#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

[Igaflys]

By active i mean the time when the dino is actually moving and hunting - not in the combat state, bcs we know how easly we can find a way to sneak through it.

 

[Evyus]

Well youve got a point here but youre saying how the game should work, but in real it's not like that. Some people still even after getting rex and sheriff are griddy and they're going once again for sheriff or other high elections and winning it. Currently when there is huge lack of new players in the game the 'new players' on the servers are mostly friends of alliance clan leaders or just players from different servers. So for someone who is real new player it's very hard to get into an alliance clan (because lets just be honest, people dont accept low lvls or newbies in clan in case of this account being multi acc of enemies). Then the low lvl player decides to make his own clan - so that he wont stay alone and since most of the servers are dead, he can only gather around 20 people to his clan (if he's lucky). Its impossible to grow that clan stronger since all of the other players are in the alliance. And the alliance won't give buildings to low clan - i guess I dont have to explain it why.

Ohhh, you have a good point.. but you said the server are "dead" so you didn't need a biiiggg clan to take some gates ..
About multi-accs.. unfortunately we have players about are against the game rules.. and we just punished they with proofs.. but right now let's focus in the update are coming. Soon the dev @Highway will post something about the PTR.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

I think ppl who do that aren't from the majority anyways and many players create fake proofs to ban their enemies and whole lot of things go behind which makes truth and lies hard to separate from each other and both party try to ban each other in every way possible so it isn't easy or justifiable to punish someone by just what we see with our eyes cuz creating fake proofs is much easier than finding real ones. -Leviathan

 

[Igaflys]

Ohhh, you have a good point.. but you said the server are "dead" so you didn't need a biiiggg clan to take some gates ..
About multi-accs.. unfortunately we have players about are against the game rules.. and we just punished they with proofs.. but right now let's focus in the update are coming. Soon the dev @Highway will post something about the PTR.

Well we need big clans for take gates thats the full point. Servers are dead means that people dont play on them thats right, but just try to attack 1 building and in around 20 min 10 - 20 full maxed people will come and hunt u down. You just can't take the buildings as a small clan, it's impossible. As a GM you can easly see that once ur online on the server and someone attacks the alliance - he will be destroyed in a matter of seconds.

 

[Igaflys]

And even if u manage to take 1 or 2 gates you can hold them only for around 2 - 5 min. And the probability of you being able to collect fame from them is around 0% because the defenders wont let you do that.

 

[vansh]

About the different time zone.. the PTR are coming and the devs will check it.. and put the right time.. ofc I don't want to wake up 3am to defend my map
About the little clans: the game is pvp .. make your clan strong, recruiting members.. making a good proposal about fame .. now everyone need fame until who already have rex. Or drain alone.. it's funny

There is no one to recruit, every new player is your team mate or enemy that got banned. + they will betray you for larger alliance later.

 

[vansh]

Ohhh, you have a good point.. but you said the server are "dead" so you didn't need a biiiggg clan to take some gates ..
About multi-accs.. unfortunately we have players about are against the game rules.. and we just punished they with proofs.. but right now let's focus in the update are coming. Soon the dev @Highway will post something about the PTR.

A dead server just refers to a server where people only play when a gate turn red. There is always 1 person sitting on 5 accounts constantly looking at 5 maps. As soon as he see a red gate he will message 10 people to come online. This is a dead server. If you are a random new player and you decide to take even 1 gate you are insta dead+perma kos+ ban+spam reported+bullied. Very non-toxic behaviour.

 

[vansh]

Correct.

However, when I wrote this post, I was refering to a level somewhat between level 5 - level 15.

It's easy to upgrade to level 15 in a week.

Because of this, towers in Goldfields maps are most vulnerable to this exploit.

All a player have to do is open multiple accounts, make it ready to hit a tower and let it drain.

Even better if there's 2 player opening multiple low level accounts to drain.

How about 3 players opening many low level accounts??

Now it's an unfair advantage to the attackers using unfair means against defenders playing within the rules.

You can't forget that defenders also use multiple accounts to watch and defend the map. Both of them are responsible for making my game experience bad.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

@vansh basically none of the two parties are saints XDD

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

A dead server just refers to a server where people only play when a gate turn red. There is always 1 person sitting on 5 accounts constantly looking at 5 maps. As soon as he see a red gate he will message 10 people to come online. This is a dead server. If you are a random new player and you decide to take even 1 gate you are insta dead+perma kos+ ban+spam reported+bullied. Very non-toxic behaviour.

Eu4 and most of others servers explained in one paragraph.

 

[VioletRosa]

That means loss of account, Sharing is against our ruleset.

I mean @Pleiadian still has a point. Yes the account are at risk for a ban but will it happen right away?

 

[Alewx]

I mean @Pleiadian still has a point. Yes the account are at risk for a ban but will it happen right away?

IF properly reported with real valid proof, that is rather quick, but I'm not involved with that.

 

[vansh]

The valid proof in question... fake reports+ reporting your accounts before selling it to known multi account users to get them banned +making alt accounts to make them spy in enemy clan chat + buying gold for your "friend" then blackmailing them with cash back to get them banned. To obtain those "valid proof" require you to be a bad person in the first place.

IF properly reported with real valid proof, that is rather quick, but I'm not involved with that.

But whatever, I stopped caring about this now. It only makes people stay in a loop of hatred and friends become enemies all the time.

 

[Highway]

@Highway

I want to bring your attention to a possible exploit being laid down.

1 Player opens multiple accounts, sets up each account at 1 tower, and puts them to drain.

The cost to drain a tower is so low (both in terms of levels and the fact that we won't need any supply charge to attack a tower) that attackers abuse this exploit.

When Part 3 of the update is here, where it would be possible to steal fame, this will be even worse for defenders.

A clan should have as much buildings as they are able to defend. Simple as that.

When a one player uses multiple accounts simultaniously (this is against the coc!) and put many towers in drain without actually playing the attack, then the defender obviously has not a proper defence set up to protect their buildings during the conflict phase. We certainly will have an eye on expoints or weakpoints. But often this can not be seen directly before it is live.

 

[Igaflys]

A clan should have as much buildings as they are able to defend. Simple as that.

When a one player uses multiple accounts simultaniously (this is against the coc!) and put many towers in drain without actually playing the attack, then the defender obviously has not a proper defence set up to protect their buildings during the conflict phase. We certainly will have an eye on expoints or weakpoints. But often this can not be seen directly before it is live.

But the people who are doing it, mostly do it during night around 2/3 or even 4 am so its common for others to sleep by this time. That's why I would disagree with you about your statement 'A clan should have as much buildings as they are able to defend'. Dont get me wrong, I understand your point and I kinda agree with that, but no one is able to defend their buildings 24/7. Especially when attakers multis are just low lvl and when he spawns them its 1 player against 20 low lvls. Like ok its np but running from for example scott to ins while full map is red and later running back to scott once again... its annoying tbh.

 

[Highway]

There will not be any conflict phase during nighttime (based in server time)
Thats also why we initially wanted to have one phase per day in the evening when the usually most players can attend.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

Bruh F my ally gonna laugh at me

 

[vansh]

There will not be any conflict phase during nighttime (based in server time)
Thats also why we initially wanted to have one phase per day in the evening when the usually most players can attend.

Hope to be able to do some testing on ptr soon.

 

[Pleiadian]

A clan should have as much buildings as they are able to defend. Simple as that.

Agreed.

That's the fundamental culture in the bigger active servers. The bigger clan have the most towers due to most players and the smaller clans holds a few because of their low members in the clan.

I understand better the idea behind a one attack window now— despite being against it.

From your previous post you said that there would be a second attack window during mid day aside from the main one at peak time.

Looking forward to testing how it turns out from PTR soon.

 

[Highway]

From your previous post you said that there would be a second attack window during mid day aside from the main one at peak time.

We are flexible here and can add multiple ones. But the system was initialy planned to have one per day.

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

Clan A and Clan B drain each other and keep switching maps, how will attackers even drain it if ally attack each other coz even if attacker steps on it, the map goes to clan A or B since ally initiated it. How we gonna attack if they keep it red until the window closes ._.

 

[Highway]

Clan A and Clan B drain each other and keep switching maps, how will attackers even drain it if ally attack each other coz even if attacker steps on it, the map goes to clan A or B since ally initiated it.

They can do that if they want to loose a lot of fame. The building yield level that can only be upgraded once between the conflict phases and will fall back to level 1 when a building is overtaken. That would mean they stay at basic level 1 yield all the time. Gaining only a fraction of fame items. Not the best strategy

And there is also Clan C that goes to one building with a good attack squad and takes one building at a time. And Clan D, E... doing the same with other buildings? If Clan A and B will splitting up their forces to pull that off they will be outnumbered if they own to many buildings.

Right now its plannd that it takes 15 minutes to fully drain a building without a defender to repair at the same time. Full repair currently requires 4x the time as the drain (60 minutes) and will only slow down the drain if attackers are present. An started attack that is not drained anymore after 3 minutes will end and reset all clan effort. But that can and will be finetuned once gameplay tests are made.

 

[Igaflys]

Clan A and Clan B drain each other and keep switching maps, how will attackers even drain it if ally attack each other coz even if attacker steps on it, the map goes to clan A or B since ally initiated it. How we gonna attack if they keep it red until the window closes ._.

i have to admit that i had to read this many times, but i still dont understand what do u mean XDDD

 

[Pleiadian]

How about making attacks on the buildings availabe only for people that have around 100 hours of active gameplay?

This is actually a very good proposal that could solve the multi accounts problem of low levels.

Adding another layer of activities will at least prevent players from upgrading low level accounts and instantly using them to drain the low level zones.

@Highway this idea should be further investigated and implemented.

 

[vansh]

They can do that if they want to loose a lot of fame. The building yield level that can only be upgraded once between the conflict phases and will fall back to level 1 when a building is overtaken. That would mean they stay at basic level 1 yield all the time. Gaining only a fraction of fame items. Not the best strategy

This will definitely work in full servers like eu1 and am1 but In some servers the owning clan won't mind lower fame gain as they can still control the server no matter what. Less fame will really not affect them since fame is just needed for sheriff in the end nothing more.

And there is also Clan C that goes to one building with a good attack squad and takes one building at a time. And Clan D, E... doing the same with other buildings? If Clan A and B will splitting up their forces to pull that off they will be outnumbered if they own to many buildings.

If the undefended gates become ownerless at the end of the attack period, I can see how other clans will actually be able to take gates.

Right now its plannd that it takes 15 minutes to fully drain a building without a defender to repair at the same time. Full repair currently requires 4x the time as the drain (60 minutes) and will only slow down the drain if attackers are present. An started attack that is not drained anymore after 3 minutes will end and reset all clan effort. But that can and will be finetuned once gameplay tests are made.

If clan effort is reset after 3 minutes does the game interpret this as a gate being successfully defended or will the gate become ownerless. How exactly will it happen that alliance can only hold as many gate as they can defend when someone can attack all gate and the map holder successfully defend for the 3 minute duration.

 

[Sunshine..]

This is actually a very good proposal that could solve the multi accounts problem of low levels.

Adding another layer of activities will at least prevent players from upgrading low level accounts and instantly using them to drain the low level zones.

@Highway this idea should be further investigated and implemented.

I believe it would be easier to increase the level needed to be able to drain zones.
I don't see any point in players level 25 or less wanting to drain

 

[Highway]

This will definitely work in full servers like eu1 and am1 but In some servers the owning clan won't mind lower fame gain as they can still control the server no matter what. Less fame will really not affect them since fame is just needed for sheriff in the end nothing more.

If the undefended gates become ownerless at the end of the attack period, I can see how other clans will actually be able to take gates.

If clan effort is reset after 3 minutes does the game interpret this as a gate being successfully defended or will the gate become ownerless. How exactly will it happen that alliance can only hold as many gate as they can defend when someone can attack all gate and the map holder successfully defend for the 3 minute duration.

A clan will only loose the building when another clan was won an attack. (fully drained the building)

But there is the town dinoville that will also claim buildings in the conflict time. Its not a PVE attack rather directly claimed by the town without a fight. How many per map depends on the activity in the townhall to scale servers properly and make the fight of the remaining buildings fun.

I believe it would be easier to increase the level needed to be able to drain zones.
I don't see any point in players level 25 or less wanting to drain

Yes that could be a good idea to increase the level requirement for building attacks. What will be changed already is that only players are able to drain or repair, if the have the required level, not just the initiator of the attack.

Aaaand here is little teaser

 

[TheDinoWarrior]

Idk if this is a smart idea but what if the buildings were only able to drain by a particular level of a player.

Example: Level 20 players will only be able to get lvl 20 gate and lvl 45 players only gets to attack/defend building level 45 and so on.. No other level gets to drain that building except the required leveled players. I don't know what will be the drawbacks. (The gates which dont face attacks from players of that required level will be taken away by dinoville until then)

(We can enforce this by giving lvl 55 gate the maximum reward and from there each building gets lowered rewards..) so this system could work for this game.

 

[Luka Patajac]

Yes that could be a good idea to increase the level requirement for building attacks. What will be changed already is that only players are able to drain or repair, if the have the required level, not just the initiator of the attack.

By required level do you mean exact level that will be on build or also any level above that level?

 

[Highway]

By required level do you mean exact level that will be on build or also any level above that level?

Minimum required level and all above it for sure.