PDA

View Full Version : Restore old trickle system please!



Shredmeister
9th December 2009, 05:01 AM
This new one is just ridicules, and from what I've read on GUA and from all the people I've talked to, almost everyone agrees. I understand that growth going up 4 layers like it used to could have been too much, but going up only 1 layer to direct commander is overkill.

I personally vote to bring back the old system, but MAYBE stepping it back one layer (at the most).

azerbaby
9th December 2009, 05:09 AM
I say get rid of all these stupid changes and lets get into main age

Beddow
9th December 2009, 05:09 AM
Yes. I think keep it at 4 levels, this will create larger TFF's better morale deals between chains etc

Shredmeister
9th December 2009, 05:11 AM
This topic is specifically for the change in trickle, not other new features.

bravo
9th December 2009, 05:48 AM
It benefits the bigger chains only so they are getting bigger then life (as we have seen), if you are in a mega chain and you are on top, you are laughing all the way.
But small chains and individual players suffer more then benefit from this as the mega chains and top accounts out grow them very easy without making any (or too much) efforts themselves.
Many small chains have to join the big chains (so they can grow even bigger) for protection against the bullies and twisted double standard BF policies from some, because the mega accounts destroy small chains and individual players within a day(s) if needed, mainly due to big accounts created from trickles...
So we end up with a limited choice of McDonalds, Burger King, KFC or Whimpy, so to speak...

I think this is done to attract more (new) individuals to the game and make it a bit more reasonable for the smaller chains to stay independent rather of being a part of the KoC multinationals.

That are just my thoughts about it and I know many will disagree with me! =)

capkop
9th December 2009, 06:57 AM
I've voted to keep as it is, though I'm not 100% sure about it yet. It makes for more careful planning (you want 1 big acc? you want more semi big ones? There is no middle ground..) and less use for alliances to team up as they cant really boost eachother. Also it makes an invididual more influential. I've not had any growth from received morale or growth from officers, yet I made it to be roughly 1/8th of KoC's current biggest account. That would have been equal to a 2.5m tff account last age.

No more rediculously oversized accounts is a good thing I think, so I prefer this to stay as is. Also since growth deals are pretty impossible like this, chains might become smaller (less alliances together in 1 chain), which would solve the sabotage issue of being pwnt in a day.

nagrach
9th December 2009, 07:51 AM
3 levels are good.

after all this game is also about politics and deals between different chains.
i want to help my friends by joining them but also our main without sending credits to him.

Meiyo-Honor
9th December 2009, 07:52 AM
I voted to change, not necessarily back to 4 layers like previously, but right now we (tS) have 2 larger accounts. theSyndicate our main account right now needs to have as many officers as possible if we as an alliance wants a high ranking account. Right now our other larger size account Ponyboy has 30 some officers none of those officers morale are getting to our main account. I agree 4 layers was maybe a bit too much and plays into larger alliances more but on the other hand dont the larger alliances have the right to an advantage? It is much harder to run a larger alliance (you have more differing opinion, more opportunities with conflicts within/out)

I think 2-3 Layers would be much better, imo

Nasser
9th December 2009, 08:35 AM
Keep it like this , clicks only trickle to commander.
less huge accounts , more competition.

Sventjuh130
9th December 2009, 09:06 AM
3 levels are good.

after all this game is also about politics and deals between different chains.
i want to help my friends by joining them but also our main without sending credits to him.

Incorrect, this game is about chaos. More people equal to eachother creates more chaos, since more people can actually hurt others. So yes, it's a great change if they want this game to be how it's supposed to be.

ArxSerpens
9th December 2009, 09:35 AM
Im fairly sure the old setup was 5 layers

Layer 1 - 100 Morale
Layer 2 - 50 Trickle
Layer 3 - 25 Trickle
Layer 4 - 12.5 Trickle
Layer 5 - 6.25 Trickle
Layer 6 - No trickle from Layer 1 growth, but 6.25 from Layer 2 Morale, etc etc

@ bravo - Larger chains have ALWAYS had better growth, than smaller ones. An entire alliance boosts their main. The effort of that whole chain/alliance is towards making that main acct as good as possible. Just because smaller alliances cant get the players to compete on an even playing field, does not mean that the large alliances should suffer so the small ones can get a handicap. Its like dumbing down a school, because a small percentage failed their tests.


Now, my opinion is to bring back the old system, or at least let trickle go from Layer 1 - 3.
IE:
Layer 1 - 100 morale
Layer 2 - 50 trickle
Layer 3 - 25 trickle

UMIST
9th December 2009, 10:07 AM
I would prefer to keep it as it is. It makes the game a lot more interesting and changes the tactics. Like someone said before. An alliance can either have 1 huge account or many semi good accounts.
You guys have been wanting a change in this game(or feel that admins do not care for the game) for ages and now that has happened most of u do not like it. The admins are doing a good job!! :) Let them do it :)

Kegger
9th December 2009, 10:12 AM
i'd like a 3 level trickle system.

bravo
9th December 2009, 10:14 AM
@ bravo - Larger chains have ALWAYS had better growth, than smaller ones. An entire alliance boosts their main. The effort of that whole chain/alliance is towards making that main acct as good as possible.

Then they all should join their main account if they want to make him/her as good as possible, simples.

LL
9th December 2009, 10:44 AM
I am voting no, ONLY your commander should benefit from your moral. And ofcourse it stops big chains from making magnificent tffs that no one can catch up to.

it makes "main accounts" work much harder to get big.

ZAR
9th December 2009, 11:18 AM
4 levels please :)

Docent
9th December 2009, 11:26 AM
Are the people voting "keep it as it is" voting for 1 level or 4?

No (to bringing back the old system) - the single level trickle favors individual players & small alliances.

SleepingDragon
9th December 2009, 11:27 AM
I think keep it at 4 levels, this will create larger TFF's better morale deals between chains etc

No. If clans want to form a mega-alliance, they should work together without thinking about massive growth. If an "alliance main" is gonna be the best possible, it needs more than just growth and the lack of ridiculous trickle levels means those accounts need to do more than just bank DA.

powdered_donuts
9th December 2009, 11:40 AM
No, the mains are still big in comparison to the others the way it is now and that's the point is to have strong mains, however without having a HUGEMUNGEOUS trickle system we also aren't going to have two accounts at the end of the age with fifteen to twenty million troops.

Wouldn't the smaller people like to have some sort of chance of keeping up? Everytime a change gets implemented people are all like, omgwtfcrywhinebitchmoan, than they use the reasoning "on the new guys this makes the game even harder."

Well, the trickle being cut doesn't make it harder on the new guys, this makes it a little easier for them to keep up with others.

I voted keep it the way it is.

fistsofthor
9th December 2009, 12:44 PM
All of the mains being smaller or larger does not mess with any alliance. All it does is make it so that players who compete as individuals or who do not have huge growth deals are able to have a shot at competing where before the only way of doing well was to try to score a growth deal.

Agent47
9th December 2009, 10:47 PM
trickle system is very important in the game play...
at least 3 levels are inevitable

DarthAndrew
9th December 2009, 11:00 PM
Even when I got 2-Million Soldiers thanks to a 2nd trickle last age, Im way to happy with this new trickle change, it gives a chance to a new wave of players to fight against big chains, and to the big chains to plan their moves.

I just love the change

Rasputin
9th December 2009, 11:24 PM
I think 3 person trickle would be very beneficial and keep the gameplay good and still be fun for people who want some growth, AND to be able to have a clan of medium accounts

fistsofthor
9th December 2009, 11:39 PM
I like how we have changed to what it currently is in the beta. The beta is fun and fine. And personally, while mains have a huge advantage, now a player has a chance of competing against some main's 3rd trickle spot, when before the 3rd trickle spot could get millions of free soldiers.

venar
10th December 2009, 01:03 AM
You could always just change the amount of trickle, as opposed to the depth.. just to have more thoughts, instead of 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16,
you could keep trickle at like 5 layers but decrease it like: 1/2, 1/8, 1/32

i mean again it would take time to find a good balance, but it is another thing you can tweak as opposed to levels of trickle.

Adrenalinejunky
10th December 2009, 02:09 AM
i think venar may be on to something.

i think 2-3 layers would be better then both curent and what it was, but something like a 1/2 1/8th setup might not be bad either.

UMIST
10th December 2009, 02:36 AM
i do not see the point in that. The big accounts will still have that advantage. Instead of having an army of 6M they may have an army of 3M.

Screwdriver_LaCN
10th December 2009, 03:36 AM
Well I voted with YES :D just because if we have only one big account I mean one big account per alliance then he will outgrow others a lot again.With the old trickle system we could split the hardcore clickers through the whole chain and make more bigger accounts which is good imo :) and now just all the clickers will go under this main account he will get the same growth as before.

And about the smaller chain, as it was said they will always be fucked up because they are less, which means less clickers, less growth, no matter the trickles xD

and I think there is more chaos when the game has more bigger accounts because we saw several players who had big TFF because of the trickle system and at the end sold off to spy and chained whole KoC ;D but with only 1 level trickle there wont be so many big accounts and the big ones wont try to train down and sell to spy and to chain :P

Thunarvin
10th December 2009, 04:12 AM
I'd have to agree with Adrenalinejunky that 2-3 levels would be perfect from my point of view.

ThomasA
10th December 2009, 07:41 AM
What was the reasoning behind this change?

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 07:58 AM
What was the reasoning behind this change?

they want more growth. As in, they want to be able to get huge amounts of growth from bring in a 2nd or 3rd trickle spot and thus be able to outgrow any individual clicker with their eyes closed.

As for the purpose of this change: I have no idea.

Seneca
10th December 2009, 08:00 AM
Hm never noticed this thread, anyway, pretty clearly, restore old clicking level, as far up as possible if you ask me (Like 10 levels would be very nice, 0,0977% ftw)

It encourages teamplay, makes your clicks matter to more people (thus making clicking more fun to do).. and teamplay is basically what is making those few players that KoC has left stay (for now)

bravo
10th December 2009, 10:17 AM
It encourages teamplay, makes your clicks matter to more people (thus making clicking more fun to do)..

I think single trickle encourage team play much better and make your clicks (and account) even matter more, much more as there are a handful of mad clickers and too many leeches about.
Some of them leeches didn't click a single link last age instead they just bought moral from gold that they gained from previous trickle to start the new age and continued doing it during the age... yeah great team play indeed.



and teamplay is basically what is making those few players that KoC has left stay (for now)

Or it is one the main reason that only a few players are left.

Basically if you want a big account click it yourself and if you like to make your main big, join him/her.
Too many kids in this game getting everything for free while living at home and the day they move out of mummy and daddy's house they will realise that you have to work hard for the things you want or gain in life and that nothing is for free.
Then again this is just a game but do you see my point?

Agent47
10th December 2009, 10:37 AM
Koc is more fun when you play in an alliance as a team...
its the alliance/team tactics that add fun to the game...
everybody playing individually...clicking individually...wat a boring game it should have been.. but the team play adds lots of strategies and fun to it..

the old trickle system encourages team play.. and leeches(1st 2nd 3rd) had always been d strategic part of d game..
some alliances change the leach spots mid age..to create more strong accounts.. and d leaches in most ages is as imp as the top account..

so y limit the action to top accounts and limit everybody else to just click only for himself and his commander..??
anyhow an individual player cannot rise in top ranks because this game is meant to be played as a team...
then why do you complain that leeches simply outgrow individual clickers..??
it is meant to b like that...!
leeches mostly earn their spots as a reward for great dedication for his alliance... so he is entitled for his trickle..

Bloo
10th December 2009, 10:42 AM
Lol, what a rigged poll, one selection for restoring the trickles, and two for not restoring the trickles..lolz.
Looks like people are surprised by the reaction. It's really split pretty much evenly. I voted to keep it how things are.

blazed420
10th December 2009, 10:45 AM
Basically if you want a big account click it yourself and if you like to make your main big, join him/her.
Too many kids in this game getting everything for free while living at home and the day they move out of mummy and daddy's house they will realise that you have to work hard for the things you want or gain in life and that nothing is for free.
Then again this is just a game but do you see my point?

Lol... why do you care? KoC doesn't need to teach the kids, mommy and daddy do :P

And I voted to change the trickle back to the way it was, or atleast 2-3 tiers up would be good.

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 11:03 AM
Koc is more fun when you play in an alliance as a team...
its the alliance/team tactics that add fun to the game...
everybody playing individually...clicking individually...wat a boring game it should have been.. but the team play adds lots of strategies and fun to it..

the old trickle system encourages team play.. and leeches(1st 2nd 3rd) had always been d strategic part of d game..
some alliances change the leach spots mid age..to create more strong accounts.. and d leaches in most ages is as imp as the top account..

so y limit the action to top accounts and limit everybody else to just click only for himself and his commander..??
anyhow an individual player cannot rise in top ranks because this game is meant to be played as a team...
then why do you complain that leeches simply outgrow individual clickers..??
it is meant to b like that...!
leeches mostly earn their spots as a reward for great dedication for his alliance... so he is entitled for his trickle..

This system still encourages alliances. Alliances are a bunch of commander-officer relationships. this fully allows commander officer relationships to grow and be profitable. All this does is make it so that there are less leach accounts. And, leech accounts simply sell to the main and give the main an even bigger advantage. Or, they flee from a war, return afterwards, never sell off, and rank like they do every age. Either way, they arent that awesome. I like the current system. It makes direct officers matter so much more and makes this game more within reach of the individual or small teams (not that those will ever win an age, but now they have a chance of pretending they compete).

Agent47
10th December 2009, 11:40 AM
This system still encourages alliances. Alliances are a bunch of commander-officer relationships. this fully allows commander officer relationships to grow and be profitable. All this does is make it so that there are less leach accounts. And, leech accounts simply sell to the main and give the main an even bigger advantage. Or, they flee from a war, return afterwards, never sell off, and rank like they do every age. Either way, they arent that awesome. I like the current system. It makes direct officers matter so much more and makes this game more within reach of the individual or small teams (not that those will ever win an age, but now they have a chance of pretending they compete).


wat d current system 'actually does'(side effect) is that "It makes direct officers matter so much more and.." makes the indirect officers clicks go uncounted towards the growth of the main...

most alliances will encourage all the hardcore clickers to join under the main.. so actually it reduces d no of other strong accounts...
and all or most of the accounts in a big alliance tend to be always crowded directly under the main...(which is weird)

so actually instead of having 4-5 big tffs the big alliances will have just one mega huge tff and other comparatively small tff accounts..
thus practically other than the main all other accounts will be getting very less growth...

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 11:51 AM
wat d current system 'actually does'(side effect) is that "It makes direct officers matter so much more and.." makes the indirect officers clicks go uncounted towards the growth of the main...

most alliances will encourage all the hardcore clickers to join under the main.. so actually it reduces d no of other strong accounts...
and all or most of the accounts in a big alliance tend to be always crowded directly under the main...(which is weird)

so actually instead of having 4-5 big tffs the big alliances will have just one mega huge tff and other comparatively small tff accounts..
thus practically other than the main all other accounts will be getting very less growth...
that is fine. the main is always out of an individuals reach (except like AL2's chaos main who placed 55th and had a sub-officer place 24th, but that is an uncommon phenomenon). Or, should be with any decent sized alliance. However, i see nothing wrong with having everyone else then being a close to level playing field.

bravo
10th December 2009, 11:56 AM
Lol... why do you care? KoC doesn't need to teach the kids, mommy and daddy do :P

And I voted to change the trickle back to the way it was, or atleast 2-3 tiers up would be good.

Read between the lines please.... seriously!
In case you are too thick to get it.. let the people take their finger out of their arse basically!

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 12:29 PM
Read between the lines please.... seriously!
In case you are too thick to get it.. let the people take their finger out of their arse basically!

What you said earlier was pretty clear, im pretty sure blazed was joking with his reply.

Or, that is my take on it.

Seneca
10th December 2009, 12:41 PM
well bravo it encourages playing closely with your commander, but not playing with an alliance.

Anyway, I get your irritation about people like blazed getting a good rank without actually playing the game or putting any effort into it.

Agent47
10th December 2009, 12:59 PM
that is fine. the main is always out of an individuals reach (except like AL2's chaos main who placed 55th and had a sub-officer place 24th, but that is an uncommon phenomenon). Or, should be with any decent sized alliance. However, i see nothing wrong with having everyone else then being a close to level playing field.

indirect officers cast out of providing boost to the main...thus they are less useful to d alliance..
that is d thing i tried to point out..and that is why i want the old trickle levels back..at least to 3 levels

and also note that as no of big accounts reduce..it reduces the chaos of the game... d top spots bcom less volatile...
big sells caught might hav changed the outcome of an age...
wars will be less interesting if the no of big accounts is reduced..
d strategies will b just to concentrate on main...
and it will simply b an all on one massing..
and main vs main sabbing..(since no other big accounts, mains will be out of range for all!)

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 01:02 PM
indirect officers cast out of providing boost to the main...thus they are less useful to d alliance..
that is d thing i tried to point out..and that is why i want the old trickle levels back..at least to 3 levels

and also note that as no of big accounts reduce..it reduces the chaos of the game... d top spots bcom less volatile...
big sells caught might hav changed the outcome of an age...
wars will be less interesting if the no of big accounts is reduced..
d strategies will b just to concentrate on main...

i disagree. Look how much movement we have had in the top 20 so far. There have been lots of changes and lots of chaos. Trust me, mains will still accept sells, and the mains direct trickle will still be awesomely powerful.

Agent47
10th December 2009, 01:06 PM
the chaos now we have is only because of noob stalking :D

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 01:08 PM
the chaos now we have is only because of noob stalking :D

there is no more noob stalking.

rocco changed starting gold (although why he reduced starting turns is beyond me: let the folks have their turns)

Agent47
10th December 2009, 01:10 PM
we had it till yesterday.. it will take some time..1 or 2 weeks for its effect to drain out...

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 01:12 PM
we had it till yesterday.. it will take some time..1 or 2 weeks for its effect to drain out...

well, but the excitement of it changing will not die out so much.

blazed420
10th December 2009, 01:20 PM
well bravo it encourages playing closely with your commander, but not playing with an alliance.

Anyway, I get your irritation about people like blazed getting a good rank without actually playing the game or putting any effort into it.

Lol. Thats a joke right?

You wouldn't of finished close to your end rank without all those sell offs and the trickle you were getting, so dont get started on "putting effort into it" :)

Paradiso
10th December 2009, 01:26 PM
REMVOE ALL TRICLKE THEN IT WILL BE EASY TO KILL THE RANKKER

fistsofthor
10th December 2009, 01:44 PM
REMVOE ALL TRICLKE THEN IT WILL BE EASY TO KILL THE RANKKER

so long as trickle helps pull players into lumps and keep them involved in the came, it is doing its job, the lumps of players do not even have to be that big.

however, we shall never abolish trickle completely. i currently like this system. this system works,

i mean, if you really want to make an argument for having a player get growth from his sub-officer, make a reason why we should change something other than:

X group is stronger but will still play
X group is weakened but will still play
X action that benefits small group, but wont impact whether they play the game would be more difficult to make

or any similar things.

Seneca
10th December 2009, 03:17 PM
Lol. Thats a joke right?

You wouldn't of finished close to your end rank without all those sell offs and the trickle you were getting, so dont get started on "putting effort into it" :)

I clicked 1,000,000 and only got like 100k trickle max and that was at the point in the age where growth rly didn't matter much anymore. Also, I barely got any sells, maybe 70b, so yea, you did way less with your awesome 4k clicked and rest of your account bought (by ripping off your own alliance members on morale deals).

And even with that trickle I still had half your TFF, so yea, you got owned :)

blazed420
10th December 2009, 03:19 PM
I clicked 1,000,000 and only got like 100k trickle max and that was at the point in the age where growth rly didn't matter much anymore. Also, I barely got any sells, maybe 70b, so yea, you did way less with your awesome 4k clicked and rest of your account bought.

Lol sure bud. You just mad you aren't as great as me. Its ok though kiddo, someday you might be on my level... probably not though.

BTW, not my fault you had to click 1mil morale to send to people you make bad hits on... QQ moar.

And I clicked more than 4k :) Lol.

Screwdriver_LaCN
10th December 2009, 03:21 PM
REMVOE ALL TRICLKE THEN IT WILL BE EASY TO KILL THE RANKKER

Delete your account xD

to the topic :P - the big movement in the top rankings is just temporary, you cant win an age with that small TFF like now the top ranked accounts have :D

blazed420
10th December 2009, 03:22 PM
Delete your account xD

to the topic :P - the big movement in the top rankings is just temporary, you cant win an age with that small TFF like now the top ranked accounts have :D

Who really cares about who finished in top ranks during a Beta? :)

Seneca
10th December 2009, 03:24 PM
Delete your account xD

to the topic :P - the big movement in the top rankings is just temporary, you cant win an age with that small TFF like now the top ranked accounts have :D

Well, I was thinking, if you slay properly with the stats some of the highranked guys have atm it might be possible to stay at a decent rank for that one month. But I guess if people keep growing like they are now it won't happen

Goldaline
11th December 2009, 01:45 PM
I think 3 levels of trickle would be good.

plasticsheep
11th December 2009, 07:00 PM
I think 3 levels of trickle would be good.

3 or 4 would be good - I think the chain structure, and how alliances use the trickle they gain has a major effect on their power and chances at a high ranked account at the end of the age.

Ricky91
11th December 2009, 07:28 PM
I'm kind of 50/50 with the situation, I would like there to be trickle up to 2/3 perhaps for my own and alliance benefit, but I can't help but think it would make the ages more dramatic with alliances only being able to hold 1 top account.

I say it would be dramatic, but IF one alliance was to have twice the members of any other alliance, then winning an age would be a walk in the park, making it really uncompetitive, trickle would stop that due to increased sell offs and a higher spread in chains.

RoHaLoVeR
12th December 2009, 05:50 AM
As I said earlier, the 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 trickle is like a universal rule in KoC that is as important as clicking itself, and nobody ever complained about it, so why would you change something that's good into something totally different?

It would be like Coca Cola giving up all their drinks and start a car company.

I'm good with 3 levels of trickle up (1/2, 1/4, 1/8), if there is no trickle up, only the amount of officers will count, and in war time, yes the main with the highest TFF will be pretty safe, but what about the people who boosted him?

I don't think it's fair that only the person with the most officers will be safe, there is not much teamwork in that and there isn't any strategy in it either (like, TFE's strategy was to have several "big accounts" instead of just 1 superbig account, now there's no trickle up anymore so only the amount of officers will count).

Restore trickle up please!

ThomasA
12th December 2009, 06:39 AM
As I said earlier, the 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 trickle is like a universal rule in KoC that is as important as clicking itself, and nobody ever complained about it, so why would you change something that's good into something totally different?

It would be like Coca Cola giving up all their drinks and start a car company.

I'm good with 3 levels of trickle up (1/2, 1/4, 1/8), if there is no trickle up, only the amount of officers will count, and in war time, yes the main with the highest TFF will be pretty safe, but what about the people who boosted him?

I don't think it's fair that only the person with the most officers will be safe, there is not much teamwork in that and there isn't any strategy in it either (like, TFE's strategy was to have several "big accounts" instead of just 1 superbig account, now there's no trickle up anymore so only the amount of officers will count).

Restore trickle up please!

Im not disagreeing with your points about trickle.

There has always been complaints about mega chains though and maybe the Admins saw this change as a way to try to resolve that.

bravo
12th December 2009, 08:27 AM
Im not disagreeing with your points about trickle.

There has always been complaints about mega chains though and maybe the Admins saw this change as a way to try to resolve that.

Bingo! :<3:

Seneca
12th December 2009, 10:11 AM
There are a few loners complaining about mega chains, while the people in those chains (they're mega, so that's a lot of people) actually like the system as it is.
So the change will make a few people happy and a lot of ppl unhappy, /win I guess

Screwdriver_LaCN
12th December 2009, 12:32 PM
There are a few loners complaining about mega chains, while the people in those chains (they're mega, so that's a lot of people) actually like the system as it is.
So the change will make a few people happy and a lot of ppl unhappy, /win I guess

WoW Totally Agree with you ;)

Jmc
12th December 2009, 04:52 PM
I am happy either way but I dont think the trickle rules are very fair as they are:

At the start of new age anyone whos good at clicking or going to click will be asked to go under their chains main account. So it provides a very flat stucture of chain and therefor making the really big accounts even bigger and TBH is that what we want? I though it would be to make the chains more bell shaped have more accounts with similar TFF and more accounts competing for those top spots big chains are going to adapt to the new clicking rules and that will be to put as many accounts as possible under there main account if the rules stay the same. This is not what we want it going to stop movement in chains and stop alot of deal making boosting. Killing the game not making it better. :)

bravo
13th December 2009, 03:11 AM
Correction ---> Restore old trickle... 12th December 2009 02:30 PM how can you talk at all about mega chains when TUE just joined LACN/LOP? BTW TUE sucks now that you joined the worst alliance in the game. nice job

We didn't joined LaCN we joined Spiderwoman mainly for fun and give her a tiny bit of growth as a favor for a previous favor!
Atm TUE is not under Spiderwoman anymore (since last Thursday) because I deleted my account for personal reasons but looking by the dates it is clear that you didn't do you research before posting, ;)

Anyways, just for those wondering who what and why!

fistsofthor
13th December 2009, 10:52 AM
There are a few loners complaining about mega chains, while the people in those chains (they're mega, so that's a lot of people) actually like the system as it is.
So the change will make a few people happy and a lot of ppl unhappy, /win I guess

well, if it stays the way it is, people will adjust I suppose.

Emphasis
13th December 2009, 06:18 PM
I'd say 1 extra level on top of the current one. Limited is needed though, we don't want those superhuge da whores again now do we:p

fistsofthor
13th December 2009, 08:20 PM
I'd say 1 extra level on top of the current one. Limited is needed though, we don't want those superhuge da whores again now do we:p

the current level is fine. Although, 1 additional level MIGHT be nice (commander & super-commander get growth).

The reason: at present, there is no motivation for commanders to teach their officers how to recruit officers nor is their motivation for commanders to motivate their officers to recruit (from outside the game perhaps) in terms of growth for themselves.

Now, if we assume that one of the goals to koc is to expand and grow, then the current commander only gets growth would be counter productive. However, that may not be the goal of the koc admins.

Screwdriver_LaCN
14th December 2009, 12:26 AM
As it was said in above IF this trickle system stays the real age we will have all hardcore clickers under the main accounts of the big chains and we will have really big accounts and others will be far away from their stats.At least this will happen imo...the other option is to spread all the clickers under several accounts but this is hard imo because you cant Order to everyone, right? :P

fistsofthor
14th December 2009, 12:49 AM
As it was said in above IF this trickle system stays the real age we will have all hardcore clickers under the main accounts of the big chains and we will have really big accounts and others will be far away from their stats.At least this will happen imo...the other option is to spread all the clickers under several accounts but this is hard imo because you cant Order to everyone, right? :P

what i think you are also forgetting is that certain commanders will be reluctant to give up their actively clicking officers. So, i do not think this will end up as drastically slanted. I think this will mostly mean fewer trickles as well as command chains that arent 5 accounts above the main.

BuGz
14th December 2009, 04:24 AM
I think 2-level (commander / super commander) would be a perfect balance.

For reasons already previously stated.

MarriedToTheMob
15th December 2009, 09:53 AM
I always thought it should be more than 4 layers of trickle. I mean it gets cut in half each time anyway.

But 1 trickle is almost pointless.

BuGz
15th December 2009, 10:01 AM
I always thought it should be more than 4 layers of trickle. I mean it gets cut in half each time anyway.

But 1 trickle is almost pointless.

Yeah I didn't think trickle was that much of a problem, and honestly there isn't a whole lot of difference between 2 layers of trickle and 30 layers of trickle.

If you get 1 MILLION growth from morale, if that goes up 4 layers the person at the top is only benefiting 62.5k soldiers from you... Which, by the time you get 1million growth from morale (exclude UP, mercenaries, growth from your officers/trickle, etc.) 62.5k is nothing.


I think the huge difference is between 1 layer of trickle vs. multiple layers of trickle, if you get more than 1 layer, it doesn't change a whole lot if you have 2 or 200. (It adds up, but not a huge change since only morale growth trickles, not total growth).

So really if you don't plan on keeping it at 1, might as well put it back at 4 or 5 or w/e it was before.

Seneca
15th December 2009, 10:20 AM
It's not about 1 person growing 1m, it's about about 200 people growing 30k under you, which is way more probably and does really make a big differnce

fistsofthor
15th December 2009, 10:54 AM
It's not about 1 person growing 1m, it's about about 200 people growing 30k under you, which is way more probably and does really make a big differnce

ive got to agree with seneca here. Its the lots of little people growing a bit that really make a difference in terms of trickle. For example, pretty much everyone in this game who gets their name on the click list will provide several k worth of growth to their commander. Its the huge amounts of little players that add up.

Whether we remember it or not, the little guy is still really important in koc.

But, lets play out the age and see what happens. If we stick with 1 level of trickle, then we may see some bigger chains splitting apart as growth deals are hard to make without 2 layers of trickle.

BuGz
15th December 2009, 11:38 AM
It's not about 1 person growing 1m, it's about about 200 people growing 30k under you, which is way more probably and does really make a big differnce

Other than mega-alliance chain mains, nobody would have 200 people under them at all really; and like I said, the trickle adds up, but still in very small amounts. (Still stands that if there is 1million growth 4 levels below you, you still only get 62.5k [1million for purposes of difference, if they all grow 30k then you're getting less than 2k from each of them])

I think 2-level trickle would be pretty good. Then alliances could build up a lot of large accounts while still all boosting their main (main has sub-mains under him, all the "little guys" are spread out amongst the sub-mains).

Or 1-level trickle works for me too, helps lessen the gap between people trying to get officers themselves, and people who have 200 officers who each have 100 officers who each have 50 officers. XD

Seneca
15th December 2009, 11:58 AM
For me 3 levels of trickle (50%, 25%, 12,5%) is the bare minimum, but I prefer 4 levels and up.

fistsofthor
15th December 2009, 01:50 PM
For me 3 levels of trickle (50%, 25%, 12,5%) is the bare minimum, but I prefer 4 levels and up.

i think we should leave it at 1 level of trickle. this will create less accounts that are simply gifted growth.

BuGz
15th December 2009, 11:06 PM
i think we should leave it at 1 level of trickle. this will create less accounts that are simply gifted growth.

This was the main thing that I liked about the change.

Every age the person above the mega-alliance mains were always pretty much guaranteed a top5 spot with little to no work from themselves.

3ddy
18th December 2009, 04:55 AM
current growth is definately off i can see it in my own account
370,085 soldiers

accounts under me have
605,338 soldiers
170,005 soldiers
70,503 soldiers
271,536 soldiers
1,657 soldiers
329 soldiers
i think there is something wrong in the formula
looks like i am short 104,684 soldiers or more

Lopina
18th December 2009, 04:58 AM
current growth is definately off i can see it in my own account
370,085 soldiers

accounts under me have
605,338 soldiers
170,005 soldiers
70,503 soldiers
271,536 soldiers
1,657 soldiers
329 soldiers
i think there is something wrong in the formula
looks like i am short 104,684 soldiers or more

AFAIK, UP doesn't trickle.
Maybe that's the solution to your mystery ;)

nirvanaisking
18th December 2009, 09:53 AM
I think four levels of trickle is the way to go.

jog1
18th December 2009, 11:10 AM
current growth is definately off i can see it in my own account
370,085 soldiers

accounts under me have
605,338 soldiers
170,005 soldiers
70,503 soldiers
271,536 soldiers
1,657 soldiers
329 soldiers
i think there is something wrong in the formula
looks like i am short 104,684 soldiers or more

Of course you don't get half of what your officers growth. Because some of their growth comes from farther down the chain and doesn't reach you in the trickle.

Atomslaya
19th December 2009, 10:34 AM
I voted no.
This might be the best change that Rocco has made this age. The playingfield will be a lot more leveled this way. As was mentionned a lot already, the more people that feel they can compete with the rest, the more they will enjoy playing KoC. The more people enjoy this game, the better.
Someone said that some people merely play this game to click. If that is the case: wtf. Seriously get another hobby if all you want to do in KoC is click.

I'd say maybe a second level of trickle would be allowable, but any more would be too much again imho.


@3ddy:
Also some of their growth comes from up. UP is never trickled up. Since UP is a lot higher this age, it doesn't surprise me at all you would be 104k soldiers "short"

lostmetallica
20th December 2009, 11:58 PM
Hmm on one hand i don't like what happened last age where SR and LaCN had how many big accounts to sell to their main account? I mean ouch. And I get it, how is it that 100 soldiers becomes so much more!

100 + 50 + 25 etc etc etc... how does that make sense?

However, on the other hand it also sort of destroys the purpose of a chain beyond commander and officers, maybe that was the whole point but I can cite quite a few people who only still play because they want to help the chain/alliance, and at the moment, we can't afford to lose anyone! I would like to see it go from AT LEAST sub-officer to officer to commander. One more level than current. I want to help my officers, but I feel like i'm hurting my clan by sending them morale! This would prevent the massive clans have 10 strong accounts due to trickle only too and would provide for some more creative chain structures when it comes to clans like TFE that are made up of many experienced players who could play a top account.

MarriedToTheMob
3rd January 2010, 04:06 PM
I want to help my officers, but I feel like i'm hurting my clan by sending them morale!

Yeah, this is my biggest concern about the new trickle system. In past ages I have even sent clicks to my officers that don't click or even to sub-officers just for chain morale. 2 levels of trickle would be a good compromise.

Docent
3rd January 2010, 08:27 PM
This was the main thing that I liked about the change.



1 level of trickle is plenty. If we want the game to last, we need lots of newer, smaller players - not the same Top 5 accounts age after age.

Batman
5th January 2010, 09:35 AM
4 levels will do :)

Chemi
6th January 2010, 12:55 AM
The new trickle system does ruin big alliances gaining the win with one player so easily by mere collaberation
I think 2 levels would be a good idea
I'm most likely disconnected from the 3rd level below me so why should I benefit from it?