Conquest forum game: Discussion thread

If your intention is to remove the troop respawn upon reach a minimum population under 100 will be unfair even if you increase population growth per cycle to 10. (if you remove the troop respawn all together you probably need to increase natural growth to over 15 and it still will probably be unfair).

Because most players will still be kept under 500 population by those who already have weapons and armor.
Basically you are giving too much rewards to the most addicted (I'm one)
When the game should allow a player that just can login just once a day to organize with friends who also only login a couple of times a strategy which allows them to have a decent growth and with time be more than just farms for the sharks.
No wonder lots of players gave up.

 

The game is designed to favour high activity - and "a lots of players gave up" is simply not correct, > 80% have spent cycles during the last 24 hours.

We will add some kind of "sleep mode" though, which means a player that has reached max cycles will no longer gain troops/gold thereafter.
As soon as the cycles are spent again, troop/gold grow will kick in again.

But this will probably not be implemented before next round.

 

I don't think I ever said it was a victory of the Foul tribe.
I will defend it again:

This time with even more arguments in my favor:

Foul tribe players did things that others consider to be cheating (please don't argue with me if it was or not against the rules what narfi thought us could be done and was done during the beta, because if you do you will be just agreeing with me that is "foul play").

Molisk tribe players were allowed by the game to do things which into my read and others in the Foul part of the forum having in mind the previous accusations of cheating can be considered to be unethical (I did confessed I was doing it too and sent a pm to the game master which to my surprized said it was OK).

I agree with:

Even if they win (I doubt it) it will be stained by the fact that a very active player was caught and was removed from the game from for serious offenses to rules while playing under their flag.
Not the Feffoid tribe players fault (I know) but they have little chances of victory at the moment so the contest is between the previous two.

 

Game balance is hard
Spending time correcting abuses sucks
I'm trully sorry for being in the cause of so many of them.
I will from now on spend more time trying to learn programing languages (instead of wasting it playing pointless games) and see if others join me so that we can help you.

 

Let me start with the following:

If a player finds his village with less than 250 troop he can spend 1 "wiki gold" and 3 turns to see the village back to 250 troop.

Wiki gold is obtained by making a meaningful contribution to the Wiki.
The list of what was considered meaningful and what the reward was must be public and the reward is given only after review by the wiki moderators (to prevent abuse).

 

We will implement some more features in the future, i.e. one that allows you to buy gold from EPD - the wiki idea is tricky, as it is hard to estimate the "value" of the contribution - but, rewarding wiki edits with EPD is for sure a good idea :)

The need to pay cycles to have your village back to minimum population is an interesting idea, too - this could indeed help to balance the game better.

Have a +rep for posting really good ideas :)

 

What happened with GeorgeSkywalker ?
I can't see him on the list

 

George has been removed from the conquest game upon his own request.

 

I didn't know I could do that
From what I read on the case of Akoz it looked like it was very time consuming
I'm tempted to ask the same if things continue to be as they have so far.

 

It is time consuming - but i have stated several times that a PM is enough.

George gave no reason in the PM, but i think he will be too busy to maintain his player account and doesn't want to "feed" the other tribes by being inactive yet producing gold.

If you care to specify what "things continue" means, we can maybe address the issue.





Nonetheless, as announced, the troops your receive per cycle have been raised as of now - hopefully this will speed up things a bit.

 

So far the data gathered and posted in the foul forum would led me think that it isn't possible for a player to get to keep more than 900 troops for a long time (even with defense ratings 4-5 times higher than the offense ratings of just one and only major attacker).

Lets see if the changes make a difference or not

 

Hardly possible w/o support from your nation, but team play is one of the key factors anyway - see it like this: Those attacking the "top guy" can't spend their cycles on building up their own ranks, too.

 

I would not be upset if it was team play.
It is one against one and the weakest is winning due to an exploit.
It no longer is consider an exploit since everybody is using it (now it is an official feature)

 

Well, from what i see, trauma is growing, albeit very slowly - the extra troops per cycle will help a bit.

But, it's good that it is like this, or the game would be already over - trauma is still not big enough so he cannot be overtaken, everything else would just discourage those who try to catch up with a long-term strategy.

If he loses too many troops, why don't you (read: the whole tribe) help him stock up on defense? It is possible to reach a point where you hardly lose troops from unsuccessful attack anymore, but with the (very limited) troop count, this will only be possible if you invest in stronger armour... which, in turn, needs more gold... which, in turn, requires your tribe to support you...

As i see it, this works as intended.

A lot of frustration seems to arise from impatience here...

 

Maybe you are right.

 

I suggest a 24 hour safe period (cannot attack or be attacked) for new joiners.

This is especially important for players who join in the middle and are raided dry as soon as they sign up.

 

Well, this was a side-effect of the "small" reset i made - usually people spend their gold when they sign up, but due to the way i've done it, most people were unaware they have gold to spend, which gave some players a big advantage: They could rob the gold before they all noticed...

This shouldn't happen again tho:
When we do a full reset you have to sign up again.

 

Is tax always random or does it increase with the difference in troop count ?
Tax just took 50% in a transfer to our spy master and who has about the same number of troops I have.

 

There is no random factor in troop/gold transfers as far as i remember.

And yes, it does increase relative to the difference in troop count, not linear tho.

 

So I should consider normal a 50% tax on a trade with a player of my size:

You have sent 8300 gold but 4292 was taxed and lost during the transfer.