Friendly Discussion on Kills

Open Archived Doc opened this discussion on

Doc -

Hi Guys,

I really would like to hear the thoughts of the players on Kills and their place in the game. Since I started the game, there has been at least
some healthy discussion on what happens after a Kill; specifically regarding size and strength upon
Rebirth. I'd like to know, though, more about the process of Killing and how people feel about it. The reason I ask
is because I've played many games like this and this is the first to have a function that brings a guy down to 0 in
a pretty simple way if the effort to do so by the attackers is concentrated and well-coordinated.

For all I know, most of the players love the thrill of the Kill and of being hunted and trying to stave off a Kill attempt
so it fits perfectly into the game. If this were true, I'd almost think that the Rankings page would be set up so that number
1 is the guy with the most Kills rather than the most Land.

Or, perhaps there are people who get killed 2 out of every 3 Ages and are frustrated by that. In that case, perhaps
there might be some consensus that the process needs some revision so that it is more of a rare and wonderful
event rather than a ho-hum, oh-another-guy was Killed, event. Kind of like a last-ditch effort when the land or
strength leader is so powerful that an entire Alliance decides to risk everything to maybe get him, maybe not get
him; they could either settle for strong top 10 finish for most of their Tribes or try to take down top guy and if
fail, all of them drop down outside of top 10 while others grow past them.

What prompted this thread, although I've thought it was discussion-worthy since I started the game, is seeing
a new player get Killed twice in like... 6 hours. After the 2nd Kill, it appeared he did not restart his Tribe. Whether
it happens with that particular player or not, that is certainly something that could make someone say “meh, i tried
Orkfia but after 3 weeks of hard work, got killed twice and don't really feel like logging in to that game again.”

I look forward to your thoughtful responses and contributions. [up]

Sanzo -

Well in a sense, you and your whole alliance does have to sacrifice growth in order to kill someone. And half the time (or less) you don't even succeed. It does take a lot of work and good coordination.

What I don't like about other games is once a guy is too big they are untouchable and can have their way with anyone, just be a constant bully with no worry. Not here. Killing is a way for non attackers to deal with people. People who are annoying or are just “in the way” of perhaps being #1.

It sucks to get killed, but you have no one to blame but yourself. Most people die because they have inadequate protection. Sure it is possible to kill someone who is protected, though very time consuming.
Instead of getting rid of killing game mechanic, would be better to teach people how not to get killed[evilgrin]

Fergx -

inb4 aatw tutorial on how not to get killed [up]

Saivar -

What prompted this thread, although I've thought it was discussion-worthy since I started the game, is seeing
a new player get Killed twice in like... 6 hours. After the 2nd Kill, it appeared he did not restart his Tribe.

I can tell you that he didn't quit because he was killed. He left for other reasons, those of which I will not repeat. He would have deleted account, but that cannot be done while in War. We've offered a truce, but I doubt it will be taken.

I will say the guy who killed him the first time was more than half his own size - much bigger than he. To that there may be a problem, but hey it is the nature of the game it seems.

Fergx -

Normally you aren't killed by just 1 person. It takes a whole alliance or the majority of the alliance to kill someone.

Doc -

yeah Sanzo, it can be annoying when 'other' games have a leader who by day 3 is already pretty much the winner so
i think its a neat, and unique, tool in the game. it creates a fun and tactical dynamic that, in moderation, sets up a system
of checks and balances so that the top attacker by day 3 can't just run away with it.

this thread was not created as a suggestion or to say it should be eliminated so i think you misread my post. i just wanted
to see what people think about it. i personally think it is overkill. (is that a pun?) when anywhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of active
players are killed off in an Age, it becomes less of a tool to be used to overcome a large lead and becomes the primary method
of battle. now, as i said in my original post, that might be exactly what the player base wants out of a game. i only bring it up in
case there are others (i know for a fact that there are, i just don't know how many post here in forums and if they have any
influence with those who make the decisions) who think it would be more enjoyable with a better balance.

for me, i'm used to military and city/resource management being the primary tool for domination with black ops being more of a
complementary tool (in games of this genre) so i am trying to learn and make the adjustment but as i've discussed with a few of
you before, i feel like the black ops are just so dominant. you could take this age as a perfect example. the number 1 military race
was removed, a race with thieves that mostly take up almost no room from your general population and cost 50 crowns was brought in,
another one with 45% home max and the ability to establish mage dominance without sacrificing buildings was brought in, and
2 of the 3 black ops defense buildings were nerfed. all of this was done not as a reaction to a military-heavy past few rounds
but as a supplement to an already black op heavy environment.

like the title of this thread says, though, just a call for discussion by those interested in this topic. [:)]

Sanzo -

Doc, I totally got that your post is a discussion.
If we make killing too difficult it would be impossible. It is already extremely difficult to kill someone who takes adequate precautions .

CH/GH were nerfed to force people to get science. With 50% infrastructure research, CH/GH are the same effectiveness as before the nerf. Perhaps CH/GH can be modified (maybe 3% blocked per 1%, max 20% buildings, with science giving +25% instead of 50%) These are all minor details though.

There is probably a way to change killing to make it more rare without making it impossible, but my old skool mind cannot think of it [up]

Fergx -

imo, topics like this are great. The only problem is the game lacks a big player base so these topics do not get brought up very often.

Jolten -

Best way to not get killed is to be careful and not be the easiest target around.

If your running 5% CH 5% GH minimal mage level but you have a 4 military to 1 city ratio while your closest competition is running 10% GH ML 25 and a 2-1 military to cits ratio. Well your begging to be killed.

Scarlet -

Churches already getting damage reduction from bastions being removed. So they'll give up to 25% (32.5% with infra) damage reduction in addition

Doc -

lol. you guys are funny. [:D]

Scarlet -

I agree, and disagree with making kills more sparse.

Part of the issue is new players don't know how to stay alive properly.

I just stickied a thread from a while ago, and will update it if it needs it.

Sanzo -

scarlet you cant both agree and disagree with things

Scarlet -

My agreement is new players who grow well don't know how to survive and get killed.

I think rolling bastions damage reduction into them will help make kills something that occur when someone does screw up, or is under defended; instead of easily getting kills out of war.

But kills are part of the adrenaline pumping side of the game. Killing a tribe is an achievement and is what makes the game unique.

Hoping heritage will give players incentive to take risks :)

And I can totally agree and disagree. [evilgrin]

Sanzo -

No you can't. This is reality. You gotta pick a side dude.

Making it impossible to kill someone who is well defended is a bad move. We will have big unkillable bully tribes

Scarlet -

Didn't say impossible, just said not easy.[up]
Page 1