English German Italian French Spanish Polish Czech Portuguese Brazilian Portuguese Russian Slovak moonID.net - Please discuss stuff about moonID here → Discussions → We need changes in KnightFight before INT 7 start

Thank you for open a new server - INT 7. We were really waiting for it! In my opinion you should open a new server every year!

This game is really cool, and we all love it. That's why we've been here for 15-20 years. However, nothing in the world is perfect. This game also has a defects. Unfortunately, not everything has been fixed, and there are issues that require your work.

1. Imbalance between 1H and 2H - 2H players are much stronger.
2. BattleGround is taking away activity on your home server. Open a "classic" server - without BattleGround.

First of all, 2H weapons are much better than 1H if both players are at the same level. 2H players will win 95% fights. 1H players only have a chance if they have a higher level or much better stats.

Do you plan to fix this problem? Anyone who has ever played KF knows this. Starting at level 11, one-handed players have no chance. It's similar even at levels 50, 70, 80, or 100. If a 1h player spends the same amount of gold on Strength and Dexterity as a 2nd-year player, but only on Strength, the 2nd-year player will deal 25% more damage than the 1hplayer.

There are several solutions:

• Reduce the damage of all 2h weapons
• Increase the damage of the 1h weapon
• Increase the defense of armor and shields
• Remove the "minus" on the dexterity shield.

And what's the problem? Why does a 2h weapon subtract dexterity when 2h players are berserkers?! They don't wear armor! This is a huge mistake, because subtracting dexterity prevents people from choosing the "2h + armor" option. Why are you weakening this game model? The more different models available, the more interesting the game is!

Back to BattleGround. Clicking 100 attacks a day can really get you high. It's incredibly boring and further ruins the game's atmosphere. Instead of searching for gold from enemies and attacking them, we go to BattleGround. Not to mention that players who start later have trouble catching up. Back in the day, there was no BattleGround, and people played anyway. I understand you profit from BattleGround (new session costs - 250 mooncoins, faster leveling = more frequent purchases). Let's do it differently. Raise the prices of premium items, equipment, and gold by double! That should compensate for your profit. People will buy more expensive weapons. They'll save on BattleGround ;))

These changes are necessary for the game to have a meaningful impact and not be the same old game for 20 years!

Best regards!

True. 1 server with no access to BS wouldn't hurt your budget. anyways you don't have many new players playing it. most are same players from other servers creating another account or those coming back after years.

that would give us a feel of the KF from old days. it's very boring at higher levels.

and it makes it harder for people just staring it to chase the top.

I am not totally agree with you. Because I see a lot of 2handers on my lvl with armor. I where armor myself at int 5...

but all the other stuff looks well spoken

And I would also add that there should be some bots that give gold, the game would be better because you could hunt and get gold.

People suggesting changes to KF, episode 2137.
I appreciate your (Players) faith and hope, I really do.

I've been reading, reading, reading, and... I completely agree with your statement!
Dear admins! It's really worth trying to make the game more fair and balanced for 1st- and 2nd-tier players.
I've been playing this game since 2009, and I have to admit, I have the best memories of the early days. I don't know if it's because there was no BS back then, or because the size of a knight's purse determined 80% of their strength?
More play on my home server, and the gold and experience gained thanks to it!
I support your ideas!

I agree, especially the battleground part. Please make a classic server without the battleground happen. I wouldn't miss it if you even removed it entirely. The chore of attacking undead bots every 5 minutes 100 times a day is literally the one reason I quit the game. It's too much. You completely burn out eventually.

Thank you all for your posts and suggestions – we believe we’re getting pretty close to what you’ve been asking for.

However, we’re a bit surprised by the strong aversion to the BattleGround.
Removing it completely is not an option, but we are considering significantly slowing it down as a possible adjustment.

What do you think?

@cvd "but we are considering significantly slowing it down as a possible adjustment."

Is this significant limitation a reduction in the amount of experience received for battle points? This won't change the situation, players will just level up slower

Maybe you should finally remove this armor penalty?
Is it really that complicated to:

if($armorSkill>$oneHand+$twoHand) $defenceBonus=$dex*(($minDefence+$maxDefence)/100) - $penatlyFormula
else $defenceBonus=$dex*(($minDefence+$maxDefence)/100)

simply change it to $defenceBonus=$dex*(($minDefence+$maxDefence)/100)

Find a similar line in the game code and change it.

@cvd "Removing it completely is not an option, but we are considering significantly slowing it down as a possible adjustment."

I cannot speak for all players, but I believe many of us feel exhausted by the sheer amount of time investment required in the battleground in order not to fall behind. With a 100 battle limit per day and a 5 minute wait time between battles, it currently takes roughly 8-9 hours to finish a daily battleground session. That's assuming your timing is near perfect, in reality it takes even longer than that on average. Back when I still played, there was nothing draining my motivation to play the game more than knowing I had another day of yet another 100 battles/9 hours of clicking every few minutes waiting for me.

If removing the battleground is not an option, I suggest you drastically reduce the battle limit per day. Perhaps you could cut it in half, or even bring it down to a quarter? Not only would player progression indirectly slow down, but time spent in the battleground would reach a far more reasonable level (which in my opinion is the main issue). I'm confident this would significantly lower mental fatigue of players and prevent them from burning out.

The entrance fee would remain the same, and by extension your profits. What do you think?

I agree with the need for change. Especially ensuring balance between 1H and 2H knights.

Unfortunately, the game no longer attracts as many players as it did 15 years ago, and there's no hope for a sudden change. In my opinion, the focus should be on ensuring as many current players as possible remain loyal to the game. ;)
The topic of changes (both major and minor) to the game has been discussed many times, but to no avail.

@cvd, you always write that you have a plan for changes, a roadmap for implementing these changes, and that you support or consider many of the changes suggested by players. You say you want to make the game more attractive to players, etc. Unfortunately, there are no directly visible effects for players. I've been playing in KF since 2009, and not much has changed since then. You're creating another server and talking about changes, but can you say that any changes will be implemented with the launch of INT7, or are you just considering them again?
Can you say this time when and what changes you'll implement?
When will we see the effect of the planned changes?

As for Battleground, I think it's a real issue. In fact, if we start from the basic premise, Battleground is a very good idea on paper. It theoretically compensates for the lack of players on the original world by giving access to players from other servers. In reality, it has just become a progression boost. The fact is that it's become absolutely MANDATORY if you want to be competitive on a recent server, because it lets you progress at lightning speed.

Personally, that's what made me stop playing on the INT6 server. I was in the top 10, but the pace required to keep up with the best players farming Battleground was unbearable. That means doing 400 attack sessions on repeat, each time in a maximum of 4 days, to stay at the top. And it's true, the players at the top of the rankings on the INT6 server, the most recent one, are the ones who are the fastest at completing 400 attack sessions on the Battleground.

In my opinion, this situation has two negative consequences:

- The in-game world is losing interest. This can be seen, for example, in PvP (no one really wants to do too much, because losing too much EXP on lower-level targets means falling behind those who are farming EXP on the Battleground). This has an impact on attacking other players, but also on guild wars, which are not “optimized” for progress. And the potential gold gain from PvP on the original world is in any case too insignificant compared to what the Battleground yields (even the lowest-level zombies quickly yield more gold than the very rare goldies).

- It's boring. It's boring to have to click click click endlessly for weeks and months on end. On top of that, since the generation of zombies is sometimes very random, it can even be a chore to find a zombie you have a good chance of beating, which means you have to spend EVEN more time on it. And in the end, sooner or later, it ends up being discouraging. Take me and my friend VIKING, for example. We stopped playing because it takes too much time and too much effort. What's more, due to the frenetic pace, it's almost impossible to catch up at the top of the rankings if you fall behind, either by starting after everyone else or by taking a break (I experienced this myself when I took a month and a half off last Christmas, and it was torture trying to climb back up the rankings).

I think there are several possible areas for improvement for the battleground:

- Release a server without Battleground. This would theoretically be the ideal solution, to push for a more “authentic” experience like in the old days. But I also know that this is the least reasonable solution, because BG is an important source of income for CRATR's economic health.

- Reduce the maximum number of attacks per day. Today it is 100, which means between 8 and 9 hours of attacks. One could say, “Nothing is forcing you to do 100 per day.” Yes, but since it's possible, some will do it, and that will always force others to do it to stay competitive. Halving this maximum to 50 attacks per day would be ideal for me. That would mean completing a session of 400 attacks in 8 days to remain competitive.

What is NOT a good solution for me:

- Reducing the positive impact of the Battleground. If, for example, we reduce the EXP gain on the Battleground, it won't make the home world more dynamic. On the contrary, it could push people to risk even less of their EXP on the home world, since it could no longer be made up on the Battleground.

On the other hand, one possible solution would be to reduce the EXP penalty incurred when attacking a lower-level character. Conversely, increase the EXP gain when defeating a higher-level character. I've always found it a shame that it's capped at a maximum of 2 EXP.

And of course, I didn't mention it (and I can only refer to the thread started by Zhenriel on April 1, 2024, in the “Ideas” section of the Forum, which I found extremely insightful), but a rebalancing of 1H/2H/2H+Amor.

I'll stop there because this is already a very long message, haha. Thanks to those who read it. :)

I disagree with everything. I've been playing since 2006 and I know this game well. That's fine. If you're afraid of losing with two-handed knights, you'll just have to choose the two-handed weapon instead of the one-handed one. I've been using only two-handed weapons for about 20 years. You can do it too. Have a good game.

Do you know what the real problem with this game is? The ability to exchange gems for gold. There are people so rich (?) that they exchange hundreds of euros worth of gems for gold to dramatically increase their art and parry. This is the real problem and the downside of this game.

Many people who play this game spend years building their characters. Therefore, before any changes are made, it would be wise to consider their work in achieving what they achieved under the current rules. On the other hand, after the changes (if any are made), players in lower positions in the rankings should still be able to catch up with those at the top under similar conditions as before the change.
What do I mean?
For example, some time ago, the maximum experience points per battle in a Battle Server was limited to 5. Players who had already leveled up their characters to a very high level before this limitation became unattainable for others.
So, if we're talking about changes to the Battle Server rules, it would be good if, after these changes, competition between players who actively played before the changes and those who actively play after them remained possible.
The maximum number of battles per day on a Battle Server is insane and, if you're a human (and not a script), forces you to click for about 10 hours. In the long run, this is incredibly tiring and exhausting, and as some have already mentioned, they've burned out this way, and in more than one case, this constant (hour-long) rush has led to players quitting the game. One could also argue that the game's creators bear a certain social responsibility (if such a thing even exists) in that they contribute to creating "no-life" people. And of course, no one is forcing anything on anyone. Everyone has free will and does what they think is right. Nevertheless, these rules (100 battles per day) create an environment conducive to losing themselves in the game. Therefore, I believe the idea of limiting the maximum number of battles per day is a very good idea. At the same time, if we leave the other rules regarding the PCs unchanged, the same result (400 battles and the amount of XP earned) would take twice as long, giving an advantage to those who progressed before the potential change. Therefore, assuming a limit of 50 fights per day, for example, I would double the amount of gold earned from combat and the amount of BP gained. The session would continue for 4 days, during which we would engage in 200 fights (instead of 400), but we would gain the same amount of experience and gold.

So, combat with combat effectiveness:
+0* -> 2 BP
+0.5* -> 4 BP
+1.0* -> 5 BP
+1.5* -> 6 BP
+2.0* -> 7 BP
+2.5* -> 8 BP
+3.0* -> 9 BP
+3.5* -> 10 BP
The above may not be a ready-made model for implementation. I was more interested in pointing out certain issues.

Regarding the balance between one-handed and two-handed knights, two-handed knights indeed crush one-handed knights in the early game. A reliable simulation would be necessary here. I am not going to present any ready-made solutions here, but what is undoubtedly immediately noticeable is that players with two-handed weapons use increasingly better equipment up to level 334 (601 weapon points and 401 armor), which gives an average damage of 196 and an average defense of 104, while characters with one-handed weapons only up to level 292 (475 weapon points and 401 armor) and gives an average damage of 132.5 and an average defense of 147.5, respectively - and this is a significant disproportion.

@CVD I'm sorry, but I have a question... how am I supposed to feel excited about this server, tell myself that I'm going to invest money and time in it, when a player is already 3 weeks ahead of everyone else? The server hasn't even been released yet and we're way behind this player (who will be able to attack the whole server at will). I hid his nickname on purpose (even though it's not very hard to find out who it is) because I'm not attacking the player himself, but the system that allows it. I was honestly pretty excited about starting from scratch to compete with everyone, but the competition is already "over", since unless he makes a big mistake or lacks investment, he will be virtually impossible to catch up.

One solution would be to limit the transformation of mooncoins into gold, to cap it at 10 mooncoins per day.

I am sure there is very easy solution for this.

1. Do not pay for the game if you do not like it.
2. And, of course, do not join servers with paying players.
   Simple.

Only then things will change fast.
Maybe this will force someone responsible to open "proper" world without coins paid only from adverts (or with different but not so strong p2w options).
Or maybe not. So be it.

And if you do not want to compete on new world INT7 with already hyperboosted players, do not join. I will not and I know many others will not join either and rather quit.

That is the future of this game, unfortunately.

I don't personally believe a blanket - nerf the 2H buff the 1H is the right approach to finding balance.

an off the wall but "easy" approach would be:
The rate the 2H can get new pointy sticks should be reduced. make there be a real level based pain you have to go through to jump up to the next item

IMO the buffs/ de-buffs on stuff makes zero sense in many cases - other than PA bonuses on shields that's an obvious corect one.

what "should" make a difference is stamina - it's a totally pointless stat currently. and the bigger the swords/shields/armour the bigger the penalties should be applied + potentially better other bonuses too

• make health means something / STA be needed to get to the end of a fight....

same with STR and DEX penalties on items (across 1H, 2H shield and armour), re-calibrate them to mean something - you want a huge sword/axe to go bash people's head, fine but that takes a long time to wind up and you gotta have a ton of strength to even pick it up, let alone hurt something.

you strap on a huge chunk of plate armour - yes you stop damage but good luck avoiding being hit etc.

Or how about looking at a finesse type build, where ligher swords have better crit options because they're easier to find armour weaknesses.

any extreme build - EG all weapon or All Armour or all PA/FA should be nerfed to the point of being untenable / so high risk you don't "want" to go down that build route
You don't want to wear any armour - fine, but opposition with X points in armour get huge crit bonuses vs a naked player & their only defense is huge FA/PA spending and not able to put it into STR.
If you load up on a huge bit of plate armour, you have to be able to move around still, as otherwise a more agile build picks you to pieces regardless of the high defense values

Put stat based equipemnt requirements potentially.... to further the above to avoid flat our nerfs & force players to spend gold more evenly regardless of the build choice.

We don't want cookie cutter at level X put XYZ into each primary stat builds either

All we "need" or want is that if a char has spent (using a random figure here) 2M/10M/100M gold across any of their stats/equipment they have a fair chance (allowing for that horrible RNG) of beating any other build who's spent similar amounts.

IMO KF1.0 as it stands needs so much work to properly fix it, it may as well be done as a 2.0 and a ground up rebuild - because the BG has utterly broken it. (and I say that as some-one who has an 18yo knight)

It just feels that effort to start over is probably going to be less than unpicking all the existing/legacy code and historic decisions & finding a balance that doesn't piss people off for all the real money & time they've put towards their current chars.

Imbalance between one-handed and two-handed weapons. My conclusion is this: two-handed players have a 20-35% advantage in a single round! I made the simulations at levels 16, 32, 53, and 77.

My basic question is: Why is a 1h weaker than a two-hander by 20-35%? What's the point of these settings? Why doesn't anyone change this? Is this fair?

I've simulated and calculated the following assumptions:

• players have the best possible equipment for mooncoins;
• players spend the same amount of gold to gain damage (2h pays for Strength, 1h pays for Strength + Dexterity)
• the 1h profile is a knight who has a slightly higher bonus from weapons than from armor and shield, meaning a moderate 1h, but slightly more offensive (*regardless of the 1h style – more or less armor, the result is similar).

I've included detailed calculations in the comments. I used the Polish private KnightFight Wikipedia and a Czech calculator. The data is 100% accurate.

1. https://kfinfo.blogspot.com/p/zbroje.html
2. https://kf.maweb.eu/calculator/

Post scriptum
Another absurdity in the inequality of this game. Why does a 2nd-level weapon subtract dexterity? Every 2h player is naked berseker without armor! This makes the game incredibly difficult for players with 2nd-level + armor, effectively excluding them from the game. They're even weaker than regular 1h level players.