#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

[Pleiadian]

many people from other servers play in eu1

What I mean is that they prefer to main Eu1, compared to another server. That is my observation. Even if my people are having a war in Am5 or Asia, if gates in Eu1 start to red, we drop everything for Eu1.

 

[St. Coelo]

Will zones have 4 hours to drain? That is, even if it reaches 0% it can be taken by the enemy who managed to have more time draining it, but can the defender go and drain that zone, to resume it in the 4 hours time yet? that is, to recover lost zones?
Or if he lost, no one else could try to catch the enemy?

During the war period, the zones that the defenders manage to defeat the enemies, can they be in non-attacked status (Green)? If yes, then what if a new clan drains the zone in that period, those who drained before but couldn't stay in the building to leave 0%, will they still have the time they drained intact? or would they have to go back to being in the zone so that it could count again that the clan has been draining that zone for a certain time, and managed to rip off a percentage of the place?

Would the zone automatically return to 100% when healed, or would it only return to 100% when the claim period ends?

 

[Pleiadian]

I have been taking notice of the recent ideas that have been suggested by Devs since the Endgame Mechanic topic started being discussed and one thing that is standing out is the fact that you're trying to turn the game from PvP base to PvE base.

You are trying to shift the gameplay massively. In this move, you will have a large loss of player base. That's a totally new concept you are pushing forward— to the old players who are still expecting that the old gameplay makes a comeback. From players' opinions on the forum, most of them want fun wars like in the past. The suggested draft does not move in the direction that the community desire.


I think the part of Supply Charge still needs a comment. It's a good move, I really like it. But will it not affect the revenue of the game? Supply Charge makes the game a subscription model type of business. It is the most bought item in the game while in war or not in war. I assume that those points are already considered for the upcoming changes.

A building should involve players only. Be it a Claim or a Travel Gate. Not bandit or random mobs. I will not wake up at 4 am to defend against some random bandits, but I will happily do so against other players.

The 4 hour time frame should help an attack as the defender must protect all of their buildings at the same time splitting their defenders around the buildings during that time. Leaving an building unprotected give the attacker advantage to claim the building. You can freely choose over 50 buildings you want to attack for an opening.

That is a severe miscalculation IMO unless I am missing some information.

Here's a given scenario.

It is always assumed that it will be Alliance against small clans. Let's pit 50 players for the alliance (understated number) and 20 players for the one clan (overstated number)

The attacks will happen at peak time, the clan will have a 4-hour attack window to take the towers.

There will always be 50 people to cover all 50 buildings. But not for the small clans. If the small clans concentrate their number in 1 specific building, the alliance will just follow up, and obliterate the clans.

In the end, resulting a harder battle to take over the tower. At best, the clans (attackers) will take only 1-2 towers. While the alliance will still control most of the buildings, whoever controls the building, control the Town Hall.

 

[Czarna]

If the only requirement to take over a camp would switch to staying near a camp site the longest, I believe we should increase the level requirement needed to drain. Already in the current system Goldfields can get swarmed by an army of lower lvl players (or in fact one player, using all of them to his advantage). But in the new system, that would become the optimal play. Both for the defender to protect his gate and have a lookout for danger and for the attacker to leave many low level accounts to drain AFK and disrupt the defender's forces. Since draining camps would be effectively free, nothing would realistically stop players from doing it. If the low level accounts get banned they can just make more and lvl them up within a day. At the same time, leaving out the genuine low lvl players from the action for an extended period of time isnt ideal either. Definately this change would lead to a lot more chaos and gate exchanges but at what cost.

And additionaly it makes recovery kits a lot more important since they can easily extend the amount of time spent defending/attacking. Instead of the kit + autoclicker supplying technique, we might see a new technique develop. Heat and especially stability implants (or at least attributes) would become a must inculde, even more so than now, to avoid losing attack time from rex battlecry or getting stunned/paralyzed just outside of the zone.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

If the only requirement to take over a camp would switch to staying near a camp site the longest, I believe we should increase the level requirement needed to drain. Already in the current system Goldfields can get swarmed by an army of lower lvl players (or in fact one player, using all of them to his advantage). But in the new system, that would become the optimal play. Both for the defender to protect his gate and have a lookout for danger and for the attacker to leave many low level accounts to drain AFK and disrupt the defender's forces. Since draining camps would be effectively free, nothing would realistically stop players from doing it. If the low level accounts get banned they can just make more and lvl them up within a day. At the same time, leaving out the genuine low lvl players from the action for an extended period of time isnt ideal either. Definately this change would lead to a lot more chaos and gate exchanges but at what cost.

And additionaly it makes recovery kits a lot more important since they can easily extend the amount of time spent defending/attacking. Instead of the kit + autoclicker supplying technique, we might see a new technique develop. Heat and especially stability implants (or at least attributes) would become a must inculde, even more so than now, to avoid losing attack time from rex battlecry or getting stunned/paralyzed just outside of the zone.

Your view is pretty one-sided because you are talking from a dead server point of view, if they increase the level for draining gates (not practical), the active servers low level players and new gamers wouldn't enjoy their game and wouldn't get an early taste of wars and gold fields map has always been the starting map naturally meant for small level players since the dawn of this game, period. (5-14) it will be unfair for them in thriving servers and would just add more burden to new comers and it would cause a major disruption in the game because every map is meant for particular levels by default.(already the quests and rewards need a tweak/fix) and reaching max 55 is already exhausting, thanks for reading.

 

[Czarna]

Your view is pretty one-sided because you are talking from a dead server point of view, if they increase the level for draining gates (not practical), the active servers low level players and new gamers wouldn't enjoy their game and wouldn't get an early taste of wars and gold fields map has always been the starting map naturally meant for small level players since the dawn of this game, period. (5-14) it will be unfair for them in thriving servers and would just add more burden to new comers and it would cause a major disruption in the game because every map is meant for particular levels by default.(already the quests and rewards need a tweak/fix) and reaching max 55 is already exhausting, thanks for reading.

I'm speaking from almost 10 years of experience of playing this game, not only on the Europe-4 server which you consider dead. And I did in fact mention that keeping new players from accessing major parts of the gameplay isn't ideal either in the previous post. You should know very well how easy it is to make multiple low level accounts and use them for an attack.
But it can't be ignored that this new proposed mechanic is easily exploited on lower level maps. Without more depth put into it, the exploits will become more rewarded than they are now.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

I'm speaking from almost 10 years of experience of playing this game, not only on the Europe-4 server which you consider dead. And I did in fact mention that keeping new players from accessing major parts of the gameplay isn't ideal either in the previous post. You should know very well how easy it is to make multiple low level accounts and use them for an attack.
But it can't be ignored that this new proposed mechanic is easily exploited on lower level maps. Without more depth put into it, the exploits will become more rewarded than they are now.

Exploits eventually find a way to exploit the game and it's always been like this since many years regardless of what changes they can make and it happens in all games. If they try to solve it regarding those exploits, it would only burden the new players of the game since their exploitation and the new players game coincides with eachother. so Devs have to weigh the pros and cons and decide what's less harmful for the growth of the game. Let's put it this way, We don't use a cannon to kill a fly. That will be overkill. hope you understand what I'm saying.

 

[lubec26]

afraid to lose sites?

not on eu3, like you guys can even take them for longer than an hour when most of us sleep xD

 

[lubec26]

like you are defending or attacking sites for 24/7

not defending 24/7 cuz you guys are lazy and weak but if i were the attacker id do it more often for sure

 

[Igaflys]

Everything is fine except one thing, based on what now leaders of clans will distribute fame to their members? If u say that supplies will no longer be used for supplying, then what can be basic thing for clan leader to decide who will get the fame? Im not counting activity because some people are active when leaders not so they dont see they are active etc

 

[Igaflys]

Will dd donating system be still the same?

 

[Alewx]

It is always assumed that it will be Alliance against small clans. Let's pit 50 players for the alliance (understated number) and 20 players for the one clan (overstated number)

The attacks will happen at peak time, the clan will have a 4-hour attack window to take the towers.

There will always be 50 people to cover all 50 buildings. But not for the small clans. If the small clans concentrate their number in 1 specific building, the alliance will just follow up, and obliterate the clans.

I get where this is comming from, but what would be your suggestion to make sure it is possible for them?
lets say they have 80members available for defence 65 already required to cover every single building means there is a taskforce left to actually react and defend an attacked building, once there is more than just one building attacked this force has to split up, as soon as a third building gets attacked they have to seperate even more. the chanced for each individuall clan rises the more are there that actually will rise against the alliance

Will dd donating system be still the same?

yes that is intended to be the same.

 

[slejd2001]

I saw many people complaining about being able to attack only during certain time, that activity would drop and game would turn more into PVE. Those point are valid and I noticed flaw in the transfer phase, allied clans could just give sites to each other to prevent enemies taking them, so it would make almost impossible for opponents to take the sites.

My idea for End game part 3 concept

• Clan could still get items from sites automatically right away after items are being generated
• The attackers would receive fame items while draining/taking the site automatically right away after items are being generated
• The owners of the site would receive fame items any time the site is not being drained
• Holding sites still would be more beneficial, since it wouldn't need presence, only during defense
• Draining could be done at any time of the day, what would satisfy everyone
• Defenders would have to be online to defend sites, otherwise they wouldn't get fame items since attackers would be attacking and taking away the items, it would be even worse for defenders if they lose a site
• Fame items would be generated every few seconds based on yield, but their amounts in 1 stack would be higher and also value of each item would be lower. It could be in a way that values are different, but amount of fame generated per hour would remain similar
• If some clan's inventory would get full, then items would just keep generating and if being attacked, attackers would receive more items per tic or even all items right away which have left in sites
• When players from different clans would drain some site, then it would be chosen randomly who gets the fame item
• Everything else stays as described in a draft

Examples:
Clan A holds a site, gets fame items automatically
Clan B drains that site and gets fame items while draining, clan A doesn't receive any items
If clan B takes the site, then that clan gets fame items automatically if clan A isn't draining
If clan A defends the site and the site is not being drained, clan A keeps getting fame items
If 1 player from clan B and 2 players from clan C drain same site, each of those players would have same odds to receive item, in this case 33% for each player, but since there are 2 players from clan C, then clan C would have 66% chance to receive the item and clan B only 33%

I think with this concept majority could be satisfied as everyone could drain any time he would want. It would require to stay active to drain and defend and would allow to collect fame for everyone, attackers and defenders. Servers would be active and game wouldn't turn into PVE.

If you have some points to tell or wanna explain how I think other things could work, tell me and I'll try to explain.

 

[slejd2001]

not on eu3, like you guys can even take them for longer than an hour when most of us sleep xD

oh so most of you sleep at 19-21pm by server time, interesting interesting tell me more

 

[slejd2001]

not defending 24/7 cuz you guys are lazy and weak but if i were the attacker id do it more often for sure

most of you die 1v1, what are you talking about?

 

[Czarna]

Exploits eventually find a way to exploit the game and it's always been like this since many years regardless of what changes they can make and it happens in all games. If they try to solve it regarding those exploits, it would only burden the new players of the game since their exploitation and the new players game coincides with eachother. so Devs have to weigh the pros and cons and decide what's less harmful for the growth of the game. Let's put it this way, We don't use a cannon to kill a fly. That will be overkill. hope you understand what I'm saying.

Allowing exploits to flourish will also burden the new players as it will be incredibly difficult to compete with them. How fun is it to fight when you know that you stand no chance? Everyone will come prepared as good as possible during that 4 hour time window. New players will lack the experience in fights and organisation. More experienced players will use all tools available to them.

 

[Highway]

I saw many people complaining about being able to attack only during certain time, that activity would drop and game would turn more into PVE. Those point are valid and I noticed flaw in the transfer phase, allied clans could just give sites to each other to prevent enemies taking them, so it would make almost impossible for opponents to take the sites.

Yes whe know that aspect and therefore the building will go back to the lowest yield when the a new owner gets the building.

 

[lubec26]

oh so most of you sleep at 19-21pm by server time, interesting interesting tell me more

some do, but some(like me) go out quite often

 

[lubec26]

most of you die 1v1, what are you talking about?

doesnt change the fact that you guys are lazy and weak

 

[Czarna]

lets say they have 80members available for defence 65 already required to cover every single building means there is a taskforce left to actually react and defend an attacked building,

It's not required to have 65 players focused on defence (=standing AFK) in that case. It's not fun to have 65 players focused on defence. Who would enjoy standing in one place for 4 hours with possibly 0 outcome because his gate didn't get selected for an attack? That's why players would rather hunt the attackers actively and chase them when they see a red camp. Only then would one player be left on the already red camp to heal it back to health. If all camps would become red one by one during that time, players would strategically place healers in key locations, and leave harder to reach gates without any healing.

This might change if the number of gates gets drastically reduced by the amount of gates held by Dinoville. If there are let's say only 10 active camps for taking it will be more beneficial to focus all players on those camps and divide them. But then you are facing an issue of having 8 players per gate. And the boring part of waiting those 4 hours out.

 

[Alewx]

It's not required to have 65 players focused on defence (=standing AFK) in that case. It's not fun to have 65 players focused on defence. Who would enjoy standing in one place for 4 hours with possibly 0 outcome because his gate didn't get selected for an attack? That's why players would rather hunt the attackers actively and chase them when they see a red camp. Only then would one player be left on the already red camp to heal it back to health. If all camps would become red one by one during that time, players would strategically place healers in key locations, and leave harder to reach gates without any healing.

This might change if the number of gates gets drastically reduced by the amount of gates held by Dinoville. If there are let's say only 10 active camps for taking it will be more beneficial to focus all players on those camps and divide them. But then you are facing an issue of having 8 players per gate. And the boring part of waiting those 4 hours out.

but when the window for attack opens, every building is a potential target, and someone that might want to take one or two could just go there if noone is actually looking at it activly, responsetime is not immediatly?

well i could imagine that the amount of buildings held by dinoville would be something depending on server population.

 

[Pleiadian]

And the boring part of waiting those 4 hours out.

In addition to your reply.

I would add, there's no need to wait 4 hours. They said that only 1 takeover is possible during those 4 hours of attack periods.

Clan A has 5 buildings in Goldfield.
Clan B has 5 buildings in Maujak.

Clan A and Clan B are both allied.

During the takeover phase, Clan A and Clan B switch their building. No need to even worry about defending them until the next day.


I think that a potential abuse & loophole in the draft.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

In addition to your reply.

I would add, there's no need to wait 4 hours. They said that only 1 takeover is possible during those 4 hours of attack periods.

Clan A has 5 buildings in Goldfield.
Clan B has 5 buildings in Maujak.

Clan A and Clan B are both allied.

During the takeover phase, Clan A and Clan B switch their building. No need to even worry about defending them until the next day.


I think that a potential abuse & loophole in the draft.

This is true too lol ally switching their buildings in this scenario gosh, gotta do something about it xd

 

[Pleiadian]

but when the window for attack opens, every building is a potential target, and someone that might want to take one or two could just go there if noone is actually looking at it activly, responsetime is not immediatly?

Let's say, there's Player1 in his clan alone, who drains 1 building and takes 52% off from that building.

I go and kill him— let's assume he just goes off.

And I drains the remaining % of that building.

Who takes the tower in this scenario?

 

[Czarna]

but when the window for attack opens, every building is a potential target, and someone that might want to take one or two could just go there if noone is actually looking at it activly, responsetime is not immediatly?

Currently every building is a potential target 24/7. Now this time will be reduced to 4 hours per day. It will be easier to respond to an attack. Currently gates do get lost sometimes, and those would be the wins for attackers, but at the same time those moments rarely happen during peak hours.

They said that only 1 takeover is possible during those 4 hours of attack periods.

Adding this it becomes even easier to defend than I initially thought. Once a gate goes red, you just bring your friends and let them take it. No need to worry about it anymore.

It might be worth it for an alliance to keep exchanging gates and accepting lower fame yields. No management and defence required. Election seats would drop in price a little, shortening the amount of time needed for exclusively PVE players to win some crowns, but not by enough to topple the highest election ranks.

 

[Alewx]

Let's say, there's Player1 in his clan alone, who drains 1 building and takes 52% off from that building.

I go and kill him— let's assume he just goes off.

And I drains the remaining % of that building.

Who takes the tower in this scenario?

Most percentage will win, highway said that previously already in a post.

But the point you want to make is?

 

[Alewx]

Currently every building is a potential target 24/7. Now this time will be reduced to 4 hours per day. It will be easier to respond to an attack. Currently gates do get lost sometimes, and those would be the wins for attackers, but at the same time those moments rarely happen during peak hours.

yes but in this 24/7 ppls do all kind of things, with the limited window, the whole server basiclly focuses on this one aspect all at once. sounds a bit more risky

 

[Czarna]

Let's say, there's Player1 in his clan alone, who drains 1 building and takes 52% off from that building.

I go and kill him— let's assume he just goes off.

And I drains the remaining % of that building.

Who takes the tower in this scenario?

I imagine that you would wait for the gate holder to heal the gate back to 53% and then drain it and take it for yourself. Unless there wasn't any information provided on the gate on the amount of damage done to it per each clan.

 

[Alewx]

I imagine that you would wait for the gate holder to heal the gate back to 53% and then drain it and take it for yourself. Unless there wasn't any information provided on the gate on the amount of damage done to it per each clan.

if the building gets healed and never to 0 then noone gets it because it still stays with the defender. but otherwise yeah after certain heal you would make more effort and therefore rather get it.

 

[Pleiadian]

But the point you want to make is?

I am trying to throw in some random scenarios to see how balanced a situation would be for an attacker to a defender.

Well, the fact that someone drained most of the %, and that player is nowhere near, and I have to drain it, and that previous drainer still takes it, is neither ideal nor fun.

Also, 1 more abuse is to be noted from that.

1 player opens 10 accounts on his machine and each account drains 10 gates— that player drains the max % he can before dying and no defender is there, now the situation is absolutely in favor of the first attacker.

Worst if that attacker that I just killed uses a kit and takes more % out of the building.