PDA

View Full Version : Conquests



UMIST
7th December 2009, 11:36 PM
Hmmm has anyone started using it already?

You defeated the Wolves
You caused 2147929 damage and received 589 damage from the Wolves.
You stole 756 gold from the Wolves!
You gained 50 experience from this conquest!

well rocco we get 50 experience from 10 turns. Not bad but then the amount of gold taken is bad :(
how can we get a better profit again stronger opponents. do not understand that?

Rocco
7th December 2009, 11:37 PM
Beat me to the post.

Conquests are a faster way of gaining experience, and also can turn a tidy profit against stronger opponents. Conquests currently cost 10 game turns.

UMIST
7th December 2009, 11:54 PM
hmm so i have used up my turns to see what happens next.

First you have wolves and then halflings. There will be a lot i guess. Just wish we got more gold. On the other hand since we get more experience for less amount of turns maybe that is why?

Experience: 5,834

wonder when then next economi upgrade will be lol

economic levels have been rest lol. DAMN!
oh well. guess this is beta for a reason!

ToturiShoujiki
8th December 2009, 12:03 AM
Lovin' the Conquests! 8-D

I think the amount of Gold for the Turn cost is fair.

Baigo
8th December 2009, 12:04 AM
Wolves 1,000

Halflings 100,000

Ogres 10,000,000

Gnomes (0 / 10) 1,000,000,000

powdered_donuts
8th December 2009, 12:10 AM
ya know, if next age someone from like age 2 joins the game, they are guna hop on and be all the omgwtf

UMIST
8th December 2009, 12:15 AM
ya know, if next age someone from like age 2 joins the game, they are guna hop on and be all the omgwtf

lol yeah u are right. They would be VERY confused. Atleast they would be glad to see some changes lol!

Bryan
8th December 2009, 12:19 AM
Beat me to the post.

Conquests are a faster way of gaining experience, and also can turn a tidy profit against stronger opponents. Conquests currently cost 10 game turns.

Can you say if experience will go towards other things and not just econ upgrades?

and btw, I applaud your efforts to try and change the game up. Even if some are good and some are bad, i think everyone in KOC has been saying that it needs to be updated. Very good job

Clowpower
8th December 2009, 01:23 AM
Conquests are a faster way of gaining experience, and also can turn a tidy profit against stronger opponents. Conquests currently cost 10 game turns.

I saw that new option have appeared in the game menu :biggrin3:

My thinks and idea - At first , I've thinked conquests , would be a mode of '' A war of territory '' The more territory you control , the more TBG/UP you get.

I like conquests cause yes , it help experience gaining way faster , I agree. In other way , I don't like cause it doesn't give way much gold...:frown: I thinked if I would have enough gold to repair my weapons after the conquests mission.

Conquests is awesome but , I admit that it need some re-work on gains gold per conquests fights. After the 10's conquests mission , we can do it unlimitted times. I thinked it would stop after the 10's completed. :p

Conquests is nice at a point , it's like attacking NPC's (Non-playable character) they no real players. The game has it's monsters xD

hockey56
8th December 2009, 03:27 AM
ya know, if next age someone from like age 2 joins the game, they are guna hop on and be all the omgwtf

This pretty much describes me right now, :-p.

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 11:38 AM
well, it certainly is interesting. But, rocco, was there a reason why you reset everyone's experience?

UMIST
8th December 2009, 02:52 PM
to test new features, since this is a beta age

xshintenshix
8th December 2009, 08:19 PM
All in all, i reckon conquests is a good innovation.

Good job Rocco, an ingenious method to supplement the game's economy whilst giving yet another fun alternative to hitting and banking.

Or, as the current trend is, hitting all those 50 mil "beginners" who just reset every hour.

fistsofthor
8th December 2009, 08:42 PM
ok, well, things are certainly interesting.

nirvanaisking
9th December 2009, 06:53 AM
is economy reset every day for a reason? its getting really annoying that every time i upgrade it, it just goes back to zero after a while

blazed420
9th December 2009, 08:03 AM
Seems as though Rocco added more tiers to the economy upgrades or just made it give less gold, not sure yet :P


Current Economy Research Mining
Fishing (600 gold per turn) (1600 gold per turn)

Gimliisadwarf22
12th December 2009, 05:50 PM
Conquests that you have done many times now give you less experience.

Currently it seems after 11-12 conquests the amount of exp you gain decreases dramatically. Unless you can do 10-11 conquests against the same enemy 24 hours later i think it is too much of a reduction. It will be very hard to get to the last tier in economy this way as the conquests increase in strength very rapidly.

Ferrous
13th December 2009, 03:38 AM
LOL Gimlii whatever
u have 6 months and 1440 turns a day
now u do the maths.....

JDX
13th December 2009, 03:53 AM
I play koc cause its original, I don't want to relearn it, I'm sorry to say I'll quit if next age is anything like beta.

UMIST
13th December 2009, 03:59 AM
I play koc cause its original, I don't want to relearn it, I'm sorry to say I'll quit if next age is anything like beta.

man it just bring a different light into the game. It gets boring if we play this game the same way year in and year our

RoyalTheory
13th December 2009, 08:46 AM
Bah, looks like Il have to train mercs now and attack randow no commander people with no spy or DA. Im taking more damage attacking people than I am regaining and 10 exp isnt worth having 60 min worth of TBG in damages.

fistsofthor
14th December 2009, 12:18 AM
well, if attack damages are consitently this high, elves might become playable (although, since undead have them beat in that department i doubt it)

BuGz
14th December 2009, 03:30 AM
It diminishes way too fast and way too much.

At this point all my conquests are worth less than sabotage, which makes random sabbing the fastest way to get experience, so I'm just finding random people with 100x sentry to my spy, and spamming sabotage failures on them 50 times for 500 exp (5 turns x 50 times = 250 turns x 2xp = 500xp).

Seems kinda stupid, right? Either making attacking worth more than sabotage; or make conquest never go under, say, 25xp per conquest (or NEVER go under 20xp per conquest)

Sabotage shouldnt be the best way to get exp; thats just kinda stupid.

loofa4
14th December 2009, 12:48 PM
The entire point of conquests was that it was an alternative to attacking or sabbing where you would get less money but more experience. Now it's just pointless.
Sure conquests will help DA whores, but they need the help because higher level siege multipliers are sooo much stronger than higher level fortification multipliers.

xshintenshix
14th December 2009, 06:34 PM
agreed with loofa, even technology seems to benefit siege more than fort; although its probably not true; its huge in comparison

Rocco
14th December 2009, 07:28 PM
Which would be a better fix?

1) Modifying the floor of conquests so that it's always at least as useful as sabotage from an experience perspective

2) Reducing experience gained from failed sabotages

dohh
14th December 2009, 08:10 PM
#1

loofa4
14th December 2009, 08:38 PM
Which would be a better fix?

1) Modifying the floor of conquests so that it's always at least as useful as sabotage from an experience perspective

2) Reducing experience gained from failed sabotages

Modifying the floor of conquests so that it's always at least as useful as sabotage from an experience perspective by far. Choice 2 would fix the problem of having too many people sabbin for no reason, but it would still defeat the purpose of conquests.

fistsofthor
14th December 2009, 08:40 PM
Which would be a better fix?

1) Modifying the floor of conquests so that it's always at least as useful as sabotage from an experience perspective

2) Reducing experience gained from failed sabotages

i would make successful sabotages twice as effective as they currently are and otherwise leave things alone. the purpose of experience was to encourage players to interact if i recall correctly. so, the conquests do not really help on that level. let conquests drop to mere nothings in terms of experience gained.

Seneca
14th December 2009, 11:19 PM
#1

#1

BuGz
15th December 2009, 02:03 AM
Which would be a better fix?

1) Modifying the floor of conquests so that it's always at least as useful as sabotage from an experience perspective

2) Reducing experience gained from failed sabotages

#1; no question

My comment wasn't directed at being down on sabotage being 1:2 exp ratio; moreof that its kinda stupid if conquest is less than that.

Modifying the floor of conquests so it always gives at least 20-25exp would be a perfect fix imo.

Seneca
15th December 2009, 08:12 AM
Yea, don't make the lower limit 10, but at least 20. It's just sad that conquest (which is meant to get xp) gives you less XP than reconning, sabbing or attacking (which also gives back more than just XP)

the_hitman_9
15th December 2009, 08:52 PM
Maybe its because there is absolutely NO EFFORT done when doing those conquests ? Why should they give more EXPERIENCE then stuff that actually requires you to do just a little more work, or put your account at greater risk.
Attacking -> Requires the most effort, for searching for the gold and finding the right times to hit. Sure gives gold, but also could cause problem for the attacker ( if an alliance decides to sab him )
Sabbing -> Also requires some effort, but puts the account at an even greater risk.
Recconning -> Pretty much as much effort as conquests, but gives some interaction, and if used under the context of a database tool ( AutomaticCreations or w/e ) is a great help for the rest of the players.

Frankly it is more than fair that actions that require some effort and interaction give more experience than one that you can do alone, in a few seconds, for thousands of turns, without risking anything.

Bluekid
15th December 2009, 09:57 PM
I think that conquests should give more exp than they do now. If they do decrease the more you do them then put a minimum at half of whatever it is. I also think that you should receive more exp for doing conquests against the stronger monsters as long as you win. Like for instance:

Wolves give 20 exp starting out. After 20-30 times bottoms out at 10 exp and doesn't go lower.

Halflings give 50 exp starting out. Bottom out at 25.

Ogres give 80 exp starting out. Bottom out at 40.

Gnomes give 100 exp starting out. Bottom out at 50.

...etc

This way people who build up their strike action are given benefits and it is easier to get the economies/technologies. But when doing this it would be good to have more steps for economy. Don't jump from 9800 to 24400 for instance. Instead have 2-4 steps inbetween. The numbers above are just examples with easy whole numbers. Also if the monsters defeat you then you get less exp, like instead of getting 40 against wolves you get 10-15 exp. You still get some exp because you learn from your mistakes. :) This is just my opinion, tell me what you guys think.

Santa87
16th December 2009, 05:21 AM
good idea... also think the same should be implemented to normal attacking(if it hasnt already been)... as other people also have pointed out, the exp gained from attacking should be increased, so matched exp gained from quests(at least close to match).

and btw. Has anyone suggested getting some exp from being attacked? I know the argument against that will be that one doesnt spend turns on being attacked, and therefore shouldnt get xp. But isn't it logic that if you are being attacked you also get experience? Im not suggesting that it should be the same amount of xp, but maybe make it something like, a certain amount of xp will be given to each attack, and then 80pct for the attacker, and 20pct for the defender.. and if the attack is defended, it could be 40pct for attacker, and 60pct for defender.

Also, if you are attacked, you get damages(which cost gold to repair), and you loose gold(if attack is successfull), so in a way, it does cost something to be attacked. just gold instead of turns.

anyways, pro's and con's on the matter of getting xp from being attacked?

BuGz
16th December 2009, 05:50 AM
good idea... also think the same should be implemented to normal attacking(if it hasnt already been)... as other people also have pointed out, the exp gained from attacking should be increased, so matched exp gained from quests(at least close to match).

and btw. Has anyone suggested getting some exp from being attacked? I know the argument against that will be that one doesnt spend turns on being attacked, and therefore shouldnt get xp. But isn't it logic that if you are being attacked you also get experience? Im not suggesting that it should be the same amount of xp, but maybe make it something like, a certain amount of xp will be given to each attack, and then 80pct for the attacker, and 20pct for the defender.. and if the attack is defended, it could be 40pct for attacker, and 60pct for defender.

Also, if you are attacked, you get damages(which cost gold to repair), and you loose gold(if attack is successfull), so in a way, it does cost something to be attacked. just gold instead of turns.

anyways, pro's and con's on the matter of getting xp from being attacked?



I like the idea, but sounds like something that would be easy for the chains (you know which) that like to exploit to exploit.

i.e.: Buy no defense weapons = No repairs when you are attacked.
Have your entire chain mass your account.

Free EXP for your main, woooooo -_-

Attacker gets exp for attacking, your main gets a ton of exp from everybody attacking him, then he can up his economy to 24,400 per turn right away, on top of all of his TFF he'll have fast, he can sell off to everybody that massed him to make it worth their turns. -_-

Would be a nice idea if people didn't like to cheat.

Santa87
16th December 2009, 06:07 AM
good point. would be easy to abuse :)...

maybe make it deppend on the battle... like, the bigger the gap between attackers effective damage, and deffenders effective damage, the less exp is distributed between them. Ie if attacker has 20mil effective damage, and deffender has 19mil, you get 2 exp pr turn. and then it decrease as gap increase.

maybe, like if gap is less than 5pct of loosers damage, you will get max exp from the battle, and then it will decrease when gap decreases, and you will get min exp, when gap is more than 500% of loosers total damage.

BuGz
16th December 2009, 06:11 AM
good point. would be easy to abuse :)...

maybe make it deppend on the battle... like, the bigger the gap between attackers effective damage, and deffenders effective damage, the less exp is distributed between them. Ie if attacker has 20mil effective damage, and deffender has 19mil, you get 2 exp pr turn. and then it decrease as gap increase.

maybe, like if gap is less than 5pct of loosers damage, you will get max exp from the battle, and then it will decrease when gap decreases, and you will get min exp, when gap is more than 500% of loosers total damage.

Like I said, I like the idea, good idea imo, but people would abuse it too much.

And it'd make people WANT to be attacked?

IDK its a good idea but I don't see it working out very well.

PogMaThoin
16th December 2009, 06:22 AM
i like the whole Conquests and Tech functions brings a little life to the game , as for the suggestions of gaining Xps for being attacked if this would be implemented it should be a small amount given and only if its defended and the attacker would lose xps thus encouraging reconning before attacks
( ei :your attack has been defended you lose 80xps and your opponent has gained 10 xps ....... this i think would be fair since most think defended attacks are Bad manner )

Fletch
16th December 2009, 10:46 AM
Ive just got over 1bil SA and thought id try the Gnomes...

Gnomes (1 / 10) 1,000,000,000


You were repulsed by the Gnomes!

You caused 809,185,806 damage and received 1,279,590,000 damage from the Gnomes.

If there strength is 1,000,000,000 then how do they cause 1.3bil damage??

DL-jason
16th December 2009, 12:25 PM
Ive just got over 1bil SA and thought id try the Gnomes...

Gnomes (1 / 10) 1,000,000,000



If there strength is 1,000,000,000 then how do they cause 1.3bil damage??

+1
had the exact same problem..

jog1
16th December 2009, 02:05 PM
need about 1,8bil SA to beat them

Bluekid
17th December 2009, 05:42 PM
i think all of them attack for more than their strength. The same thing happened to me when I first attacked ogres.

fistsofthor
17th December 2009, 05:45 PM
i think all of them attack for more than their strength. The same thing happened to me when I first attacked ogres.

the SA listed is the minimum SA you need in order to be able to challenge them. This is done so as to prevent players with an SA of 40 from going and getting all of the conquest experience from 10x each level and thereby unlocking every level without any SA (while getting all that conquest experience)

You get 50 xp when you conquest for the first 10 times any way you look at it.

Rocco
17th December 2009, 05:45 PM
Enemies you go on a conquest against may do less or more than their stated strength. It should also be noted that they have a significantly higher variance of damage than human players.

SleepingDragon
17th December 2009, 06:09 PM
It should also be noted that they have a significantly higher variance of damage than human players.

Thank you for the clarification. Us, human players, may not be able to count on our 1B strength doing anything close to 1B damage to targets, but at least now we know an artificial enemy's 1B strength can easily do 1.3b damage. :worship2:

Rocco
21st December 2009, 02:36 PM
We have adjusted the Conquest opponents and strengths. There is now less of a jump in opponent strength between levels.

More opponents will be unlocked when Age 13 begins.

LordCounter
21st December 2009, 03:35 PM
We have adjusted the Conquest opponents and strengths. There is now less of a jump in opponent strength between levels.

More opponents will be unlocked when Age 13 begins.

i.e. lets not play age 13?

Nasser
22nd December 2009, 08:38 AM
i.e. lets not play age 13?

Exactly. It seems I won't waste my time on KoC again.

capkop
22nd December 2009, 11:28 AM
the scaling of SA needed is good imo, but the gold doesn't scale properly with it. Conquests give way too much gold for someone with 10m SA to get, there's no point for them to attack anymore like this. If conquests were to stay (I'm not entirely sure what I think of the concept..) then I think it be better to have higher techs and the gold scale up less fast.

xe-bec
22nd December 2009, 10:41 PM
Slasher has a good point. I am a much lower player than most because of my lack in a command chain and alliance, but i can save up my turns and do the last conquest over and over and get all the expensive upgrades relatively quickly. In the last couple of days I went from an SA of a few million to over 95 million, and I'm up to black powder for siege tech. My covert level is maxxed, I am up to moat fortifications, and I'm buying a decent amount of BPMs every day. I predict all my upgrades will be maxxed in a couple of weeks (except for ones based on exp), and at that point I'm just stockpiling weapons and tools and clicking away.

powdered_donuts
23rd December 2009, 11:49 PM
goblins are next, but nothing after that:

Go on a Conquest
Conquests Opponent Strength Do Conquest
Wolves 1,000

Halflings 10,000

Gnomes 100,000

Ogres 1,000,000

Goblins (34 / 10) 10,000,000

Killtoy
24th December 2009, 10:56 AM
why fight something that pays you 10 to 90k and you have to pay a 400 to 500k repair bill, just stupid!

loofa4
24th December 2009, 11:14 AM
I think that conquest gold is at a good point right now. Sure you're not going to make tons of gold from doing conquests, but if you did nobody would attack anymore. The point of conquests should still be an alternate way to use turns to get experience instead of gold.


Which would be a better fix?

1) Modifying the floor of conquests so that it's always at least as useful as sabotage from an experience perspective

2) Reducing experience gained from failed sabotages

If choice #1 were implemented, conquests would be a good strategic prtion of the game again. one would have to choose if he wants to spend his turns to get gold or experiance.

Seneca
24th December 2009, 11:40 AM
why fight something that pays you 10 to 90k and you have to pay a 400 to 500k repair bill, just stupid!

For experience? Lol. I'm amazed that I even have to answer that

Killtoy
24th December 2009, 12:41 PM
For experience? Lol. I'm amazed that I even have to answer that

After I thought about it when we do the conquest our army's should be in line with the quest and not have to pay so much in repair.

I think you are saying that we should be charged gold and attack turns to earn exp? ( when you are paying 250 to 500k per attack plus turns it will add up. ) I disagree!

Semper.Fidelis
24th December 2009, 06:39 PM
The conquest thing is kinda nice but it favors those accounts that don't use their turns as source of income. I'd rather restrict the xp gain to player interaction and use the conquests strictly as means of treasure hunting. (random chance of jackpot or whatever)

Attacker
Successful Attack = turns x2 in xp
Defended Attack = turns in xp

Defender the other way around. Sabbing and recons likewise. Figure out how much xp that is in average per day and adjust the costs accordingly. That way the playingfield is leveled and no playing style is favored.

Maz
24th December 2009, 11:29 PM
@Semper Fidelis

Your idea is good but it needs to be a bit sharpened, I think. I like the exp for both the victim and the offender, especially in sabbing and recon but I do not think it should be in defending.

An attacker uses turns to: attack, sab, recon.
A defender uses turns to: sab, recon.

This gives a defender more turns to use on maybe conquests to gain more experience, and they don't have to waste turns to defend an attack. But except that I think your idea is very nice.

ToturiShoujiki
1st January 2010, 05:05 AM
Any more conquests coming? Like for minimum SA of 10,000,000 then 100,000,000, then 1,000,000,000, etc.?

Semper.Fidelis
3rd January 2010, 05:51 AM
This gives a defender more turns to use on maybe conquests to gain more experience, and they don't have to waste turns to defend an attack.

Like I said I originally didn't want conquests to provide any xp at all but instead restrict xp gain to player interaction and reduce conquests to a treasure/bonus hunt of sorts to level the playing field. However after some thought I came to the conclusion that that concept won't work either because KoC has to many idiots playing it that'd just raid the hell out of each other inchain to abuse the concept.

Fact remains that conquests clearly favor DA-whores as long as the xp and gold gain doesn't increase exponentially with higher opponent levels. As long as it doesn't this idea has to go. DA-Whores/Rankers already did enough irreversible damage to this game. Best thing to do would prolly be to limit growth/day and get Age0 rules back but keep sabbing.

Docent
3rd January 2010, 07:20 PM
Conquests just provide a way for people to build their account without actually interacting with other players - Experience upgrades (force people to attack) = good. Conquests = bad.

loofa4
6th January 2010, 10:47 AM
Experience upgrades (force people to attack) = good. Conquests = bad.

I disagree. Firstly, experience upgrades do not encourage attacking. They encourage pointless sabbing, which does not benefit anyone. Secondly, conquests provide an alternative use for attack turns. Lets look at the pros and cons of allowing an alternate use for turns:

Cons:
1) Discourages using attack turns to attack.

Pros:
1) Discourages using attack turns to pointlessly sab for experience.
2) It makes sense. Think about it, which army is going to be able to improve their technology faster, the one that is constantly out fighting, or the one that stays home and has time to research and farm? Who ever heard of technologically superior orcs anyways? lol
3) It discourages DA whores from attacking far less rated players. This is just silly. Sure, a DA whore CAN use his/her attacks, but not against anyone even near their own rank. And not against anyone whom they can get worthwhile gold from anyways.
4) It provides a potential counter to siege upgrades. Now that upgrades are percentage based, the attack upgrades increase substantially faster than the fortification upgrades. This can help even the playing field, at least for a time. Eventually, the slayers will max their technologies as well, but at least the defensive players would have had some time to build.
5) It adds more strategy. Now you need to wisely consider how to spend your turns. Are you going to use them to attack for gold, or to conquest for experience?

Overall, I think it is clear that conquests are a good addition to KoC. Furthermore, I think they should only ever reduce to 20 experience, to keep them as a better option than random pointless sabbing.

ZAR
6th January 2010, 09:51 PM
What I was wondering, when all upgrades that cost XP are maxed, what is going to happen with the left over XP - maybe there should be an option to trade it for morale or gameturns at some crazy rate (2000xp for 100 Morale or whatever) ...? :)

Adrenalinejunky
7th January 2010, 03:01 AM
i've been wondering if/what they will introduce new ways to spend as well - considering i have already maxed my xp upgrades....

a few crazy ideas :

-upgrades to make you spend less turns on attacking or sabbing (like seperate ones for each)

-train "advanced" soldiers with experience that can do more damage then regular ones (i.e. regular sodleirs is 5 * weapon * multipliers advanced could be 7 * weapon * multipliers, and perhaps have them die at a reduced rate?)

-research better methods to repair weapons (cheaper repairs)

-upgrade the number of recons you can do on a person per day

personally i think upgrades such as this would introduce more strategy - should i get that next tech level or train advanced soldiers? should i use my experience to increase my stats or decrease my turn usage? would it be worth sacraficing a new attack target to be able to check the rest of my targets gold more timers per day?

not that rocco will probably ever read this... oh well.

Mudvayne
7th January 2010, 08:32 PM
-research better methods to repair weapons (cheaper repairs)

-upgrade the number of recons you can do on a person per day

I really like them two ideas.

KillerK
8th January 2010, 08:11 PM
I really like them two ideas.

As do I, especially the cheaper repairs.

Gohon
9th January 2010, 07:49 AM
a few crazy ideas :

-upgrades to make you spend less turns on attacking or sabbing (like seperate ones for each)

-train "advanced" soldiers with experience that can do more damage then regular ones (i.e. regular sodleirs is 5 * weapon * multipliers advanced could be 7 * weapon * multipliers, and perhaps have them die at a reduced rate?)

-research better methods to repair weapons (cheaper repairs)

-upgrade the number of recons you can do on a person per day

personally i think upgrades such as this would introduce more strategy - should i get that next tech level or train advanced soldiers? should i use my experience to increase my stats or decrease my turn usage? would it be worth sacraficing a new attack target to be able to check the rest of my targets gold more timers per day?

These ideas are awesome. more strategy would be a good idea.

Also some upgrades should cost money and exp. for example dynamite 81.9 mil plus 5000exp.

There should be an upgrade to increase exp gained.


The idea of getting upgrades to reduce turn usage is a dodgey
Because if the final upgrade was say only 20 turns per attack then people would have to many turns (i think people already have too many turns as there isnt enough money on the battlefield), or start the age with attacks costing 500 turns which would ruin the game!
The only way it work was if as ur army got bigger and bigger it would cost more and more turns to attack. so therefore keeping the amount of turns used the same on average. (some people will get the upgrades asap and some wont bother and most will be in the middle)

p.s. what does this have to do with conquests:lol:
none of this will happen as we are too close to the end of the beta age for major changes:banghead:

DarkLordZ
9th January 2010, 11:02 AM
what about upgrades that cost gold OR xp? like dynamite is 81,9 mil OR 17k xp? (just an example, don't know if these amounts really balance out)


it would provide more flexibility and add more strategy to the game.

Seneca
9th January 2010, 07:28 PM
what about upgrades that cost gold OR xp? like dynamite is 81,9 mil OR 17k xp? (just an example, don't know if these amounts really balance out)


it would provide more flexibility and add more strategy to the game.

Not a bad idea, if required amount of experience will be high (like you proposed)

Adrenalinejunky
9th January 2010, 09:44 PM
These ideas are awesome. more strategy would be a good idea.

Also some upgrades should cost money and exp. for example dynamite 81.9 mil plus 5000exp.

There should be an upgrade to increase exp gained.


The idea of getting upgrades to reduce turn usage is a dodgey
Because if the final upgrade was say only 20 turns per attack then people would have to many turns (i think people already have too many turns as there isnt enough money on the battlefield), or start the age with attacks costing 500 turns which would ruin the game!
The only way it work was if as ur army got bigger and bigger it would cost more and more turns to attack. so therefore keeping the amount of turns used the same on average. (some people will get the upgrades asap and some wont bother and most will be in the middle)

p.s. what does this have to do with conquests:lol:
none of this will happen as we are too close to the end of the beta age for major changes:banghead:

obviously the amounts would make or break it - personally i think starting the age at 180 and being able to upgrade to 100 at max would be good levels....