#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

[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..

 

[yewhuiyuan]

I still don't know how you want the war to be played

Alliance vs alliance or medium clans size patches of ppl going free 4 all.... And only fighting for themselves...

When I play the new EG3 war I can't sense the meta of war now...

 

[ThiagoXDestruidor]

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..

They will literally just create another clan and remain allies.

 

[_Bad BunnY_]

Changing the maximum member limit per clan wouldn't change anything, it would be exactly the same. The 80-slot clans would be divided into smaller clans, having a secondary and would be clearly allies with each other, returning to the same problem. In my opinion, the DD mechanic for improving portals was a good idea, because that way. The clans would not be interested in keeping people inactive, (it would hurt them more than help and they would have to be selective with their members). The only bad thing about when it came out in the PTR was the high cost it had. I thought about an idea where instead of attack and protection schedules, it was completely free and the counter was individual, where each portal after each "successful attack" would have a predetermined time with protection, but perhaps this would leave the defenders quite tedious. lose a portal so suddenly and wait a certain amount of time to try to recover it

 

[yewhuiyuan]

My idea :

Have a morning cycle, afternoon and night cycle. (3 cycle)

there will be a winner at every end of a cycle with most portal held.

Production phase will only begin during midnight (12am server) server ppl go to sleep (if they have life) till next conflict phase.

if that clan wins 1 cycle of out the 3 cycles (Production rate over midnight will be good)
win 2 cycles out of 3 (production rate will be very good)
win 3 cycles out of 3 (production rate will be excellent) (also get all DV-held buildings for midnight till next conflict phase)

those who dont win get basic production rate.

 

[Sunshine..]

Changing the maximum member limit per clan wouldn't change anything, it would be exactly the same. The 80-slot clans would be divided into smaller clans, having a secondary and would be clearly allies with each other, returning to the same problem. In my opinion, the DD mechanic for improving portals was a good idea, because that way. The clans would not be interested in keeping people inactive, (it would hurt them more than help and they would have to be selective with their members). The only bad thing about when it came out in the PTR was the high cost it had. I thought about an idea where instead of attack and protection schedules, it was completely free and the counter was individual, where each portal after each "successful attack" would have a predetermined time with protection, but perhaps this would leave the defenders quite tedious. lose a portal so suddenly and wait a certain amount of time to try to recover it

if it were possible to attack the portals at any time, This would maintain the attackers' surprise factor.
and if attackers take over the portal, the portal would be protected for 2/3 hours.
and if the defenders manage to defend the portal, it would also be protected for 1/2 hours.

 

[Springtrap Girl]

First time I'm going to write something here, I just hope this gets noticed, my friends and I agreed to create a clan that would go against everyone, we are literally going against the entire server.

1. Here I emphasize that there are less than 10 of us and this is important because they were supposed to charge dino dollars to improve the performance of the portals and mines, but oh surprise, now it is free... where was the thing: we want to prevent large clans dominate the entire server. How do you want that to happen if it eliminates precisely what made them weaker and gave more play to mixed maps?

2. The server I play on (ame1) everyone still believes in the idea of alliance, this is not supposed to be like that, the truth is that it disappoints me a little because I had the idea that everyone was going to fight against everyone for the portals, it gives more play, it's more fun, it's more chaotic but that's where the fun of the game is... but instead, we arrive on the second day, we have 1 mine, 3 or 4 people from another clan arrive and they kill us (everything was fine until then) but when we revive at the market portal, oh surprise, there are people from different clans, all allies among themselves, waiting there to kill you as soon as you appear... wow, how impressive. I'm going to be honest, this is making me sick, the way people play is making me sick, nothing can be done, I change the map and it's the same, on all the maps people are left waiting at the market portals to killing you as soon as it appears is this fun? This is unfair, the invulnerability time when reviving is not enough time to be able to escape when reviving in the portal.

3. I hope that what they are going to do with the life of the portals helps us in some way, that seems very good to me, it can give play to having 1 or 2 portals improved to the maximum and others not so improved. Something like that occurs to me.
I don't know if I'm missing anything, but I think that the gaming experience for a small clan is quite bad and it is demonstrated by what I describe here, I hope you take this into account. I was very excited about this update, because I had the idea of no more alliances, I had the idea of a free-for-all, no more stupid rules to follow, no more problems, etc. but with this I don't see it that way, it's not what I expected it to be, because the people who play don't want to leave their comfort zone, they keep the server in "peace"...

 

[VioletRosa]

well i will say this. im glad my clan and i are logging on like the second coming of christ but after about a week... zzzzzz. but if yall joined the ptr, they said they can change somethings but one of the main legit issues that comes up is the 1 gate we can travel per map with attack phase on so what is the solution?

 

[- Leyenda -]

Question: When you are defeated by an NPC or player, sometimes the combat mode is active and does not let you revive in the portals quickly, you have to wait for the time to pass to be able to revive even if you have the 3 Quick Recovery Gels, is this normal?

 

[Pleiadian]

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

Because in the past, in order to hold a Site, you didn't need a clan. With the introduction of clans from the 2016 Big Update, everything changed.



That's how clans went on to form alliances with other clans.

It just surprises me, at how much change we are doing today, to go back to a state of the game that was similar to the 2014 version.

@Dev, it would simply be a good idea, to check out how the games were before the Dev Shack #05. There are so many good ideas that have been simply removed for no logical reason.

 

[Highway]

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.

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.

well i will say this. im glad my clan and i are logging on like the second coming of christ but after about a week... zzzzzz. but if yall joined the ptr, they said they can change somethings but one of the main legit issues that comes up is the 1 gate we can travel per map with attack phase on so what is the solution?

We limited the travel gate use to exactly form these clear fronts of war on the map. The idea was that clans start to position themselves before the conflict phase starts. Like an early attack defend strategy and then start to claim travel camps to open up the attack fronts etc. On servers where war is played buildings are starting to get reclaimed and this opens up new possibilites over the time of the conflict phase to travel & rescue. The proposed change of the yield HP helps on that front that claiming high yield buildings will get faster and could result in usable travel gates after 2-5 min time. In addition the idea that buildings will also fall into DV maintenance based on the risk/fail chance will directly open up more buildings usable to travel directly at the start of the conflict phase. On Lower populated servers they already have multiple travel gates managed by DV on every map.

If we open up buildings to be used again in vulnerable state, then this whole gameplay dyanmic would be lost.

But what could be an option is that the owning clan of a travel gate can use them to travel and rescue when they are in Vulnerable state but not in attacked state. In addition reclaimed gates then also only usable by the clan that claimed them? This would create territorial advantage which could be interessting while players still have clear fronts?

As for Kos lists:
We never liked that player acted that way in a sort of toxic fashion in the community. But thats something we as developers can hardly avoid in a open PVP enviroment. We can just make changes here and there to lower the impact. The PVP protection helps but also removes a player from participating in PVP. But with the added synchronized protection phase for all buildings the PVP protection can be disabled before the conflict start and a player can savely play in the protection phase. We really try to think all ideas through and I understand its often not clear why a change is made as the subtle things are not directly noticed.

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?

if it were possible to attack the portals at any time, This would maintain the attackers' surprise factor.
and if attackers take over the portal, the portal would be protected for 2/3 hours.
and if the defenders manage to defend the portal, it would also be protected for 1/2 hours.

My idea :

Have a morning cycle, afternoon and night cycle. (3 cycle)

there will be a winner at every end of a cycle with most portal held.

Production phase will only begin during midnight (12am server) server ppl go to sleep (if they have life) till next conflict phase.

if that clan wins 1 cycle of out the 3 cycles (Production rate over midnight will be good)
win 2 cycles out of 3 (production rate will be very good)
win 3 cycles out of 3 (production rate will be excellent) (also get all DV-held buildings for midnight till next conflict phase)

those who dont win get basic production rate.

We think that having syncronized time schedules for conflict and protection phases is important to counter many issues and make the gameplay more interessting and less boring as there are always player around. We can see that CCU spikes during the conflict phase with is great. But I can totally understand that its more difficult to perform sneaky attacks on times where most players are offline or other strategies etc. But it had a also a big downside as players used multis, shared accounts etc to be available 24/7 to counter these attacks. Having a clear time when conflict ot peak times loweres this unfair and CoC breaking behaivor. Especially as you need to really play to able to defend the building and not just idle in the building area.

Right now we are on a single conflict per day but that might change later. Currently it helps to easier iterate changes on the dynamics like with the proposed idea. So we want to focus on the internals first before introducing more conflict phases.

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..."

1 & 3 See answers above

2. We hope that with the proposed idea to have high value targets with low HP this makes tactics more varied. Will the defenders focus on protecting their excellent yield buildings? Do they focus on their claims as they give a lot of fame items? Do we just tab hit and run attacks to distract the defenders? I think we need a bit more time on this to see how new tactics evolve.

First time I'm going to write something here, I just hope this gets noticed, my friends and I agreed to create a clan that would go against everyone, we are literally going against the entire server.

1. Here I emphasize that there are less than 10 of us and this is important because they were supposed to charge dino dollars to improve the performance of the portals and mines, but oh surprise, now it is free... where was the thing: we want to prevent large clans dominate the entire server. How do you want that to happen if it eliminates precisely what made them weaker and gave more play to mixed maps?

2. The server I play on (ame1) everyone still believes in the idea of alliance, this is not supposed to be like that, the truth is that it disappoints me a little because I had the idea that everyone was going to fight against everyone for the portals, it gives more play, it's more fun, it's more chaotic but that's where the fun of the game is... but instead, we arrive on the second day, we have 1 mine, 3 or 4 people from another clan arrive and they kill us (everything was fine until then) but when we revive at the market portal, oh surprise, there are people from different clans, all allies among themselves, waiting there to kill you as soon as you appear... wow, how impressive. I'm going to be honest, this is making me sick, the way people play is making me sick, nothing can be done, I change the map and it's the same, on all the maps people are left waiting at the market portals to killing you as soon as it appears is this fun? This is unfair, the invulnerability time when reviving is not enough time to be able to escape when reviving in the portal.

3. I hope that what they are going to do with the life of the portals helps us in some way, that seems very good to me, it can give play to having 1 or 2 portals improved to the maximum and others not so improved. Something like that occurs to me.
I don't know if I'm missing anything, but I think that the gaming experience for a small clan is quite bad and it is demonstrated by what I describe here, I hope you take this into account. I was very excited about this update, because I had the idea of no more alliances, I had the idea of a free-for-all, no more stupid rules to follow, no more problems, etc. but with this I don't see it that way, it's not what I expected it to be, because the people who play don't want to leave their comfort zone, they keep the server in "peace"...

1. The problem with the dollar pricing for upgrades is that dollars are very inflational as highlevel players can gain more than lower level players. As an additional challenge was that clans have different amount of players and levels so its difficult to charge a fair price that is still meaningfull to make a difference without getting to high.

2. Ohh yes that sounds bad and not great. Check out the answer above as it might help in this regard. We could also increase the invulnerable time on rescue to allow to flee better (This will also increase the travel sick effect)?

3. We also hope that the proposed Idea will help smaller clans to get their share and have fun.

Question: When you are defeated by an NPC or player, sometimes the combat mode is active and does not let you revive in the portals quickly, you have to wait for the time to pass to be able to revive even if you have the 3 Quick Recovery Gels, is this normal?

Ohh this seems like a bug. The combat mode should end when your dino is defeated and in result allow to rescue. We will look into that for the next update. Thanks for reporting this isssue.

 

[yewhuiyuan]

Is your idea of high reward = high risk to tackle map trading issue?

 

[yewhuiyuan]

Anyway for the proposed changes i don't think people will be attracted to ruin their allianceship with others just for some excellent yield gate.

There gotta be some rewards or outcome that is super valuable and forces people to say hey we need most gate out of anyone here so we gotta think for ourselves only, if my ally get this I'm in the losing end of the stick.

 

[yewhuiyuan]

Ngl, this is a dieing game, there is like 5 maps and around 8-9 clans (including people from other server) for populated server.

With EG3 update and all eu and america opening conflict phase at same time maybe it's down to 6-7 clan

So that 6 clans will take the 1 map respectively and maybe for 1 of the map they will divide half and 1 clan take half a map ....

You said you wanted dynamics and see change in mapholder but there is only so 7 clans and 5 maps it's almost the same number... There is way too many portal in the game and it needs to cut down i feel a map revamp and change is needed to really see the change of dynamic in the game

Your pie is too big all clan can get a taste of it...

3 maps = lesser map to distribute to 6-7 clans encourage more competition and attractiveness to drain map

I rather u merge those 5 maps into 3 maps and don't make it a linear path. I rather have a half-sized map with non linear path than a huge map with 1 straight line...

 

[Aoki Aiko]

I am so proud the game keeps updating over and over, yet i would suggest a lot of changes like the ''healing mechanic'' or some new adaptions on the dinosaurs/guns. Yet i am enjoying to stay tuned. Nice job SplitScreen Team!

 

[Doro]

I rarely frequent the forum, but after testing out the update, I can confidently say that it is thoroughly uninspiring. The new rules make it so that attacking players have no variations in tactics, as they have nowhere to go if they're defeated. The blocking of the ability to use teleports while the buildings are vulnerable is pure idiocy. The addition of new mechanics, such as the Dino Dollars system to regenerate buildings, seems interesting, but with the introduction of content that prioritizes spending Dino Dollars, it should have been considered to ease the obtainability of these Dollars on the Hunting Zone (for example, increasing drop rates for the necessary materials)

it is bizarre to see the system to protect buildings based on the prime-time 2-hour schedule. If you introduce such logic, it would make sense to have a cyclical system where the statuses of attack and defense are switched, but definitely not with a 2-hour prime-time period. It would be much more logical to have cycles where there is about 1 hour of vulnerability, followed by 2 hours of protection, followed by 2 hours of vulnerability round by round( with changing time period intervals), which would allow clans to change tactics depending on the situation.

On a positive note, the balancing of the dinosaurs makes perfect sense, the improvement in jump link speed is a welcomed change, and I'm glad that boosters were added for all attributes

 

[piotr50000009]

I have an idea for alternative of the yield thing, what if you just make people's attacks stack and lower attacking to -10/s?

So you could have 3 attackers on the gate and they'd be draining at a rate of -30/s where as you'd need 7 people to outheal them at a rate of +35/s (If you don't kill them beforehand), that'd better in my opinion as attackers can pick which gate they attack and therefore more strategy would need to be used, where people go where do what etc, it'd be better because it'd also prevent just standing afk and kitting (just ignore that kits are useful for now) at a gate to drain it, basically it'd actually need effort

 

[piotr50000009]

We think that having syncronized time schedules for conflict and protection phases is important to counter many issues and make the gameplay more interessting and less boring as there are always player around. We can see that CCU spikes during the conflict phase with is great. But I can totally understand that its more difficult to perform sneaky attacks on times where most players are offline or other strategies etc. But it had a also a big downside as players used multis, shared accounts etc to be available 24/7 to counter these attacks. Having a clear time when conflict ot peak times loweres this unfair and CoC breaking behaivor. Especially as you need to really play to able to defend the building and not just idle in the building area.

As for this maybe you could make it dynamic in a way that it like starts one/two hours before/after of current time on a random (pre-announced) basis? Not sure though

 

[Rockspider19]

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

so upgrade= lower health?.....
no clan would upgrade their buildings. except eu1 people so i guess i could take their stuff and block their elections ... but other than hurting eu1 this doesnt really change much

 

[_Bad BunnY_]

No estoy seguro de hasta qué punto la táctica de esperar en el único portal DV contrarresta estas ideas. De hecho, abrir portales propiedad del clan para viajar facilitará aún más la defensa. Pueden llegar al área más rápido, matar a los atacantes y atacar directamente el único sitio de generación que tienen los enemigos. Quizás ciertos portales siempre deben ser accesibles para ambos (defensor y atacante) de forma aleatoria en cada mapa, sin quitarle la propiedad al propietario del portal. Creo que también sería interesante que hubiera al menos 2 fases de vulnerabilidad más, pero no programadas. Podría ser a través de eventos aleatorios que ocurrirían en cualquier momento del día, variando siempre. Claramente deben ser más cortos que las 2 horas principales, una forma de evento en el que "se produjo un cortocircuito en las áreas de un mapa y ahora son vulnerables" xD

 

[Rockspider19]

let me cook an update

each map will have different protection phase times such that only 1 map is ever attackable at a time.
each map will have all buildings avaible to attack
each gate in the map will have a preset amount of fame in them
maps teleport and spawn prices range from lowest(gf) to highest(mm) cost
maps total amount of fame that can be won will range from lowest (gf) to highest (mm)
so gf would have like 150k fame winnable and mm will have like 1M fame winnable
maps will open in the order of gf to mm during the corse of the day so that every single player on the server has a chance to be part of the war.

am i a good cook?

 

[piotr50000009]

let me cook an update

each map will have different protection phase times such that only 1 map is ever attackable at a time.
each map will have all buildings avaible to attack
each gate in the map will have a preset amount of fame in them
maps teleport and spawn prices range from lowest(gf) to highest(mm) cost
maps total amount of fame that can be won will range from lowest (gf) to highest (mm)
so gf would have like 150k fame winnable and mm will have like 1M fame winnable
maps will open in the order of gf to mm during the corse of the day so that every single player on the server has a chance to be part of the war.

am i a good cook?

you're such a good cook that you set a restaurant on fire