What's new

#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

europe1

Member
Joined
May 31, 2021
Messages
21
Reaction score
11
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
fuerte_loko
Clan
G U E R R A
No its to make a successful defence viable as an upgraded building yield is like owning multiple buildings (doubles after any upgrade). It would still be difficutl to hold that building over long runs as they are wanted targets to overtake.
effective protection is one thing, another is a lot of fun to take over buildings and reclaim them

each server has its own hours of activity, but some are more active others less, precisely those servers that are most active should have a lot of attack phases and servers that are less active 50% of each map should have so that they also have a chance to make easy and quick elections

as far as the attack phases are concerned, strongly active servers should have 7 phases


6-7 (1hour)
9-11 (2hour)
13-14 (1hour)
16-18 (2hour)
20-23 (3hour)
1-2 (1 hour)
4-5 (1hour)


and servers that are less active should have 4 phases

8-10 (2 hour)
12-13(1 hour)
16-18 (2 hour)
20-23 (3 hour)


of course, the phase times should be adjusted according to the servers because each server has a different time (hourly)

it is also necessary to give a chance to others in the election who want to try their hand at accepting buildings
 

Sunshine..

Active member
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
149
Reaction score
249
Server
America_1
Main Char
..Nuclear..
Clan
No Clan
That was a good feedback round! Thx :)

The chance DV takes towers depend on on how many cycles (days) the clan holds the building. The longer the building is held the higher the chance DV takes it. Sure this mechanic also correlates with the yield as it can only be updraded once per cycle. This is an element we can fine tweak later on if that is an issue.



Conflict should be in sync with all buildings on a server to have a proper gamemode where everyone prepares for. Core mechanic that ties everything together in the concept. Many elements would not work anymore if we stray away from it.


Ok here is the updated schedule for the weekend. Shorter conflict phases spread evenly around the day and one prime time conflict for 2 hours. Times also try to avoid to much overlap and stay away from usual maintenance and update time. (Even when maintenance mostly occur once per week)

Conflict Phases (Server Time)
1:00 1 hour
7:00 1 hour
11:00 1 hour
16:00 1 hour
20:00 2 hour


View attachment 47481

Is this better?

Edit: Updated the image for a more clear understanding and added conflict phases as text.
If before the update the major alliances were already able to protect the maps 24 hours a day, how difficult will it be for them to protect them 24 hours a day again and with the benefit of knowing what times attackers can appear?

I have no doubt that the defenders will feel some difficulty in the first few days, but I'm sure they will adapt quickly.

I can't see what the benefit is for attackers in having fixed schedules...
 

_Bad BunnY_

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
103
Server
America_1
Main Char
_Bad BunnY_
Clan
- Ascended Amour -
I'm not a fan of fixed schedules either, anyway. It must be taken into account that there are currently many defenders because there is only a single 2-hour phase in a 24-hour day, so everyone is reserved for that time. As there are many schedules, eventually the number of defenders would decrease due to not covering all schedules and it would be "lazy" to enter 5-6 times a day to cover so much time, since, if they are missing in any phase, they could be harmed . So we will have to see how everything evolves with this change, from the moment, it looks like something positive, but what will really matter is in practice
 

_Bad BunnY_

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
Messages
47
Reaction score
103
Server
America_1
Main Char
_Bad BunnY_
Clan
- Ascended Amour -
Another thing is that perhaps the life of the portals is being excessively high. For example, a portal at 50% would take MORE than 30 minutes to be completely drained, which is completely crazy. Especially because due to DV's possessions, people do not get to upgrade them to excellent or 200%, which is the point where it could be ''viable'' to attack a portal, (and for the same reason, many do not improve the portals)
 

Pleiadian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,365
Server
America_1
Main Char
Rembrandt.
Clan
-
Large alliances will always find a way to adapt to these times.
If before the update, they were already able to control the map 24 hours a day, it wouldn't be difficult for them to find a solution, would it?
I find it hard to believe that a member of an alliance will be able to stay 24 hours fighting and defending their buildings. We are not talking about multi-accounts anymore, but purely fighting. I know for sure, that I am not going to be online all day, I'm a sheriff anyway, I just have to attack when I want. Defending is purely subjective for me.

Surely in those 24 hours, the defenders will get exhausted from always constantly watching the maps, and that's when the attackers find weak points to start doing hard attacks.

In any way, the buildings can be easily drained granted it's on excellent yield. If the site is constantly on basic yield which gives it a lot of Health Points, then I guess that Highway could adjust that.

In anyway, we're all throwing theories around, we'll know only after testing the multiple Conflict Phases.
 

Mania

Active member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
115
Reaction score
202
Server
America_2
Main Char
-I- Mercy -I-
Clan
Peace Walkers
Surely in those 24 hours, the defenders will get exhausted from always constantly watching the maps, and that's when the attackers find weak points to start doing hard attacks.
they don't lmao. that's the thing. it doesn't matter how long the attack is, they never get tired and never log off.
 

Pleiadian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,365
Server
America_1
Main Char
Rembrandt.
Clan
-
they don't lmao. that's the thing. it doesn't matter how long the attack is, they never get tired and never log off.
Sounds like the situation is really that hopeless in Am2.

Well, as an attacker what change would even benefit you at this point if the defensive alliance is constantly on the watch?
 

Mania

Active member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
115
Reaction score
202
Server
America_2
Main Char
-I- Mercy -I-
Clan
Peace Walkers
Sounds like the situation is really that hopeless in Am2.

Well, as an attacker what change would even benefit you at this point if the defensive alliance is constantly on the watch?
getting rid of the attack phases for one, so that we get the element of surprise back and the alliance can't just trade maps amongst themselves.

protected phases for an hour or two after taking a site. although the issue there is that the alliance can just stand around and wait until it's unprotected again, at least it gives the attackers somewhat of a chance to get a building.

a cooldown on using kits would probably be good. as it is now, people can just spam kits to get back up, and if you don't buy gold you are SOL. that way when you kill your enemy, they actually have to find somewhere to respawn and then come up with a strategy that isn't kit spamming.

i think some sort of debuff on clans that have held x amount of sites for x amount of time would probably be a decent step in the right direction. i imagine this is a pretty unpopular idea but if the devs want to actually give attackers a fighting chance then i think it would be a necessary evil. something like a damage down debuff. since the alliances already way outnumber the attackers, it would give them a chance to even the odds better.

i would also lower the time on the duelist debuff for people in clans that aren't actively holding sites, to give them more opportunities to regroup after an attack.

there are probably more ideas that would be pretty helpful but this is what comes to mind immediately. the tl;dr of the whole thing is that i think the alliances need some sort of nerf while they hold maps, because as it is now the alliances hold all the power for no good reason.
 

Galaxy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Messages
266
Reaction score
382
Server
America_5
Main Char
Galax
Clan
No clan
I find it hard to believe that a member of an alliance will be able to stay 24 hours fighting and defending their buildings. We are not talking about multi-accounts anymore, but purely fighting. I know for sure, that I am not going to be online all day, I'm a sheriff anyway, I just have to attack when I want. Defending is purely subjective for me.

Surely in those 24 hours, the defenders will get exhausted from always constantly watching the maps, and that's when the attackers find weak points to start doing hard attacks.

In any way, the buildings can be easily drained granted it's on excellent yield. If the site is constantly on basic yield which gives it a lot of Health Points, then I guess that Highway could adjust that.

In anyway, we're all throwing theories around, we'll know only after testing the multiple Conflict Phases.
but the defenders have enough members to alternate their strategies for taking care of the map.

In order to avoid facing the entire alliance, attackers will have to connect at the most inconvenient times. (1am, 7am) and doing this every day?

Those who will be exhausted are the attackers
 

Pleiadian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,365
Server
America_1
Main Char
Rembrandt.
Clan
-
getting rid of the attack phases for one, so that we get the element of surprise back and the alliance can't just trade maps amongst themselves.
I don't think the attack phase should go away, it serves an important part in the gameplay. It's not simply about the hours not being able to attack or protect hours, but having attack phases and protected phases ensures that there are always actions on the next conflict phase.

At best, I think the Conflict Phase should have a large number of hours compared to the Protected Phase.

And I acknowledge the limited surprise factor to attack during all hours.

i think some sort of debuff on clans that have held x amount of sites for x amount of time would probably be a decent step in the right direction. i imagine this is a pretty unpopular idea but if the devs want to actually give attackers a fighting chance then i think it would be a necessary evil. something like a damage down debuff. since the alliances already way outnumber the attackers, it would give them a chance to even the odds better.
The "DV Maintenance" fulfills this role. Not to the extent as you are saying, however, I believe it could be adjusted to penalize a clan that has been holding a Site for a long time.

At the moment, I view this feature as flawed. Because essentially, it's making it hard for me to hold onto "Excellent" Yield Sites. But if lets say a clan has been holding a Site for more than 72 hours, then the DV Maintenance steps in and acts as a debuff.

As confirmed by Highway.

The longer the building is held the higher the chance DV takes it. Sure this mechanic also correlates with the yield as it can only be updraded once per cycle. This is an element we can fine tweak later on if that is an issue.

i would also lower the time on the duelist debuff for people in clans that aren't actively holding sites, to give them more opportunities to regroup after an attack.
That sounds like an interesting addition considering the fact that, once the attackers have attacked a Site, they will obtain duelists which will prevent them from teleporting to other gates that other clan holds. Which then forces them to use those Sites that are held permanently by DV. Where a lot of alliance members are camping.
 

Mania

Active member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
115
Reaction score
202
Server
America_2
Main Char
-I- Mercy -I-
Clan
Peace Walkers
I don't think the attack phase should go away, it serves an important part in the gameplay. It's not simply about the hours not being able to attack or protect hours, but having attack phases and protected phases ensures that there are always actions on the next conflict phase.

At best, I think the Conflict Phase should have a large number of hours compared to the Protected Phase.

And I acknowledge the limited surprise factor to attack during all hours.
it doesn't really ensure anything. people can try to attack during those phases but, again, the defenders know that the attack is coming and you basically just get stomped into the ground for even trying. the element of surprise is a huge factor when it comes to warfare, which is applicable in pvp games like this. it's why in games like fortnite or call of duty or overwatch you try to be stealthy and unpredictable so you aren't immediately ganked. by having set attack phases, you are robbing attackers of strategy and giving comfort to the defenders who know they only need to be online at certain times. there's really just no good reason for attack phases unless you want to prioritize the defenders having all the advantages.


The "DV Maintenance" fulfills this role. Not to the extent as you are saying, however, I believe it could be adjusted to penalize a clan that has been holding a Site for a long time.

At the moment, I view this feature as flawed. Because essentially, it's making it hard for me to hold onto "Excellent" Yield Sites. But if lets say a clan has been holding a Site for more than 72 hours, then the DV Maintenance steps in and acts as a debuff.
but that's not a damage debuff, no? defenders need direct combat debuffs to help attackers against the fact that the holding alliances have the advantage of sheer numbers. in a 1v3 situation as it is now, you really have no hope especially if they have kits. but if those 3 have a combat disadvantage in the form of lower damage or even a higher chance for missing, it will give that 1 a better chance at least until back-up arrives. as it is now, you will simply get swarmed at any and all teleports.



That sounds like an interesting addition considering the fact that, once the attackers have attacked a Site, they will obtain duelists which will prevent them from teleporting to other gates that other clan holds. Which then forces them to use those Sites that are held permanently by DV. Where a lot of alliance members are camping.
a lower amount of time for duelist would allow them to teleport to places without having duelist, forcing the alliance to either get outlaw (which can be an advantage for attackers) or simply wait and let the attacker flee to meet up with their own forces. i do also think there needs to be some sort of anti-camping mechanic in dv sites that prevent defenders from simply waiting there. i know there is some sort of invuln buff but that's simply not enough when you have 6-7 enemies waiting for it to fall off.
 

David Moises

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
49
Reaction score
56
Server
America_1
Main Char
-_ToBu_-
Clan
Game Over
And all of this is due to the same problem, the LACK OF PLAYERS. How many thousands of PVP games do you find with exactly the same thing as the DS? Think about it. A PVP game WORKS LIKE THIS. Forming alliances and having opponents is one of the points of the PVP game style. Fight alone or with others. It's so simple that it bothers me what they're currently trying to implement in the game.
There are clans that have been formed since the beginning of Dino Storm, and if they dominate a server today, it's because of the efforts of EVERYONE. Nothing was handed to them and nothing gave them power overnight. "The repressed minority" is nothing more than the result of the obvious: A game without players is nothing new. A game without players doesn't create wars. If 20 new people joined the server every month, I don't think the attackers would always lose. Most of the players left are old, meaning they've been in a clan for years and aren't going to leave, whether you want them to or not.

Let's follow your logic: If the game changed from now on, and all the clans fought each other. There would be no more alliances. Who said the attackers would win? They don't HAVE PLAYERS. THE GAME HAS NO NEW PLAYERS. Even if you give them fame for free, they don't even show up, simply because there's no one to show up. Giving 2% more chance or 50% more chance doesn't change the fact that without players, your clan will win absolutely nothing.

For me, the game should be attractive enough for people to want to play it. But now the only thing I'm seeing is the loss of the only ones left. As I said above, I recognize that alliances can be part of the problem, but I disagree with you that they are the whole problem. And unfortunately the lack of players won't be cured by any update they implement here...
I'll go in parts:

1) Pvp games work like this, but you can tell me yes in a PvP game where for years a tactic has been carried out where to ensure the only objective of the game they form a large group to repel the attack of others, crushing Easily any attempt to take the portals will not be boring.
2) Of course clans are formed with effort but if you want we will see the clans that are currently with those that have remained stagnant over the years to the point of literally not existing. The clans that exist today in America1 were almost always part of the great alliance, such as Black, now let's look at a clan that was almost never in the great alliance for a long time for various reasons, such as Apocalypse, now tell me? Which of them is still active?
3) It seems that you don't play Ds, it has always been known that new players almost always went to the great alliance, very few were the ones who dared to become kos of almost everything on the server.
4) By not having an immense majority of defenders and each side has to win, whoever it is, someone must win but it cannot be that only one side always wins if it has been dominant for more than 1 year, what is the attractiveness of that?
5) And apparently you don't have reading comprehension, I said it is the BIGGEST PROBLEM, the one that influences the most, I didn't say it was the only one.

Ds lacks many things to increase its appeal as a game, I know that, but I have been playing this since 2012 and I have been able to see its evolution over the years, being on both sides, and let me tell you that the desertion of players It mostly comes from clans that do not have portals, because they get tired of fighting over and over and over and over again for their right to have portals, but they find themselves with a great wall called the Alliance, taking as an example the clan where the most Ilive together that it was Game Over, at the moment when he became an enemy of the alliance he began to decline in a resounding way, when this was a clan with 80 members that did not accept players under lvl 30 to a clan that didn't even have 40 members who logged in maybe once a week.
 

yewhuiyuan

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2024
Messages
122
Reaction score
70
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
Sir.Tortii
Clan
Outlaw
For MMO war it's seldom that the player-base can choose who to be enemy and who to be ally because of the 1 sided war..

Most devs will implement system like faction war where clan represent a certain nation or territory to fight another nation it's story driven not player-base driven so it will be fair.... Another mmo I remembered created server war..... 2 different server will meet up to fight during a certain phase at a unique server.
 

yewhuiyuan

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2024
Messages
122
Reaction score
70
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
Sir.Tortii
Clan
Outlaw
For the hard camping and spawn killing at Dv gates...

Could we have a de-buff when there are more than 5 player of the same clan grouped together ... -50% of gun and dino damage when 6 or more are grouped together....
 
  • Funny
Reactions: SPA

Suguygyu

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2023
Messages
58
Reaction score
37
Server
Europe_3
Main Char
Suguygyu
Clan
Drained From Inside
For the hard camping and spawn killing at Dv gates...

Could we have a de-buff when there are more than 5 player of the same clan grouped together ... -50% of gun and dino damage when 6 or more are grouped together....
I think they should have made enemies to be able to rescue and travel to the gates big clan is holding.

Correct me if i am wrong but owner clan that has big numbers can use their own gates to travel and rescue which means they can gather easily in the gate that 1-2 attacker trying to drain but i think reverse situation should have been done.

Defenders has big numbers so there will be always waiting at least 1-2 clan member that ready to defend and besides that defenders just need to kill attackers once, rest is getting spawn-killed in dv gates.

So thats why i think attackers should be able to use defender's gates and defender clan shouldnt. Besides even if they will fix situation this way, other alliances of defender clan still will be able to use gates like attackers so overall, at least it would be more fair this way i believe.
 

yewhuiyuan

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2024
Messages
122
Reaction score
70
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
Sir.Tortii
Clan
Outlaw
I think they should have made enemies to be able to rescue and travel to the gates big clan is holding.

Correct me if i am wrong but owner clan that has big numbers can use their own gates to travel and rescue which means they can gather easily in the gate that 1-2 attacker trying to drain but i think reverse situation should have been done.

Defenders has big numbers so there will be always waiting at least 1-2 clan member that ready to defend and besides that defenders just need to kill attackers once, rest is getting spawn-killed in dv gates.

So thats why i think attackers should be able to use defender's gates and defender clan shouldnt. Besides even if they will fix situation this way, other alliances of defender clan still will be able to use gates like attackers so overall, at least it would be more fair this way i believe.
I feel that's too punishing on the alliance xD man those people stay awake for 247 can't even get to use their own gate kind sad 😢
 

SPA

Active member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
153
Reaction score
111
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
@I1 E 4 E H 9l T 0 P
Clan
CHILL_ZONE
we didn't sleep and with this idea we're literally going back to the same thing same goes to other servers, who's gonna wake up at 7am on eu servers to defend? where most are either going to their jobs or to schools? 1am conflict phase that's fine okay but 7 am? even 11 am it's where most of the players aren't even available and i'm not specifically talking about maps holders same goes to the enemies, they also got jobs schools, life whatever, the idea before this one was actually fine 2 conflict phases during the evening yeah okay but early mornings?
Dude, this means that not only the alliance has the right to own the gate, why should the developers do everything just for you?
 

- Cause -

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
485
Reaction score
328
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
Eduard06
Clan
Albania
Just mix the two. Give the casuals a chance but make it that the active ppl get also rewarded for their activity. The problem isnt the ones doing tha work. The problem is the server somehow creating an inpenetrable wall. Sure im bad but i cant expect to go against a fully organised government. The thing is, no one wants to PLAY ds. why play when u can buy a lv50 acc, farm some dds and get rex ez. A strong CLAN should get rewarded not the whole alliance. Eu1 is dying coz of that. Too many that just sit around and inflate the alliance even more. Enough rantin abt my skill issue but you get my point. Incentivise Clans not allies
 

diondre246

New member
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
11
Reaction score
28
Server
Asia_1
Main Char
-I- Simon -I-
Clan
Asylum
What was that last second surprise of -50 with the portals? Why didn't you guys inform of us of the new change to the draining % when it's closer to the end? @Highway
 

yewhuiyuan

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2024
Messages
122
Reaction score
70
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
Sir.Tortii
Clan
Outlaw
Yee don't scare those try hard mapholders man 1 gate gone a part of them dies.....
 

Pleiadian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,365
Server
America_1
Main Char
Rembrandt.
Clan
-
@Highway The Basic sites have a lot of HP and they takes too long to drain.
 

Highway

Splitscreen Studios
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
1,132
Reaction score
2,963
What was that last second surprise of -50 with the portals? Why didn't you guys inform of us of the new change to the draining % when it's closer to the end? @Highway
That was something out of the ordinary to see how the overwhelming defence ally would handle this. And also to see if such element of surpise adds a fun element. Did it?

Btw great defence coordination and smart tricks you pulled of. Still sad to see that the attackers where not able to drain due to the to high HP level on basic.

@Highway The Basic sites have a lot of HP and they takes too long to drain.
I agree. Usually all gates are on good but they did not upgrade the buildings on purpuse to make it hard to overtake them in 1 hour conflict phases.

We might generally speed up overtakes rate from 10 to 20 and repair from 5 to 10. Could also be more fun this way.
 

- Cause -

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
485
Reaction score
328
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
Eduard06
Clan
Albania
That was something out of the ordinary to see how the overwhelming defence ally would handle this. And also to see if such element of surpise adds a fun element. Did it?

Btw great defence coordination and smart tricks you pulled of. Still sad to see that the attackers where not able to drain due to the to high HP level on basic.



I agree. Usually all gates are on good but they did not upgrade the buildings on purpuse to make it hard to overtake them in 1 hour conflict phases.

We might generally speed up overtakes rate from 10 to 20 and repair from 5 to 10. Could also be more fun this way.
we could try :D
 

Pleiadian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,365
Server
America_1
Main Char
Rembrandt.
Clan
-
Btw great defence coordination and smart tricks you pulled of. Still sad to see that the attackers where not able to drain due to the to high HP level on basic.
I think you should give attackers the ability to teleport in any site while having duelists.

Attackers are severely still limited in terms of movement.

Once they get killed, they have nowhere to respawn except for some selected site that DV holds.
 

yewhuiyuan

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2024
Messages
122
Reaction score
70
Server
Europe_1
Main Char
Sir.Tortii
Clan
Outlaw
That was something out of the ordinary to see how the overwhelming defence ally would handle this. And also to see if such element of surpise adds a fun element. Did it?

Btw great defence coordination and smart tricks you pulled of. Still sad to see that the attackers where not able to drain due to the to high HP level on basic.



I agree. Usually all gates are on good but they did not upgrade the buildings on purpuse to make it hard to overtake them in 1 hour conflict phases.

We might generally speed up overtakes rate from 10 to 20 and repair from 5 to 10. Could also
That was something out of the ordinary to see how the overwhelming defence ally would handle this. And also to see if such element of surpise adds a fun element. Did it?

Btw great defence coordination and smart tricks you pulled of. Still sad to see that the attackers where not able to drain due to the to high HP level on basic.



I agree. Usually all gates are on good but they did not upgrade the buildings on purpuse to make it hard to overtake them in 1 hour conflict phases.

We might generally speed up overtakes rate from 10 to 20 and repair from 5 to 10. Could also be more fun this way.
Huh ? Really something out of the ordinary? Seeing such overwhelming ally defence? Which Ds have u been watching for past 4 years 🧐
 

Suguygyu

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2023
Messages
58
Reaction score
37
Server
Europe_3
Main Char
Suguygyu
Clan
Drained From Inside
I think you should give attackers the ability to teleport in any site while having duelists.

Attackers are severely still limited in terms of movement.

Once they get killed, they have nowhere to respawn except for some selected site that DV holds.
I agree on that as i mentioned before
 

Suguygyu

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2023
Messages
58
Reaction score
37
Server
Europe_3
Main Char
Suguygyu
Clan
Drained From Inside
I think they should have made enemies to be able to rescue and travel to the gates big clan is holding.

Correct me if i am wrong but owner clan that has big numbers can use their own gates to travel and rescue which means they can gather easily in the gate that 1-2 attacker trying to drain but i think reverse situation should have been done.

Defenders has big numbers so there will be always waiting at least 1-2 clan member that ready to defend and besides that defenders just need to kill attackers once, rest is getting spawn-killed in dv gates.

So thats why i think attackers should be able to use defender's gates and defender clan shouldnt. Besides even if they will fix situation this way, other alliances of defender clan still will be able to use gates like attackers so overall, at least it would be more fair this way i believe.
.
 

Pleiadian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
815
Reaction score
1,365
Server
America_1
Main Char
Rembrandt.
Clan
-
I think you should give attackers the ability to teleport in any site while having duelists.

Attackers are severely still limited in terms of movement.

Once they get killed, they have nowhere to respawn except for some selected site that DV holds.
More on that.

Defenders should have their movement limited since they are holding towers.

Wouldn't it be logical for Defenders to have an extended Duelist phase? In that way, they would be prevented from teleporting to other allies' Sites to help defend them.

In a way, you put more restrictions on clans to help other clans. Limiting the growth of alliance.
 

S4TW

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2024
Messages
48
Reaction score
71
Server
Europe_2
Main Char
-J- S I N N E R -J-
Clan
NIGHTWALKERS
That was something out of the ordinary to see how the overwhelming defence ally would handle this. And also to see if such element of surpise adds a fun element. Did it?

Btw great defence coordination and smart tricks you pulled of. Still sad to see that the attackers where not able to drain due to the to high HP level on basic.



I agree. Usually all gates are on good but they did not upgrade the buildings on purpuse to make it hard to overtake them in 1 hour conflict phases.

We might generally speed up overtakes rate from 10 to 20 and repair from 5 to 10. Could also be more fun this way.

Yall are just trying to ruin the point of even owning gates in the first place.

When there's a server with both attackers and defenders - you barely considered the fact that once attackers might happen to be defenders. So basically the update changes nothing for the attackers and doesn't profit them as much as it could - if you tried to read all the feedbacks.

-Sure the attackers will profit on taking over someone else's gates, but then on the next attack phase they should turn into defenders - and they might not happen to have as much luck to take any gates as they did the phase before/neither might they have the luck to keep the gates that they had previously. So the profit goes back to ''original'' defenders.


I said it once and I'll say it again. This update is attacker-based - Not player based.

As the parts with decreasing the hp the higher the yield gets, putting golden rocks around claims were actually good ideas - and profiting for both attackers and defenders - The ''dv takes the gates based on TH activity'' , attack phases were bad - mostly for the attackers.

The less gates avaiable - the less advantage for the attackers / the more advantage for the defenders.

The attack phases that were earlier on announced are taking all the advantage from the attackers (''surprise effect'' is going to be a history)



As for your dilemma about the yields and what-not.

There are 2 examples as for why this all is happening:

1.There are servers that are at war. - That being said the gates will most likely change their owners every attack phase (which leads clans to be unable to upgrade the yield of their gates).

2.There are servers that are called ''dead/peacefull/almost enemyLESS''. - With that to avoid dv taking over the entire server they switch gates every attack phase (which also leads them to be unable to upgrade the yield, which I may just add - is your fault)




The other case : Servers so peacefull that people decided to keep the yield at very good-excellent due to no danger - which will also end up changing due to your *weekend test* on live servers.

My personal advice would be to focus, think, read the feedbacks of BOTH (attackers, defenders) and offer a compromise. Therefore you should also do all that I said above before you come up with such things as updates - why? - Because I lack fingers to count how many times you fixed fame values, how many times you fixed gates %/hp, or how many other general fixes/updates that were completely unnecessary and preventable (if only you listened) you added since 2024 even started.


By the way, our lovely DS GPS is bugged since years - fix that too please.
 
Top