Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

[Pleiadian]

This clearly means u haven't understood what I have written

Yea probably.

My thought was fixated on the fact that you spent majority of the time spamming on this forum requesting more features to help attackers, and now suddenly you flip 180 and starts writing about peace. Making a joke out of Developers effort to improve the game for everyone here. And this whole update is about promoting and pushing more wars that are rewarding.

Everything that I'm saying about you, has been quoted. Readers can be the judge.

U can check the above screenshot of ur friend who is writing about killing brachi , those 3 players in the screenshot trying to get the buff is misuse (intention is not to drain but just keep on fighting) It took probably more time because those 3 belong to 3rd party clan and there isn't any real defender from owner clan.

There's no such thing as fake attackers.

Another attacking clan, attacking the Site to obtain the buff against the former attacker, does not provide buff.

Check @Luka Patajac post, he clearly explained it.

It took us three 15 minutes to take down one guy with Brachi!! Now imagine if there were more than one Brachi in the zone.

View attachment 47921

And if those 3 attackers were able to take the buff, they wouldn't take 15 minutes to kill a tank.

 

[Mania]

Not to be rude, my guy, but you should really go to the doctor once; there's something wrong.

We know the adrenaline buff is there to make attacking fair, but you can't possibly think this tank stuff is making the attack phase more fun.

Why make everything about defending with defensive buffs? Give the attacking clan a defense buff and the defending clan an attack buff. This way, the 'helping' clans can't insta-kill KOS, but at least the gate owner can defend their own building.

it's not really an issue with the adrenaline buff... the issue is tank builds as a whole. this isn't a new problem. even before the introduction of the adrenaline buff, there were people who would drain maps on alts with a very tanky build and would be a lot harder to kill. you only notice it now because the adrenaline buff exacerbates the issue since ally clans can't really kill those afk tank players anymore and because before if a tank stole your tower like that you could just immediately reclaim it.

 

[Pleiadian]

Not to be rude, my guy, but you should really go to the doctor once; there's something wrong.

Eu1 has a toxicity problem at this point.

Probably the second or third player from that server to directly (/ indirectly) insult the devs.

It doesn't cost anything to be more respectful and understanding of the Developer's situation.

 

[DarkMyth.]

i think maybe it would be good that attackers get their drain rate severely nerfed when the site holder is in the circle? maybe? that way they can still drain but it's a much slower rate and it gives the building holders more time to kill tank dinos.

This idea would make it fair for defenders and will surely buy them more time to kill the attackers.

However,
Here's a video clip of how defending feels like nowadays https://streamable.com/hynqa3 to point out why many (defenders) are upset..

Your expectations, from what I believe, is for the clan who's holding sites to have enough defenders online during the phases which is difficult especially now that some players are seeing the updates as a bit complicated, because you have old players in the game, and of course those who lost motivation to log online etc.
Attackers won't lose motivation whatsoever due to how many advantages they've been getting, even if I was an attacker on EU1 for example I would wake up at 7AM to simply take a few sites because why not?
Defenders aren't really enjoying to defend anymore because it's almost feeling impossible to hold sites unless your clan is EXTREMELY active, which is super rare in many cases.

 

[Sunshine..]

tanks do not attack to avoid giving extra power to defenders.

So just go back to the old mechanic where you also receive extra power when you do damage and the tanks will be forced to fight back...

 

[Mania]

This idea would make it fair for defenders and will surely buy them more time to kill the attackers.

However,
Here's a video clip of how defending feels like nowadays https://streamable.com/hynqa3 to point out why many (defenders) are upset..

i'm a defender. i know what's going on. that's why i've been offering feedback on what i think could be done to even the odds between defenders and attackers.

Attackers won't lose motivation whatsoever due to how many advantages they've been getting, even if I was an attacker on EU1 for example I would wake up at 7AM to simply take a few sites because why not?
Defenders aren't really enjoying to defend anymore because it's almost feeling impossible to hold sites unless your clan is EXTREMELY active, which is super rare in many cases.

it's better than it was before with just zero war all the time because attackers had no reason to log in and attack. a lot of kos alliances before didn't seem to stand any chance. maybe part of why defenders are so mad about the whole thing is they now understand how attackers were feeling before? maybe now you understand how frustrating it is to spend all your time attacking/defending and still lose out (to some extent) at the end?

I understand, but in EU1 we have Dukka 1, 2, 3, 4, and another clan all using the same tanky brachio build. If they change it so that all 5 clans get the same buff, but only 1—the defending clan—can at least do something about 4 of the 5 attacking clans. This would force the split-up clans to join into one clan again for the buff.

Splitscreen can say whatever they want; they will never admit they were wrong, but this update couldn't be about players splitting into one-member clans, placing their brachio under a gate, and getting some pizza.

no offense, but i take anything eu1 players have to say with a grain of salt at this point. from other comments from eu1 players, it reads like your holding alliance has gone uncontested for years now and y'all are mostly mad that now you have to actually defend your buildings. i don't disagree that there is an issue with tank builds but the point of this update was to make alliances less effective which it has done very well and while it is frustrating for the holding alliance it makes the game better for kos players.

 

[itzmee]

i'm a defender. i know what's going on. that's why i've been offering feedback on what i think could be done to even the odds between defenders and attackers.



it's better than it was before with just zero war all the time because attackers had no reason to log in and attack. a lot of kos alliances before didn't seem to stand any chance. maybe part of why defenders are so mad about the whole thing is they now understand how attackers were feeling before? maybe now you understand how frustrating it is to spend all your time attacking/defending and still lose out (to some extent) at the end?



no offense, but i take anything eu1 players have to say with a grain of salt at this point. from other comments from eu1 players, it reads like your holding alliance has gone uncontested for years now and y'all are mostly mad that now you have to actually defend your buildings. i don't disagree that there is an issue with tank builds but the point of this update was to make alliances less effective which it has done very well and while it is frustrating for the holding alliance it makes the game better for kos players.

Perfect.
This has explained everything!

 

[DarkMyth.]

maybe part of why defenders are so mad about the whole thing is they now understand how attackers were feeling before? maybe now you understand how frustrating it is to spend all your time attacking/defending and still lose out (to some extent) at the end?

Not at all, but I speak for myself I can’t speak for everyone else. Personally I don’t mind if an attacker won a site or if I lost some. I was an attacker myself on EU1 before I switched sides and I know the struggle of trying to battle against an entire server, and if I was an attacker right now I would surely want to have advantages, but not advantages that would ruin a part of my or others gameplay, I still want to enjoy playing whether I was a defender or an attacker. Farming or playing PvE isn’t really entertaining so people want to have the entertainment during the conflict phase, and it should be fair and fun for both sides. Right now, it doesn’t seem so fair for a defender to even try defending their site honestly. On my server now we have new attackers who showed up out of nowhere, around 5 of them, and each one in a different clan, giving themselves insane drain speed, so imagine you’re trying to defend a site which is healing +40 (if it was excellent) and draining -200 and more depending, and you have 5 brachis tanking up. If you were able to kill them, they will try to come back then you lost that site, simple as that

 

[Mania]

It's not only the Tank build, there's even the Para build from what I saw some days ago.

Some dino are more favorable than others for draining. The runner class and the Damage Dealer class from the attacking side are non-existent. This should tell you about the state of PvP right now. Attackers would rather prioritise draining and surviving rather than fighting.

I remember there was an idea floating around, that drain rate could also be dynamic based on dino class. Such an idea could be implemented to discourage the use of Dino with high resistance. But how effective that would be at solving the problem or its drawbacks, that's something that we still need to see.

i quite like that idea, i think it would be very interesting. it seems like the majority of the issues that occur with these updates are because they are applied as a "one size fits all" approach rather than what you're suggesting where specific problems are targeted with specific solutions.

 

[Mania]

I love how they wanted to support smaller clans but yet they put them in a very harsh position.

my clan is like 5 or 6 active players and we're doing just fine.

 

[S4TW]

my clan is like 5 or 6 active players and we're doing just fine.

Your clan =/= the point of my words. If I was talking about single examples, I'd waste way too much time. But uh-oh here goes the center of the world.

 

[Mania]

Your clan =/= the point of my words. If I was talking about single examples, I'd waste way too much time. But uh-oh here goes the center of the world.

you're complaining about smaller clans and i'm telling you about my experience as a smaller clan. if you don't like that, then don't make broad sweeping statements. what was the point of your words then if you don't like what someone from a smaller clan has to say?

 

[S4TW]

you're complaining about smaller clans and i'm telling you about my experience as a smaller clan. if you don't like that, then don't make broad sweeping statements. what was the point of your words then if you don't like what someone from a smaller clan has to say?

Because you're just a single example as I said, and there's the amount of examples that puts yours in the shadows.

 

[Mania]

Because you're just a single example as I said, and there's the amount of examples that puts yours in the shadows.

ok, then maybe a better post next time would be "some smaller clans are having a hard time with this update" if you don't like that someone is disagreeing with you.

 

[Pleiadian]

that kinda sucks, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't, unless for somebody who is stuck with the mentality of always holding every site in the game.

A clan made of 4 active players is being forced to join in the war that does not include them - otherwise the attackers will aim them aswell, due to the fact that they are aware their next target cannot defend everything against their -355 drain rate - which had already happened previously.

And hold up.

4 active players in 1 clan that suffer -355 drain points? That's a clan holding 6 Sites or more.

How do you expect 4 players to defend 6 Sites?

Unless I've misunderstood your situation, that's self-inflicted. You cannot blame the devs for that saying the smaller clans are in a harsh position because of them. And that's even ridiculous to assume that, because if you're holding Sites, then it's assumed that you hold as much as you are capable of defending. Don't eat more than you can swallow.

 

[S4TW]

Therefore I don't recall attackers being forced to have -20 drain rate against +355 repair rate. As you've previously mentioned that now defenders can feel the previous struggle of the attackers @Mania . Not to add it's nowhere to even be close in the first place, because if you compare the current version of ds to the previous one - if attackers were determined enough, they'd make the defenders wish they never owned gates. Waking up to no map everyday, loosing all that fame and it basically going in vain, with the money along it. Since that changed and we entered the endgame update there's not been a single day where the attackers wouldn't have the advantage, and our ''lovely'' devs took good care of that. Eu2 enemies even tho less in numbers were able to take up to 10 gates with -20/25 drain rate, meanwhile Eu1 kos completely failed untill more advantage was given to them, and I personally don't think it's the fault of the defenders nor the game base. By the way I was an attacker myself, and probably still would be if I had enough time to waste on few worthless medalls aside from the fact that I've got rex where I used to drain.

 

[S4TW]

No, it doesn't, unless for somebody who is stuck with the mentality of always holding every site in the game.


And hold up.

4 active players in 1 clan that suffer -355 drain points? That's a clan holding 6 Sites or more.

How do you expect 4 players to defend 6 Sites?

Unless I've misunderstood your situation, that's self-inflicted. You cannot blame the devs for that saying the smaller clans are in a harsh position because of them. And that's even ridiculous to assume that, because if you're holding Sites, then it's assumed that you hold as much as you are capable of defending. Don't eat more than you can swallow.

I said active members on purpose, because the remaining ones quit due to the End Game update.

 

[Mania]

Unless I've misunderstood your situation, that's self-inflicted. You cannot blame the devs for that saying the smaller clans are in a harsh position because of them. And that's even ridiculous to assume that, because if you're holding Sites, then it's assumed that you hold as much as you are capable of defending. Don't eat more than you can swallow.

not to mention, presumably these neutral players are holding sites for elections... and presumably, they don't steal elections. so they must have some sort of agreement with big alliance. so does that not make them somewhat of an ally? or if they're stealing elections, does that not make them somewhat of an enemy? hmmmm.

 

[S4TW]

No, it doesn't, unless for somebody who is stuck with the mentality of always holding every site in the game.

Should I send you the ss of the only enemies on my server saying they couldn't care less for gates because it's a waste of dds and time now or later?

 

[Pleiadian]

Should I send you the ss of the only enemies on my server saying they couldn't care less for gates because it's a waste of dds and time now or later?

I don't claim to know the full problem of your server on your side. Yea, don't upgrade the tower yourself then. Make your people farm fame and win in the elections. That's one way to do it. You can even hold as much site as u can defend at a higher yield. I don't know, but there's just so many option to win an election without holding half a map.

I said active members on purpose, because the remaining ones quit due to the End Game update.

Nobody quits the game instantly because of an update. If you're playing every day, then the idea of quitting builds up and eventually, they pull the trigger. And you cannot say a large amount quit, there's nothing to back that up. If the update was so bad, then you would have seen a swarm of new accounts starting new threads just like in 2021, when there were issue with Balancing Update when it hit live servers.

 

[S4TW]

I don't claim to know the full problem of your server on your side. Yea, don't upgrade the tower yourself then. Make your people farm fame and win in the elections. That's one way to do it. You can even hold as much site as u can defend at a higher yield. I don't know, but there's just so many option to win an election without holding half a map.


Nobody quits the game instantly because of an update. If you're playing every day, then the idea of quitting builds up and eventually, they pull the trigger. And you cannot say a large amount quit, there's nothing to back that up. If the update was so bad, then you would have seen a swarm of new accounts starting new threads just like in 2021, when there were issue with Balancing Update when it hit live servers.

I was about to quit the day I got to know about this update wdym

 

[S4TW]

I was about to quit the day I got to know about this update wdym

the only reason why I didn't was because it would've looked bad if a leader has done that, don't you think? But it's been months if not years since the last time I played this game because I wanted to, not because I had to.

 

[NazzaFire]

the only reason why I didn't was because it would've looked bad if a leader has done that, don't you think? But it's been months if not years since the last time I played this game because I wanted to, not because I had to.

You are free to do it, you are not the only leader

 

[Xx EL LOBO xX]

the only reason why I didn't was because it would've looked bad if a leader has done that, don't you think? But it's been months if not years since the last time I played this game because I wanted to, not because I had to.

Relax, its just a game you can destroy your clan and few people will remember it later

 

[Hardwell]

Topic : To help clan stand chances in defending and motivating people to upgrade yield and have lighter toll on map holder when losing

After playing the new EG 3.2 I feel that most clan are only using the drain function and not the heal function... And I've witnessed its people around this region doing map trade.

They will split in 2 clans and swap their basic gates asap to within 1 map making game boring and stagnant. As to avoid enemy from taking the gate because of the structure of dynamic drain giving no hope in defence....

Idea: To motivate people to defend and stop trading, healing gates will stand a chance.

To create a 4 quarter conflict battle like this.

Duration for different yield gate:
1) Battle (12 mins/basic) (10 mins/good) (8 mins/ v good) (6 mins/excellent)
Gate paused (3 mins)
2) Battle (timing according to yield)
Gate paused (3 mins)
3) Battle (timing according to yield)
Gate paused (3 mins)
4) Battle (timing according to yield)

Note :
Gate HP will not restore after every quarter but will resume it's HP from previous quarter.

% of drain by different clan will reset from quarter to quarter.

I picked 4 quarter so that conflict war will not end in less than 25 mins.....

I chose 12 mins for basic due to the chart diagram above as clan with 4-6 map like to quickly map trade among themselves with basic gate so with the above implementation they will not be able to map trade successfully within 12 mins...

The battle duration gets lesser and lesser for different type of yield is also a motivation and hope for people to upgrade yield and don't have the torture of healing and defending gates for prolong hours.

Idea of decreasing the heavy toll on map holder :

Create 4 slots of medals stacks

How it works:
If drainer manage to drain gate fully within first quarter of the battle he takes all 4 slots.

If drainer only drain fully on second quarter of battle he takes 3 slots

So 3rd quarter will be 2 slots and 4th quarter 1 slot.

With this implementation the toll of holding huge chunk of medal will not be such a big downfall and passing huge fame to the new clan owner....


I hope with the ideas above can change the dynamics of EG3.2 with a more tactical battle and using the heal function and people upgrading yield

 

[Mania]

Topic : To help clan stand chances in defending and motivating people to upgrade yield and have lighter toll on map holder when losing

After playing the new EG 3.2 I feel that most clan are only using the drain function and not the heal function... And I've witnessed its people around this region doing map trade.

They will split in 2 clans and swap their basic gates asap to within 1 map making game boring and stagnant. As to avoid enemy from taking the gate because of the structure of dynamic drain giving no hope in defence....

Idea: To motivate people to defend and stop trading, healing gates will stand a chance.

To create a 4 quarter conflict battle like this.

Duration for different yield gate:
1) Battle (12 mins/basic) (10 mins/good) (8 mins/ v good) (6 mins/excellent)
Gate paused (3 mins)
2) Battle (timing according to yield)
Gate paused (3 mins)
3) Battle (timing according to yield)
Gate paused (3 mins)
4) Battle (timing according to yield)

Note :
Gate HP will not restore after every quarter but will resume it's HP from previous quarter.

% of drain by different clan will reset from quarter to quarter.

I picked 4 quarter so that conflict war will not end in less than 25 mins.....

I chose 12 mins for basic due to the chart diagram above as clan with 4-6 map like to quickly map trade among themselves with basic gate so with the above implementation they will not be able to map trade successfully within 12 mins...

The battle duration gets lesser and lesser for different type of yield is also a motivation and hope for people to upgrade yield and don't have the torture of healing and defending gates for prolong hours.

Idea of decreasing the heavy toll on map holder :

Create 4 slots of medals stacks

How it works:
If drainer manage to drain gate fully within first quarter of the battle he takes all 4 slots.

If drainer only drain fully on second quarter of battle he takes 3 slots

So 3rd quarter will be 2 slots and 4th quarter 1 slot.

With this implementation the toll of holding huge chunk of medal will not be such a big downfall and passing huge fame to the new clan owner....


I hope with the ideas above can change the dynamics of EG3.2 with a more tactical battle and using the heal function and people upgrading yield

unless i'm misunderstanding your post, i fail to see how this has anything to do with healing gates... it seems more focused on the yield.

 

[Alewx]

unless i'm misunderstanding your post, i fail to see how this has anything to do with healing gates... it seems more focused on the yield.

It is an attempt to extend fights around buildings by just spliting up conflict into multiple segments. but it does not point out what happens in the last segment when an previously unattacking clan goes and just takes it plain, all the effort of the others just gone? aka trading with extra steps.

 

[Hardwell]

unless i'm misunderstanding your post, i fail to see how this has anything to do with healing gates... it seems more focused on the yield.

technically its possible to heal as the higher yield u have the lower the battle duration creating chance for enemy to not be in time to over take a site

 

[Hardwell]

It is an attempt to extend fights around buildings by just spliting up conflict into multiple segments. but it does not point out what happens in the last segment when an previously unattacking clan goes and just takes it plain, all the effort of the others just gone? aka trading with extra steps.

previously un attacking clan will for sure win in 1st segment of conflict :v

 

[Mania]

It is an attempt to extend fights around buildings by just spliting up conflict into multiple segments. but it does not point out what happens in the last segment when an previously unattacking clan goes and just takes it plain, all the effort of the others just gone? aka trading with extra steps.

yeah, that's how it comes off to me as well, especially with the footnote about health not being restored to gates after each quarter. i do notice a lot of people on my server don't bother to heal their gates (even when they're vulnerable and not being currently attacked) so i wonder how many complaints in that regard are just because people can't be bothered with healing gates.

technically its possible to heal as the higher yield u have the lower the battle duration creating chance for enemy to not be in time to over take a site

i think there is a big difference between "technically its possible" and "the point of this idea is to make healing more viable and profitable." what you've written up there (as elaborated on by alewx) definitely seems like more of the former.