#14 Endgame Part 3 (Sites Gameplay)

[Hardwell]

I was thinking when it's orange color make the gate heal at 12 instead of 10 :v

Equally when the gate is still red without drainer inside the circle it should drain at 15 automatically.

 

[SPA]

I had a cool idea, in the game you need to make a dynamic drain / repair multiplier, let's say the clan has 10 gates and the multiplier reaches x5 (as an example +0.5 or more to the damage multiplier for every + gates belonging to the clan), then smaller clans will be able to equalize the number of gates possible

judging from this, it will not make sense to be a big clan, it will make sense to have more clans, in order to have less multiplayer, this means that you want to have more fame, then your clan is more vulnerable, if you want to have less fame but stable, then a smaller clan

 

[SPA]

after the update, people are simply afraid of change and do not want to actively fight for glory, only afk, killing less with one hand

 

[Pleiadian]

But only for clans that own multiple and high yield at the same time I guess?

Yes, that would be true.

Now this will push the clans with a lot of holdings to simply keep their Site at 200%

 

[ThiagoXDestruidor]

Make sure that clans that have buildings where their players cannot place protection, when we are killing enemies so they can lose Dino Dollars, they just place protection and we have nothing to do because we cannot even attack the portals

 

[Hardwell]

For yield it should be randomize like the past, every new conflict phase the yield will randomize and be anonymous.
During conflict phase, when the first attacker hit attack button, only that certain player can see the portal information about the yield quality and its HP bar and from there the attacker can tell it's team mate which gate is the excellent yield and prioritize it.

The rest of the people will only see (% of the building health), the defender will also have a hard time organzing themselves for defence.

 

[Galaxy]

defenders keep exchanging "excellent" portals with each other.

and always leave the portals at the lowest possible quality during attack times where attackers have the greatest chance of taking the portals (1am, 7am).

 

[Ezequiel]

:inseguro::inseguro:

 

[Mania]

trying to keep track of all these updates and what's changed is starting to get exhausting lmao. this is really way more complicated than it needs to be... the issue with gameplay isn't really even the sites themselves exactly, it's the alliances dominating everything. there should be updates to address that better... the site updates don't really do anything.

 

[will-o'-theSe-mi]

@Highway the 20:00 - 22:00 vulnerable phase just ended here in Asia and it says the next phase is within 3 hrs. I thought the 5-phase thing is only tested within this weekend. Will it revert the previous(or new) vp time at 12 midnight?

 

[Sunshine..]

lots of changes and little results.
Soon the sites will have so many rules that it will become tiring for both sides

 

[Highway]

@Highway the 20:00 - 22:00 vulnerable phase just ended here in Asia and it says the next phase is within 3 hrs. I thought the 5-phase thing is only tested within this weekend. Will it revert the previous(or new) vp time at 12 midnight?

The new conflict schedule will remain for now. This is also what the majority of players wanted

 

[poppin]

The new conflict schedule will remain for now. This is also what the majority of players wanted

slavery

 

[poppin]

The new conflict schedule will remain for now. This is also what the majority of players wanted

How do you know its the majority that wanted it? just by forum replies? genuine question

 

[- Leyenda -]

Kamikaze attackers are back who place a dino tank and die again and again until a tower is emptied. What's the point of defending if the players use that method given that it drains faster? Others who play from Dino Ville to Insley's Portal over and over again, how do you solve that?

 

[Pleiadian]

How do you know its the majority that wanted it? just by forum replies? genuine question

View attachment 47495

If you go back on page 1 of this thread, you will see that multiple conflicts phase is the only feature that was the most requested. By everyone.

 

[pablo.millo]

pagorque no hacen una encuesta con todos los jugadores? y van ver que no es lo que la mayoria quieren

 

[poppin]

If you go back on page 1 of this thread, you will see that multiple conflicts phase is the only feature that was the most requested. By everyone.

You do realize that not everybody that plays the game is active on forum right?

Poll about number of conflict phases should be done and devs should implement results in game based off of it

Taking replies on forum thread and saying that's a majority sound like a complete BS to me

 

[- Leyenda -]

There is a major flaw in this latest Update and it is that having portals with 200% and 400% is indefensible since the attacking team only has to run and resist (say Parasauros and Brachys Tanks) long enough until the portal is completely emptied (Kamikazes). The number of defenders does not matter. , We looked at the case where 3 players took a 400% tower by simply running into the portal and were +10 Defenders. Something similar also happened with a 200% portal, if the attackers only have to go and die, what would be the point of defending? (Be careful, the number of portals does not matter), the defenders have been nerfed so much that now it makes no sense to improve the towers. What solution are you planning to do for them?

 

[SPA]

the system should be dynamic, changeable in the situation, if on the server 1 side of the conflict surpasses the other many times, then this side of the conflict should be more vulnerable, if a major war starts on 2 major sides of the conflict, then this will be configured according to the system, as I wrote earlier, more gates = more drain/repair multiplier

 

[Pleiadian]

What solution are you planning to do for them?

It should take a minimum of 5 minutes to drain an excellent Site. This will encourage more battles for the Site.

Attackers will not just walk into the circle and instantly drain it in less than 120 seconds. And defenders can actually defend it.

 

[Isabella16]

¿De qué sirve defender ahora si los enemigos solo van a morir en un portal infinitamente usando un tanque dino, van una y otra vez, y otra vez a morir por un portal? y los defensores no pueden hacer nada contra esto, los que tienen portales nunca dejarán portales al 400% o 200% ya que los portales son indefendibles.

 

[Xx EL LOBO xX]

¿De qué sirve defender ahora si los enemigos solo van a morir en un portal infinitamente usando un tanque dino, van una y otra vez, y otra vez a morir por un portal? y los defensores no pueden hacer nada contra esto, los que tienen portales nunca dejarán portales al 400% o 200% ya que los portales son indefendibles.

I hate the new dv gates, they are so unnecesary. Defenders can just cover the gate if they outnumber the attackers, and if the attackers are not enough to kill them (most of the cases), they are forced to leave the map so what was the point of adding this dynamic at all? @Highway

 

[Galaxy]

If you go back on page 1 of this thread, you will see that multiple conflicts phase is the only feature that was the most requested. By everyone.

in fact, the majority did not want there to be phases of conflict.
But obviously it's better to have several than just one...

 

[Luka Patajac]

I honestly thought devs planned there to be 3 from the very beginning of this update(conflict phases).

 

[DalekRaptor]

I honestly thought devs planned there to be 3 from the very beginning of this update(conflict phases).

nop, they just wanted one

 

[- Leyenda -]

It should take a minimum of 5 minutes to drain an excellent Site. This will encourage more battles for the Site.

Attackers will not just walk into the circle and instantly drain it in less than 120 seconds. And defenders can actually defend it.

It takes 2 minutes to empty the portal and 1H of conflict, it is simple to go die for 5 minutes and take a portal, you cannot defend it even if it is 10vs3

 

[Hardwell]

It takes 2 minutes to empty the portal and 1H of conflict, it is simple to go die for 5 minutes and take a portal, you cannot defend it even if it is 10vs3

But it will be balanced out with the help of alliance from other maps to send in back up

 

[Czarna]

Usually I avoid repeating myself, but seeing how large this thread has grown already, perhaps an organised summary of things mentioned before will prove useful.

+ guaranteed rewards for a successful attack
Perhaps the most positive change that this update has introduced so far. Encouraging more player attacks leads to more exciting and active gameplay.

+ reduced impact of the use of autoclicker tools
While they can still be useful for other aspects of the game, site control is no longer one of them.

- added benefits for multi-accounting
Attackers/defenders can place multiple accounts AFK on multiple sites to drain/heal them simultaneously and use their active accounts to hunt down the enemies. Players that can't be present during the Vulnerable phase are also incentivised to share their accounts to their allies.

- attack windows are a very restricting concept
By choosing specific times, you are simultaneously choosing the group with the most advantage. There is no surprise factor as people are actively watching the maps during the Vulnerable phase. No matter how you select the times, there will always be people that are disappointed with them. It is a very different experience to play the game when you most want it vs when the game needs you to be online.

+ travel sick status
In the early draft I noticed that spamming Recovery Kits would have a huge impact on the recovery and draining of a site. While they can still be very useful, spamming Kits with a Brachiosaurus to drain site is no longer an auto-win. That being said:

- attacking sites is a lot easier than defending them
Even with the ratio of 1 to 2, it is very difficult to succesfully defend a site. In many cases it is pointless to even attempt defending - not everyone has realised it yet, but people that did, began exchanging sites between clans and they did so for a good reason.

Imagine the following scenario: you have a server with a very active Town Hall and therefore all sites are open for the players to control. There is only one site held by Dinoville per map (= it's the only site that can be used for travelling). Vulnerable phase starts, all sites go red. No one can teleport anywhere. You want to defend one of your sites, but you need to reach it first. It takes ~6 minutes to cross the whole map on the fastest Dino as a lvl 55 player (55 Coelophysis with a 55 endurance implant). All excellent sites at the ends of the maps will be lost before you can even reach them (as of the current version: 2 minutes to fully drain an excellent site). You can reach a site with a very good yield, but it might as well fall before you manage to kill all the enemies.

It doesn't matter how many sites you own. You might only have that 1 excellent yield site at the end of the map. You might even be ready before the Vulnerable phase starts and stay close to it. But if you die once, you still have to respawn in the middle of the map and walk towards it. And you will not make it there before the site is fully drained. Losing just one battle may cause the defenders to lose their site, while the attackers after a lost fight can reorganise and try again many times until the Vulnerable phase ends. This does mean that even small attackers can take hold of a site for 1 Production phase, but they will lose it during the next Vulnerable phase anyway, so their best bet is to attack a different one instead of attempting a futile defense.

And the situation is no different on servers with a less active Town hall. With more sites to choose as spawn points, the attackers can reach any site they want quickly. All the attackers need to do is repeatedly walk towards a site and enter it to slowly drain it while the defenders can not even attempt to heal the damage they did. The only viable strategy to keep your sites is to overwhelm the enemy and spawn kill. Each time the attackers reach a site, the defenders start losing, regardless of the result of continued battles.

Jump links are not of much help for the defenders either, as they are also useful for the attackers. If the attackers can reach any site they were draining before the defenders can repair the damage, the defense becomes pointless. The site is going to fall anyway, unless the Vulnerable phase ends before that can happen. The only exception may be when the defending clan owns the majority of the sites in a map and only one of them is being attacked. If the attacked site is far away from Dinoville-owned sites, the defenders can reach it much faster than the attackers (they can use their other sites to teleport and spawn from) and they may be able to defend it.

And then the next phase, the cycle repeats - sites that were taken over previously, get easily drained again. Thus defending players get pushed towards 1) exchanging sites with their allies to keep them safe, as once they are taken over, they can not be attacked again until the next Vulnerable phase OR 2) keeping sites at a lower yield so there is a chance that the Vulnerable phase will end before the vicious cycle of losing a site.

I have very mixed feelings about this point.

 

[Pleiadian]

@Highway @Narokath

Tank class walking into the circle and taking the Site in less than 1.5 minutes need to be addressed.

It's not even defendable.