Recent posts by Moatster on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / New Kongregate Version: Game messages tab in the message center

And the link to game messages is pointless since it doesn’t work.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Shadowland Online / [Event] Memorial Weekend Monuments

netannoi
Frost&Rio

 
Flag Post

Topic: Shadowland Online / [Introduction]Test of Blades

The average points per day is 200 in that example and that’s pretty generous (be one of 5 to get orange, be on at 9 and hold the orange pillar for 14 hours after getting 22 offensive wins). Also keep in mind since you can only attack beacons higher than you so if you get a large number of defensive wins you’re usually losing out on offensive wins. Even if you up points to 300 its only 13.7 years and $25,000 for full hades. Of course you could shorten that to 6.75 years if you want to pay $375,000 besides being a top player. Regardless the point is that this is not balanced at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Shadowland Online / [Introduction]Test of Blades

Assuming a perfect world
15 free wins a day = 45 points
To get 45 points with only 3 levels (blue purple orange) you need 12 losses = 12 points
Orange = 100 pts
14 hrs (since 15 is impossible) = 14 points

Free points possible a day = 100 + 45 + 14 + 12 = 171

Spending $5 a day = 150 diamonds
150 diamonds with price increasing 5d per challenge = 7 extra challenges
7 more wins = 21 points
7 more losses to get 7 more wins = 7 points

171 + 21 + 7 = 199 points I’ll round to 200 to account for having 5 d left over after 7 challenges

30,000 points for 1 hades piece * 10 pieces per suit * 5 heroes = 30,000*10*5=1,500,000 total points
1,500,000 / 200 = 7500 days / 365= 20.5 years
7500 days * $5 = $37500

20.5 years and $37,500 for full hades if spending $5 a day
150 days and $750 for one hades piece

not counting res costs and you could spend more a day but there are diminishing returns

 
Flag Post

Topic: King's Bounty: Legions / Revamping PVP

Originally posted by Mambu:

Free runes isnt good idea. Imagine that …

U have full stack of demonologists and in every battle u use rune +2 ini. Who can beat u ???

Sorry I didn’t say I meant health rune only or some sort of nerfed health rune (see above) so that people can have a few battles without as much risk to get used to PvP or try new strategies. There’s way too many matches when people run against even a similar strength opponent because they don’t see the reward as worth the potential loss. Trying to mitigate that loss a bit so people will be more willing to take the risk or at least go in with their eyes open and having an idea of the difference between PVP and PVE strategy.

 
Flag Post

Topic: King's Bounty: Legions / Revamping PVP

I say 1-3 runes to draw people in and get a bigger matchmaking pool which will address problems with it being harder to find opponents with more factors. The runes are also to let new players get over the learning curve. Right now its easy to go into PvP fight a tough opponent without having any idea what you’re getting into, get burned and not want to do PvP. Having a few free fights lets you learn what to expect in PvP. I agree PvP should be risky but players should get a chance to learn about it first and a free fight or two will bring some of the less experienced PvPers into the arena. I don’t suggest the runes for free gold I think it would be fine to make them special runes with a 1 day expiration (so you can’t stockpile) and a reduction of reward. The point of the runes is to get people into matchmaking and highlight the rewards of PvP instead of just the potential losses.

The factors are not for perfect matchmaking, you’re right it will be in many ways useless, but it will ensure that opponents are closer in potential battle strength than pure rating. Pure rating is a terrible system because it is very easily exploitable (running and even making running not lower rating doesn’t solve exploitation) and takes into account raids, for some unknown reason since a raid is basically PVE. In addition even a rating perfect for a player only takes into account their ability to fight against a player with a similar strength. It’s a similar to a master martial artist in a room with a guy with an assault rifle doesn’t matter how good the martial artist is he’ll lose at least 9 out of 10 times. To get better matchmaking we need something more than just rating. There are too many poor matches with it and a match where someone runs is at best a net zero (trade 1 stam for 1 exp or lose 1 stam and get a 10 minute PvP lockout).

And even with more factors taking longer to match there is no reason for the current active search system. We should be able to click a button, select an army for PvP, and start an opponent search then go do other battles and the game will tell you when it has found an opponent and let you wait for both opponents to be ready.

 
Flag Post

Topic: King's Bounty: Legions / Revamping PVP

So I know we just got the new rating system to try and make the matchmaking a little better but I know I still often find mismatched opponents who are far weaker or stronger than I am so I came up with this idea that has a new matchmaking system and a few new PVP features to try and even things out. As a heads up I’ll be mostly using PVP and duel interchangeably.

Matchmaking System:

The matchmaking system needs to take into account more than rating and level to really get a good idea of a good match. What i think is important is:

-Gold Spent (Basically what level is your army with special and legendaries counted for more than commons)

-Leadership Used (If both players brought the same units would they have about the same number of them) The used is to account for actual stacks instead of assuming full stacks

-Level (Mostly to give an idea of what equipment they could have if they aren’t buying from store)

-Rating (A score based on your success because yes how good you are matters but there is also a limit to what smart playing can overcome)

I listed them in what I think the order of importance is (I see rating and level as equal) but any actual weightings given to them would require quite a bit of balancing.

Also are there ways to manipulate the system? Of course. Partial stacks of highly upgraded units is one way to get around this but it takes more effort to get around than the current system.

Changes:

Runes- Two changes.

First the player that stayed should not lose runes if their opponent runs they are getting 1 exp from the battle and losing 1 stam and runes that doesn’t really seem fair.

Second give all players a few, 1-3 unless you think there should be more, health runes a day which can be used for duel only. Why? Because PVP is a risky business. If both players stay and fight one will lose all their units and if using specials and legendaries will pay 11 stam and 2/3 to 3/4 of their reward, if they fought well. Arguably in a well matched fight their opponent won’t come out much better. Three free fights a day will let people enjoy some PVP without risk and if the matchmaking system is good and the rewards appropriate for the difficulty of winning 3 free fights may increase interest in PVP.

Fields- While I’ve never run because I thought I had bad field position I think it might be interesting to give players the option to be on an obstructed or unobstructed field. This could slow down matchmaking there could be a rule to dump the field selection if you spend a certain amount of time looking for an opponent.

Spells- Similar to fields I’d say 2 options either all or nothing. The motivation for this is I’ve fought quite a few players with really weak strategy but who toss spells at you every time they can making them average opponents. Regardless of whether I ultimately win or lose I find it annoying if I lose more units to spells than my opponents units. Like fields the restriction could be dumped to favor finding an opponent perhaps landing at the middle ground of heals and buffs only rather than unrestricted spell use.

Running- Should not affect rating. Because it took zero skill to beat my fleeing opponent. And decreasing rating for running really only promotes exploitation and fleeing before a clearly superior opponent is actually a sign of good judgement.

Conclusions:

I don’t think this could or should be implemented all at once. My suggestion would be to add runes and and running changes first to promote interest and prevent exploitation. Then the matchmaking system so players believe that their fight will be worthwhile. And field and spell changes last because they require a very high degree of PVP interest and have the least overall impact. I’m interested in what people think. Whether this would actually be an improvement, if there are improvements to this idea, or if you just think this would be so hard to implement it could never happen. Thanks.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Last Stand: Dead Zone / Suggesgons On the Game (actually turned into an idea box so post away)

Originally posted by Zazanxors:

I think a way to fix this would be to lock when the mission report comes up, but if it doesn’t come up when it should the building locks anyway and shuts the player out.

I was thinking possibly a lockout of 1 or 2 hours if the mission report doesn’t come up (i.e. the game crashes). This would prevent farming the building and not be as bad as the current full lock.

And I’ll keep repeating the need for better survivor pathing. While its annoying at lower levels it can be really dangerous at higher levels especially when you’re about to get mobbed. When I tell my survivor to run they need to do it, and if they can’t then they should rapidly revert to some kind of intelligent behavior at the moment it looks like it takes about 1-2 seconds for the game to decide it can’t get to the location; in the meantime my survivor is hugging a zombie instead of moving somewhere safer. And why don’t my survivors move out of the way of each other? On the other hand it was kind of funny watching my scavenger and a dog chase each other in circle for about ten seconds…

One thing that’s probably not going to happen but would be interesting would be to make pathing ability dependent on recon skill level or movement speed. So a recon would rapidly find the safest and fastest way to get to a spot whereas a fighter will take a more dangerous or linear route. But I think the thing that needs resolving the most is how long the survivor will do nothing for while they’re making no progress and being attacked.

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Last Stand: Dead Zone / Suggesgons On the Game (actually turned into an idea box so post away)

I think the reason that bugfix isn’t used is that then you could simply refresh after clearing a building but before leaving if you don’t get what you want, then do the building again till you get what you’re looking for so buildings lock to prevent this. Of course there’s no good reason for this game to crash as much as it does…

 
Flag Post

Topic: The Last Stand: Dead Zone / Suggesgons On the Game (actually turned into an idea box so post away)

My biggest suggestion is to improve survivor movement. Half the time when I try to scavenge my first container I have to move everyone else on my team away so that my scav doesn’t blindly run into my people. Worse is if I’m trying to move around and the survivor runs into a zombie or crowd they’ll try to push through in a straight line for a few seconds while they’re health is chipped away instead of defending or even minor rerouting, it’s really bad.

For new stuff I really want ranged enemies whether raiders or some type of ranged zombie.

I’d also like more story stuff other people have mentioned HERC raids, or finding “non core” (i.e. don’t have a class or go on mission) survivors. I agree with EllaClass’s suggestion for them, because the passive gathering is kinda useless at the moment (using the cheapest LMG uses two hours of ammo production an I can’t boost ammo production unless you count buying it with fuel)

I think it would be interesting to integrate the raids and extra survivor ideas with the compound and defense. For the defense it makes sense that zombies would prioritize the indoor part of the compound where any rescued survivors would be with any zombies getting in killing non-core survivors, HERC would aim for injuring my survivors to suppress my compound, and raiders might steal resources given the chance. Each type of defense might also have associated benefits, penalties, or missions. For example, losing non core survivors lowers morale and loses the bonuses, HERC caused injuries might taker longer to heal or cause a temporary exp gain penalty for the survivor. Benefits might production boosts for zombies (due to a safe environment), some scrounged HERC gear from HERC attacks, resources or weapons from raiders.

Missions for each of the groups could be interesting attacking a HERC base for good gear and weapons, but HERC might use their power to retaliate (something like a 25% chance for a HERC attack immediately after the mission so you have less defense and a penalty if there are no survivors at the compound making it essentially a two team mission or having a greater HERC presence in the area surrounding the base leading to lower levels for both zombies and loot and a chance of a HERC patrol spawning). For zombies you could have a clearing mission decreasing zombie level in a region or lowering the chance of a zombie attack, but there’s no exit zones so you have to wait out the timer then finish them off to prevent injuries. Kind of like the idea that you drew the zombies to you and you now have a survival mission so higher level zombies maybe a higher spawn rate. For raiders they might have weapons and ammo or resources and attacking would lower the chances of a raid, but the raiders kept down the zombies in the region so a locked raider compound raises zombie levels in the area.

I think that adds a bit of story plus some new content. Plus an option to take the fight to the zombies and everyone else which I’ve been missing.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate Multiplayer Games / Am I the only one who HATES multiplayer games?

I don’t really hate them. I just wish devs were creative instead of making the same game 30 times with minimal effort to change anything, but expecting us to pay. I also think they should have their own section apart from all other “popular” categories i.e. hot new games, top rated etc. They are only on those lists because the nature of a multiplayer game is to get lots of plays and they keep good games which should be on the lists off. We have way too many multiplayer games flooding kong which were made by people only hoping to make an easy buck.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Shadowland Online / Crazy Adventure

If you want to say its like minesweeper you should try making it logic instead of luck based, you can get far in the game if you are lucky enough to get a good start, but you need to add numbers to treasures and probably skeletons to to make the game not be luck based. As is many times the player has no choice but to click a tile and hope nothing is there because they don’t even have enough information to make an informed gamble, much less solve for where the traps are like in minesweeper.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / The Great Siege - Tips and Walkthrough - No longer updated

Wasn’t a big fan of the game and the walkthrough is terrible. The game is based entirely too much on luck, or the programming is horribly inconsistent in tough fights the animations in the bosses give you critical seconds to attack them, but wait those animations don’t always happen…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate Multiplayer Games / [Heroes of Gaia] Suggestions

Originally posted by Private_Peterson:
Originally posted by moorsy:

With the money earned from the purchase of items, put some aside to get a more reliable server…

They will never do this. Because with crappy servers they make tons of money so why waste money for the same profits?

Well if they won’t get a more reliable server how about instead of giving prizes to people who buy points they just give stuff to us every time their server crashes

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate Multiplayer Games / [Heroes of Gaia] Suggestions

Originally posted by hamisbetter88:

dont know if it has been mentioned before – i’m not about to read through 34 pages – so sorry in advance if it has.

but a second task list to go with your second castle would help a lot. i find myself in a position where it is hard to upgrade my second castle due to lack in resources etc. and the way round this (with my first castle) was with the rewards from tasks obtained. so having another list, dedicated to that second castle and the race it is etc. would help an awful lot.

The reason they don’t give you a second one is that its expected that you have an established economy in your first castle before you get a second one then you just transfer resources to your second castle from your first

 
Flag Post

Topic: Elements / Step-by-step walkthrough to getting the Elements badges!

Great guide the monoaether is also good for beating the level four half bloods which are a little easier than the fallen gods and can be a great source of upgrades for your cards and money. The only thing you need to be careful about in these battles is if the enemy is using time don’t use parallel universe because they will often use reverse time causing you to draw a card not normally in your deck and possibly lose an important card.