Recent posts by kevinexmx on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / $10 Gamestop Gift Card Raffle Thing (Free!) hunterhogan Accepted. We may do this again!

thats nice of you

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [Guide] Warswapping 2.0

Originally posted by ohnonooh:
Originally posted by TheGil:
Originally posted by TheGil:

most of this factions do it on faction wars also, just trading wars, trading tiles…
tyrant factions wars are no more a contest to see who is the strongest or who is the best
tyrant factions wars are now a contest of who has more faction in their alliance to trade more points…

its funny that in the end the thing that will ruined tyrant would be the community and not the devs.
it is the nature of humans, ruined their own world

just quoting myself from december 3… i told you :P
you all swap wars for much more time then you telling cheersch, and evo and mongers also, and most faction in top 20… even now all the 4 starts evo/mongers/bw/tasw are +1 while some others didnt had a war for 2 days… testing is over? or you are still testing? or now you do this cause they do this?
time to face it faction scene is dead. no fun anymore, while you manipulate the rank, and declare only war you know you will win (or in this case lose :P).
we really need a drastic change in this, or its time to quit

I beg to differ. If Dev didn’t create the unique and legendary tag which ended up with players spamming cards that shouldn’t be spammed, are you going to say it is the community that spoil the game?

Not long after conquest was release there was already discussion of possible stagnant, I already pointed out that there is nothing stopping trading of tiles with the system Dev uses. What I didn’t foresee is that players actually made the effort to trade tiles for something intangible and no benefit.

Above inorix tries to explain this isn’t an exploit but just unethical play, but in reality it is neither yet also both.

Exploit in a game is just something that give players advantage that is not within the intention of Dev without usage of 3rd party tools.

In other words, anything that isn’t deem an exploit is known as game feature. So Dev actually knew the community are trading, Dev choose to sit back thus Dev is promoting this “feature”, just like how Dev promote stalling as a “strategy” after they not being able to fix it lol.

They were probably just clueless about how faction wars and conquest would be able to co exist

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / Post Active Raid Links Here

Miasma #20214
Join | Status | Suggested decks

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [to: Devs] So ... What about Conquest?

The best thing they can do imo is to allow you to choose an order for your cards in defense decks. That would make many other deck types viable again and give us more of a card pool.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by ManuelDevil:

Sticky this and change the name of thread in “101 ways to QQ”

I don’t think this thread really teaches people how to qq. ^^‘’ The members of our faction haven’t exactly responded badly so far.

I am going to lock this thread now, so much for the biggest drama thread in a long time. It hasn’t created anything constructive in 9 pages, and I’m sure all those people who claimed to be enjoying their time here really wanted me gone instead. I don’t blame anyone for all the hate and trolling, this issue only really affected several factions in the whole of Tyrant, it was a really blunt decision on my part to post it in the forums instead of a simple private message to the devs.

If anyone thinks of Warmongers as QQers, I take all the blame on myself too. It wasn’t something planned out by my faction or anything like that, and I worded the topic title badly, didn’t think of obvious solutions which had been stated countless times. Hope we all manage to move forward from this, and make the game enjoyable for everyone again.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by p4n1q:

I suffered through eight pages of this garbage and I still don’t understand why anyone should care about this at all.

Im sorry that most of this thread is garbage, its not something I’m proud of. :>

Originally posted by MSUSpartan3096:
Originally posted by
p4n1q:

I suffered through eight pages of this garbage and I still don’t understand why anyone should care about this at all.

Funsies….

Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:

I don’t know exactly what propov did, but … you just want to brutally murder his faction.

Then get some background info :P

Kev, buddy, this is a flash game. The only thing that has been brutally murdered around here is either your sense of humor or common sense. Personally, I hope it was both.

Personally I appreciate both of those qualities. :) But you’re not doing bad yourself, managing to squeeze entertainment out of a flash game like this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Shadowhopeful:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:

I don’t know exactly what propov did, but … you just want to brutally murder his faction.

Then get some background info :P

Good point. Maybe he raped their wives and slaughtered their children!

Originally posted by Philosopher:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:

Hmm so people see themselves as skilled by ganging up with 6 other factions to target 2? I agree that leaders matter a lot in factions, whether they make good or bad decisions, especially since we ourselves have done things which are irrational. However, conquest has missed its point if its an excuse for diplomacy to matter again. Everyone winning easy wars isn’t much fun in a game i think, the balance is now tilted such that there is either too much challenge in doing something or none at all.

My point is that taking a tile, particularly from a top faction, requires a lot of skill and coordination among members. Faction war is pretty much a mindless single player game that requires little coordination, in comparison.

I don’t know what you mean by an “excuse” for diplomacy. Diplomacy is very important in any conquest / map kind of game. My faction realized this many weeks before Conquest began. I guess some factions took longer to catch on.

Honestly, diplomacy doesn’t depend on much skill, there is a big luck factor involved too.

I think diplomacy requires good sense and the ability to understand what others want and how their interests coincide with yours.

Aren’t people now taking a tile now in almost half the time given?? I don’t deny that conquest needs more skill that most other parts of the game, but you are overrating the fact that the skill is required more than making good friends. I agree that diplomacy is important, especially early on so you can get to the top factions before others can. But that is a problem in itself, the map wont change if the top factions stay top, and those who didnt manage to get allies can never climb up again.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Philosopher:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:
I think Evo should have a bigger fighting chance; right now conquest isn’t very skill or organization based

If you think that organization and skill don’t matter in Conquest, you are very much mistaken. Organization matters more in Conquest than any other part of Tyrant, by far.

As for diplomacy and strategy, that is something beyond the skill of an individual player — that is true. A single foolish leader can bring down an entire faction, by getting the faction into wars that it cannot win, by alienating friends, or by making enemies. That’s why it’s important to choose a faction that has good leadership and sound strategy.

Hmm so people see themselves as skilled by ganging up with 6 other factions to target 2? I agree that leaders matter a lot in factions, whether they make good or bad decisions, especially since we ourselves have done things which are irrational. However, conquest has missed its point if its an excuse for diplomacy to matter again. Everyone winning easy wars isn’t much fun in a game i think, the balance is now tilted such that there is either too much challenge in doing something or none at all.

Originally posted by Clanard:
Originally posted by Ateneo:


I do not think having allies is an abuse of the system. Also, there is absolutely no rule on having a maximum number of allies. Therefore, if you think having too many allies is wrong, then say that the system is flawed… but don’t call it an abuse since there isnt any :D

There is no such thing as having to many allies. Never was. In all of human history. You can have too FEW allies. And if that is the case, blame yourself and your diplomatic abilities (or lack therof)

Honestly, diplomacy doesn’t depend on much skill, there is a big luck factor involved too. I don’t know exactly what propov did, but attacking his faction like that is just a power play, you aren’t showing off your abilities, you aren’t helping yourselves get up to 31 tiles, you just want to brutally murder his faction.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by jfenz101:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by jfenz101:

so your faction is failing so we must change the system? makes sense. and regards to hurting a high level faction no one needs tokens it is more of a luxury everyone wants. why you would have even wanted 45 tiles is just a mystery especially when you were more of a problem with a stagnant map than a solution LOL

who want 45 tiles? this was just happening because tasw and noobs failed on their attack. we was already involved in a 2 to 5 war at the moment we get those tiles.
you are new to the real battles and I’m pretty sure you have no idea what 4-5 simultaneous defs and an invasion mean. hope you will find out that soon

sorry bro but im part of the faction’s that are going against you so i very much understant what 4-5 simultaneous defs is but that is part of the game. In case you havent been around for very long alliances have been part of top ten play long before conquest came about. And i still dont know why you would want 45 tiles so LOL

Well, he did mention that Evocati was being eaten, so we could pool tiles together again.

Originally posted by MSUSpartan3096:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by jfenz101:

so your faction is failing so we must change the system? makes sense. and regards to hurting a high level faction no one needs tokens it is more of a luxury everyone wants. why you would have even wanted 45 tiles is just a mystery especially when you were more of a problem with a stagnant map than a solution LOL

who want 45 tiles? this was just happening because tasw and noobs failed on their attack. we was already involved in a 2 to 5 war at the moment we get those tiles.
you are new to the real battles and I’m pretty sure you have no idea what 4-5 simultaneous defs and an invasion mean. hope you will find out that soon

It means you can’t defend very successfully. Seriously you guys, enough is enough. A limit to 3 tile defenses at a given time seems reasonable. Edge tiles do not apply, as they are the only way onto the board. You want something done to protect your faction against ganging…I get it. However, right now…to the people who actually know a bit about the long history of Evo…we understand that this is just the culmination of a lot of the diplomatic strategies in the past. My suggestion is to stop getting into bed with factions that are a liability.

Thats one way to look at it I guess, diplomacy is the key to a lot of things. On the flipside, if there is such a long history, should an entire faction be squashed based on something so far back and obscure? I think Evo should have a bigger fighting chance; right now conquest isn’t very skill or organization based, and if a game depends on how many contacts you have, it isn’t very newbie friendly either is it? The way I see it, this is history repeating itself from the time faction wars were without infamy. Warmongers may have made a bad decision logically defending their ally, but what is currently happening to them is similar to a long time ago where groups of factions would take down others for FP.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by shm777:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:

An advantage to defence would be nice. The problem with defence is that the defender is essentially blind to whatever the attacker is using, while the attackers have some insight, dont need many hits and can stall to make the final kill. Switching defense decks is also a lot more frustrating than switching attack decks; if you are defending multiple tiles you dont have the card pool to counter everything, especially things you cannot see.

yes kevin thats why they can do things like: prevent stalling, give more health to defense, or create more effects that benefit defense. Also defense may not be able to see what they are attacking with but if the defender switches the defense deck but has the same commander then the attacker doesnt know what the defense deck is either.

heh, was thinking of something more skill based but preventing stalling would probably be best.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by shm777:

Clearly the problem is that the devs have made a system in faction wars where a faction can’t get ganged up on, but have not yet created a similar system in conquest. Infamy in conquest would not work in conquest though since many factions would just create alt factions or get allied factions to shield them from ever getting attacked in conquest.

I think the best solution would be to just make it so that the defending faction has a slightly bigger advantage than they do right now to allow factions with good players to have a chance at defending tiles against lesser factions. As it stands right now evocati hasnt lost a conquest in weeks now and has only defended successfully against either tasw/italian/noobz/shini once in that time period.

An advantage to defence would be nice. The problem with defence is that the defender is essentially blind to whatever the attacker is using, while the attackers have some insight, dont need many hits and can stall to make the final kill. Switching defense decks is also a lot more frustrating than switching attack decks; if you are defending multiple tiles you dont have the card pool to counter everything, especially things you cannot see.

Adding on to that, I still have no idea why attack points can be upgraded so much more than defence.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Its nice to see that most of you like to snuggle up in a nice and cozy huge alliance and kill off anyone who doesnt want to listen

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Aquatar:

sorry i dont get the point of this topic?!
the map is less stagnating than 2 weeks ago. → good?
smaller factions like BadBeat and EMP just managed to re-enter cauze everyone is bussy. → good?

also, how can u be against alliances if WM has one?

if it is just about a weaker and a stronger alliance → i dont care.
if it is about unfair conquest → already happened 100 times b4.

did u forget the WM-bulldozer hiting INQUISITION? (i think the factions is no more)
did u forget the day u swept tiles with brags to attack SoF? and the day u let brags through to let them attack SFS?
did u forget that u use brags as bodyguard to attack w/o risk?

Eh, just reply to the final questions in my opening post

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Philosopher:

shargle, I have to confess that I don’t know most of the events you’re talking about.

As for my faction, we are not going halfway across the map to get more tiles. We already had 31. I’m only doing it because an ally asked us to help them.

Did evocati look like they were winning? You guys are literally beating a dead horse here

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Philosopher:
well its not surprising that the map is stagnant then? It is going to be risky attacking any of you guys no matter who it is

I guess I don’t understand your complaint. You have attacked many factions in Conquest and destroyed them. Now you have attacked a faction that has allies, and they are helping that faction defend themselves. Basically you rolled the dice and lost … that was a strategic mistake on your part, not a design flaw in the game.

I get that you want to be able to attack factions 1 by 1, without any other factions getting involved. But the whole point of a Conquest map is that factions work together to defeat enemies. It’s like playing Risk … sometimes neighbors work together to defeat a common enemy.

You are not address my point about your alliance stagnating the game. My faction made a risky decision and we paid for it. But if the map is dominated by some giant alliance it is going to be impossible for ANYONE fight back.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by MSUSpartan3096:
Originally posted by mariuca:
Originally posted by MSUSpartan3096:

To Devs: New rule…from here on out, if anyone refers to Evo or Warmongers as “Top Factions” they get the banhammer. Thanks in advance!

-Love MSU

so we should refer the alts factions as “top factions”?

No you noob…but conquest has skewed the ranking system away from quality. Overall the top 20 factions is filled with fortunate factions benefiting from the charred remains of great empires that have been lost to time.

Yeah, doesn’t it sound like something needs to be done???

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Philosopher:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:
<blockquoteI am not complaining about the war happening, i am complaining how we dont have a chance to fight back. If the alliance bulldozers through all enemies like that, it WILL be stagnant.

You have a chance to fight back, and you are fighting back. The reason you are in danger is because you were aggressive and got yourself in a poor strategic situation.

My faction has been sitting on 31 tiles. I have no interest in more tiles, even now. I expect to have 31 tiles at the end of the war. I just did this to help allies when asked.

You guys were conquering 45+ tiles and were allied with an aggressive faction. The more aggressive you are, the more careful you need to be about not tangling with factions that have allies. I have nothing against aggression, but it is a riskier strategy. It’s not surprising that eventually aggression put you in danger of losing a war.

well its not surprising that the map is stagnant then? It is going to be risky attacking any of you guys no matter who it is

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by im2spooky:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:

Now, to the point of this thread: Is this what we want in competitive Tyrant? Groups of factions working together to bring down those who have worked hard? And after they are done, what happens?

Yes im sure thats what the devs wanted when they made conquest.Not 20 or so superpowers sitting on their hands collecting tokens and and chatting with other factions asking them hows the weather…….by the way Good Luck

Yeah, I know people are bitter about that, it sucks. But it didnt just stop there, this is about the number of superpowers being reduced even more, as superpowers form some crazy alliance to bring down other supers.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Aquatar:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:

Well, if anyone wants to know what is happening during the war in conquest, its Evocati and Warmongers VS That’s All She Wrote, Better World, Shinigami, Noobz, TC, XCom, with Italians as helpers. Pretty big eh?

Its something like what happened in faction wars last time, where groups of factions worked together to bring down top factions using enormous alliances declaring war. Now that conquest has come out, alliances have apparently become relevant again because no one likes to play fair.

Conquest is not balanced; it is too hard to defend and too easy to attack. The upgrades give more challenge to uprising factions, and is a blatant attempt at getting more warbonds. Meanwhile, power lies in numbers, how big the size of an alliance is, instead of skill as originally thought.

Now, to the point of this thread: Is this what we want in competitive Tyrant? Groups of factions working together to bring down those who have worked hard? And after they are done, what happens?

lol?
many factions have been swept away b4. did u care? no! why brother us now?
also wm benefits from NAPs and countless tile trades.

i cant (and wont) say any bad about u or WM, but the fact that u JUST realized that conquest is broken makes me laught.
i am very sorry for u when the day comes u dont own 31 tiles anymore O_o (like 99% of factions) – welcome to conquest (beta).

NAPs and tile trades are bad im sure, but they are sort of needed on the map, especially when everyone is doing something similar. Maybe its selfish to bring it up when my faction is in danger, but this is a thread about alliancing, not about weaker factions unable to get tiles. I have made a thread about that before, if you check my post records.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Philosopher:

So you’re saying that the map should be stagnant? And anyone attempting to increase activity be squashed? Because that is what happens when 50% of factions in a map are your allies.

I guess I’m confused. You are complaining about the huge faction war that is going on, but the big war is making the map less stagnant. Factions like EMP and BAD BEAT are re-entering the map with success, some factions are losing tiles, some are gaining tiles. If we are against a stagnant map, aren’t big wars like this a good thing?

In my opinion, conquest in general will be stagnant unless there are alliances and wars … otherwise we’ll all just sit on tiles and collect tokens.

I am not complaining about the war happening, i am complaining how we dont have a chance to fight back. If the alliance bulldozers through all enemies like that, it WILL be stagnant.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Conquest Alliancing

Originally posted by Philosopher:

I thought that Conquest was all about making alliances and working together to defeat other factions. Every map/conquest game I’ve played is that way. I don’t know what Conquest would be about if it weren’t for alliances and interplay between factions.

So when my allies asked me to help them, I went out of my way to help, because I keep my word. I’m not ashamed of doing that, and I have nothing against any factions that are fighting my allies. I’m just helping allies as requested.

It’s understandable that people who are losing in a large conquest war don’t like the current situation. My view is that the best solution is to make good friends and not start fights with factions that have many allies. When you’re aggressive and fight a foe you cannot defeat, it is understandable that losses are the result.

So you’re saying that the map should be stagnant? And anyone attempting to increase activity be squashed? Because that is what happens when 50% of factions in a map are your allies.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / Post Active Raid Links Here

Gore Typhon
http://www.kongregate.com/games/synapticon/tyrant?kv_joinraid=5249443

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [Dev] November Roadmap

Originally posted by akumaxx_ws:
Originally posted by kevinexmx:
Originally posted by Sebi82:

Right now it is not possible to defend a tile vs any of the top10 factions.
Two of these factions in war will only exchange tiles, nothing else.
Imo something needs to be done about this issue.

The strange thing is how max attack upgrade is greater than max defense upgrade by so much lol

And factions without tiles won’t have high attack, making it hard to get a tile from heavily upgraded big ones.

well thats a disadvantage of upgrades, cant really be helped since they introduced it already and people have spent wb

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [Dev] November Roadmap

Originally posted by Sebi82:

Right now it is not possible to defend a tile vs any of the top10 factions.
Two of these factions in war will only exchange tiles, nothing else.
Imo something needs to be done about this issue.

The strange thing is how max attack upgrade is greater than max defense upgrade by so much lol

 
Flag Post

Topic: Tyrant / [Dev] November Roadmap

Originally posted by Finale:
Originally posted by synapticon:
One option we’re considering is a “Trade-in” feature that will let you hand in (for example) 15 Terminus Commons, 5 Terminus Uncommons and two Terminus Rares to get another free Terminus pack. This would apply to other sets as well, so if we do create this feature, it would essentially let you recycle unwanted cards into another chance at a particular card within a set.


+1

+1
That would be awesome, buying packs can actually be worthwhile :O