Questions?

understandably u wanna make the first round as bug free as possible... but why not set a date (like the 6th November), work towards launching on that date but if u feel it still needs some work then announce on the day before that the launch will be pushed till say the 13th or whenever... give us a timeframe, an ETA so that we know when to expect it to start... sometime in november is too vague

To make it less vague, you can expect the first round to start somewhere between 7th november and 15th november.

TY Kenzu.

awesome, i should be back by then

Kenzu wrote:We will have a first proper round after all known bugs are fixed, all flaws removed, all updates have been made, and after a certain amount of time passes (a couple days or a week) where no new bugs are found.

I expect that the first round will start in the first half of November, but I don't promise anything. I rather start the game later with no bugs than sooner with bugs.

I think that's a very sound decision and I think that it is important that it is as bug free as possible.

During this Test phase I have purposefully played without referring to the Wiki and tried to play as intuitively as possible. The reason for this is because that is how most new players will first attempt to play the game. This is a completely normal process for most people as manuals of any kind are usually the last resort to be turned to when all else fails.

So far this has worked reasonably well and most things have been fairly intuitive. There are a few things that need more clarification or improvement which I will comment on in the appropriate threads.

I guess even more will be clarified when no more tooltips will be missing and the startport explains what it's all about with a couple sentences.

just like trade center does.

ok so the test phase of AW2 came and went and it had inactives with kuwal that just constantly grew very quickly = LOTS of farms = fast growth for actives (awesome)
now first round of AW2 has started and looking through the attack pages there are only 2 pages of actives with moderate kuwal for the beginning of the round (not worth attacking) and the rest of the 130+ pages of inactives with next to no kuwal that as far as i can tell is increasing by 10 UU and 150k kuwal per turn... is this slow increase in kuwal & UU in actives gonna be constant for the entire round or does it gradually increase exponentially?

Another Q: the tooltip for mines when i hover over it says "mines for 1000 miners"... would i be correct to say that 10 mines would support 10,000 miners? and same for the other income-supporting buildings? While apartments house entire population... so 100 apartments would only support 100,000 total population and any excess would be homeless?

Q1. Yes Kenzu has killed income from inactives on this round. I assume it is to force more inertaction in accounts that are actualy playing IDK.

Q2. My understanding is apartments is for all classes, but labratories and all means you gain from the certain class

so if you had 100 apartments and 10 labratories with a pop of 120K, then 100K would have homes, 20K would still be homeless

Another Q: i joined a commander but my name doesnt appear as an officer on that person's profile... why?

that's a display bug

i'm not at home so i can't fix it easily, however you should be getting the up bonus if it shows them as your commander on your base page

J1nx wrote:Another Q: i joined a commander but my name doesnt appear as an officer on that person's profile... why?

Is it still that you get more bonus from being a lone wolf?

whats the officer/commander relationship on AW and how does it work in AW,,,, just for clarification.

in RA there's no extra production if you're without co.
once you join a commander then 10 or 20% (can't remember exactly now) of your raw up will be given to the commander.

the commander can then specify a % rate, how many of the units the commander produces extra, you'll get back.

example, if the extra production is 20% of raw (as i said i dont remember exactly) your raw up is 1000 and the commander sets a rate of 80%

The commander will get an extra 200 units per day, however since they pay you back 80% of this amount, then the end result will be as follows
officer: 160 more total up
commander 40 more total up

J1nx wrote:ok so the test phase of AW2 came and went and it had inactives with kuwal that just constantly grew very quickly = LOTS of farms = fast growth for actives (awesome)
now first round of AW2 has started and looking through the attack pages there are only 2 pages of actives with moderate kuwal for the beginning of the round (not worth attacking) and the rest of the 130+ pages of inactives with next to no kuwal that as far as i can tell is increasing by 10 UU and 150k kuwal per turn... is this slow increase in kuwal & UU in actives gonna be constant for the entire round or does it gradually increase exponentially?

Another Q: the tooltip for mines when i hover over it says "mines for 1000 miners"... would i be correct to say that 10 mines would support 10,000 miners? and same for the other income-supporting buildings? While apartments house entire population... so 100 apartments would only support 100,000 total population and any excess would be homeless?

Yes, you are right about everything.
apartments are for everyone
10 mines for 10.000 miners and so on.

each 1000 income units need 1 apartment AND 1 work place building.
each 1000 military units need only 1 apartment

The incomes of inactives have beem made in a way that it will be possible for all actives to keep up farming them and still leaving some AT to farm actives.

Nomad wrote:

J1nx wrote:Another Q: i joined a commander but my name doesnt appear as an officer on that person's profile... why?

Is it still that you get more bonus from being a lone wolf?

whats the officer/commander relationship on AW and how does it work in AW,,,, just for clarification.

Yes. The bonus is 10% that commanders share with their officers.
but no kuwal is involved, only uu.

(on main lone wolf produces 110% up, and officer 120% up, 20% being sold to commander.)

officer receives 80%-100% of the bonus he makes, depending on how much commander is paying him.

CO circles allowed?

otherwise this put alot of people at a major disadvantage.

no circles allowed. Try to make a circle, I tried it didnt work for me, but maybe you can achieve that.

Nomad wrote:CO circles allowed?

otherwise this put alot of people at a major disadvantage.

who is put at major disadvantage?

This system isn't any different than on main (if you neglect the fact that CO pays in UU and not in kuwal)
you didnt complain in main about it.

Kenzu wrote:no circles allowed. Try to make a circle, I tried it didnt work for me, but maybe you can achieve that.

Nomad wrote:CO circles allowed?

otherwise this put alot of people at a major disadvantage.

who is put at major disadvantage?

This system isn't any different than on main (if you neglect the fact that CO pays in UU and not in kuwal)
you didnt complain in main about it.

ummm how can you say its no different? you get a lone wolf bonus in main do you not?

If i am importing 2 of the same resource do i get the bonus once or twice?
(eg: 2 x 1.5% UP... is the bonus to my UP 1.5% or 3%?)

Nomad wrote:ummm how can you say its no different? you get a lone wolf bonus in main do you not?

Depends on how one likes to twist the words.
In main you have a lone wolf bonus, but the bonus is even higher when you join a commander (since more uu's get produced overall)
So in each case, assuming a rational economic relationship, the officer benefits from a commander rathter than no commander.

J1nx, no the bonuses are just once per resource type.

Then why not allow CO circles? then everyone can get the full bonus of 100% and everyone remains on equal footing?

iv got a question regarding officer/commander...

ok on the bulletin board it says this:
"No matter if you are a commander or officer, both of you benefit by sharing a bonus of +10% up.
To grow fastest, join the commander who pays the highest Payment Rate, and let many officers join you."

so... the question, or rather questions:
a) regardless of who my commander is i will get a 10% bonus to my UP?
b) the commander will also get a 10% bonus... but 10% of the officers UP rate?
c) if the commander has set his rate to 100% does that mean all the bonuses go to the officer? the officer gets a 10% bonus + the commanders 10% bonus, which is pretty much another 10% of ur own UP, so at 100% rate im getting a 20% bonus to my UP?
d) if c is true then why set the bonus at 100%? what benefit is there for the commander? If i have 8 officers at a rate of 100% then i wont be growing any faster?

EDIT: any answers regarding this question?

*cough* question *cough* unanswered *cough*

...

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:no circles allowed. Try to make a circle, I tried it didnt work for me, but maybe you can achieve that.

Nomad wrote:CO circles allowed?

otherwise this put alot of people at a major disadvantage.

who is put at major disadvantage?

This system isn't any different than on main (if you neglect the fact that CO pays in UU and not in kuwal)
you didnt complain in main about it.

ummm how can you say its no different? you get a lone wolf bonus in main do you not?

Yes and no.
In main you produce 110% by default
if you have a CO, you will produce only 100% (a loss of 10%), but you will be paid for 20% since your co gets 20%

In other words players produce 110% by default and officer-CO relation generates additional 10%

In RA players produce 100% by default and officer-CO relation also generates additional 10%.

Nomad wrote:Then why not allow CO circles? then everyone can get the full bonus of 100% and everyone remains on equal footing?

Because then everyone would simply become the commander of his officer and the game would be filled with 2 man circles.
Current system makes it more interesting as people compete for more officers.

J1nx wrote:iv got a question regarding officer/commander...

ok on the bulletin board it says this:
"No matter if you are a commander or officer, both of you benefit by sharing a bonus of +10% up.
To grow fastest, join the commander who pays the highest Payment Rate, and let many officers join you."

so... the question, or rather questions:
a) regardless of who my commander is i will get a 10% bonus to my UP?
Not necesarrily. You will obviously have higher UP than without commander, because the commander must pay you at least 80% of the bonus back to you, which means you get at least +8% up.
Some commanders however pay more, 90% or even 100%, giving you all the bonus you generate.

b) the commander will also get a 10% bonus... but 10% of the officers UP rate?
No, the commander will get between 0 and 2%. If Commander pays 80% of the bonus back to the officer, then he keeps only 2 of 10%. If he pays more, he will have a smaller bonus.

c) if the commander has set his rate to 100% does that mean all the bonuses go to the officer? the officer gets a 10% bonus + the commanders 10% bonus, which is pretty much another 10% of ur own UP, so at 100% rate im getting a 20% bonus to my UP?
Officer Commander relationship generates a total bonus of 10%, not 20%. This means that a commander who pays 100% has no benefit at all since he passes all the bonuses back to his officer.

d) if c is true then why set the bonus at 100%? what benefit is there for the commander? If i have 8 officers at a rate of 100% then i wont be growing any faster?
You are right. But paying 100% will make you look good in front of other players and people will respect you more. At the same time, paying 100% will help your officers, who are most likely your friends grow much faster and they will surely appreciate it. At the same time, paying 100% makes it more likely for you to find a commander who will pay 100% himself.

EDIT: any answers regarding this question?

are you suppose to lose assassin weapons when attacking with assassins?

No, not supposed to lose them.

Did you lose any assassin weapons?

No, I did not, but then again I thought if you send armed men in, and armed men dies I just assumed you would lose weapons. That assumption was wrong so all is as it is suppose to be. I just dont understand the logic behind it.