PDA

View Full Version : New Conquest Level Poll



MFnBonsai
24th June 2018, 11:06 PM
Should new conquest levels stay as the latest one the Fairies???

Or should new levels allow you to gain gold and sustain weapon damage???

The new level was created due to large accounts not wanting to attack accounts bigger then themselves due to not wanting to be approved for less than 1 hour steals....

Since players were hitting low ranked players to gain exp the admins came up with a new conquest level that isnt broken.... it is meant to cost you turns and give you EXP but not give you gold or repairs.... Should it be kept this way or not???

bloodpirate
24th June 2018, 11:44 PM
since i don't play a big account , and don't have enough SA to use fairies, i have no comment so don't care one way or another.

MFnBonsai
24th June 2018, 11:48 PM
since i don't play a big account , and don't have enough SA to use fairies, i have no comment so don't care one way or another.

If you did play a big account, did have enough SA to use Fairies, would you have a comment? or care one way or another???

trip
25th June 2018, 01:32 AM
I voted with weapon damage and gold stolen... But I think best option would be a hybrid conquest list..

"no weapon damage and no gold stolen" means practicing in your own barracks i guess and it is reasonable to gain some xp from that

but nothing like the real experience like taking some giants or wizards head on.. and it would be logical to receive more xp like 1.5x of practicing..

bloodpirate
25th June 2018, 01:41 AM
If you did play a big account, did have enough SA to use Fairies, would you have a comment? or care one way or another???

i used to waste turns fake sabbing for experience. and was able to get all tech and all but one econo during the two long ages. so i guess if i was to waste turns on experience with no gain, i would do that, if the experience gained was more than experience gained stealing gold .. if it was the same experience, i would go with stealing gold.

as it stands now, you gain more experience doing each conquest level 62 times, which i do, and don't care about gold. then rest of turns used in raids and attacks. if fairies gives more experience after 62 times, i would probably do them too .. if the experience gained decreased like the previous conquest levels, i would stop at 62.

_RoGuEsHaDoW_
30th June 2018, 04:25 PM
If you did play a big account, did have enough SA to use Fairies, would you have a comment? or care one way or another???

being a big acct, doesnt really matter to me, Ill do whatever will give me the MOST exp the fastest... which is currently doing some daily slaying, and then when i have enough turns for techs to mass small accts :D

I did use fairies but stopped after you are no longer getting x2 exp per turn, which is after 62

MFnBonsai
1st July 2018, 12:23 AM
So in other words it’s beneficial to a certain extent then you go back to slaying????

What does the exp given level out to???
And should it be raised???
Should there be more levels with different rewards given???

Attacking still should be the main aim to use turns to gain exp but unfortunately the mentality of players regarding 1 hour gold steals and the unwillingness to not want to be sabbed sort of creates this “we need something else to do rather than use the attack button”.

Ofcourse it isn’t a reason to add more levels but it doesn’t hurt to add a few I guess....

Any thoughts???

xeros2.0
1st July 2018, 12:35 AM
Weapon damage and gold stolen.

Also, put conquests back to the way they were but limit their use so an account can't just stack turns and unleash them all on wizards. Potentially limit it to being able to do 20x each conquest/day.

Xentor
1st July 2018, 04:16 AM
This is a tough one - Hard to find a balance for big accounts (I'm talking top 5 tff's and specifically in this age DM) who can't reliably steal gold from anyone, let alone often enough to use the double turns produced. The new changes are great for small players (slayers) and even anyone outside the top 5-10 tff's but the bigger accounts really do suffer because of it.

I like the thought process that trip shared, "practicing" in your own barracks for XP, though it needs to be on-par with the highest level of XP achievable through slaying as big accounts shouldn't be punished because game mechanics don't allow them to slay effectively.

A few others ideas that come to mind though likely require tweaking (I haven't thought in depth about it as yet):

1. Allow players to use double turns to steal a higher percentage of gold held (Say 90-100%) ie. A super attack or something which disregards tff size - Maybe make super attack scale so the bigger the tff difference, the more turns you use? No idea, but worth a thought

2. Rather than conquests giving diminishing returns on experience, make them give diminishing returns on gold instead.... Perhaps some sort of capped amount of conquesting you can do per day (You march into battle against Wizards. The battlefield is empty and your troops return disappointed) which encourages big accounts to have higher levels of SA rather than neglecting it until EoA as well as activity - You need to log in and conquest every day or you miss out - Diminishing return on the gold should prevent accounts from just abusing conquests endlessly

Worth mentioning that it's not going to be possible to get SA high enough throughout the age to make burning turns on conquest viable for bigs as long as you're capped at 62 times per conquest

ThomasA
1st July 2018, 05:56 AM
though it needs to be on-par with the highest level of XP achievable through slaying as big accounts shouldn't be punished because game mechanics don't allow them to slay effectively.


It is not about punishing the big accounts. It is about game play and strategy. One style of play having 'everything' will have everyone going that style and lead to a boring game. There should be advantages and disadvantages to the various styles, that is why we have different races with different bonuses. Having it on-par would punish those who are putting in an effort with their turns, taking the risks and using some kind of strategy....

Who would deserve to win more? those using a strategy or those using the safe route of just clicking a button over and over?

Doing things by the text book, such as do this 62 times then do that then that etc leads to a boring game... There should be a variety of styles and strategies not just one route everyone should take....

The main mechanic preventing big accounts hitting each other is BF policies and the entitlement that big accounts think they should be able to keep all their gold. This is a player made mechanic and as such something players will need to resolve...

We have seen players who enforce dumb BF policies try to use their turns on attacks and experience for themselves that things are more challenging and not as straight forward as their BF policies make out. Will they change their BF policies? probably not, but at least they've now seen what its like on the other side of them.

As for abuse by hitting lower ranked accounts just for exp, this will be monitored and if necessary damages increased for hitting low ranked accounts or it will be blocked completely. This would most likely hurt the big accounts, for taking sells and such so I would advise to try to use game play mechanics as intended and not force the Admins to have to implement this.

The main advantage of Fairies is that it can't be outgrown and will give big accounts a way to always gain exp once they reach that level. It currently provides big accounts a safe low risk way of gaining exp. If you want higher exp rates the level of risk would need to be increased. I don't know maybe something about lowering the sab or attack ratio against you the more it is used or increasing the damages you receive from raids or having it so it decreases the % of gold you can bank...

The release of Fairies took so long as two representatives of the biggest alliances convinced the Admins that no one would use such a mechanic unless it was overpowered and the Admins did not have any intention of releasing something overpowered... So please keep discussions sensible and not keep insisting it should be overpowered.

serpantsalot
1st July 2018, 11:49 AM
the "practice in your own barracks idea" I like. I think I would make minimum xp closer to 75% of slaying though, not 1/2 or 1/4 or w/e. I also like the idea of a daily limiter, but I think it should be similar to however many turns are generated in a day.
say person a plays a has a top tff with has 100k people, person b has 80k people, person c has just 20k people.

person a makes 12m an hour
person b makes 9.6m an hour
person c makes 2.4m an hour

person a makes that 12m but can't effectively slay, so tech levels will lag behind b or c.
say a month in the ratios are still the same, making those 12, 9.6 and 2.4 numbers that really mean little, but b has a tech of 4x while a has a tech of 3. b's effective tbg is 38.4 (9.6x4) while a's is only 36 (12x3). And then you add in whatever b gets in slaying making them even more gold. If the ages were longer and everyone maxed tech then perhaps a would outrun b in the stats, but shorter ages limits those chances, and in the short term a can't outrun b's chances at slaying because b makes more effective gold before even factoring what they can steal.

Everyone expects to push a main and hand the game over to them, but in reality being a main when your account is being overtaken by upper midlevel's just because they can get the experience is a very real possibility. I get it, you are looking for opportunity cost, and ways to balance the game so one strategy doesn't dominate, but b's ability to slay is the balance in my opinion.

C gets overtaken no matter what... but they focus on slaying the b's usually... so cheerz to that...

The_Sovereign
1st July 2018, 12:28 PM
Some big accounts will just conquest 62 times and then go back to hitting brand new accounts because the experience penalty in conquest is so huge after conquesting so many times.

ThomasA
1st July 2018, 12:30 PM
Some big accounts will just conquest 62 times and then go back to hitting brand new accounts because the experience penalty in conquest is so huge after conquesting so many times.

As I said previously, if this becomes an issue they will either be blocked from hitting lower accounts or receive huge damages for doing so....

Brandonito
1st July 2018, 01:11 PM
The solution isn't to give people fewer options on how to spend their turns it's to give them more IMO.

Say what you want about fakesabbing - but at least it gave people interesting decisions. Do you sab or fakesab for ideal experience but no gold? Or do you attack for gold as well as damage enemies, but get lower experience? These are the types of account management strategical decisions the game needs more of.

An idea I posted a couple months ago for example: http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?97794-What-changes-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-next-age-not-(new-age-coming-but-the-next)&p=1500177#post1500177

ThomasA
1st July 2018, 01:41 PM
The solution isn't to give people fewer options on how to spend their turns it's to give them more IMO.

Say what you want about fakesabbing - but at least it gave people interesting decisions. Do you sab or fakesab for ideal experience but no gold? Or do you attack for gold as well as damage enemies, but get lower experience? These are the types of account management strategical decisions the game needs more of.

An idea I posted a couple months ago for example: http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?97794-What-changes-would-you-like-to-see-in-the-next-age-not-(new-age-coming-but-the-next)&p=1500177#post1500177

The issue with that is it will reintroduce the same problems as before, big accounts would just click their turns away then fake sab... We have been there done that, it doesn't work... If you want more ways to spend your turns, stop keep suggesting the same overpowered mechanics over and over. If you want things to stay as they are keep suggesting the same overpowered mechanics....

Brandonito
1st July 2018, 03:19 PM
if clicking costed turns/gave experience fakesabbing would literally be pointless and nobody would do it. It certainly wouldn't be overpowered. You could spend your turns to fakesab for just experience...but what would the point be with your alternatives being you could click for experience and get both tff AND experience OR you could attack and get both gold AND experience.

Players would click their turns away at the beginning. But as explained in the idea - slowly as the age goes on clicking would get less profitable, slaying would get more profitable and the power would transition from clicking to slaying/sabbing. And because most people would choose to click at the beginning, the minority who choose not to will find way more gold on the battlefield to steal. It balances itself out. It certainly would at least get people thinking about the strategy they want to take rather than the same old mindlessly click all age strategy that's so powerful now.

ThomasA
1st July 2018, 03:28 PM
OR you could attack and get both gold AND experience.

or lose gold by being sabbed....


mindlessly click all age strategy that's so powerful now.
Yet you want it to become more powerful....

Fake sabbing is not coming back....

Circular discussions are not going to achieve anything and will spam up the thread so that if someone does actually manage to post some different there will be a good chance it will be lost....

Brandonito
1st July 2018, 03:46 PM
People would be more reluctant to sab for a 'low hit' if the expenditure of turns lost them their precious clicks.

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the change. This is supposed to be a NERF to clicking. Clicking right now is FREE. It has NO down side. It doesn't cost you your turns. You can both click AND attack. The point is to make people choose between the two options - if you want to slay for gold then you CAN'T click because it will eat up all of your turns. Because most people outside of really big accounts tend to slay (i.e. a significant amount of the players that play under mains) big accounts will receive less trickle because more of the accounts playing under them will choose to slay NOT click because they can no longer do both.

Can you see how this might make clicking less powerful?

ThomasA
1st July 2018, 03:51 PM
You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of the change. This is supposed to be a NERF to clicking. Clicking right now is FREE. It has NO down side. It doesn't cost you your turns. You can both click AND attack. The point is to make people choose between the two options - if you want to slay for gold then you CAN'T click because it will eat up all of your turns. Because most people outside of really big accounts tend to slay (i.e. a significant amount of the players that play under mains) big accounts will receive less trickle because more of the accounts playing under them will choose to slay NOT click because they can no longer do both. Can you see how this might make clicking less powerful?

It is not a NERF when big accounts are complaining they have too many turns and no way to spend them.... and the whole point of your argument was to introduce new ways to spend them....

If there was a shortage of turns or clicking gave less exp then it may be considered a nerf...

Brandonito
1st July 2018, 04:07 PM
It would change decision making in koc significantly more than just giving high TFF accounts a way to spend turns IMO.

I agree, clicking could indeed give less experience than attacking if too many people are just clicking all age rather than attacking - it would take some testing to see where exactly the numbers should line up to make it balanced. I wouldn't make it so extreme as clicking giving only half the experience of attacking, but something like 75% might skew people to focus more on slaying without killing clicking completely as a playstyle (those slayers need people to attack after all :P).

serpantsalot
1st July 2018, 07:14 PM
so... this might be something that never happens... but I feel it should at least be thrown out... remove experience from the game. It was a good game before the mechanic was added in... and it would eliminate the problems on all sides of this debate. I'm sure it has its own problems but I feel it should be at least discussed.

Xentor
1st July 2018, 09:31 PM
Blah blah

The point of main accounts is to work together as an alliance to build it - It should be completely separate from standard players and not be used in the "style of play" argument as the accounts I'm talking about have been central to KoC since it's inception - You don't win ages being a solo player, you don't win ages by "clicking a button" either. It comes from hours and hours of recruiting, building a community within your alliance, using diplomacy/warfare to avoid/win wars, taking sells, etc. You're oversimplifying it.

Who deserves to win more isn't as simple as someone with strategy vs someone who clicks as I said above - It's an alliance-wide effort.

While I agree that doing things 62 times, etc etc, is a crappy way to base a game - I'm all for changing those mechanics, thus the suggestion on only being able to do each conquest X amount of times daily.

Any suggestion to block bigger accounts hitting smaller accounts or increase damages beyond reasonable is dumb and would only make the situation worse - When the mechanics currently used don't allow a viable way to play, blaming the players and threatening to punish them for doing what they can to make it work is ridiculous and you're much better off looking for solutions rather than punishments.

@Brando's suggestion
-

I think exchanging turns for clicking will only make it more imbalanced - I can see a lot of old players returning out of loyalty for their alliance, only to click and not actively play - SR for example has a huge community of old players that come back during war for raids, etc etc.

@serpantsalot
-
Not a bad idea, if we can't find a solution but it'd be a shame to take away another element of the game... We should be looking to create more options, not take them away

I do think it was balanced in the past:
Sab - XP, no gold
Attack - Gold, half XP

Though I acknowledge that fake sabbing sucked and it isn't what we want to encourage - Maybe there's a way to encourage more chaos there somewhere though, allow alliances to use in-game mechanics to declare war on each other which allows them to sabotage for XP against each other (at double the rate you get by attacking or something similar to offset the punishments) with built-in punishments for people currently at war (ie. TBG or turn production reduced by 25%, all stats reduced by 25% or something similar)

That way hopefully it discourages people from going to war to fake sab, but gives some sort of reward for sabbing/being at war so maybe people aren't so hesitant. Could even put a time limit on how long wars can last for, built in mechanics for surrendering etc etc

ghoulavenger
1st July 2018, 09:48 PM
Unless you're willing to scale conquests infinitely, having the top tier give no gold but reward experience is more than acceptable. Simply put, as accounts get bigger conquests get harder to profit from, and accounts are constantly getting bigger. Personally I was thinking something of a training button, but this works just as well. There are a couple drawbacks to this solution though.

1. It's extremely repetitive. If you were able to input just how many turns you wanted to burn away, it would no longer be repetitive. But the implementation is an acceptable compromise by offering large accounts a new way to spend turns, where there was none before.

2. If it is significantly weaker than slaying on the experience front there will be people that simply choose not to use it. This is harder to solve, because you're trying to promote attacking by offering greater rewards. The gold alone is NOT a greater reward for large accounts, but it is for smaller ones. But this is more than just BF policies, it is also the TFF differential. If you could slay downwards effectively it wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem as it is today.

ThomasA
1st July 2018, 09:58 PM
blah blah


It is not about punishing the big accounts. It is about game play and strategy. One style of play having 'everything' will have everyone going that style and lead to a boring game. There should be advantages and disadvantages to the various styles, that is why we have different races with different bonuses. Having it on-par would punish those who are putting in an effort with their turns, taking the risks and using some kind of strategy....

Who would deserve to win more? those using a strategy or those using the safe route of just clicking a button over and over?

Doing things by the text book, such as do this 62 times then do that then that etc leads to a boring game... There should be a variety of styles and strategies not just one route everyone should take....

The main mechanic preventing big accounts hitting each other is BF policies and the entitlement that big accounts think they should be able to keep all their gold. This is a player made mechanic and as such something players will need to resolve...

We have seen players who enforce dumb BF policies try to use their turns on attacks and experience for themselves that things are more challenging and not as straight forward as their BF policies make out. Will they change their BF policies? probably not, but at least they've now seen what its like on the other side of them.

As for abuse by hitting lower ranked accounts just for exp, this will be monitored and if necessary damages increased for hitting low ranked accounts or it will be blocked completely. This would most likely hurt the big accounts, for taking sells and such so I would advise to try to use game play mechanics as intended and not force the Admins to have to implement this.

The main advantage of Fairies is that it can't be outgrown and will give big accounts a way to always gain exp once they reach that level. It currently provides big accounts a safe low risk way of gaining exp. If you want higher exp rates the level of risk would need to be increased. I don't know maybe something about lowering the sab or attack ratio against you the more it is used or increasing the damages you receive from raids or having it so it decreases the % of gold you can bank...

The release of Fairies took so long as two representatives of the biggest alliances convinced the Admins that no one would use such a mechanic unless it was overpowered and the Admins did not have any intention of releasing something overpowered... So please keep discussions sensible and not keep insisting it should be overpowered.

Who deserves to win more an alliance wide strategy or an alliance wide spam click a button?

Xentor
1st July 2018, 10:46 PM
Who deserves to win more an alliance wide strategy or an alliance wide spam click a button?

Again, I believe you're oversimplifying the current situation. I do agree that spam clicking a button (conquests, etc etc) isn't a very fun way to play a game but the task in front of us isn't to punish players for that, the job should be creating new and interesting ways to win and I think multiple people have said now that the current changes alone don't do that.

The current changes (double turns, half the turns used in attacks, more XP for attacking) are great for smaller accounts and slayers, it'll put them much closer to being able to compete with the traditional bigger tff & banker strategy. But all changes have unintended consequences, by removing XP from sabbing and doubling turn production, it has solved one issue and created another - What do big accounts do with their turns now?

1. Attack tiny accounts to minimise losses & get XP - You've said yourself this isn't what we want and I don't think that's what big accounts want either.
2. Conquest continuously -Not what we want and with the returns on XP being SO low, it's a poor substitute.
3. Attacking bigger accounts (though still smaller than you) - Often the merc costs, repairs, etc. are too high to make it viable in addition to the fact that there's a chance you'll be sabbed/start a war due to stealing such low %'s of gold - It should be obvious why players aren't using this tactic.

It's not an easy situation and I don't think the problem is going to be solved by one single change.

Note: Another possible idea is to lessen the technology multiplier? Would also give economy a more viable pathway as well as reduce the overall importance of technology - Right now at EoA, being one tech behind can have huge implications

ThomasA
1st July 2018, 11:08 PM
But all changes have unintended consequences

As would overpowering the exp on conquests.... Hence why thought is being put into it and it is not just being introduced because players are requesting it to be....

We saw what happened when players requested a buff to sabbing....




Note: Another possible idea is to lessen the technology multiplier? Would also give economy a more viable pathway as well as reduce the overall importance of technology - Right now at EoA, being one tech behind can have huge implications

If you are one tech behind, it means they have made better use of their turns by employing a better strategy..... If everyone is the same by spam clicking, there is no strategy..... though if all Tech is achievable it mutes this. This is not to say multipliers will not or will be adjusted...

As I pointed out several times now, point 1 can be 'fixed' if it becomes necessary....

In regards to point 3 it is about strategy...is the extra experience worth it or not?

Players need to drop the expectation of free buffs without costs or trade offs....

VibrioWolf
2nd July 2018, 01:07 AM
I do think it was balanced in the past:
Sab - XP, no gold
Attack - Gold, half XP

I think this is fundamentally flawed logic. Sabbing = gold, just not for the player doing the sabbing. That said, I think an xp reward for a successful sab would put it on par with attacking (xp and gold/turn wise) and get over the FS problem...

To get to the matter at hand, I don't really see the benefit of having weapon damage and gold and xp, or indeed no damage and xp... Much like fakesabbing there's no negatives to it if you do it right. Except after the magical 62x. It turns into a bit of a dead mechanic after a while and removes any strategic decision making. Perhaps a conquest for big xp, with weapon damage and no gold gained? To make the xp mechanic exciting...

xeros2.0
2nd July 2018, 01:23 AM
I think this is fundamentally flawed logic. Sabbing = gold, just not for the player doing the sabbing. That said, I think an xp reward for a successful sab would put it on par with attacking (xp and gold/turn wise) and get over the FS problem...

To get to the matter at hand, I don't really see the benefit of having weapon damage and gold and xp, or indeed no damage and xp... Much like fakesabbing there's no negatives to it if you do it right. Except after the magical 62x. It turns into a bit of a dead mechanic after a while and removes any strategic decision making. Perhaps a conquest for big xp, with weapon damage and no gold gained? To make the xp mechanic exciting...

Cool idea, but it would be no better than fake sabbing. People would just sab weapons that the target doesn't have, get a succesful sab and gain XP... essentially becoming the new fake sab.
The idea has merit though if someone wants to expand on it.

serpantsalot
2nd July 2018, 06:13 AM
so... this might be something that never happens... but I feel it should at least be thrown out... remove experience from the game. It was a good game before the mechanic was added in... and it would eliminate the problems on all sides of this debate. I'm sure it has its own problems but I feel it should be at least discussed.


@serpantsalot
-
Not a bad idea, if we can't find a solution but it'd be a shame to take away another element of the game... We should be looking to create more options, not take them away


Anyone else want to chime in on that thought? I remember the game before experience was introduced, it was a good game then... I wouldn't be remotely upset if the mechanic was removed.

VibrioWolf
2nd July 2018, 06:15 AM
Cool idea, but it would be no better than fake sabbing. People would just sab weapons that the target doesn't have, get a succesful sab and gain XP... essentially becoming the new fake sab.
The idea has merit though if someone wants to expand on it.

Fair point! But, it would mean that the only way to get xp from sabbing is by actually holding spy and getting through, or low sentry which is risky. Also means the max number of daily attempts is much, much lower than fakesabbing was back in the day.

Sir_nicolas
28th July 2018, 12:44 PM
i vote neither. both are amazingly boring. why not add a prize to each conquest once you "defeat" it. a 5% bonus to this or a 10% bonus to that. or a 500 bonus to UP, or spies and sentries per day, you choose (for players who dont want bigger armies), or a flat increase to income, or a bonus 1 gold per soldier, or an extra 200 turns per day or whatever, then there would be a sense of accomplishment to finish them. and make the last couple something pretty good, that gives a decent boost to a stat or unit production or income or something. would add a new dynamic to the game and make the conquests not feel pointless.