PDA

View Full Version : Age 4 Beta.



Pages : [1] 2

Tapchou
22nd September 2009, 08:21 AM
Age 4 Beta is being talked about by the administrators of RoC.

Age 4 Beta will be rewritten 100% from scratch and we want the community to help build it, it makes us feel better and hopefully some of the people who give input would feel proud that they helped contribute ideas and suggestions.

You may join the IRC channel now - which is #Age4 on irc.ruinsofchaos.com, but for now... it's only ideas - we need to put ideas together before any major coding takes place.

You can also suggest, talk and give ideas here.

pilferer
22nd September 2009, 11:22 PM
i'd like to suggest that when attacking a player, TTF isnt considered.. its not my fault someone has 1k tff and is holding 400mil.

fistsofthor
22nd September 2009, 11:34 PM
i'd like to suggest that when attacking a player, TTF isnt considered.. its not my fault someone has 1k tff and is holding 400mil.

I absolutely oppose this. that player LOST tbg by training down just so that you could not attack them. Incorporating this element makes it so the game doesnt become a round of: who can click the most, but instead includes strategy.


How about this for an interesting idea: whenever a player is ranked 100 ranks worse than the player in rank #566, that player is given 1 free 25 spy sab of any player on the board. If they want to target the player in 1st or the player in last, they are welcome to do so.


Another weird idea:
keep the sab formulas as exactly what they are now-- we like them, and they do not need to be tweaked.

ThOrN-
23rd September 2009, 01:11 AM
i'd like to suggest that when attacking a player, TTF isnt considered.. its not my fault someone has 1k tff and is holding 400mil.

No way, no how lol This would be the worst change... TFF is a big factor in peoples techniques/game plans.

You could also say its not his fault he's holding 400m and you have a bigger TFF :) I mean he could quite easily have the same amount of TFF you have but in spies/sentries and trained down for this reason.

Still the only thing i would ask for is Mercs for coverts i lost like 100k+ in the shortest amount of time just from probes losing like 800+ sentries each hit.

Also yea sab seems good and everyone seems happy. :P


This may seem umm crazy butt something fun for the game? Like...

Periods in the week where when you click and creds are doubled... so you click 1 but gain 2 credits. This could happen like once a week or so..you'd see the amount of active accounts and clicking shoot up ^.~

NickW
23rd September 2009, 10:42 AM
I 100% agree with Fistofthor!

RichOahu_ES
23rd September 2009, 01:19 PM
need to look at the ratios.

yesterday i was unable to get in on someone with a sentry lower than my spy. 3 BILLION lower than my spy. i didn't try with 25 spies as the day before i had trouble as well and only got in two times sending 20 spies. so this time i sent 15 and didn't get in once.

that is WRONG, it is wrong only becasue my sentry is 13 BILLIONmore then thier spy, yet they can get in on me. looks like they got in THREE times using 25 spies, no way should they get in.

that is my only "big' gripe about the sabbing. please take a look at that.

pigsfoot
23rd September 2009, 01:24 PM
that is WRONG, it is wrong only becasue my sentry is 13 BILLIONmore then thier spy, yet they can get in on me. looks like they got in THREE times using 25 spies, no way should they get in.

LMFAO key, whoever it is just can't sab you, they faked, I thought you would know that? :rolleyes1

Messias
23rd September 2009, 01:43 PM
Besides that... are we hunting a 'safe haven' from sabbin here?

Sometimes a noob walks in the front door & sometimes an expert fails, how hard he tries... I kinda like that!

RichOahu_ES
23rd September 2009, 05:12 PM
LMFAO key, whoever it is just can't sab you, they faked, I thought you would know that? :rolleyes1

maybe.... but is hard to tell, wasn't you i was talking about by the way LOL.

but now looking at your spy... if you got in, it is the same deal, over double your spy is my sentry... and looks like you got in 3 times....

seems it is easy for lower spy to sab higher sentry than higher spy on lower sentry....

oh well...

not that i mind, i liek to sab and be sabbed, makes the game inteesting. i just didn't like failing ;-P

pigsfoot
23rd September 2009, 05:28 PM
maybe.... but is hard to tell, wasn't you i was talking about by the way LOL.

but now looking at your spy... if you got in, it is the same deal, over double your spy is my sentry... and looks like you got in 3 times....

seems it is easy for lower spy to sab higher sentry than higher spy on lower sentry....

oh well...

not that i mind, i liek to sab and be sabbed, makes the game inteesting. i just didn't like failing ;-P

It wasn't me, I broke you remember ;)

Weapon Report
Shields
Broken: 57,494

Pr0nStar
24th September 2009, 08:30 AM
Here's an idea. how about alliances being able to mark other alliances as enemies or something, kinda like the buddy list except it's based on all players in the alliance instead of individual players. so on the battlefield there may be a red skull or something next to the alliance tag. i also think some sort of formal declaration of war ingame would be nice to have.

KyleCias
24th September 2009, 03:43 PM
Here's an idea. how about alliances being able to mark other alliances as enemies or something, kinda like the buddy list except it's based on all players in the alliance instead of individual players. so on the battlefield there may be a red skull or something next to the alliance tag. i also think some sort of formal declaration of war ingame would be nice to have.

I like that idea Pr0nStar, if they can allow the owner to choose the allies, enemy, neutral from alliance page, so it will be in Alliance front page.

Also a little blog system where members can communicate in alliance page which delete history every 48 hours.

Alliance Owner being able to see admin CP logs in their command center or a special link given in alliance page just for the owner.

:banghead:

Income in the battlefield is low. If you can tweaaaak that a little bit.

i got more ideas.. i will share them later :D

rabbitohs
25th September 2009, 01:43 AM
If someone has 0 sentry, shouldnt I be able to get in 10 times without fail?

Shane-
25th September 2009, 06:40 AM
Can we get a list of things that

1. Will be in the new "RoC" ( Seeing as its been wrote from scratch ) - All things.
2. Will not be in the new "RoC" (Things in current game, which will be excluded)

And, Will the "New RoC" be re-skinned to something different, or will the current blueish theme be staying?...

And, Will the theme of "medieval" be staying, or will we get something newer?


Shane

Reconciliation
25th September 2009, 08:58 AM
Can we get a list of things that

1. Will be in the new "RoC" ( Seeing as its been wrote from scratch ) - All things.
2. Will not be in the new "RoC" (Things in current game, which will be excluded)

And, Will the "New RoC" be re-skinned to something different, or will the current blueish theme be staying?...

And, Will the theme of "medieval" be staying, or will we get something newer?


Shane

We'll probably be publishing a list of the new upcoming features later on, not sure yet. This will most likely include features to be added/removed.

As for the re-skin, of the game, it would be nice to do a whole new layout, but time and me aren't good friends at the moment, and its hard to get much work done, I'm already super backed up with things, though I don't know where this "blueish theme" is coming from, the game is in dark parchment tone, and every race has different color mouse-overs, it isn't fixed for everyone (Visit an elves account and your mouse-overs are green, visit a dwarf account and they are red, etc.)

As for the overall theme, I'm pretty sure that the whole "medieval" theme is here to stay, it is roughly the foundation of all the annotations within the game, and perhaps we can direct the game towards an evolutionary stage, but don't expect a huge leap in time frame era.

fistsofthor
25th September 2009, 04:55 PM
Income in the battlefield is low. If you can tweaaaak that a little bit.

There is nothing the game can do to put more actual income on the battlefield. If every soldier gave double tbg, it would not have a real change on the game except to make it more likely that players use the most expensive weapons over the smaller weapons and get to their upgrades faster. The income is fine at present.

If you dont see as much gold as you want to see, raise your spy or click more.

ThOrN-
25th September 2009, 05:01 PM
And, Will the "New RoC" be re-skinned to something different, or will the current blueish theme be staying?...

And, Will the theme of "medieval" be staying, or will we get something newer?


Shane

Yahh something like metallic or skulls... To make it reallly look like 'ruins of chaos' :P Andy's layout kinda abused my eyes >.>


And Fist of thor is right if you increase gold per soldier nothing will change you'll just have the same problem ^.~

Tapchou
26th September 2009, 09:35 AM
If you feel like you can help us in the following, in any way - please do so.


Make a few mock ups of how you would like to see RoC - in terms of the overall design.
Give ideas on how you would like an ingame marketplace (in terms of features and how it'll work and maybe what can be traded, etc.).

Checkman
26th September 2009, 11:20 AM
I would like to see a slight change in the way that we see our attack and sab logs. Well at the alliance level at least.

I would like to see for example all attacks on a player that relate to our alliance, so if we show the stats page of Key_ES for example, it shows all attacks made by Firm players against Key showing the amount stolen and the player in the alliance who did it.

Also for the sab logs see them for the alliance by player too.
Your spies sneak into Xarsao's command center, and sabotage 46 Torches. x8 by Checkman
Your spies sneak into Xarsao's command center, and sabotage 46 Torches. x3 by cruco2cruco
etc

This would alleviate all the needs of the IRC bots, having to challenge members as to whether foundless claims by other alliance members as to whether sabs were made etc etc. and the pms between players to see totals etc.

Checkman
26th September 2009, 11:38 AM
If you feel like you can help us in the following, in any way - please do so.


Make a few mock ups of how you would like to see RoC - in terms of the overall design.
Give ideas on how you would like an ingame marketplace (in terms of features and how it'll work and maybe what can be traded, etc.).


I think that there should be differing levels as to the marketplace, for example, variations in alliance based and wider game based offerings.
Being able to trade click credits is the obvious. It would be nice to be able to say that trading them internally within an alliance could be done without the credits being visible to the wider game community, put them on offer to the alliance.
Alternatively, place the credits into an in game marketplace where they could be offered to other players from other alliances.
In terms of how the credits could be offered, how about options such as a blind auction, an ebay style auction, a direct price request.
In terms of how to facilitate the 'deal' once it was done. Have an in game bank, that each player had to deposit their side of the deal. Gold from one, and credits from the other, once this was done, the two are reversed and sit in limbo if you want to call it that awaiting being taken out by the player. Having an immediate transfer of credits maybe fine for some, but they may want to store them up. Having an immediate transfer of gold could see it being picked off if the player is offline at the time of transfer.

trebach
26th September 2009, 01:42 PM
I think that there should be differing levels as to the marketplace, for example, variations in alliance based and wider game based offerings.
Being able to trade click credits is the obvious. It would be nice to be able to say that trading them internally within an alliance could be done without the credits being visible to the wider game community, put them on offer to the alliance.
Alternatively, place the credits into an in game marketplace where they could be offered to other players from other alliances.
In terms of how the credits could be offered, how about options such as a blind auction, an ebay style auction, a direct price request.
In terms of how to facilitate the 'deal' once it was done. Have an in game bank, that each player had to deposit their side of the deal. Gold from one, and credits from the other, once this was done, the two are reversed and sit in limbo if you want to call it that awaiting being taken out by the player. Having an immediate transfer of credits maybe fine for some, but they may want to store them up. Having an immediate transfer of gold could see it being picked off if the player is offline at the time of transfer.
I like this idea but if a player is offline, perhaps it could be given to player as daggers? A player could add weapons to the bank which are immediately sold for selloff price before being added.

Tapchou
26th September 2009, 02:22 PM
Hm - I like the daggers idea, it would force users to sell off the daggers and have to spend for weapons or upgrades as quick as possible and the risk factor of being hit while you have the gold on hand is still there.

Of course, the person you made the deal with could tell people to stalk you and wait for your gold - but this also, adds an extra risk factor, as well as a trust factor - maybe could even spark some wars within alliances (:icon_laug).

pigsfoot
26th September 2009, 03:57 PM
Clicking, get rid of it completely thus making the BF a more even playing field, just make UP upgrades unlimited, Alliances will still exist but they will truly be alliances, no stupid growth/click deals just a bunch of friends playing together and helping each other.

Pr0nStar
26th September 2009, 04:42 PM
i think there will be a ton of great ideas, and it will be up to the admins to decide which features will be free and which ones will be premium features. i think that at least all the alliance features should be free ^^

Pyrorazer
27th September 2009, 04:05 AM
Alright i dont normally get on GUA but i Pmed it to tapchou but he was AAway at the time so i guess ill just copy/paste it here.. my suggestion isnt reali that throught through so ill leave the details to the admins so its kinda secret features or whateva have you..

[19:55:58] <Pyrorazer> mabye have some bonus and random items like Might have a SA (DA sentry spy whateva) that do a specific damage.. or something
[19:57:31] <Pyrorazer> idk how much hope it would have or how it would work.. just randomly find items by either clicking captchas.. attacking sabbing clicking reconing
[19:57:50] <Pyrorazer> Mabye have like if u attack and get something make it a SA weapon or something
[19:58:10] <Pyrorazer> If its clicking mabye have a 10 minute double CC session
[19:58:26] <Pyrorazer> sentry = sentry item

get my drift? anyway thats me $0.02..

Cya all next age

joly
27th September 2009, 04:32 AM
So, why not have an alliance unit production?

1,000 extra soldiers : Costs: 500M Gold
2,000 extra soldiers : Costs: 1 Billion Gold
3,000 extra soldiers : Costs: 1,5 Billion Gold
4,000 extra soldiers : Costs: 2 Billion Gold
5,000 extra soldiers : Costs: 2,5 Billion Gold
and so on, that way people will try to get more members, and every member pays taxes, eg. 1 procent of income, that goes directly into the alliance bank, and Admins can upgrade UP when enough taxes have been collected. Or members can donate the gold so upgrades can be bought faster.

Marketplace

You can trade inside the alliance and set prices.

eg. Daggers: 1,000,000 sellprice: 1,000 - 10% taxes (goes in alliance vault)
and trade them for:
eg. Mithrils: buyprice: 200,000 + 10% taxes (go into the vault)

So 20% of every transaction goes into an alliance vault.

rabbitohs
27th September 2009, 05:50 AM
That has a huge risk of multi abuse. Anything concerning a marketplace would. You would have to be careful in the way you went about creating it.

skynet
27th September 2009, 09:59 AM
Clicking, get rid of it completely thus making the BF a more even playing field, just make UP upgrades unlimited, Alliances will still exist but they will truly be alliances, no stupid growth/click deals just a bunch of friends playing together and helping each other.

i agree with this idea.. and why do all the suggestions have to benefit alliances?.. many people do play solo you know... you wonder why the pool of players is shrinking... not everyone wants to be part of an alliance :rolleyes1

get honour points (say for completing 100 successful sabotage missions or successfully defending against 100 attacks...) which you can then store ingame and use to improve stats.. so an extension of the points system we get now for certain upgrades

what about having a 10% chance of losing each weapon in battle or losing each armour used in defending against an attack

i agree with key_ES.. something needs to be done about the sabotage too.. if you have a third in spy of someone's sentry you shouldn't get in 3-5 times.. you should have the random chance of getting in once only:)

sems_back
27th September 2009, 11:35 PM
There is nothing the game can do to put more actual income on the battlefield. If every soldier gave double tbg, it would not have a real change on the game except to make it more likely that players use the most expensive weapons over the smaller weapons and get to their upgrades faster. The income is fine at present.

If you dont see as much gold as you want to see, raise your spy or click more.

TBG is fine as it is, more means bigger accounts just get stronger faster, they would have even more sentry and DA, so the smaller accounts would never be able to hit for more anyway.

Cataclysm-
28th September 2009, 12:23 AM
This could be a bit extreme but an idea from other games:
Maybe you could include achievements into the game?
Like in WoW possibly where you could get special achievements for:
Slaying a big amount.
Ghosting a top 50 account.
And the achievements would come up on your page for bragging rights.
Just an idea to give players something to aim for when the game lags on a bit?
I don't care if you flame me just thinking of new stuff.

rabbitohs
28th September 2009, 12:33 AM
This could be a bit extreme but an idea from other games:
Maybe you could include achievements into the game?
Like in WoW possibly where you could get special achievements for:
Slaying a big amount.
Ghosting a top 50 account.
And the achievements would come up on your page for bragging rights.
Just an idea to give players something to aim for when the game lags on a bit?
I don't care if you flame me just thinking of new stuff.

Would medals for achieving certain ranks in stats work? *Top 100 DA* *Top 10 DA*

Cataclysm-
28th September 2009, 01:43 AM
yeah possibly, anything im just throwing it out there.

joly
28th September 2009, 07:27 AM
If you want to prevent multi-abuse, only allow one IP to use the marketplace, or do not let mobiles to be allowed to use marketplace?

Tapchou
28th September 2009, 07:40 AM
If you want to prevent multi-abuse, only allow one IP to use the marketplace, or do not let mobiles to be allowed to use marketplace?

Well - I don't think we could really stop mobile IP addresses from using the marketplace.

Basically because... we know some people think mobile banking and this and that related to mobiles shouldn't be allowed - but times with the Internet and devices are moving forward as technology progresses, more and more people are buying these devices, because they can... and they want one - if that is a users preferred way of connecting to the net, RoC... emails on the go etc., so be it. There is always going to be unbalance... like, how has the quickest Internet speeds - or computer, it's never ending.

Some people use mobile broadband - literally, a USB dongle thingy that uses 3G technology - instead of broadband, some people do this as they are students or business men/women and prefer to have broadband (mobile) on the go.

Also, there isn't really a reliable way to sort mobile IP addresses out - and even if we used a blacklist - some IP checking would be slower - and this is one thing we're trying really carefully not to do - when moderators have to check IP addresses in the middle of an age, due to all the logs within the database, things can get really slow - using a blacklist for mobile IPs (not reliable) would further to slow things down, due to checks.

pilferer
29th September 2009, 02:41 AM
i'd like to see a method of an alliance declaring war on another alliance in game officially.. :)

joly
29th September 2009, 08:16 AM
Hell, why dont we have some gold mines for extra tbg, iron mines for cheaper weapons, we could even build a granary for generating more soldiers per click.

I have sold off every age to commander, so maybe this way people like me can donate gold for upgrading mines which benefits the alliance you are in.

Checkman
29th September 2009, 09:03 AM
i'd like to see a method of an alliance declaring war on another alliance in game officially.. :)

I remember some ideas floating around to do with this before.
That being one of them.

Alongside that, I am sure that it also covered such things as damage done by each side within the war also. Gold stolen from the other side, sab damage done etc.

Having that sort of information visible, in one respect may negate from the comical war threads here on GUA, but it would sure make it clear for all to see the outcomes of these skirmishes.

zeshan
29th September 2009, 01:26 PM
Hell, why dont we have some gold mines for extra tbg, iron mines for cheaper weapons, we could even build a granary for generating more soldiers per click.

I have sold off every age to commander, so maybe this way people like me can donate gold for upgrading mines which benefits the alliance you are in.

that would be like tribal wars (sorta) without the visuals :P

As for war statistics - Maybe we can have a declare war button on the alliance homepage accessible only to the owner or admin
and as for war statistics, we can have it this way that we can only see the statistics once the war is stopped(using a stop war button on alliance page) - this way we can still have the comical GUA threads and can also see the final statistics

fistsofthor
29th September 2009, 01:51 PM
Sounds good. But the data only comes out 24 hours after the war is over if the war stays stopped. Otherwise, one side might end it just to see the statistics.

Vrasp
29th September 2009, 02:57 PM
I remember some ideas floating around to do with this before.
That being one of them.

Alongside that, I am sure that it also covered such things as damage done by each side within the war also. Gold stolen from the other side, sab damage done etc.

Having that sort of information visible, in one respect may negate from the comical war threads here on GUA, but it would sure make it clear for all to see the outcomes of these skirmishes.

The results would likely be questionable at best. Obviously a powerful three person alliance is going to steal more gold/sab more off of a moderately powerful one hundred person alliance. They'd probably score it confusingly like the alliance score, too.

zeshan
29th September 2009, 05:24 PM
The results would likely be questionable at best. Obviously a powerful three person alliance is going to steal more gold/sab more off of a moderately powerful one hundred person alliance. They'd probably score it confusingly like the alliance score, too.

Well, if these 3 people had to wave their E-penises like that, they could do it by posting IRC logs as well - it serves the same purpose.

But if there was such a system on ROC website itself, then we could get a much more comprehensive and complete statistics - including (but not limited to) gold stolen, men killed, etc, etc - heck we can even convert these numbers to give a statistic relative to alliance size or other variables or perhaps in percentage to show REAL damage.

Cataclysm-
1st October 2009, 09:13 PM
alright lets through up something new for RoC.
maybe avatars.
like a small picture not on the battlefield but your page maybe?

TJFF
2nd October 2009, 04:21 AM
Make % points available for sell-off amount...

the_last_dawn
2nd October 2009, 08:41 AM
What you need is an EVENT every week to keep things interesting.

by events i mean like how joly stated before.

maybe one week have for a small amount of hours 2x clicking.

Everyday from 12pm to 4 pm 2x clicking. (example ofcourse) and if people say what about different timings for different countries well change around the timings for everyday.

one day its 12pm to 4pm, then another 4pm - 8pm and so on.

another event could be the gold mine one.

Double TBG for certain hours in a day? Think about this one. Dont think straight off "all it is, is banking"

Double TBG would be good for reasons like slayers hitting big, getting stalked for those big hits.

Either Double TPG or use half attack turns for a full attack. Again this is for slayers advantage.

So like every week have an advantage for every race or every type of player.

Double clicking - favors the clickers ofcourse
Double slaying - Slayers
Double TBG - humans
Next event - Sabbing is twice or thrice as easier to sab and in amount aswell?

You need to plan these things to make things more juicy.

Pr0nStar
2nd October 2009, 12:07 PM
@ tld: sounds like a pretty horrible idea tbh...
but something that needs to be implemented this age as well as next age is how deferring repairs are done. in addition to deferring all repairs there should be an option to defer reapirs to specific weapons.

Vrasp
2nd October 2009, 01:44 PM
Make % points available for sell-off amount...

They already exist: the +TBG points do that. Just bank your TBG :-P

stonewall
2nd October 2009, 05:13 PM
How about being able to change alliance member rank names .

make it so an alliance can buy premium features in a pack ( a bundle discount) like 10% off for 10 20% for 20 ect that gives you the possibility of increasing premium $$ you take in .

Tapchou
3rd October 2009, 11:45 AM
Keep the ideas coming.

P.S. A wiki style thing will be online shorty, for my benefit - and so we can get ideas moving and logged on a wiki, rather than a forum, this way we can all edit and add and blah and maybe make love to each other.

Pr0nStar
3rd October 2009, 03:57 PM
how about a running timer on how long the age has been going on the base page. at least in terms of days and weeks

LordofShadows
4th October 2009, 04:17 AM
double tbg weekend!

Checkman
5th October 2009, 10:12 AM
I am not sure how well it would be received, or even if there is anyone else that would like to see this - but personally I would like to be able to see the history of the different alliances that an account has been associated with.

I am not so much bothered about someone's changes between commanders within the same alliance, but see their alliance hopping activities.

Account Name: Hopper
Alliance Name| Date Joined | Date Left
Ficticious Alliance A | 5th Oct | Current
Ficticious Alliance B | 28th Sept | 5th Oct
No Alliance Association | 28th Aug | 28th Sept
etc.

Vrasp
5th October 2009, 10:37 AM
I am not sure how well it would be received, or even if there is anyone else that would like to see this - but personally I would like to be able to see the history of the different alliances that an account has been associated with.

I am not so much bothered about someone's changes between commanders within the same alliance, but see their alliance hopping activities.

Account Name: Hopper
Alliance Name| Date Joined | Date Left
Ficticious Alliance A | 5th Oct | Current
Ficticious Alliance B | 28th Sept | 5th Oct
No Alliance Association | 28th Aug | 28th Sept
etc.

This seems like potentially useful information. I'm on board here, but I don't think it's necessary to have it shown on their base page. Maybe if you have an alliance that requires approval to join, it'd show up in the applicants section?

Pr0nStar
5th October 2009, 02:03 PM
From: octal Sent: 11 minutes 45 seconds ago Subject: Re: None
You first read this message 1 minute 35 seconds ago
lol. okay. http://wigguh.homelinux.org that'll probably make you happy.

.---------------------------
| cry me a river?
|
| .---------------------------
| | Nice one fag.


here's an idea, since this is in clear voilation of rule #5, how about a button added to the ingame message system "Report User". most games have them and hell there's even something in place on GUA for that.

EdThaSt0rm`
5th October 2009, 02:18 PM
Clicking, get rid of it completely thus making the BF a more even playing field, just make UP upgrades unlimited, Alliances will still exist but they will truly be alliances, no stupid growth/click deals just a bunch of friends playing together and helping each other.

I agree completely with this. People who like to play this game but don't have enough time to click or not the right computer to do so are totally screwed. This should be more evened out.

And how about something like fury used in Rise of Tyrants.

Treasure Chests like when you leave the field after a battle:
"Your enemy left 126 dragonskins on the ground. Your soldiers found them and they are added to your armory."

Just an example...

Makes the game much more interesting and less predictive.

tintinitis
5th October 2009, 04:10 PM
Clicking, get rid of it completely thus making the BF a more even playing field, just make UP upgrades unlimited, Alliances will still exist but they will truly be alliances, no stupid growth/click deals just a bunch of friends playing together and helping each other.

I agree. Other than creating a market for wrist-rests, it's all so freaking pointless.

Vrasp
5th October 2009, 04:41 PM
I agree. Other than creating a market for wrist-rests, it's all so freaking pointless.

It gives people a reason to pay attention to the game and be more active, rather than logging in, spending gold, attacking/sabbing/whatever (if they even bother to do these things), and leave.

pigsfoot
5th October 2009, 05:54 PM
It gives people a reason to pay attention to the game and be more active, rather than logging in, spending gold, attacking/sabbing/whatever (if they even bother to do these things), and leave.

Clicking/recruiting was originally an idea in KoC to get more people to join the game (friends and family) with a small incentive for you to send the link you get a soldier, when the fuck did it become a reason to pay attention?

As far as I'm aware, and I'll quote you again:


spending gold, attacking/sabbing/whatever (if they even bother to do these things), and leave.

is exactly what games like this are for or should be, not wasting all day clicking like a monkey, get rid of clicking full stop

Ekoolish
5th October 2009, 08:01 PM
Clicking/recruiting was originally an idea in KoC to get more people to join the game (friends and family) with a small incentive for you to send the link you get a soldier, when the fuck did it become a reason to pay attention?

As far as I'm aware, and I'll quote you again:



is exactly what games like this are for or should be, not wasting all day clicking like a monkey, get rid of clicking full stop

X100000000

I agree 100% i've stopped playing this game months ago because of this and just came back on to see what changes have been made. If clicking was eliminated this game would attract so many more people. Imo there are two reasons why many people including myself refuse to play this game longterm.

1. Impossible to devote endless hours to clicking.
2. Banking every 1-2 hours is not possible when you have 8 hour work shifts.

Fix these to issues and you will see the population flourish on here.

That is all. :)

Pr0nStar
6th October 2009, 08:06 PM
the game isn't about banking every 1-2 hours or clicking endlessly, being active alone gives you an advantage which makes sense to me. you can still play the game and have fun if you don't click all day or bank every turn. that's like complaining to a teacher when you fail a test, saying that some other person devoted more time to studying and doing hw but you should both be able to get equally high grades on a test. sorry, doesn't work that way...welcome to reality. i don't care for a cap on clicking, but i am all for a cap on growth(from clicking), with the incentive that the more credits you distribute then the more you're allowed to grow, but those credits would need to be untransferable after the initial transfer. so say the cap is 75k growth, you do 75k clicks and send them all out then you're allowed to grow 90k, etc. the only issue i see with that though is that solo players are gonna be handicapped in a bad way. so maybe if you're not in an alliance and/or part of a chain then your cap is 100k or somethin.

Vrasp
6th October 2009, 11:55 PM
the game isn't about banking every 1-2 hours or clicking endlessly, being active alone gives you an advantage which makes sense to me. you can still play the game and have fun if you don't click all day or bank every turn. that's like complaining to a teacher when you fail a test, saying that some other person devoted more time to studying and doing hw but you should both be able to get equally high grades on a test. sorry, doesn't work that way...welcome to reality. i don't care for a cap on clicking, but i am all for a cap on growth(from clicking), with the incentive that the more credits you distribute then the more you're allowed to grow, but those credits would need to be untransferable after the initial transfer. so say the cap is 75k growth, you do 75k clicks and send them all out then you're allowed to grow 90k, etc. the only issue i see with that though is that solo players are gonna be handicapped in a bad way. so maybe if you're not in an alliance and/or part of a chain then your cap is 100k or somethin.

So you like this idea?

http://www.giveupalready.com/showpost.php?p=1304066&postcount=45

Post on that thread saying so, it needs to get started up again. :-P

pigsfoot
7th October 2009, 03:17 PM
the game isn't about banking every 1-2 hours or clicking endlessly, being active alone gives you an advantage which makes sense to me. you can still play the game and have fun if you don't click all day or bank every turn. that's like complaining to a teacher when you fail a test, saying that some other person devoted more time to studying and doing hw but you should both be able to get equally high grades on a test. sorry, doesn't work that way...welcome to reality. i don't care for a cap on clicking, but i am all for a cap on growth(from clicking), with the incentive that the more credits you distribute then the more you're allowed to grow, but those credits would need to be untransferable after the initial transfer. so say the cap is 75k growth, you do 75k clicks and send them all out then you're allowed to grow 90k, etc. the only issue i see with that though is that solo players are gonna be handicapped in a bad way. so maybe if you're not in an alliance and/or part of a chain then your cap is 100k or somethin.

Total bollocks!

The best KoC clone I've played was Solar Combat (or something like that?) no clicking just pure chaos, it was great to play.

Pr0nStar
8th October 2009, 08:58 AM
anyway, how about we pick a theme and stick with it...
You SWASHBUCKLED the enemy!
You PIRATED the enemy!
You PLUNDERED the enemy!

didn't know this was Priates of Chaos...

another idea:
how about removing the loss of spies and sentries in normal attacks and probes and adding another button that will only aim to kill coverts. so basically the amount of coverts you can kill in 5 probes would be replaced by this one particular attack and obviously you'd only get 1 per player in 24 hours.

also it would be nice to get some feedback from the admins about which ideas they're really interested in and likely to implement. just a little update to indicate that you're actually working on the game.

Perditor
11th October 2009, 05:23 PM
I like the ideas of alliances being able to declare war. I think we need to focus on alliance add-ons, to boost the social inter-activity aspect of the game. Heres some additional ideas/details:

Allow owners to make alliance polls. We could have some stock polls that automatically take a certain action thats voted for, like declaring war, electing a new owner/admin, changing alliance name.

Allow owners to have click credit and gold banks for their alliances. I would suggest charging some kind of fee for this. Something on the order of 10% or 15% would make sense to me. This means that if you store 1 bil gold away as an alliance, and the owner decides to distribute it out, they would get 900 mil back, assuming a 10% fee.

Fees would also work great for people on the marketplace, trading gold for clicks. I would also suggest making all of the interactions on the marketplace anonymous, and allowing alliances to act as individuals in the marketplace.

Owners should have the ability to declare war, and negotiate peace settlements. Settlements could be paid with the click/gold bank previously mentioned.

Allow alliance admins to create competitions, with gold and clicks as the prizes. The alliance owner can set up how the reimbursement works, time-fame, and make it all automatic. Gold and or clicks would come from the alliance's bank, and any member can opt to put into the bank.

Competitions could be based on any number of things, like the biggest sabber and or slayer in a war against another chain, number of clicks done, largest % of gold banked.

It would be especially convenient if the bank could have an option to divide up funds and clicks into different funds within the alliance bank as a whole. In this way, an owner could make a War Reparations fund, where players could choose to put money into in case the owner decides to use it as a bargaining chip to get out of war, or to distribute it to members that get hit the hardest in the war, or even to those who perform best; or a General Fund thats used to buy alliance upgrades as some people have suggested; or a Click Competition fund; etc.




Some other random ideas:

Allow players to untrain spies and sentries for a large fee, like 10,000 gold per soldier.

Get rid of the ONLINE indicator EXCEPT for 5 minutes before a turn.

Free cheese for everyone.

Pr0nStar
12th October 2009, 09:02 AM
Allow owners to have click credit and gold banks for their alliances. I would suggest charging some kind of fee for this. Something on the order of 10% or 15% would make sense to me. This means that if you store 1 bil gold away as an alliance, and the owner decides to distribute it out, they would get 900 mil back, assuming a 10% fee.

hell no

Perditor
15th October 2009, 10:52 AM
hell no

care to elucidate? i don't see how my suggestion will hurt gameplay at all. and it will reduce a lot of headaches that come with running a alliance. if you don't want to use all the features, then you don't have to.


Another idea:

Allow people to buy attack turns with click credits. maybe 1 turn for 250 credits, with a limit of no more than 24 attack turns a day?

Pauly_D
15th October 2009, 11:29 AM
Allow owners to have click credit and gold banks for their alliances. I would suggest charging some kind of fee for this. Something on the order of 10% or 15% would make sense to me. This means that if you store 1 bil gold away as an alliance, and the owner decides to distribute it out, they would get 900 mil back, assuming a 10% fee.



hell no

I actually like the idea, but it needs more of a fee, 25% mininum loss on any gold put into an alliance bank.
The reason i like this idea is that it will give alliances a good reason to work well together, and will stop alliances getting too big. If you put money in the alliance bank then anyone from the alliance can get it out so therefore you need to be able to trust anyone in your alliance not to steal any banked money. I can see this causing a lot of wars and so more chaos.

Pr0nStar
15th October 2009, 02:48 PM
i'm sure you are aware that the outcome of the game in the end is heavily based on who can get the most sells. so now you want to allow for gold to be banked, that can't be taken away in any way, shape, or form besides the owner distributing it out. it's basically just having sell-off account that takes no losses due to sabs or getting hit for gold. i don't see how that promotes gameplay at all.

Pauly_D
15th October 2009, 04:31 PM
it's basically just having sell-off account that takes no losses due to sabs or getting hit for gold.

well thats why i said at least 25% loss on any gold put in there, that and the need to trust everyone in the alliance not to steal the gold from the alliance bank...

Pr0nStar
15th October 2009, 04:59 PM
lol, would you trust your alliance members with your login info?

Vrasp
15th October 2009, 05:41 PM
well thats why i said at least 25% loss on any gold put in there, that and the need to trust everyone in the alliance not to steal the gold from the alliance bank...

The idea was that the _owner_ is the only one who can distribute it; not that anyone could take it.

Pr0nStar: he thought the idea was that anyone could withdraw.

Pauly_D
15th October 2009, 06:22 PM
The idea was that the _owner_ is the only one who can distribute it; not that anyone could take it.

ahh sorry i misread what Perditor wrote.
I think it could only work if everyone could put gold in and take gold out, i think it could balance out alliances a bit. The alliances that would make use out of the bank would need to have trust in their members and so it couldnt just be used as a non-sabbable-sell-account as Pr0nstar pointed out could happen.

The idea of an alliance bank is a good idea but there needs to be a danger in using it as i have described above. Thoughts?

Pr0nStar
19th October 2009, 06:53 PM
also it would be nice to get some feedback from the admins about which ideas they're really interested in and likely to implement. just a little update to indicate that you're actually working on the game.

give us something pwease!!!!

Vrasp
19th October 2009, 07:49 PM
give us something pwease!!!!

hint: they're not paying attention or working on it!

MythDrannor
21st October 2009, 05:17 PM
have alliance statues. This partially ties in with the alliance bank idea that others have posted. You can donate gold to your alliance, which can be used to be statues. The statues can give you a small boost to stats (+1%, +3%, + 6%) for each stat, not sure if tbg should be included. The statues would last for a period of time, like say 24 hours. The amounts wouldn't be balanced, so the cost of say the one percent would cost 100mil, while the six percent would cost around 1bil. The stats could stack or not, I am sure that would be debated. This provides a greater desire for alliance strength and for those that don't play for rank and prefer to sell off at the end of the age, this allows them to make some contributions during the age and can also be used as ways to spur clicking contests and whatnot in alliances.

Also, the prices could be adjusted based upon alliance size so that larger alliances aren't completely dominating smaller ones.

Obviously this provides an advantage to those not in an alliance, but to be honest those that tend to succeed most in this game are attached to alliances and most players end up being attached to an alliance. Don't see a point in tailoring to the needs of 5% of the game when the other 95% would benefit.

Pauly_D
21st October 2009, 06:05 PM
Don't see a point in tailoring to the needs of 5% of the game when the other 95% would benefit.

i dont see the point in ignoring 5% of the game, the player base isnt exactly massive so doing something to annoy even 5% of them is pointless.
Also saying that your idea will benefit 95% of the game is an exaggeration and i suspect that it would be difficult to balance it and would give some alliances an unfair advantages.

MythDrannor
21st October 2009, 08:43 PM
Alright, sorry I picked erronous numbers. I didn't go and sample the entire population of the game to figure out if they were in alliances or not. my bad.

With the proper equation, things could be fairly balanced. Obviously larger alliances will benefit more, but at the same time more resources have to be pumped in. Its up to the alliance how much gold they wish to invest into gaining the limited time perks.

Reconciliation
23rd October 2009, 06:50 AM
Hey guys, administration is definitely considering everyone's ideas, one thing I just want to say about the suggestions, don't put each other down and say something is stupid for someone else, everyone has good ideas, and if you disagree with it, don't slug it out with each other, just post your argument as detailed and organized as you can so we don't have to go through many posts of just insults to find the suggestions. Thanks for all the wonderful ideas and for showing interest in the preservation of this game!

Carlos
23rd October 2009, 07:41 AM
Make captchas time out if you have more of one opened, it would make the game way more fun. Right now its almost impossible to intercept a sell or stalk a slayer

rabbitohs
26th October 2009, 04:03 AM
How about making DA weapons have a greater SOV in compensation for them being able to be sabbed away and then probed?

i.e. 90% rather than 80%. The risk is that they can be sabbed away by others.
Adds an extra dimention to the game.

laris
26th October 2009, 11:31 AM
I was thinking if we can have commander bonus( extra turn or gold ) and mirc bot so we can fill in Preferences into roc page.
it will be better in a war chane LIKE our great BSS clan !! :1poke:

Pauly_D
26th October 2009, 02:42 PM
I was thinking if we can have commander bonus( extra turn or gold )

isnt the extra soldiers you get when your officer clicks enough of a bonus? More officers = more soldiers = more gold, if you are the commander to alot of players thats alot of growth and a massive amount of extra gold than someone without officers

Vrasp
26th October 2009, 03:13 PM
isnt the extra soldiers you get when your officer clicks enough of a bonus? More officers = more soldiers = more gold, if you are the commander to alot of players thats alot of growth and a massive amount of extra gold than someone without officers

I think he wants officers to get a bonus from their commander.

could be cool, could make everyone join the same person because he's already the biggest, and thus he gets even bigger.

Pauly_D
26th October 2009, 03:34 PM
I think he wants officers to get a bonus from their commander.

could be cool, could make everyone join the same person because he's already the biggest, and thus he gets even bigger.

my mistake, yeah that would be an interesting idea, i dont think it would necessarily mean everyone would join the same person, if there was a commander bonus then they could join anyone.

trebach
26th October 2009, 10:56 PM
I think he wants officers to get a bonus from their commander.

could be cool, could make everyone join the same person because he's already the biggest, and thus he gets even bigger.
And with that RoC turns into KoC? It sounds unfortunate but plausible.

xAre
27th October 2009, 01:42 AM
and mirc bot so we can fill in Preferences into roc page.


Say what? O_O

laris
27th October 2009, 12:38 PM
Say what? O_O

The bot keeping track,who are in mirc room and we get bonus turn
or gold to stay in room (TBG ).
I think players will be more aktiv in the battlefield whit war,farms and how they difference chane built up and RUN´S.

ARE ....lol !

snoop
27th October 2009, 12:42 PM
The bot keeping track,who are in mirc room and we get bonus turn
or gold to stay in room (TBG ).
I think players will be more aktiv in the battlefield whit war,farms and how they difference chane built up and RUN´S.

ARE ....lol !

No, because then people would just stick a BNC in the channel. Speedwar was doing this on Cyanide-x, I thought it was kind of not a good thing.

Not everyone can connect to IRC due to various ISPs' restrictions, some people may have dial up and can't idle all day (lest they be charged for online time). Some people will just stick in a BNC.

Vrasp
27th October 2009, 09:46 PM
How about a recent activity page (or recent activity on the normal page) for alliances?

It'd show members who recently joined/were accepted and those who left (makes it easier to update out-of-game things, like forum permissions etc.)

Additionally, if the whole in-game alliance warring thing goes into play, that could show up too.

unlimited
28th October 2009, 02:27 AM
my mistake, yeah that would be an interesting idea, i dont think it would necessarily mean everyone would join the same person, if there was a commander bonus then they could join anyone.

I think that would be cool.

How about this, you can get bonuses from your commanders, but once your commander has too many people there will be diminishing returns (unless, of course, the commander provides his own custom negotiated bonus) thus encouraging people to make deeper command chains instead of having everyone join just one commander.

This would also prevent alliances from getting too big: Once there are too many people, the command chain would "collapse" reducing bonuses. Thus this would encourage rival chains to form, maintaining a balance of power.

xAre
28th October 2009, 04:17 AM
I think that would be cool.

How about this, you can get bonuses from your commanders, but once your commander has too many people there will be diminishing returns (unless, of course, the commander provides his own custom negotiated bonus) thus encouraging people to make deeper command chains instead of having everyone join just one commander.

This would also prevent alliances from getting too big: Once there are too many people, the command chain would "collapse" reducing bonuses. Thus this would encourage rival chains to form, maintaining a balance of power.

No.
Simply no.

rabbitohs
29th October 2009, 03:39 AM
Biggest clans would become stronger and everyone would join under the 1 person. The deminishing returns would be counter-balanced by that persons many officers providing growth.

laris
30th October 2009, 04:44 AM
No.
Simply no.

I did´t now that you was playing ROC....NOT have clue
whats happen whit ROC !
All this time i was thinking you was TOP ranker in KOC :1poke:


LOOL ARE :hifolks:

laris
31st October 2009, 01:55 AM
we can use Unit Production per whit TBG.Larger army and more gold,turn and more fun.


**********

Laris Have Answer to roc problem

Vrasp
31st October 2009, 12:41 PM
we can use Unit Production per whit TBG.Larger army and more gold,turn and more fun.


**********

Laris Have Answer to roc problem

...what? I think you're asking for unit production to come every turn.

If UP came every turn, the people who max out on it first would be _so far ahead, so quickly_ unless UP was very, very low.

rabbitohs
31st October 2009, 07:31 PM
We tried that Age 2 and had the biggest stats ever... Also many people left because of that.

UP is nice where it is. Im not complaining.

Pauly_D
31st October 2009, 08:03 PM
UP is nice where it is. Im not complaining.

i agree, i think they have finally got UP as it should be, dont fix what aint broken especially when you get it right

Smitty
2nd November 2009, 11:31 AM
Suggest a maximum of 100k (or thereabouts) clicks per day per player and raise the UP to 50k (or thereabouts).

andyt683
2nd November 2009, 12:06 PM
Suggest a maximum of 100k (or thereabouts) clicks per day per player and raise the UP to 50k (or thereabouts).

Proper game design doesn't require hard limits on user activity. We will never institute a hard limit on clicking. Its bad design, its not what the majority of users want, and its not beneficial to the game.

kjzaa
7th November 2009, 09:44 AM
Alliance member lists, show them dont give the option to hide them.

ManOwaR669
7th November 2009, 10:12 AM
dont make the age run too long, the excitement is in the begining and most get bored and delete\sell\abandom their accounts after 2 months.
3 months top for every age

kjzaa
7th November 2009, 10:35 AM
dont make the age run too long, the excitement is in the begining and most get bored and delete\sell\abandom their accounts after 2 months.
3 months top for every age

i think they should be 8 weeks max and maybe make turns every 15 minutes and UP every 12 hours speed them up lol

Vrasp
7th November 2009, 11:30 AM
i think they should be 8 weeks max and maybe make turns every 15 minutes and UP every 12 hours speed them up lol

When you say UP every 12 hours, I assume you mean double the UP?

Right now UP comes every 6 hours.

kjzaa
7th November 2009, 11:46 AM
When you say UP every 12 hours, I assume you mean double the UP?

Right now UP comes every 6 hours.

ah i see, what i meant was the 24 hourly changed to 12 hours, so 30k every 12 hours :D so yeh double the UP

KyleCias
8th November 2009, 09:23 AM
if you guys still adding features to age 4 source..

please add the "view counts" on alliance bulletin
if its possible to add a check list.. if the person with the alliance tags read the message.
e.g how.many.people.read/total.number.of.people. ( 19/100members)

kjzaa
8th November 2009, 09:35 AM
Also repairs when sabbing, there insane. Needs to be tweaked and be made a little lower or atleast make sense!

Tapchou
8th November 2009, 10:16 AM
if you guys still adding features to age 4 source..

please add the "view counts" on alliance bulletin
if its possible to add a check list.. if the person with the alliance tags read the message.
e.g how.many.people.read/total.number.of.people. ( 19/100members)

http://wiki.ruinsofchaos.com/index.php/Alliance_Bulletin_Read_Count

Feel free to edit the page (sign up, so we know who edited what) and make additions to the current idea.

ManOwaR669
8th November 2009, 12:52 PM
i think they should be 8 weeks max and maybe make turns every 15 minutes and UP every 12 hours speed them up lol

thats too drastic..... 8 weeks is not enough, 3 months is perfect i think, and the current UP is well balanced with clicking, so i think the UP should not be changed
about turns, 1turn/30 mins is good, the big tff accounts that burn turns in the end already struggling to burn about 4k turns, with 8k turns the worth of gold stolen will be very very low and the turns wont be in the usage of big TFF accounts so its a disadvantage for them,
it will become like age 8 kingsofchaos and thats why RoC was made.... cause KoC sucks


if you guys still adding features to age 4 source..

please add the "view counts" on alliance bulletin
if its possible to add a check list.. if the person with the alliance tags read the message.
e.g how.many.people.read/total.number.of.people. ( 19/100members)


great idea It always interested me to see who reads my alliance bulletins and who takes his time...

kjzaa
8th November 2009, 03:52 PM
thats too drastic..... 8 weeks is not enough, 3 months is perfect i think, and the current UP is well balanced with clicking, so i think the UP should not be changed
about turns, 1turn/30 mins is good, the big tff accounts that burn turns in the end already struggling to burn about 4k turns, with 8k turns the worth of gold stolen will be very very low and the turns wont be in the usage of big TFF accounts so its a disadvantage for them,
it will become like age 8 kingsofchaos and thats why RoC was made.... cause KoC sucks


I think you missed the point i was basically talking about speeding up the game Ie. Turns every 15 mins (not attack turns) so you would get tbg every 15 mins, hence the 8 week limit around half of (3 month)on the game and then it wouldnt drag on so much. i just feel once the game gets to the 4 week mark it kinda starts to get borin until the last couple of weeks.
So you would have 96 turns per day instead of 48 but the ages will be shorter, maybe keep more people interested ?

warblade
8th November 2009, 08:25 PM
Also repairs when sabbing, there insane. Needs to be tweaked and be made a little lower or atleast make sense!

Sabbing repairs appear like this: sending 25 spies armed with thousands of tools and all of the tools got damaged; or sending 25 spies and getting 5 million gold worth of repairs. which is equivalent to losing 16.66 pickaxes (I assume that accounts with higher Spy Rating get more than 5 million golds.

ManOwaR669
9th November 2009, 10:42 AM
I think you missed the point i was basically talking about speeding up the game Ie. Turns every 15 mins (not attack turns) so you would get tbg every 15 mins, hence the 8 week limit around half of (3 month)on the game and then it wouldnt drag on so much. i just feel once the game gets to the 4 week mark it kinda starts to get borin until the last couple of weeks.
So you would have 96 turns per day instead of 48 but the ages will be shorter, maybe keep more people interested ?

with an income of 200mil, which we get quite fast (the main chain accounts)
and gold coming every 15 minutes, it will be impossible to bank during nights.
imagine me waking up every 4 turns to bank, every 2 hours, and you are sugesting to double the income (by decreasing the time) so 4 turns will be 1 hour, and it will become impossible to wake up every hour to bank..... once every 2 hours is hard enough....

andyt683
9th November 2009, 12:07 PM
with an income of 200mil, which we get quite fast (the main chain accounts)
and gold coming every 15 minutes, it will be impossible to bank during nights.
imagine me waking up every 4 turns to bank, every 2 hours, and you are sugesting to double the income (by decreasing the time) so 4 turns will be 1 hour, and it will become impossible to wake up every hour to bank..... once every 2 hours is hard enough....

There is always the possibility of diminishing returns to somewhat negate the large TFF account problem, but I don't foresee this.

Vrasp
9th November 2009, 02:02 PM
with an income of 200mil, which we get quite fast (the main chain accounts)
and gold coming every 15 minutes, it will be impossible to bank during nights.
imagine me waking up every 4 turns to bank, every 2 hours, and you are sugesting to double the income (by decreasing the time) so 4 turns will be 1 hour, and it will become impossible to wake up every hour to bank..... once every 2 hours is hard enough....

I wake up every hour to bank :o

laris
9th November 2009, 02:24 PM
I wake up every hour to bank :o

lol,depends on what you are made of. -unknown (to me) ... !
I know, you like my caves whit my commodore 64 and play ROC !

Pauly_D
9th November 2009, 02:42 PM
with an income of 200mil, which we get quite fast (the main chain accounts)
and gold coming every 15 minutes, it will be impossible to bank during nights.
imagine me waking up every 4 turns to bank, every 2 hours, and you are sugesting to double the income (by decreasing the time) so 4 turns will be 1 hour, and it will become impossible to wake up every hour to bank..... once every 2 hours is hard enough....

i think that is a good thing, all accounts should get used to getting hit once a night, in my opinion thats where stupid AA's come from, people expecting never to get hit. If i wanted to i could wake up every 2 hours to bank but tbh my health is more important.

Destro
10th November 2009, 03:13 AM
make 5x1 kill more coverts. tff was waaaay too small this age. 500 rank and under

ManOwaR669
10th November 2009, 11:40 AM
definitely make hits kill more coverts!!!

kjzaa
10th November 2009, 01:57 PM
definitely make hits kill more coverts!!!

5X1 imo is just right! Just you 5x1 ing on your own shouldnt do much but if you get a few people to do it with you, you can kill loads as it is now!

kavallier
10th November 2009, 02:41 PM
5x1 is good as is.
don't go changing things that don't need changing ><

Smitty
10th November 2009, 10:21 PM
Also repairs when sabbing, there insane. Needs to be tweaked and be made a little lower or atleast make sense!

I agree. When sending only one spy to do minimal damage, the player should not be charged the repair bill of sending 25 spies.

The ratio of sabbed items should be equivalent to repairs needed.

I sent one spy to sab and I was greeted with 14m in damages.... not nice :)

ManOwaR669
11th November 2009, 01:00 PM
obviously the sabbers jump right out and say 5X1 is ggod now, but its not.
right now there is nothing that can be done to fight the sabb alliances and that should be changed, the only way to hurt them in wars is kill their coverts, and when i tried to 5X1 someone who has 200k tools and 200k coverts i killed about 80 in 1 attempt, 500 coverts, and with the UP of 30k i dont have 10k members to kill more coverts than the UP, so the 5X1 massing should be raised seriously.

Vrasp
11th November 2009, 01:12 PM
obviously the sabbers jump right out and say 5X1 is ggod now, but its not.
right now there is nothing that can be done to fight the sabb alliances and that should be changed, the only way to hurt them in wars is kill their coverts, and when i tried to 5X1 someone who has 200k tools and 200k coverts i killed about 80 in 1 attempt, 500 coverts, and with the UP of 30k i dont have 10k members to kill more coverts than the UP, so the 5X1 massing should be raised seriously.

What might be interesting is a different take on the doubles thing:

In the past, those with balancedish stats did double sabotage damage; I'm thinking maybe if you _don't_ have balancedish stats, you could take full damage to your spy/sentry tools (full damage meaning = to the gold loss from losing strike/defense weapons).

This way, those pesky full spy/sentry accounts can actually take some damage, along with the 5x1s.

Pr0nStar
11th November 2009, 07:59 PM
obviously the sabbers jump right out and say 5X1 is ggod now, but its not.
right now there is nothing that can be done to fight the sabb alliances and that should be changed, the only way to hurt them in wars is kill their coverts, and when i tried to 5X1 someone who has 200k tools and 200k coverts i killed about 80 in 1 attempt, 500 coverts, and with the UP of 30k i dont have 10k members to kill more coverts than the UP, so the 5X1 massing should be raised seriously.

most sab accounts buy hooks and cloaks. it's already been said that 5x1 is an alliance based strategy. if you think one person should be able to kill massive amounts of coverts, then it would make sense that you also think one sabber should be able to sab massive amounts from players, for instance someone with 4bil DA and you're sabbing 10 DS per attempt. 5x1 is fine how it is, it just takes an alliance effort for it to be effective. there's also high repair costs that sabbers have, so stop bitching.

RichOahu_ES
11th November 2009, 10:57 PM
5x1 is very effective against a sabber.

VERY

and it seems, damn i shouldn't say so.....

but the bigger your SA, it seems the MORE coverts it kills.

send majorglitch or tango a message and ask if 5x1 stings. and i just sent a bulitin out to 5x1 habs

this is just from me:

before my 5x1:
Spies: 1,079,567
Sentries: 860,197
after:
Spies: 1,068,751
Sentries: 851,579

that hurts!

and when the rest of ES do their 5x1 on him, he will feel it. i did what.... 10,816 spies killed and..... 8618 sentries killed = 19,434 killed!!! x that by 10-15 peopel 5x1? yes, 5x1 is fine LOL

TRUE it takes a team effort and first you have to remove the DA. but once the DA is gone, ANYONE can 5x1 them and hurt them.

5x1 is fine.

sab damage to tools sucks ass once you get a high spy.....

sab damage to enimies is ok, real real sporatic though, especialy if spy and sentry are close.

cata-ro
12th November 2009, 01:21 AM
obviously the sabbers jump right out and say 5X1 is ggod now, but its not.
right now there is nothing that can be done to fight the sabb alliances and that should be changed, the only way to hurt them in wars is kill their coverts, and when i tried to 5X1 someone who has 200k tools and 200k coverts i killed about 80 in 1 attempt, 500 coverts, and with the UP of 30k i dont have 10k members to kill more coverts than the UP, so the 5X1 massing should be raised seriously.

I dont agree with u the 5*1 is perfect now and this was from start of koc a alliance based strategy is a team effort u cant expect to 5*1 by urself and kill 30k coverts because the UP is 30k.

Look at my account
Total Paying Soldiers: (TBG 45.2) 2,600,771
Total Covert Force: (TBG 22.6) 289,456

I have only 300k coverts and i lost enough 600 coverts for evry attack.
If 10 players mass me daily well my UP is gone lost 30k coverts
Plus i have low number of coverts(300k) but in game ar manny accounts with 1-2 mil coverts and with low DA if u mass them will be very high damage for them 10-20k coverts after a player 5*1 him if others join u hehe.

Just to see that u ar wrong ManOwaR669 look at this:
The_Source only 3 mil DA and 2 mil coverts i 5*1 him with other player so we use only 10 turns
Before the attacks:
Spies: 1,040,240
Sentries: 924,724

<sannicola> 5 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 164 18 2,985,972 1,628,182,776 1
<sannicola> 9 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 166 18 3,018,346 1,617,595,781 1
<sannicola> 13 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 165 18 3,022,573 1,600,054,602 1
<sannicola> 18 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 163 18 2,988,817 1,592,495,908 1
<sannicola> 24 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 166 18 2,999,591 1,611,097,656 1
<KaRyN> 9 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 158 21 3,016,181 915,592,539 1
<KaRyN> 15 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 144 20 2,925,243 855,048,176 1
<KaRyN> 19 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 159 21 3,020,071 914,352,569 1
<KaRyN> 34 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 164 21 2,987,789 945,214,514 1
<KaRyN> 47 seconds ago The_Source WON 0 Gold 162 21 3,010,715 921,441,801 1

After the attacks:
Spies: 1,019,540
Sentries: 906,324

He lost 20700 Spies and 18400 sentries a total of 39100 coverts wth the 5*1 is perfect :thumbsup: if i bulletin him others will 5*1 him and he will lose more then his 30k UP evry day.

ManOwaR669
12th November 2009, 05:25 AM
but this is only true for armies with lots of covets, someone can get 100k pickaxes, have a great SPY (earlier in age)
and only 100k coverts, if 10 ppl 5X1 him we kill 30k, that cant hurt him cause he covers that with UP...

its different earlier in age and towards the end.

Vrasp
12th November 2009, 08:06 AM
but this is only true for armies with lots of covets, someone can get 100k pickaxes, have a great SPY (earlier in age)
and only 100k coverts, if 10 ppl 5X1 him we kill 30k, that cant hurt him cause he covers that with UP...

its different earlier in age and towards the end.

So you want to be able to destroy accounts before they get started? Is that what you're saying? :-)

RichOahu_ES
12th November 2009, 02:08 PM
if you kill 100 coverts, that 100 less he is holding. and sab him it hurts.

PLUS those that train so many to coverts cut there incom in half. so now you kill there coverts and there income is already in half, plus sabs, an alliance CAn hurt pur sabbers.

how many lone sabbers are out there?

sorry sabsquad, you were right on that point. it is very hard for a lone sabber anylonger. it take sa team effort now.

before, a lone sabber could just train all to spies and be practicly untouchable. not any longer.

problem is, rankers don't sab ;-p

they want a quick fix to the "sabber" problem. well it takes time and persistance, but you can hurt a pure sab account

Pr0nStar
12th November 2009, 10:13 PM
early on in the game sabbers have a huge advantage over rankers because the tbg isn't as high for most acocunts and damage to tools is laughable, but midway through the age it's very easy for a sabber to have a sab account that they can't afford so they will hurt badly if you apply enough pressure. there's nothing wrong with 5x1 this age.

Pendarron
13th November 2009, 06:56 PM
I think pretty much all of my ideas would make the game a little more complicated...


ahh sorry i misread what Perditor wrote.
I think it could only work if everyone could put gold in and take gold out, i think it could balance out alliances a bit. The alliances that would make use out of the bank would need to have trust in their members and so it couldnt just be used as a non-sabbable-sell-account as Pr0nstar pointed out could happen.

The idea of an alliance bank is a good idea but there needs to be a danger in using it as i have described above. Thoughts?

I'm in favor of an alliance bank, and the idea of a certain percent taken off of deposits...
The leader of the alliance should get all of the headway when it comes to money (assigning ranks).
Rank:
Newbie can only withdraw 100 million per 24/h
Loyal can only withdraw 300 million per 24/h
Elder can only withdraw 400 million per 24/h
Admin can only withdraw 500 million per 24/h
Leader can only withdraw 1 billion per 24/h
With the possibility of letting alliances design their own ranking systems...to make more ranks...this would encourage alliance participation as you get rewarded with effort.
As for getting money into the bank, a percent of TBG could be taken off of each player in the alliance but that idea is...optional to my opinion.

Army Idea:
So, I have an army of Humans, and when I click, I get Humans. The guy under me however, is Orcs and soldiers from his army are supposed to trickle up to mine when he clicks. Shouldn't I have some Orcs too?

The idea would be to have mixed race armies, although the parent army would be humans, the percent powerup from orcs would be decreased.
Normal bonus from Orc soldiers: 40% attack
Bonus from Orc soldiers in Human army: 20% attack
(apply idea to other races as well)

Credits would be specific to races then I suppose.

Alliances
I feel that the alliance page is an unexplored prospect of the game and that features could be added there to enhance player's experience. As a once-leader of the now sad little EA, I found it hard to get new members to go to a different website and join an alliance forum. Maybe nothing too entirely big, but a small section for the members of an alliance to post and view things that are currently ongoing in the alliance. Sort of like a mini-forum...

Also, the ability to click a button that says "Invite" sending an invitation to a user to join an alliance with a preset letter(written by the alliance).

Also, from Minddistorter as an alternative option to alliance bank system:

A percentage of all alliance member's TBG is put into an alliance fund. It is then redistributed to the members of the Alliance. A cap should be put in place to make sure this feature of the game is not abused. I would suggest a cap equal to 2 or 3 days of a selected member's TBG. The reward should be adjusted by the leader of the alliance. I would suggest having the interface be in
hourly increments of TBG. E.g. Account332 1,000,000 TBG Reward=1,000,000X(fill in number here)

The leader of the alliance is, after all, the leader, and she or he may decide the manner in which the alliance is run. If the guild is based on equality between members, in terms of stats, the lower level players would have the higher gold reward. That is to say a gold reward close to the cap amount.

This would be in attempts to equalize the alliance member's strength. Conversely in an alliance which is based on a few members strength defending a weaker core the gold reward for the weaker members could be reduced and the reward for the stronger members could be increased to a near cap gold reward.

rabbitohs
14th November 2009, 10:58 PM
The alliance bank will crumble with cheaters and fake accounts. Enough said. Also new players would sensibly join the bigger alliances to gain the biggest benifit.

The army idea Pendarron had would be confusing. If im humans and I have Orcs under me, who holds my SA weapons? The Orc with his bonus or the native human? Also how would Elves work? :S

Thought you left RoC Purp?

snoop
16th November 2009, 10:07 AM
I don't think that 5x1 is perfect right now, but I think it's definitely on the right track. I think Key makes a very good point that 5x1 should be an alliance based strategy. I remember during one of the KoC ages early on (or perhaps a beta?) that I played 5x1 individually worked pretty well for killing untrained men. This was pretty unbalanced. I think it's important to keep that in mind.

Although, I will say the alliance aspect of 5x1ing an individual needs to remain more-or-less close to what it currently is. At the moment an alliance can't really completely wipe one player out, and that's a good thing, I think it makes the game more friendly (especially given the nature of a lot of RoC alliances) to avoid having one alliance get rid of any one player they hate.

Pendarron
17th November 2009, 03:29 PM
The alliance bank will crumble with cheaters and fake accounts. Enough said. Also new players would sensibly join the bigger alliances to gain the biggest benifit.

The army idea Pendarron had would be confusing. If im humans and I have Orcs under me, who holds my SA weapons? The Orc with his bonus or the native human? Also how would Elves work? :S


I thought it would be obvious where you'd put what race :P orcs for strike, dwarves for defense, and elves for sentry/covert humans where ever the line is short. I agree that the alliance bank might not work... but I think that ranks would stop cheating....

Okay, how about this? New idea: A hit line-up list

Say the person I want to hit doesn't have enough money...yet. Just one more turn and it would be the perfect hit! A quick list would easily save my pre-reconned hits for after the turn, instead of having 10 browser tabs open. To view and check separately. Just click the name on the list, check the gold, and hit.

Pauly_D
17th November 2009, 04:10 PM
Say the person I want to hit doesn't have enough money...yet. Just one more turn and it would be the perfect hit! A quick list would easily save my pre-reconned hits for after the turn, instead of having 10 browser tabs open. To view and check separately. Just click the name on the list, check the gold, and hit.

have you learnt how to slay properly yet? if not ask someone dont get something to do it for you, whats the point in playing if we are getting a list to slay for us

Pendarron
17th November 2009, 04:52 PM
I didn't say that someone searches for you. I meant something like the buddy list where you can mark a person as a farm, but easier to see/access. Although the buddy list is already there, so I guess that negates my idea... Did I not explain that right? Where did it say someone finds hits for you?

rabbitohs
18th November 2009, 04:43 AM
I thought it would be obvious where you'd put what race :P orcs for strike, dwarves for defense, and elves for sentry/covert humans where ever the line is short. I agree that the alliance bank might not work... but I think that ranks would stop cheating....

Would the game automacally do that for you or would you have to personally assign the weapons?

The rank system wouldnt make a difference. The fake accounts can be promoted by corrupt leaders.

Kindred
18th November 2009, 06:49 AM
make attack turns and sab turns available every 23 hours instead of 24, so your clock doesnt move.. say, if you sab at 18:00 then the next day you can sab again on the same time.. makes the game more consistent

snoop
18th November 2009, 10:23 AM
I didn't say that someone searches for you. I meant something like the buddy list where you can mark a person as a farm, but easier to see/access. Although the buddy list is already there, so I guess that negates my idea... Did I not explain that right? Where did it say someone finds hits for you?

I think what you're trying to say is a temporary buddy list? Or maybe having access to the buddylist from any page?

Pauly_D
18th November 2009, 10:45 AM
Where did it say someone finds hits for you?


A quick list would easily save my pre-reconned hits for after the turn

either use the current buddy list for good farms or check your recent attack logs to see who you hit for alot of gold recently.

zakske
18th November 2009, 12:06 PM
And that's not what he means, Pauly... I think snoop has got it right, and I don't think it is a bad idea :D

snoop
18th November 2009, 12:22 PM
And that's not what he means, Pauly... I think snoop has got it right, and I don't think it is a bad idea :D

I think most likely the best implementation for that would be a collapsible floating buddylist that is on every page, using the current buddylist implementation: So it'd be

Your buddylist (+/-)
Name Gold
Frosted-Butts 500,000,000
iFuryMyself 2,500,000,000
...

Pendarron
18th November 2009, 03:49 PM
I think most likely the best implementation for that would be a collapsible floating buddylist that is on every page, using the current buddylist implementation: So it'd be

Your buddylist (+/-)
Name Gold
Frosted-Butts 500,000,000
iFuryMyself 2,500,000,000
...

Exactly! Now you're getting it :D I guess I did explain it badly... sorry ^_^"


Would the game automacally do that for you or would you have to personally assign the weapons?

Okay, so the weapon system for our armies currently works on best rated weapon. I have 1,000 mithrils for my 1,000 defense soldiers. Not only that, I have an extra 50 dragonskins. The 50 dragonskins displace 50 mithrils because they're the better weapon(the 50 mithrils will not be used). Except for the placement of troops (what training they will have) it will be the same concept.

Think of it like this: you're the country of Banana(not a real country) and your army is primarily made of Bananas, but there are a few foreigners(Apples) who serve as well. It's typically harder for the Apples to rise in rank because they are different. When soldiers are equipped with weapons, Banana's will take priority over Apples.

My selected army is humans, they get priority over weapons. There's no need to assign weapons to individual races. A players priority would then be to equip his or her army with weapons.

It would make the game more complicated, but it would make sense logically to have a mixed army.
(this isn't my best idea, but I thought it was good XD)


The rank system wouldnt make a difference. The fake accounts can be promoted by corrupt leaders.

I thought there was already a super large crackdown on fake accounts?

Even if the bank thing is kind of off, I still like the idea of adjusting rank names/adding others for the alliances to give out.

snoop
18th November 2009, 03:58 PM
I thought there was already a super large crackdown on fake accounts?

You'll never catch them every time. Now whether the trade-off is worth the potential for cheating, that needs to be debated.

rabbitohs
19th November 2009, 05:47 AM
Yes, theres a crackdown, but im fairly confident that it isnt gone.

Ive known people who dont play anymore to get around it.

snoop
20th November 2009, 12:36 PM
Exactly! Now you're getting it I guess I did explain it badly... sorry ^_^"

Pendarron: It looks like we're going to be doing that feature for the beta. So when we have a mockup of it, hopefully we'll be able to talk about it a bit more, since it was your idea.

Pendarron
20th November 2009, 01:17 PM
Sure, no problem :)

Pyrorazer
22nd November 2009, 12:04 AM
[17:02:56] <@Pyrorazer> Nice
[17:03:10] <@Pyrorazer> lets see the millions of clciks
[17:03:14] <@Pyrorazer> lol
[17:03:28] <+Feril-poof> 10s of millions ;)
[17:03:33] <@Pyrorazer> lol
[17:03:47] <@Pyrorazer> hmm, they should ahve alliance click totals next age
[17:03:49] <@Pyrorazer> or in age 4
[17:04:08] <&jupi> suggest it to fury
[17:04:12] <+Feril-poof> throw that in as a suggestion
[17:05:15] <@Pyrorazer> I tell tap directly
[17:05:16] <@Pyrorazer> :p

btom4
22nd November 2009, 07:02 PM
Ok I dont know whats already been purposed here or w/e and i dont want to take the time to read it atm. However I for one really do hope this is something completly orginal and not just putting a new candy wrapper on the same old bar. I quit RoC ages ago because it was dieing. It had the old school feel of KoC however because there was less people and the same ol model being used it just wasnt fun to play on anymore. I had my fun ages were i clicked like a demon and sabed like on too, but that just isnt fun anymore. Its predictable who will win the age almost from the start(alliance w/ most poeple who sell off der)

Solutions:
A whole new way of the current account ranking's an whole new gameplay techinque.

Implementing Alliance wide user accounts;
The idea here is that the Alliances that work together closesly, and have a large amount of active players will have a good allinace account and vice versa. This idea is not to be confused with the current alliance rank system. Alliance User Accounts will represent the entire chain with the alliance tag. Other alliance User Accounts will be competeing with each other in different venus of gameplay; and each venue dictate the overall score or value of that alliance. an example of a venue can be Activity(how often do your members log on). Another idea for gameplay would be to have set events that happen at each time during the day throughout the week. In Rise of Tyrants the game had a few events that occured every so often that added a little fun to the daily grind of the game. The events could also possibly automate war between alliances. for a set period of time alliances would fight each other and at the end a system message would announce who did the most damage(also computing how damage would be scored is another subject for another day). However i really do think that using Alliance based accounts rather than an indivisual one will be more fun for everyone. Also haveing those alliances w/ limits is an excellent idea as well. it promotes more competion rather than haveing everyone absorbed in 1 or 2 alliances.

No more clicking:
The idea of clicking links of numbers all day long in order to increase your income each turn is very old school and needs to be changed. I peronsally fucked up my eyes because of clicking so much. It isnt' fun to sit infront of a computer screen clicking numbers that are nearly impossible to read, for several hours. Clicking should be replaced w/ overall alliance activity. the mroe active the alliance is the more income they recieve, and the less active it becomes the less income it recieves. this is a great incentive to make sure alliances treat their members w/ resepect. Rather than getting them all to work so hard and then sell off to push one account to the top. this idea would get everyone in the alliance to try and get all their officers active and present at all of the game events so their alliance could be #1.

Game Events:
Have more game events!!!!!!!!!!!! I cant stress this enough. There's to much predictablity here in RoC. where is the suprise?! atm the game is designed to have ppl click and click and click till u have to poke them w/ a stick :1poke: to get them to go eat. these game events should be designed where every alliance should be able to take part in. then when the age comes down to the wire (maybe last week or 2 weeks) a special event for just the top alliances will be held. this special event should determine the winner of the age. (kind of like the playoffs in football or basketball) This should be your main graber of more people coming to play here. If the events are superb and great people will stay and more will come. If they suck for example(a clicking event) people would leave and the idea wouldnt be orginal at all.

Conclusion:
No offense but RoC is trash right now just as every other game design model lke this right now. So please take this advice and put it to good use. I want to play next a brand new game next age better than any of the other online KoC look a likes. So no new features that dont really do anything, get back to basics and the change the gameplay; that's where the problem is.

Pr0nStar
22nd November 2009, 07:19 PM
Recruiter suggestion:
how about a more streamlined recruiter. could you make it a pop-up window so that it gives the same look and feel as if it was an actual application. i like the in-game recruiter, but it would be a lot more convenient if didn't take up the whole area of the webbrowser if you get what i'm saying.

IamWatchingYou
30th November 2009, 07:41 AM
Gaining Soldiers

Keep:
- Current clicking system
but thats only because I have been clicking like this since KoC age 2:P
- Officerbonus
2 soldiers: 1 soldier for the commander

Change:
- Set a limit on clicking per day: YES A LIMIT BUT READ PLEASE :P
Limit= as much as your current Unit Upgrade. Like 50k Unit Upgrade. So you can get 100k a day on your own.
IMO 100k a day on your own is reasonable, you can still grow. And the "top clickers" are getting reduced

- Give a bit more soldiers by Unit Upgrade
as I said, something like 50k

- Want to click more per day? Get more officers
1 officer= x% more Units/Upgrade. I am bad in maths but I'm sure you can work out something nice :P

Benefits Officers

- Get a bonus from having a commander, just like the current bonusses you get with an upgrade
But the more officers a commander has the less the officers can get.I hope this reduces the amount of officers per commander, and so also the amount of soldiers the top accounts are recieving



Idk if you still change anything but this is what I thought would be reasonable :P

Pauly_D
30th November 2009, 09:36 AM
Change:
- Set a limit on clicking per day: YES A LIMIT BUT READ PLEASE :P
Limit= as much as your current Unit Upgrade. Like 50k Unit Upgrade. So you can get 100k a day on your own.
IMO 100k a day on your own is reasonable, you can still grow. And the "top clickers" are getting reduced


wouldnt that just put the top guys completely out of reach after about 2 minutes into the age? I feel it would turn into a who gets the top UP fastest

IamWatchingYou
30th November 2009, 09:45 AM
And thats worse then an "who can click the most wins" age? This game is all about buying weapons and buying upgrades, right?
But not totally you know, If you have 10 officers and you get 25% more growth of each of them: 5k each: 125k a day more. Just an example :P

Pauly_D
30th November 2009, 10:00 AM
Top clickers last age

d3vm0n [PHNX] 8,131,741 #1 Final Rank #572
iCrazikMyself [TLM] 6,362,722 #2 Final Rank #3
JackRabbit [**ES**] 6,050,138 #3 Final Rank #115
Kindred [TLL™] 2,730,045 #4 Final Rank #583
Nara [PHNX] 2,245,258 #5 Final Rank #496
The-Gathering [PHNX] 2,231,171 #6 Final Rank #unranked
LazyHuman [TLM] 2,157,504 #7 Final Rank #27
Vrasp [~RF~] 2,007,102 #8 Final Rank #144
nephew_Of_purehawk [TSH] 1,953,818 #9 Final Rank #17
The_Source [~RF~] 1,939,618 #10 Final Rank #708

sorry IamWatchingYou but doesnt look to me like top clicker last age got #1 or even #2

IamWatchingYou
30th November 2009, 10:33 AM
Looking at their latest stats I am pretty sure they sold off -> d3vm0n, JackRabbit, Nara, The_Source

Anyway, it is certainly usefull to click 8mil times compeared to the normal people. Don't say it's useless :P

Pauly_D
30th November 2009, 11:07 AM
im not saying its useless but just saying that clicking 10 million will not win you the age.

IamWatchingYou
30th November 2009, 11:13 AM
Nope but we all agree that it needs to be reduced right? And I think that IF you want to click more you need to work for it more than the rest. Recruiting officers for example, its not easy to find people who stick with you for some time

Pauly_D
30th November 2009, 11:20 AM
whether it should be reduced or not an admin (i think it was andyt683) said that there would never be a limit to clicking

IamWatchingYou
1st December 2009, 12:37 AM
Too bad :P I still think there should be something like this, because it's only a limit if you don't work for it. If you have enough officers its not really limiting anymore :p

Sux0r
1st December 2009, 06:37 AM
Gaining Soldiers

Keep:
- Current clicking system
but thats only because I have been clicking like this since KoC age 2:P
- Officerbonus
2 soldiers: 1 soldier for the commander

Change:
- Set a limit on clicking per day: YES A LIMIT BUT READ PLEASE :P
Limit= as much as your current Unit Upgrade. Like 50k Unit Upgrade. So you can get 100k a day on your own.
IMO 100k a day on your own is reasonable, you can still grow. And the "top clickers" are getting reduced

- Give a bit more soldiers by Unit Upgrade
as I said, something like 50k

- Want to click more per day? Get more officers
1 officer= x% more Units/Upgrade. I am bad in maths but I'm sure you can work out something nice :P

Benefits Officers

- Get a bonus from having a commander, just like the current bonusses you get with an upgrade
But the more officers a commander has the less the officers can get.I hope this reduces the amount of officers per commander, and so also the amount of soldiers the top accounts are recieving



Idk if you still change anything but this is what I thought would be reasonable :P


Limit, 50k, just because you could click that max?

I vote for 100k, just because i can click it a day!!!11!!!


Keep it the way it is, the one who clicks more, deserves to have more soldiers as you.

Pendarron
4th December 2009, 02:55 PM
I'd like to see click totals for members in my alliance. That's not an invasion of privacy is it? I can see there army, but I'd like to know how much of it they made themselves.

fistsofthor
4th December 2009, 02:56 PM
so far, there aren;t to many bugs. nicely done!

RichOahu_ES
8th December 2009, 03:34 PM
i didn't read ANY of the posts, sorry, so if this has been mentioned, please forgive me.

Once again i would like to see the ability to send someone credits, and they go to their bank.

we want to hold lotteries and it would be easy to do so if the credits went straight to the persons bank.

thank you!

snoop
8th December 2009, 03:37 PM
i didn't read ANY of the posts, sorry, so if this has been mentioned, please forgive me.

Once again i would like to see the ability to send someone credits, and they go to their bank.

we want to hold lotteries and it would be easy to do so if the credits went straight to the persons bank.

thank you!
Definitely, I think we should do that. We may discuss making that the default action, although we need to answer some other questions first.

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 03:44 PM
Definitely, I think we should do that. We may discuss making that the default action, although we need to answer some other questions first.

could someone just have a setting to choose?

Also, can't they just pick a player and have that player bank credits as soon as he or she gets them?

ThomasA
8th December 2009, 03:49 PM
or base it on the bank setting thats already there for clicking?

Pauly_D
8th December 2009, 03:54 PM
we want to hold lotteries and it would be easy to do so if the credits went straight to the persons bank.

before you send them credits tell them to set their settings on the recruiter to bank credits: On

RichOahu_ES
8th December 2009, 09:43 PM
before you send them credits tell them to set their settings on the recruiter to bank credits: On

doesn't work that way i am pretty sure.

they go right to "released", now the person, IF they see it, can then transfer them to the bank (thats how it was last age, this age i have only sent, not been sent any to test it).

it should be the option of the one sending.

i also think it should be up to the person sending that they are banked, or let go no matter what. as i send credis down chain all the time, and i know our members are honest, but it would suck if all the credits i send down are banked and gave to someone else ;-P

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 10:04 PM
doesn't work that way i am pretty sure.

they go right to "released", now the person, IF they see it, can then transfer them to the bank (thats how it was last age, this age i have only sent, not been sent any to test it).

it should be the option of the one sending.

i also think it should be up to the person sending that they are banked, or let go no matter what. as i send credis down chain all the time, and i know our members are honest, but it would suck if all the credits i send down are banked and gave to someone else ;-P

yeah, that would suck for you, but i think that its the job of whoever gets the credits to decide what they wish to do with them. thats my feelings. And, the idea that it would be so gosh darn inconvenient for you if your officers and sub officers etc. were able to take the credits you sent them and send it on, really should not be a concern.

Vrasp
9th December 2009, 01:03 AM
doesn't work that way i am pretty sure.

they go right to "released", now the person, IF they see it, can then transfer them to the bank (thats how it was last age, this age i have only sent, not been sent any to test it).

it should be the option of the one sending.

i also think it should be up to the person sending that they are banked, or let go no matter what. as i send credis down chain all the time, and i know our members are honest, but it would suck if all the credits i send down are banked and gave to someone else ;-P

I agree that the sender should decide because it's the only way you can give credits to someone with 0 TFF to make them grow.

RichOahu_ES
9th December 2009, 01:26 AM
I agree that the sender should decide because it's the only way you can give credits to someone with 0 TFF to make them grow.

heh

shhhhhhh

now the real reason comes out.. ya just had to say it ;-P


BUT

i still want to be able to decide if they go to their bank ;-)







yeah, that would suck for you, but i think that its the job of whoever gets the credits to decide what they wish to do with them. thats my feelings. And, the idea that it would be so gosh darn inconvenient for you if your officers and sub officers etc. were able to take the credits you sent them and send it on, really should not be a concern.


and yes it IS a concern when i want the credits to help them grow, and the ones above them, and the ones above them and myself.

Pauly_D
9th December 2009, 04:52 AM
Last age i got sent credits and as my recruiter settings were to bank credits i still had those credits when i logged on.
Maybe if anyone wants to test it and see, but im sure you could do it last age.

snoop
9th December 2009, 09:30 AM
could someone just have a setting to choose?

Also, can't they just pick a player and have that player bank credits as soon as he or she gets them?

I don't have an answer to that question yet, we need to discuss that (as admins and with the players).

fistsofthor
14th December 2009, 10:36 PM
heh

shhhhhhh

now the real reason comes out.. ya just had to say it ;-P


BUT

i still want to be able to decide if they go to their bank ;-)









and yes it IS a concern when i want the credits to help them grow, and the ones above them, and the ones above them and myself.

if someone wants to screw you, and you send them credits, they should be allowed to do that. we shouldnt prevent sabbings because someone will get hurt by another player, and we shouldnt stop this.

as a person with click credits has the right to be able to transfer there credits into the bank, and a gift if a gift (meaning, when you give something awaym its no longer oyour possession and they should be ablr to do whatever with their new possession, i feel that the receiver should choose what to do with cliccks. afterall, it would be silly if you could tff bump a player by sending them morale.

seta
14th December 2009, 10:57 PM
if someone wants to screw you, and you send them credits, they should be allowed to do that. we shouldnt prevent sabbings because someone will get hurt by another player, and we shouldnt stop this.

as a person with click credits has the right to be able to transfer there credits into the bank, and a gift if a gift (meaning, when you give something awaym its no longer oyour possession and they should be ablr to do whatever with their new possession, i feel that the receiver should choose what to do with cliccks. afterall, it would be silly if you could tff bump a player by sending them morale.

?????

:confused:

żżżżż

Pyrorazer
15th December 2009, 04:15 AM
hmm is this past page 17 or what?

Ok well GUA fails then cause its been saying theres 19 pages for the alst couple weeks but it wont go past this page

Pauly_D
15th December 2009, 05:55 AM
hmm is this past page 17 or what?

Ok well GUA fails then cause its been saying theres 19 pages for the alst couple weeks but it wont go past this page

i think that happens because of deleted posts

back on topic
I like the fact that you can send clicks to someone to raise their TFF, its useful in war if someone tries having unheld dragonskins and you want to mass them.

If you want to send credits to someone in your alliiance and if they want the credits in thier bank then wait until they are online so they can send the credits to their bank themselves

sems_back
29th December 2009, 05:25 PM
Has Beta started yet or this all supposition.

Pauly_D
29th December 2009, 05:27 PM
age 4 beta will start sometime in march (or sometime around then im sure someone will correct me)

Jerre
29th December 2009, 05:59 PM
age 4 beta will start sometime in march (or sometime around then im sure someone will correct me)

Age 4 Beta begins on or about 10th January 2010*
Age 4 begins around 14th March 2010


* For the players who would rather not participate in the beta testing environment, keep in mind that Age 4 Beta will be running concurrently with Age 3 2⁄3, we anticipate that once the beta has begun, Age 4 will begin about 2 months later.
------------------------------

This is taken from the newspage on RoC.

Greetz, Jerre

Tapchou
29th December 2009, 06:03 PM
Age 4 Beta begins on or about 10th January 2010.
Age 4 begins around 14th March 2010.

snoop
29th December 2009, 06:21 PM
We may push the jan 10 deadline back 7-10 days... Depending on what happens this week most likely.

Jankster
29th December 2009, 06:41 PM
according our little convo last night snoop.
I think first priority should be getting a track of the multi via proxy!
How to do it I dunno.
aye we agreed its impossibel snoop, but the imposibel are also the one we go after!
let the first priority for age 4 beta be: make game clean.
Aye we cant do it, ohh you can, I consider the coders of age 4 capable to do it!!

snoop
29th December 2009, 08:03 PM
First priority for beta: Finish the damn sourcecode. Like I said we have things planned and written that will make the game harder to cheat at than ever.

chemikills
16th January 2010, 08:50 AM
We may push the jan 10 deadline back 7-10 days... Depending on what happens this week most likely.

still on track to start in the next 4 days?

6_9
4th February 2010, 06:46 AM
Status?

fistsofthor
4th February 2010, 08:24 AM
We may push the jan 10 deadline back 7-10 days... Depending on what happens this week most likely.

I'm guessing the dead line was pushed back more than 10 days?

Should it arrive by summertime? (June 21st i think)

rabbitohs
4th February 2010, 02:17 PM
Summertime for me starts December haha :)
You guys can have it mid-year and ill get it at the end XD

vengefuldeath87
7th February 2010, 01:13 PM
Please see the following articles of information as to when the beta will start:

http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time
http://www.wowwiki.com/Soon

cavalier5
7th February 2010, 02:54 PM
Who cares about the beta. I mean some ppl will play the beta and some ppl will play the old way. What I want to know is when Age 4 starts

6_9
7th February 2010, 03:02 PM
when it's done I suppose. Best not to think about it :D

rabbitohs
7th February 2010, 05:39 PM
Because the Beta has been pushed back, will age 4 be delayed aswell?

Vrasp
7th February 2010, 06:24 PM
Because the Beta has been pushed back, will age 4 be delayed aswell?

About a week ago, Tapchou said the age end date on the front page of RoC will stay the same, regardless of what happens with the beta start date. I'm guessing this is still the official stance.

CyberPunk
10th February 2010, 11:18 PM
we're well on our way to age 3 99/100

6_9
15th February 2010, 07:17 AM
* For the players who would rather not participate in the beta testing environment, keep in mind that Age 4 Beta will be running concurrently with Age 3 2⁄3, we anticipate that once the beta has begun, Age 4 will begin about 2 months later.

:blies:

Juvi9le
8th March 2010, 06:53 PM
I would like to see something like an instant messaging board for the alliance in the base feed, almost like irc, but only for the alliance. I really hate to join irc or run the program.
I think this would get the alliance closer together since they are able to communicate with each other, even the less attached players might like it a little more. It's hard enough to get them to join your alliance, then trying to get them to register on the forum and the irc chat.

I think it could bring a positive boost to players sticking around? What do you think?

Vrasp
8th March 2010, 10:10 PM
I would like to see something like an instant messaging board for the alliance in the base feed, almost like irc, but only for the alliance. I really hate to join irc or run the program.
I think this would get the alliance closer together since they are able to communicate with each other, even the less attached players might like it a little more. It's hard enough to get them to join your alliance, then trying to get them to register on the forum and the irc chat.

I think it could bring a positive boost to players sticking around? What do you think?

Agree. At least within the alliance page.

EdThaSt0rm`
10th March 2010, 04:14 AM
Great idea... I wonder why no one has thought of that before!
Would definately encourage players to join the chat instead of downloading mIRC or using the chat on the homepage.

t0msky
10th March 2010, 04:51 PM
i like the sound of having some kind of alliance instant messenger, but please oh please add a delete all function, i dont wanna be swamped with 3 million messages i cant get rid of

t0msky
14th March 2010, 11:13 AM
The admins at work and encouraging input on how to improve the game


01[16:53] <t0msky_ES> if you had the brains to understand that you need to balance the game, not make itpreferential for rankers or alliances then we may have a common understanding
[16:53] <snoop> ok you're an idiot
01[16:53] <t0msky_ES> lol
[16:53] <snoop> you're on ignore
[16:53] <snoop> you insulted me
[16:53] <snoop> fuck off
01[16:53] <t0msky_ES> haha
[16:54] <snoop> quit if you want, I really don't care
01[16:54] <t0msky_ES> im a rich idiot get it right
01[16:54] <t0msky_ES> now ill iggy u for shits n giggles
01[16:54] <t0msky_ES> be good

it would help if these people could actually digest what they are being told, instead they seem to be too blinkered to listen to anyone elses opinion and accept what many people are telling them, just because we disagree with what you are saying, it doesnt make us wrong.

Overlord
14th March 2010, 11:26 AM
it would help if these people could actually digest what they are being told, instead they seem to be too blinkered to listen to anyone elses opinion and accept what many people are telling them, just because we disagree with what you are saying, it doesnt make us wrong.

All you did there was insult snoop and then say the game needed to be changed without any suggestion as to how it should be changed.
Maybe if you told him how you thought it should be changed, he would've listened, but I don't blame him for ignoring you.

t0msky
14th March 2010, 12:32 PM
no there was over an hour of discussion involved, i just chose to not post it all, i chose to post the end result, i understand you have formed an opinion based on a snippet of information, however wrong that opinion may be, and i didnt insult him until he had repeatedly insulted me, ill be quite happy to bore you with all the conversations if you really want to read them, you seem to have a stock reply to anyones critism which is, " you say the game should be changed, but give no ideas as to how it should be changed", thats jsut bullshit and a weak response dont be a lemming and follow the pack there was a lot of suggestion and we wre hoping to have an informed chat, however when the people responsible simply refuse to even acknowledge they may be wrong its usually a wasted discussion.

snoop
14th March 2010, 12:52 PM
t0msky: You sab people with 20 and 30b sentry with 25 spies, this results in the highest possible damage. Then you refuse to slay to recoup your losses. I analyzed your account and found that you play wrong. In addition you've been playing for 2 weeks and don't have the TBG to support the amount that you sab. You want damage completely removed from the game, which is not going to happen. I told you off because you said I have no brains. I discussed it with you in ES for a while, and you kept reiterating that you wanted there to be no damage in the game. Honestly, I just outlined how you're not playing well, and if you adjusted your strategy you'd have a lot fewer problems.

I finally ignored you when you insulted me because the discussion was already counter productive, in that you want a particular end-member that won't happen and are unwilling to compromise on that and offered no viable solutions. In addition, the "I'm rich" part that I'd missed due to using /ignore is pretty amusing. I wish I'd waited a minute to ignore you so I could have laughed at online claims to money and fame.

t0msky
14th March 2010, 02:02 PM
t0msky: You sab people with 20 and 30b sentry with 25 spies, this results in the highest possible damage. Then you refuse to slay to recoup your losses. I analyzed your account and found that you play wrong. In addition you've been playing for 2 weeks and don't have the TBG to support the amount that you sab. You want damage completely removed from the game, which is not going to happen. I told you off because you said I have no brains. I discussed it with you in ES for a while, and you kept reiterating that you wanted there to be no damage in the game. Honestly, I just outlined how you're not playing well, and if you adjusted your strategy you'd have a lot fewer problems.

I finally ignored you when you insulted me because the discussion was already counter productive, in that you want a particular end-member that won't happen and are unwilling to compromise on that and offered no viable solutions. In addition, the "I'm rich" part that I'd missed due to using /ignore is pretty amusing. I wish I'd waited a minute to ignore you so I could have laughed at online claims to money and fame.

i never said i wanted damage removed, if you take the time to actually check your logs of the chat we had, i said the amount of costs inucrred for a sabbing account are dispropiortinate, with your current settings you give a solo player no opportunity to advance in a gamestyle of their own choosing, in effect you are forcing players to be rankers or in an alliance, and if you have looked through my account then you will see that the costs of sabbing with 4 5 or 6 spies provides the same amount of damage as 25 spies depending on the person you are attempting to sab, what you have effectively done is remove a style of gameplay and plenty of alternatives where offered by people when we were talking, but you chose to either not see it or completely ignore it, ill post the conversation up here when i pull it from my logs, i was asked several questions by vrasp about would i like different things removed, i gave my answer in full to him, please read them this time, im more than willing to compromise, however i wont compromise many peoples style of play simply because you dont like sabbers.
as for my social status comment, you sit there calling people idiots when you have no knowledge of them or their background and yes you started the insults first, i dont claim anything, i am what i am and my retort was in response to your calling me stupid.

like i said..selective viewing snoop

Your covert operations center orders 2 spies to attempt to sabotage 1,551 Pickaxes.

Your spies attempt to sneak into ******** armory, but are spotted by enemy sentries and forced to flee.

Your weapon damage cost: 10,555,945 Gold

2 spies creating the same damage as 25, im guessing youre % is a little off

EdThaSt0rm`
14th March 2010, 02:13 PM
Your covert operations center orders 2 spies to attempt to sabotage 1,551 Pickaxes.

Your spies attempt to sneak into ******** armory, but are spotted by enemy sentries and forced to flee.

Your weapon damage cost: 10,555,945 Gold

2 spies creating the same damage as 25, im guessing youre % is a little off

Something I've been wondering aswell... ^ why do a few spies cost the same damage as a whole bunch of em?

snoop
14th March 2010, 02:18 PM
You ignored the part where I said I reduced the cost of sabbing and made the formula have more consistent results. But that's OK, you can just keep pretending we're going to keep the same formula.


as for my social status comment, you sit there calling people idiots when you have no knowledge of them or their background and yes you started the insults first, i dont claim anything, i am what i am and my retort was in response to your calling me stupid.

That had nothing to do with the social status comment, however I did find it amusing that you mentioned that you're rich and then posted it in this thread, because clearly it's pertinent to this discussion. So since you're rich, I should automatically listen to you, is that how it works? Also, I never called you stupid, I said you're not seeing the big picture; you just happened to take offense to it.

However, you position is you want to sab 50 people per day with 25 spies each time, when in reality you're sabbing people with more sentry than you have spy and are taking 2b damage for it. You're not playing the game correctly, most people know that in those cases you should sab with fewer spies, it really isn't my problem that you don't know that.

Ed: It amounts to less because the random multiplier is smaller, also you don't take damages every time you sab, with a lower number of spies you should take damage less often relative to the number of spies you use. The formulas are mainly probabilistic.

t0msky
14th March 2010, 02:33 PM
You ignored the part where I said I reduced the cost of sabbing and made the formula have more consistent results. But that's OK, you can just keep pretending we're going to keep the same formula.



That had nothing to do with the social status comment, however I did find it amusing that you mentioned that you're rich and then posted it in this thread, because clearly it's pertinent to this discussion. So since you're rich, I should automatically listen to you, is that how it works? Also, I never called you stupid, I said you're not seeing the big picture; you just happened to take offense to it.

However, you position is you want to sab 50 people per day with 25 spies each time, when in reality you're sabbing people with more sentry than you have spy and are taking 2b damage for it. You're not playing the game correctly, most people know that in those cases you should sab with fewer spies, it really isn't my problem that you don't know that.

Ed: It amounts to less because the random multiplier is smaller, also you don't take damages every time you sab, with a lower number of spies you should take damage less often relative to the number of spies you use. The formulas are mainly probabilistic.

i didnt ignore anything you posted, i replied to your statement of using less spies costs less, it clearly isnt the case, i also take on board the fact you have acknowledged there is a problem with spy penalties currently, i applaud you for admitting that, however you have said you will reduce damages by 10% this equates to a reduction of 1.2 million on me sending 2 spies, its still disproportionate, and no i didnt enter my status as a means of you speaking to me in any manner it was a retort to your off the cuff remark of calling me an idiot, if my bank account made you speak to me with anything other than honesty i wouldnt respect or speak to you at all, and im glad it makes u smile it makes me smile daily, words by their implicit meaning can mean many things, i dont have to directly call someone stupid to infer they are stupid your a clever person im sure you understand that so lets not play silly buggers.
perhaps if you had spoken this way yesterday instead of repeating the stock responses you have formulated during this age we would have gotten further before it resorted to churlish responses on both parties



<~snoop|prairehome|age4> doh: if I don't make the game the way t0msky_ES wants it he'll use his money to buy me and then beat me
<~snoop|prairehome|age4> because he's rich
<doh> damn
<~snoop|prairehome|age4> oh also poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote
<~snoop|prairehome|age4> because people that don't have that much money
<~snoop|prairehome|age4> aren't entitled to opinions different from his
<~snoop|prairehome|age4> I still have no idea why he included the "I'm rich" comment
<~snoop|prairehome|age4> I feel like that will provide me with enough material to laugh at for... hmmm weeks?

i almost give you credit for not being a wanker, then you go and completely prove me wrong and show just how much of a churlish petty little man you are, its a sad indictment on you when your only response is to be an idiot, i was right, lol embittered little man, i see theres no point in trying to be an adult with you

snoop
14th March 2010, 02:52 PM
T0m: Why did you mention "I'm rich" as if that makes you not stupid? Obviously I'm going to make fun of something like that. Clearly you aren't the adult in this situation because you think having money means you should automatically get your way with our formulas. Guess what? You don't own RoC, you don't own me, and no amount of money that you have in your bank account could ever change that. Bragging about money in order to win an argument... I think most of the people reading this thread find that ridiculous.

t0msky
14th March 2010, 03:09 PM
ill try and explain it in terms you understand, although im not holding out much hope
you made an off the cuff remark an insulting one, i responded with an equally flippant comment ie, you callde me an idiot, i responded a rich idiot, if you dont get the humour injected into that response then i pity you, let me explain it for you further, it was meant as a put down on your comment, inferring i may be an idiot, but i am a rich idiot, which infers its better than simply being an idiot, now you have tried to turn the discussion away from your pettiness and removed any doubt at all about how childish you actually are ill let you fuck the game up however you want, it is your game of course and who are we to argue with how you want to ruin it

Vrasp
14th March 2010, 03:15 PM
The admins at work and encouraging input on how to improve the game



it would help if these people could actually digest what they are being told, instead they seem to be too blinkered to listen to anyone elses opinion and accept what many people are telling them, just because we disagree with what you are saying, it doesnt make us wrong.


no there was over an hour of discussion involved, i just chose to not post it all, i chose to post the end result, i understand you have formed an opinion based on a snippet of information, however wrong that opinion may be.

Funny that you posted a small snippet of 'an hour long conversation' trying to encourage people to form a certain opinion, then get upset when someone forms an opinion contrary to the one you were trying to incite.

t0msky
14th March 2010, 03:32 PM
i didnt get upset vrasp, i posted the end of the conversation to show the attitude of an admin when i didnt fall over and obey like some sycophant and i also found it extremely funny that it devolved into such a childish stage fairly rapidly, ill take credit for half of that rapid timing

snoop
14th March 2010, 06:03 PM
t0m: You insulted me, so I told you I was ignoring you. Like I said to you before, we reserve the right to disagree with you, that 1 hour conversation? That wasn't an attack, that was in fact respect in that we gave you the chance to prove what you wanted to talk about. We weren't satisfied with your suggestion and you need to understand that we discuss suggestions at length with the suggester if it isn't something we agree with. We discuss these things and put forth our opinions in hopes that either we can understand why you're right, or show you our position. We do that for the reason of transparency. It isn't that we don't want suggestions, it's that we sometimes disagree with you, or we make compromises that aren't necessarily as far as what you'd like. I disagreed with you told you why, then you took it personally and called me a name.

If I were as bad as you say, I'd have just glined you and then banned you from GUA. But guess what? I let you post all of this stuff on GUA, I let you continue to be on RoC IRC, and I'm going to let you play age 4 if you want.

Guess what? I didn't agree with Vrasp's ideas until we discussed them, now he's doing a lot to help us improve the game. To me logical debate is the only real way to determine what we should and should not do with the game.

Honestly I was hoping we'd resolved our issues over that in #roc. But I'm not holding grudges or anything.

RichOahu_ES
15th March 2010, 01:23 AM
wow

damn t0m, they will "let" you play.....

heh, they already" let" half the population stop playing.

it is pointless to argue tom. i tried to explain why numerous times things were wrong, way back since age 2. they were not what they or their forum lackies wanted to hear so it was then labled whining. and if they don't liek what you say, they then close and lock the threads. there was a time when i wasn't the only one trying to let them know what was wrong. everyone else has given up.

who thought of the sab damages to tools? why? and who does it help?

snoop
15th March 2010, 09:07 AM
Key: You totally missed the point (again). If I were the biased dictator that hates you I would have banned both you and him from the game and from GUA for calling me names and being a general nuisance. I have that kind of power in both places, yet I don't. In addition, you fail to understand that if we disagree with someone and they don't convince us of something we don't have to do that thing, and in fact won't because we aren't convinced. Where your argument in this situation fails is that you want us to do exactly what you want, and we disagree with you for a variety of reasons that have been hashed out several times; basically if I read your post your position is you should be able to bully me into doing whatever you want. I don't agree with what you want, so I won't do it because I'm not your bitch. Any further posts defaming me or the administration on this topic will be infracted and deleted, have a nice day.

cavalier5
15th March 2010, 09:50 AM
Key: You totally missed the point (again). If I were the biased dictator that hates you I would have banned both you and him from the game and from GUA for calling me names and being a general nuisance. I have that kind of power in both places, yet I don't. In addition, you fail to understand that if we disagree with someone and they don't convince us of something we don't have to do that thing, and in fact won't because we aren't convinced. Where your argument in this situation fails is that you want us to do exactly what you want, and we disagree with you for a variety of reasons that have been hashed out several times; basically if I read your post your position is you should be able to bully me into doing whatever you want. I don't agree with what you want, so I won't do it because I'm not your bitch. Any further posts defaming me or the administration on this topic will be infracted and deleted, have a nice day.

Snoop's weird and so is andy. Does my post get deleted now?

andyt683
16th March 2010, 10:04 AM
Snoop's weird and so is andy. Does my post get deleted now?

But what if I agree with you? snoop makes the point that we don't ban (or even delete) comments that are useless. We might close threads, but that's more housekeeping than anything. If the forums were left untended, it would be 800 rich threads calling us dumb and saying the game is dying. Yes, we've lost 400 players this age. For reference, that's the lowest loss of all the other games I play of this type. Complaining about population loss and attributing it to the fact that you don't get your way all the time is unnecessary and not about to persuade us to come around to your idiotic point of view. I've said since the beginning that data is king. If you have data to back something up, post it! The worst we can do is disagree. If you make personal attacks, like Key, we'll probably troll you a bit before we disagree. Everyone's happier with the data method, except snoop, who enjoys his trollin.

t0msky
16th March 2010, 01:21 PM
nobodies saying that yuo need to discard it andy, we are saying temper it, its totally disproportionate and as has been made apparent by snoop, it has been addressed, i personally dont think enough, but its a start and we can renew the argument in the new age when it becomes apparent that your 7-15% wasnt sufficient, id suggest for now we all get along and rub each other intermittently cos ive sold off and am sitting here wondering why i sold off so soon :(

RichOahu_ES
16th March 2010, 02:57 PM
what andy failed to say was it was 400 this age, how many last? and how many in the wonderful age two?

see, if the population was larger, 400 wouldn't be so bad. but 400 in the number of "real" players we have now? that is HUGE. and your inability to see the cause is what is so frustrating.

so, data? what was the single biggest change in age two? what other "data" do you need?

of course there isn't a big uproar any longer, they all left. didn't ban or delete but sure ghets off on mentioning his "power" to d so. lol, power.. in a game and on a forum.... woo hoo! i gotz the same uberz powerx on two forumz!! rawr!!! too funny. i would explain what power over other lifes is like but then you would say i was bragging...

anyway, your wonderful age 4 will be the true test. we shall see if it is better, oh, and once again,

sab damages to tools, who thought of it, why, and who does it help?

MrHappy
20th March 2010, 02:29 PM
sab damages to tools, who thought of it, why, and who does it help?


http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?22068-get-back-at-the-sabbers&highlight=sabbing+tools

I was young, master key :(

PLZ forgive me. Took me fuookin ages to find! >.<

Thomas, Just play the beta and then decide if it's to your liking. I relay would like some old time great players to continue dicking around with this time wasting game. You gotta admit it's a damn blast, and a hell of a way to kill spare time.

@ Soup :P HOW THE HELL DID YOU HAVE" CARAMELLDANSEN" in your gua posts? Ages ago. I WANT IT, AS IT@S DAMN ANNOYING!

Clam-
23rd March 2010, 01:16 PM
Age 4? Totally rewritten?

I have to see this \o/

meekpig
23rd March 2010, 02:57 PM
Age 4? Totally rewritten?

I have to see this \o/

I really doubt anyone will! what other game can we all play, ideas please?

Don-
23rd March 2010, 07:53 PM
whats going on? i load www.ruinsofchaos.com & it comes up with this random shit..... "this is new server" bla bla bla.

i cant get to IRC here at work, can someone fill a noob in? what the?

muchly appreciated.

@Pigsy: play WoW, im in a guild with mostly ex KoC/text based game players in it, its quite fun.

~Don.

trebach
23rd March 2010, 08:08 PM
whats going on? i load www.ruinsofchaos.com & it comes up with this random shit..... "this is new server" bla bla bla.

i cant get to IRC here at work, can someone fill a noob in? what the?

muchly appreciated.

@Pigsy: play WoW, im in a guild with mostly ex KoC/text based game players in it, its quite fun.

~Don.
They just moved servers and the IP address has changed, so I assume they're giving it a day for all the DNS servers to pick up the new IP address before starting anything.

MrHappy
23rd March 2010, 09:21 PM
Oldie but goodie :)

My best is 42.09 seconds (http://members.iinet.net.au/~pontipak/redsquare.html)

I'm sure their waiting untill everything is running perfectly :D

O_o Tried playing the other game but..........................


Banned

You have been banned for Offensive KoC name

To appeal this decision, enter your comments below:

LoL

cata-ro
24th March 2010, 10:16 AM
If you use mIRC or any other client that connects to IRC, join us on irc.ruinsofchaos.com (and sit and idle in a channel full of people for the lulz).

* Connecting to ceti.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server
-
* Connect retry #1 ceti.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server
-
* Connect retry #2 ceti.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server
-
* Connect retry #3 ceti.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server
-
* Connect retry #4 ceti.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)

* Connecting to irc.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server
-
* Connect retry #1 irc.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server
-
* Connect retry #2 irc.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server
-
* Connect retry #3 irc.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server
-
* Connect retry #4 irc.ruinsofchaos.com (6667)
-
* Unable to resolve server

IRC was ok in the last day they add that msg on top page and bang IRC down for hours lol

t0msky
24th March 2010, 10:50 AM
ya i get the same, im not holding out much hope for a trouble free start to the age if the admins cant get the irc link right first time.....
im guessing they left it fucked so we cant abuse them on irc for being super slow asses and im also fairly certain andy doesnt want to run another mini round while we wait for the other admins to get their shit sorted, hopefully they will come here and lie to us about whats going on, im feeling totally neglected and a lie from them now might give me some confidence in their ability..even for a short while as currently im sitting here wondering whether ill be able to sex my internet friends or not

biglou250
24th March 2010, 10:58 AM
IRC is working just fine. Use /server 69.164.193.243

cata-ro
24th March 2010, 11:29 AM
IRC is working just fine. Use /server 69.164.193.243

try that not working sigh

works now with /server 69.164.193.243 for me :)

Vrasp
24th March 2010, 11:56 AM
I haven't had a problem with IRC at all, I never even got disconnected :x

MaradoX-
25th March 2010, 07:18 AM
ya i get the same, im not holding out much hope for a trouble free start to the age if the admins cant get the irc link right first time.....
im guessing they left it fucked so we cant abuse them on irc for being super slow asses and im also fairly certain andy doesnt want to run another mini round while we wait for the other admins to get their shit sorted, hopefully they will come here and lie to us about whats going on, im feeling totally neglected and a lie from them now might give me some confidence in their ability..even for a short while as currently im sitting here wondering whether ill be able to sex my internet friends or not

The admins got real lives too you know... ;)

And why the hell am I always staring at your sig? 0.o :p

andyt683
25th March 2010, 10:05 AM
ya i get the same, im not holding out much hope for a trouble free start to the age if the admins cant get the irc link right first time.....
im guessing they left it fucked so we cant abuse them on irc for being super slow asses and im also fairly certain andy doesnt want to run another mini round while we wait for the other admins to get their shit sorted, hopefully they will come here and lie to us about whats going on, im feeling totally neglected and a lie from them now might give me some confidence in their ability..even for a short while as currently im sitting here wondering whether ill be able to sex my internet friends or not

IRC was working just fine. DNS propagation takes time, so once they switched to the new DNS server, it took a bit for it to catch up.

EdThaSt0rm`
25th March 2010, 03:18 PM
^^ 5 days?

andyt683
26th March 2010, 08:17 AM
One day should be the maximum, though they have people that still see the old server. Either way, it fell close enough to the weekend that I guess Tap and snoop decided to wait for the weekend when they had more free time to start it. Faster response time on the inevitable bugs, I'm sure.

Pyrorazer
27th March 2010, 01:46 AM
Yet they are starting it sometime through Saturday, my guess would be the end of saturday meaning sunday sometime, meaning that there will be 1 day of Inital bugs, which i will Lol when the server crashes

joly
28th March 2010, 03:08 AM
bugs? No worries, its only a beta age :evilimu:

steward69
28th March 2010, 04:34 PM
WHAT AGE 4 BETA?? anyone seen it? but dw we "TRUST" the admins to /win i mean /fail but dw it will be up sometime in 2010 we think. As a side note i got banned form irc !o nose! for saying koc is up ;p much lov

p.s. bitching ftw DW= dont worry for all the nubs

Shadow_Slayer
28th March 2010, 09:44 PM
WHAT AGE 4 BETA?? anyone seen it but dw we "TRUST" the admins to /win i mean /fail but dw it will be up sometime in 2010 we think as a side note i got banned for irc o nose for saying koc is up ;p much lov

p.s. bitching ftw

was this supposed to be a sentence? Please, retake an English class, or learn from one of the people who know English as their second language. at least I can understand them.

Don-
28th March 2010, 09:58 PM
Your Stats Action Points Rank
Strike: 1,000,000,000 #1
Defense: 1,000,000,000 #2
Spy: 250,000,000 #3
Sentry: 250,000,000 #4

stats on Armory page.

/me takes the early lead :p

(yes im being sarcastic, managed to make account, suspect its all frozen till the timer runs out.) & as i post this lol:


We lied. Go back to waiting :P

shortest age in history i win!

p.s. (i hope that draws tears) which im sur eis the desiered effect :p

~Don.

edit:


Totals
Pillaged: 100,000,000,000 Gold
Gold Lost to Attacks: 250,000,000,000 Gold
Sabotage Damage: 1,000,000,000,000 Gold
Sabotage Cost 100,000,000,001 Gold
Last 24 Hours
Clicks 35,000
Growth 38,500
Pillaged 15,000,000,000 Gold
Recent Activity
24 days, 23 hours, 22 minutes and 21 seconds ago 123.456.789.012
You went to the bathroom and took a giant shit. rofl.
Show All

t0msky
29th March 2010, 04:42 AM
good to see we are on our 3rd or is it 4th run in to the age, honestly we will get it right this time......
if only they could be honest with us and say sorry guiys we have nothing, we are trying to fuck something new up please bear with us.....
i dont care if the age is delayed for a week, but at least have the decency to tell us itll be a week instead of wasting our time

Kippet
29th March 2010, 10:47 AM
I agree with Tomsky!

midnight_sun
29th March 2010, 01:57 PM
I agree with Tomsky!
Ass kisser, and stroke me in a smooth manner and lie to me oooooooooohhhh baby.

RichOahu_ES
29th March 2010, 04:06 PM
Ass kisser, and stroke me in a smooth manner and lie to me oooooooooohhhh baby.

come on guys!! ya giving piggy amo!

t0msky
29th March 2010, 04:18 PM
its ok rich piggy cant spell ammo....neither can you though so its ok, @midnight, he isnt an asskisser because he needs to be, he just loves my taste

midnight_sun
29th March 2010, 04:45 PM
its ok rich piggy cant spell ammo....neither can you though so its ok, @midnight, he isnt an asskisser because he needs to be, he just loves my taste

lol just poking him with a stick, I don't think he minds, and are you sure it tain't the taste of your ass ? Bahahahahahaha

tintinitis
29th March 2010, 04:58 PM
Normally, a beta would have been in place before the end of the age.

Normally, a dns transition would have been planned to not impact players by supplying the players with entries for their hosts file (for example).

Most businesses that close for more than 5 days never come back to life.

I guess the only lucky thing is that RoC is clearly not run like a business.

Instead of putting stoopid messages into the game, how about using the home page to provide a status to the would-be gamers?

This is bollocks.

t0msky
29th March 2010, 05:51 PM
Normally, a beta would have been in place before the end of the age.

Normally, a dns transition would have been planned to not impact players by supplying the players with entries for their hosts file (for example).

Most businesses that close for more than 5 days never come back to life.

I guess the only lucky thing is that RoC is clearly not run like a business.

Instead of putting stoopid messages into the game, how about using the home page to provide a status to the would-be gamers?

This is bollocks.

correct on all points...even though i didnt understand one of them.......the dns one by the way

RichOahu_ES
29th March 2010, 10:38 PM
its ok rich piggy cant spell ammo....neither can you though so its ok, @midnight, he isnt an asskisser because he needs to be, he just loves my taste

i knew it didn't look right, but i didn't care ;-P

STARBLASTER
30th March 2010, 08:19 PM
Well I don't like the boy's club I was up against with the admins all cosey with DN but this
game is free and put together by guys who don't charge us a cent for their time.
I will wait and not complain but if I see admins playing in DN I am outta here.

Vrasp
30th March 2010, 08:26 PM
Which admins 'played' in DN? :p None of the admins _played_. Perhaps you mean rouen, but he's a mod. One more thing to bitch about though, I suppose, so I'm all for it. Proceed.

STARBLASTER
30th March 2010, 10:40 PM
You are certainly not doing much else Rasp.
Maybe my bad not sure but LOTSA green shields were seen.
Don't tell ... it was chartreuse . It's no biggy V.
Everyone knows favourites ( and maybe one 'precious' ) were being sheltered and mammoth numbers of new players
were joining DN in the last weeks of an age THEN disappearing.
Jog me. Which alliances were the admins part of ?

My gosh ...it appears that DN players are also global orphans.
Not a country between them. Just a volcano.
Don't mind me. I am having a great time not paying attention and
feeling a great joy when I click on ROC and the game doesn't appear.
I am drawn to it but really can't stand it. Perhaps a few more days will
help me forget sufficiently as to allow me to stop clicking on the link.
Fingers crossed.

Vrasp
31st March 2010, 12:43 AM
The admins were part of the SP alliance =P well, most of them were, at least!

Also yeah, I posted my link a bunch; so did a few other players who also got a lot of temporary officers from it.

t0msky
31st March 2010, 07:28 AM
well the admins are doing a great job, i know of at least 6 people who have now kicked their roc bug and declared they wont be playing the new age, should it ever arrive, every day they delay more people leave, im nguessing they dont give a fuck though otherwise they would have pulled their collective finger out before now