PDA

View Full Version : players who want age 7 rules and gameplay (but re-balanced)



Rasputin
25th December 2009, 02:21 AM
this is for all those who dislike the beta and would prefer age 7 gameplay, keeping undead, and rebalancing the sabbing.

I'll tell you all now I voted yes, as I think if these beta changes are carried into main age, it'll have 10 players, with 10000 fakes. RoC and other games that don't appeal as much, will grab some people because they may see the chance and revert to the Old KoC style people loved. I guess it's up to Rocco, does he want a game anymore?

Seneca
25th December 2009, 02:37 AM
Members Power
La Cosa Nostra 345 115
Bring Age 7 rules back! 18 93
Sweet Revenge 190 56

Nuff said

Rasputin
25th December 2009, 02:39 AM
<3 to seneca! and 3 others

powdered_donuts
25th December 2009, 03:55 AM
10 players, with 10000 fakes. RoC and other games that don't appeal as much, will grab some people because they may see the chance and revert to the Old KoC style people loved

Your over exagerating, KOC may loose a few players to games like ROC, but that'll just make ROC go from having 32 active players *half of which are mods of some sort* to having more like 35 active players.

And KOC will probably end up for next age having about a 3k player base with about 150 active KOC players with about 1k fakes. And after the 1k fakes are banned, the players who were banned for it won't care anymore and just quit.

Usually a person doesn't cheat until he/she doesn't care anymore. And if the rules remain like this less people are going to care.

It'll drop from there because the smaller the player base is the less people that are interested in playing.

On Topic:
I voted yes.

Screwdriver_LaCN
25th December 2009, 04:18 AM
Can you please remind us which were the rules in age 7 because I didnt play actively then :/ and I am sure there are some new players who havent played in age 7 :)

Seneca
25th December 2009, 04:33 AM
<3 to seneca! and 3 others

actually 6 people on the front page are using it as primary now.

BillyCrack
25th December 2009, 04:39 AM
Can you please remind us which were the rules in age 7 because I didnt play actively then :/ and I am sure there are some new players who havent played in age 7 :)

Same, please do it :) I started to play koc in age 8

MFnBonsai
25th December 2009, 04:47 AM
1 turn for mass attack....
15 turns for full attack....
11 attempts to spy recon combined....
50 weapons sabbed aat max regardless of strength....

add to it if you remember more....

BloodBullet
25th December 2009, 04:53 AM
could only attack someone 5 times every 24h
could only spy someone 11 times + sab

the only thing that can't be like age 7 is the clicking rules, I believe it was still with IP back then (resetting for a new list)

what koc should do is make some sort of clicker like RoC did, but don't make it unlimited make it so every link can be clicked 5-10 times per day.. this will stop people who can magically click 150k or more per day (no lifers)

+ there won't be no more whining about people re-ordering their clicklist from their recruiter and thus make the game more fair for everyone

cowboy_from_hell
25th December 2009, 04:54 AM
Agree with BB.

Plus a lil change to how sabbing went cause 50 aat ain't much :p

Seneca
25th December 2009, 05:07 AM
the alliance isn't for the old sucky recruiting system back, nor the 50-weapon sab limit.
The rest we do want (I think)

I personally don't like the recons + sabs combined, but hey, if that's the sacrifice for getting the rest back too I'll make it gladly.

BloodBullet
25th December 2009, 05:10 AM
recons and sabs combined was more fun, because you never knew how much times you would get in

sometimes you would fail 11 times, other times you could get in like 6 times..

Seneca
25th December 2009, 06:37 AM
recons and sabs combined was more fun, because you never knew how much times you would get in

sometimes you would fail 11 times, other times you could get in like 6 times..

Yes, I know, that's what I want, except, have sabs and recons seperate (i.e. 15 sab attempts and 15 recon attempts)

edit: 7 players on front page now, gonna be #1 alliance if bon doesn't ban it

MFnBonsai
25th December 2009, 06:41 AM
so now you want something different to Age7 rules lol

Seneca
25th December 2009, 07:07 AM
so now you want something different to Age7 rules lol
There's always things that could be improved from there, but a revert to rules back then would be a first step.

Top 10 Alliances
Name Members Power
Bring Age 7 rules back! 23 125
La Cosa Nostra 347 115

Adrenalinejunky
25th December 2009, 07:30 AM
i for one have no desire to see age 7 rules back

11 recons + sabs... blah... 11 recons and 11 sabs would be good, but i'm not in favor of recombining them, though i would prefer the get in how ever many times you can thing to max 10 turns....

max sab 50 weapons? no thank you.

turns every half hour - i like turns every minute

15 turns per attack = 3 and 1/5th attacks per day, sure, it makes it easier to bank your gold, but i'd still rather keep the current setup....

no conquests/tech/economy, i like them, they give you more options (and strategy) as to how you want to build your account....

trickle - this one i wouldn't mind seeing back, though i think it should be somewhere between where it is now and where it was then.

no officer bonus - this would be nice.....

ShadowMajestic
25th December 2009, 07:34 AM
if you want back to an age, go back to its roots, age 1 to 3, as age3 was basicly a v1.0 KoC, it should revert to that.

But, its very funny to see, that now KoC is changing, after ages and ages and ages and ages and ages of complaining that KoC barely changed.

As you obviously cant adept, you complain. we all wanted changes for so long, Rocco is adding those. brining towards us, a very interesting age, hopefully close to what KoC once was (not age7, idiots)

Back to the "OMG YOU HIT BE BELOW WHATS IN AA!!! YOUR APROVED" or other familiar sights, where thanks to a few nooby jerks acting all big and mighty, KoC came close to dying. It was no chaos, it was nothing, it was some random game where people that liked to feel big, acted thus.

Now, KoC is changing, instead of a few small changes an age, the most drastic changes since age3beta, which had the introduction of sabotage. It will most likely attract allot more people, NEW people, not the same old, same old

Even that i think you guys are complete morons, crying like little catholic schoolgirls on a sunday morning, i hope to god, that Rocco does what he normally does, IGNORE the massive complaining idiots.

I HAVE SPOKEN!

cowboy_from_hell
25th December 2009, 07:51 AM
I don't think anyone is against change. However just changing to change and well making the game about 100% different then what it was is not the way to do it. I could addapt but I don't know if I want to. Instead of changing things up a bit, Rocco just added a whole new shitload of stuff, making the game indeed chaotic but also not really pleasant to play.


Bring Age 7 rules back! (Primary Alliance) 65 (admin)

(Primary)

VKN 17
xana 2 (admin)



Start an Alliance
Name

Top Alliances
Name Members Power Rank
Bring Age 7 rules back! 65 124.9 1
La Cosa Nostra 481 114.72 2
Sweet Revenge 240 57.54 3

65 members in around 12 hours of existance and already top ranked alliance. Just have a look at the first page. I believe more and more people will join though ;)

punkrocker7829
25th December 2009, 08:29 AM
10 recons a day, no turns used for recons and sabs, keep the turns the way they are unlimited clicking per day, keep upgrades for tech, TBG, keep the upgraded spy past level 10 been waiting to see that for a while now. Change trickle back to something worth it. And what ever you do do not bring back AAs.

LordCounter
25th December 2009, 10:01 AM
age 7 wasnt perfect but it was way better than the ages after that

Name Bring Age 7 rules back!
Members 71
Rank 1

xAre
25th December 2009, 10:17 AM
Age 5 gameplay.
Thanks.

Rasputin
25th December 2009, 11:28 AM
I won't lie age 5 was my favorite age as far as gameplay, but age 7 was simply the most fun i'd ever had playing a game. But with all the people adding suggestions to keep SOME changes that have happened since 7 you can make a version that appeals to most people. such as, 10 recons and 10 sabs a day? adjust the AAT based on armory percentage a little like last age? I didn't mind sabbing to much, but the sab changes this beta (i.e. "to much damage to this target" and the the percentages) are horrific and retract from the gameplay.

If we wanted 1 minute turns/tech upgrades/more covert upgrades/and nearly unlimited clickers we'd play swars/roc/rot/bk/kd. but the fact being WE DON'T PLAY THOSE GAMES. and "your a bunch of whining school girls". No we are a bunch of dedicated players who want to see changes that IMPROVE gameplay, not take away from the game and make it something nobody enjoys. but if you don't want to see the AA's saying "hit for this or else" keep AA's gone! but if you look at any of the top 5 major clans they all have "rules" for goldhits REGARDLESS and you will be sabbed REGARDLESS. so saying that took away from gameplay isn't all that valid anymore, as so do clans forums/rules. but you NEED them. :P I say age 7 with some of todays modern changes. I hope the changes i mentioned are used if Rocco learns we're right

xAre
25th December 2009, 11:39 AM
I won't lie age 5 was my favorite age as far as gameplay, but age 7 was simply the most fun i'd ever had playing a game. But with all the people adding suggestions to keep SOME changes that have happened since 7 you can make a version that appeals to most people. such as, 10 recons and 10 sabs a day? adjust the AAT based on armory percentage a little like last age? I didn't mind sabbing to much, but the sab changes this beta (i.e. "to much damage to this target" and the the percentages) are horrific and retract from the gameplay.

If we wanted 1 minute turns/tech upgrades/more covert upgrades/and nearly unlimited clickers we'd play swars/roc/rot/bk/kd. but the fact being WE DON'T PLAY THOSE GAMES. and "your a bunch of whining school girls". No we are a bunch of dedicated players who want to see changes that IMPROVE gameplay, not take away from the game and make it something nobody enjoys. but if you don't want to see the AA's saying "hit for this or else" keep AA's gone! but if you look at any of the top 5 major clans they all have "rules" for goldhits REGARDLESS and you will be sabbed REGARDLESS. so saying that took away from gameplay isn't all that valid anymore, as so do clans forums/rules. but you NEED them. :P I say age 7 with some of todays modern changes. I hope the changes i mentioned are used if Rocco learns we're right

Age7 had an interesting aspect with its 50 weapon sab cap though, cheaper weapons or more effective weapons that would be lost quicker?
The main problem was that while it worked fine between bpm/chariots and is/dragonskin, anything lower than that just made sabbing pointless.

It would work if the numbers raise compared to the value of the weapon though...
example:
50 BPM or 50*(amount of chariots needed to match one bpm)*0.8, making it less effective to sab lower weapons compared to BPM's, but not completely pointless.

ShadowMajestic
25th December 2009, 11:54 AM
instead of whining, why not help to get it balanced more, the power advantages are crazy now, but meh, its a beta, it'll most likely be nerfed. going back to previous ages is stupid anyways

powdered_donuts
25th December 2009, 12:10 PM
I didn't start till the end of age six, age seven was defo my favorite age. Age six it seemed sabotauge was insanely powerful, age eight, sabotauge was insanely weak, age nine sucked, age ten wasn't much better, age eleven I wasn't really around for, and age twelve was okay I guess.

Age thirteen beta started off with some new ideas. Things were looking alright at first except when these changes that everyone hated started getting implemented. Insane multipliers that aren't doing the game any good.

The reason I want to revert back to age seven is not just because it was my favorite age, it's also because that was the most balanced age KOC has ever seen. *mind you I know nothing of age four or five*

Going back to age seven is a new start that people liked, admins can change from there, but at least they'll have a good start instead going off of age twelve, which is merely still an age trying to better the game from age eight where the bad changes started at.

If they reverted back to the earlier ages than that I would like to see age four revert. Any earlier, age one and two only had three stats, age three sabotauge was introduced and Tomsky apparently wooped everyone on his own?

Those who were around to know how Tomsky did that don't need to repeat something like that.

Age seven was balanced well.

btw, it's now the number 1 alliance:

Bring Age 7 rules back! 76 119.78 1
La Cosa Nostra 482 114.55 2
Sweet Revenge 239 58.08 3
NWO 212 47.54 4

Rasputin
25th December 2009, 06:44 PM
i agree with the fact that if you started with age 7 you could work, adjust and re-balance the sab aspect and armory values and such. so it wouldn't be to hard to fix some of the issues if Rocco read this

Rocco
25th December 2009, 08:29 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

People complained just as much about the changes from Age 6->7 as they do now, or any other age :) And any specific changes suggested (beyond a general "yay Age 7 rules!") will undoubtedly be disliked by players who believe it hurts them or causes them to tweak their style of play.

That said, to be useful, a critique needs to provide specific rules and changes that you liked, and how/why it affects gameplay.

For starters, what does "re-balanced" mean?

Shane-
25th December 2009, 09:00 PM
Rocco,

Listen:

Making numbers huge -> Not good.
Making difference between casual player / player (Multiplys) super high -> Not good
Killing the bases of an alliances -> Not good
Destroying any chance a solo player can do decently -> Not good.

"Act" like you play the game, Don't act like you're a twat face ranker, Act like you're a typical small/midrange account, Or, Go and speak to your best mod ( bon )



Shane

Edit: And stop stealing ideas from Ruins Of Chaos and sWars, If we wanted to play those, We would, We want to play " Kings Of Chaos " (Ya' know, YOUR GAME), Not a stupid clone with half ased ideas (Half ased ideas you're stealing).

SleepingDragon
25th December 2009, 09:15 PM
Edit: And stop stealing ideas from Ruins Of Chaos and sWars, If we wanted to play those, We would, We want to play " Kings Of Chaos " (Ya' know, YOUR GAME), Not a stupid clone with half ased ideas (Half ased ideas you're stealing).

Wouldn't borrowing half-ass ideas make them quarter-ass ideas? :tongue:
More full-assed ideas in beta would be awesome!

I think the trickle limitations is good. Sab limits, both in amount of sabs allowed and very decreased sab amounts, is bad.

Conquests are interesting, but perhaps it can be used in a different way than stat multipliers. Maybe use Conquest to "individualize" your account, not the stats, but something else to make it "your own." I have no idea what that could pertain to, but having some more individuality apart from stats would be cool.

I like how Beta has introduced some more RPG-like elements, but blowing up stats makes it hard for people to catch up or join midway. Unless Ages will be shorter, I don't see how 6 months with even 1/2 the beta changes could be helpful to saving the player base.

Vrasp
25th December 2009, 09:37 PM
I am of the opinion that this thread is pointless. Admins never revert back to old things because they think of it as contrary to progress.

If you guys want to see old features return, you should state specifically which features those were, rather than generalize and say "Age 7!"

Rasputin
25th December 2009, 09:45 PM
I want age 7 sabbing back, because frankly 50 AAT is infinitely better than 1000 and not being sabable for another 24 hours. or perhaps do armory percentage with old age 7 sab rules? but REMOVE THE SAB LIMIT per day. and increase what can be lost so we can't sab-inchain and make ourselves untouchable.

Screwdriver_LaCN
26th December 2009, 12:32 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

People complained just as much about the changes from Age 6->7 as they do now, or any other age :) And any specific changes suggested (beyond a general "yay Age 7 rules!") will undoubtedly be disliked by players who believe it hurts them or causes them to tweak their style of play.

That said, to be useful, a critique needs to provide specific rules and changes that you liked, and how/why it affects gameplay.

For starters, what does "re-balanced" mean?

Did you read the link you gave? :D because I think you dont get it...Yes here on GUA several people are talking and whining about the changes and they are not the majority but if you want some new players not the old ones you have to make the game fun and simple for those old ones who can tell their friends that KoC really worths playing!
I also play the game but noone from my friends like it because the game became too complicated...So many changes/limitations!These days if some newbies join your alliance and they are complete strangers to it you have to explain them the game with days!!!Explaining the sab rules/attack rules how the TBG system works, why they dont see what they expected to see after some explanations.Why they cant sab anymore a target when others already sabbed it (bad example for the sab limits)!!!Now if you want to start a war you have to think carefully about a lot of things like who will be the sabbers who will be the slayers/massers, for what kind of actions to use your Game Turns, will you be able to sab everyone in the enemy chain and how they can retailate and what losses you will have.

Rocco has to think how to satisfy the wishes of the active KoC players not of the majority!Exactly we are the players who make the game still alive!It is true some are big whiners but when you see a poll here and see that over 80% of the votes are for one of the option you cant ignore it :)

P.S. There is no doubt that some will quit playing KoC if it keeps chainging in that way but it is true that some are addicted and will play it no matter how it is changed which is Sad ;)

Maz
26th December 2009, 05:13 AM
@Screwdriver_LaCN

But making the game more complicated, isn't that better? Look at this like some sort of "reset", now even the good players have to re-consider their strategy and everyone is back to starting point.
Being careful and strategic when going to war sounds nice to me, haha. This is a game of war, and you should always becareful when warring.

@Rocco
What people mean is they liked the old KoC better than this new one. They enjoyed it more.

For example, the 11 sab/recon tries was nice because then you could try to figure out how many times someone came through and how much they took and then calculate how much to sell and re-buy. You could also use this to "fake" and make the victim sell a lot more. All strategy, which is very nice!

Getting 1 turn every half hour and able to use between 1 and 15 turns to make an attack, depending on how much gold one wants or if the person just wants to mass (using 1 turn 10 times). Maybe you could increase this to 2-3 turns every half hour, so there will be more attacks per day.

One more thing to change is the clicking, I remember it was based on IP back then so you could just change your IP and click more. The system we have now is better, so that's one aspect of the game that is better than it was before. Keep that!

The sabotaging back then if I remember it correctly was 50 AAT. Then it depended on how many times you came through. There are a lot of different thoughts on this thing, maybe you yourself could start a poll with people voting how they like it and then explaining in the thread instead of someone else doing it? Makes it more serious.

cowboy_from_hell
26th December 2009, 06:34 AM
I think everyone that played Age 7, knows that the age wasn't perfect. But tbh I don't think anyone here expects perfect. Most have been playing for ages, and play koc for it's community. However we have put up with alot of crappy changes, like the 250 turn masses in Age 9 lol. And when these crappy changes stay at a minimum, and the age has some good things aswell, most will keep playing. However when you go and make a shitload of crappy changes, keep the bad things and change a few good things for the worse, I don't think many will keep playing. There's only so much we can put up with.

For me that's one of the main reason I want Age 7 back. It had far less flaws and stupid stuff this one has. It wasn't perfect at all, but atleast I enjoyed playing. Now I just play for my chain a little, to help them. But when you keep making these ridiculous changes you won't have many players left.
From what I can see maybe 5% of the players actually like all these multipliers. What made koc fun was that it was rather easy to play till a certain level, but with a good strategy you could outplay your opponents. Now most of that is gone and with that the fun left for me.

loofa4
26th December 2009, 07:26 AM
I may not agree with every change that has been made, but I definitely think that change was needed. Yes, KoC has changed drastically, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Think of all the good changes:
1) Turns per minute means people don't all sit around to attack all at the same time every half hour. It makes the game more streamlined.
2) Experience simply makes sense. I my not agree with how exactly it is attained, but it is still a great addition to KoC.
3) Technology makes the game more like many other popular games, such as Age of Empires and the like, and will surely improve gameplay and strategy.
4) Economy. Helping low TFF armies still be able to make gold.
5) Conquests. Finally you have an alternate option to attacking, so non SA based armies don't have to end up raiding much lower ranked players.
6) The officer rank multiplier makes sense, as long as it only affects rank. We are fighting to be the king, so of course the one with the most followers should have an advantage. That's what being a king is.
I think overall Rocco is doing a great job. KoC needed this makeover. A few people may quit, but let them, especially if they're high ranked because this will give newer players a better chance lol. Anyways, more people will join because of these changes than quit because of them. Do I think this beta is perfect, hell no. But it has potential to be an excellent improvement.
Everyone should stop whining about how they hate all the changes and instead go back to helping Rocco refine and streamline them through constructive criticism.

Sexy_Butt_Kicker
26th December 2009, 07:37 AM
every time I turn around they are changing something. I guess thats whuts bugging me the most

Rasputin
26th December 2009, 10:17 PM
for those who say "the changes are nice, we like'em not everyone wants age 7" YOU'RE RIGHT but lets look at the poll numbers.. they don't lie..

Ricky91
27th December 2009, 07:43 AM
From Age 3 to 7 the game lost 110k players which suggests there was something wrong with Age 7...and probably the ages in between that. If the game was to go back to any specific set of rules it would have to be Age 3.

But all games have to develop in order to improve and keep current players while attracting new ones, no previous Age would do that. So my vote is no.

The poll shows a minority of people who have voted so is pretty useless, Rasputin you need to tell more of your buddies to come here and manipulate the poll by voting yes otherwise you have just wasted your time.

BloodBullet
27th December 2009, 08:12 AM
I don't think you can blame the changes for people leaving the game, but its also the fact that this game is no longer exciting enough for people to play.. people got newer and better computers nowadays and can play games like Call of duty or whatever.. why on earth would someone choose to play KoC and not a real game?

Seneca
27th December 2009, 08:40 AM
I don't think you can blame the changes for people leaving the game, but its also the fact that this game is no longer exciting enough for people to play.. people got newer and better computers nowadays and can play games like Call of duty or whatever.. why on earth would someone choose to play KoC and not a real game?

Because there's fun people playing it, and it's a pretty decent game when it comes to tactics? Also, people might not have good enough computers to play decent games.

Adrenalinejunky
27th December 2009, 08:55 AM
Rocco,

Listen:

Making numbers huge -> Not good.


in all honesty as everthing is based on the relative size of that stats it makes no gameplay difference whether 1,000,000 is good or 100,000,000,000. they are just numbers.



Making difference between casual player / player (Multiplys) super high -> Not good


and there hasn't always been a difference?



Killing the bases of an alliances -> Not good


the flipside of this is actually the same point you just made "making a difference between casual/player" making one person or account extremely larger then another. don't get me wrong, i think there is definately some strategy lost (much like there was when they reduced from 15 commander changes i'm sure. though that was during a period i didn't play) chain structuring and growth deals and mains and/or others in the alliance will suffer, on the other hand there is some strategy gained in ways as well (one massive accounts? lots of mid sized accounts without something that one would consider a traditional sized main? ) there are definately trade offs in every aspect - but this also applies on your next point as well ->



Destroying any chance a solo player can do decently -> Not good.


lack of trickle actually significantly helps solo players, in some cases probably even more then the officer bonus hurts them. now i'm not at all in favor of the officer bonus - but i have to point out that it seems at least to me several of your points are very strongly conflicting.


@Screwdriver_LaCN

But making the game more complicated, isn't that better? Look at this like some sort of "reset", now even the good players have to re-consider their strategy and everyone is back to starting point.
Being careful and strategic when going to war sounds nice to me, haha. This is a game of war, and you should always becareful when warring.

@Rocco
What people mean is they liked the old KoC better than this new one. They enjoyed it more.

For example, the 11 sab/recon tries was nice because then you could try to figure out how many times someone came through and how much they took and then calculate how much to sell and re-buy. You could also use this to "fake" and make the victim sell a lot more. All strategy, which is very nice!

Getting 1 turn every half hour and able to use between 1 and 15 turns to make an attack, depending on how much gold one wants or if the person just wants to mass (using 1 turn 10 times). Maybe you could increase this to 2-3 turns every half hour, so there will be more attacks per day.

One more thing to change is the clicking, I remember it was based on IP back then so you could just change your IP and click more. The system we have now is better, so that's one aspect of the game that is better than it was before. Keep that!

The sabotaging back then if I remember it correctly was 50 AAT. Then it depended on how many times you came through. There are a lot of different thoughts on this thing, maybe you yourself could start a poll with people voting how they like it and then explaining in the thread instead of someone else doing it? Makes it more serious.

couldn't agree more maz - i like the added options/strategy. and i would much like to see 11 turns back as well, though i think whoever said it earlier hit the nail on the head with current aat + how ever many times you get through in 11.

Seneca
27th December 2009, 11:03 AM
AJ, nice try, but you obviously haven't done any maths or any research, which is really something you need in order to win an argument from Shane. For example:


lack of trickle actually significantly helps solo players, in some cases probably even more then the officer bonus hurts them. now i'm not at all in favor of the officer bonus - but i have to point out that it seems at least to me several of your points are very strongly conflicting.

This is just wrong, since officer bonus is 50% for any account of semidecent size, and trickle is only 25% (the 50% trickle is still there). Add to that that actual statbonus is way better than TFF bonus..

Just one example of your flaw of logic, I'm really not going to bother pointing out the other 10.

blazed420
27th December 2009, 11:15 AM
Let's go back to Age 2 or 3 and start from scratch. I'd be happy with that. :)

ZAR
27th December 2009, 11:27 AM
Let's go back to Age 2 or 3 and start from scratch. I'd be happy with that. :)

Why not age 1 or even 0 ? :lamer:

This lets go back suggestions are pretty lame imho, the current fetures need just to be tweaked, we donīt need to go back to an Age that wasnīt all that good from today's view.

Oh and I donīt know if anyone noticed, you all are requesting the RoC-sabsystem - I wouldnīt mind it, as it is fast and no waste of time, but doing real damage is impossible with their system.

Rasputin
27th December 2009, 12:04 PM
no we all want the age7 system, hell age7 in comparison to this beta is much better, sure some ages after some really nice changes got implemented, such as the clickers. UP'ing AAT with sabs. and removing AA's. but past that, everything being added now is just hurting the chaos in the game. now all people will want to do is buy UP/tech/more covert lvls. and have fakes for offies that give them a multiplier bonus.

Rasputin
27th December 2009, 12:08 PM
From Age 3 to 7 the game lost 110k players which suggests there was something wrong with Age 7...and probably the ages in between that. If the game was to go back to any specific set of rules it would have to be Age 3.

But all games have to develop in order to improve and keep current players while attracting new ones, no previous Age would do that. So my vote is no.

The poll shows a minority of people who have voted so is pretty useless, Rasputin you need to tell more of your buddies to come here and manipulate the poll by voting yes otherwise you have just wasted your time.

LoL i have not asked my friends to rush this poll. ASK ANYONE HERE i posted the link in all major alliance channels (except LaCN who would kick me for it) and i let them read, post and vote themselves. unless you're now suggesting i hunt people down show up to their homes and FORCE them to vote my way :P

which is tempting....
/me traces blazed IP and hunts him down


Top 10 Alliances
Name Members Power
La Cosa Nostra 347 116
Bring Age 7 rules back! 51 113


we were top alliance for what. over a week? now we're down by 3? :P that speaks louder than this poll

SleepingDragon
27th December 2009, 12:19 PM
Top 10 Alliances
Name Members Power
La Cosa Nostra 347 116
Bring Age 7 rules back! 51 113


we were top alliance for what. over a week? now we're down by 3? :P that speaks louder than this poll

An alliance of 51 rankers has fallen to LaCN for the top alliance? That speaks really loud, especially since the majority of 6K players this age aren't participating in this mini-mutiny :P


AJ, nice try, but you obviously haven't done any maths or any research, which is really something you need in order to win an argument from Shane.

Since when is winning an argument on teh internets over a text game something worth doing math for? Everyone's just letting off some steam, the game is dying and people are bugging out.

Still haven't heard anything about how lack of multiple trickle levels hurts the game's overall player base, not that anyone has to take time out to answer if they don't want to - but I am interested.

Santa87
27th December 2009, 12:31 PM
....sure some ages after some really nice changes got implemented, such as the clickers....

Actually I thought it wasnt a great idea to implement a recruiter in the game. Before the recruiter was implemented in the game, clicking for soldiers was an alliance thing, and the quality of the recruiter deppended on how many people were clicking on that particular recruiter(and ofcourse the speed). ofcourse its more fair for the noob, who don't visit GUA, and therefore has no idea about the alliance recruiters, but in general I think it was better as it was before....

Adrenalinejunky
27th December 2009, 06:41 PM
AJ, nice try, but you obviously haven't done any maths or any research, which is really something you need in order to win an argument from Shane. For example:


This is just wrong, since officer bonus is 50% for any account of semidecent size, and trickle is only 25% (the 50% trickle is still there). Add to that that actual statbonus is way better than TFF bonus..

Just one example of your flaw of logic, I'm really not going to bother pointing out the other 10.

i would hope you are joking.

let me take a little math as you say for an example.

you have 10 officers, each of those 10 officers does 10 clicks a day, you will gain from your officers 50 soldiers a day.

now say you bring back trickle, and each of those officers has 10 officers, each of which does 10 clicks a day, you will gain from those sub officers 250 clicks a day.

you notice something here? 250 is significantly larger then 60 (your ten plus 50 from your officers). also significantly larger then twice 60, there is no flaw in my math.

Rasputin
28th December 2009, 02:32 PM
i think trickle going up to many levels was a little nuts because it made to much growth to quickly sometimes, but then again, it made bigger accounts, bigger accounts meant bigger/more fun wars.

LoseR
28th December 2009, 03:02 PM
Age 7 was awesome because it let solo players (http://www.kingsofchaos.com/age7_final_stats.php?jump=&search_type=s&search=Loser223) that didn't like clicking do pretty well if they applied themselves.

Rasputin
29th December 2009, 12:39 AM
couldn't agree more