#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

[yewhuiyuan]

pov: you're eu1 kos

Dem eu 1 lads be spending more time in forum than Ds clients now

 

[piotr50000009]

Dem eu 1 lads be spending more time in forum than Ds clients now

womp womp

 

[piotr50000009]

All our past updates were community driven, so we don't think it's fair to state that the devs/we wouldn't listen to your feedback. We ask you to understand that a few things can only be seen live before we come to conclusions to change something for the better to reach the goal. Especially with this update, such an iterative approach is required.
So, let's get to the next design idea we think will solve a few of the issues you mentioned:

Yield Based Building HP (3.1)
Buildings will get lower HP the higher their yield level is upgraded to. With that we want to increase the attractiveness for attacks on buildings in a way that small clans and single players can fight for buildings due to the increased risk of losing a building when it is sitting on a high yield level.

Goals:

• The buildings shall be more attractive for spontaneous attacks to oppose dominant clans, allowing smaller clans to participate

Main Changes:

• Buildings have different starting HP based on their yield levels for each conflict phase
  • Starting HP decreases with higher yield level (Risk vs Reward)
• Buildings have an increasing risk that Dinoville will take over the building the longer the same clan is holding it.
  • At the start of the next Conflict Phase random DV owned buildings are released again to again arrive at the number of buildings DV should own based on Townhall activity.
  • The risk will increase based on hold cycles up to a max of 25% chance
  • Risk to lose a building will be applied on a daily basis
• Defender Repair rate will be increased to 1:2 instead of the current 1:4 rate
• Basic Yield level will be increased from 25% to 50%

View attachment 47368

Let us know what you think of it!

Okay, i've been in this game pretty much since 2013 and all i can kindly say is

Are you devs out of your minds? 1.8 minutes to take an entire gate? When there's 2 hours of fighting over gates? Who the hell thought of this? How about instead of spiraling with this until the game dies you think of something new?

Kos will exist and always existed, ally will exist and always existed. It's a pvp game.
I truly do not know how you guys talked about this but you somehow made a eh update into something 20 times more horrible, you might as well bring back the dd upgrading since it'll be basically impossible to get 400% yield now

 

[Suguygyu]

I am spending some time trying to see how it will work in practice.

Attack time for a Site with Excellent yield is 1.8 minutes. That doesn't offer me time to move to my destinated Site that's getting attacked considering the fact that travel with Sites held by clans are still restricted.

I think its ok since defenders are guarding gates and probably they will be waiting like 3-4 defenders in excellent gate and also now drain/ repairing rate is 2:1

 

[Dark_Wolf]

omg who came up with this idea. this did not help small players at all. They better stop playing because now it is impossible to ever own a gate or claim. You want this to work? make it impossible for level 55 players to attack level 35 players and lower, make it impossible for level 35 players to attack level 15 and lower i think you get the drift.
low level players can not attack high level buildings this is already a fact. now all your work is completely useless.
also maybe you should take a look on the servers because it seems to me that you think you are controlling the game with you updates but i can promise you that you are not. Good that you made it difficult to come online with 2 accounts at the same time that helps a little. Wolf

 

[yewhuiyuan]

Why is it always eu 1 ppl complaining :v from complaining Abt using DD to upgrade yield to this xD

 

[piotr50000009]

Didn't anyone realize that the main problem is having fixed attack times?

I agree with that, attack times should be dynamic and maybe announced a day or two before, and it shouldn't be the same across servers like it is now

 

[Rockspider19]

Honestly i think the devs should play the game from level 1 to 55 before they can make updates.
so thats what 3-16 months of gameplay depending on how much time they got

 

[piotr50000009]

Honestly i think the devs should play the game from level 1 to 55 before they can make updates.

Can't believe im saying this but i agree with you

 

[Pleiadian]

Didn't anyone realize that the main problem is having fixed attack times?

Yes, this needs to be changed. We need more attacking phases, because the current ones is rendering the game boring.

 

[Alewx]

If the players want to attack back, they can. However, with the fact that attacks were useless in the past, most of the enemies dropped out of the war or quit altogether.

And from reading your statements, it seems like you do not want players on the enemy list. Because that's literally what KOS means. To be on the Kill On Sight list.

A reminder that this game has been advertised as PvP to all of the current community. You sold them the idea that PvP was possible in this game. Revenue is mostly made from wars. If there's no enemy, there's no war. No war, and no revenue for the game.

So all in all, you shouldn't think it's a bad thing to have a KOS list in this game.

Have played EVE Online in the past, and something like a KOS was not event imagined, even though it is a total PvP game. You could meet someone from another clan in open space and be pretty alert about what they did, with the mentality if you get closer things get scary, but you just moved along until there were actually something declared.
KOS is nothing else then get the hell out of the server.

 

[Suguygyu]

Didn't anyone realize that the main problem is having fixed attack times?

Increasing vulnerable phase times should solve some issues. Also i am still thinking that attackers should be rewarded according to their efforts and activity in game and not according to single vulnerable phase

 

[piotr50000009]

Have played EVE Online in the past, and something like a KOS was not event imagined, even though it is a total PvP game. You could meet someone from another clan in open space and be pretty alert about what they did, with the mentality if you get closer things get scary, but you just moved along until there were actually something declared.
KOS is nothing else then get the hell out of the server.

ARE YOU NUMB? THIS ISNT EVE ONLINE BRO WAKE UP

 

[piotr50000009]

You're comparing something that has thousands of players against a game that has like under 300 at it's peak. @Alewx

 

[Rockspider19]

perhaps you're on the kos list since you don't like it that much?

everyone joins ally in eu1 lol imagine being the guy getting rex in 2064 waiting in line xDDDDD

 

[Queenie]

What war shall happen when any opposition was already abused out of the game by beeing killed on sight? i mean the ppl that just introduced that just got what they wanted, a motionless server.

Isn't that literally the point of the game?
The game literally is about fighting, wars and alliances. That's apart of the game. However now you are suddenly upset because some clans do a great job at being steadyat holding gates and members. It's not their fault that enemies are giving up. And even if all will be gone, almost everybody is given a chance to join a clan. Players who are just dumb and have high delusions will always be killed on sight because there's nothing else to do with that kind of people.

 

[poppin]

everyone joins ally in eu1 lol imagine being the guy getting rex in 2064 waiting in line xDDDDD

and imagine being kos and never winning it

 

[Rockspider19]

What war shall happen when any opposition was already abused out of the game by beeing killed on sight? i mean the ppl that just introduced that just got what they wanted, a motionless server.

to be completly fair people left eu1 because draining took forever and phoemix was online 24/7 waiting to cry in discord about any gate turning red to which the attacking player would get swarmed by 50000 people in the ally... so you could say 1 singuler person killed eu1 xDDD

 

[vakx]

everyone joins ally in eu1 lol imagine being the guy getting rex in 2064 waiting in line xDDDDD

come back to eu 1 please

 

[yewhuiyuan]

everyone joins ally in eu1 lol imagine being the guy getting rex in 2064 waiting in line xDDDDD

Devs gave them what they wanted a peaceful holding hand server

 

[Highway]

Can everyone hold your horses and try to full understand the concept please? If you dont understand it then ask questions please.

#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

Tf did you expect, there's 5 kos total, others got peace and elections, and they made ally combats out of boredom😭😂😂 Basically if there's a problem with someone they kick him out of the clan and let the alliance kill him/she like they don't recognize him/she anymore :ROFLMAO:

forum.dinostorm.com

I give you time to think and locking this thread for a few minutes

 

[Alewx]

Isn't that literally the point of the game?
The game literally is about fighting, wars and alliances. That's apart of the game. However now you are suddenly upset because some clans do a great job at being steadyat holding gates and members. It's not their fault that enemies are giving up. And even if all will be gone, almost everybody is given a chance to join a clan. Players who are just dumb and have high delusions will always be killed on sight because there's nothing else to do with that kind of people.

No no no, it is not about beeing good at holding gates, it is about simply abusing others to leave server.

 

[Highway]

Ok this topic will be unlocked later. Let me try to explain the fundamentals element of the presented idea again in a different way.

More Rewards = Higher Risk
If a clan wants more rewards from the buildings the clan can choose to upgrade the yield of the building. Now with the planned change there will be an added risk doing so. The Max Hp the building will have at the beginning of the conflict will be lower than basic and so on. The higher the yield the more the attacker is encuraged to attack to steal the fame because it will be quicker to drain the building. (Yield will be shown to all players as well)
The exact numbers of HP per yield etc is not fixed yet and must be tested first. But what we also change that the repair rate will be raised from 5 to 10 points so that the defender can repair the building faster after defeding an attack or slow the attack down more than currently.

Long ownership = Risk that building needs maintenace repairs from DV
Currently we have a system in place that calculates how many buildings are held by dinoville based on the townhall activity. This number will change every 14 days based on the townhall election activity in that period. If the activity rises, DV will free random buildings to be claimed again by clans. As this happens at a slow pace you most likely will see 1-3 freed or DV claimed buildings at the time.
So what the planned idea does is to build on top of this system that there is risk that a building needs to go into maintenace when it is held by a single clan for a longer time. A DV maintenace will only last one protection phase and will be free to claim by clans again. This will result that the buildings held by DV will change more often as all the DV buildings, even the one of the townhall activity scaling, will can be freed again. Also keep in mind that you will still get the item producion without the need to defend the building as compensation when the building goes into maintenance.

Why these changes?

• On peace servers this change will create a dynamic that cause the buildngs change over time and adds a potential for small clans to grab exellent yield buildings with lower effort than currenty. At least the temptation will be a lot greater to attack than right now.
• On full war servers this change will help to easier defend lower yield buildings and to overall gain more fame with that. When a clan is not able to defend the building only "GOOD" yield is achieved which we already saw as issue on asia. It also gives clan a bit of tactic which buildings to upgrade and which to keep to allow easier defence.
• Overall it gives the clans a bit more variety as there will be changing buildings over the map with different rewards and risks to claim them.

Please ask your questions if something remains unclear. Also keep your feedback constructive otherwise it will move into the trash bin. Also keep it civil between all parties involved. So keep that in mind when you take your time to post your feedback & questions. Thanks

 

[Pleiadian]

Regarding your proposed ideas, it does look interesting, however, it's difficult to say anything unless we've seen it at play.

You should look into the issue of those Travel Sites' limited use while in Conflict phases. Enemies are getting spawn killed and if you're saying that it will take less than 2 minutes to drain an "Excellent" tower, then it leaves no room for me to go to my destinated site.

Not being able to use the Travel Gate as we should is a negativity affecting the gameplay for both the attackers and defenders.

Either keep the 2-minute drain time for the Site with Excellent Yield while allowing us to freely use the Travel Gates (held by clans) to travel around or increase the drain time for Excellent yield from 2 minutes to 5 minutes at best.

Those 2 features are conflicting with each other.

 

[Xx EL LOBO xX]

Personally ,i think this update has a good purpose and it can be achieved only if the servers had a similar amount of players defending/draining, right now i think its obvious that most servers are still dominated by a group of clans because there is no oposition. The ONLY feedback that should be taken in count is the feedback from players that play in a server that is currently in war.

I took that ss 10 mins ago in ame1 and i thought it was funny because from 30 players doing the event, they are all part of the alliance, and the only "enemies" are just inactive accounts. I really hope that the update helps to have a constant activity and not just 2 weeks of war and then a server with 0 enemies

 

[Mania]

Personally ,i think this update has a good purpose and it can be achieved only if the servers had a similar amount of players defending/draining, right now i think its obvious that most servers are still dominated by a group of clans because there is no oposition. The ONLY feedback that should be taken in count is the feedback from players that play in a server that is currently in war.
View attachment 47373
I took that ss 10 mins ago in ame1 and i thought it was funny because from 30 players doing the event, they are all part of the alliance, and the only "enemies" are just inactive accounts. I really hope that the update helps to have a constant activity and not just 2 weeks of war and then a server with 0 enemies

this is how am2 is looking right now as well. past events, most of the major players in my clan would be online the moment the event started. right now, in my 73 player clan, there are only 3 people online. most of the people i've seen are either the alliance in charge or neutral players. it feels incredibly unfriendly to people who are 'kos' or generally enemies of the server.

as pleidian says, this update has made war much more difficult for the attacking parties. a limited 2 hour window in different time zones, with only certain sites available to teleport to/respawn at. respawn? spawn camped. teleport? spawn camped. try to enter through a different map? believe it or not, spawn camped. i understand what this update is attempting, and in some ways it is successful since my clan is kos and holds a couple sites currently, but i think there is a looooot of tweaking that needs to be done.

also re: kos lists/abusing players to leave the server - this was a pretty prominent complaint a decade ago and i remember the resounding response to be a hearty "just get protection." curious as to why that's now suddenly changed.

 

[VioletRosa]

Personally ,i think this update has a good purpose and it can be achieved only if the servers had a similar amount of players defending/draining, right now i think its obvious that most servers are still dominated by a group of clans because there is no oposition. The ONLY feedback that should be taken in count is the feedback from players that play in a server that is currently in war.
View attachment 47373
I took that ss 10 mins ago in ame1 and i thought it was funny because from 30 players doing the event, they are all part of the alliance, and the only "enemies" are just inactive accounts. I really hope that the update helps to have a constant activity and not just 2 weeks of war and then a server with 0 enemies

i see me uwu

 

[Sunshine..]

Ok this topic will be unlocked later. Let me try to explain the fundamentals element of the presented idea again in a different way.

More Rewards = Higher Risk
If a clan wants more rewards from the buildings the clan can choose to upgrade the yield of the building. Now with the planned change there will be an added risk doing so. The Max Hp the building will have at the beginning of the conflict will be lower than basic and so on. The higher the yield the more the attacker is encuraged to attack to steal the fame because it will be quicker to drain the building. (Yield will be shown to all players as well)
The exact numbers of HP per yield etc is not fixed yet and must be tested first. But what we also change that the repair rate will be raised from 5 to 10 points so that the defender can repair the building faster after defeding an attack or slow the attack down more than currently.

Long ownership = Risk that building needs maintenace repairs from DV
Currently we have a system in place that calculates how many buildings are held by dinoville based on the townhall activity. This number will change every 14 days based on the townhall election activity in that period. If the activity rises, DV will free random buildings to be claimed again by clans. As this happens at a slow pace you most likely will see 1-3 freed or DV claimed buildings at the time.
So what the planned idea does is to build on top of this system that there is risk that a building needs to go into maintenace when it is held by a single clan for a longer time. A DV maintenace will only last one protection phase and will be free to claim by clans again. This will result that the buildings held by DV will change more often as all the DV buildings, even the one of the townhall activity scaling, will can be freed again. Also keep in mind that you will still get the item producion without the need to defend the building as compensation when the building goes into maintenance.

Why these changes?

• On peace servers this change will create a dynamic that cause the buildngs change over time and adds a potential for small clans to grab exellent yield buildings with lower effort than currenty. At least the temptation will be a lot greater to attack than right now.
• On full war servers this change will help to easier defend lower yield buildings and to overall gain more fame with that. When a clan is not able to defend the building only "GOOD" yield is achieved which we already saw as issue on asia. It also gives clan a bit of tactic which buildings to upgrade and which to keep to allow easier defence.
• Overall it gives the clans a bit more variety as there will be changing buildings over the map with different rewards and risks to claim them.

Please ask your questions if something remains unclear. Also keep your feedback constructive otherwise it will move into the trash bin. Also keep it civil between all parties involved. So keep that in mind when you take your time to post your feedback & questions. Thanks

I don't believe these changes will make a big difference.
I insist on saying that the main problem is having mandatory hours for attacks.
this limits any strategy attackers can make.
Isn't it possible to balance the dispute between defenders and attackers, without the need to have mandatory times for attacks?

 

[_Bad BunnY_]

Personally ,i think this update has a good purpose and it can be achieved only if the servers had a similar amount of players defending/draining, right now i think its obvious that most servers are still dominated by a group of clans because there is no oposition. The ONLY feedback that should be taken in count is the feedback from players that play in a server that is currently in war.
View attachment 47373
I took that ss 10 mins ago in ame1 and i thought it was funny because from 30 players doing the event, they are all part of the alliance, and the only "enemies" are just inactive accounts. I really hope that the update helps to have a constant activity and not just 2 weeks of war and then a server with 0 enemies

There will never be the fun people are looking for or the "equal wars" they talk so much about if no one EVER takes the initiative to abandon the role of alliances, (People talk and talk about how there are no enemies, wars or fun, but they are the same people who never leave the comfort zone of alliances and live non-stop feeding that way of playing). The worst thing is seeing people say that "alliances have always existed" when that is not the case, at least on my server in the early years of the game, each class depended on each other and the maps for each one ran out, Without intervention and rest. . Over time, people started alliances and thus slowly became bored and killed the game. I don't know what the purpose of the game is if it isn't war for current players, being connected, hunting endlessly and living endlessly. For me one of the things that should be addressed are the following:



1. The fact of reviving ONLY ONE portal per map (at least in am1, because it is DV's possession) makes the job easier for the defenders, it is very easy to gather 30 people in the revive portal, and... . So?



2. The attacks are too predictable by only having a specific time of day, the surprise factor is lost when attacking, which is what gives the attacker an advantage, the defender does not know when you are going to be there attacking the portal.



3. Currently, after the vulnerability phase the game completely loses its meaning. What logic does it have to be able to spend 22 hours of protection, remove it for the 2 hours of vulnerability and once finished put protection back on? People participating in a portal's dominance (whether attack or defense) should not be able to place protection until the next phase of the conflict. In this way, there is an incentive to wear down your enemy knowing that he will have to be careful when hunting, and that if you want a portal, you must have the resources to maintain it in every way. This way it doesn't become "Active only in the vulnerability phase and see you the next day..."

 

[yewhuiyuan]

If you want to see dynamic changes to server and changing in map holders just change clan size from 80 to 40 why go through the hassle to come up with new mechanics to adjust the dynamics of a server..