Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

[Alewx]

Hmm then for yield upgrade will it still be after every phase or after a certain timing.... If it's after every phase a clan can snowball very fast with the yield upgrade and have tanky towers in 1 day

There could be a element to control it, based on the price it takes to upgrade.

 

[istencsaszar]

Nice baseline for the HP isn't it?
Basic yield Draining takes 2 minutes, Excellent yield and the draining takes 4 mintes for a clan that owns nothing so far.

So will this be based on the previosly presented chart that was discarded? Counting with that, 2 buildings/attack phase is what a small clan (10-20 players of level 45-55) can realistically get if there are available "good" yield buildings (upgrades should be either expensive or wear off after a time or not be healable, otherwise we will be back to a similar state as right now, with all buildings kept on a yield that's hard to capture, but now defenders will have the advantage of a higher yield as well). If all buildings are upgraded, then capturing even 1 will require extreme luck. I consider that a ridiculously low amount, so my suggestion is that the attack speed doesn't decrease with every single captured tower, but with every 2-3-4-5 (whatever will prove sufficient) captured towers.

I also have to mention that on a low population server a handful of low levels could take a whole map with drain times like this (2-4 or even 8 min), so again, putting more emphasis on the fact that there is no compromise and it will work very differently on each server.

 

[Hardwell]

Nice baseline for the HP isn't it?
Basic yield Draining takes 2 minutes, Excellent yield and the draining takes 4 mintes for a clan that owns nothing so far.

Will all of these changes come out in next PTR or current PTR.

 

[Alewx]

Will all of these changes come out in next PTR or current PTR.

Who said anything like that? It is a counter proposal I wrote internally, but it was declined in favor of the current ptr version.

 

[Hardwell]

Who said anything like that? It is a counter proposal I wrote internally, but it was declined in favor of the current ptr version.

Ouh.... Cause I prefer this counter proposal over the current PTR version

 

[DarkMyth.]

Seeing specific people on this thread asking for sites to be drained in a minute or two because they're outnumbered is ridiculous. Especially EU1 kos who aren't logging online during any phase or even during protection phase to prepare themselves for an attack, you can't expect anything if you're not even trying, at first you were able to take 400% sites because of the 2 minutes draining now you're not even able to take 200% sites which is also only 4 minutes draining, I mean you're not trying to. Last attack which 7 kos were online in, you took the last 400% yield claim on EU1 and that was 2 days ago, since then you're offline. What are you trying to excuse yourself for, defenders are always gonna outnumber attackers and that's a fact on almost every server you're gonna play on, nothing will change this unless the alliance falls apart which is most likely not gonna happen like this, just like how defenders have formed an alliance, attackers can form their alliance and organize their attacks together, nothing stops anyone from doing so

 

[SPA]

Seeing specific people on this thread asking for sites to be drained in a minute or two because they're outnumbered is ridiculous. Especially EU1 kos who aren't logging online during any phase or even during protection phase to prepare themselves for an attack, you can't expect anything if you're not even trying, at first you were able to take 400% sites because of the 2 minutes draining now you're not even able to take 200% sites which is also only 4 minutes draining, I mean you're not trying to. Last attack which 7 kos were online in, you took the last 400% yield claim on EU1 and that was 2 days ago, since then you're offline. What are you trying to excuse yourself for, defenders are always gonna outnumber attackers and that's a fact on almost every server you're gonna play on, nothing will change this unless the alliance falls apart which is most likely not gonna happen like this, just like how defenders have formed an alliance, attackers can form their alliance and organize their attacks together, nothing stops anyone from doing so

dude, just write that you want to see a pve game and don't want enemies at all, you're not even trying to arrange a pvp game, you're pitifully holding on to the alliance with the last grip and that's it. many have already written that the game needs a dynamic gate attack/defense system, but it is still not relevant, who will spend a lot of dds and time to get some 12 gold medals from claim 200% when mining 20k per hour giving

 

[Mania]

Seeing specific people on this thread asking for sites to be drained in a minute or two because they're outnumbered is ridiculous. Especially EU1 kos who aren't logging online during any phase or even during protection phase to prepare themselves for an attack, you can't expect anything if you're not even trying, at first you were able to take 400% sites because of the 2 minutes draining now you're not even able to take 200% sites which is also only 4 minutes draining, I mean you're not trying to. Last attack which 7 kos were online in, you took the last 400% yield claim on EU1 and that was 2 days ago, since then you're offline. What are you trying to excuse yourself for, defenders are always gonna outnumber attackers and that's a fact on almost every server you're gonna play on, nothing will change this unless the alliance falls apart which is most likely not gonna happen like this, just like how defenders have formed an alliance, attackers can form their alliance and organize their attacks together, nothing stops anyone from doing so

i don't know how eu1 is admittedly, but the thing is that on my server at least it doesn't matter how many people are on or for how long. we are outnumbered regardless. there are times where we hold the server but it never lasts because we just can't go up against sheer numbers. that is a problem. at this point in the game's life cycle, most alliances seem to have settled, and nobody really betrays or anything unless something especially egregious happens.

people stop logging in because it's just hopeless. you can log in to drain, your entire alliance, every day... and it doesn't matter, because you can't compete against the size of the holding alliance. so yes, there needs to be an advantage for the attackers, because otherwise they get demoralized and don't log in. you're saying "just drain ez" but it doesn't work that way.

 

[DarkMyth.]

dude, just write that you want to see a pve game and don't want enemies at all, you're not even trying to arrange a pvp game, you're pitifully holding on to the alliance with the last grip and that's it. many have already written that the game needs a dynamic gate attack/defense system, but it is still not relevant, who will spend a lot of dds and time to get some 12 gold medals from claim 200% when mining 20k per hour giving

Back to my suggestion from yesterday, where I said sites should be more rewarding in order to motivate attackers and defenders, and how are you saying I'm asking for a PvE game meanwhile I'm literally advising you to form an alliance with your fellow attackers to have a higher success rate? I can assume lots of things from the way you're replying and suggesting changes on these threads, I don't think the problem is with the update anymore it's simply with the attackers on EU1 who can't work together and then your clan is all left alone, 5-10 attackers can't expect a great outcome unless on a lucky day there was less defenders, it's common sense. And attackers can't ask the devs to allow them to drain a site in a minute or two because they're outnumbered either. You simply need to work on yourselves, orgnanize your clan, discuss with fellow attackers about allying and helping each other in attacks, gather players for every phase etc. otherwise it's useless to keep complaining here about your disadvantages on such a server

 

[DarkMyth.]

i don't know how eu1 is admittedly, but the thing is that on my server at least it doesn't matter how many people are on or for how long. we are outnumbered regardless. there are times where we hold the server but it never lasts because we just can't go up against sheer numbers. that is a problem. at this point in the game's life cycle, most alliances seem to have settled, and nobody really betrays or anything unless something especially egregious happens.

people stop logging in because it's just hopeless. you can log in to drain, your entire alliance, every day... and it doesn't matter, because you can't compete against the size of the holding alliance. so yes, there needs to be an advantage for the attackers, because otherwise they get demoralized and don't log in. you're saying "just drain ez" but it doesn't work that way.

I'm not disagreeing with this, of course attackers need to have their advantage but it doesn't mean they don't log or even prepare because they can't take a single site with 4 minutes draining. EU1 is different than AM2, we only have 5-10 players attacking hardly able to take 1 site and we're still on the +5 repair rate unlike other servers.

 

[Mania]

I'm not disagreeing with this, of course attackers need to have their advantage but it doesn't mean they don't log or even prepare because they can't take a single site with 4 minutes draining. EU1 is different than AM2, we only have 5-10 players attacking hardly able to take 1 site and we're still on the +5 repair rate unlike other servers.

i mean, i don't think you realize how exhausting it is to drain and try to take the server. you can prepare and log all you want but if you're outnumbered and outplayed every single time nobody is going to want to log in to help. attackers need to try certainly but it's just hard to motivate anyone to log in especially if according to you they can barely take a single site. this is a big problem, no?

 

[DarkMyth.]

i mean, i don't think you realize how exhausting it is to drain and try to take the server. you can prepare and log all you want but if you're outnumbered and outplayed every single time nobody is going to want to log in to help. attackers need to try certainly but it's just hard to motivate anyone to log in especially if according to you they can barely take a single site. this is a big problem, no?

Yes, you also have a point i'm not saying you don't but out of 9 kos clans and 16 kos players, it's disappointing to see a max of 10 players coming online, and these 10 have been offline now for 2-3 days if not more, you see my point now?

 

[SPA]

i mean, i don't think you realize how exhausting it is to drain and try to take the server. you can prepare and log all you want but if you're outnumbered and outplayed every single time nobody is going to want to log in to help. attackers need to try certainly but it's just hard to motivate anyone to log in especially if according to you they can barely take a single site. this is a big problem, no?

I agree, what's the point of going in and attacking when 200-100% gat
reward of some pathetic 12-6 medals per phase, mining still winning

 

[DarkMyth.]

I agree, what's the point of going in and attacking when 200-100% gat
reward of some pathetic 12-6 medals per phase, mining still winning

Generally, sites should be prioritized over mining ores, production wise. I've seen sites are producing more on PTR but i'm not sure if it's because PTR is sped up or that's how it might be with the upcoming update

 

[Mania]

Yes, you also have a point i'm not saying you don't but out of 9 kos clans and 16 kos players, it's disappointing to see a max of 10 players coming online, and these 10 have been offline now for 2-3 days if not more, you see my point now?

but you're just confirming what i'm saying. they aren't motivated to log into the game to try to take your server because it's a chore and because no matter what they do they can't compete with your alliance.

 

[DarkMyth.]

but you're just confirming what i'm saying. they aren't motivated to log into the game to try to take your server because it's a chore and because no matter what they do they can't compete with your alliance.

They were attacking in big numbers around 2 months ago, they were able to take a map or two when they were 30-40, however that war lasted only for 2-3 days and they never logged back online they simply came for fun, don't tell me they can't repeat this process whenever they wish to

 

[SPA]

Generally, sites should be prioritized over mining ores, production wise. I've seen sites are producing more on PTR but i'm not sure if it's because PTR is sped up or that's how it might be with the upcoming update

but if gates will give more fame, then gates should be more accessible to attack, so attackers win at the expense of mining, provided 100-200% (however, this does not suit everyone and is a little boring, personally it suits me so far) or lose if you have 400% gates, but we do not Let's allow it. everything seems to be working, but something is missing

 

[Mania]

They were attacking in big numbers around 2 months ago, they were able to take a map or two when they were 30-40, however that war lasted only for 2-3 days and they never logged back online they simply came for fun, don't tell me they can't repeat this process whenever they wish to

i think you're looking at this through the lens of someone who holds a map rather than someone who has had to fight to take a map.

the issue is not that they can't take the server. as i said, my clan and our allies have taken the server in the past. the enemy alliance however has more people, and while we can defend the server for a few days, we will ultimately lose again because we just can't compete against sheer numbers. it's extremely tiring. yes, we can gather and try again, but the outcome is always the same. always. and i would imagine for your server, it's the same thing.

after a while, you stop logging in as an attacker because nothing ever changes. you rally your forces, you manage to hold the server for a few days maybe a week, and then the weekend or a holiday hits and your forces of 30-40 are outnumbered by a force of 50-60. you are out of dds, out of gold coins, and probably out of energy from 24/7 war to try to hold the server. "we'll try again on monday!" you say. and monday comes, but the enemy is still energized and riled up, and so you lose again.

not to mention that most people that play the game are adults with responsibilities or families or just maybe don't want to spend all their free time fighting to take a map in the game. so then where does this leave you? with a few people who want to keep fighting and have the resources for it, maybe 10-15. and then they become demoralized because nobody wants to or is able to come help them.

you understand now what i mean? it's not a matter of the attackers being lazy or whatever. it's like a second job when the big alliance has all the advantages. that's not fun and it's not fair.

 

[NazzaFire]

I consider a gameplay which you're forced to make a war on purpose , in order to create a war as a daily clan goal

 

[SPA]

i trying ptr, its boring and long when 1 clan have less then 4 gates, this is clearly something that is not suitable for the game, it seems that there is an advantage in this, less fame for 1 person, so there will be no large clans if this happens, and there will be less fame for 1 person, because 1 clan has 4-5 gates, however, there was 1 thing, 1 a person can move to another clan and still receive all the fame for 1 map, so in this case you can make a restricton in which the transition from 1 clan to another will be at an interval of 1 week, and fame not collected from gates will have a maximum of 1 day of production (If medals are not collected, they will not be created.) or remove this option altogether as on ptr

 

[istencsaszar]

Seeing specific people on this thread asking for sites to be drained in a minute or two because they're outnumbered is ridiculous. Especially EU1 kos who aren't logging online during any phase or even during protection phase to prepare themselves for an attack, you can't expect anything if you're not even trying, at first you were able to take 400% sites because of the 2 minutes draining now you're not even able to take 200% sites which is also only 4 minutes draining, I mean you're not trying to. Last attack which 7 kos were online in, you took the last 400% yield claim on EU1 and that was 2 days ago, since then you're offline. What are you trying to excuse yourself for, defenders are always gonna outnumber attackers and that's a fact on almost every server you're gonna play on, nothing will change this unless the alliance falls apart which is most likely not gonna happen like this, just like how defenders have formed an alliance, attackers can form their alliance and organize their attacks together, nothing stops anyone from doing so

You have brought up the same untrue reasoning that other members of your alliance did before and I already gave an explanation to all of them, but here we go again.

Nobody will log in to waste dd-s on trying to take gates that are almost impossible to take.

Attackers alliance=dead concept, we are the last clan that's still attacking on the server.

You are losing 1-5 gates each attack(with excellent gates available), all complaints about this is pityful, as it's a minimal amount. They will be reclaimed anyways in the next attack phase. If the game doesn't support at least this amount of buildings taken, then the game is flawed.

By admitting that defenders always heavily outnumber attackers, you also admit that attacking should be a way easier task than defending. Also considering that defenders can rotate players and let them rest, while from the attacker clan the same few members have to log in several times a day to achieve anything.

 

[Hardwell]

Damn every single day you guys arguing about the same subject over and over again....

Idk but to me winners(aka map holder) should always be fewer than KOS/attacker to strike balance in a server. Because, when there is more winner than KOS people will start to form a structure/convenient laws and rules for themselves which of course create imbalance to a server.

You can take world cup/champions league for example you don't see the whole bunch of people qualifying for the semifinals only 4 team is chosen out of the many 16. From this instance to put into dino storm context there will be 4 map holder and 12 kos/drainer. With this things will have more competition more unpredictability and interesting to watch.

So right now the devs, are trying to break the alliance to many small clan and hopefully turning y'all into attackers/drainers and fight for your spot as a map holder or defend for your spot as current map holder in this "football league".

 

[Mania]

Damn every single day you guys arguing about the same subject over and over again....

Idk but to me winners(aka map holder) should always be fewer than KOS/attacker to strike balance in a server. Because, when there is more winner than KOS people will start to form a structure/convenient laws and rules for themselves which of course create imbalance to a server.

You can take world cup/champions league for example you don't see the whole bunch of people qualifying for the semifinals only 4 team is chosen out of the many 16. From this instance to put into dino storm context there will be 4 map holder and 12 kos/drainer. With this things will have more competition more unpredictability and interesting to watch.

So right now the devs, are trying to break the alliance to many small clan and hopefully turning y'all into attackers/drainers and fight for your spot as a map holder or defend for your spot as current map holder in this "football league".

i think something to consider too is that we now have 5 maps in the game and the player population (from where i'm standing at least) seems to have shrunk a lot in the past few years. so to be entirely honest it is a lot easier to be in a map holding clan in that regard too. even when it was just 4 maps before mm came out it was a bit less of a stomp than it is now. there's more buildings for a big alliance to hold, and so what's the point of being an attacker really?

 

[Hardwell]

i think something to consider too is that we now have 5 maps in the game and the player population (from where i'm standing at least) seems to have shrunk a lot in the past few years. so to be entirely honest it is a lot easier to be in a map holding clan in that regard too. even when it was just 4 maps before mm came out it was a bit less of a stomp than it is now. there's more buildings for a big alliance to hold, and so what's the point of being an attacker really?

Yee the pie is too big currently as many clan can have a piece of it. I was thinking the game have way too much towers and it just fits the 5 clan or other server spanning alliance nicely.

 

[SPA]

i think something to consider too is that we now have 5 maps in the game and the player population (from where i'm standing at least) seems to have shrunk a lot in the past few years. so to be entirely honest it is a lot easier to be in a map holding clan in that regard too. even when it was just 4 maps before mm came out it was a bit less of a stomp than it is now. there's more buildings for a big alliance to hold, and so what's the point of being an attacker really?

you haven't been to Europa-1 bro, here the locations are covered by the players quite tightly during the attack phases. another servers i agree, not so much. I think connecting several inactive servers into one would help here, but maybe this is madness. I don't really like battles where there are so many players that the game starts to lag, it's better to fight a group of players, and not this "anthill"

 

[Mania]

you haven't been to Europa-1 bro, here the locations are covered by the players quite tightly during the attack phases. another servers i agree, not so much. I think connecting several inactive servers into one would help here, but maybe this is madness. I don't really like battles where there are so many players that the game starts to lag, it's better to fight a group of players, and not this "anthill"

i am not talking about eu1 then. it seems to be the odd server out so you can safely assume i am talking about the other servers that are like that.

Yee the pie is too big currently as many clan can have a piece of it. I was thinking the game have way too much towers and it just fits the 5 clan or other server spanning alliance nicely.

hard agree, but unfortunately i don't think there's really a good solution. the way the towers are laid out now provide a wide range of teleportation over the map and just straight up removing one or two maps is not within the realm of possibility. the only thing i could really think of to combat that is dinoville holding more gates but i really don't think that's a very good solution at all.

 

[Hardwell]

hard agree, but unfortunately i don't think there's really a good solution. the way the towers are laid out now provide a wide range of teleportation over the map and just straight up removing one or two maps is not within the realm of possibility. the only thing i could really think of to combat that is dinoville holding more gates but i really don't think that's a very good solution at all.

True... I'm guessing the devs approach now is multiplying the no. of clan to somewhat bring down the clan : maps ratio for now it seems it's 5 : 5. If all goes well i think in the future, the ratio could be 18 clans : 5 maps for active server.

 

[oliverleonn]

Has ptr already closed?

 

[S4TW]

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.

 

[Pleiadian]

i think something to consider too is that we now have 5 maps in the game and the player population (from where i'm standing at least) seems to have shrunk a lot in the past few years. so to be entirely honest it is a lot easier to be in a map holding clan in that regard too. even when it was just 4 maps before mm came out it was a bit less of a stomp than it is now. there's more buildings for a big alliance to hold, and so what's the point of being an attacker really?

This crossed my mind at one point and it's all true.

I always like to look back at how the game were in the beginning when it was much more enjoyable to play.

Less building for a lot of player to compete for.

True... I'm guessing the devs approach now is multiplying the no. of clan to somewhat bring down the clan : maps ratio for now it seems it's 5 : 5. If all goes well i think in the future, the ratio could be 18 clans : 5 maps for active server.

Disagree.

Yes you are multiplying the clans by breaking down bigger clans. But you're also dividing the players. It's not like you're putting new players in those newly formed small clans.

So the situation about multiplying clans will not help.

Although, the only thing that might help is DV taking more Sites. Some ideas I was against at first, but now I am slowly seeing some of their utility in the game.