#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

[Pleiadian]

Today's state of gameplay is far better than what we previously had.

We have been asking for the 2013 state of gameplay, we are literally having it now and people are refusing it simply because they have been accustomed to holding sites without fighting.

Before Endgame Mechanic P3	After Endgame Mechanic P3
Drain a site and hold for 24 hours to obtain the fame	Drain a site, immediately win the fame item
The side with the bigger player always wins	Number is no longer a problem, any small clan can obtain fame
Attackers would usually give up because they were outnumbered	Attackers will continue to attack because every day there's a hope of obtaining fame items
Had to defend the Site 24 hours	Only need to defend 6 hours every day
Overall game activity was dead once attackers gave up, server became boring	Game activity will stay stable throughout the day because there are always attacks happening

 

[Mania]

it's really not though. i started playing in 2013 and the way things are right now is nothing like it was then. you still had to defend 24/7 and in my server at least there were wars between map holders and there were no big major alliances controlling everything. you had to actually fight for your fame.

you literally don't have to fight for your fame anymore. the attack phases have taken away the element of surprise, so people just aren't attacking anymore because like i said, the enemy will always know when you're going to attack. there's no randomness like there was before. am2 has been dead since the latest update dropped because there's no point in logging in outside of the attack phase. and even if they do, like i said, the alliance holding the server is just too big to combat and all these updates are something they only stand to gain from.

 

[Kaisen]

the thing with 24 hour draining was tht war happened not daily, drainers would try hard to win server for 1-2 days and after losing wouldnt log for long, or only weekly drains would happen

Now, people log daily to drain and not all are free daily to log and war which gets over in 20 mins

 

[Kaisen]

and if devs actually care bout people not getting elections when they are not part of bigger alliances maybe increase the fame u get form hunting and not ruin he gameplay for everyone

 

[poppin]

Heard their server got bored they picked one of the 9 clan alliance as scape goat and kos them just for server to be enjoyable again i think saviors

clueless as usual

 

[S19]

and if devs actually care bout people not getting elections when they are not part of bigger alliances maybe increase the fame u get form hunting and not ruin he gameplay for everyone

if they increase the fame you get from hunting, then everyone including the alliances will benefit, in turn putting the smaller non-alliance member more in debt

 

[Kaisen]

if they increase the fame you get from hunting, then everyone including the alliances will benefit, in turn putting the smaller non-alliance member more in debt

can be, but theres usually a limit on election set by ppl with how much fame u can win a seat so if u save enough u can easily win a seat after some time

 

[Pleiadian]

like other people said the alliances just trade maps amongst themselves during conflict phases and then have however many hours of peace because none of us can actually do anything about it

You're basing your statement on experiencing 1 conflict phase at a fixed time. I believe now things might change for the better for the attackers. There's no way your alliance server has players from all time zones to cover all Conflict Phases.

I was not expecting that anyone would trade sites, because trading Sites means that you will lose the Yield "Excellent", once we calculate it is an overall stupid move, because we're limiting ourselves simply to hold the sites longer.

In any case, the multiple Conflict Phases should restrict the trading of building altogether.

 

[yewhuiyuan]

clueless as usual

Nice pfp xD nice taste in picking your new pfp after being flagged by Alewx

 

[poppin]

Nice pfp xD nice taste in picking your new pfp after being flagged by Alewx

alewx changed it :<

 

[yewhuiyuan]

alewx changed it :<

Shuddaa change your attitude and character while his at it

 

[vakx]

Heard their server got bored they picked one of the 9 clan alliance as scape goat and kos them just for server to be enjoyable again i think saviors

we started it ourselves

 

[Mania]

You're basing your statement on experiencing 1 conflict phase at a fixed time. I believe now things might change for the better for the attackers. There's no way your alliance server has players from all time zones to cover all Conflict Phases.

I was not expecting that anyone would trade sites, because trading Sites means that you will lose the Yield "Excellent", once we calculate it is an overall stupid move, because we're limiting ourselves simply to hold the sites longer.

In any case, the multiple Conflict Phases should restrict the trading of building altogether.

you're still restricted in when you can attack though. there shouldn't be conflict phases at all. the better idea would be to have individual sites get some form of protection after being taken.

think of it this way.

there are multiple attack phases yes. but you have to take into account that people have work and school and so a lot of those conflict phases early/mid day are not going to really be used for actual war... as people are not home or are otherwise busy. so you can't really attack now, because you aren't even home. so then you have evening conflict phases. this is when most everyone is active because they are home now and presumably getting on after dinner or homework or whatever. this is when the bulk of the major holding alliance will be on. so attacking here doesn't work very well either because you are so badly outnumbered. it's also predictable, because again, it's when most people have attacked in the past. middle of the night? slightly better, but again, predictable. people need sleep before work and school so they're trading sleep for a low chance to grab sites. and the enemies will know exactly what time the attack happens, so they will make sure to be awake then.

literally the biggest issue is that the game has become extremely predictable for the people defending maps. there are only certain times you can attack and take sites and they can take advantage of that. there's no benefit for attackers.

 

[Galaxy]

That was a good feedback round! Thx

The chance DV takes towers depend on on how many cycles (days) the clan holds the building. The longer the building is held the higher the chance DV takes it. Sure this mechanic also correlates with the yield as it can only be updraded once per cycle. This is an element we can fine tweak later on if that is an issue.



Conflict should be in sync with all buildings on a server to have a proper gamemode where everyone prepares for. Core mechanic that ties everything together in the concept. Many elements would not work anymore if we stray away from it.


Ok here is the updated schedule for the weekend. Shorter conflict phases spread evenly around the day and one prime time conflict for 2 hours. Times also try to avoid to much overlap and stay away from usual maintenance and update time. (Even when maintenance mostly occur once per week)

Conflict Phases (Server Time)
1:00 1 hour
7:00 1 hour
11:00 1 hour
16:00 1 hour
20:00 2 hour

View attachment 47481

Is this better?

Edit: Updated the image for a more clear understanding and added conflict phases as text.

obviously several phases of conflict will be much better than just 1 or 2.

but I insist on saying (I know it's already repetitive), having specific attack times harms attackers more than it benefits them.

Large alliances will always find a way to adapt to these times.
If before the update, they were already able to control the map 24 hours a day, it wouldn't be difficult for them to find a solution, would it?

 

[Czarna]

I was not expecting that anyone would trade sites, because trading Sites means that you will lose the Yield "Excellent", once we calculate it is an overall stupid move, because we're limiting ourselves simply to hold the sites longer.

I agree that it is pointless on servers with a power imbalance (one side much larger than the other); but on servers where both sides are equal in power, it is a brilliant move. During the first days on Asia1, people were trying to defend the sites they owned while draining the enemy. But not a single site has ever survived the full conflict. All sites would always change their owner, so upgrading them was not even an option (very few exceptions happened on a couple less active days). Thus, if you are going to lose ownership anyway - why not give the site away to your ally? That way both of you can gain fame, while the enemy is left with nothing (unless they can stop your takeover and take the site for themselves).

Thats already benefit of multiple conflict phase, it will get harder and harder for them to trade depending on how much conflict phase present.

Before latest update -that will be tested in weekend- allies just can trade maps once per day but now they have to trade multiple times which is harder

This type of trading wouldn't simply stop if we introduce more conflict phases, as it is the most viable way of defending sites for two or more allied clans. Remember - this isn't a peaceful site trade, players are constantly fighting on many sites with their enemies and trying to keep track of how much % each side has drained. It could become less viable during the least active conflict times when there simply wouldn't be enough players to effectively split up.

I don't know if there are actually any servers that decided to trade their sites everyday despite the lack of a large enemy side. If there are, then the introduction of multiple conflict phases per day would greatly discourage that strategy.

 

[yewhuiyuan]

For the unpredictable and suprise attack feature:

Conflict Phases (Server Time)
1:00 1 hour --> remove
7:00 1 hour --> remove
11:00 1 hour
16:00 1 hour
20:00 2 hour



Those removed conflict phase will be hidden among the protected phase.... For all the recently claimed mapholder they see conflict phase schedule as per usual. Those who do not own a single gate will be able to see which protected phase got converted into a conflict phase and can secretly attack.

So everyday, there will be 2 conflict phases hidden among the protected.....and will randomize everyday or after every cycle..... I hope this idea can actually meet the suprise factor of what some people want

 

[Sunshine..]

I feel like many are underestimating the ability of large alliances to adapt to any specific attack time...

 

[Mania]

I feel like many are underestimating the ability of large alliances to adapt to any specific attack time...

strongly agree. in a vacuum, i can absolutely see how a mechanic like this with attack times could work... but as someone who has played the game for over a decade, it just doesn't work that way. large alliances adapt to anything.

 

[- Cause -]

Why not have many random small windows to attack. Like one time after 50mins, then after 2h then after 20mins again. It would make that who is actually active and playing the most, gets gates.

 

[europe1]

No its to make a successful defence viable as an upgraded building yield is like owning multiple buildings (doubles after any upgrade). It would still be difficutl to hold that building over long runs as they are wanted targets to overtake.

effective protection is one thing, another is a lot of fun to take over buildings and reclaim them

each server has its own hours of activity, but some are more active others less, precisely those servers that are most active should have a lot of attack phases and servers that are less active 50% of each map should have so that they also have a chance to make easy and quick elections

as far as the attack phases are concerned, strongly active servers should have 7 phases

6-7 (1hour)
9-11 (2hour)
13-14 (1hour)
16-18 (2hour)
20-23 (3hour)
1-2 (1 hour)
4-5 (1hour)

and servers that are less active should have 4 phases

8-10 (2 hour)
12-13(1 hour)
16-18 (2 hour)
20-23 (3 hour)

of course, the phase times should be adjusted according to the servers because each server has a different time (hourly)

it is also necessary to give a chance to others in the election who want to try their hand at accepting buildings

 

[Sunshine..]

That was a good feedback round! Thx

The chance DV takes towers depend on on how many cycles (days) the clan holds the building. The longer the building is held the higher the chance DV takes it. Sure this mechanic also correlates with the yield as it can only be updraded once per cycle. This is an element we can fine tweak later on if that is an issue.



Conflict should be in sync with all buildings on a server to have a proper gamemode where everyone prepares for. Core mechanic that ties everything together in the concept. Many elements would not work anymore if we stray away from it.


Ok here is the updated schedule for the weekend. Shorter conflict phases spread evenly around the day and one prime time conflict for 2 hours. Times also try to avoid to much overlap and stay away from usual maintenance and update time. (Even when maintenance mostly occur once per week)

Conflict Phases (Server Time)
1:00 1 hour
7:00 1 hour
11:00 1 hour
16:00 1 hour
20:00 2 hour

View attachment 47481

Is this better?

Edit: Updated the image for a more clear understanding and added conflict phases as text.

If before the update the major alliances were already able to protect the maps 24 hours a day, how difficult will it be for them to protect them 24 hours a day again and with the benefit of knowing what times attackers can appear?

I have no doubt that the defenders will feel some difficulty in the first few days, but I'm sure they will adapt quickly.

I can't see what the benefit is for attackers in having fixed schedules...

 

[_Bad BunnY_]

I'm not a fan of fixed schedules either, anyway. It must be taken into account that there are currently many defenders because there is only a single 2-hour phase in a 24-hour day, so everyone is reserved for that time. As there are many schedules, eventually the number of defenders would decrease due to not covering all schedules and it would be "lazy" to enter 5-6 times a day to cover so much time, since, if they are missing in any phase, they could be harmed . So we will have to see how everything evolves with this change, from the moment, it looks like something positive, but what will really matter is in practice

 

[_Bad BunnY_]

Another thing is that perhaps the life of the portals is being excessively high. For example, a portal at 50% would take MORE than 30 minutes to be completely drained, which is completely crazy. Especially because due to DV's possessions, people do not get to upgrade them to excellent or 200%, which is the point where it could be ''viable'' to attack a portal, (and for the same reason, many do not improve the portals)

 

[Pleiadian]

Large alliances will always find a way to adapt to these times.
If before the update, they were already able to control the map 24 hours a day, it wouldn't be difficult for them to find a solution, would it?

I find it hard to believe that a member of an alliance will be able to stay 24 hours fighting and defending their buildings. We are not talking about multi-accounts anymore, but purely fighting. I know for sure, that I am not going to be online all day, I'm a sheriff anyway, I just have to attack when I want. Defending is purely subjective for me.

Surely in those 24 hours, the defenders will get exhausted from always constantly watching the maps, and that's when the attackers find weak points to start doing hard attacks.

In any way, the buildings can be easily drained granted it's on excellent yield. If the site is constantly on basic yield which gives it a lot of Health Points, then I guess that Highway could adjust that.

In anyway, we're all throwing theories around, we'll know only after testing the multiple Conflict Phases.

 

[Mania]

Surely in those 24 hours, the defenders will get exhausted from always constantly watching the maps, and that's when the attackers find weak points to start doing hard attacks.

they don't lmao. that's the thing. it doesn't matter how long the attack is, they never get tired and never log off.

 

[Pleiadian]

they don't lmao. that's the thing. it doesn't matter how long the attack is, they never get tired and never log off.

Sounds like the situation is really that hopeless in Am2.

Well, as an attacker what change would even benefit you at this point if the defensive alliance is constantly on the watch?

 

[Mania]

Sounds like the situation is really that hopeless in Am2.

Well, as an attacker what change would even benefit you at this point if the defensive alliance is constantly on the watch?

getting rid of the attack phases for one, so that we get the element of surprise back and the alliance can't just trade maps amongst themselves.

protected phases for an hour or two after taking a site. although the issue there is that the alliance can just stand around and wait until it's unprotected again, at least it gives the attackers somewhat of a chance to get a building.

a cooldown on using kits would probably be good. as it is now, people can just spam kits to get back up, and if you don't buy gold you are SOL. that way when you kill your enemy, they actually have to find somewhere to respawn and then come up with a strategy that isn't kit spamming.

i think some sort of debuff on clans that have held x amount of sites for x amount of time would probably be a decent step in the right direction. i imagine this is a pretty unpopular idea but if the devs want to actually give attackers a fighting chance then i think it would be a necessary evil. something like a damage down debuff. since the alliances already way outnumber the attackers, it would give them a chance to even the odds better.

i would also lower the time on the duelist debuff for people in clans that aren't actively holding sites, to give them more opportunities to regroup after an attack.

there are probably more ideas that would be pretty helpful but this is what comes to mind immediately. the tl;dr of the whole thing is that i think the alliances need some sort of nerf while they hold maps, because as it is now the alliances hold all the power for no good reason.

 

[Galaxy]

I find it hard to believe that a member of an alliance will be able to stay 24 hours fighting and defending their buildings. We are not talking about multi-accounts anymore, but purely fighting. I know for sure, that I am not going to be online all day, I'm a sheriff anyway, I just have to attack when I want. Defending is purely subjective for me.

Surely in those 24 hours, the defenders will get exhausted from always constantly watching the maps, and that's when the attackers find weak points to start doing hard attacks.

In any way, the buildings can be easily drained granted it's on excellent yield. If the site is constantly on basic yield which gives it a lot of Health Points, then I guess that Highway could adjust that.

In anyway, we're all throwing theories around, we'll know only after testing the multiple Conflict Phases.

but the defenders have enough members to alternate their strategies for taking care of the map.

In order to avoid facing the entire alliance, attackers will have to connect at the most inconvenient times. (1am, 7am) and doing this every day?

Those who will be exhausted are the attackers

 

[Pleiadian]

getting rid of the attack phases for one, so that we get the element of surprise back and the alliance can't just trade maps amongst themselves.

I don't think the attack phase should go away, it serves an important part in the gameplay. It's not simply about the hours not being able to attack or protect hours, but having attack phases and protected phases ensures that there are always actions on the next conflict phase.

At best, I think the Conflict Phase should have a large number of hours compared to the Protected Phase.

And I acknowledge the limited surprise factor to attack during all hours.

i think some sort of debuff on clans that have held x amount of sites for x amount of time would probably be a decent step in the right direction. i imagine this is a pretty unpopular idea but if the devs want to actually give attackers a fighting chance then i think it would be a necessary evil. something like a damage down debuff. since the alliances already way outnumber the attackers, it would give them a chance to even the odds better.

The "DV Maintenance" fulfills this role. Not to the extent as you are saying, however, I believe it could be adjusted to penalize a clan that has been holding a Site for a long time.

At the moment, I view this feature as flawed. Because essentially, it's making it hard for me to hold onto "Excellent" Yield Sites. But if lets say a clan has been holding a Site for more than 72 hours, then the DV Maintenance steps in and acts as a debuff.

As confirmed by Highway.

The longer the building is held the higher the chance DV takes it. Sure this mechanic also correlates with the yield as it can only be updraded once per cycle. This is an element we can fine tweak later on if that is an issue.

i would also lower the time on the duelist debuff for people in clans that aren't actively holding sites, to give them more opportunities to regroup after an attack.

That sounds like an interesting addition considering the fact that, once the attackers have attacked a Site, they will obtain duelists which will prevent them from teleporting to other gates that other clan holds. Which then forces them to use those Sites that are held permanently by DV. Where a lot of alliance members are camping.

 

[Mania]

I don't think the attack phase should go away, it serves an important part in the gameplay. It's not simply about the hours not being able to attack or protect hours, but having attack phases and protected phases ensures that there are always actions on the next conflict phase.

At best, I think the Conflict Phase should have a large number of hours compared to the Protected Phase.

And I acknowledge the limited surprise factor to attack during all hours.

it doesn't really ensure anything. people can try to attack during those phases but, again, the defenders know that the attack is coming and you basically just get stomped into the ground for even trying. the element of surprise is a huge factor when it comes to warfare, which is applicable in pvp games like this. it's why in games like fortnite or call of duty or overwatch you try to be stealthy and unpredictable so you aren't immediately ganked. by having set attack phases, you are robbing attackers of strategy and giving comfort to the defenders who know they only need to be online at certain times. there's really just no good reason for attack phases unless you want to prioritize the defenders having all the advantages.

The "DV Maintenance" fulfills this role. Not to the extent as you are saying, however, I believe it could be adjusted to penalize a clan that has been holding a Site for a long time.

At the moment, I view this feature as flawed. Because essentially, it's making it hard for me to hold onto "Excellent" Yield Sites. But if lets say a clan has been holding a Site for more than 72 hours, then the DV Maintenance steps in and acts as a debuff.

but that's not a damage debuff, no? defenders need direct combat debuffs to help attackers against the fact that the holding alliances have the advantage of sheer numbers. in a 1v3 situation as it is now, you really have no hope especially if they have kits. but if those 3 have a combat disadvantage in the form of lower damage or even a higher chance for missing, it will give that 1 a better chance at least until back-up arrives. as it is now, you will simply get swarmed at any and all teleports.

That sounds like an interesting addition considering the fact that, once the attackers have attacked a Site, they will obtain duelists which will prevent them from teleporting to other gates that other clan holds. Which then forces them to use those Sites that are held permanently by DV. Where a lot of alliance members are camping.

a lower amount of time for duelist would allow them to teleport to places without having duelist, forcing the alliance to either get outlaw (which can be an advantage for attackers) or simply wait and let the attacker flee to meet up with their own forces. i do also think there needs to be some sort of anti-camping mechanic in dv sites that prevent defenders from simply waiting there. i know there is some sort of invuln buff but that's simply not enough when you have 6-7 enemies waiting for it to fall off.