Feedback Thread · Endgame Part 3 Open PTR Test

[Highway]

I'm not sure if it's a bug or if it's like this by default, but I don't see it fair that if there are more players defending in the portal with only 1 attacking the portal, its % continues to drop, given that a full tank player is left doing nothing just attacking the portal will end up draining the portal without any sense and the defenders will try everything to prevent this from happening and don't tell me it won't happen because I just saw how a player took a portal while it was defended by 8... Please reply good afternoon

Its not a bug. Read the change log carefully. You need to keep the attackers away from the building. How are 8 defenders not able to take down a single attacker?

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

Its not a bug. Read tje change log carefully. You need to keep the attackers away from the building. How are 8 defenders not able to take down a single attacker?

Thanks highway it will keep things much balanced against big alliances.

 

[Igaflys]

brachi with vita set and all shield/armor/agility dino defence and other reflectors is just tank and impossible to kill in less than 3/4 min

Its not a bug. Read tje change log carefully. You need to keep the attackers away from the building. How are 8 defenders not able to take down a single attacker?

 

[- Leyenda -]

A full defense attacker can come again and again until they manage to lower the portal, because they cannot kill him in time. The answer is simple since they are not receiving the extra power. The only thing the attacker has to do is heal and resist as much as possible by giving It has been about 10 deaths and he will take the portal, removing all meaning from defense. It is simple logic in Wars, in the same way when it is 1v1, if the enemy does not attack you, you are not going to kill him before he takes that portal.

 

[- Leyenda -]

What sense would it make to defend if in the same way someone full tank lowered your % completely before everything was over and you defended them without being able to do anything since the opponent would only focus on healing and staying alive as much as he can over and over again? it wouldn't be fair at all

 

[Igaflys]

Rn its more affordable to not defend your builds at all but just attack other gates and take their fame

 

[Pleiadian]

Let's keep in mind that on live servers, attackers will use unfair means— opening multiple accounts to drain.

 

[Igaflys]

Here is the proof of why exactly 2 hours is too much for both defenders and attackers. The only gates that left belong to GM Darkpredido who is invincible.
Yet it also shows how much the system is unfair comparing defenders to attackers.

 

[Igaflys]

also guys pls activate triforge or spawn monstrous dinos/mobs bcs protection time of the buildings is so long and thats so boring

 

[Igaflys]

there is nothing to do fr

 

[Davidleucuta]

Also, it would be a good idea to open triforge!

 

[- V I K I N G -]

Dear rangers,

The next big Dino Storm update "#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)" is currently in the testing phase. It is now ready for the public PTR test which will help us find remaining issues, get your feedback and provide insight into server performance. As soon as everything runs smoothly and we could incorporate your feedback, the testing phase will conclude with the live release to follow shortly after.

Please Read This Before Joining the Test:

• ! >>> READ THE CHANGELOG <<< !
• The PTR ("Public Test Realm") is exclusively used for testing.
• The server is running a fresh new state without any player avatars on it. After you create your new avatar, it will automatically be given the items etc. which are required for testing the new update.
• What you see on the PTR is still work in progress and might change during testing and for the live release.
• Only the English language is available for the game client.
• This test will only run for a few days.
• To gain access to the PTR, you may need to register a new Splitscreen Games account explicitly for the PTR.
  • Reset password or create new account for PTR: https://wp-ptr.dinostorm.com/
  • Enter the PTR server here: https://ptr.dinostorm.com/

Design Changes Only for the Public Test:

The changes below are only applied during the testing phase and will be reverted/not take place when the update goes live.

• After creating your avatar, it will receive the following:
  • New avatars are set to max level.
  • New avatars receive 5,000,000 Dino Dollars.
  • New avatars receive 250,000 Gold Coins.
  • Every dino, weapon and 5 times each implant and module at level 55 (Excluding the T-Rex)
  • Clothing & Skins at level 55 for each available attribute with max quality
  • 10 Jump Link construction kits
  • Unlocked many inventory slots
• Conflict phases will be much more frequent on Thursday, February 29, than they are destined to be on live servers. ( 1 hour conflict phase, 30 min protection phase)
  • We are planning to change the Conflict Phase timing during the test
• Townhall elections are sped up a lot compared to live servers, so that the Sheriff's office can be reached a lot quicker than on live servers.
• Group Quests are disabled
• Automaticall unlocked map icons
• Disabled 72 hours gang change cooldown
• Diabled instant rescue option

Questions to the Community

It would be great if you can use the following questions as a guideline when you provide your feedback here.

• How does the building defence difficult feel compared to the attack difficult?
• Is the length of the conflict phase appropriate to give attackers AND defenders an equal chance?
• What do you enjoy on the new system compared to the old and what not so much?

Have fun and leave your feedback right here as a reply to this post. Bugs go here => BUG FORUM

when server closing

 

[Hakashi]

I see few more problems about this update.

1) What about players who arent able to play during conflict time? They will be completely excluded from any kind of fights.

2) Since big allies arent able to defend a building anymore (all it takes is an enemy on brachi + kits to steal the building), the big allied clans can just trick the system, for example: get deal with each other to exchange their gates between each other at the time when a conflict phase starts, and small clans attackers wont be able to do anything about it because after 15 mins all maps will be protected again, took by allied clans.

3) During protected phase the game simply become boring. People will log off and the game will become dead. The attackers will loose the oppurtinity to attack at night or morning when the most of the players are off.

4) The big allies will be even more outnumbered now, because simply they will know the exact time of possible attacks. Everyone will log during conflict phase and try to defend, and the only chance for attackers is to take brachi and keep on using kits until the gate get drowned. Doesnt really seem like an exciting gameplay to me.

 

[Alewx]

I would like to throw a question in just to get some impression,
Initial for the concept i included a pricing for attacking a building. It was a pricing for the clan to pay for the attack based on the size, and unless you do that you would not count towards attacking it. But that was just leading into the issue that if you are a small clan the costs for attacking at some places to split defender forces it would get you to bankruptcy and discourage attacks.
Agreement?

 

[Igaflys]

I would like to throw a question in just to get some impression,
Initial for the concept i included a pricing for attacking a building. It was a pricing for the clan to pay for the attack based on the size, and unless you do that you would not count towards attacking it. But that was just leading into the issue that if you are a small clan the costs for attacking at some places to split defender forces it would get you to bankruptcy and discourage attacks.
Agreement?

I wont lie the idea is intriguing

 

[Igaflys]

But I dont see why we need to nerf attackers. Attackers concept is good. The defenders are the ones who need buff. Recently 1 person wrote an idea in ptr about what if attackers will attack building and deffenders will come and kill all of the attackers, next they will heal the gate to 100% and the gate would stay protected till the end of the attack phrase.

Taking into consideration your last post, what if we mix two of those ideas?

- The attacker attacks building and drain it a bit
- The defender comes and kills attacker, securing the building
- The defender heals the building to 100%

And since the building was already once attacked, if attacker wants to attack it once again in the same attack phrase he needs to pay clan dollars for iniciate the attack.

And so it goes, the more the building will be healed the higher price will be for attack it again.

What do you think about it?

 

[Alewx]

But I dont see why we need to nerf attackers. Attackers concept is good. The defenders are the ones who need buff. Recently 1 person wrote an idea in ptr about what if attackers will attack building and deffenders will come and kill all of the attackers, next they will heal the gate to 100% and the gate would stay protected till the end of the attack phrase.

Taking into consideration your last post, what if we mix two of those ideas?

- The attacker attacks building and drain it a bit
- The defender comes and kills attacker, securing the building
- The defender heals the building to 100%

And since the building was already once attacked, if attacker wants to attack it once again in the same attack phrase he needs to pay clan dollars for iniciate the attack.

And so it goes, the more the building will be healed the higher price will be for attack it again.

What do you think about it?

The intend again was to create a bigger counterweight for big/huge clans.

If you manage to heal the building back to 100% that means not a lot was drained, also if you heal it to 100% that does not lead to automatic protected phase, only a successful attack does.

 

[Igaflys]

I know thats why i ask for the thing that if the building will be healed by defender, attacker will need to pay for drain it again

The intend again was to create a bigger counterweight for big/huge clans.

If you manage to heal the building back to 100% that means not a lot was drained, also if you heal it to 100% that does not lead to automatic protected phase, only a successful attack does.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

I know thats why i ask for the thing that if the building will be healed by defender, attacker will need to pay for drain it again

No need to pay bruh we already lose dds from getting killed by defenders from big alliances

 

[VioletRosa]

How are 8 defenders not able to take down a single attacker?

If they are anything like me, its very simple. If I have to stand anywhere for more than 1 minute I get bored. I start flirting with some people. Then shoot them. search for music. then get hungry and have lunch :V

 

[Galaxy]

I would disagree here with your statement. Whatever you do in the end there will be always the alliance of various sides that will be holding all of the buildings. 2 hours of defending which i felt on my own skin basically and mentally fucked me up. Honestly holding a site during protection hours gives u nothing except of the purple colour on the map, especially when u know that you wont be able to defend it because sites are going down even if 8 defenders and 1 attacker stands in the circle. Once again 2 hours is too much for defenders to protect and yet too much for attackers since in those 2 hours attackers will manage to take down every building - because draining 1 site takes only 15 min for 1 person.

On active servers, the defenders are always a huge alliance, what do you mean it's too much for the defenders to be able to defend?

 

[yewhuiyuan]

10+ hrs of protected phase is really ... boring....maybe you could implement new gameplay during protected phase when the building site produces more medals than the inventory could hold and the extra medals and nuggets will drop near the site and any players can go and claim the drops. to claim the medal or nugget drop it takes maybe 30 seconds to claim it so they will be engaging pvp fight with the player around the site

 

[Santi Venegas]

There are many things I want to say, but I think the most important thing is that if you seek to weaken the absolute dominance of the largest clans, you must make the vulnerability time of the buildings more frequent, I mean, I understand that more or less every 4 hours the buildings become vulnerable, that is, they turn yellow, I think that should be every two hours, as follows, one hour in the yellow state, and when the hour ends, another hour in the green state or blue, I don't really understand the difference between those two because they are practically the same, I should only have the well-known green. And then another hour of yellow and so on, a yellow hour and another green hour, this would make it practically impossible to defend any map no matter how many allies you have, they would have to be connected all day defending and this would make it possible for many other players to gain fame and take buildings. This is because the problem continues to be that a few leaders of a few clans dominate everything and handpick who can become sheriff and who can't, it's disgusting.

 

[Igaflys]

On active servers, the defenders are always a huge alliance, what do you mean it's too much for the defenders to be able to defend?

Just join the ptr to see whats happening with every alliance during 2hrs attack phrase

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

Just join the ptr to see whats happening with every alliance during 2hrs attack phrase

PTR is different than on live server and it's not like big alliance must dominate every single time otherwise update is bad etc and this ain't true.

I feel it's balanced when big alliances feel difficulty dealing with small clans and this is true.

 

[Igaflys]

PTR is different than on live server and it's not like big alliance must dominate every single time otherwise update is bad etc and this ain't true.

I feel it's balanced when big alliances feel difficulty dealing with small clans and this is true.

I dont mind for the alliance to feel difficulty dealing with small clans, actually I even want this to happen. But I think it would be totally unfair for the alliance to not have any chance against attackers.

 

[..Arcadius..]

I would like to throw a question in just to get some impression,
Initial for the concept i included a pricing for attacking a building. It was a pricing for the clan to pay for the attack based on the size, and unless you do that you would not count towards attacking it. But that was just leading into the issue that if you are a small clan the costs for attacking at some places to split defender forces it would get you to bankruptcy and discourage attacks.
Agreement?

I like this idea actually. Many people use multi accounts (like opening 9-10 low level accounts and drawing simultaneously). This will be devastating for all defending clans after the update especially those who hold gates in low level maps such as gf/mw. Adding an attack price will discourage attackers to exploit multi-accounts in general since they would just be dead weight only used for afk draining and not real fighting.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

I like this idea actually. Many people use multi accounts (like opening 9-10 low level accounts and drawing simultaneously). This will be devastating for all defending clans after the update especially those who hold gates in low level maps such as gf/mw. Adding an attack price will discourage attackers to exploit multi-accounts in general since they would just be dead weight only used for afk draining and not real fighting.

That affects real players who fight too so not good. we already lose a lot of dds during fight.

 

[Czarna]

Its not a bug. Read the change log carefully. You need to keep the attackers away from the building. How are 8 defenders not able to take down a single attacker?

Taking down a single attacker once doesn't matter in that scenario. The only thing that matters is defending a site. The attacker can still drain the site while he is being attacked by the defenders. He isn't fighting back, which means that he can survive a long time on a tank dino. If the defenders cannot heal the damage he dealt to the site before he comes back they are in a losing battle. If the attacker chooses to repeatedly run back to the same site, that site becomes impossible to defend (unless the defenders find a way to defeat him before he can get close enough). The problem only becomes more apparent with the usage of Recovery Kits - there is no journey to the site and it can be attacked with no end until its fully drained.

What about adjusting the healing a site receives to be based on the amount of defenders around it? For example: the attacker drains a site for 1% every 10 seconds, each defender heals a site for 0.2% every 10 seconds. In that scenario 5 defenders would be able to negate the attack and defend their gate even if the attacker isnt fighting them. The attackers wouldn't be able to passively take over gates and would always need a more active approach. And the defenders would need to choose between protecting a site and healing it together faster or splitting to fight over/defend more sites.

This scenario isnt ideal either, as 5 defenders would be able to stop the attack of 10 attackers for as long as they stay alive. Perhaps the amount of attackers would also need to affect the damage dealt to a site, but the increment for attackers should be lower. If one initial attacker can drain for 1% every 10 seconds, 10 attackers shouldn't be able to drain 10% every 10 seconds as it would be too difficult to gather enough forces to even attempt defending the site before it is lost.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

Taking down a single attacker once doesn't matter in that scenario. The only thing that matters is defending a site. The attacker can still drain the site while he is being attacked by the defenders. He isn't fighting back, which means that he can survive a long time on a tank dino. If the defenders cannot heal the damage he dealt to the site before he comes back they are in a losing battle. If the attacker chooses to repeatedly run back to the same site, that site becomes impossible to defend (unless the defenders find a way to defeat him before he can get close enough). The problem only becomes more apparent with the usage of Recovery Kits - there is no journey to the site and it can be attacked with no end until its fully drained.

What about adjusting the healing a site receives to be based on the amount of defenders around it? For example: the attacker drains a site for 1% every 10 seconds, each defender heals a site for 0.2% every 10 seconds. In that scenario 5 defenders would be able to negate the attack and defend their gate even if the attacker isnt fighting them. The attackers wouldn't be able to passively take over gates and would always need a more active approach. And the defenders would need to choose between protecting a site and healing it together faster or splitting to fight over/defend more sites.

This scenario isnt ideal either, as 5 defenders would be able to stop the attack of 10 attackers for as long as they stay alive. Perhaps the amount of attackers would also need to affect the damage dealt to a site, but the increment for attackers should be lower. If one initial attacker can drain for 1% every 10 seconds, 10 attackers shouldn't be able to drain 10% every 10 seconds as it would be too difficult to gather enough forces to even attempt defending the site before it is lost.

aha currently we are unable to use recovery kits in PTR when site is under attack