Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

[Highway]

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

• Remove Yield-based HP for sites and have a fixed 19200 HP value instead.
• Yield upgrades cost Elite medals which are taken from the holding clan's inventory.
  • Cost could be about ¼ of the Elite medals produced at current Yield level.
    • Claims have a ~33% greater Fame output compated to Travel Gates, so Yield upgrade costs are proportionally higher as well.
  • Upgrade can only be performed by players with the rank that allows managing the clan inventory.

Clan-Based Drain & Repair Speeds
Introduce a variable drain and repair speed for sites depending on how many sites a clan currently holds. Differences in the number of sites held by the clans involved can therefore favor the takeover or defense of a given site.

Goals:

• Make defending and attacking sites harder for clans that already hold many sites.
• Make defending and attacking sites easier for clans that do not yet hold any or only a few sites.

Changes:

• Clan drain & repair speed depend on the number of sites that a clan is holding.
  • The more sites a clan is holding, the slower their drain speed and repair speed.
  • The less sites a clan is holding, the faster their drain speed and repair speed.
• When there are attackers from different clans in the perimeter of an attacked site, the highest drain rate of the clans involved is applied.
• Repair and drain speeds can also change mid-conflict when the number of sites that are held by the involved clans changes.
• Current drain and repair rates will be displayed in the game's UI so that both attackers and defenders always know "where they're at".

Note: Any values seen here are still subject to change.

 

[istencsaszar]

So if a small clan manages to capture 3-4 towers in one attack phase, their hands are tied during the next attack phase until the large clan with a whole map finally takes those towers back after 45 minutes? So 15 minutes left for them to have higher draining speed again.

 

[Kaisen]

what if large clans break into small clans of 5-10 people each just to avoid common enemies ((kos) from taking any gates

 

[Anonymous69]

@Highway I believe we can't judge this values without knowing the fixed HP value of the gates, since the drain rate reached -160 then i think the fixed HP value of gates would be high as well? if not then this values doesn't make much sense and would need a review in my opinion

 

[NazzaFire]

I think it's very balanced , I would also implement yesterday's idea regarding clan war, to prevent an ally from attacking another ally's tower to prevent them from abusing it to get some more medals

 

[Czarna]

• When there are attackers from different clans in the perimeter of an attacked site, the highest drain rate of the clans involved is applied.

A bit worrying. Let's say two clans start draining a site at the exact same time - Clan A and Clan B. Clan A has 0 sites, Clan B 10, so it should take 2 minutes to drain the site. Clan A leaves the site after 1 minute and 50 seconds, and Clan B continues draining - who will take the site in that situation?

 

[Pleiadian]

I like the overall idea.

Of course, the rate and timing need to be adjusted per live environment.

At the time that I am writing this post, 8 people disagree about this idea.

I hope they can provide a good reason why they disagree, and it would also be good if they could enlighten us with an alternate solution.

 

[Anonymous69]

I think it's very balanced , I would also implement yesterday's idea regarding clan war, to prevent an ally from attacking another ally's tower to prevent them from abusing it to get some more medals

How can you tell it's balanced if you don't even know the fixed HP value of the gates?
there is a feedback and there is no sense

 

[itzmee]

@Highway the new proposed update is very good , just few loopholes like bigger clans break into smaller clans and attack and take it back or create new clan and ask active members joining the new clan.

To prevent it we as someone already suggested as declaring war method.
Now let's say a clan has 100 members(active) and decides to diving into 5 smaller clans (20 each) , attacker clan also has let's say 10 members. If attacker clan attacks smaller defender clan then the smaller defender clan can only protect it and fight against the attacker and other clans can only watch it until their buildings are too attacked. Making sure war isn't declared on multiple clans , war can only be declared on 1 clan at a time.

If smaller defender clan wants to accept members then it can be done 3hours before the attack phase , making the defender clan to prepare as they have also got the time , and attacker clan can check which clan as less active members and attack them so this makes balance.

 

[itzmee]

@Highway the new proposed update is very good , just few loopholes like bigger clans break into smaller clans and attack and take it back or create new clan and ask active members joining the new clan.

To prevent it we as someone already suggested as declaring war method.
Now let's say a clan has 100 members(active) and decides to diving into 5 smaller clans (20 each) , attacker clan also has let's say 10 members. If attacker clan attacks smaller defender clan then the smaller defender clan can only protect it and fight against the attacker and other clans can only watch it until their buildings are too attacked. Making sure war isn't declared on multiple clans , war can only be declared on 1 clan at a time.

If smaller defender clan wants to accept members then it can be done 3hours before the attack phase , making the defender clan to prepare as they have also got the time , and attacker clan can check which clan as less active members and attack them so this makes balance.

Same way multiple clans cannot participate on war , neither attacker not defender. If one clan declares war on defender clan then another attacker clan cannot declare war on the same defender clan making it even for both attackers n defenders

 

[Luka Patajac]

Imagine people not wanting to upgrade yield now so that they don't lose their precious medals instead.

 

[chujcinastaraautostrada]

Actually thats the worstidea I've ever seen in this game. If Clan A have 10 people, and every of those 10 ppl draining one site, they can drain full map in 2 minutes. Clan B don't have time to defend full map because they can't come to this build. You can't block attack with you hilarious +10 repair

 

[Ezequiel]

En resumen esto acabaría con los clanes y las guerras de clanes jajaja ya solo reduzcan los clanes a 10 personas, porque es eso lo único que les hace falta hacer para destruir todas las alianzas.
Claramente están llevando el juego a ser individual y que desaparezcan los clanes, ya que estos si las actualizaciones siguen por este camino los clanes no servirán de nada.

Incluso es mejor idea volver al sistema que se tenía cuando el nivel máximo era nivel 40. Que cada uno debía preocuparse por su portal y fama a qué querer constantemente con las actualizaciones destruir los clanes.

 

[Luka Patajac]

You act as if this game was always clan based

 

[itzmee]

Imagine people not wanting to upgrade yield now so that they don't lose their precious medals instead.

In this case it's better to make all the camps same 2400 hp (400%) which will ensure attackers get some buildings if ally has too many buildings not able to protect and once attackers take 4-5 buildings they try to focus other buildings whole the clan members are already present in that gate makes it difficult to take it hence ally gets reward for protecting.

This will ensure noone will misuse the loopholes to keep it in 100/200%. Along with the proposed dynamic rates to drain.

 

[europe1]

Clans with 0 to 10 buildings should have attacks on buildings with 10 buildings starting at -10 and repairs at +8, and clans with more than 10 buildings should take less life from buildings and repair less.

Example that:

Screenshot

Captured with Lightshot

prnt.sc

 

[Galaxy]

I like the overall idea.

Of course, the rate and timing need to be adjusted per live environment.

At the time that I am writing this post, 8 people disagree about this idea.

I hope they can provide a good reason why they disagree, and it would also be good if they could enlighten us with an alternate solution.

they disagree, because they want to have all the server portals and not receive any nerfs

 

[NazzaFire]

POV: Only ally members disagree

 

[Highway]

So if a small clan manages to capture 3-4 towers in one attack phase, their hands are tied during the next attack phase until the large clan with a whole map finally takes those towers back after 45 minutes? So 15 minutes left for them to have higher draining speed again.

Actually thats the worstidea I've ever seen in this game. If Clan A have 10 people, and every of those 10 ppl draining one site, they can drain full map in 2 minutes. Clan B don't have time to defend full map because they can't come to this build. You can't block attack with you hilarious +10 repair

Keep in mind that drain rate changes mid combat as soon as a building is claimed/taken by a clan. Only the first site will take 2minutes and the next would take 2.6 minutes and so on if you did not own sites before. Same goes for the repair rate on your defences. For example it can happen that you loose your 3 buildings and then are at 0 and can overtake in 2 minutes again in the same conflict phase. Its less predictable and dynamic.

what if large clans break into small clans of 5-10 people each just to avoid common enemies ((kos) from taking any gates

That would be ok if dominating clans will split up in several clans to mitigate the long drain/slow repair times. At the same time it will make it more difficult to coordinate between all clans. But they can also keep it as it is if they are strong enough.

@Highway I believe we can't judge this values without knowing the fixed HP value of the gates, since the drain rate reached -160 then i think the fixed HP value of gates would be high as well? if not then this values doesn't make much sense and would need a review in my opinion

Check the table below the concept. There you can see the attack and drain time in minutes to see how long it takes. Updated the text though to include the fixed HP value of the gate (19200HP)

A bit worrying. Let's say two clans start draining a site at the exact same time - Clan A and Clan B. Clan A has 0 sites, Clan B 10, so it should take 2 minutes to drain the site. Clan A leaves the site after 1 minute and 50 seconds, and Clan B continues draining - who will take the site in that situation?

The clan will generate effort on their "own" rate and it will be lower than the clan with the higher drain rate. In your example Clan A will get the site.

 

[Luka Patajac]

Aren't taken over builds still "untouchable" during same conflict phase?

 

[ShurikenXGR]

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

• Remove Yield-based HP for sites and have a fixed 19200 HP value instead.
• Yield upgrades cost Elite medals which are taken from the holding clan's inventory.
  • Cost could be about ¼ of the Elite medals produced at current Yield level.
    • Claims have a ~33% greater Fame output compated to Travel Gates, so Yield upgrade costs are proportionally higher as well.
  • Upgrade can only be performed by players with the rank that allows managing the clan inventory.

Clan-Based Drain & Repair Speeds
Introduce a variable drain and repair speed for sites depending on how many sites a clan currently holds. Differences in the number of sites held by the clans involved can therefore favor the takeover or defense of a given site.

Goals:

• Make defending and attacking sites harder for clans that already hold many sites.
• Make defending and attacking sites easier for clans that do not yet hold any or only a few sites.

Changes:

• Clan drain & repair speed depend on the number of sites that a clan is holding.
  • The more sites a clan is holding, the slower their drain speed and repair speed.
  • The less sites a clan is holding, the faster their drain speed and repair speed.
• When there are attackers from different clans in the perimeter of an attacked site, the highest drain rate of the clans involved is applied.
• Repair and drain speeds can also change mid-conflict when the number of sites that are held by the involved clans changes.
• Current drain and repair rates will be displayed in the game's UI so that both attackers and defenders always know "where they're at".

Note: Any values seen here are still subject to change.

I pretty much like this idea, but there is a main issue.

The multi-clans is clearly a good idea to overtake this situation (if you are in a big ally). Maybe, a solution will be that only big-sized clans (minimum slots + members count) or clans with certain characteristics (like time after creating it, new attributes on clan, etc) can drain/defend a building.

The multi clans is a big issue, so I'd like to see how you overcome this situation. The idea is good, finally the game starts feeling like its worth to be a minority in a game where there are only big alliances.

 

[ShurikenXGR]

Question about time taking/draining: its said a clan holding 10-15 sites will drain 7 and heal 10. The thing is, why the 15 holding clan (with 7 drain points) will take 45 minutes to take but a clan with 10 holding sites (7 drain points, same as 15-site) will take 40 minutes (5 mins less)? Maybe there's something I am not having in mind. Also, repair time is adjusted to repair points, so this is making trouble in my head.

 

[Alewx]

Question about time taking/draining: its said a clan holding 10-15 sites will drain 7 and heal 10. The thing is, why the 15 holding clan (with 7 drain points) will take 45 minutes to take but a clan with 10 holding sites (7 drain points, same as 15-site) will take 40 minutes (5 mins less)? Maybe there's something I am not having in mind. Also, repair time is adjusted to repair points, so this is making trouble in my head.

That is due to rounding of numbers.

 

[OrionZG]

what if large clans break into small clans of 5-10 people each just to avoid common enemies ((kos) from taking any gates

well, it is better that there are more clans, isn't it? I mean, even if all of them could form a "super alliance"; in reality, this is completely impossible because you are not taking into account that a clan requires a great effort of resources, sooner or later the leaders of that clan will have their own ideas and objectives, which will force them to create other alliances, or to be independent clans...

They don't all agree with each other. For that very reason, if DS got more players at some point most would create their own clan due to the different mentality of each person/player.

 

[pablo.millo]

Hola a todos,

Creemos que es una buena idea darle una publicación adicional a esta idea de ajuste para que podamos tener una discusión centrada en ella. ¡Háganos saber lo que piensa de este concepto y no dude en dejar sus comentarios constructivos a continuación!

Ajustes de conflictos del sitio (3.2)

Cambios en el rendimiento del sitio

• Elimine los HP basados en el rendimiento para los sitios y, en su lugar, tenga un valor fijo de 19200 HP.
• Las mejoras de rendimiento cuestan medallas Elite que se toman del inventario del clan holding.
  • El costo podría ser aproximadamente ¼ de las medallas Elite producidas al nivel de rendimiento actual.
    • Los reclamos tienen una producción de fama ~33% mayor en comparación con las puertas de viaje, por lo que los costos de mejora del rendimiento también son proporcionalmente más altos.
  • La actualización solo la pueden realizar jugadores con el rango que permita administrar el inventario del clan.

Velocidades de drenaje y reparación basadas en clanes
Introduzca una velocidad de drenaje y reparación variable para los sitios dependiendo de cuántos sitios tenga actualmente un clan. Por lo tanto, las diferencias en el número de sitios en manos de los clanes involucrados pueden favorecer la toma o la defensa de un sitio determinado.

Objetivos:

• Haz que la defensa y el ataque de sitios sean más difíciles para los clanes que ya poseen muchos sitios.
• Facilite la defensa y el ataque de sitios para los clanes que aún no poseen ninguno o solo unos pocos sitios.

Cambios:

• La velocidad de drenaje y reparación del clan depende de la cantidad de sitios que tiene un clan.
  • Cuantos más sitios tenga un clan, más lenta será su velocidad de drenaje y de reparación.
  • Cuantos menos sitios tenga un clan, más rápida será su velocidad de drenaje y de reparación.
• Cuando hay atacantes de diferentes clanes en el perímetro de un sitio atacado, se aplica la tasa de drenaje más alta de los clanes involucrados.
• Las velocidades de reparación y drenaje también pueden cambiar en medio del conflicto cuando cambia la cantidad de sitios en manos de los clanes involucrados.
• Las tasas actuales de drenaje y reparación se mostrarán en la interfaz de usuario del juego para que tanto los atacantes como los defensores siempre sepan "dónde están".

Nota: Cualquier valor que se vea aquí aún está sujeto a cambios.
[/CITA]

 

[pablo.millo]

y donde esta lo equitativo? es favorecer un lado

 

[Isabella16]

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.

 

[Highway]

Moved the posts into the other more appropiate thread. Here is just to discuss the concept from the first thread post.

 

[Hardwell]

So.... The drain power could change mid-way through conflict phase right when the previous map holder start losing....they could obtain the high drain power values ?....I would see a normal server either betraying their ally and being greedy for themselves to drain their gate as they have more drain power / repair power than their ally or they would just retreat and take the L...

 

[Mania]

I like the overall idea.

Of course, the rate and timing need to be adjusted per live environment.

At the time that I am writing this post, 8 people disagree about this idea.

I hope they can provide a good reason why they disagree, and it would also be good if they could enlighten us with an alternate solution.

yeah, i actually don't hate this idea as written. it's hard to say for sure without seeing it in action but punishing bigger clans for holding whole maps is a step in the right direction. forcing some of the bigger clans to break up might actually be helpful too. this might be the beginning of forcing alliances to downsize maybe... it's hard to tell for sure, but i think this will make attacking feel slightly less hopeless. i do still dislike the forced attack phases but combined with this new update it might all honestly give things a chance.

that being said, i do still have plenty of criticisms about the systems in place, but i think we are slowly getting there. i dunno. it's hard to say for sure.