Forums

The race is still called Owls? Clearly the rest of the dev don't know...

Official Suggestion: Change “Owls” to the “Polly Finally Doesn't Get Killed” race . The rarity of that happening in the past warrants a race named after it, am I right Polly?

u got that wrong sonix, its the “polly finally got a kill race”

Nah he got plenty of kills under me :P. I kept pestering him with texts till he finished people off.

hes also finished plenty of guys off before, ask em

Stop spamming announcements

just stick to useful comments/questions/suggestions.

Yeah you spammers

Your taking away one of the best parts of being a thief? PW? or are u just modifying it

only 2 things to say about the changes. both are pointed at the global features.

1st: Removal of many artificial barriers like size penalties.

so basicaly if i correctly understand this. a player with 10k would be able to strike a player with 1k and do normal damage as if they were attacking some in their size range now? so how does retaliations work? to bad screw you? (more reason new comers would want to quit. think about how that would seriously affect the game not that we have such a huge player base as is).


2 – The possibility of being at war with multiple alliances at the same time.

yaaaaa! lets make co oping legal, come on to ignore the fact that is all that would be going on goes against CoC and at the same time i believe damage the integrity of the game. alliance vs alliance is fun. you take an alliance who is filled with noobs and pit them against two or more alliances who have been playing for ever what do you think will happen? yes folks more deserters

i thought this was to become a more player friendly game? what happened to that idea?

@ Shadow Fiend

What they fear most about removing barriers is not big players annoying small players but the other way around

a 1k player should not be able to do something to a 10k player according to some

The changes are live, as is the compensation for dragon players

@ Shadow Fiend: Well you know, Dev is not almighty and allknowing but we're not that stupid either ;)

To answer your two concerns:

1- A 10k player would, under special circumstances, do full damage to a 1k tribe. These special circumstances happen to be that they would need to be at war (as outside war damage will be heavily penalized) and the alliances would need to be of equal size. If you are a new player it would be quite unlikely for any of this to happen, but if you join a good alliance then yes, it might happen that you get attacked at 1k acres if you don't protect yourself. The reason will be simple: your alliance is large and dangerous so any tribe in there will be forced to defend themselves. Even in that case it would be pretty stupid to attack the 1k tribe as you would gain relatively little by killing him but if all other tribes in your alliance are well-turtled you might be able to attract unwanted attention at 1k acres already.
Probably it will be alot harder for the 10k tribe though. Because he's large damage will be big on him, making him a very good target for ALL enemy tribes (including the 1k ones). Any damage done is amplified simply by his size. So probably the problem is bigger the other way around (big tribes contribution to war will/might exist by turtling as well as possible to be not TOO tasty a target). Like in reality a large empire has large issues and isn't as versatile and free as a small but well-administrated state that can tip the balance in certain conflicts.

2- This too is a bit naively thought up by you. Obviously the alliance that is most hurt by the ability to be warred by more than 1 alliance is the alliance on top of the rankings. Alliances 2-5 will likely be interested in their behaviour and jump on them whenever they see a weak spot.
Aside from that war happens 'automatically', i.e. when hostilities are increasing between alliances. You can avoid war to a certain extent by avoiding contact with alliances you don't want to mess with. Ofcourse alliances can mess with you too but if you have decent defenses and a bit of offense you can await the war to break out and be the first alliance striking (since your offender had to spend up his mp/tp to trigger the war in the first place). Apart from that your offender might well be a better target than you (as being offensive includes risk and lowered defences) so a potential third alliance that is looking around is alot more likely to 'ally up' with you than with your enemies (given that your offense and defense is up to par!).
Finally if things happen to be heavily unbalanced they can always be made more balanced by adding a few factors (like: increased defenses for an alliance that is at war with multiple alliances).

due to a minor error in my sql query the dragon compensation worked only if you had no defspecs (which is quite a small compensation)

I fixed that and the compensation should be in now

first off

1. regarding multi alliance wars: naively thought up? no that is the concern that popped into my head. whether it be against the top alliance or the bottom alliance. co oping will become an issue only now it will be allowed because there is no way to prove or dispove it is going on. i bet my life on it becoming an issue. my second concern is the alliance full of noobs. most of the older players target them as is now scarring most of them off. i am looking at the big picture and the long road not a mere speck of time in orkfia. plus if the “top alliance” can't be topped well gee let's put in place a way to break that alliance. to ignore what a change as such would do in reality to the games integrity is just foolish and naive. that is why i argue the fact fix what needs to be fixed and leave what isn't broke alone.

2. size difference: yes but if penalties are remove that 10k tribe could demolish a 1k tribe on their own and suffer no penalty for such. therefore creating an unbalance in the game play. at the same time that one 1k tribe could in turn run wild on the 10k tribe who they seriously have no right attacking in the first place and vice versa. both sides lose out and completely ruins the balance. yet again i turn to my arguement fix what needs to be fixed and leave what is not broken alone.

you may not want to see eye to eye with me that is fine. but i do have a valid point on both only i see it from my point of view as a long time player and what it possibly could do to the game in the long run. as where you see it from your point of view and from the now and only the now.

Just to point out.. if two alliances are equal in size and go to war then the 10k tribe SHOULD be able to do full damage on the 1k tribe and the 1k tribe SHOULD be able to do full damage to the 10k tribe. If damage outside of war is heavily reduced then there is no unbalanced game play. Unbalanced game play comes from if a 10k tribe in a big alliance of 12 people can easily kill a 1k tribe in an alliance of 3 people. You missed Joe say this:



and this:





In response to this, if both sides lose out doesn't that mean it balances back out? Also, it is broken because there is literally no benefit in growing bigger than 10k since big tribes like 10+ tribes are useless in wars since they get a much more reduced success rate than if the tribe was smaller. a 1k tribe has a 75% chance of success on a 10k but a 10k has like a 40-50% chance of success on a 1k.

Yes, that's also what popped up in my head and my concerns are precisely the same. I think it is a bit naive to think this was overlooked by all of Dev and coders.



Cooperation will remain an issue for as long as there is more than 2 players in any game. It may seem on first glance that 'allowing' multiple wars encourage such behaviour, but it depends alot on the precise functioning of the war system in question. Apart from that, currently there is also no defense at all against the very same behaviour (getting opped by two alliances simultanteously) so it can happen at any time. In the proposed change this will become more difficult, as one needs to put energy and power to actually get into the war. So one could argue that it becomes more difficult to co-op compared to nowadays (as you need to fulfill some criteria before you can do 100% damage, which at this time is possible always).



We aim to do the same so we share your views completely.



Yes. That would be better for everyone since this game is about interaction. Most top alliances get bored by their dominance and would love to be challenged more often for their place. Maybe these changes would make keeping a top spot too hard and need some rebalancing, but surely it won't be boring and static at least! The idea is that the bigger you grow, the harder it gets to sustain your dominance. You can make your own game as difficult as you want.



I completely agree with this. But our interpretation about what's fixed and what's broken seems to differ. I consider it broken that growing very large makes you a harder target while you also cannot do any damage yourself. The point of the game is to be the biggest bastard and the nastiest alliance. Currently at some point you lose all possibility to interact meaningfully with other alliances when you have 'outgrown' them. You're playing on your own then. Which is a bit boring.

24 seems to be doing pretty good at warring everybody at the same time, just sayin...

also i like the size penalty removal, big tribes always had a huge advantage when opping small guys:
a) train off specs to raid, raze, etc
b) dont need many thieves per op
c) easy to get high ML

whereas small guys vs big guys:
a) no way to defend their land against large army
b) need to send like 10TPA per thief op
c) cant get high ML

there used to be no size penalty, and i welcome its removal

So it's official, 16/13/41/66/27 vs. 24

not official until they implement the war changes

so it seems that #24 has a slight case of megalomania

(Sorry for spamming)

Actually, I take our Alliance from that list, thou idk about the rest

You're forgiven Plato

Short answer: yeah, but we're introducing new rankings: war rankings. They don't decrease, they can only increase. Multiple wars means multiple opportunities to gain points.

You gotta wrap your head around the idea of war rankings rather than land rankings.

Then there's the other concern. If we did NOT allow multiple wars, #1 would continually try to war weak/not-dangerous alliances so they can't be picked on by the dangerous ones - after all, our new global modifier is messing up their chances of dealing damage outside wars.



As to size penalties, we're indeed replacing them with the global modifier. Essentially, size penalties are individual - and the game is ALLIANCES at war.

I like the fact that you said ALLIANCES!

Caps Lock FTW

TRIBES AT WAR R.I.P.

feels weird to not see 47 on that list.. maybe I should change that again...

Oooops, my bad Sonix

Updated:

13/41/66/27/47/17/19/22/14/125/21 vs. 47