#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

[Hardwell]

But I would suggest to.... Create a better instructions and guide in game where people can really follow their own path and make a story for themselves

 

[DarkMyth.]

The repair speed on EU1 is also reduced to 1.
At least give it a try if it works?

I don’t think they’re realizing how hard and slow it is to repair a site with a +1/s rate. Maybe their tactics aren’t that good after all

 

[DarkMyth.]

Losing 20k DDs is something big to you?

Seriously?

You're making it as if you lost all your Dino Dollars.

You’re currently replying to a guy making alts on forum following his in game alt names

 

[Hardwell]

So whatever feedback you hear from eu1 people aren't really constructive as the DS they play are more lovey dovey and they really want peace and no action unlike other server. So I would suggest you divert your attention to other server which you still could rescue... eu1 is already a goner

 

[istencsaszar]

The repair speed on EU1 is also reduced to 1.
At least give it a try if it works?

The defender alliance reacts in seconds as they are in a discord call, draining takes 6 minutes with this speed (on excellent gates, which are rare and alliance tends to keep them on lower yield). There is basically no point to try, it was hard enough with 4 minute drain time (remember, 0 or 1 gate taken during that whole update). Repair also takes only 1 player, even a low level or an alt can do it, so the defenders can still move freely.

The previous draining/repair speed was adequate for a small group of attackers to get 1-5 gates during each attack session (is that really too much?), which they will certainly lose during the next one as it's impossible to defend it from a large alliance. The thing is even if the attackers would be able to take a whole map it doesn't matter much, as they will 100% lose it during the next, so they can only get so much.

On other less populated servers we succeeded in taking almost entire maps (so not a skill issue) with just a few(3-5) low level players, so this update is impossible to be balanced without constant adjusting for the current population of each server.

You might also say to just get more clans on the attacker side. There are no more, the playerbase is very limited, same people for years.

 

[itzmee]

Losing 20k DDs is something big to you?

Seriously?

You're making it as if you lost all your Dino Dollars.

Lost dds isn't the matter here but losing it where it's not even worth trying is. If it's so easy why don't u show us how to drain a gate which is 100 or 200% or infact 400% with -8hp where the defenders are 100 members?

I guess anyone who supports this update should show the Dev's this is how it's done.

 

[itzmee]

So whatever feedback you hear from eu1 people aren't really constructive as the DS they play are more lovey dovey and they really want peace and no action unlike other server. So I would suggest you divert your attention to other server which you still could rescue... eu1 is already a goner

The reason for the update is help the attackers Right? Well the attackers before New update hold maps now they can't take buildings so the devs should support the attackers and not Kill their moral and lose 40 people from game and Kill it

 

[Hardwell]

The reason for the update is help the attackers Right? Well the attackers before New update hold maps now they can't take buildings so the devs should support the attackers and not Kill their moral and lose 40 people from game and Kill it

Idk why you love eu 1 so much man .. don't disturb that "penguin club" server man. There are other server worth your attention not just eu 1

 

[NazzaFire]

I think it would be a nice idea if the Dinoville map could have some Claims , also to favor small levels

 

[Highway]

I think it would be a nice idea if the Dinoville map could have some Claims , also to favor small levels

You mean gold that can be extracted without the need to get into PVP?

 

[Luka Patajac]

I think it would be a nice idea if the Dinoville map could have some Claims , also to favor small levels

Expect if I am correct and you refer to ores around claims dv is pvp free zone so how would that work

 

[Isabella16]

¿Qué tal la alianza que tiene los portales a Europa 1, entrega las torres y el mapa a los enemigos para que podamos terminar esta discusión de una vez por todas?.

 

[Hardwell]

Any update over this weekend to test either different drain speed from different class of dino or maybe changes to portal yield upgrade, different drain power for according number of gate held?

 

[NazzaFire]

Expect if I am correct and you refer to ores around claims dv is pvp free zone so how would that work

You simply get duellist in dinoville in this way and allowing also low levels/new players to get golds/fame

 

[Highway]

We drafted a concept to have dynamic drain rate based on the clan owned sites as we already mentioned here. Unfortunatly its not ready to be tested yet though. Check it out the concept and drop your feedback there:

Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

Hey everyone, we think it's a good idea to give this adjustment idea an extra post so that we can have a focused discussion on it. Please let us know what you think of this concept and feel free to drop your constructive feedback below! Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2) Site Yield Changes...

forum.dinostorm.com

For EU1:
We will go back to the -20 and +5 rate for now as this ensured a gameplay for both side. I know its hard to defend the tank attacker strategy but they barely managed only to get 3 sites out of 65 max (only ~5%!) with a lot of dollar invenstment. The dominating alliance also pulls of strategies that could also not considered as "fair" against such a small opposition even when they are in the majority on the server. I hope both sides understand this and can still enjoy combat vs. none until the next update is ready to go live.

 

[-Kiwi-]

We drafted a concept to have dynamic drain rate based on the clan owned sites as we already mentioned here. Unfortunatly its not ready to be tested yet though. Check it out the concept and drop your feedback there:

Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

Hey everyone, we think it's a good idea to give this adjustment idea an extra post so that we can have a focused discussion on it. Please let us know what you think of this concept and feel free to drop your constructive feedback below! Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2) Site Yield Changes...

forum.dinostorm.com

For EU1:
We will go back to the -20 and +5 rate for now as this ensured a gameplay for both side. I know its hard to defend the tank attacker strategy but they barely managed only to get 3 sites out of 65 max (only ~5%!) with a lot of dollar invenstment. The dominating alliance also pulls of strategies that could also not considered as "fair" against such a small opposition even when they are in the majority on the server. I hope both sides understand this and can swhy till enjoy combat vs. none until the next update is ready to go live.

why not just make it for all servers instead of eu1? this just seems biased

 

[Highway]

why not just make it for all servers instead of eu1? this just seems biased

I can understand that but its like that because EU1 is very different to other server structures. Its just temporary until the proposed concept is ready to go live, which hopefully balances it better naturally.

 

[-Kiwi-]

I can understand that but its like that because EU1 is very different to other server structures. Its just temporary until the proposed concept is ready to go live, which hopefully balances it better naturally.

well its okay,eu1 will just keep gates at basic and good percentage and this wont affect them,lose lose

 

[Pleiadian]

well its okay,eu1 will just keep gates at basic and good percentage and this wont affect them,lose lose

Then the attackers in that server simply will farm gold from PvE.

 

[-Kiwi-]

Then the attackers in that server simply will farm gold from PvE.

they wont be able to,ppl in the alliance farms gold as well and wont let enemy

 

[itzmee]

We drafted a concept to have dynamic drain rate based on the clan owned sites as we already mentioned here. Unfortunatly its not ready to be tested yet though. Check it out the concept and drop your feedback there:

Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

Hey everyone, we think it's a good idea to give this adjustment idea an extra post so that we can have a focused discussion on it. Please let us know what you think of this concept and feel free to drop your constructive feedback below! Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2) Site Yield Changes...

forum.dinostorm.com

For EU1:
We will go back to the -20 and +5 rate for now as this ensured a gameplay for both side. I know its hard to defend the tank attacker strategy but they barely managed only to get 3 sites out of 65 max (only ~5%!) with a lot of dollar invenstment. The dominating alliance also pulls of strategies that could also not considered as "fair" against such a small opposition even when they are in the majority on the server. I hope both sides understand this and can still enjoy combat vs. none until the next update is ready to go live.

@Highway thanks alot! Waiting for the dynamic rates too. Finally u understood our problems <3.

 

[DalekRaptor]

We drafted a concept to have dynamic drain rate based on the clan owned sites as we already mentioned here. Unfortunatly its not ready to be tested yet though. Check it out the concept and drop your feedback there:

Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

Hey everyone, we think it's a good idea to give this adjustment idea an extra post so that we can have a focused discussion on it. Please let us know what you think of this concept and feel free to drop your constructive feedback below! Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2) Site Yield Changes...

forum.dinostorm.com

For EU1:
We will go back to the -20 and +5 rate for now as this ensured a gameplay for both side. I know its hard to defend the tank attacker strategy but they barely managed only to get 3 sites out of 65 max (only ~5%!) with a lot of dollar invenstment. The dominating alliance also pulls of strategies that could also not considered as "fair" against such a small opposition even when they are in the majority on the server. I hope both sides understand this and can still enjoy combat vs. none until the next update is ready to go live.

the problem still is the fact we can't attack at any hour we want and that the game play is restricted to the times imposed by you, making a boring and predictable gameplay without surprises

 

[Vojislava]

removing EU1 is the only solution

especially when you need to send a whole resume and a cover letter to get a permission to extract any golden pile of mud without being killed by morbillion people

 

[Mufasa]

Dino storm 2024: Developer team launches something that has almost absolute poor feedback from the community, and then they said that we don't give feedback since they intend to launch something in the game that the community itself repudiated

 

[Galaxy]

Dino storm 2024: Developer team launches something that has almost absolute poor feedback from the community, and then they said that we don't give feedback since they intend to launch something in the game that the community itself repudiated

"Dislike" and "like" don't mean much if these people don't give valid arguments as to why they disagree.

 

[Maggie Rhee]

@Highway thanks to you,we got some dynamic gameplay today just one question fekete couldnt hold enough gates is the next step for Gm team to join fekete and help them in the war too?

 

[Pleiadian]

Europe_1 is a parody server at this point.

Both sides accusing Highway of helping both sides.

If it favors the attackers, the defenders say developers are secretly helping attackers.
If it favors the defenders and alliances, attackers say the developers are secretly helping the alliance.

 

[-Kiwi-]

Europe_1 is a parody server at this point.

Both sides accusing Highway of helping both sides.

If it favors the attackers, the defenders say developers are secretly helping attackers.
If it favors the defenders and alliances, attackers say the developers are secretly helping the alliance.

you will understand it when it happens to you,when a dev goes out of his way to help a clan that consist of 10 members against an entire alliance that consists of 150 members,minority deserves a chance but you reach a point where no matter what the minority cant beat a majority that is x10 its size,its annoying and tedious

 

[-Kiwi-]

Europe_1 is a parody server at this point.

Both sides accusing Highway of helping both sides.

If it favors the attackers, the defenders say developers are secretly helping attackers.
If it favors the defenders and alliances, attackers say the developers are secretly helping the alliance.

everyone is fine if highway made the changes to every server but doing it in 1 server just to help 10 players is very biased in my opinion

 

[Galaxy]

From what I have read about (conflict adjustments 3.2) It only favors the enemies, they give them all the resources to "take down the big alliances" and I think that with these adjustments those same players will return here to complain again because they don't like it every way that the developers implement, this has become a circle with problems and more problems are not going to be satisfied with something, since they will always find something to come and complain about. There is a saying that says: If you can't beat the enemy, join him.

let me guess, you are part of a great alliance