Devlog KAG Build 2628 - Quarry Nerfs, Quickswap Improvements, TDM Map Changes, more

apology for poor english

when were you when quary dies?

i was sat at home playing monsterictf2 when geti ring

‘quarry is kill’

‘yes’

 

Another example.. this one was before the nerf but geti asked for it. Haven't seen anything like this since the nerf though which is good.

 

What you don't realise is that there's no point in having a quarry if it's not considered "overpowered". It's now another boat shop - it adds no value in terms of fun (it never did; it's a chore to utilise it) and it's now pointless to use. The mere purpose this building could have, would be to add balance (i.e. build vs. demolish, to extend time of games / stalemates). However, CTF was never balanced with this building in mind and it's not needed now. It directly contributes to a problem the community has complained about for ages: Stalemates and increased game time.

This implementation is an example of how bad a quantitative approach to selection of new features in a small community can be. Especially, because it's done on a platform made for the developer and not the consumer (GitHub). Any shit idea can be voted in w/ 8 friends or some fake accounts (could be fun to attempt this) and as witnessed, the developers are unable to determine if an idea is shite.

 

ye :,(

 

production factories should just stay in TTH. The maps in that game-mode are tremendously large, and builders wouldn't bother wasting so much time. However, it isn't for CTF. It is okay in a game-mode like TTH where if there's a quarry and builders are creating a giant tower near their home base, you can just wait for like a minute at your base and counter-camp with a couple kegs. It's a comfort to know that for this long, the balance between construction and destruction was pretty balanced (builder makes tower, enemy just rats or blows it up with kegs/ballista bolts), now with the quarry there really is no balance in how important a class is compared to the next. You found a small problem and stuffed it with a large, itchy, sticky band-aid, and now you need to deal with the rashes.

 

@Mazey

 

As it has been pointed out, the first iteration of the Quarry was terrible due to mass amounts of stone being generated. The newer version with the reduced rate seems more reasonable. I'm enjoying the new quarry as it gives defensive builders a bit more influence in a match instead of having to search for more stone deep underground or, god forbid, out in the fray.

I like the new builder swapping mechanic and I'm glad the building frame was removed from that option. I would like to make a suggestion that this same mechanic be applied to archer arrow swapping if it hasn't already been done/ruled out. It would make swapping arrows a bit more viable while in combat instead of having to find a safe area to do so.

 

If you press [Inventory Bound Button] once it will cycle through the arrows you have, the builder swap for an archer would only help if they had 3 types of arrows and that is kind of unusual.

 

I haven't been playing for a while, and I haven't seen this quarry building in action, but from the impression I get of it, I must say I share some of Fuzzle's concerns.

Previously, these kinds of ideas (and better or worse ones) where met by a simple "do it in a mod" reply. Suddenly they are incorporated into core vanilla KAG over a fairly low barrier. Now, I absolutely like how the dev team has opened up for the community to contribute and shape the game, but to be honest, it's very late, and the implications of implementing sort-of fundamental aspects of the game are perhaps underestimated. If it was for a new game mode (or sandbox), it would be a different matter, or if they were of a cosmetic/quality/convenience sort.

The underlying problems/limits of the game and its game modes are not easily/quickly solved, and perhaps one should simply not even try, since the changes might cause as much harm as good. It is better left for a sequel, or at the very least not to be taken on lightly.

The quarry is a fundamental change, because it generates something "out of nothing" in a game mode where this was never a thing, and goes against the concept of mining the map for resources. Ironically, CTF is a mode more more fitting for resource generation than TTH, but it also turns CTF into a more battle-focused mode than previously. The thing is, CTF is the most popular mode, with the balance it has had between battle and exploration/mining. To mess with that, might not be the best idea. Ideally, all these modes should be re-designed, I think. Something along the lines of this, perhaps: One mode would focus on capture of territory, where territory holds resources that can be mined. Combat is of a more strategic, long-term type. A second mode would focus on hectic battle and automatic resource production. A third mode, would put focus somewhere in-between (much like the CTF we know). Might not work so well in reality - I don't know, but the point is; these design decisions are important and shouldn't be taken lightly.

In the end though, let's face it, this game has been aging for a long while. It is naive to think new players are going to be attracted to the game simply, or at all. So, I think, it becomes a matter of altering the game in perhaps-not-the-best-way to cater to a very small community, versus the legacy of the game and what made it popular. I'd rather have the legacy protected, and make these new things optional.

 

Accessible old code is of course nice, but for most people/players it's a hurdle they can't/won't get past. I've often dug out old games to play them again, but if what I got then was something very different, I'd surely get disappointed. That's what I mean, when I talk about legacy. It doesn't seem to be a very trendy topic these days, but I think it's important, still.

You mention the irony of how the desire for change turns into the opposite. This is indeed a dilemma, but in the case of KAG at least, the amount of time that has passed is kind of important in that regard. No one really add new stuff (or rather, make changes) to a game after 7 years. It's madness. For 2-4 years, maybe.

Allowing the community to work on it, is fantastic, but maybe it shouldn't be "official" and "obligatory", just as branching versions should to a certain degree be okay to exist side-by-side if they are popular enough. For KAG, you've gone from a "we know best" approach where some people got scared away, to a "you know best" approach now, when the game is "dead".

If THD had taken these things into acount, and run/develop the game for a couple of years, then "finish" it and move on, we'd already have KAG2. Instead, well.. we know how things are. Some hardcore fans are clinging to a sinking ship while THD has pretty much given up. So much passion and potential, gone to waste. Kudos to everyone who's doing their best to keep things alive, but the problem is management, or rather mismanagement. I've said it before, but it feels like I'm talking to a wall. The whole situation makes me sad.

Please let me occationally have the ability to play KAG "as it was", at least, if I cannot play a sequel that I fear will never be born.

 

In my first comment, I made a point to differentiate between different kinds of changes. Fixing problems, adding convenience or make cosmetic changes isn't a big deal. They extend, rather than change. While these kinds of fixes and tweaks were made, a lot of "new stuff" was also thrown into the mix, and I think that's where the playerbase started to split up. That was a long time ago, and it's not possible to remedy now, but what can be done, is avoid doing the same mistake over and over.

Perhaps it is too late to define what KAG 1 is supposed to be, and perhaps it is to be ever-changing, but it baffles me if someone expects a different result if you keep doing the same thing over and over. The change now, to a more community-driven pipeline, isn't going to change that if the game still has an identity crisis. At best, it's going to humor the last few who have stuck around until the ship sinks. No one is going to bother going back and play the game they used to love, cause it's gone now, even if there's someone to play with, and bringing in new blood is very hard.

As for small community, well yeah, it's very small now. It was farily big at one point. People got bored or didn't like the changes that were made. It kept on for quite a while. It was frustrating to watch it happen, and see THD focus on other projects instead of this baby, without much success. As for branching, it doesn't have to hurt, if done right. In fact, THD did just that by keeping Classic alive. The problem was that they left it to rot. People still talk about things they loved in Classic.

 

Couldn't have said it better. When I was still more than a mere troll to this community, I desired to improve KAG because I saw a severely lacking implementation of what I considered the core concept behind CTF - the concept that made KAG popular. I saw tremendous potential in this concept and I still do. While I solely desired to improve on this core and the poor implementation of it, the rest of the developer team seemed to be more interested in adding to/altering it. The difference in our vision and direction (or their lack thereof; I'm still not sure) frustrated me. Looking back, I don't see how most of these (often controversial) modifications has added value to KAG. I desired a "flawless" experience but while I elimininated flaws others kept adding new ones to the pile. KAG is an unpolished gem; it needs a brush up - not more content or different content.