Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

[NazzaFire]

I think players need the idea of -160 initial drain rate for those who don't have towers , it would fit with this update

 

[Isabella16]

No matter how much they do to improve the gameplay of the game, it will remain the same. The alliance that owns the portals will always keep their portals at 50 %, and the enemies that take portals from said alliance will also keep their portals at 50. % so as not to lose said portals,

 

[aiolia]

Olá a todos,

achamos que é uma boa ideia dar uma postagem extra a essa ideia de ajuste para que possamos ter uma discussão focada sobre ela. Deixe-nos saber o que você acha deste conceito e sinta-se à vontade para deixar seu feedback construtivo abaixo!

Ajustes de conflito de site (3.2)

Alterações no rendimento do site

• Remova HP baseado em rendimento para sites e tenha um valor fixo de 19.200 HP.
• As atualizações de rendimento custam medalhas de Elite que são retiradas do inventário do clã detentor.
  • O custo pode ser cerca de ¼ das medalhas Elite produzidas no nível de rendimento atual.
    • As reivindicações têm uma produção de Fama cerca de 33% maior em comparação com Travel Gates, então os custos de atualização de rendimento também são proporcionalmente mais altos.
  • A atualização só pode ser realizada por jogadores com classificação que permite gerenciar o inventário do clã.

Velocidades de drenagem e reparo baseadas em clã
Introduza uma velocidade variável de drenagem e reparo para sites, dependendo de quantos sites um clã possui atualmente. As diferenças no número de sítios detidos pelos clãs envolvidos podem, portanto, favorecer a tomada de controlo ou a defesa de um determinado sítio.

Metas:

• Torne a defesa e o ataque a sites mais difíceis para clãs que já possuem muitos sites.
• Facilite a defesa e o ataque de sites para clãs que ainda não possuem nenhum ou apenas alguns sites.

Mudanças:

• A velocidade de drenagem e reparo do clã depende do número de sites que um clã possui.
  • Quanto mais sites um clã possui, mais lenta será a velocidade de drenagem e de reparo.
  • Quanto menos sites um clã tiver, mais rápida será a velocidade de drenagem e de reparo.
• Quando há atacantes de diferentes clãs no perímetro de um local atacado, é aplicada a maior taxa de drenagem dos clãs envolvidos.
• As velocidades de reparo e drenagem também podem mudar no meio do conflito quando o número de locais mantidos pelos clãs envolvidos muda.
• As taxas atuais de drenagem e reparo serão exibidas na interface do jogo para que tanto os atacantes quanto os defensores sempre saibam “onde estão”.

Observação: quaisquer valores vistos aqui ainda estão sujeitos a alterações.
[/CITAR]
que atualização rídicula, qual a dificuldade de vocês para perceber e admitir a merda que vocês estão fazendo com o jogo? literalmente ninguém gostou da atualização e vocês continuam insistindo nessa merda

 

[Hardwell]

The clan keeping gates at basic issue..

It's doesn't make sense that you upgrade your towers but you get punished by getting drained faster....

I would suggest for a heal ratio buff for every yield tower upgraded...

Basic =1 : 4
Good = 1.5 : 4
V.Good = 2 : 4
Excellent = 3 : 4

 

[-I- S N O W -I-]

I think players need the idea of -160 initial drain rate for those who don't have towers , it would fit with this update

what did you say last time?

"Everything is balanced" for sure

 

[- Leyenda -]

Because they do not set a fixed HP value, for the reason that if it is in excellent or if it is in basic they have the same HP because the players are not going to go and kill themselves for a tower that gives you some medals, because the players They do not improve the portals to make it difficult to take them and all the portals are always in basic that to begin with and now the alliances are going to be divided in half to make it even more complicated to drain a portal they are going to finish killing the little resistance that There are between the different servers, I advise setting a fixed HP, it does not matter if the total tower is improved, the risk is that if you have many portals they will drain you because they have less HP and it would give a reward at least if they manage to be drained, now Currently, most servers are on basic portals to make it difficult to take over, what's happening? This is going to make it twice as difficult and no one is going to be left drained, especially for 2 or 3 medals

 

[- Leyenda -]

An example: currently a clan from a large alliance dominates by the minimum (10 portals), what will happen with this update? That clan is going to be divided in half and there will be 5 and 5, a main clan has five and a secondary clan has five, this will make it more difficult because if it already takes 16 minutes, perhaps with this update it will take 20 minutes and that is to say It would not make sense because both parties do not improve the portals by placing a fixed HP value, the players will at least go to fight for portals because they benefit, right now it is already difficult to drain a basic portal and it will not give you almost any fame because alliances are not going to improve portals, it is easier to have many portals and have them all in basic, but they still produce large quantities Unlike small clans that are not going to achieve anything

 

[istencsaszar]

Care to explain the exploit?

Dividing into many small clans is easy, and each player going to elections can go into a different clan. By everyone being able to travel everywhere their capability fr defense is the same as one big clan.

Go test it before writing nonsense.

This has been said many times before and doesn't need testing, just common sense.

"Vulnerable gates to be used by anyone regardless of the PVP state"

This single change will provide an unfair advantage to the attackers and shift the gameplay in their favor.

Because now they have considerably more movement.

This update's main purpose was to make attackers lives easier, as they are in a serious disadvantage overall. Also overwhelmed by the sheer number of enemies. But the point is still invalid, as defenders also benefit from being able to travel everywhere.

He refers to the breaking up of the clans by the alliance. He just doesn't mention that KOS is also going to do the same thing, but oh well...

There isn't much reason for smaller attacker clans to divide as having more towers doesn't impair attack speed. If attacking was slower with each obtained building your point would stand, but dividing a small clan for defending a building against a whole alliance (which is impossible) is not a viable tactic.

 

[Mania]

He refers to the breaking up of the clans by the alliance. He just doesn't mention that KOS is also going to do the same thing, but oh well...

that's not really an exploit. an exploit would be abusing a bug of some sort. it's just taking advantage of the systems of the game. is it frustrating? sure. but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. to be fair, clans broke up like this too when they introduced the limits on clan size a few years ago.

 

[istencsaszar]

that's not really an exploit. an exploit would be abusing a bug of some sort. it's just taking advantage of the systems of the game. is it frustrating? sure. but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. to be fair, clans broke up like this too when they introduced the limits on clan size a few years ago.

To my understanding an exploit can be abusing a game's system in a way to gain disproportionately large advantage. It doesn't have to involve a bug.

Back then clans broke up out of sheer necessity. Now it has a purpose, which is impenetrable defense.

 

[Pleiadian]

Dividing into many small clans is easy, and each player going to elections can go into a different clan. By everyone being able to travel everywhere their capability fr defense is the same as one big clan.

This is false.

Breaking up the clans means that you introduce communication barrier. Less communication amongst others allies.

And let's say you have allies breaking up the clan. They will also divide their holdings among those clan. Not every member will be online at every phase.

Now you have the advantage to travel to any Vulnerable Site.

You haven't even tried this update, you're just here writing things that aren't even true.

We've learnt before that whatever theory someone can come up with does not necessarily occur on the live server.

Even the tests on the PTR, will bring a totally different outcome on the love server.

Simply because each server, has got it's different way of playing.

 

[Alewx]

To my understanding an exploit can be abusing a game's system in a way to gain disproportionately large advantage. It doesn't have to involve a bug.

Back then clans broke up out of sheer necessity. Now it has a purpose, which is impenetrable defense.

I gonna get the heat of it again, but who cares; so before it was an impenetrable defense because it was a single combined enitity, then it split up into a few clans or a single combined entitity called alliance, what exactly makes one thing worse than the other?

Here is the theoretical case, we banish clans totally, meaning it is back to individual players, but what would stop this from beeing an exploit by organizing in the already existing structures behind closed doors outside the game?

 

[Pleiadian]

This update's main purpose was to make attackers lives easier, as they are in a serious disadvantage overall. Also overwhelmed by the sheer number of enemies. But the point is still invalid, as defenders also benefit from being able to travel everywhere

From what I am seeing, those changes already brings certain benefits to the attackers.

To be overwhelmed by a large number, what can Developers do in this case?

It's been shown multiple times that Eu1, attacker to defender ratio is 1:100.

How is that the Developers problem? And coincidentally it's only one server always writing about that and no other server.

Currently you can take towers, granted they are not basic.

Other than that, if you're asking for a system where you can take Sites with Branchi without fighting then your whole argument about this update have 0 logic.

You even said this whole update was biased towards defenders while from my POV, it's the attackers that again benefits.

 

[Sunshine..]

From what I am seeing, those changes already brings certain benefits to the attackers.

The update didn't please anyone and the guy is trying to find arguments to defend this new style of play.
My god

 

[istencsaszar]

This is false.

Breaking up the clans means that you introduce communication barrier. Less communication amongst others allies.

And let's say you have allies breaking up the clan. They will also divide their holdings among those clan. Not every member will be online at every phase.

Now you have the advantage to travel to any Vulnerable Site.

You haven't even tried this update, you're just here writing things that aren't even true.

We've learnt before that whatever theory someone can come up with does not necessarily occur on the live server.

Even the tests on the PTR, will bring a totally different outcome on the love server.

Simply because each server, has got it's different way of playing.

Most of the communication between players already happens in discord servers/discord calls where every member of the alliance can join regardless of which clan they belong to. So while it does cause a small barrier, it's insignificant and the pros of splitting outweigh the cons heavily.

You seem to not know EU1, they always have guards from every clan. But regardless, if sh*t hits the fan they can still do the good old building switch.

Everyone has the advantage of travelling to vulnerable sites. It doesn't grant exclusive benefits for one side.

And yes, this and previous update's main problem is that every server is different and they require constant meddling and balancing for each server.

I gonna get the heat of it again, but who cares; so before it was an impenetrable defense because it was a single combined enitity, then it split up into a few clans or a single combined entitity called alliance, what exactly makes one thing worse than the other?

Here is the theoretical case, we banish clans totally, meaning it is back to individual players, but what would stop this from beeing an exploit by organizing in the already existing structures behind closed doors outside the game?

The thing that makes division worse now is the new update that grants an advantage to clans with less buildings, which was not the case before. But however many clans there are in in an alliance, it still remains the same number of players against a small group. This should mean that taking a few buildings (up to 5 for example) should be relatively easy, and an ideal update should grant that. Anything over that small amount should get progressively harder, so only larger attacker groups could achieve it. Defending the taken sites is out of question for small attacker clans due to being outnumbered, so the easily taken 1-5 sites would grant a constant action and also give a chance to attackers. With the current update in the live game this could be the case if there was an incentive to upgrade to excellent, or automatic yield upgrades that would create weak spots that can be attacked and taken(maybe randomized automatic upgrade every day for a set amount of buildings).

In a way, this is funny. You keep talking about 'The alliance,' but ultimately, you're all in group too, just in smaller numbers. Maybe if you were online more often, and with more people, to take over and maintain the gates, you'd enjoy it more. I've noticed that many KOS from EU1 complain on the forum but are rarely online themselves. And when they do manage to capture a few gates, they don't log in again to keep them.

I'm not against you either; I definitely want it to be enjoyable for both parties. But at the moment, I think it's simply about numbers. You can keep updating something, but as long as people don't come online, it's not helping.

We don't see the point of logging in when we can't do damage. More people are out of question, the playerbase has been the same for years, other attacker clans are long gone. You writing that we should defend the taken buildings is simply ridiculous. There is no strategy in defending, this is a numbers game. You have less players, you lose the tower.

From what I am seeing, those changes already brings certain benefits to the attackers.

To be overwhelmed by a large number, what can Developers do in this case?

It's been shown multiple times that Eu1, attacker to defender ratio is 1:100.

How is that the Developers problem? And coincidentally it's only one server always writing about that and no other server.

Currently you can take towers, granted they are not basic.

Other than that, if you're asking for a system where you can take Sites with Branchi without fighting then your whole argument about this update have 0 logic.

You even said this whole update was biased towards defenders while from my POV, it's the attackers that again benefits.

I'm an attacker and I haven't noticed any of those "benefits". See my reply to Alewx above, devs could do that for example.

Currently on EU1 only 400% yield towers have been taken (when they were still a thing lol), only a single attack on a 200% tower has been successful.

Brachis being overpowered has been observed by Highway and has been deemed a viable tactic and not at all overpowered. Tanks should be tanky and they aren't unkillable at all, especially after the hp debuff.

 

[Pleiadian]

Currently on EU1 only 400% yield towers have been taken (when they were still a thing lol), only a single attack on a 200% tower has been successful.

You're quite literally saying, you would rather use Tank Dino to comfortably take a site without a single fight, rather than to fight for the Site and reap the rewards?

That's the direction you're taking your arguments to and that's what I'm against— taking Sites without fight.

How is that even a fair and balanced gameplay?

Tanks should be tanky and they aren't unkillable at all, especially after the hp debuff.

Based from what those Eu1 has been spamming on the feedback thread, Tanks are taking Sites without a fight. By the time Defenders kills them, the Tanks already took the Excellent Site.

So no, it's not a fair way of playing.

 

[Pleiadian]

The update didn't please anyone and the guy is trying to find arguments to defend this new style of play.
My god

Who did this update didn't please?

40 people who reacted Disliked and Disagreed on the initial idea of this thread?

Why they don't voice out? Why is there only 2-3 people voicing out about their discontent?

This update has sit well with majority of the community, otherwise you would have seen countless of posts flooding the forum about how the game is going to die.

 

[istencsaszar]

You're quite literally saying, you would rather use Tank Dino to comfortably take a site without a single fight, rather than to fight for the Site and reap the rewards?

That's the direction you're taking your arguments to and that's what I'm against— taking Sites without fight.

How is that even a fair and balanced gameplay?



Based from what those Eu1 has been spamming on the feedback thread, Tanks are taking Sites without a fight. By the time Defenders kills them, the Tanks already took the Excellent Site.

So no, it's not a fair way of playing.

How did you come to that conclusion from my reply?

When we took the 200% yield tower we literally teleported back with tp matrix to fight the remaining defenders (which is a risky move of wasting gc if the remaining defenders still outnumber us). And even with the 2 minutes draining time of excellent yield towers, the defenders arrive in time even when we block several surrounding buildings by making them red. The reason we use brachis is to stay alive as long as possible during those fights and drain even while defenders are in the circle slowing down our draining speed. Respawning and running back without fighting is a concept that only works in dead servers.

 

[istencsaszar]

Who did this update didn't please?

40 people who reacted Disliked and Disagreed on the initial idea of this thread?

Why they don't voice out? Why is there only 2-3 people voicing out about their discontent?

This update has sit well with majority of the community, otherwise you would have seen countless of posts flooding the forum about how the game is going to die.

Sits well with the majority=defenders are having it easy, since they are the (overwhelming) majority. An update that's supposed to "help attackers". Make up your mind bruh.

But I've even seen some defenders disagreeing with this update, I guess predictability and sitting on your pile of fame is boring.

 

[Sunshine..]

This update has sit well with majority of the community, otherwise you would have seen countless of posts flooding the forum about how the game is going to die.

Most players don't use the forum.
It's just you and half a dozen people who swallowed this update.

I bet that in 2 months when these new mechanics become routine, you will be complaining that the game is boring and repetitive.

 

[Pleiadian]

How did you come to that conclusion from my reply?

Generalization of the whole situation between attackers and defenders in this whole Eu1 saga.

When we took the 200% yield tower we literally teleported back with tp matrix to fight the remaining defenders (which is a risky move of wasting gc if the remaining defenders still outnumber us)

You just admitted that it was possible for you to take a 200% Sites. Now that you as an attacker have the abilities to revive to any Vulnerable Sites once you have been killed makes the situation much more in your favour.

If I were you, once the alliance kills me, I would simply go and target another Site.

What would be you argument? Defenders not upgrading sites and leaving them on Basic? That can easily be solved by adding an incentive to make the Site holders upgrade their Site.

What's the next argument? Allies will keep tailing you around? Sure they would but their coordination would be a mess.

And now you can even do it during the non-peak hours. While you have less defenders online.

 

[Pleiadian]

I dislike how much we are molding this update simply based off of 1 Server alone.

Everything that they keeps on throwing at Eu1 is not changing the situation, and will not change it imo simply because of the server culture.

 

[istencsaszar]

Generalization of the whole situation between attackers and defenders in this whole Eu1 saga.


You just admitted that it was possible for you to take a 200% Sites. Now that you as an attacker have the abilities to revive to any Vulnerable Sites once you have been killed makes the situation much more in your favour.

If I were you, once the alliance kills me, I would simply go and target another Site.

What would be you argument? Defenders not upgrading sites and leaving them on Basic? That can easily be solved by adding an incentive to make the Site holders upgrade their Site.

What's the next argument? Allies will keep tailing you around? Sure they would but their coordination would be a mess.

And now you can even do it during the non-peak hours. While you have less defenders online.

One. With several tries. Just like I wrote in a comment before, I didn't just "admit" it.

The argument against not attacking another site immediately is very easy right now with the current update, 5 minutes of duelist has to wear off before the next attack.

With the new update coming in this could be possible, but if there is a single guard or just a hunting player nearby, travel sickness will give him just enough time to blow the horn in the alliance discord and they swarm in by the dozens by the time the building can be attacked.

I dislike how much we are molding this update simply based off of 1 Server alone.

Everything that they keeps on throwing at Eu1 is not changing the situation, and will not change it imo simply because of the server culture.

As I said, every server would need its own finetuned update with this system, which is messy and unsustainable in the long run. No one size fits all solution has been made so far, so the direction is wrong as a whole.

 

[ThiagoXDestruidor]

eu1 will not change, they prefer to play pve for years and that is in the mentality of the players, there is nothing to be done

 

[Xx EL LOBO xX]

Screenshot

Captured with Lightshot

prnt.sc

the ptr started today wtf is this

 

[Hardwell]

Wouldn't a 10 gate ally and another 10 gate ally be able to map trade with the low hp building ....

Or will the tower HP change mid conflict as one of the clan loses 1 tower at the middle of conflict

 

[Alewx]

I would like to layout my internal counter proposal for the building fights. In the end it was downvoted because it was something that was quite a step more than just the current ptr adaptations.

Just in very base terms:

• The attackstrength of clans is defined by the amount of buildings they are holding.
  • Holding more sites at the same time would mean your attackstrength would decreased compared to clans with no buildings at all.
  • The Attackstrength would update relativly instantly once a building is beeing taken
• Buildings could get upgraded for Clan DD to increase their HP up to a maximum of double the HP they have at basic
• Repair rate of a clan is always half of their own attackstrength.
• Changing clans timelimit would be increased to about a week or two weeks to match election times

The obvious elefant in the room is that it means that simply every single side clan could attack just about every single building as long as they do not hold any themself. but I would take that as a calculated risk just to provide attackers an atantage so that even the newest clan has a chance to interatct with buildings and take them at least for once and claim the items.
Also the upgrades of the yield would provide an direct benefit other than just some more fame items.

For that I see it as a more balanced approach but feel free to just dismantle it, but with reason, that is what we are here for.

 

[aiolia]

Gostaria de explicar a exploração?

basta dividir 1 clã em 2 ou 3 clãs menores, então a gente se drena no horário de ataque e pronto, problema resolvido.

 

[aiolia]

Care to explain the exploit?

just divide 1 clan into 2 or 3 smaller clans, so we drain ourselves during attack time and that's it, problem solved.

 

[Hardwell]

I would like to layout my internal counter proposal for the building fights. In the end it was downvoted because it was something that was quite a step more than just the current ptr adaptations.

Just in very base terms:

• The attackstrength of clans is defined by the amount of buildings they are holding.
  • Holding more sites at the same time would mean your attackstrength would decreased compared to clans with no buildings at all.
  • The Attackstrength would update relativly instantly once a building is beeing taken
• Buildings could get upgraded for Clan DD to increase their HP up to a maximum of double the HP they have at basic
• Repair rate of a clan is always half of their own attackstrength.
• Changing clans timelimit would be increased to about a week or two weeks to match election times

The obvious elefant in the room is that it means that simply every single side clan could attack just about every single building as long as they do not hold any themself. but I would take that as a calculated risk just to provide attackers an atantage so that even the newest clan has a chance to interatct with buildings and take them at least for once and claim the items.
Also the upgrades of the yield would provide an direct benefit other than just some more fame items.

For that I see it as a more balanced approach but feel free to just dismantle it, but with reason, that is what we are here for.

So....the drain is according to strength and not according to time/minutes?