Dear Ricardo and members of KOC community;
After some period of playing this game, I arrived to the conclusion:
I start with assumption that the ultimate goal in the game is: be the strongest alliance in the game world .
Second assumption is: The strongest alliance is defined alliances might score board.
We can discuss this assumption, but this is not the main idea of my message.
Now, the problems I see:
And finally how to fix it:
The benefits:
Besides the supplementary work for the programmers, I don't see any drawback in this suggestion, instead, the Battle for the North becomes the real battle of alliances, players will, force, and determination.
Ricardo, if you have some time, please out your "10 cents" into discussion, I greatly appreciate this.
Regards,
Grim
After some period of playing this game, I arrived to the conclusion:
- This is very nice game
- The game play philosophy is broken and need to be fixed.
I start with assumption that the ultimate goal in the game is: be the strongest alliance in the game world .
Second assumption is: The strongest alliance is defined alliances might score board.
We can discuss this assumption, but this is not the main idea of my message.
Now, the problems I see:
- The wall is very nice thing to protect the city from the random attacks, but wall might distorts the might score at leaders board -> as a result, leading alliances don't have any wall defence at all.
- The possibility to hide troops is inevitable in the game, otherwise, low level players can never become strong ones -> but the alliance wars become a long and boring process of "empty" strikes and rare catches of an unhidden player, that leads to frustration and fatigue at the end.
And finally how to fix it:
- Make the wall defence counts as ZERO might, this removes the might distortion and allows to use the wall defence benefits
- Create a new concept (totally different from the Hostile alliance) in the game: possibility to "Declare a WAR" to another alliance, this declaration should be approved by the opposite alliance
- The fact of mutual war declaration between two alliances grants that hidden troops will defend automatically vs. the player of alliance at war, but stay still hidden from attacks of other players.
- The incoming attacks from the players at war are published at the alliances reports, with the time when the attack will land.
- The war can be end by any alliance in the war, or when the might of the one alliance becomes lower than a specified threshold (for example, 10% of initial might)
- Any player can avoid the war by quitting the alliance at war.
The benefits:
- Wall defence, if not counting in the score board, will become an additional and useful defensive utility.
- "WAR" concept with mutual accord will allow having a very intensive and interesting fights between alliances, and keeping the possibility to hide the troops from the occasional raiders or when you was defeated and reconstructing.
- "Attack incoming" reports during the WAR allows to defend an ally even he's not online, reinforcement as a tactic will become much more useful.
Besides the supplementary work for the programmers, I don't see any drawback in this suggestion, instead, the Battle for the North becomes the real battle of alliances, players will, force, and determination.
Ricardo, if you have some time, please out your "10 cents" into discussion, I greatly appreciate this.
Regards,
Grim
Comment