Another big mistake was created on purpose. We also know by whom. Namely: Opening registrations a month or so before the server launches. This is not a serious matter. Registrations should open when the server launches, which is August 8th. For obvious reasons that I think most people will understand.****

BS kills the fun and kills the server quicker...
Everyone chasing 10th lvl to get to BS to be 1st and be ahead of everyone...

Then you end up having 20 players in top doing 3 fights a day, going 'tavern' for 12hrs and fighting bots on BS.

I thought the idea of Battleserver was to make it possible to fight players from other servers to keep the game live, combine them together into 1 common world as there was small activity on older servers.
Now we have 50 active players from all worlds and hundreds of bots... it doesn't sound like an achievement.

I understand it's useful for higher levels otherwise it would take months to make a level just from missions at higher levels.

Make it available from 50 or even 100lvl.

It should be an additional opportunity to make some extra gold or exp... not the main place of fighting.

People complain there are no farms of servers and go for gold on BS.
There'll be more chances to catch someone with gold when there are more players on the server itself, because players won't seat in tavern for most of the day.

First of all, good evening everyone.
Judging by the conversations, you seem to have generally concluded that two-handed accounts are better. (I don't understand your basis for this assumption.) I did some research. I compared one-handed and two-handed accounts myself. My results, considering the game mechanics, indicate that I haven't seen, and I don't think, any advantage to either side.
My research focused on level 11, level 29, and level 43. We can expand on this research based on your thoughts. In the images below, I've created two different characters with nearly identical stats, spending the same amount of gold. I've listed all their expenses so anyone with a question mark can check.
Let's talk about the game mechanics. Every member here has lost battles they can't understand. Let's not forget that luck plays a role in the game. Two-handed and one-handed accounts with similar stats will defeat each other by whoever takes the most rounds. Examine the damage and you'll understand.
https://hizliresim.com/nau7vvg
https://hizliresim.com/rhh4dhb
https://hizliresim.com/30s1t5a
Besides this, another topic is the battle server.
I want to say this to those who initially thought this was ridiculous. If it were 2009, I might agree with you. Because back then, there were over 200 players on each server, and in-game competition was intense. Everyone was watching out for each other's attacks. Loot earnings and the highest levels hadn't even been seen yet. The game had a certain excitement compared to today. But now, only 20 people are playing on some servers. We have a new server, and I think there will be 172 more registered players. Do you think they'll all be playing like they did in 5 months? I doubt it. If you ask me, what does this have to do with the situation? If the battle server is canceled right now, the person who exchanges the most mooncoins will win the game by a landslide, and you can't catch them with just the server. Because they won't let you get close to them. They'll be the only one on the server who can hold gold. When you're pressing a stat, it doesn't matter which one you use. You'll spend about twice as much gold. Or, let me put it this way, the person who exchanges mooncoins for gold. While they're hitting stats of the same level, you'll be collecting the same amount of money to hit one stat while they're hitting two stats. This way, no one can catch up without a battle server.

Yes, 100 battles may seem excessive to most players. But many players have completed them. They absolutely deserve to earn something for their time and effort. I know players who, with the right strategy, have completed 800 battles in just 7 days. For some, it can take two weeks or even a month.

My advice on this matter is to keep everything the same. Those who haven't completed their battles should play on one account with two people. Since most members are okay with 50 battles, find another person to share the account with and split the 50-50 battles.

Admins, my only request is that if you're considering a drastic change, please try this only on the int7 server. If it works, add it to other servers. This applies to the battle server as well; if necessary, use a different database.
[ Emrys ]

In response to Emrys.

I read your post very carefully. First, I'd like to thank you for very substantive analysis, which allows us for a high-level discussion—not based on emotions, but on facts.

You raised two completely separate issues:

1. the imbalance between 1h and 2h—you believe there's not much difference;
2. the battle server—you believe the current system is correct and see no need for change.

AD issue #1,

I analyzed your duel simulation for player levels 11, 29, and 43. The facts you presented lead to a completely different conclusion. The imbalance between 1h and 2h is even much bigget than I previously showed! Based on my calculations, 2h is 20-35% stronger. At level 11, it's even stronger by... 66%! You made a calculation error and increased the defense of the 1h player, but I'll elaborate on that in a comment to your post. Your simulation also applies to level 29. However, you didn't pay attention for the fact that between levels 26 and 32 there are five "empty" levels because 2h players can't buy better weapons. Therefore, 2h players often wear armors for 3/6 points. Therefore, this level isn't a reliable indicator for the simulation. Regardless, the 2h player's advantage is about 15-20%. You made a similar error in the level 43 simulation. You didn't pay attetion for the fact that at level 44 2h player buys a new, much stronger sword. Therefore, you significantly underestimated the 2h player's damage. Furthermore, in this simulation, 1h player has very high defense. The higher the 1h defense, the bigger is difference in critical damage between 1h and 2hl. In this case, 2h hits 150 damage in round 1, and 1h hits 110, a difference of almost 50%.

You probably made a very superficial comparison of 1h defense/damage with 2h, saw that they were similar, and based on that, assumed there wasn't much difference. However, your mistake, in my opinion, was that:
a) you didn't calculate the AVERAGE damage in round 1h (average damage - average defense) and assumed that 5-10 points to the left or right doesn't make much difference, when in practice it makes a huge difference;
b) you underestimated 2h's damage by running the simulation when he only needed 1 level for a much better weapon (level 44);
c) in the first case, you miscalculated the defense of the 1h player (level 11);
d) When simulating a 1-hour fight with a level 43 tank, you didn't take critical damage into account, even though critical damage has a significant impact on the outcome of the fight.

Regardless, your simulations confirm that the advantage of 2h over 1h is really huge.

AD issue #2

I agree with you, Emrys, that if changes are made to the operation of the battle server, they should apply to INT 7. Gaia already wrote about this: we don't change the rules during the game. If we have level 400 players who have built accounts on the battle server, closing the battle server will effectively mean that a player at level 150 will never catch up to a player at level 400.

However, I'm not talking about old servers and old accounts, but about the newest server: INT 7.

You're reiterating the argument Pappas made: "without the battle server, I'll never be able to catch players who have changed gold for mooncoins." Look at page #1 for my answer. Your claim is false. The situation is completely the opposite. Thanks to the battle server and 100/24 hour battles, the gap between players who exchanged gold for mooncoins (I'll call them "strong players" from now on) and those who didn't (hereinafter "average players") increases even further! For every 400 sessions, you receive gold for 3-4 stat points. This applies to both strong and average players. Therefore, in the battle server system, the chance of "catching" these strong players is 0%. Math. 20 battle sessions x 4 = +80 to stats. 5 (stats at level 1) + 80 = 85. Strong players start with stats of 50 +. 50 + 80 = 130. 85 vs. 130. 0% chance of victory, or maybe 1%?

In a system where there's no battle server, you have a much better chance of equalizing! For a simple reason: If you both have the same level and the stat costs of the average player are 5-10x (500% +) lower than the costs of the strong player, then day by day the weaker player gets closer and closer to the strong player.

Here's an illustrative example: a 1,000-meter race. You start at 1 meter, and your opponent at 350. You have 1,000 meters to run, and he has 650 meters to run. Your speed is 25 km/h, and his is 5 km/h. Slowly, but surely, you'll be getting closer.

Here's a real-world example: At level 1, one stat costs 5 gold. Your opponent needs 4,000 gold for one. Who will build an advantage faster?

"Those who haven't completed their battles should play on one account with two people. Since most members are okay with 50 battles, find another person to share the account with and split the battles 50-50."
-> I didn't believe you wrote this. I understand you're proposing a multi-account game? One person playing for 5-10 people? Could this situation last for months, or even years? Or maybe we should just immediately unleash a bot, AI, or whatever we want to call it. There's no difference. That's reducing the game to absurdity.

I've been playing this game for many years. And I can tell you one thing: Those who quit this game do it, because of the battle server system. Not everyone has the mentality to tolerate anyone could beat you without any problem. The vast majority don't want to be beaten. Given the choice between doing 100 fights a day (and ruining their entire professional, personal, and family lives) or quitting the game, they choose option number 2. Besides, read other players' comments; this isn't just my opinion.

I understand you're capable of doing 100 attacks a day. I can do it too, and you've even received medals in the past. However, I know what it's like. Cost. The question is: are we creating a game for a very narrow group of "crazies" (playing over 10 hours a day) or one accessible to everyone and offering equal opportunities? Personally, I choose option number 2. No battle server in any form. Only playing on a home server – that's where life and competition happen. No playing for dozens of hours a day. The profits for the game owners can be compensated by raising the price of items/premiums. Without a battle server, people will accept that.

Besides, if someone completely disagrees with me, I think there'splace for compromise. Just open only server called "CLASSIC."

Dear CVD &PATTI

I read that you're testing INT 7 for new skills for 1-H player and creating some balance.

Can you also test this on a 2h + armor knight? I mean, can you remove "-dexterity" from a 2h weapons?

Right now, subtracting dexterity from a 2h weapon kills the play 2h + armor. This type of knight isn't the strongest, it's the weakest... This is because of the 2h weapon's subtraction of dexterity.

This can be done very simply: replace the "-" on a "+." Don't even change any numbers. For example, a weapon 56 2h point with "-10 dexterity" would have "+10 dexterity." Just change it to "+10 dexterity." This applies to other weapons as well. This won't disrupt any balance and will open up the possibility of playing a 2h + armor game.

Allow me to offer a final summary of the battle server discussion. I started a forum thread over two weeks ago, and everyone who was interested commented here. I've carefully read all the comments on the forum, as well as the discussion on Discord.

The conclusion is this: Almost everyone participating in the discussion agrees that playing 10-12 hours a day on a battle server system (100 attacks/24 hours non-stop) is unacceptable and creates a pathological state. Above all, it ruins the enjoyment of the game. Therefore, many people believe that the next server (INT 7) should be based on the classic system, without the battle server, i.e., the pre-2011 version. We simply don't want to repeat the same series (INT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ad infinitum).

I realize that every player has different preferences. That's why there are also defenders of the current battle server system, but these are just two people: Pappas (supported by his colleague Emrys) and DOSKYNG. Let's be honest – these are players who have been spending 10-12 hours a day here for many years, playing on a large number of accounts on various worlds, and clicking every 5 minutes all day long is no problem for them. Pappas is a top-tier player by level, while DOSKYNG, at INT 6, constantly makes 100 attacks a day. It's therefore obvious that these two players will be top-tier and top-tier at INT 7, as they play all day without a break. It's no wonder the fish are happy in the water.

On the other hand, we have almost the entire top INT 6 rankings (i.e., players at the highest levels who play similarly to PAPPAS and DOSKYNG) who oppose the current 100/24/365 battle server. This is Twenry114, YOG, WALDAN, and GAJA. These aren't amateurs, but professionals – the best players on the newest server. A player who was top 1/top 2 on INT 6 for a while also commented here, but who didn't want to give his name in-game. I myself was often at the top of the leaderboards on various worlds, but I abandoned the game after a few months precisely because of the battle server. The same was true for many of my two INT 6 teammates, who were top 10 but quit after 3-4 months. Many German players on INT 6 also had very strong accounts at the beginning of the game, but ended up at level 35-50. There was also a player who was top 3 on INT 6 who deleted his account at level 100 because he was fed up with the battle server. Those criticizing the battle server aren't "seasonal" or "amateur" players; they're the best of the best, the most active and knowledgeable people who have been here for 15-20 years.

Gaja pointed out that 100 attacks per 24 hours (playing 10-12 hours a day) creates an unhealthy environment that can lead to addiction.

Twenry114 on Discord argued that the game shouldn't be tailored to a small percentage of fanatics who can play 24/7, but to average players who are looking for entertainment, not 24/7 click-baiting. 95% of players are "average players," and thanks to them, there's competition, wars, alliances, teamwork, the political situation on the server evolves, and so on. If we discourage average players, the game will lose its meaning. Financial benefits don't accrue to 5 people who spend €100 a month, but to 95 people who spend €10-15 a month.

Twenry114 rightly wrote here that the best players on a server, if they stop having time to play 12 hours a day, simply quit because they "don't want to drown" and become farms for the rest of the server. I personally know dozens of people who not only think this way, but vote this way. They vote by leaving the game because of the battle server.

You can open an INT 7 battle server with 100 attacks/24 hours/365 days, but it will end up like INT 6. The server will become dead, and no one will see the point or have any motivation to play. Perhaps PAPPAS and DOSKYNG will have fun on the server, playing 12 hours a day and reaching the top 1 and 2, but beyond that, the vast majority will abandon the game again after 3, 4, or 6 months. New players will come and do the same thing as their predecessors.

Many thousands of people played on Polish servers between 2007 and 2011, when there was no battle server. After the battle server was launched, there was no increase in player numbers, only a drastic decline. Please take this into consideration.

I will also share my final thoughts.
Let the 3 systems in BS continue. I will only reduce the duration of the 250 MC one by half.
The free one: 3 days, 1 battle every 10 minutes, 100 battles.
The 150 MC one: 4 days, 1 battle every 5 minutes, 200 battles.
The 250 MC one: 7 days, 1 battle every 2.5 minutes, 400 battles.

Increase the efficiency of the 99 battles in BS. Do not set a limit.

Add new items. This way, strategy and competition will continue even at high levels.

Paying particular attention to shields in items. A shield purchased with MC is only 0.5 points higher than a shield purchased with gold at the next level. Doing this at lower levels makes sense, as the gold can be used to boost stats, but it seems unnecessary afterward. I think the incentive here needs to be adjusted.

These are my thoughts for now.
I am aware that you have a priority list. I can see that you are working extra hard on the new server that is about to launch.
I wish you all the best in your work.

Here are my thoughts:

• Launch a classic server without BS, along with fixes, balancing, etc. Players need to be centralized (as they're currently scattered across millions of servers). It's better to have one server generating traffic than a million dead ones.
• I'd go so far as to change the name of the game on this server (like Knightfight 2.0 – to emphasize its uniqueness).
• Apply fixes and updates only to this server – the rest will remain as they are (as some prefer the current state of the game).

Some people have forgotten that the game is supposed to be a pleasure to play and have fun, not a rat race for the highest rankings. Game producers - remember this too. We are all one community :)