Recent posts by deathvonduel on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Hetzer makes the game freeze

Originally posted by shyster:

I do not quite understand what you are describing death, but from what I have heard this is a pvp problem exclusively. Specifically when an opponent plays the Hetzer it causes your game to freeze, and you have to forfeit the match.

ah, no… there was a problem when I play hetzer and try to upgrade it too fast. The upgrade would pop up for a split second and then when it moves up it’d disappear leaving me unable to click on it again.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Hetzer makes the game freeze

I’ve only had a problem when i try to click on cards as the hetzer is moving stuff up. Now, in my incidents it haven’t actually frozen persay, you just can’t click on any card. You could, however, drag cards. And attempting to drag a card(preferably to a spot where it fails) would unlock the problem. Thou occasionally it leaves Hetzer locked.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Beginner/Newbie questions thread

note that except some hunter missions, killing the enemy will also work.
There is another that is a sword through a wheel like thing, first show at 101. It is a hunter-killer type except you also have to summon units of certain types a number of times.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Development Letter III: Season 2 Ends & Historical Missions

the deck seems slightly different. In stalin, easy was…. easy. In hard, the enemy had more blitz and air units that rush you face(thanks to scout division) need to kill fairly quickly and/or at least form AA barriers.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Development Letter III: Season 2 Ends & Historical Missions

I see that there is a range of rewards on the historical missions, how is that determined? Is it random? Is it depending on how we perform(equivalent to the star system in our current missions) or how many levels we pass before we lose(or lose a number of times)?

I would like to suggest that we should be able to modify some of the historical mission deck in one (or both) of the following ways:
1. pick 30 out of, for example, 40 cards.
2. in addition to the 30 cards given, we might remove certain card in deck to put in certain approved(i.e. faction and story line compatible) cards.
Note that for both methods, certain cards would be required to be in the deck, cards that represent units that played an important part of the event.
Of course, some missions should be played with unmodified deck, but I do believe deck construction should be part of game play most of the time. We can start with ones where no changes can be made(because it would be easier), this is just for future expansions.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Suggestion or What this game needs to success

Originally posted by Elkor:

Sorry 41 is the one I am stuck on, where you have to kill 14 things without killing the opponent while he summons one or two things each round and always leaves one of your things totally unguarded.

for most of those (that have low hp) you need to make a special deck.
1. make sure you have NO air unit(unless the objective happens to be kill aircrafts, in which case the enemy is mostly air so air or not make little difference) except maybe flying tiger and that’s only for the free blocking.
2. For similar reasons, do NOT carry brutal or grenade.
3. have at least 3 fast in your deck. This can be either equipment or the unit itself. Ideally, at least one of the three fast should go onto an artillery(fast equipment+arty unit OR arty equip+fast unit). If you have THREE fast units, one or two of which are arty, you can attack any lane of your choice easily. Unless opponent leave two lanes open(which he does sometimes, but not frequently enough to cause an accidental kill most of the time. And you can put the lower attack of your unit on that lane to reduce damage)

The fast-brutal infantry is a bit of dilemma, but if you have no other fast options, it’s better to deal a bit of piercing damage than hitting them face on.

I almost never had problem with killing the enemy, except where I’m unlucky with my draws or just pure human error. The hard part is actually killing enough stuff. However, that should not be such a huge problem at just 40s, it really kick in at the 90s+. At the 40s up until at least mid 50s, if you can kill EVERYTHING on the field starting on your 3rd turn, you will have more than 50% chance of passing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Idle Conquest / Issues with the OCD update

1. It was excessive and thus unnecessary:
All most players asked for is that when you buy 100, you actually buy 100, specifically on the first purchase. Very few player care for it after the initial hundred mostly because it would not be an issue usually unless by the player’s own mistakes.

2. It is buggy:
Specifically, the cost displayed for upgrade does not reflect the actual price of update

3. It destroys efficiency:
This is a bit complicated, I’ll try to explain this as clearly as possible.
Fact: All buildings grow in cost at the same ratio.
Therefore, the ratio of rate of return of two level x structure. will be the same as the ratio of the rate of return when both structures are level y.
Furthermore, given a constant difference between the two structures, the ratio would maintain. That is to say, b1(x+z):b2(x)=b1(y+z):b2(y)

Specifically, given the same multipliers and upgrades:
If a single farm have a income of 1 then:
market have a income of 3.04
gold mine have a income of 8.96
cathedral have a income of 26.6666
Therefore, the optimal rate of return would also follow these costs, and as it currently stand, the ratio of cost to achieve this would be of a fixed difference in level. Specifically, given a level x market:
at x-27/28 level market
at x-40/41 level gold mine
at x-106/107 level cathedral
note there are two number each, one represent slightly over and one slightly less, either can be used for optimal ratio.
Also, given different tech/multiplier, the specific difference can differ, but let’s use those numbers for a moment. (Unit building have same behavior, thou due to the fact only a little of those are needed it’s fairly insignificant)
What this means is that to achieve optimal income with a fixed amount of fund and thus optimal future growth, the difference in levels of the buildings should maintained the same.
For example:
A lv 500 farm, lv 473 market, lv 460 gold mine and lv 394 cathedral. And all buildings would need to be upgraded by the same amount to maintain the optimal ratio for fastest possible overall growth. For example, upgrading everything by 50 levels into:
A lv 550 farm, lv 523 market, lv 510 gold mine and lv 444 cathedral.
This used to be a very simple task of simply clicking x50 on each once, but now it is much more complicated, take this example:
1 50x for farm
1 50x, 2 10x, 3 1x for market
1 50x, 1 10x for mine
1 50x, 4 10x, 4 1x for cathedral.
Counting clicking the check mark for 50, 10, 1, at least once each, we have over 20 clicks required for what used to be 4. And this process might be repeated a few times.

Now, this can be somewhat worked around by delaying the point at which one fine tunes the income, but nevertheless the last bit of income for any session that is not just rapid-resetting would eventually end up at this point in order to be optimal. And therefore anyone pursuing the rational optimal path will end up hurt by this update in favor of irrational OCD.

Proposed solutions:
a.. First and foremost, the cost to upgrade should reflect… well.. the actual cost to upgrade, regardless of what other changes are made.
b1. Make the auto rounding an optional… option. It can either be in the option menu OR in the economy tab as an extra toggle check mark (or even have 3 extra check mark such as buy x1,x10,x50,100 as well as “to next 10/50/100” note we only need one 1s because… it’s the same)
b2. Make the auto rounding only apply for under certain level. The original request by majority of player only needed it to go to 100. But quite frankly, 300 or below would work fine enough. Personally, I only need fine tuning after 400.
b3. Just do what the player asked in the first place, make buy 100 always buy 100, go from 0 to 100 and it’d be fine.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / so navy...

I’m curious as to how decoy works.j
Would it be a decoy unit with a fixed form?
Would it be an ability on summon that copy a unit on field/hand? If so, would it have its own rank or copy the rank of target?
Would it let you select from a list?(and if so, what’s in the list? Perhaps all units in your deck that share the same rank as it does?)

Along the line of decoy, I think this might be interesting:
Ambush:
On the turn this card enter the battle field, all supply cost to play, promote and/or equip this unit is paid at the start of your next turn instead. This card cannot be targeted by card effect or be seen by your opponent and ability that activate at end of the turn does not activate until your next turn. This card is unaffected by deploy or scout division.

Note: due to the fact your opponent can see your hand and actions in PvP, the equipment played onto it will not be shown as played, and this card itself is replaced by a random card in your deck which will be shown as not played.
If there is ambush equipment, it would only be played on newly summoned unit on your back line that have not been targeted by any card effect and that unit will be treated as having ambush. The equipment will be shown as a random card in your deck instead and the unit is shown as not played.
I think I’ve covered all the bases. Thou it gets rather long, don’t know how to reduce it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / so navy...

Any plan for naval units? Well, here are a few ideas toward that direction in case you guys are interested and haven’t started.

Seafaring: This unit cannot block or be blocked by armored or infantry unit

Shore siege: This unit cannot block armored or infantry unit, when this unit attacks infantry or armored unit, it does not take damage.

Carrier: Aircraft units gain the “deploy” ability (all, or most, carriers will be seafaring and siege, thou siege might need a different name. and perhaps fortification as carriers rarely attack by themselves)

Carrier II: The first aircraft you play each turn cost 0 supply.

Mine Layer: deal damage to enemy naval units when they attack (1/2/3 damage)

Note: we can have a water mine layer and a land mine layer, similar effects

Minesweeper: your units are immune to mine layer effect (again, we can have a land version too)

U-boat: Cannot be targeted by card effects. Reduces the opponent’s attack in combat if it is a naval unit. (all U-boat are seafaring, thus their vulnerability is being blocked by aircraft)

Flagship: All other naval unit gain 1/1(2/2, 3/3) at the start of your turn, if multiple flagship are on the field only the highest level one would apply.

I imagine naval units to mostly consist of coastal crafts(no seafaring nor shore siege ability, such as corvettes and frigates), battleships(shore siege), carriers, supply ships(seafaring+supply), destroyers/cruisers(seafaring), submarines, minesweepers, Anti air(anti air+seafaring)

There are also, of course, some odd classes like aircraft tenders, torpedo boats, gunboats and whatever else. But those aren’t particular interesting or famous.

At the same time, if there are naval units I’d expect anti-naval planes and possibly special infantry attack team(sadly, no SEAL because they are not WWII era). I doubt even amphibious armored can go to “sea” thou, so probably no interaction there.

I want my Yamato and Enterprise.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Map 60 is horrible design.

It’s not about 40% success rate but 40% rate by RNG alone. For example, you could make the enemy commander only have 1 hp, that means any airplane or non-fast unit might result in a loss. That while also somewhat RNG dependent, can be worked around(by employing only fast units, which in turn makes the level harder to pass in general)
Or tougher units to get rid of such as tortosie, that would definitely be a hurdle to jump over in any destruction objective.

So yes, you do need progression filters, but please make them difficulty based as opposed to RNG based.

edit note: RNG have been good to me, I passed 90 with 3 stars on my 3rd try, 5-5-6. So as it were, the frustration of those levels have yet to fully hit me(passed 60 in under 10 back when it was still 5/5/5). But technicality stands, should be difficult by… difficulty. (note I would have lost if enemy only had 1 hp.. I did quite a number on him because I had complete field dominance and he was shy with units on some turns)

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Map 60 is horrible design.

They haven’t changed it yet, I passed it the day before yesterday with 7/6/5 and the current tooltip still says 5/5/5 required.

Anyway, I have no problem with the difficulty, if it was “kill 19 units” it won’t be so bad. What I have a problem with is the fact that it’s ruled by RNG such that even if you kill 19 units, which can be considered a good run(anything higher just need amazing RNG luck) you would only win 46.4% of the time.

Why do people keep thinking I have a beef with “difficulty”? that’s not the issue at all. It’s the fact that there is NOTHING that can be done to increase your chances to even 50%. I thought we were playing a strategy orientated card game, not playing the roulette. I’m not a gambling man.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Map 60 is horrible design.

who said 2/turn is difficult? I racked 16 kill or more most of the time on my attempts, but that doesn’t pass you the level, you need 5 of each type which is RNG. The proposed experiment is to see how far player ability can push it and how much RNG rule supreme.
Fact is, if all three types are equally likely, then:
16 kills would have 14.1% chance
17 kills would have 24.7% chance
18 kills would have 35.7% chance
19 kills would have 46.4% chance

If we assume that 5% is 16, 30% is 17, 50% is 18 and 15% is 19, that averages to: 32.9%.
That’s too RNG for my taste. This is assuming, of course, even chance and no relationship between picks, not entirely true. If the deck is evenly distributed, the actual chance of winning could be slightly higher(if a card is already on the field, the chance of him playing the same type decreases so it’s slightly more likely to have an even distribution). It might be actually 35%
And that is my problem with it, the fact that skill and deck can only bring you so far and no further. There should be better chance if one were able to play perfectly.

Appendix:
Following is a sample of calculation results, in case you don’t know how I arrived at them.
c5=c1-c2(column 5 is difference between column 1 and 2), c6=(1/3)^c2*(2/3)^c5*combin(c1,c2), c7=(1/2)^c5*combin(c5,c3), c8=c6*c7 and the overall chance of 18 is the sum of c8
combin(x,y)=x!/(y!*(x-y)!). x!=x*(x-1)*(x-2)....*3*2*1
18 5 8 5 13 0.181170222 0.157104492 0.028462656
18 5 7 6 13 0.181170222 0.209472656 0.037950208
18 5 6 7 13 0.181170222 0.209472656 0.037950208
18 5 5 8 13 0.181170222 0.157104492 0.028462656
18 6 7 5 12 0.196267741 0.193359375 0.037950208
18 6 6 6 12 0.196267741 0.225585938 0.044275242
18 6 5 7 12 0.196267741 0.193359375 0.037950208
18 7 6 5 11 0.168229492 0.225585938 0.037950208
18 7 5 6 11 0.168229492 0.225585938 0.037950208
18 8 5 5 10 0.115657776 0.246093750 0.028462656
0.357364455

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Map 60 is horrible design.

Originally posted by lhtsang2:

@deathvonduel
tbh, we all hate those levels, but its for sure that they can be defeated.
many of us are already in Level 100+…… including me, who stuck in level 60 for 3 days, but level 90 and 97 cannot stop me for more than a few hours.
if your deck is good enough to kill fast, and occupy all 3 lanes, the AI will tend to fill in all 3 ( or at least 2) lanes before upgrading units, granting u a much higher chance to have enough kills.

those who cannot get enough kills is very likely to …..
1. cannot kill fast
2. cannot control all 3 lanes fast.

You can’t prove that it’s the player and not the RNG that give trouble, hence I propose the test deck, I’m not assuming it one way or the other. If killing everything instantly and controlling all three lanes since turn 1 can yield a decent win rate, then it’s fine. If not, it’s too RNG.

I did beat 60, in less than 10 tries I think, killed I believe 17 units total. Optimal game I’d say it will play an average of 17 units, 16 and below being mostly hopeless, 17 is decent chance. And contrary to what one might think, my personal experience with 18 or more have been rather bad(but I think I only had it twice, so it’s hard to say) because it appears to me the only reason it played so many is because it’s not upgrading as much due to the fact it’s playing the same cards over and over. I think one of the 18 he played only 3 aircrafts. So I seriously am not sure if optimal play will even give you 40%.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Map 60 is horrible design.

Originally posted by IsidroT:

Hey all,

hvtp feedback is pretty valuable and indeed having a deck that uses unit destroy units/equip/orders help as your first objective is to prevent the AI from upgrading units. Nevertheless we agree that those level are more luck dependant than the others, that’s why as lhtsang2 mention are levels that we limit. What we have done though it to remove the level 60 for the moment and change it to 2 Destroy Objectives instead of 3. We decided that it could be too early to the players to face those kind of levels so we have delayed the first 3 Objectives level to the Level 90.

This changes will appear on our next update probably early next week.

I think you should make some kind of super test deck, and see whether or not you can complete the mission assuming optimal game play(fill your test deck with special units that have fast, deploy, three destroyer, 1 attack, 9999 def, that should kill everything on sight easily and instantly)
If under “optimal” game play you were able to pass the mission at least 40% of the time, the mission might be reasonable. If even optimal game play depends excessively on RNG, that means the mission is poorly designed as there is nothing the player can do to increase their chance to a reasonable amount.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Is there any way to reset the game?

Originally posted by IsidroT:
Originally posted by hvtp:

@IsidroT: If I have already pass the level by the time you change the reward, how can I get the card? Thanks

I’m afraid that you won’t be able to, we may think something up for that specific issue but can’t promise anything atm. Bear in mind though that if we were to make that move we would change one reward for another so the new players wouldn’t have the card reward that you currently have. I do agree that this is not ideal, but the game is still a bit young and we are continuesly doing adjustments, it’s unfair that some of you are being used to play the game in it’s raw stages but we really appreciate that and if we can help you in any way don’t hesitate to ask us.

Cheers!

I don’t know how your codes are done, but can’t you insert it as a 3-star achievement reward? For say 40 3-stars? That way new or old player can receive it.
And if any future card is considered “needed” they can be inserted as well as 20, 30, 35, 60 etc.

 
Flag Post

Topic: World War II: TCG / Is there any way to reset the game?

Originally posted by fredthebadger:

@odstudios, there actually are a couple cards that you can get that reliably increase your life. in several of the missions, they are basically a free pass to three stars.

Just curious, does any of those card come as a progress reward for passing a certain level? Because it would be nice if it is. If it’s not, it doesn’t make the feat any less RNG dependent, except now it’s on a game-wide scale(whether you roll the card) as opposed to battle to battle.

Anyway, for them “no kill” levels, I think the ideal tactic would be three fast units, one or two of which artillery. That would allow you to move the fire power to whichever lane you want and avoid most possibility of enemy hero damage(only when enemy only have one lane then you would direct your lower damage unit on his face). Thou by level 40 most free players won’t have a large enough card pool to build any real focused deck so that won’t work out so well.
Yeah, the campaign might be achievable for every kind of player, just that free player have to roll the dice twenty times to get pass certain levels. I think at least the common cards should be available individually for gold, then we can actually start using tactics.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / [To Devs] when you remove cap level?

Originally posted by dias17se:
Originally posted by SabakuNoGaara:

It ought to give one some silver in place of exp as soon as one hits the level cap. A similar system has been introduced in World of Warcraft, and whenever a player has completed a quest and had the level cap maxed out, he was given gold instead of the exp, so he still would be rewarded for his effort despite having reached the max. level. I think we should have something like that here.

>Implying GF can compete with Blizzard devs

not compete, copy and plagiarize. Chinese games are good at that

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / Motion to Ban (snip)

Ok, I just checked out the thread in question(whalehunter), and….
Both Raiden’s and kevin’s post are nuked by admin, so I can’t quite see what happened. But unless OP’s post was removed due to quote(which would be bad admin work if it is) only, isn’t it a bit of pot calling the kettle black?
Most of raiden’s post(or what’s left of them) are hard to read and gibberish indeed, and considering how many was removed, he probably was the majority of the problem. But in any case, these kind of things should be reported to the kong mods, not RoM mods. RoM can only ban him from game, which hardly helps forum/PM spam.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / Guild upgrade

Originally posted by FIGHTER_TAMOJIT:

If your guild president offline for 14+ days then automatically your guild V.P became president on the next maintenance.

the VP have to have more cp for that to happen

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / Severe service issue: Ticket closed without comment

Originally posted by Tafkam:

This issue could easily be addressed in just a few minutes. Does Gamefuse not care at all about the future of their company (aka the spending players)?

Not fairly.
To issue refund for one means they should issue refund for all qualifying person(which they should have done). And by that I mean person who donated gold that reside in a showdown qualified guild. That will require fairly extensive data searching and could take, depend on their back end system set up, hours.

Quite frankly issuing refund to just one person isn’t fair in any way or form.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / Event- NEW Skills Pack with rubies

Originally posted by ac0110:

^
But only if they are creatures, not sure what happens if they are skill cards…

back to deck
so as long as it’s not pure creature deck, the more u use it, the worse it gets(creature ratio drops)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / what happens if you leave a guild?

player retain all the upgrade they already have. But any remaining cp will be gone.
So it is best to leave, if you wish to leave, right after an upgrade.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / New Skill Cards 1.6 (Chinese Sever)

Originally posted by Darknesscross:

Mage got nice skill… -8 life on 2×2 for 2 cd vs Whirlwind Strike 3 cd for 4 damage… not counting it got mastery.

WW dmg is permanent, the -life isn’t unless it dies. In fact, it could heal a damaged creature.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / Gamefuse’s Custom Service problem.

Originally posted by Dreams_of_Fury:

Yes the game does need it, but:
- I doubt they trust the community enough to ever do so.
- they already have people like me and some others do it completely for free. (just take a look at the recent certificate fiasco for example, how quick the community was with solutions and linking those solutions in forums/chat compared to gamefuse even knowing about the problem, let alone respond to it)

Originally posted by Dreams_of_Fury:

Yes the game does need it, but:
- I doubt they trust the community enough to ever do so.
- they already have people like me and some others do it completely for free. (just take a look at the recent certificate fiasco for example, how quick the community was with solutions and linking those solutions in forums/chat compared to gamefuse even knowing about the problem, let alone respond to it)

Trust is not an issue if they give very limited power to the moderator. It would also be more objective if the same issue is looked over by at least 3 such guides(randomly selected from the pool of guide). The objectivity is needed in case some guides just happen to hate the ticketing player’s guts and choose to block the ticket just because… Or if they don’t think an issue is a real issue for whatever reason.
And by limited power I mean no power whatsoever except in answering tickets and classifying them.

Here is how I’d modify the current ticketing system:
Each such guide would have their own guide account in the system.
When a new ticket is created, it is randomly sent to 5-7 guides. (out of say 20, as server does not matter in this respect most of the time, a few from each will easily provide this many).
Each guide may perform the following actions to a ticket:
answer the question within and classify it as “resolved”
classify it as “unresolved” and suggest it toward a ticket group. (thou he could answer part of the ticket if he can, this is done for all that are not completely resolved)
A ticket is closed if: at least 3 people have processed it and all of them labeled it as resolved OR at least 5 people have processed it and no more than 1 person classify it as unresolved.
A ticket is forwarded if: less than 3 people process the ticket within 12 hours OR it is not closed by the above conditions. It will be put into the category that most people suggest(random in case of ties) or if nobody processed it at all for some reason, put into a “unprocessed” section.
The CS can then view the tickets that are forwarded.

guides will be reviewed every now and then to see if they are doing their jobs properly, as they won’t be helping any if they don’t. For example:
less than 40% of the ticket they receive are processed in a timely manner(within 12 hours). Due to the 12 hour constrict, 100% is difficult due to time zones. But there have to be a minimal somewhere.
More than 50% of the ticket they classify as unresolved are false-positive: that is to say others have classified it as resolved and they really are.
More than 20% of the ticket they classified as resolved aren’t actually resolved. Note in case of vague questions, answering the wrong question is not counted.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Rise of Mythos / Severe service issue: Ticket closed without comment

Originally posted by xjoshx84:

Most places you drop $10k and management will fall over themselves to listen to you and make sure you leave happy. The amount of time and money it would take Gamefuse to fix this is so incredibly minimal that it’s really disturbing they haven’t dealt with it yet.

While your request is reasonable, I have to say that is not a fair comparison.
Specifically, the management will fall over themselves over $10k and keep your happy for say…. a hour or two.
You can’t expect that for a long period of time and it would be hard and unlikely to keep you happy all that time. Spending $10k in say 5 month is 2k/month and 66 dollars per day. You are not going to see management falling over themselves on that kind of expenditure. You might get on good terms with them so they are more willing to help you than others, but don’t expect anything as dramatic as you are describing.

As for the topic itself thou, no blanket compensation would ever be fair. Some players further ensured that you guys get shafted by requesting outlandish blanket compensations. Frankly, if I were management and emotional and read some of the posts back then, I’d do the same. Thou I’m not emotional so I won’t and I think laziness was their reason. Still, those requests was not helping.
I have proposed various non-blanket compensation ideas at the time, either just a general refund(sort of blanket but not the same) or a rank based compensation. It was, of course, ignored. My suggestion to you would be drafting such a plan yourself. As it were, if you only ask for compensation for your loss, they probably won’t do it and they’d have a good excuse—it would be unfair to other players in similar shoes. A more objective tiered comp for all affected players, on the other hand, would leave no room for such excuse.
FYI: I was not affected at all, so this doesn’t affect me as well.
Best of luck in any case, thou I kind of doubt it. Even if they end up doing anything, it probably won’t be as speedy as you want.