Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)

[Azazel]

@Highway There is a visual issue that i just noticed. the bandits are pointing their guns are to a different location..
you can see in this image that the bandit is pointing the gun to the back...

 

[- Leyenda -]

Why better, do not add x4 damage to the defenders when they enter the circle of their own Tower, which is better than a x4 defense because the idea would be to remove or expel the attacker who makes almost no sense that the defenders have this defense when What we want is to remove the defenders from that point and the attacker would receive the defense x4 to prevent external clans from getting involved, that is, this neutralizes the defense by four of the attackers and we would avoid complaints from the alliances, because alliances would not receive this bonus to quickly defeat the attacker, this means that the players who are owners of the portal or the owner of that portal at that moment can defend their portal and if they do not defend it, the alliance will not be able to defend it because At the end of the day they are always all dinos with a full defense to drain it

 

[Highway]

Why better, do not add x4 damage to the defenders when they enter the circle of their own Tower

That is what we initially planned. But during tests this caused big issues because attacker/defender had a big advantage to first strike the clans that did not get their adrenaline buff yet. Usually when they where waiting in the circle already with the buff ready.

 

[itzmee]

That is what we initially planned. But during tests this caused big issues because attacker/defender had a big advantage to first strike the clans that did not get their adrenaline buff yet. Usually when they where waiting in the circle already with the buff ready.

And why not remove the option to attack the attacker from the 3rd party clans members when the camp is red. Basically if the camp is red then only attacker vs owner clan is allowed.

 

[Highway]

And why not remove the option to attack the attacker from the 3rd party clans members when the camp is red. Basically if the camp is red then only attacker vs owner clan is allowed.

because that can be easily exploited by just attack your ally and with that no other attacker can participate.

 

[Hardwell]

Defender fighting multiple attacker is tough too. Is it possible a yellow feet drainer get x2 factor when dealing with defender while red feet get the usual x4 factor dealing with defend

I mean x6 less factor for yellow feet drainer...

Dealing x6 lesser damage while red feet deal x4 lesser damage like usual

 

[itzmee]

because that can be easily exploited by just attack your ally and with that no other attacker can participate.

Hmm true in that case if not having the option to attack the attacker doesn't suit then more buff to an extent where 3rd party clan members doesn't cause much damage to the attacker should be the solution.

 

[Azazel]

Also why ep skills debuff not working inside circles??

 

[Suguygyu]

Also why ep skills debuff not working inside circles??

Only the ones that has attacker and defender buff can apply status effect to each other.

So if you are an ally of defender, you wont be able to apply any status effect to attackers with or without extra power.

But besides that you can always apply any status effect to attackers on their way to gate/claim.

 

[Suguygyu]

Also why ep skills debuff not working inside circles??

And i wanted to remind something that i mentioned before, even if you are not defender you can apply status effects to attackers in very little gap just before attacker buff reapplies.

 

[- Leyenda -]

That is what we initially planned. But during tests this caused big issues because attacker/defender had a big advantage to first strike the clans that did not get their adrenaline buff yet. Usually when they where waiting in the circle already with the buff ready.

And if the option is added that this x4 Attack does not work against players who do not have the x4 defense active, that is, the Active adrenaline system, because it would be the same whether a player has defense or not, (only if he is a defender owner of the portal) or it would also be that the Owner of the portal has an effect that neutralizes the defense normal

 

[Highway]

And i wanted to remind something that i mentioned before, even if you are not defender you can apply status effects to attackers in very little gap just before attacker buff reapplies.

This should be the case and a timing issue. Should be fixed on the next update.

 

[Czarna]

everything is about numbers doesnt mean that if your skilled you cant win hard or unfavorable match ups but thinking you can win highly unfavorable fights where your facing more then 2 times as many enemies as you have allies is insanity there a defeat is certain nothing can be done about it the numbers just do not add up this is my last message as i said already i do not want to try and give more feedbacks on anything i just feel too much disapointed from it in all imaginable ways

Yeah with this update only number matters yep right sadly

With the help of 1 additional player, I was able to capture a site against multiple defenders. Two players lvl 50 (yes, with equipment lvl 50) against five players lvl 55. I was able to heavily damage the site before all those defenders showed up (the site was maybe at 20-30% hp). After defeating us - the main goal of those defenders was to keep us away from the site (and leave one player to heal it). And they were doing quite good. I felt the impact of the recent changes - a lot more CC effects were happening on the way to the site. It was no longer sufficient to run blindly towards it - as attackers we had to respond and use our skills to gain distance from the defenders. I was unable to reach the site multiple times, I was killed a lot. Unfortunately, one mistake from the defender's side led to them losing that battle and the site.

I'm glad to see that improvement already - I think we got closer to reaching a point of balance. But I would really like to see some kind of an answer to site exchanges and an option for different attacking clans to compete for sites.

 

[Mania]

This should be the case and a timing issue. Should be fixed on the next update.

i noticed as well... yesterday? i think? i had an attacker vs attacker situation while draining and i was still able to apply stun once or twice. nothing else and it wasn't consistent, but i'm still figuring out the new update so i'm not sure whether or not this was intended for those situations. i'm admittedly a little confused on how attacker vs attacker should work compared to attacker vs defender.

 

[DarkMyth.]

i noticed as well... yesterday? i think? i had an attacker vs attacker situation while draining and i was still able to apply stun once or twice. nothing else and it wasn't consistent, but i'm still figuring out the new update so i'm not sure whether or not this was intended for those situations. i'm admittedly a little confused on how attacker vs attacker should work compared to attacker vs defender.

Yes we’ve also tested it multiple times, it is a very short gap chance where players can hit their skills with normal damage (if they weren’t site owners) and also apply effects on the attackers, it has to be perfectly timed though and most of the time you won’t hit it

 

[Mania]

Yes we’ve also tested it multiple times, it is a very short gap chance where players can hit their skills with normal damage (if they weren’t site owners) and also apply effects on the attackers, it has to be perfectly timed though and most of the time you won’t hit it
View attachment 48098

ahhhh i see. yeah it happened only like once or twice so i assumed they were getting lucky with stability or were running agility or something. interesting.

 

[Highway]

With the help of 1 additional player, I was able to capture a site against multiple defenders. Two players lvl 50 (yes, with equipment lvl 50) against five players lvl 55. I was able to heavily damage the site before all those defenders showed up (the site was maybe at 20-30% hp). After defeating us - the main goal of those defenders was to keep us away from the site (and leave one player to heal it). And they were doing quite good. I felt the impact of the recent changes - a lot more CC effects were happening on the way to the site. It was no longer sufficient to run blindly towards it - as attackers we had to respond and use our skills to gain distance from the defenders. I was unable to reach the site multiple times, I was killed a lot. Unfortunately, one mistake from the defender's side led to them losing that battle and the site.

I'm glad to see that improvement already - I think we got closer to reaching a point of balance. But I would really like to see some kind of an answer to site exchanges and an option for different attacking clans to compete for sites.

That really sounds great and its just the way we hoped it to turn out. Generally we wanted to improve the gameplay itself & balance before changing the site exchange logic itself. Next week I think we should have a few ideas ready that we can post here to discuss.

I hope more will test the new update over the weekend and try to defend their sites.

 

[NazzaFire]

That really sounds great and its just the way we hoped it to turn out. Generally we wanted to improve the gameplay itself & balance before changing the site exchange logic itself. Next week I think we should have a few ideas ready that we can post here to discuss.

I hope more will test the new update over the weekend and try to defend their sites.

However I always liked the idea to steal medals

 

[DarkMyth.]

I've noticed today many times while hunting or playing PvP when I use my battlecry my target is getting bugged in their spot but when the fear effect expires the target suddenly changes location to wherever it should've been battlecried to, and when this happens you basically don't know where your target went and you can't use your skills due to that as well, not sure if it's only happening with me so I thought to post about it here
And same thing if someone or a rex mob battlecries me, I sometimes get bugged as well


This isn't always happening, but it's happening more often than before it's not something new

 

[Czarna]

I've noticed today many times while hunting or playing PvP when I use my battlecry my target is getting bugged in their spot but when the fear effect expires the target suddenly changes location to wherever it should've been battlecried to, and when this happens you basically don't know where your target went and you can't use your skills due to that as well, not sure if it's only happening with me so I thought to post about it here
And same thing if someone or a rex mob battlecries me, I sometimes get bugged as well


This isn't always happening, but it's happening more often than before it's not something new

Yes, I noticed that too. Sometimes the target doesn't even reappear in the correct position after the fear effect wears off, but instead attacks me from a mile away. It's not a new bug - but it's much more noticeable and disruptive now. Before I was able to predict quite comfortably in which direction the target went and where it might be currently. However after the battlecry change, it has become more difficult - mobs often move in an unexpected direction because of a small object or a wall nearby.

 

[OrionZG]

I just want the pvp conflict between players to last until the vulnerability conflict ends (o more), because at least on my server we only have 10 minutes, and in those 10 minutes we attack other players very little or sometimes there are none, IT BECOME VERY BORING THE REST OF THE TIME.

The buildings are pretty balanced, BUT WE NEED MORE PvP ACTION.

 

[DarkMyth.]

I just want the pvp conflict between players to last until the vulnerability conflict ends (o more), because at least on my server we only have 10 minutes, and in those 10 minutes we attack other players very little or sometimes there are none, IT BECOME VERY BORING THE REST OF THE TIME.

The buildings are pretty balanced, BUT WE NEED MORE PvP ACTION.

Problem is site exchanging between allies on many servers, mostly least populated ones

And also war on some servers where both sides are just swapping from one phase to another as defending is a bit “hopeless” for them if they can’t outnumber their attackers by many

They keep basic yields and swap them so attackers can’t take anything, @Czarna already talked about this topic in the previous pages

 

[- Leyenda -]

And if it is better not to add, that instead of being added to an always fixed schedule, the newly taken towers after every 4 hours the tower becomes vulnerable, if a clan manages to defend it that Tower will continue in this state. vulnerable, that is, we will not have to be fixed to a schedule. An example would be if a Clan takes a portal, this portal will spend 4 hours invulnerable at the end of these 4 hours, that tower can be drained, with respect to fame it will produce fame, how It was previously Only that the new update will be added, it is a bit of the old with some of the new, this would balance the fact that some portals are drained at different times and also that we will not always be waiting or that we will be complaining that the conflict times last so little, because the conflicts, at least on the servers that I have seen, last between 15 to 30 minutes. Maybe it is not a good idea for players who have many portals but at the same time we could add With this, more activities on the servers would also stop the routine of always waiting three or four hours to drain two portals and then going offline. I would also add being aware of a portal 24/7, it is true, but if you have few portals it would also be a limitation. for some players that also benefits the enemy side and also benefits the allied side because because you can recover your tower quickly and you can defend them in some cases. (it's a random idea)

 

[EmHa69]

And if it is better not to add, that instead of being added to an always fixed schedule, the newly taken towers after every 4 hours the tower becomes vulnerable, if a clan manages to defend it that Tower will continue in this state. vulnerable, that is, we will not have to be fixed to a schedule. An example would be if a Clan takes a portal, this portal will spend 4 hours invulnerable at the end of these 4 hours, that tower can be drained, with respect to fame it will produce fame, how It was previously Only that the new update will be added, it is a bit of the old with some of the new, this would balance the fact that some portals are drained at different times and also that we will not always be waiting or that we will be complaining that the conflict times last so little, because the conflicts, at least on the servers that I have seen, last between 15 to 30 minutes. Maybe it is not a good idea for players who have many portals but at the same time we could add With this, more activities on the servers would also stop the routine of always waiting three or four hours to drain two portals and then going offline. I would also add being aware of a portal 24/7, it is true, but if you have few portals it would also be a limitation. for some players that also benefits the enemy side and also benefits the allied side because because you can recover your tower quickly and you can defend them in some cases. (it's a random idea)

Bro is tryharding not to lose gates. Wars are fought in game, not in forums

 

[Igaflys]

Problem:
Attackers are still using brachis and ankys to go afk in site to drain.

Solution:
Let's introduce to the game something called 'active draining'

How would it work?
Draining the site would require from the attacker to be active while doing it to make attacking effect take place. If an attacker is afk and not taking any action for longer amount of time than 5 seconds - attacking effect dissapears.

What would it solve?
Multi acc draining problem, it would also force attackers to fight not only to stay on tank and do nothing.

 

[istencsaszar]

Problem:
Attackers are still using brachis and ankys to go afk in site to drain.

Solution:
Let's introduce to the game something called 'active draining'

How would it work?
Draining the site would require from the attacker to be active while doing it to make attacking effect take place. If an attacker is afk and not taking any action for longer amount of time than 5 seconds - attacking effect dissapears.

What would it solve?
Multi acc draining problem, it would also force attackers to fight not only to stay on tank and do nothing.

This would only be fair if defenders had to move while repairing. Multiaccs is an issue with repairing too.

But overall running around in circles seems counterproductive from a gameplay standpoint...

 

[Pleiadian]

Let's introduce to the game something called 'active draining'

We need the Dino Class-based draining.

Any dino with high vitality is still favored over whatever can die faster, even the para as we suspected due to the agility effect. Attackers care more about draining than fighting. Despite the attackers overwhelming the defending clans with Tanks, they'd rather focus on draining than killing.

Draining the site would require from the attacker to be active while doing it to make attacking effect take place. If an attacker is afk and not taking any action for longer amount of time than 5 seconds - attacking effect dissapears.

A better solution was already proposed.

@Alewx has proposed some good ideas that tackle the problem to the source, they will not mess with other parts of the gameplay, and is a better way of doing it.

• During Conflict Phases buildings will emit in regular time intervals a fear effect to all players within the circle
• the Building themself emit in regular time intervals damage to the players within the circle

When the building emits a fear effect, the player within the circle will need to be actively interacting. This solves the problem of "AFK drain with multi-account"

Damage Dealers -355
Hit & Run -319
Allrounder -301
Tank -284

When you attack a building of aclan taht has more than 6 buildings more than your own.

Next to that I also had the idea of a increased repairrate based on amount of defenders but not linear but rather deminishing return, so you increase the total repairrate with each defender but with each one it increases less.

This idea about Dino class-based drainage solves the problem of attackers only favoring survivability over fighting. Attackers will be forced to fight the defenders instead of draining while the defenders are on-site.

 

[DarkMyth.]

Problem:
Attackers are still using brachis and ankys to go afk in site to drain.

Solution:
Let's introduce to the game something called 'active draining'

How would it work?
Draining the site would require from the attacker to be active while doing it to make attacking effect take place. If an attacker is afk and not taking any action for longer amount of time than 5 seconds - attacking effect dissapears.

What would it solve?
Multi acc draining problem, it would also force attackers to fight not only to stay on tank and do nothing.

Doesn’t sound bad however it wouldn’t really solve the real issue there

People can use softwares such as autoclicker and set it up to move them around on specific spots so they’re not just “afk draining”

There’s two solutions, however attackers will complain as it’ll be more balanced but I’ll mention it again:

- Draining/Repairing gets paused while defender/attacker are battling in site (as it makes no sense for the defender to lose site overtime while he’s battling in there)


- Dynamic draining depending on dino class and tanks should have slower drain speed

Also maybe have we considered adjusting the drain / repair rate? The rate is high as allies were able to help

And I’d like to also add the fact that if you want to keep attacks for free, then holding sites should also be for free, otherwise it makes no sense for the attacker to win sites and fame without paying anything for it while the defending clan did pay to produce this fame, efforts should be mutual in this case

One more thing I’d like to point out again, all this update against alliances is pushing clans into creating alliances as alone they can’t actually hold, 2 clans in a war with each other will swap sites nonstop, no winner in this case. Until a third-party joins and helps, you need numbers with all of this and numbers aren’t really big when it’s a war between 2 clans, that’s how allies become a thing

 

[Pleiadian]

And I’d like to also add the fact that if you want to keep attacks for free, then holding sites should also be for free, otherwise it makes no sense for the attacker to win sites and fame without paying anything for it while the defending clan did pay to produce this fame, efforts should be mutual in this case

I was very heavily against this idea, but when it is put in this way, then there's some sense to it.

There are attackers who are only appearing on the Site with no tower held using Tank, that same attacker got high drain points. While the defenders with a minimum of 3 Sites will struggle against a Tank, the attackers would have obtained the Site for basically free.

Looking at that situation from the Defender's perspective, the defender is being forced to use Dollars to upgrade the tower which would be inevitably lost against an enemy favoring survival dino over fighting.

Also maybe have we considered adjusting the drain / repair rate? The rate is high as allies were able to help

When we use the word alliance in this discussion, we mainly refer to defending alliances. But now the attacking side also can create their own alliance and take unfair advantage of that high drain rate. Each of those players can easily obtain 5,000 fame when their attack succeeds.

If every attacking player creates his own clan only to take advantage of the high drain points, then the repair points have to go up by a slight margin to compensate for this situation.

 

[DarkMyth.]

I was very heavily against this idea, but when it is put in this way, then there's some sense to it.

There are attackers who are only appearing on the Site with no tower held using Tank, that same attacker got high drain points. While the defenders with a minimum of 3 Sites will struggle against a Tank, the attackers would have obtained the Site for basically free.

Looking at that situation from the Defender's perspective, the defender is being forced to use Dollars to upgrade the tower which would be inevitably lost against an enemy favoring survival dino over fighting.

From what I’ve been seeing, attackers don’t plan on holding sites (or at least on my main server)

Why? Because why would they hold sites while they attack for free and gain the fame we produced with our dds and efforts

Attackers would wait till defenders make the sites excellent once again (which costs the defender 83k clan funds) and then they would focus their forces to take these excellent sites 1 by 1 no matter which clans takes it - this site has 5,600 or 7,680 fame if it was a claim, and that’s nearly the same amount you make from your clothes on a daily basis and you get it with the minimal effort

Yes it’s a lot fame and shouldn’t be taken for nothing in return - sometimes on my server attackers are able to take 12-13 sites (happened yesterday) and these sites are split between their clans but one clan (main one) had 5 sites itself, all these sites were excellent (I think) including 1 or 2 claims, that’s A LOT of fame and nothing was spent in order to win it except dds to respawn which isn’t something to relate in this case