PDA

View Full Version : Sabbing



jog1
7th December 2009, 02:24 PM
I'll start off by saying I'm really not a fan of sab using attacking turns (so does recons). With the new thing that you can't sab more then x% of someone's armory per day I don't think it is needed to use turns for sabbing. It only disavantages little slayers that use a lot of turns.

so I've got 2 ideas and you pick the on you like the most.

1. Sabbing no longer takes turns, it's not needed since you can't sab more then x% of someone's armory.

2. If you still want to use turns for sabbing, take away the 5 sab turns. Every sabs now uses 1 turn but sabs the same % of weapons as 5 turns used to sab. Using 50 turns on someone to sab isn't too bad, but using 250 turns to sab someone is pretty huge. This will let slayer a chance to sab.

oh and take away the recon using turns.

Shane-
7th December 2009, 04:13 PM
Could I just add to this thread, The current system is bs.

Each person can lose a max of 2% of their account per day, Which means I can attack TGF for gold, 10 times a day, And be sabbed by two people max.

Admins screwed alliances by changing trickles, and have screwed alliances by changing sab, Now; As it stands, nobody has much of a reason to join an alliance.


Shane

Rasputin
7th December 2009, 04:17 PM
to add to Shane. nobody has much point to PLAY period let alone in an alliance.

capkop
7th December 2009, 04:18 PM
omg

I was assuming the max loss would be something like 10% which I still think is low, but 2%?!

Excluding the last month of a normal age 2% wouldn't mean shit.

The whole max sabs on an account thing is messed up anyway. If I'd be in war I'd just let my allies sab my bpms which can be rebought so in fact only lose 0,5%/day. I think its pretty clear this rule needs to go..

SleepingDragon
7th December 2009, 04:27 PM
Admins screwed alliances by changing trickles, and have screwed alliances by changing sab, Now; As it stands, nobody has much of a reason to join an alliance.

How are alliances screwed by changing trickle? You mean that they no longer have an incentive to work together if not for extra growth? C'mon, alliances shouldn't all be about outrageous growth trickle. Join a clan cuz you like the players, keep company in an alliance because there's strength in numbers.

But yea sabbing does seem TOO weak, as opposed to TOO powerful. There won't be any sense of devastation in wars, if wars happen at all. Maybe something in the middle would be good? :P

jog1
7th December 2009, 08:01 PM
Could I just add to this thread, The current system is bs.

Each person can lose a max of 2% of their account per day, Which means I can attack TGF for gold, 10 times a day, And be sabbed by two people max.

Admins screwed alliances by changing trickles, and have screwed alliances by changing sab, Now; As it stands, nobody has much of a reason to join an alliance.


Shane

I wasn't aware sabbing 2% was the max.

I agree we should be able to sab about 10% per day.

fistsofthor
7th December 2009, 08:43 PM
Well, sabbing using the same turns as recons and attacks is fine with me (it also gives you experience).

And, players rarely use all 50 tries when trying to sab a player. This now gives an advantage to having more than the minimum spy needed to sab an account. Perhaps players will start training more spies than spy tools now to improve their ratio. Personally, I like that idea.

However, the 2% sabbed thing is fairly lame.

the_hitman_9
8th December 2009, 12:54 AM
I think 2% is fair. It may sound too little now, but later in the age it will be pretty hurtful (2% of what took you 2 days to build is different than 2% of what took you 4 months to get)

I dunno, these changes seem interesting, gives more important to personal play rather than just relying on your alliance to do everything for you (whether it is clicking for you or sabbing your opponents down). Let's see if i still know how to slay :>

Adrenalinejunky
8th December 2009, 07:52 AM
2 percent is waaay to low.

10 percent is a bit low in my oppinion...

BillyCrack
8th December 2009, 08:04 AM
5% would be great

capkop
8th December 2009, 08:26 AM
5% would be greatIf its 5% then an all spy rogue account would take forever to get off your back.

Imagine a semi top acc selling all to spy, he could chain every top player for over a week.

20% seems good to me. Makes warring good, but allows a chain caught on suprise to hit back rather then play dead dog like FFLoA (was forced to) against GTA last age.

Ferrous
8th December 2009, 08:30 AM
10 % atleast i guess
or then do something about how much a person can sab in a day

BillyCrack
8th December 2009, 09:00 AM
If its 5% then an all spy rogue account would take forever to get off your back.

Imagine a semi top acc selling all to spy, he could chain every top player for over a week.

20% seems good to me. Makes warring good, but allows a chain caught on suprise to hit back rather then play dead dog like FFLoA (was forced to) against GTA last age.

In that case, 10% could be the best option. Wars would be more longer and you couldn't lose all your acc in matter of hours, or few days..

powdered_donuts
8th December 2009, 09:23 AM
who here seriously thinks they would keep it at two percent? this is beta and things are going to be constantly changing throughout the age

there's no reason to complain yet :)

blazed420
8th December 2009, 09:49 AM
who here seriously thinks they would keep it at two percent? this is beta and things are going to be constantly changing throughout the age

there's no reason to complain yet :)

You're right. This is a beta, things will change. But people will complain about anything they can, that will never change :P

jog1
8th December 2009, 10:50 AM
It's not about complaining, in a Beta, if you don't tell the admins what you want, they won't change it, they don't play the game so they don't know.

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 11:42 AM
It's not about complaining, in a Beta, if you don't tell the admins what you want, they won't change it, they don't play the game so they don't know.

exactly. We are simply telling the admins what we want changed. I think that 5% would be nice.

ThomasA
8th December 2009, 11:57 AM
it must be confusing for the admins though, as everyone has different ideas for what they want.

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 12:13 PM
although, 2% sab cap makes slayers happy.

Bloo
8th December 2009, 06:18 PM
Rocco

Another suggestion regarding sabotage. It's very annoying having to fill in all the details over and over until you are successful. Couldn't you make it so that when you fail a sab, click attack again and it remembers what you want to sab, how many spies to send and how many turns. Then you just have to click on "send spies". It would make things much simpler and easy for the player without changing anything major.

It's very tedious at the moment so an autofill would be nice.

BuGz
8th December 2009, 09:20 PM
Rocco

Another suggestion regarding sabotage. It's very annoying having to fill in all the details over and over until you are successful. Couldn't you make it so that when you fail a sab, click attack again and it remembers what you want to sab, how many spies to send and how many turns. Then you just have to click on "send spies". It would make things much simpler and easy for the player without changing anything major.

It's very tedious at the moment so an autofill would be nice.

Shane's script does this for you, and I'm 99% sure it's legal.


As for Rocco: The general consensus seems to be that 2% is waaaay too low for the sab limit, so I'm sure you will be changing that.

Try to keep a balance between mega-alliances being able to destroy your entire account overnight, and being unsabbable.

I don't think you should be able to lose your entire account overnight, you should at least be able to wake up the next day, see you are being mass sabbed, and retaliate (or turk) before you are destroyed, so you have time to settle things with your enemies' BF mods.

10% seems about fair, it would take at least ~2 weeks to destroy an account at that (after 1 week of max sabbing you'd be at ~half your account value, after 2 weeks you'd be down to ~25% or less), which would give time to settle things diplomatically, or retaliate until you can reach a ceasefire or destroy each other.

As its been in recent ages, people would get approved for low-hits, and every single person in that alliance would see the approval thread and sabotage just to help the alliance, which would sometimes end in somebody being sabbed for 75% of their account value overnight because they got 1 low hit due to bad %s. (Which was mostly the fault of the BF Mods/Policies for open contracts as opposed to designating sabbers; but was still bull**** for the victims).

As it is at 2%, you could never destroy an account, as they could farm you for more gold than you can sab off them daily, and they could farm random accounts not involved in the war, who then wouldn't even be able to sabotage for lowhits/farming because they'd already be at their 2% sab cap by being at war.

I know KoC admins don't really advocate the "lowhit/farm morale extortion" idea but we at least need to be able to retaliate if we are being pestered.

/end2cents

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 09:40 PM
well, 2% would certainly add more chaos. IT also would not really help the super large accounts as the super large accounts tend to not be able to be sabbed by more than a couple players.

So, i am not so sure. Lets wait until we actually have sabbable players who have AATs that are greater than 5.

BuGz
8th December 2009, 09:47 PM
well, 2% would certainly add more chaos. IT also would not really help the super large accounts as the super large accounts tend to not be able to be sabbed by more than a couple players.

So, i am not so sure. Lets wait until we actually have sabbable players who have AATs that are greater than 5.

If you can only get sabbed for 2% of your accounts value per day, you could go an entire month of not banking or slaying at all and getting sabbed for max every day and still have over half of your account's value. Now, if you were to bank or slay during that time, your account would end up growing just fine and you could war all of KoC without any repercussions.



I'm by no means supportive of mega-alliances being able to destroy your account overnight, but if you try to war all of KoC, you need to be able to be stopped.

(Though, even warring all of KoC if its just 2% per day you wouldn't be able to do much damage to your enemies either...)

2% per day wouldn't make anything overpowered; it would just make sabotage underpowered imo; you wouldn't have to fear sabotage at all.

I think sabotage is a necessary part of the game, it should be kept in check but it shouldn't be made useless.


With lower sabotage strength, it would make it hell for alliances to try to maintain their morale-extortion for hits that make them unhappy on their banker-tankers, (which would be a good thing; and would probably make them get rid of the stupid "rules" like "3 hits per week!" [which, seriously, who ever followed this rule? 1/day, okay, but 3/week? shove it]), but it would shift the game too far in favor of slayers and away from banker-tankers (which, perhaps it is time for slayers to have a turn, but I think a balance would be more effective, so people can choose their own playstyle). Especially considering minute-turns also push the game more in favor of slayers imo (which I am 100% supportive of [minute-turns]). But people who spend a ton of time clicking/banking shouldn't be easily beat by somebody who just jumps on for a few seconds a week to farm a couple accounts. (Again: you shouldn't HAVE to click/bank 24/7 to win, but it should have some balance, people who play more should have a distinct advantage for obvious reasons, but not an overpowered advantage).



^ Kinda writing this as I think of it, so still uncertain of my stance on things. The more I think about it the more I think it might be good for sabotage to be weaker, but I don't think it should be TOO weak.

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 09:58 PM
If you can only get sabbed for 2% of your accounts value per day, you could go an entire month of not banking or slaying at all and getting sabbed for max every day and still have over half of your account's value. Now, if you were to bank or slay during that time, your account would end up growing just fine and you could war all of KoC without any repercussions.



I'm by no means supportive of mega-alliances being able to destroy your account overnight, but if you try to war all of KoC, you need to be able to be stopped.

(Though, even warring all of KoC if its just 2% per day you wouldn't be able to do much damage to your enemies either...)

2% per day wouldn't make anything overpowered; it would just make sabotage underpowered imo; you wouldn't have to fear sabotage at all.

I think sabotage is a necessary part of the game, it should be kept in check but it shouldn't be made useless.


With lower sabotage strength, it would make it hell for alliances to try to maintain their morale-extortion for hits that make them unhappy on their banker-tankers, (which would be a good thing; and would probably make them get rid of the stupid "rules" like "3 hits per week!" [which, seriously, who ever followed this rule? 1/day, okay, but 3/week? shove it]), but it would shift the game too far in favor of slayers and away from banker-tankers (which, perhaps it is time for slayers to have a turn, but I think a balance would be more effective, so people can choose their own playstyle). Especially considering minute-turns also push the game more in favor of slayers imo (which I am 100% supportive of [minute-turns]). But people who spend a ton of time clicking/banking shouldn't be easily beat by somebody who just jumps on for a few seconds a week to farm a couple accounts. (Again: you shouldn't HAVE to click/bank 24/7 to win, but it should have some balance, people who play more should have a distinct advantage for obvious reasons, but not an overpowered advantage).



^ Kinda writing this as I think of it, so still uncertain of my stance on things. The more I think about it the more I think it might be good for sabotage to be weaker, but I don't think it should be TOO weak.

Well, lets think about things. A sabber can maintain a sabbing rate of 1440 (thats = 24*60) sab turns a day. Now, if we assume that, on average, it takes the sabber 10 failed attempts, and 2 successful sabs, each using 5 sab turns a piece, thats 60 game turns per player sabbed. That amounts to a total of 24 players that could be sabbed per day. That is assuming that the sabber goes after accounts that are easily in range,

Also, with the fact that sab turns use game turns, and recons do too, it might be time to remove the cap # of attempts on a player per day. I mean, why does sabbing need to stop after 50 attempts if the player is willing to burn more than 250 game turns to sab a player?

Also, suppose a sabber uses 40 sab tries to get in, using 5 sab turns per try:
well, then that sabber can maintain a sabbing rate of 7.2 players per day.

I suppose my point here is that a rogue sabber really cannot do anywhere near as much damage as he used to. As a result, it is not very important that alliances can take a rogue sabber out so very quickly. So what if it were to take forever and a day to take a sabber out if you were afraid to resort to massing?

He can only sab somewhere between 5 and 144 players in a day. And, there is no way he gets lucky enough to sab 96 players in a day. No way a sabber comes even close.

I mean, sabbing 144 players per day, would mean ghosting 144 players per day, and that just is not going to happen.

BuGz
8th December 2009, 10:12 PM
Well, lets think about things. A sabber can maintain a sabbing rate of 1440 (thats = 24*60) sab turns a day. Now, if we assume that, on average, it takes the sabber 10 failed attempts, and 2 successful sabs, each using 5 sab turns a piece, thats 60 game turns per player sabbed. That amounts to a total of 24 players that could be sabbed per day. That is assuming that the sabber goes after accounts that are easily in range,

Also, with the fact that sab turns use game turns, and recons do too, it might be time to remove the cap # of attempts on a player per day. I mean, why does sabbing need to stop after 50 attempts if the player is willing to burn more than 250 game turns to sab a player?

Also, suppose a sabber uses 40 sab tries to get in, using 5 sab turns per try:
well, then that sabber can maintain a sabbing rate of 7.2 players per day.

I suppose my point here is that a rogue sabber really cannot do anywhere near as much damage as he used to. As a result, it is not very important that alliances can take a rogue sabber out so very quickly. So what if it were to take forever and a day to take a sabber out if you were afraid to resort to massing?

He can only sab somewhere between 5 and 144 players in a day. And, there is no way he gets lucky enough to sab 96 players in a day. No way a sabber comes even close.

I mean, sabbing 144 players per day, would mean ghosting 144 players per day, and that just is not going to happen.


This is true, but rogue sabbers aren't the only pesks that need to be taken care of, you have farmers, low hitters, sabbers, and any combination of them. You could mass (by using Raids) ~4.8 people per day; thats enough to mass all of the top accounts in 1-2 alliances (especially if they keep trickle to direct commanders, there will be less mega accounts per alliance); or sab between 5-144 per day.

Now, with sabotage being at a weaker state, the masser would probably be doing more damage than the sabber, but regardless of how much damage they are doing, they could do it for pretty much the entire age and you wouldn't be able to do much about it, even if you have your entire alliance on them.

This, combined with the lack of trickle, makes little reason for alliances to continue to exist, and I think alliances are holding this game together quite a bit.

I'm in the middle on the trickle issue, but if there isn't going to be any trickle, then mass-sabotage needs to be a BIT stronger so that alliances have reason to exist.

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 10:19 PM
This is true, but rogue sabbers aren't the only pesks that need to be taken care of, you have farmers, low hitters, sabbers, and any combination of them. You could mass (by using Raids) ~4.8 people per day; thats enough to mass all of the top accounts in 1-2 alliances (especially if they keep trickle to direct commanders, there will be less mega accounts per alliance); or sab between 5-144 per day.

Now, with sabotage being at a weaker state, the masser would probably be doing more damage than the sabber, but regardless of how much damage they are doing, they could do it for pretty much the entire age and you wouldn't be able to do much about it, even if you have your entire alliance on them.

This, combined with the lack of trickle, makes little reason for alliances to continue to exist, and I think alliances are holding this game together quite a bit.

I'm in the middle on the trickle issue, but if there isn't going to be any trickle, then mass-sabotage needs to be a BIT stronger so that alliances have reason to exist.

Well, having have growth go to only the direct commander makes things interesting. But, big accounts have the ability to buy morale, so the first level trickle is getting plenty of growth direct from the main, and has the ability to buy its own morale. So, I am not entirely sure what is the right thing to do.

But, I think alliances exist for more than just to sab and profit from sub-officer growth. (for example, profitting from direct growth).


And, as for the BPM mode masser. At the end of last age, I was massing TFE because they approved me for over 1+ days without hearing my side of the story, and before i began fighting it. Well, my SA was rising. Admittedly, when i was going to get low on turns, that probably would have slayed me down, but i did not see them being able to take out my 13 bil SA to the point where they would have me retreating, in the near future.

So, I guess my point is that BPM mode slayers are already nearly impossible to deal with. This is not going to make them much harder. They are pretty much the one group that almost all of these changes have helped. And, whats wrong with a player being able to do damage to someone forever if you expect to always be able to do damage to the player?

BuGz
8th December 2009, 10:21 PM
Well, having have growth go to only the direct commander makes things interesting. But, big accounts have the ability to buy morale, so the first level trickle is getting plenty of growth direct from the main, and has the ability to buy its own morale. So, I am not entirely sure what is the right thing to do.

But, I think alliances exist for more than just to sab and profit from sub-officer growth. (for example, profitting from direct growth).


And, as for the BPM mode masser. At the end of last age, I was massing TFE because they approved me for over 1+ days without hearing my side of the story, and before i began fighting it. Well, my SA was rising. Admittedly, when i was going to get low on turns, that probably would have slayed me down, but i did not see them being able to take out my 13 bil SA to the point where they would have me retreating, in the near future.

So, I guess my point is that BPM mode slayers are already nearly impossible to deal with. This is not going to make them much harder. They are pretty much the one group that almost all of these changes have helped. And, whats wrong with a player being able to do damage to someone forever if you expect to always be able to do damage to the player?

Direct growth wouldn't really hold an alliance together; thats more of officer-commander relationships instead of inter-alliance relationships. You would have no reason to create/maintain an alliance if you only benefit from your direct officers.

And I didn't mean 1v1 that the masser should be able to be destroyed, but the masser/sabber 1vEntireAlliance (say 1v100) they should be able to be taken care of. You shouldn't be able to war 100-1000+ people by yourself and win.

Rocco
8th December 2009, 10:23 PM
Thanks for all the feedback so far. Interesting points made.

Two things to keep in mind:

1) The experience gain from sabotage (which we've increased by 2x so that someone who uses all their turns for sabotage will gain twice the experience of someone who uses all their turns for attack/raid)

2) Against an account with relatively evenly balanced stats, losing X% of their total value is really like losing 4X% of that particular stat, so if someone's sentry (or DA) is getting taken out it can go down pretty quickly, exposing them to more people.

BuGz
8th December 2009, 10:26 PM
2) Against an account with relatively evenly balanced stats, losing X% of their total value is really like losing 4X% of that particular stat, so if someone's sentry (or DA) is getting taken out it can go down pretty quickly, exposing them to more people.


Yeah this is true, but as for the second part, if they can only be sabbed for 2% of their account value per day, it doesn't matter how many people have the spy to sab them, the first 2% damage done will make it so nobody else can sab them that day, won't it? And as for DA, if you are trying to damage an account, I think you would mass them regardless of how much DA they have, more to do damage than to get gold.

Which doesn't particularly help the problem.


Sabotage and trickle are the only changes so far that I'm on the ropes about. (Other than experience needing more uses). All the other changes I really like so far, so don't think I'm just against change, good work so far! I know balance is difficult to achieve!

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 10:33 PM
Direct growth wouldn't really hold an alliance together; thats more of officer-commander relationships instead of inter-alliance relationships. You would have no reason to create/maintain an alliance if you only benefit from your direct officers.

And I didn't mean 1v1 that the masser should be able to be destroyed, but the masser/sabber 1vEntireAlliance (say 1v100) they should be able to be taken care of. You shouldn't be able to war 100-1000+ people by yourself and win.

well, for starters, the number of coverts killed by raids and attacks has been sharply increased. So, that should make sabbers easier to beat down. I mean, 10 raids a day by 100 people= 1000 raids a day. I mean, thats 300 game turns per player, but that should not be too too hard as sabbing would take 250 potentially. It shouldnt be to hard to reduce a sabber to 1k spies (or less) and then have him stuck there, So, 1k spies holding 1k nuns run by a player.

I mean, 1000 raids back when players took out 0.1% of a players armory would still reduce a player to less than 40% of their previous spy count over the course of a day.

So, beating down spies can be done. We just need to wait until we get partway into the age. Right now, its going to be hard to beat down a elf sabber with 199 nuns. At present, such an elf sabber could sab anyone with less than 110 mil sentry in theory.

As the top sentry should be less than that, i think that sabbers pretty much have a free pass for quite a while. But do not worry, that will change eventually.

BuGz
8th December 2009, 10:39 PM
well, for starters, the number of coverts killed by raids and attacks has been sharply increased. So, that should make sabbers easier to beat down. I mean, 10 raids a day by 100 people= 1000 raids a day. I mean, thats 300 game turns per player, but that should not be too too hard as sabbing would take 250 potentially. It shouldnt be to hard to reduce a sabber to 1k spies (or less) and then have him stuck there, So, 1k spies holding 1k nuns run by a player.

I mean, 1000 raids back when players took out 0.1% of a players armory would still reduce a player to less than 40% of their previous spy count over the course of a day.

So, beating down spies can be done. We just need to wait until we get partway into the age. Right now, its going to be hard to beat down a elf sabber with 199 nuns. At present, such an elf sabber could sab anyone with less than 110 mil sentry in theory.

As the top sentry should be less than that, i think that sabbers pretty much have a free pass for quite a while. But do not worry, that will change eventually.

Good point. It seems massing will be the alliances' new weapon, as opposed to sabotage (especially considering they both take turns now). However, massing also hurts your own accounts, so it still severely weakens alliances (alliances needed to be weakened, I just don't want to see it taken overboard).

I still think 2% per day is a bit low, but perhaps 5% per day would be good (as opposed to my recent estimation of 10% per day).

I suppose we'll have to see how it plays out.

venar
8th December 2009, 10:57 PM
i vote 20% per day.

Think about it this way, each percent is essentially the number of people that can sab a player in a day right? Making it 20 would encourage people to make smaller "elite" sab squads, and i think it could be super fun :)

conlusion: bigger number helps bigger alliances, smaller helps individuals and small alliances

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 11:01 PM
i vote 20% per day.

Think about it this way, each percent is essentially the number of people that can sab a player in a day right? Making it 20 would encourage people to make smaller "elite" sab squads, and i think it could be super fun :)

conlusion: bigger number helps bigger alliances, smaller helps individuals and small alliances

20% sounds like way to much. A Player probably couldn't sab 20 players in a day, so he shouldnt be able to be sabbed by that many.

Also, please do not forget that there is always massing and turn stalking. 100 players can hit 10 times each, and thus cover 1000 minutes, or 16.6 hours of game play. Now, a player probably cannot be online every minute for 16.6 hours straight, so that should be enough to take every turn and rob the player of every gold steal.

As for massing causing damage to oneself:
well, so does sabbing. sabbing causes you to lose nuns and spies and whatever other spy tools you have (note: you cannot lose a nun if you do not have a nun-- obviously)

BuGz
8th December 2009, 11:13 PM
20% sounds like way to much. A Player probably couldn't sab 20 players in a day, so he shouldnt be able to be sabbed by that many.

Also, please do not forget that there is always massing and turn stalking. 100 players can hit 10 times each, and thus cover 1000 minutes, or 16.6 hours of game play. Now, a player probably cannot be online every minute for 16.6 hours straight, so that should be enough to take every turn and rob the player of every gold steal.

As for massing causing damage to oneself:
well, so does sabbing. sabbing causes you to lose nuns and spies and whatever other spy tools you have (note: you cannot lose a nun if you do not have a nun-- obviously)

True, but we overlooked also that a rogue sabber is likely to be Elves, and have 80% reduced casualties, in which case massing them would not be able to take out their coverts very quickly.

venar
8th December 2009, 11:45 PM
20% sounds like way to much. A Player probably couldn't sab 20 players in a day, so he shouldnt be able to be sabbed by that many.



I disagree, and look this reccomendation is coming from one of those players that got massacred :P i'm still bitter about getting sabbed by 70-80 people over night haha, that is what this rule should be preventing.

It shouldn't be protecting the rogue. thats not the point.

as someone who has lost everything i still think waking up to 20% loss would BLOW, but it would be enough that you could still fight and would be fun.

Rocco
8th December 2009, 11:58 PM
Also to note this change isn't about protecting a rogue, it's about protecting some random person a bunch of sabbers gangs up on who doesn't have a huge alliance to back him up.

fistsofthor
9th December 2009, 12:04 AM
Also, a balanced player with evenly distributed stats losing 20% of his armory would be the same as losing 80% of any particular stat. That is way way to much. I mean, I find the 2% to be fair now that im starting to think about it. Although, maybe if it was made to 2% per 12 hours, that would be nicer.

Seneca
9th December 2009, 12:08 AM
Also, a balanced player with evenly distributed stats losing 20% of his armory would be the same as losing 80% of any particular stat. That is way way to much. I mean, I find the 2% to be fair now that im starting to think about it. Although, maybe if it was made to 2% per 12 hours, that would be nicer.

ever lost 80% in a day?

fistsofthor
9th December 2009, 12:09 AM
ever lost 80% in a day?

Ive lost over half in a day.

venar
9th December 2009, 12:11 AM
if its 10% or lower i'm gonna be an elf chainer.... i mean i'd have so much fun, and maybe thats the whole point, to have fun :)

haha but fistsofthor you will have to explain how 20% spread out is equal to 80% of a stat? i'm lost, i think because you are talking about stats values and im thinking about armory sell values...

capkop
9th December 2009, 01:39 AM
Anywhere under 10% makes warring pointless. Like I've said before, if you're about to go to war you have your allies sab their own alliances' strike first. It'll be impossible to retaliate and all you lose is 2,5% from selling/rebuying.

If 2%, or 5% would stay, it would make warring utterly useless. I think many will agree that wars are the most exciting thing this game has to offer, so killing the ability to war is not the way to go if the smaller accs should be protected. Personally, like I said before, I think 20% is a good middle ground, and I think anywhere below 10% is a deathblow to wars.

Lopina
9th December 2009, 03:18 AM
Anywhere under 10% makes warring pointless. Like I've said before, if you're about to go to war you have your allies sab their own alliances' strike first. It'll be impossible to retaliate and all you lose is 2,5% from selling/rebuying.

If 2%, or 5% would stay, it would make warring utterly useless. I think many will agree that wars are the most exciting thing this game has to offer, so killing the ability to war is not the way to go if the smaller accs should be protected. Personally, like I said before, I think 20% is a good middle ground, and I think anywhere below 10% is a deathblow to wars.

My thought exactly.

If I were to war someone @, let's say 12:00, then I'd ask all my alliance members to sab each others' SA @ 11:00, and in that way you'd amplify the "blitzkrieg" effect of wars that is already present in KoC.

And we don't want wars to last 1 day and that in that 1 day you lose 4 months that you put into building your account.

A_A
9th December 2009, 05:54 AM
what about this?
instead of putting a sab cap of 2% for a person, just reduce the amount a single person can sab in 1 turn(like make it .01% instead of .1% per turn) .. then if 100 ppl sab they would only be able to sab 10%

BuGz
9th December 2009, 05:59 AM
what about this?
instead of putting a sab cap of 2% for a person, just reduce the amount a single person can sab in 1 turn(like make it .01% instead of .1% per turn) .. then if 100 ppl sab they would only be able to sab 10%

That'd weaken 1v1 sabbing too much though (i.e. retaliatory sabs for low hits, farming, generally pissing you off).

Bloo
9th December 2009, 06:31 PM
Shane's script does this for you, and I'm 99% sure it's legal.


/end2cents

Yeah, maybe. But I don't want to rely on other tools/scripts made by third parties.

fistsofthor
9th December 2009, 07:06 PM
what about this?
instead of putting a sab cap of 2% for a person, just reduce the amount a single person can sab in 1 turn(like make it .01% instead of .1% per turn) .. then if 100 ppl sab they would only be able to sab 10%

because that just takes all power out of the individual. and, the individual should be able to stand up to an alliance forever. Now, Im not saying that such an account should be able to grow while sabbing, but it should continue to have the ability to deal damage for a LONG time.

BuGz
9th December 2009, 08:25 PM
because that just takes all power out of the individual. and, the individual should be able to stand up to an alliance forever. Now, Im not saying that such an account should be able to grow while sabbing, but it should continue to have the ability to deal damage for a LONG time.

This doesn't make any sense...

Why should 1 person be able to war 1,000 forever?

That's just ridiculous.

fistsofthor
9th December 2009, 09:08 PM
This doesn't make any sense...

Why should 1 person be able to war 1,000 forever?

That's just ridiculous.

KoC is a game that people should be able to play forever.

because its a war game, and warring is playing KoC, people should be able to war forever.(admittedly, with losses and with their account suffering) but they should not simply be unable to war.

basically, because the point of this game is to war, so people should be able to war.

Agent47
10th December 2009, 05:51 AM
you shouldn't be able to war against a 1000 people for ever...
taking every point into consideration 2% is very less...
sending rogues will be the best strategy if this state continues...
so we will see many 1vs 1000 wars...

if the sab % is not increased the sabotage power will be much reduced ..
it will deal damage to big accounts and rogues are much safer...

Santa87
10th December 2009, 06:30 AM
sabbing has always been a B*tch to adjust... It has soooo many different requirements it has to fullfill: it has to be effective, but it can't be so effective that an account is totally destroyed. A sole person must be able to fight back, but an alliance must also have an advantage over a sole person. It has to have some sort of expense to sab, though it must not be too much, or it will not be worth it.

So heres my idea to how it could be implemented. 20% of armory a day is a pretty good ratio; You will able to hurt the player pretty bad, but it will still take around 11 days of sabbing, to get the victim to 1/10th of his current armory. And a sab amount of 2% pr sabber seems fair, as it will take around 11 or 12 players sabbing the victim that day, for him to loose the max amory(20%) that day. Maybe the percentage could decrease for the sabs to make single sabbers able to still hurt the other guy, ie. having first sabber being able to sab more than 2%, and let the pct decrease with each person sabbing, so the last(#10 or so) guy maybe only can sab 1%.

This system would benefit both single sabbers, and alliance sabbers, as alliances can do alot of damage over a couple of days, if they work together and are consistent, and single players can still do a fair amount of damage to people p*ssing them off, though not enough to hurt them badly, without help from others...
Which is the way it should be right? single players not being able to take down other players all by themselves, but alliances working together, being able to take down another player(still, without destroying them completely)....

A small comment to what someone said in an earlier post about something taking months to build being destroyed in a couple of days: Well, much of the building up, includes gaining soldiers and income, and while you might have spent a month getting to 1bil DA, and being sabbed back to 500mil in a couple of days, you might only take a week or less to get back to 1bil, since your income has increased a great deal over that month.

ThomasA
10th December 2009, 06:58 AM
A small comment to what someone said in an earlier post about something taking months to build being destroyed in a couple of days: Well, much of the building up, includes gaining soldiers and income, and while you might have spent a month getting to 1bil DA, and being sabbed back to 500mil in a couple of days, you might only take a week or less to get back to 1bil, since your income has increased a great deal over that month.

you will also be more of a farm.

Santa87
10th December 2009, 07:11 AM
Yeah, thats ofcourse right.... but thats what you risk when you war....

Though this could ofcourse be a problem if you are randomly sabbed by a group of bullies, that just want to take you down....

Maybe there could be implemented a new feature such as bully protection of somesort:
U can use bully protection a fixed number of times each age(ie. 3), and it will last a fixed amount of time(ie. a week), and one can't get out of bully protection before that.
And under bully protection you can't be sabbed, reconned or attacked(maybe you can be removed from the rank page too). But while under bully protection you can't attack, sab, or recon other people. You won't be able to get soldiers, either from unit production clicking, or trickleing. And you wont be able to buy any upgrades... Basically, all you can do while under bully protection, is spend your TBG on regaining the lost weapz.

I don't know if this would be a good idea or not, it was just something I came up with on the top of my head :)....

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 07:24 AM
Yeah, thats ofcourse right.... but thats what you risk when you war....

Though this could ofcourse be a problem if you are randomly sabbed by a group of bullies, that just want to take you down....

Maybe there could be implemented a new feature such as bully protection of somesort:
U can use bully protection a fixed number of times each age(ie. 3), and it will last a fixed amount of time(ie. a week), and one can't get out of bully protection before that.
And under bully protection you can't be sabbed, reconned or attacked(maybe you can be removed from the rank page too). But while under bully protection you can't attack, sab, or recon other people. You won't be able to get soldiers, either from unit production clicking, or trickleing. And you wont be able to buy any upgrades... Basically, all you can do while under bully protection, is spend your TBG on regaining the lost weapz.

I don't know if this would be a good idea or not, it was just something I came up with on the top of my head :)....

just remember that whatever can be done to a rogue sabber can also be done to a completely innocent account. also, with the current sab rules, you can only get 2 rogues per day. upping the percentage to 5 would simply allow more rogues to get at you, its not like it would help your account a ton. also, all things are relative, so relax about someone being able to sab you a few days in a row-- thats how its supposed to happen.

ThomasA
10th December 2009, 07:36 AM
Yeah, thats ofcourse right.... but thats what you risk when you war....

Though this could ofcourse be a problem if you are randomly sabbed by a group of bullies, that just want to take you down....

Maybe there could be implemented a new feature such as bully protection of somesort:
U can use bully protection a fixed number of times each age(ie. 3), and it will last a fixed amount of time(ie. a week), and one can't get out of bully protection before that.
And under bully protection you can't be sabbed, reconned or attacked(maybe you can be removed from the rank page too). But while under bully protection you can't attack, sab, or recon other people. You won't be able to get soldiers, either from unit production clicking, or trickleing. And you wont be able to buy any upgrades... Basically, all you can do while under bully protection, is spend your TBG on regaining the lost weapz.

I don't know if this would be a good idea or not, it was just something I came up with on the top of my head :)....

Sounds a lot like vacation mode, except the tbg part.

An account should not be destroyed in a few days by a small amount of players, only hurt. Destroying an account should take a lot longer and require a large amount of players, this is what wars are for.

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 07:51 AM
Sounds a lot like vacation mode, except the tbg part.

An account should not be destroyed in a few days by a small amount of players, only hurt. Destroying an account should take a lot longer and require a large amount of players, this is what wars are for.

exactly. And, it should take a LONG time and a lot of effort. Massing is supposedly more powerful this age, so a player should be able to be brought down by massing without to much trouble.

Agent47
10th December 2009, 08:00 AM
An account should not be destroyed in a few days by a small amount of players, only hurt. Destroying an account should take a lot longer and require a large amount of players, this is what wars are for.

agreed... but with current 2% limit in sabotages, large amount of players and small amount of players all can only deal d same damage to a rogue...that fails d advantage of a large alliance... a large alliance is supposed to beat a smaller alliance..
i think d % must b atleast 5... ie damage done=5*4 -> 20% to one stats/day
this is fair..

it will give a chance to fight back and.. d alliance can suppress d big damage of a rogue by 4-5 days..

if d rogues can go on for ever with 2% sab limit.. d damage done to big accounts will b 100 times his losses...if d rogue is having huge no of turns(probably an idle player banking turns) and if somebody supports him he can go on forever..

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 08:02 AM
agreed... but with current 2% limit in sabotages, large amount of players and small amount of players all can only deal d same damage to a rogue...that fails d advantage of a large alliance... a large alliance is supposed to beat a smaller alliance..
i think d % must b atleast 5... ie damage done=5*4 -> 20% to one stats/day
this is fair..

it will give a chance to fight back and.. d alliance can suppress d big damage of a rogue by 4-5 days..

if d rogues can go on for ever with 2% sab limit.. d damage done to big accounts will b 100 times his losses...if d rogue is having huge no of turns(probably an idle player banking turns) and if somebody supports him he can go on forever..

large alliances still have a huge bonus when it comes to massing.

ThomasA
10th December 2009, 08:02 AM
its been increased


Dec 9, 2009:

# In Training, you may research Technology. Discovering different technologies makes your military stronger.
# In the past few days we've reset Economy levels twice. We're getting closer to finding good balances, and will try not to make such drastic changes in the future. That said, it's a Beta, so thanks for your patience and keep remembering to have fun!
# Initial Gold/Turns/Experience values are now closer to what they will be at the beginning of Age 13. So still feel free to hit that reset button, but you'll now start out with less.
# Increased daily limit on sabotage against a target
# Covert troops now generate 10% of the gold generated by regular soldiers

Agent47
10th December 2009, 08:29 AM
i wonder what technologies are and what d new sab limit is..

Shane-
10th December 2009, 08:43 AM
Agent47 - They is a thread for technologies, I'd suggest you keep your eye on that.

As for the change in sabbing, anyone been able to figure out what the new damage percent is?



Shane

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 11:11 AM
Agent47 - They is a thread for technologies, I'd suggest you keep your eye on that.

As for the change in sabbing, anyone been able to figure out what the new damage percent is?



Shane

I just know that 5 turns allows you to sab a bit more than .5% (or 1/200th) of a players armory. However, its not to much more though.

As for the other stuff, i still have not been able to find where it tells me what the technologies are.

ThomasA
10th December 2009, 11:38 AM
Fists, you saying the update increased the aat rather than total daily sab limit on the player?

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 12:26 PM
Fists, you saying the update increased the aat rather than total daily sab limit on the player?

no, i dont think im saying that. but, AATs appear to have risen ever so slightly. that, or they have not altered the formulas to incorporate the fact that LTs cost 1 mil as opposed to 500k

ThomasA
10th December 2009, 12:32 PM
Im not following what that has to do with Shane's question.

Im curious the new % also.

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 12:34 PM
Im not following what that has to do with Shane's question.

Im curious the new % also.

well, if the admins have forgotten to adjust the sab formulas for the new values and whatnot, then it might mean that AAT is supposed to be the same, and its just a bug that it is off.

BuGz
10th December 2009, 08:26 PM
exactly. And, it should take a LONG time and a lot of effort. Massing is supposedly more powerful this age, so a player should be able to be brought down by massing without to much trouble.

As I already mentioned, a rogue sabber is likely to be Elves, with 80% reduced casualty rate you'll be doing a lot more damage to your own alliance by trying to mass him.

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 09:35 PM
As I already mentioned, a rogue sabber is likely to be Elves, with 80% reduced casualty rate you'll be doing a lot more damage to your own alliance by trying to mass him.

im pretty sure that the casualty reductions do not apply to covert losses.

BuGz
10th December 2009, 09:37 PM
im pretty sure that the casualty reductions do not apply to covert losses.

Why wouldn't it? It's reduced casualties, and those are covert casualties.

fistsofthor
14th December 2009, 10:46 PM
Why wouldn't it? It's reduced casualties, and those are covert casualties.

well, to be perfectly honest, the admins arent very thorough or thoughtful about every aspect of their programming. see how the number of recons has always been one more than it was supposed to be?

MarriedToTheMob
15th December 2009, 09:48 AM
So players can lose 2% of their account per day from a single player, or lose a max of 2% per day total?

Either way, 2% is a super sucky low number.

BuGz
15th December 2009, 09:52 AM
So players can lose 2% of their account per day from a single player, or lose a max of 2% per day total?

Either way, 2% is a super sucky low number.

You can only lose 1% of your account per person per day (0.1% per sab turn, 10 successful turns per day).

The cap was 2% total sabotage to an account in 1 day, but they supposedly raised this number. Anybody know what to?

Goldaline
18th December 2009, 02:24 PM
I haven't read this thread at all so forgive me if it's already been mentioned but THIS:




Your opponent has already suffered heavy losses today, and his sentry force is on full alert. Your sabotage will not succeed until they let their guard down.


has got to stop. It gives an easy out to wimps who can't take their own sabby medicine. Super lame and we all know people are exploiting this feature to wuss their way out of damage. Or maybe, if someone is too "damaged" to take any more sabs they should also be too "damaged" to dish any out? Just a thought.

iLydia
18th December 2009, 02:31 PM
if someone is too "damaged" to take any more sabs they should also be too "damaged" to dish any out? Just a thought.


completely right, no reason you can't take it but can run around dishin it out.
if you can't take the consequences, you shouldn't be dealin out punishment

fistsofthor
18th December 2009, 04:01 PM
You:
I haven't read this thread at all so forgive me if it's already been mentioned but THIS:





has got to stop. It gives an easy out to wimps who can't take their own sabby medicine. Super lame and we all know people are exploiting this feature to wuss their way out of damage. Or maybe, if someone is too "damaged" to take any more sabs they should also be too "damaged" to dish any out? Just a thought.


Me:
get over it. i mean, at least you can sab spy and sentry from a player now. you did not used to be.

Plus, its just a sab cap. And, keep in mind, that oft as not, its a player getting approved rather than a player who goes a-chaining everyone.

Mudvayne
19th December 2009, 01:32 PM
With that sab cap and a less powerful sabbing formula, sabbing is just too weak now. I think many people have noticed that with the war going on right so many people have crappy aats or cannot be sabbed anymore. Do one or the other, but both is overkill.

RoyalTheory
19th December 2009, 04:05 PM
Next age with have an age of rouges if this isnt changed.

dohh
19th December 2009, 04:11 PM
Next age with have an age of rouges if this isnt changed.

good :worship2:

Screwdriver_LaCN
20th December 2009, 01:38 AM
Next age with have an age of rouges if this isnt changed.
So true...now there are players with almost 300 mil spy and only 20-30k trained coverts and less than 199 nuns xD imagine if top ranker trains coverts and has 199 nuns and has the highest Tech xD I smell 2-3 bil spy unsabable :D or maybe more :D

Lopina
20th December 2009, 04:32 AM
I can suggest a solution many will disagree with.
Just make that a minimum number of weapons that can be sabbed at any time is 1, istead of 0.

Seneca
20th December 2009, 04:51 AM
I can suggest a solution many will disagree with.
Just make that a minimum number of weapons that can be sabbed at any time is 1, istead of 0.

I agree, as long as real noobs are still immune (not sure how to determine that), but that doesn't fix the problem of ppl sabbing eachother, selling sabbed weapons and being immune after.

Sh4nnon
20th December 2009, 05:17 AM
make all weapons sabbable immediately ???.. since the 10% is already not letting ur account getting destroyed

Rocco
21st December 2009, 12:05 PM
Update: Like sabotaged tools, sabotaged weapons are now immediately removed from the armory

rock
21st December 2009, 11:51 PM
W00t ! Nice going Rocco lol .

Sh4nnon
22nd December 2009, 12:30 AM
ok all these changes are gearing up to make sabbers the most powerful being in koc verse :P . As much as i like that .. can we make sabbing a little nerfed - (ie raise that 10% to atleast 15-20% - good in war .. good to kill the sabbers ) ... and make the ratio spy/sentry 1:2 for successful sabs (bad for sabbers - makes it a little tough in war tho - but still sabbers will have to work a bit harder... rankers will have to still work double to save their asses :D)

EviLizeD
22nd December 2009, 09:04 AM
With the multipliers making it easy to get decent stats with few weapons, the sab cap and now weapons disapearing without being broken Age 13 is gearing up to be the Age of the Rogues.

Medium accounts cant even use bpm mode to help protect there account, the only thing anyone can do is whore sentry and hope to get out of range.


and make the ratio spy/sentry 1:2 for successful sabs (bad for sabbers - makes it a little tough in war tho - but still sabbers will have to work a bit harder... rankers will have to still work double to save their asses :D)

1:3 is fine, 1:4 was fine. I would however support a return to 10 (11?) attempts and no turns or caps.

MFnBonsai
22nd December 2009, 09:54 AM
Age of the rogues???

If I remember correctly they were called sabbers before large alliances had an advantage worth killing accounts off....

They were only called rogues because they had no defense against losing their accounts so they played BPM mode or used the vac mode.... and had to fight back that way....

Will say though sabbin needs tweaking some more and rocco knows this.... there will be changes here and there nothing is certain to be set for the real age....

Fernando
22nd December 2009, 10:15 AM
Update: Like sabotaged tools, sabotaged weapons are now immediately removed from the armory

Why are you fucking twiking things that are allright? If any, DON'T immediately remove tools from the armory.

Said 1k times. Just take off the cap and reduce proportionally the sab damage.

powdered_donuts
22nd December 2009, 10:45 AM
Why are you fucking twiking things that are allright? If any, DON'T immediately remove tools from the armory.

Said 1k times. Just take off the cap and reduce proportionally the sab damage.

They made sabbing weaker, they needed something to rectify the situation. They aren't done playing with sab yet, and every age things are supposed to change, so for now just be happy and don't whine about it until it's a finished product and you still aren't satisfied.

EviLizeD
22nd December 2009, 11:28 AM
Age of the rogues???

If I remember correctly they were called sabbers before large alliances had an advantage worth killing accounts off....

They were only called rogues because they had no defense against losing their accounts so they played BPM mode or used the vac mode.... and had to fight back that way....

Will say though sabbin needs tweaking some more and rocco knows this.... there will be changes here and there nothing is certain to be set for the real age....


I miss the days of BSS and ES and would love to see the return to age 5, 6 or even 7 (though not so long and no silly 50 weapon cap)

IMO things started to go the rankers way in age 8 beta, where things that where not broken started to be `fixed` mostly at the request of a few.

Sabbers/Rogues just using today terminology.

Seneca
22nd December 2009, 12:36 PM
Age of the rogues???

If I remember correctly they were called sabbers before large alliances had an advantage worth killing accounts off....

They were only called rogues because they had no defense against losing their accounts so they played BPM mode or used the vac mode.... and had to fight back that way....

Will say though sabbin needs tweaking some more and rocco knows this.... there will be changes here and there nothing is certain to be set for the real age....

Well, when you think about it it would be crap if one account with like 10k TFF could survive against an entire alliance that's losing like 100x more. I understand sabbers want to live more than like one day, but it's a bit of a ridiculous thing to ask to survive when you've got 50 accounts hammering yours.

Imo everything should be like last age, except the 0,5% you could sab with 5 turns should be turned into 0,1%. Sabbers could survive longer, rankers don't lose as much, everyone happy /yay

Lopina
22nd December 2009, 12:59 PM
Imo everything should be like last age, except the 0,5% you could sab with 5 turns should be turned into 0,1%. Sabbers could survive longer, rankers don't lose as much, everyone happy /yay

Either that, or reinstate 11 attempts.

Seneca
22nd December 2009, 03:15 PM
Either that, or reinstate 11 attempts.

Reinstate 11 attempts ftw, it was amazing not to know how often you'd get through.. Once? Twice? Five times?! Not at all maybe :o
Also, reintroduce more weapons = more fail, so you have to guess am I going to sab 3x50 or 1x 200 aat

Adrenalinejunky
22nd December 2009, 05:45 PM
Reinstate 11 attempts ftw, it was amazing not to know how often you'd get through.. Once? Twice? Five times?! Not at all maybe :o
Also, reintroduce more weapons = more fail, so you have to guess am I going to sab 3x50 or 1x 200 aat

agreed.... was much better then the current 50 attempts setup....

jog1
22nd December 2009, 05:56 PM
Reinstate 11 attempts ftw, it was amazing not to know how often you'd get through.. Once? Twice? Five times?! Not at all maybe :o
Also, reintroduce more weapons = more fail, so you have to guess am I going to sab 3x50 or 1x 200 aat

I agree about the 11 attemps, but not about the sabbing more = a lot more difficult

the 11 attemps will protect the bigger accounts even more, if we limit the amount we can sab on top of that, we won't be able to sab shit from them.

Flaming Knights
22nd December 2009, 06:01 PM
11 attempts was amazing. sometimes you would get through 6 times :D sabbing was lot easier back then and lot more fun.

SleepingDragon
22nd December 2009, 06:05 PM
Update: Like sabotaged tools, sabotaged weapons are now immediately removed from the armory

I thought the whole point and fun of sabbing, back when sabbing and being sabbed was fun, was breaking the DA weapons you broke and watching the enemy break all their SA trying to mass for online hits/sabs. That was pretty cool, and made sabbing more personal than just magically disappearing weapons. It was awesome to sab someone and break their stuff.

I'd like to know where the whole 50 turn cap came from? Who suggested that ridiculously random number that totally makes no sense if you've ever tried to sab larger sentry targets?

I dunno what the sab formulas are for the Beta, or what exactly they were for last age, but it COULD making sabs .1% sounds a lot better than .5%. It was a pain in the neck being a small tbg account and seeing 1-2 days of slaying get sabbed away by a "rogue."

Lopina
22nd December 2009, 06:09 PM
I agree about the 11 attemps, but not about the sabbing more = a lot more difficult

the 11 attemps will protect the bigger accounts even more, if we limit the amount we can sab on top of that, we won't be able to sab shit from them.

Of course not.

I'd prefer if each weapon would get treated separately:
Example:
Suppose someone has 100 BPM, 200 IVS, 300 NUN and 400 LTS
I will use 1% now just to make my idea as clear as possible:

So if you wanted to sab them, you could sab either 1 BPM, or 2 IVS, or 3 NUN, or 4 LTS on each attempt.

Basically, when you'd sab Slayers like that, you'd expect they'd have most of their gold invested in SA, so you'd sab SA.
Same analogy applies for others.

What do ya say?

punkrocker7829
22nd December 2009, 06:12 PM
No using turns in general for sabs and recons, 15-20% a day, please better trickle system and a Nintendo Wii thank you Santa oh i mean Rocco.

Rocco
23rd December 2009, 11:32 PM
No Wii for you, Punkrocker7829.

But we have adjusted the sabotage formula some more. It will be harder in some cases and easier in some cases. The details are for you to figure out.