PDA

View Full Version : What members want



Shane-
26th December 2009, 09:45 AM
Okay, So I've sat around GuA/IRC/KoC and listened to the general bitching of players, What they want, and what they don't want, What parts of the beta they would like to be kept, and what parts they would like ditched.

I've played all ages, So I have a fair idea of the "Best and worse's" of each age, including age 7 that everyone seems to be sporting.

I know Rocco is lazy, and decides not to read anything other than the first post of a thread, then posts questions, which have already been answered. So I figured, I'd create a "What players want" (In my opinion) thread (With explanations why x is good, and why y is bad), to clarify why x/y/z.
Throw it as a poll, and lets see what the active members of GuA think about it,

Would be awesome if Rocco would take notice to it, Or even make it a global notice, So more of the game can respond.

I'll start with changes this age:

Beta:
What to keep
- Streamlined recruit page for faster clicking
Clearly keep, this helps people who don't know about recruiters.

- Show rank and other stats on alliance pages
Clearly keep, For nobility value, It's nice.

- Added option to send PMs to all direct officers without counting against your hourly message limit
Clearly keep, I like this one, it helps people contact everyone fast, However this needs to be fixed, It sends message to first 10 officers(Not all), and it does count towards message limit per hour.

- Now show morale of your officers on command center
Awesome, One of the best chances this age, Clearly keep as it helps commanders help their officers when it comes to morale, and/or rewarding them for clicking.

- Increased maximum recons on a given target per day
Clearly keep, It doesn't do any harm, data collection is nice, It helps slayers, With a lot of people "Banking Great", The online status gone, people have to be very careful about they recons.

- Increased value of Dragon Claw so all races have a 3rd-tier attack weapon
I'd say, Keep it myself, It adds more strategy to the game, but my concern here is small accounts getting unhelds, and being forced to click more.

- Modified high-level weapon costs and strengths
Much as the above, I don't mind this, it effects us all, so no one person/group get an advantage.

- Increased the casualty rate of covert troops
As long as the percent isn't too high that, People can "own" smaller accounts that have trained down, I'd say keep it, It gives people a way to fight back against "Trained Spy Only" accounts, But it shouldn't be -easy- to kill too many.

- Siege and fortification levels now increment by a percentage over their current multiplier, rather than incrementing by 25% or 33% over the base multiplier. This means higher level upgrades are much more important!
Go back to the old system, Making numbers -look bigger- isn't what we need, it just increases the distance between players, The range shouldn't look huge. Imagine you're a small account, and see the stats of someone a few hundred ranks higher than you, your motivation is going to take a big dent.

- Changed click trickle up to direct commander only
I personally like this, But overall, for the game this is a bad move, Alliances/Clans are build on the idea of trickles, the chain structures, the deals, etc that people make are almost always centered around disrupting growth, Not to all whore under one person.
This change effects the big and small players, More/so the big players than the small ones, Yes, but its the small ones who click to help their alliance, which means more than one person.
Kings Of Chaos's foundations are based on clicking, growth and trickles, people working as a team to help each other, to help their commander, sub commander, sub sub commander. Alliances change their trickle accounts to the -whole team- can help someone new. This is still possible with "Commander Changes" (I guess), however, we're all limited on those, and the organization to move so many accounts to help account A to account B would be massive.
What would be best is to go back to old system, Or at least make it travel three levels. (Officer, Commander, Sub commander).

[Sab/War Related]
- Limited the amount a player can be sabotaged per day
- Increased daily limit on sabotage against a target
- Tweaked the sabotage ratio some - it should now be easier to get into an enemy's armory with well-trained spies, and there is less penalty for sending more spies to do more damage
- Like sabotaged tools, sabotaged weapons are now immediately removed from the armory
This needs to be changed, Speaking as someone whos warred this age, I know first hand how flawed this system is. The limit it too low, We all agree something needed to be done to stop accounts being destroyed within hours. If you want to put a limit on sabbing, But it to somewhere like 10-15% (Maybe recurring??)
As it stands, A war can't be fought, nobody really loses anything in a war, they is no point in warring, and after 5~ minutes, everyone is under protection, so the "fun" isn't there any more
One of the reasons to be in an alliance is to war, is to defend your friends, is to step up and represent your alliance on the battlefield, This is now impossible, Just look at our war not long ago, We did seriously stop the war because it was pointless, and no fun. The most fun was the the harmless banter between Axe and Rasputin and me/Seneca (Lol...).
In a war, you have the goal of winning it, the goal of getting your enemy defeated, the goal of preventing what happened, to start the war, from happening in the future - this is impossible.

A major problem with the wars, is the amount of turns people have, they all go so fast, I'd like to suggest that:
Failed sabs don't use turns, But give a percent of experience(25%!?!), So we're able to war, but we don't run out of turns after 20 minutes, and then spend the whole war sabbing one target per 30-45 minutes (Exp Percent, or how many failed sabs needed, to use a turn can be up for discussion), But 1 failed sab shouldn't use 5 turns, As someones we fail 40 times ( 200 turns ) - While sometimes we ghost ( 10 turns ). We need a balance between successful sabs and failed sabs, so keep people active.

What we need is something, Where we can have fun, where we can win/lose a war, and where accounts ain't destroyed in a matter of hours. I know this is a tricky request to figure out for people who don't even play the game (Admins), But if the limit is higher, then accounts take more damage(hence win/lose).
We don't need a mega high limit where alliances are scared to war due to mega damage, But something where alliances can think twice about starting a war.

Bon had a fair few good ideas how to combat this problem last age, That seemed like pretty good ideas, so if he wants to post his ideas here, That's up to his discretion.

A mini idea, I think would be; Limit the damage on an account, To the amount of gold he/she can earn in 2 days?... This way the account itself isn't screwed up, But he/she doesn't earn anything, and is at a small lose, This would make it annoying for the person if he/she hits his limits, but won't destroy him/her, Clearly this is just a quick thought, and it also has its flaws (IE: trained down accounts and such), But it is better than how it is now)

- Game Turns (Semi related to wars)
A problem with game turns is, a active player uses them too fast, I have an officer who logs in once a day, and spends about 20 minutes on the game, Almost the whole 20 minutes he plays, we're talking on msn, and it always gets to the point where he bitches that he is out of turns.
An active account burns their turns attacking and sabbing a lot, One days worth of turns is 9 attacks for an account, And that leaves them with 90 turns to use for recons, Lets say 3-4 recons per target(36), He is left with 54 turns, after playing the game for 20 minutes?... This wasn't a problem in other ages, because turns wern't so depending. Now you need turns to do anything, so once you're out of turns, you can't do -Anything- at all except sit and back. To be honest? This only helps the big rankers who dont do much....

We need to focus on our active/small/midrange accounts, its those guys that "enjoy" the game, it's those guys that make up alliances, and its those guys that keep this game alive, screwing those over, screws everything up.

So, I'd think, that having the "Game Turns" changed would work nicely, reward out active users, not punish them, make an [real] attack use less turns(???), make recons not use turns (???), Maybe an idea is doing something that, If person does x, then turns rate = turn*2, something that will keep our small and active users playing, and give them something to do. Focus on helping the small/mid guys, stop focusing on making the big ranker accounts happy, because simply put, It's rankers who have destroyed this game (Rankers and Rocco mind you...)

- Conquests
Overall, It's a good/nice idea, and it's a nice change to see something else there, It's nice because it helps accounts get an exp boost pretty fast, and helps new/small accounts. But if its to be kept, then the "gold stolen" needs to be edited (Higher), so its worth it, to use. And with the exp that you gain, I agree it should be reduced each time(The same as gold), but don't make it drop -so fast-, It's already bearly worth it for people to use conquests due to damage they take (sa repairs). Slayers/Sabbers already use they turns for a lot, they don't have the turns to waste on using quests, when the outcome is small.

Maybe an idea is, You start stealing x gold, and getting 50 exp, then after 10 conquests, you steal x*0.y and get 48 exp, then 46, 44, etc, or something, so it's at least worth it for a half decent period of time, but it gets to the point where its useless, but the useless point should take longer than 30 conquests~
(Overall, I'd say to keep this, either way as it'll help the small players)


- Covert Skill
Go back to the old system (*2 multiply for price and stat gain), and only 10 upgrades. All the 1.6/15 system does is over complicate spy/sentry, and it makes getting all the upgrades for the small/midrange accounts harder, and it takes them a lot more time. For a casual player, getting all the updates now will be a problem. They can't max fortification/siege as the price is too high, but maxing coverts is a nice achievement for them. The players who play to sab mainly won't be able to play how they want, as they also have issues getting upgrades, hence can't get in range to players who they would like to target.
(This also relates to wars, It makes our small small members redundant).

- Coverts give 10% income
This is a weak choice and it screws two types of game play, The slayers, and the sabbers, both of those types have to train down to keep within they targets, to ensure they're small enough to attack people, and to ensure they keep their spy high enough to sab/recon people. Our slayers want to be able to have more than just attacking as a source of income, with the decline of players, the slayers have less and less targets, so have to use their TBG(Rocco, That means Turn Base Gold) more. This is the same with sabbers, our sabbers need to train more and more spies to keep their spy rating up high enough to be able to sab and recon, TBG tends to be a decent source of income for those guys, and you're ruining the game for them.

- Active officers who have logged in within the last 24 hours now also help to increase your ratings: The first five active officers you have add 10% each to your ratings and damages, and any additional officers at 1% each up to a total of 2x maximum
You have no idea how much fowl language I want to use for this change, This has to be one of the worse changes I've seen, Having officers should not be able to double someones stats, The game is about skill, dedication, hard work, working as a team, It is not about grabbing as many accounts under you as possible, And I say this as a fact, If you look at the battlefield, You'll see what I mean:
Name: TheGodFather_LaCN Army: 1,120,215 Officers: 163
Name: Hellboy_LoP Army: 1,028,584 Officers: 15
Name: Shane Army: 950,234 Officers: 30
People who have less officers are already at a big disadvantage, and if anything, less officers should be rewarded, because the -group- is clearly more dedicated than the -big group-.
Small chains now are epically at another disadvantage, I dont see why someone with x many officers should have TWICE the stats of someone else who has the same weapons, just because he had officers, I'd like you to take a look at: pixelpixi, He has 5 small officers, 203k TFF, and has clicked 200k in the beta, Is it really fair he puts all this time into the game, Only for someone (in thoery) to put 50% less time/commitment into the game, and have rank/better stats?

Another problem with this is, it promotes fake accounts, people will be more eger to have friends(or themselves) to create fake accounts just for the bonus, this will happen in the high and the low ranks, and its impossible for them all to be caught, Bon already does way too much for the game, He doesn't have time to be searching and banning accounts all day because of this stupid change.

Having an officer multiply will be the worse thing for this game, and I'm pretty sure that the impact of this change will cost the game a lot of its active players, simply because they do not stand a chance any more.

Remove officers multiply, End of story.


- Technological Development
Epic stupid change, but this can work decently.
The reasons I dislike this change are clear, It allows you to *6.7 your stats, We want to play Kings Of Chaos, we don't want to play Ruins Of Chaos, We dont want huge numbers, having huge numbers doesn't make a game better, but infact worse. It puts the difference between our smaller/midrange people accounts very large, it isn't appealing for them to see someone with huge stats, when they compare they own stats, This relates to what I said about fort/etc upgrades being different, but in a much higher magnitude.

I do like this change, as it adds a bit more dynamics to the game, but 6.7 is way too high, I think, If you guys want to keep tech in the game, and want to keep players happy, the multiply should be lower, Maybe something like the max is 2?... Each tech upgrade gives you *0.1 (So first is x1.1, Second is x1.2, third is x1.3 and so on), Even x2 may be too high, But it is -a lot better- than x6.7. Regardless anyone who is active is going to be able to get them all, I got them all within 5 days, and I'm (What people consider) a big lazy ranker.

Techs have to be balanced, It shouldn't be "Oh, Get a tech and gain a ton", It should be a slow progress, just like last age was with fort/siege upgrades.

Overall, I would say keep this, But do change it a lot, so that its fair for most players, and multiplications ain't super high.


Past Ages
People are mainly focused on "Bring Age 7 Back", not because age 7 was all that great, to be fair it wasn't really too good, But compared to age 13 beta, Its a god sent. A lot of the current changes screw all aspects of the game, slaying is screwed, sabbing is screwed, small chains are screwed, the point of an alliance/chain is screwed, We don't need or want this.

What people want from old ages would be:

1. The trickle system back
This, For clear reasons as I've said above.

2. A better sab system
This, Is to make wars fun, Allow wars to run for a period of time, but dont allow accounts to be 80% owned - Allow people to be able to defend themselves, but don't allow one account to be able to own hundreds easy. (Also see above)

3. A pretty balanced aged (Par the 50 sab cap on -any- weapon, Please see 2.)

4. You couldnt sab tools (nuns/LT), This meant that accounts wern't destroyed so fast (See 2 and 3)
- Mini suggestion, Bring NUN/LT in par with IS/BPM, so you can't sab 1-2k instantly easy with 1 spy)

5. The simplicity of the game

6. We played 'Kings Of Chaos'

-To be fair, Age 12 wasn't -too bad-, It could've done with certine tweaks to make it nicer, But if I had a choice, I'd pick age 12, over age 13beta, So would most.



Now Rocco; go and talk to players who don't have their head in their asses, Go talk to Bon and listen to his words (IE: If he says A, do A, don't do reverse), don't make up your own ideas


-
Okay, This post is getting too big, I have a ton of other things to complain about, but I'll leave this, as it is for now. but I'd like to suggest to everyone who has issues with the beta, To write a similar post, and post a new thread, explaining what you like/dislike, What to keep/change, As it is -clear- Rocco only reads the first post, then skips to the end.

IE: If you want to say old turn system is better (15=full attack, 1=probe), Go create a thread, and write in detail about it, why you think its better for yourself, and for the game.


Shane

Edit: Oh, How I've missed my long posts

blazed420
26th December 2009, 10:07 AM
Wow, very nice (and long) post there Shane. I think you hit the nail in the head man. Let's hope Rocco takes the time to read through it all and use his brain on his future changes/decisions.

:<3:

bluud
26th December 2009, 10:19 AM
Instead of limiting the amount of trickle stages (only one this age). I see the point of the admins, they wanna give individual players more chance and give the superchains (ith their selloff accounts) less power (eventhough their officer multiplyer rules now undoes that). On the other hand the trickle positions (more than one) are great for boosting accounts, and making growth deals (this can also be done by more low level accounts).

My suggestion is to make trickle work for unlimited stages again, but instead keeping the trickle factor 1/2, make it 1/3 or even 1/4. This means players will have to make their own accounts more, giving more power to individual players and not people with 150 officers. However it also keeps gameplay options and strategy such as trickles, rotation deals, ...

The change doesnt seem like alot, but keep in mind that if major growth comes from one account, the trickling thrugh of growth rapidly goes down: 1/3, 1/9, 1/27 ... where it used to be 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ... So only three levels deep the growth would be reduced with over a factor 3 compares to the age 12 trickle system. If admins would take a factor of 1/4 it wold even be more. If they wanna make it less they could always take 2/5 as a factor. Plenty of space for optimalisation.

I agree with removing officer multiplyer, and tech upgrades, they make no sence.

As for other upgrades (fort and siege) I prefer old system too, since in the past ages, for a top account, it took months before it was the optimal time to get all upgrades, with the current system, the optimal time becomes way sooner. Now it just becomes, get the upgrades in the first two weeks of the age, then just bank and do nothing.

As for weapons, it is fun to see (admins did this by accident) the most expensive weapon is not the most efficient one value/cost wise. Perhaps continue this idea and make even lower ranked weapons the most efficient ones? The point is that people wont be able to buy those since in the long run they wont have enough soldiers to gold them, or they would becomes too susceptable fo masses because they need so many soldiers to hold them.

This would create another dimension to the game and a tactical choice weather to go for as much stats-increase as possible (low value weapons) or get ore expensive ones (like the bpms or ivs) and be safer for masses and avoid the risk of reaching a point where you dont have enough soldiers to hold your weapons.

The same can be done for tools also.

lostmetallica
26th December 2009, 10:20 AM
Ugh too long, this was not exactly what I wanted to do after waking up but...

I can honestly deal with just about everything they've done because it affected everyone equally. The Trickle change, affected some more than others. I mean our chain (TFE) dropped off the map, and sorry, but member by member, we're probably the most active alliance in the game. How the heck was that a good change then?

Give me more turns and think about who the changes will affect (equally or are you screwing people) and I'm okay. I agreed with the post because I don't mind anything in it ;)

xAre
26th December 2009, 10:30 AM
Great post Shane.
Agreed with most parts.

cowboy_from_hell
26th December 2009, 10:31 AM
I didn't read through the whole post, but what I read seemed to be alright. Not all what you say I think about the same, but it sure are things I could adapt to and still have fun playing unlike now :)

Rasputin
26th December 2009, 11:03 AM
Not only do I agree with this post i wish to point out that if this thread escapes Rocco, he should check top 10 alliances... just sayin'..

Maz
26th December 2009, 11:06 AM
Good initiative (spelling?) Shane. I agree with all of it, just some tweaks would be nice.

I like the example bluud wrote, about the trickle factor change. That would really make the game more fun and actually it's in the favour of the low/mid accounts as the big accounts doesn't get boosted -too- much but still get boosted.

Another idea is that the AAT should be different for tools comparing to weapons. Maybe tools can only be sabbed x % of the AAT value. If the AAT is 100 mil, that means you could sabotage (as it is right now) 100 BPMs, or 100 ISs etc. If tools can only be sabotaged for maybe 60% (an example) of the AAT, that means only 60 Nuns or 60 LTs would be sabbable AAT. Also add that the tools should be as hard as weapons to sabotage (number of spies required)
This adds more strategy to sabotaging. Questions like "Should we still lower his spy/sentry or should we go with his SA/DA instead?" would be important because you can sabotage more weapons-value than tools, it all depends on what you want to damage. As it is now, if you can sabotage just as much tools as weapons it's obvious you go for the tools.

ZAR
26th December 2009, 11:10 AM
While I agree to most stuff, I disagree to some parts, mostly to listen to a certain player, last time Admins listened to one player - fury - KoC got screwed up badly.

I do not agree to revert the Siege/Fort-changes, the highest upgrade should be worth it to everyone, the carrot on the stick is a great thing, however, if people are concerned about too big numbers, the 25%/33% and the prices could be lowered/adjusted I guess.

Your mini-idea is also not a good one, limiting the damage to 2 days TBG favors accounts with a huge armory-value and low TBG, so in a war people would just train down ...

Also your Covert-Skill suggestion is pretty biased, as your whole post, I donīt see a problem with more Covert-Levels *hintcarrotonthestickhint* - I would do even more with a lower multiplier - like 1.25 and make the steps a bit cheaper and make them work like the Siege/Fort stuff works right now.

Removing the officerbonus is also way to harsh, but it should be toned down, like 1% for every officer, maxed to 20% or whatever - your argument that bon does too much is invalid as well, Iīd rather liked a suggestion to improve cheater-catcher-tools and hire more mods ...

And all in all I think that your post isnīt too good to read and gets pretty personal and emotional, since you invest so much time to type stuff - why donīt you invest time to make it enjoyable for everyone to read? I am sure Rocco will not read your post, why should he - you attack him personally on some occasions - like I said, way to waste the work put into your post.

Maz
26th December 2009, 11:17 AM
ZAR's idea about making covert upgrades more like siege/fort is a pretty nice idea. This prevents people being done with covert after just a few days, making it last longer instead. More strategy! :)

Another idea is (I discussed it with Shane on irc) to make AAT based on sell value instead of buy value. This lowers the AAT a bit aswell! Something to think about maybe..

Shane-
26th December 2009, 11:41 AM
Zar - You cant compare fury to Bon at all, If you look at the two of them?.... Bon spends way too much time modding this game, because he wants what is best for it, He resets his account to try different races, he tries all aspects of game player, and doesn't ask for anything in return?

Now look at fury? He was a dirty ranker who hated sabbers, and he only "played" the game to make money, He earned about $3,500 from DDL, got the admins to screw KoC, then attempted to drag away the community to his KoC Clone

They are big differences here, At least Bon isn't in this game 100% for self gain?.... At least not that I've seen.

As for my post being ' personal and emotional ' - It's far from that, I had spare time, and got sick of listening to people bitch on IRC/GuA about varies of stuff, so I spent 20-25~ minutes typing up a post, based on the comments I've seen on GuA and on IRC, They're things I've said should be removed, that I personally like, but overall, I see how it's bad for the game.

As for the mini-idea being bad, It was just thrown into the mix as a possibility, they'll never be something everyone likes and everyone agrees with, and will always be bias to someone, however, overall they can be a mix that is some-what decent and balanced, If you have suggestions on how best to deal with it, I'm sure everyone would love to hear your in-take on sabbing, that is assuming you play the game and have a decent understanding on how sabbing has worked for the past few ages.

I'm not too sure how the covert skills thing is bias?.... I got them all in 2 turns, and the 15 covert thing works great for me, It works great for any big account, It doesn't for the small and mid-range accounts though - That is the issue here.

I'm a tad unsure how, You find parts of my post bias, as, Playing a big account most of the changes are beneficial for me, They just ain't so good for everyone.

Anyways, It was just my in-take on the game, and what I've heard and seen over the past few days, And with Rocco skipping pages of threads, I figure it's best to have a thread with the first post being a bit more informative, Your, and everyone else's views should be echo'd as loud as possible. As I said:


but I'd like to suggest to everyone who has issues with the beta, To write a similar post, and post a new thread, explaining what you like/dislike, What to keep/change, As it is -clear- Rocco only reads the first post, then skips to the end.



so *Rawr* (Lol)


Shane

Screwdriver_LaCN
26th December 2009, 11:52 AM
I voted with YES :D because I like almost everything that Shane pointed and also like the idea of bluud about giving back the old trickle system I mean the oldest probably(unlimited levels) but 1/4 not 1/2 for the direct commanders :P

ZAR
26th December 2009, 12:18 PM
Zar - You cant compare fury to Bon at all, If you look at the two of them?.... Bon spends way too much time modding this game, because he wants what is best for it, He resets his account to try different races, he tries all aspects of game player, and doesn't ask for anything in return?

Now look at fury? He was a dirty ranker who hated sabbers, and he only "played" the game to make money, He earned about $3,500 from DDL, got the admins to screw KoC, then attempted to drag away the community to his KoC Clone

They are big differences here, At least Bon isn't in this game 100% for self gain?.... At least not that I've seen.

Oh lol, please donīt misunderstand me, I never said bon is like fury or would want to destroy KoC or whatever, I just said listening to just 1 guy whoever that is, is bad, nothing personal against bon, I hear just good things about him and I am sure he invests a lot of his free time into his hobby to make it better for everyone.


As for my post being ' personal and emotional ' - It's far from that, I had spare time, and got sick of listening to people bitch on IRC/GuA about varies of stuff, so I spent 20-25~ minutes typing up a post, based on the comments I've seen on GuA and on IRC, They're things I've said should be removed, that I personally like, but overall, I see how it's bad for the game.

It reads like that, maybe just take a look on the post and edit it a bit? ;)


As for the mini-idea being bad, It was just thrown into the mix as a possibility, they'll never be something everyone likes and everyone agrees with, and will always be bias to someone, however, overall they can be a mix that is some-what decent and balanced, If you have suggestions on how best to deal with it, I'm sure everyone would love to hear your in-take on sabbing, that is assuming you play the game and have a decent understanding on how sabbing has worked for the past few ages.

No worries, I have been there when the sabformula was cracked and fully utilized and it really takes no rocked-science to understand the flaws to the Age 9-12 and 13 Beta sabformulas and to request a tweaked Age7 formula.
Intresting enough RoC uses this tweaked Age7 forumla and it sucks as well - but it is better than the current KoC formula as it takes less time to finish sabbing :)


I'm not too sure how the covert skills thing is bias?.... I got them all in 2 turns, and the 15 covert thing works great for me, It works great for any big account, It doesn't for the small and mid-range accounts though - That is the issue here.

Maybe I should have better explained why I think it is better for the game and shouldnīt have called your suggestion biased, I just tried to tell you, that there are other views to it. My suggestion to make spy work like the siege/fort upgrades with a lower modifier should speak fort itself tho and make clear where I think the changes should head to. :)


I'm a tad unsure how, You find parts of my post bias, as, Playing a big account most of the changes are beneficial for me, They just ain't so good for everyone.

I think your post is biased because you try make the game-admins look bad and did nowhere mention to change the clicking so that personal recruiters are not needed anymore - also you are not giving credit enough to the other mods enough.

But then again, donīt read much into my post, I have read it completely and just suggested minor "tweakage" :P

SleepingDragon
26th December 2009, 12:58 PM
- Changed click trickle up to direct commander only
I personally like this, But overall, for the game this is a bad move, Alliances/Clans are build on the idea of trickles, the chain structures, the deals, etc that people make are almost always centered around disrupting growth, Not to all whore under one person.

I still don't understand why "direct commander only" hurts alliances. If clans want to band together for security reasons, that's great, but saying alliances are crumbling and falling apart due to limited growth doesn't seem like a genuine concern for the whole community. The small players click under their main account if they are in a clan, or under a friend if they are playing casually...the end.


[Sab/War Related]
- Limited the amount a player can be sabotaged per day
- Increased daily limit on sabotage against a target
- Tweaked the sabotage ratio some - it should now be easier to get into an enemy's armory with well-trained spies, and there is less penalty for sending more spies to do more damage
- Like sabotaged tools, sabotaged weapons are now immediately removed from the armory

Age 12 sab damage amounts would not have been as bad if spy/sentry tools weren't sabbable - also, it would also make sense for sabbed SA/DA weapons to disappear so that the impact if felt for sure.

DA is the ultimate ranking stat - so sabbing and massing it would hurt the rankers when spy tools are unsabbable. But what about the "ultra cool sabber folk" who would benefit a ton from selling morale with low SA, no DA, and lots of spy tools (which are unsabbable)? So there'd be a lot of strings that need to be pulled in different directions...when all we really need is lower % damage per sabber. None of this losing 500m from 1 sabber when you're a 20K tff account that hits for 100m a hit. 5 hits to replace what 1 "rogue" took? Ridiculous. But that was last age, and Beta has gone in 100% the other direction in sabbing damage. There needs to be a middle ground.


-To be fair, Age 12 wasn't -too bad-, It could've done with certine tweaks to make it nicer, But if I had a choice, I'd pick age 12, over age 13beta, So would most.

Everyone thought Age 12 was boring until LaCN started making a push, otherwise everyone was freaked out about the sab damages being so ridiculous for small accounts and the changes clans would randomly make to BF policies so they could approve people. It COULD have been a great age if sabbing damages were less severe, but few wanted to take any chances because it meant they'd get gutted.

Most importantly, didn't KoC start as a small project and by chance became a sensation with players all around the world? All good things come to an end, maybe we're reaching that point and we should just all say "repeat Age 12 rules with less sabbing damage (you guys know the lower %'s to use), no 50 sab limit, direct commander trickle only, security captcha frequency at 25 minutes for better navigation, and Beta SA/DA upgrade system"...putting time and energy into wanting or criticizing anything more is just gonna hurt posters when realizing it's all for nothing.

Seneca
26th December 2009, 04:57 PM
tl;dr, however, I agree fully with everything Shane posted, Rocco, take your time, read it, and make age 13 the best age so far

foundationSeries
26th December 2009, 05:11 PM
Wow...epic post, Shane! KoC will see another day yet if admins read and think this through thoroughly. This deserves my 1st post in ages, literally. :D

FS

dohh
26th December 2009, 05:32 PM
i voted yes, etc

powdered_donuts
26th December 2009, 05:44 PM
i voted other, i want age seven back, so we can start back over at a balanced age and maybe get some old timers of KOC to come back, you know there are still a lot of players who have connections to the old players :/ And I think that's about the ONLY hope of getting a player base back.

Wanna know something that would happen if age seven came back to it's exact. Some would go directly to the ROC forums and say, "YO, AGE SEVEN REDO!" and ROC would loose 100 percent of it's members because they'd be back in KOC.

There are probably other games that have old timers of KOC in them that some people know of same thing would happen.

Put yourself in thier shoes and tell me I'm wrong. You quit KOC because the changes bugged you to much, started playing some stupid clone that never will be as good as KOC used to be, and all of a sudden you hear KOC is reverting right back to age seven. You guna go back to KOC and give it another chance? I sure as hell would.

PogMaThoin
26th December 2009, 06:03 PM
Great Post i agreed with 98% of it
which is about 100% that affects
me since im not a leader acct yet
( nudge nudge wink wink grin grin )

ArxSerpens
26th December 2009, 06:23 PM
Agreed fully.
http://www.imagecabin.com/?view=261873740a04bcd0b5bac43f1

punkrocker7829
26th December 2009, 07:20 PM
Well i must say its a very good post but i cant say i agree with certain things. i personally dont care about the trickle do what you want with it. i don't want turns to be used for recons or sabs at all. im perfectly fine with 10 sab turns a day. i say a person should be able to lose about 20 or 30% of armory a day. No AAs. keep the cant see online players. keep the tech upgrades and TBG upgrades. Fix the damn formulas for spy and sentry. And get rid of that stupid active officer crap it doesnt help i have 4 officers one logs on once a day two log on every couple days and one has never logged on. big accounts are the only people who prosper from that so find another way to promote activity for the game rocco its not our falt no one wants to play with all these stupid changes going on. And so it was said.

Axiom
26th December 2009, 09:21 PM
I agree to most of it. RoC has like 1500 players, it's going nowhere...

This games simplicity has taken from us. Now we get a boring game that will only further your frustrations.

One thing I'd love to see change is the re-sale value of wepaons. 75% would be perfect I think. It's the only banking system allowed, and we cannot bank on it...
What are we suppose to do, it hurts everyone... especially the smaller-midranged accounts.
The officer bonus made me laugh. TGF has over 100 officers. Even if 70 aren't active, he still gets a big bonus.
Also, the turns and gold income doesn't make sense...

Compared to last age now we get dick for turns, plus turns are used for reconing and sabbing... Would like to see it back to normal :)

We get gold per minute? 50,000 gold a minute after an hour thats 3,000,000 gold... 3 hours is 9million, people will hit you, and thats roughly a 46,100TFF(with economy of 3900). Last age, TBG of 5,000,000 after 3 hours you had 30,000,000 gold, people would usually hit that, maybe not.
So TBG is pretty decent... except the return value of that gold.

Compared to last age, you need to be on KoC more, to get more out of your account. We aren't getting a return on our TBG, Less gold, more expensive prices, less return on sell value...

Something there needs to be changed. I like the weapons costing the even 1,000,000. It brought back simplicity, perfect. But, the re-sale value needs to be better. We get a return of 600,000. And upgrades cost more, and there are MANY more upgrades. This also costing us much more...

Put costs up and income down. Doesn't make sense either. So a happy medium would be nice. Like change the turn system, and change the TBG system. Make re-sale value 75%.

Shane has most upgrades complete i'm sure. I doubt I could do it in 2 months, especially if I don't click. Even though it's a beta.

You're going to have to click at least over 100,000 to get anything back really. Anything lower sucks.

Plus, this covert business. More levels is nice, 15 is fine. Change the value at which they increase your stats by... The cost is definitly an issue if the re-sale value + tbg is the way it is... it'd be an issue for all upgrades.

Covert operatives don't do anything for you. 1 of 10 of them gives you money back, so... for my 25,000 spies, 2500 of them i'd like to thank. the others, shame on you. Lol. But really, make them 25% not 10, and let them do more for your spy then now, what 60%? make it 80 at least? Or leave it.

Stats being low or high doesn't matter. As long as everything flows fine. If spy and sentry are higher then DA/SA who cares... as long as they work, they don't effect eachother in any way. What matters is what you put into them. You train 100,000 troops to coverts and hardly get anything... You should gain something from it.

How can slayers/sabbers survive... it's very difficult. All that wins is DA whores.

Also, I don't think the race changes work... Just throwing it out there. I was human, switched to elf, lost my 15% income bonus, and didn't gain my 50% spy bonus... :'(

Shane-
26th December 2009, 09:42 PM
Also, I don't think the race changes work... Just throwing it out there. I was human, switched to elf, lost my 15% income bonus, and didn't gain my 50% spy bonus... :'(

Buy one weapon or train one person and that will "update" your stats


Shane

Axiom
26th December 2009, 09:53 PM
Done that... didn't work. I really don't think it worked. I switched back and forth, and nothing changed. Buy and traing men too. So who knows. I could be delusional.

Batman
26th December 2009, 11:54 PM
Nice post Shane...and i agree with it 100% :P

The_Sovereign
27th December 2009, 12:10 AM
The common 60% steal is beyond annoying. I'd like to see the amount of turns used determine the baseline steal.

For example. Using 100 turns would have a baseline steal of 60% (60-100). 130 turns would have a baseline of 70%(70-100) and 150 would be 80%(80-100).

It would be better than the raid system employed currently and players will be able to use their turns more strategically. Small slayers could get more attacks a day, and large AAT slayers could spend the extra turns to preserve their account value.

nirvanaisking
27th December 2009, 09:24 PM
I voted "other" because I legitimately loved age 9.

LordCounter
28th December 2009, 10:21 AM
99% agree with you shane, good enough :p

lets hope rocco reads this and will save us further frustrations.
and lol @sadi :p

conflag
29th December 2009, 12:11 PM
I voted Yes, but I only read 75% of it. lol

BloodBullet
29th December 2009, 01:44 PM
very nice post indeed, but I don't think rocco will listen

purp1ekush
30th December 2009, 09:52 PM
Came back today to check out the game and maybe play again because I have free time again since graduating college, but it appears everything has changed and its gotten to be some complicated game :S
I wont play again afterall, good luck all.

trigger-joe
30th December 2009, 11:54 PM
idk if its because of all the changes that have been made in this beta age, but something needs to be done to the spy/sent tools. the cheap ones have the same efficiency as the expensive ones... so there is no advantage of having a lot of gold and buying nuns or towers rather than the cheaper ones

Seneca
31st December 2009, 12:43 AM
idk if its because of all the changes that have been made in this beta age, but something needs to be done to the spy/sent tools. the cheap ones have the same efficiency as the expensive ones... so there is no advantage of having a lot of gold and buying nuns or towers rather than the cheaper ones

Actually grappling hook is most efficient spy weapon (over nunchaku) and Lookout Tower is (thank god) still the most efficient Sentry weapon.

cowboy_from_hell
31st December 2009, 05:42 AM
Buy Tools
Spy Tools Strength Price Buy
Rope 40 40,000 Gold
Dirk 75 75,000 Gold
Cloak 140 140,000 Gold
Grappling Hook 250 250,000 Gold
Skeleton Key 600 600,000 Gold
Nunchaku 1,000 1,000,000 Gold

Sentry Tools Strength Price Buy
Big Candle 40 40,000 Gold
Horn 75 75,000 Gold
Tripwire 140 140,000 Gold
Guard Dog 250 250,000 Gold
Lookout Tower 1,000 1,000,000 Gold


I fail to see how 1 weapon is more cost effiecent than the other? Please enlighten me :)

Seneca
31st December 2009, 06:39 AM
Buy Tools
Spy Tools Strength Price Buy
Rope 40 40,000 Gold
Dirk 75 75,000 Gold
Cloak 140 140,000 Gold
Grappling Hook 250 250,000 Gold
Skeleton Key 600 600,000 Gold
Nunchaku 1,000 1,000,000 Gold

Sentry Tools Strength Price Buy
Big Candle 40 40,000 Gold
Horn 75 75,000 Gold
Tripwire 140 140,000 Gold
Guard Dog 250 250,000 Gold
Lookout Tower 1,000 1,000,000 Gold


I fail to see how 1 weapon is more cost effiecent than the other? Please enlighten me :)

Oh they changed that, didn't know, lol

Orhan_knight
1st January 2010, 09:47 AM
Cant agree more with this post been playing since age 5 and i seriously doubt that if this changes stay,that i will play after this beta.

Callum
1st January 2010, 02:44 PM
A brilliant post, Shane. If Rocco heeds just half of your suggestions, next age will be vastly better than this beta.

There doesn't see to have been any changes in the last few days. I am starting to worry that Rocco might feel happy with his changes, and have no intention to revert/modify anything.

ShadowMajestic
1st January 2010, 04:04 PM
omg man, u guys are crying like f'ing lunatics.

whining, every age, again and again "ADMINS WE NEED CHANGES IN KOC, BE MORE ACTIVE, BLABLABLA YADA YADA YADA"

not to long ago, Aman was active, doing lots of updates, small things, appeared in #kingsofchaos for the first time activly since a short period in age 3!

but, equal whining and bitching like now probably overloaded him to a point, that he's pretty much gone again.

Now Rocco is active, doing lots to koc, trying to give it allot of long awaited additions.

But everywhere, everyone is whining like little girly bitches!

I say, many changes are GOOD, not perfect, need tweaking and balancing, but it gives new upgrades, new goals, new 'challenges'.

Addition of the strength system, its great. And for the big players, it should be better then for smaller players like myself.

To me, it appears that many balances we used to have back in age3, are slowly returning, KoC is becomming Kings of CHAOS once again.

imo, it just needs better balancing, maybe some more development on conquest to make it a more worthy addition to KoC. and for the rest, it are new additions, KoC is changing, just good, lets not go back a few ages, thats pretty much useless.

And the officers strength thing, from what i know, its limited at 2.0, gives just 0.01 per active officer if more then 5, its nothing to the TECH upgrade of 6.7 i believe

EDIT: tech upgrades are adjusted, yes thank you

Orhan_knight
1st January 2010, 04:36 PM
shadow why are you always so controversial against the others?

Adrenalinejunky
1st January 2010, 05:48 PM
maybe he just has his own oppinions?

i agree with shadow....

Doc
1st January 2010, 07:00 PM
Cant agree more with this post been playing since age 5 and i seriously doubt that if this changes stay,that i will play after this beta.

Jan 1, 2010:

# Happy New Year! Multipliers from Technology upgrades have been lowered to 5% per upgrade
# Adjusted the sab formula slightly - a sabotage is never guaranteed to be successful!
----------------------------------------------------------

Same here buddy...this game is now officialy fcuked.

I can remember when there were hundreds of thousands playing....now its down to a pathetic 6k.

I understand that this is a beta but the changes have been so dramatic its driving peeps away from the game. If the game stays the way it is right now I wont be here for the next one.
I'm already on the hunt for a new game.
Let me know if you know of a good one where the admins dont keep fcking with the setings.
Only Rocco to blame I'm afraid.

Doc.

Mudvayne
1st January 2010, 09:12 PM
Well down here in the south we have a saying that Rocco should become familiar with. And that is that is if it ain't broke don't fix it. So stop trying to fix everything that wasn't screwed up to begin with it. You're only making everything worse. Yes it's only a beta but still players are being lost and it's up to you to do something about.

Seneca
2nd January 2010, 01:22 AM
Let me know if you know of a good one where the admins dont keep fcking with the setings.

It's been posted so many times, but I guess we need one more:
It's a beta. a TEST age. Things change, cause that's the only way it can be tested. In the real age 13, stuff won't change this often.

UMIST
2nd January 2010, 02:38 AM
It's been posted so many times, but I guess we need one more:
It's a beta. a TEST age. Things change, cause that's the only way it can be tested. In the real age 13, stuff won't change this often.


meh the changes are very rare! max maybe 1 change in an age.

Lopina
2nd January 2010, 04:38 AM
[08:22] <~AutomaticCreations> doh has sabbed a total of: 5,862,958,197 gold (1,258 missions)

Anyone got more sabs done or is doh top sabber this beta?

Props to doh for clicking and dedicated sabbing this age, but I believe this picture reveals another imbalance in KoC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitching around and crying about some sabs. Hell, it's only a game and only a beta.

But I believe something has to be done with the sabbing system.

It's not realistic that you can sab others for gazillions of gold daily, while you only suffer 100M or less gold in damages.

So, therefore, I urge for return of the system with 11 attempts where the minimum number of weapons that can be sabbed is 1 instead of 0.

LordCounter
2nd January 2010, 09:16 AM
Jan 1, 2010:

# Happy New Year! Multipliers from Technology upgrades have been lowered to 5% per upgrade
# Adjusted the sab formula slightly - a sabotage is never guaranteed to be successful!
----------------------------------------------------------

Same here buddy...this game is now officialy fcuked.

I can remember when there were hundreds of thousands playing....now its down to a pathetic 6k.

I understand that this is a beta but the changes have been so dramatic its driving peeps away from the game. If the game stays the way it is right now I wont be here for the next one.
I'm already on the hunt for a new game.
Let me know if you know of a good one where the admins dont keep fcking with the setings.
Only Rocco to blame I'm afraid.

Doc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyYZUhSeRYc

and lopina why you are you worrying about sabs. i think doh is the only one in koc that actually sabs lol

Lopina
2nd January 2010, 12:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyYZUhSeRYc

and lopina why you are you worrying about sabs. i think doh is the only one in koc that actually sabs lol

Actually I don't worry. I don't care.

I'm just pointing my finger to the imbalance.

Dunno about you, but I was taught that if you play with fire, eventually you'll burn your fingers.
Same thing should go with the sabbing. If you have 80% of the active KoC community as your enemy, wouldn't it be logical that you yourself have something to lose. For example, your account.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want OP sabbing as it was in Age 12. All I'm asking is to bring some god damn balance.

But I guess that word isn't in rocco's dictionary, so I doubt he'll do anything regarding that matter.

ZAR
2nd January 2010, 09:22 PM
While I agree to most stuff, I disagree to some parts, mostly to listen to a certain player, last time Admins listened to one player - fury - KoC got screwed up badly.



Just want to clarify myself, I did never want to blame fury with that post for some (if any) changes, I was blaming the fact that there was just one spokesperson - fury himself had some good ideas and the KoC admins have their own minds and sometimes do the opposite of what players request.