, it would go together perfectly.

itsfun2do
6th December 2009, 07:05 PM
1. we can sell off weapons.. make it so you can sell off upgrades. this would allow one to fully change strategy in midgame.

2. selling weapons: is there a way we can make our sale all at once? we can "repair all" why can't we check a box and "sell all"? especially when selling for upgrades,, multiple trips to the armoury leaves all that gold hanging out there to be stolen..

3. this one turn a min is interesting but it taking almost two hours to earn enough turns to attack bites.. especially with the greater XP bonus that comes from attacking..

4. increase XP from recon turns if you are going to make recon cost a turn.

5. selling morale is a common element in the game.. is there anyway you can incorporate it properly?

something like on the players main page there could be a button to "buy 1000 morale for 10 million gold" (or a price set by the player) could be gold or XP if you keep that option..? this would help players that arent clickers and it would encourage clickers at the same time...

LOVE the FB share. I have already shared it with my account! excellent update!

i am not a "career" player though i have played in several ages under the same name. i find it hard to finish out an age but i still enjoy playing..

thank you
terry

Multiple accounts... can you police the use of multiple accounts better. or make it legal. i know its hard.. because my son and i both played one age together and we were using the same computer... perhaps auto delete infrequently accessed accounts faster.?

ThomasA
8th December 2009, 04:28 PM
Maybe an increase in commander changes.

Ragsnot
8th December 2009, 05:30 PM
Bloody bloody bloody bloody put the bloody Millitary Effectiveness back at the top of the page....PLEASE!

Sorry but as you can tell, on a personal level thats what I would like!! *Sheepish grin*

Chippin
19th January 2010, 09:29 AM
to be honest...

i think that this beta was a great idea... it might have been too long, might have been not so great ideas, but the concept of beta testing stuff is good

now, it didnt seem to work and sooo much have been critized

basically, i suggest going back to a previous succesfull age, maybe age 7?, and then have a brainstorm of ideas, while having something that works and might attract more people

perhaps do beta testing in a beta game running besides koc?

Santa87
19th January 2010, 01:13 PM
I think they did that with age 8 beta? was pretty cool. Players who were craving for something new to happen(like a lot of players do, in the last 2-3 months of an age) had the beta to play, while the people who were serious about the real age, and didnt care for betas, could still play the real age to the end, and then go straight to the new age, when old age was ending.

fistsofthor
19th January 2010, 01:15 PM
Maybe an increase in commander changes.

I would personally like a decrease in commander changes. I think a total of 3 commander changes would be real nice.