Recent posts by ThomasRisto on Kongregate

Topic: Tyrant / [DEV] 5/7/13 New Promo Cards and Phobos for Gold!

Originally posted by synapticon:

Originally posted by sss1:

Originally posted by CocoBumfluff:

Devs be trolling with 80k packs..5k gold, 10k enclave…..50k nexus…..80k phobos? Pah!

80k is “just” a 72h straight farm of the last mission with 95% win chance deck.

Sure, but that ignores quests/faction wars/daily bonus. Gold income is sufficient to buy a Phobos pack every two days without using/selling any shards.

“Faction wars gold bonus”. LOL

Anyway, at the pace I have, which I think is “average”, I can farm approx 30k gold /day so it’s 2 day and 2/3 for a phobos pack. Still faster than 8 days of claiming faction tokens… But with all the upgrades coming every week, I’m not sure I’ll spend my gold on phobos…

Topic: Tyrant / [Boycott] Force Devs to take action against cheating

Originally posted by catepillar:

Originally posted by synapticon:

You’re right, that was a poorly phrased response.

I’ll take another look at these things, but if there was a thread that actually aggregated all of these exploits and were verified by players as issues, it would be extremely helpful for us and we’d be able to turn around fixes much faster. Of course, we should be doing that on our side, and we will. I’m just offering a way for threads like this to be more helpful. I promise my next replies won’t be so emo.

Specifics (Just a start):

• Tile blocking with alt factions.
• Bots in Faction wars allow people to be active when sleeping/vacationing.
• Account sharing allows people to be active when sleeping/vacationing.

1) A very easy way to prevent tileblocking by alt factions : add more conditions to allow a faction to invade. For exemple :
- The faction must be at least level X
- The faction must have at least N members
Sure it will be a discrimination against single player, level 1 factions that REALLY want to invade a tile, but seriously, does that even exist ?
This HAS TO BE DONE.

2) Bots : is there a way to detect any anormally regular activity ? (I know nothing about bots)
3) Account sharing… what can you do against that… It’s the same as alts, it’s more a Kong problem. And I suspect that the more accounts there are, the happier they are. And account sharing is also risky… Not a priority for me.

Topic: Tyrant / Defensive and Offensive Icons

+1

strike icon for attack, armor icon for defense. Or just add a mini-icon in the existing Tyrant symbol.

Topic: Tyrant / [To Devs] Please change the faction war indicator in the overview

It’s great to have implemented the different color icon for attack and defense war, but it’s really confusing with the other green/yellow/red icon in faction wars list that shows if you win or lose.

This way it looks like we’re losing every defensive war and winning every offensive war.

An awesome (yet minor) modification would be to have different icons for attack/defense (take the strike and armor icon for instance) and different colors (green/yellow/red) for war status.

Thanks :)

Topic: Tyrant / [SUGESTION] Make visual difference for faction wars on home page - OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE

Originally posted by ruisequeira:

The thing is there is already a color code green/yellow/red depending on how the war is going. Maybe we could have all this in the overview :

Two different symbols (instead of the tyrant symbol) for attack or defense + a color (green/yellow/red) for the war status. That’d be even better !

Topic: Tyrant / [SUGESTION] Make visual difference for faction wars on home page - OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE

If I may add, there are sometimes refreshing problems with this list.
If you refer only to it, you may find out that you got attacked hours ago…
Looking at Faction Info or updating war list let the defensive war appear on the home page.

Topic: Tyrant / [Recruitment] Level 16 - Pulsing Death

“What you do in faction wars echoes through eternity”
Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions

And to add a little fun to our wars (and some competition), we give awards when you are good in faction wars.

Topic: Tyrant / [Recruitment] Level 16 - Pulsing Death

New feature at Pulsing Death !
War tracker to help follow the dynamic of active wars.

Topic: Tyrant / [DEV] Conquest Update and Map Reset Next Week!

So now we can use TileBlocking on the 5 first tiles inside the map. Sweet !

I sense a faction Baby Boom.

To prevent this, add a rule : “A faction with 0 or fewer FP can’t invade a tile.”

Topic: Tyrant / [DEV] 4/1/2113 EPIC ART UPDATE!!!!1!1!!

Devs, you’re drunk, go home now

Topic: Tyrant / Obvious Name Change Issue

Originally posted by sylsylde:

If people are allowed to change their names spying/catfacing becomes a serious problem doesn’t it? Let alone all the stupid trolling that will result from this feature. I am so glad this was a priority over A,B,C, and D. Let the perfect world begin!

Second priority is to change the background picture that is displayed when tyrant loads. This is called “a massive UI overhaul” ;-P

Topic: Tyrant / [CQ Fix] An idea for Conquest v2.0

Originally posted by anyrotmg:

I like the idea of strategizing territory organization, my only concern would be that a new fraction which own no tile will be at a severe disadvantage trying to take on an established fraction which owns many connecting tile.

Maybe we could apply specific rule to border tiles, like fix HP for slots… This way border tiles would not be stronger than they are now.

Topic: Tyrant / [CQ Fix] An idea for Conquest v2.0

I get your point… Thanks !

Topic: Tyrant / [Dev] Upcoming Conquest changes Mar 12

Fresh idea about conquest there :
http://www.kongregate.com/forums/65-tyrant/topics/331658-cq-fix-an-idea-for-conquest-v2-0

Topic: Tyrant / [CQ Fix] An idea for Conquest v2.0

Since the CQ fix seems to be delayed and delayed again (it’s a tough problem). Allow me to try to explain (again), a new idea for conquest. I’ll try to be as clear as possible, explain the rules and mechanisms first, and then discuss their purpose.

1. Except for the first tile, an invasion must be launched from a tile you own an targets a neighboring tile.
2. In attack, the Damage done to a slot when winning a battle is dependent on two things : (a) the components owned by your faction; (b) The number of tiles owned by your faction and connected to the tile launching the invasion.
3. In defense, the slots HP of your tiles depends on two things : (a) the components owned by your faction; (b) The number of tiles owned by your faction and connected to the tile being invaded.

As you can see, the basics of the idea can be expressed in three simple statements. What would be the consequence of such a mechanism :

• It would make it more difficult to cut through a big block of tiles with a wandering tile.

• It could lead to strategies aiming at cutting some tiles from the big block to make them more vulnerable.

• It would encourage factions to regroup and stay regrouped. Covering a large area with isolated tiles would be more difficult.

Of course, I didn’t suggest any quantitative ideas for how much the HP and damage would depend on the number of connected tiles. I’m not a game specialist, and I bet some devs are better than me at doing this…

For me, this system could be implemented and tested while keeping all the current rules of delay, amount of stamina, limit in terms of number of tiles, etc… If you ask me, I don’t think we’re gonna balance CQ by changing how many times a faction can attack in one day.

I personally like how this system would bring some flux in conquest strategies. Right now, only the number of tiles matters, and it matters only for conquest tokens. With this system, it would also matter to have a well organized territory. Conquest would look much more like a real battleground… Add some natural obstacles (rivers, mountains, etc…) on the map, and you can really get to something nice. Bridges could be worth more Conquest Rating, etc… I can even imagine some buildings on the map that would give additional defensive or offensive bonus when your faction control them…

Let me conclude by hoping that this post will get a little more attention than the last time I tried to explain this… I tried to be clearer in my explanations…

Thanks for reading !

Topic: Tyrant / [Dev] What is best in life?

Originally posted by synapticon:

a) remove shards, all packs available for gold.
b) balance changes to conquest.
c) lamentation of the etc.
d) major UI overhaul, make things prettier and fix UI bugs.

a) Why not… But also, why ? Alternate proposition : make only the last 2 to 3 packs available for shards and slowly transfer the other to gold. Also, I think old packs should get a progressive gold price from 5k (standard) to 60k (homeworld). It would be : Nexus for 20k, blight for 30k, etc… If you really intend to balance an economy of tyrant, you need to take into account that old stuff devaluates…
b) Good luck with that, it’s a real challenge, keep working and asking the community, and I’m sure something positive will pop out
c) ?
d) Fix UI bugs is a good idea, major overhaul is okay if it doesn’t make everything laggier…

To answer the question, I’d sort these this way : B-D-A-C

Topic: Tyrant / Reliable way to counter TI decks?

Darkblood1, your work is interesting, but all your decks rely on the fact that HoC is played first, and you win by placing a fear unit in front of him.

I hardly see how this is applicable in faction wars…
If we look for a def deck beating this TI deck (ordered), we should look for auto-deck beating it.
If we look for a deck beating a TI deck in defense, the deck isn’t ordered.
Also, when surging, you don’t know what will come first when you play the first card…

So this result is interesting theoretically, but it’s hard to find any useful lesson here…

Maybe this one : “if you face HoC, place a fear unit in front of him (or a 0 attack unit)”…

Topic: Tyrant / [Official Petition] Restore BAD BEAT NOW!!

Originally posted by MrTinker:

It’s always deplorable when someone takes pleasure in destroying someone else’s work.

I think Bad Beat should be restored.

I disagree. If they were account-sharing, they deserve what happened. If the leader got hacked, well they deserve that too, because I tend to think that when you are perfectly honest in every way in tyrant, nobody will make the effort to hack an account just to “destroy your work”.

Topic: Tyrant / [Official Petition] Restore BAD BEAT NOW!!

Just saying…

Aren’t there any other easier solutions to prevent catfacing ?

Like prevent a single officer/leader to kick more than 5 players every 24hours. This way you’d need to get access to 10 officers/leader to empty the faction…

Topic: Tyrant / Advanced counter cards game (squabble edition)

+4hp

Rule 354: For all 50% skills the cards have, the card can either have +1 attack or +2 hp

Topic: Tyrant / [To devs] Suggestion : bring some "flux" in conquest

Originally posted by ladolcevita:

I don’t think the devs will read it. You should probably summarize your points, compare them with what the devs already have in mind, then talk it over with a consortium member.

Thanks for the advice. I wanted to share with the communit first, get general opinions from people who have time to read this whole block…

Topic: Tyrant / [To devs] Suggestion : bring some "flux" in conquest

Hey there,

First, this post is not about complaining about how bad things are, or are gonna be.
(Meh, sorry about formatting, I’m gonna try to improve this)

In fact it’s only to share some thoughts, and ideas.

I just figured out what I had always found weird in the actual version of conquest :
- The power of a faction is not related to the territory it owns. In general, and in the real world, when it comes to war, big countries have more resources and are therefore stronger. There are exceptions, of course.
- The shape of the territory of the faction has absolutely no impact, except that you have fewer tiles to defend in a big rectangle. (This last point is gonna change anyway, so that being compact will give absolutely no advantage at all).

Here is an idea for a solution : bringing in the notion of “flux”. I explain.

1 – Invasion should not be just a declaration of war on a tile. It should be a MOVE. With a starting point (one of your tiles) and an objective (an enemy tile). Of course make an exception to that for invading the first tile.

2 – The “invasion” move should be given more power if the invasion starting point is backed by many tiles. Ho do we do that ? Not simple. Maybe just by calculating the damage done to a slot in conquest as a function of the adjacent tiles owned (and augmented by the faction items). Example (No faction items involved) :

If you launch an invasion from an isolated tile, damage done = 10. If you launch an invasion from a compact block of 5 tiles, damage done = 15. (I don’t presume of the adapted mathematical law between both.)

3 – The defense could work the same. The HP of the slots on the tile would be computed based on the number of adjacent tiles owned. Again, example (No faction items involved) :

Defending an isolated tile = 10HP per slot. Defending a tile in a compact block of 5 tiles = 15hp per slot. (again, change the mathematics so it is balanced).

This is it. Power and resistance of each tile would be augmented by the support it gets from all the territory.

This system would prevent factions from spreading with ridiculous pattern just to control a larger zone, or at least would introduce a higher risk to do so. Small factions could defend themselves by staying compact.

Point 1 and 2 also means that there would be more strategy in invasion. Cutting of a part of an enemy faction would actually be useful to something, as it would reduce power and defense of the isolated tiles…

Bonus : one could imagine a system of counter attack where invading the origin point of an on-going invasion an successfully killing the tile cancels the invasion. (Am I clear here ?). If you get attacked from a tile A on a tile B, counter-attacking on A and winning could cancel the enemy invasion.

I know the idea might be a little complicated (to understand and to develop), so I’m just saying…

What do yo think ?

Topic: Tyrant / [Dev] Upcoming Conquest changes

Originally posted by MSUSpartan3096:

Originally posted by thror13:

Fine but how do you prevent alliances from taking over the map?

Blitz them when they sleep….

Alliances never sleep

Topic: Tyrant / [Dev] Upcoming Conquest changes

Let’s face it, conquest was not working the way it was. Every one was just sitting on their tokens and trying to stop every non conformist faction.

At least they try to do something to make this change. For this I say : “good effort !”

Now I’d like to see how these changes are gonna impact conquest for real… WIll that be enough to make faction want to fight instead of stall ?

Maybe… maybe not… we’ll see

Topic: Tyrant / [DEV] Official Legion Description

Originally posted by DaWayne33:
- Blight will be available for 60,000 Gold

Good thing. Do you have plans for evolution of the packs available with conquest tokens ? If not, and if you don’t bring new cards to craft, tokens are gonna be devaluated each time a new pack is made available for gold… (which is very appreciated, don’t misunderstand me)