#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

[-Kiwi-]

@Highway its nice to see that the devs are pushing updates to try and make the game fun and fair for everyone,but in my opinion you should have a balance between making the the game fair and giving the chance for everyone while not completely giving unfair buffs to the attackers,at the end of the day it is not fair for the minority to overwhelmingly get a buff that far exceeds what they deserve.at the end of the day its not fair for 10-5 people to gain more than 50 people but they deserve a chance,the idea of taking a gate in 2 minutes is unfair and provides less fun and engagement for everyone,the idea that noticing the gate is red alone takes about 30 secs to 1 min makes it by the time defenders reach the game the gate is already taken or if by some sort of miracle the defenders reach on time you have the attackers taking advantage of 20- to +5 and having full on brachi tank build which gives no engagement or fun to either sides,so at the end of the day this promotes a lazy boring fighting style for both defenders and attackers,by making the defense annoying and tedious and by making the attackers do nothing other than camp a gate to take it,an easy way to circumvent this? not upgrading the claims nor gates at all which will make it impossible for the minority to take gates but at the same time less fame for the defenders and if the attackers somehow manage to steal the gate,they barely get any fame out of it which at the end is lose lose for everyone,i hope you can see the bigger picture instead of reading multiple people bicker because they want more advantage to their side and find an adequate,balanced and fun solution that benefits both sides of a conflict

 

[isar]

In my opinion, you should add excavators that would enable faster gold mining. They should also have the ability to drive over potential thieves who would want to rob the deposits. I hope my idea will be carefully considered.

 

[-Kiwi-]

thank you for listening to our feedback @devs

 

[_Bad BunnY_]

What if they ban all of Europa_1? So they stop fighting and spamming things in the forum XD, (although there are some who do give coherent opinions)

 

[Hardwell]

What if they ban all of Europa_1? So they stop fighting and spamming things in the forum XD, (although there are some who do give coherent opinions)

Yee man they fr distracting devs from completing EG3 update... a literal blockade.....

 

[Pleiadian]

Adjusting the drain & repair rate multiple times will not change the outcome. Some other part of the mechanic needs to change.

If you make it easier for attackers to drain, you will have defenders complaining that a Site are getting drained too quickly without being able to react or defend against Tank class, which is a fair point. Sites are being taken without a fight.

This will lead to the Site holders to not upgrade their Sites to yields that are drained too fast.

Now you will have attackers complaining that they are unable to take Sites because there are too much defenders and Sites are taking too long to be drained.

In the end, constantly changing the drain and repair rate will lead to an endless loop of complaints from both sides, with goals unmet.

I believe that you should find a midpoint. That midpoint was reached when the "Excellent" yield site were being drained in not more than 4 minute. (I forgot the drain rate and repair rate that it was)

The next adjustment in the mechanic needs to be in the mobility and freedom of the attackers. If an attacker dies, what are his options?

Let's take Eu1 as an example since the discussion has been mainly about that server.

In Eu1, the majority of sites are still held by the defenders, leaving attackers only selected revive gates, where they are immediately killed by the camping defenders.

But what if you give the attackers options to revive in any gate, while the maximum drain time of an excellent building is 4 minutes?

Who will complain?

Defenders cannot complain, 4 minutes is enough time to react.
Attackers cannot complains, they have more revive options and they can spawn anywhere they wish to.

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.

 

[xx-predator-xx]

No point argue here when devs make 1 update woreth to attaxk

Great thinking btw before update ally lose maps now they lose 1-3 buldings #devs update helps who?

this update helps the big alliances. no doubt about it. it is impossible for a small clan or solo players to actually get buildings and keep buildings as long as its needed to help them with the elections. the current game mechanics are giving the big alliances the advantage.

 

[Hardwell]

All those eu 1 lads, don't be a frog stuck in a well take a leap of faith outside of the well ( Aka eu1) to see better server worth playing in.

 

[itzmee]

@Highway
Hello it's my first response on this forum.
I'm one of the attacker on eu1. Thanks for all the efforts u make to make the game more interesting but unfortunately there are certain things which needs to be looked and changed.
This update is mainly focused for attackers( smaller clans) can get access of buildings. Now how many clans are fighting for this? Since eu1 is most active server as far as I believe there are too many defenders helping each other since they hate attackers.(100 players defenders vs 10 attackers) How is that fair. The ally holding all maps is fair? They dont want to give the camps that belongs to us. Now we using brachi is a crime? We try using brachi because it has some better resistance against 10 members attacking one player. We take one camp after 10 unsuccessful tries. Once we take over ally comes to forum saying it's disadvantage. Obviously it shld be disadvantage if u wanna hold the whole eu1.
Next once we take camps , and on next attack phase ally take it over without firing single bullet as we don't have any chance to defend as 5-6 clans waiting for us to spawn and we just 1 clan. Now how is this fair? 5hp heal was better in eu1 . Hope I make some sense here. Ally don't wanna play game they just wanna make us leave eu1.

 

[Alewx]

I toy around with some ideas:

• Dinoclass based factor for drain/repair speeds, so tanks would be less efficient in draining as only the lowest factor would be taken into account, so draining with tanks would slow down the process immensily.
• A semi randomized factor that would influence drain and/or repair speeds fluctuating over time changing in a not so predictable way.
• Based on the amounf of buildings a clan owns the draining speed would increase or decrease at their buildings.

None of them are really final or solve everything satisfying, and i can see loopholes.

Some ideas here are nice on paper, but can also find immediate loopholes.

 

[Pleiadian]

Based on the amounf of buildings a clan owns the draining speed would increase or decrease at their buildings.

This idea was proposed a handful of times in the last week.

And it's the only one that actually makes sense.

Because you're placing a direct nerf on the bigger clans and alliances. Pushing them to break down into smaller ones.

 

[Alewx]

This idea was proposed a handful of times in the last week.

And it's the only one that actually makes sense.

Because you're placing a direct nerf on the bigger clans and alliances. Pushing them to break down into smaller ones.

It would only be a cost risk factor for the actual clan, sadly not the alliance, it is no entity within the game.

 

[Hardwell]

It would only be a cost risk factor for the actual clan, sadly not the alliance, it is no entity within the game.

But do you know how people queue up for election?

Implementing this would mean that people could still queue for election but their at risk of their fame being stolen by non map holder and they wouldn't trust the queuing process that much... This would then affect the distribution of Fame across the whole clan who are going for election. Would the player still trust the queue or start another movement that benefit them.

 

[Hardwell]

But do you know how people queue up for election?

Implementing this would mean that people could still queue for election but their at risk of their fame being stolen by non map holder and they wouldn't trust the queuing process that much... This would then affect the distribution of Fame across the whole clan who are going for election. Would the player still trust the queue or start another movement that benefit them.

And I've seen some post about an alliance taking another alliance gold ore lmao and they start creating a commotion , see how some few gold nugget and gold tins could make an impact , just a tiny push on a people who are floating on cloud 9 could sent people down to cold hard ground 🫠

 

[Pleiadian]

It would only be a cost risk factor for the actual clan, sadly not the alliance, it is no entity within the game.

Disagree.

Alliances are formed through clans. Clans allied with each other.

By placing the cost risk factor onto clans, you restrict their relationship.

Example for Eu1, they have said multiple times that bigger clans are allied with each other. Bigger clans supporting each other is the problem.

However, imagine if the attackers form up strategies based on the fact that the clan that has the most Sites will have a greater drain rate, that will prompt many to attack.

I cannot give details of how positively this might affect the gameplay, but theoretically, by introducing a dynamic drain rate to clans with a lots of holdings, you stop their growth and motivate individual clans to attack them.

 

[Pleiadian]

Implementing this would mean that people could still queue for election but their at risk of their fame being stolen by non map holder and they wouldn't trust the queuing process that much... This would then affect the distribution of Fame across the whole clan who are going for election.

Very well said.

It will be free for all. No more queue. In a sense, we're showing an individual player that they have more abilities to take fame than relying on clan.

 

[xx-predator-xx]

@Narokath if you want to break down alliances dinoville must take all the buildings. after that all dinos MUST be earned through missions(including rex) and not by elections(purchase rex with silver crowns). the election system needs to be totally changed with lesser fame to be earned. ALSO earning fame system should be based ONLY on tournaments(pvp, missions, etc) . this way there will be no alliance but 1v1 pvps(tournaments).

 

[Luka Patajac]

Rex is made available through elections just to be "premium" dinosaur in this game

 

[Hardwell]

Very well said.

It will be free for all. No more queue. In a sense, we're showing an individual player that they have more abilities to take fame than relying on clan.

Well partnership between 2-3 clans could still be a form of alliance but at least it isn't server-spanning alliance....

 

[itzmee]

@Highway
So now we aren't supposed to choose which dino to attack with just because it takes 5 seconds extra to die? In that case can we ask defenders to use lvl 25 dino and gun so that we can kill them easily? It makes no sense. We have our dino and everyone is free to use which ever dino and gun they want. Just because brachi take 5 seconds extra to die doesn't mean we can easily take camps. As I said there are 100 people defending camps from 5 clans. The owner of the camp is not at the camp which we attacked but still the other clan members kill us and how is that fair? The ground reality on the game is totally different than what the ally is trying to show on the forum. Ally use celo (dino) to run faster to reach the camp , can we complain regarding that? No! It's just heir freedom. More over if dev wanna make it fair for both attackers n defenders why need update though. 5hp heal was better so we could take some camps.

Ally make victim card here saying they don't get time to defend. They already have the whole eu1 all maps and still don't wanna giveup 2-3 camps per phase? So u think it's fair?

Now let me ask the ally can u give back the camps that we own already? I guess no. They won't , so who is actually causing the issue? Obviously the defenders.

Pleas bring back the 5hp heal so we have chances to take over the buildings. More over when the defense is more difficult that's when the big clans come for peace and share the map with the smaller clans!

More easy to defend = bully smaller clans , as bigger clans don't have anything to lose.

More easy to attack = big clans ask for peace as both smaller n big clans have something to lose.

Next is once we take over the camp , on the next attack phase ally is the attacker and they getting the benefit too. But they don't want that benefit as they don't want us to attack and get the camps in the first place.

 

[Pleiadian]

Dinoclass based factor for drain/repair speeds, so tanks would be less efficient in draining as only the lowest factor would be taken into account, so draining with tanks would slow down the process immensily.

I see some sense in this idea.

This could be used as a way to diversify the Dinosaur used for drain. Attackers would not just rely on the Tank class high Health Point itself.

Whatever the implementation is, attackers should be fighting for a Site. Not simply walking in the circle and immediately obtaining it.

 

[itzmee]

@Highway please bring back the 5hp repair speed and this makes atleast somewhat hopes for attackers to get the camps. I said and I'll say again there are 100+ members waiting in the maps for us to attack. If the defenders aren't able to defend doesn't it means they hold way too many buildings than they need to? Attavkers can stop attack when bigger clans share their map with smaller clans. Please make it attacker biased as it's win-win for both and both parties has something to lose.

 

[itzmee]

S

I see some sense in this idea.

This could be used as a way to diversify the Dinosaur used for drain. Attackers would not just rely on the Tank class high Health Point itself.

Whatever the implementation is, attackers should be fighting for a Site. Not simply walking in the circle and immediately obtaining it.

So why Ally use celo to run faster cos ally reach quicker , it makes no point for attackers as well. Can we say that? Nope. Everyone has the freedom to use which ever dino they want.

 

[Hardwell]

A semi randomized factor that would influence drain and/or repair speeds fluctuating over time changing in a not so predictable way.

How would this work any example?

 

[Czarna]

Whatever the implementation is, attackers should be fighting for a Site. Not simply walking in the circle and immediately obtaining it.

Then what about this? - when both attackers and defenders are present in the circle, both the drain and repair speed slows down (for example: normally 20/10, lowered 5/3).

• Attackers need to defeat all the defenders in order to continue draining the site rapidly. They can also try to keep them at bay by blocking nearby sites and jump links.
• Defenders get more reaction time as long as any of them were present near the site before the attack. If their numbers are lower than the attacker's, they can try to stall the draining as much as possible until the phase will end (maybe that way small clans would have a higher chance to keep a site they managed to take from a larger clan).

Problems:

• defending clans could leave multi-accs at each of their sites to automatically slow down attackers
• shorter attack phases would provide less windows for attack. Not sure how finalised are the current Vulnerable phases and their lengths.

The fact that multiple Brachiosaurus users can take sites without much effort, just by repeatedly walking into the circle is a huge design flaw. A small attacking can benefit from taking a site this way, but they won't be able to defend it during the next phase, when they get the same treatment from new attackers.

 

[itzmee]

@Highway can we have a fair fight in case if attackers and defenders benefits has to be neutral?

Better way to do it is let's say I attack a clan called found then only the found players can attack me back and other other players. So this way it forces the clan members to protect their buildings than go protect other buildings.

There are certain loopholes in it but can be corrected. Like all active players from other clans join found when we attack found buildings. To prevent this clan can only accept players before attack phase and then have them ready. This can be better and fair attack than bully smaller clans.

 

[itzmee]

@Highway can we have a fair fight in case if attackers and defenders benefits has to be neutral?

Better way to do it is let's say I attack a clan called found then only the found players can attack me back and other other players. So this way it forces the clan members to protect their buildings than go protect other buildings.

There are certain loopholes in it but can be corrected. Like all active players from other clans join found when we attack found buildings. To prevent this clan can only accept players before attack phase and then have them ready. This can be better and fair attack than bully smaller clans.

Other clan players can't attack me back*.

 

[itzmee]

Then what about this? - when both attackers and defenders are present in the circle, both the drain and repair speed slows down (for example: normally 20/10, lowered 5/3).

• Attackers need to defeat all the defenders in order to continue draining the site rapidly. They can also try to keep them at bay by blocking nearby sites and jump links.
• Defenders get more reaction time as long as any of them were present near the site before the attack. If their numbers are lower than the attacker's, they can try to stall the draining as much as possible until the phase will end (maybe that way small clans would have a higher chance to keep a site they managed to take from a larger clan).

Problems:

• defending clans could leave multi-accs at each of their sites to automatically slow down attackers
• shorter attack phases would provide less windows for attack. Not sure how finalised are the current Vulnerable phases and their lengths.

The fact that multiple Brachiosaurus users can take sites without much effort, just by repeatedly walking into the circle is a huge design flaw. A small attacking can benefit from taking a site this way, but they won't be able to defend it during the next phase, when they get the same treatment from new attackers.

Why you focusing on brachi? Because it takes some time to die when attacked by 10 players? Can I ask u to use less damage weapon so I can last more longer? No right obviously u will use the gun which makes most damage same way! Don't say there isn't much efforts , maybe it looks less efforts because u hold way too many buildings than u shld be holding.

 

[Czarna]

Why you focusing on brachi? Because it takes some time to die when attacked by 10 players? Can I ask u to use less damage weapon so I can last more longer? No right obviously u will use the gun which makes most damage same way! Don't say there isn't much efforts , maybe it looks less efforts because u hold way too many buildings than u shld be holding.

Defender doesn't necessarily mean a clan that holds multiple sites. A clan with 1 site is still a defending clan during the Vulnerable phase if they choose to try and fight for their site. Even if you own only that 1 site, you would still have difficulty in defending it against attacking brachis that don't fight back if they chose to attack your site repeatedly.

Do you really only want to take a few sites for one Vulnerable phase and then give them back during the next phase without trying to defend at all?

 

[xx-predator-xx]

@Highway @Narokath the previous game mechanics were way better than what is now. Bring them back or dinoville should take all the buildings and fame should be earned from pvp tournaments