Feedback Thread · Endgame Part 3 Open PTR Test

[Czarna]

Implemented that sites are only usable for travel and rescue when they are not vulnerable or attacked.

I understand why this change was made. Attacking sites was already used on live servers as a means of area control - to prevent your enemy from reaching a specific location on the map. But there was always an investment required to do so (Supply Charge). Now when attacking sites is free, players may as well run across the map and attack all sites anyway for area control. But I don't think that this means that we can just automatically lock the maps when the Attack Phase starts.

If the majority of sites belong to the players, players will be forced to spawn in a very limited number of locations. This means that the winning team can easily set up a trap for them, and spawn-kill them repeatedly. A small attacking group cannot do anything in that scenario. Depending on the random layout of sites owned by Dinoville and owned by the players, some sites may become significantly harder to defend and attack - it takes a very long time to walk the linear path wihout good placement locations for jump links. Leaving the proximity of that site as long as there are any dead players in the area would be very risky, as the defending player would need to traverse that long path all over again for one player that used a well timed Recovery Kit.

If the majority of sites belong to Dinoville, then being unable to travel to vulnerable sites isnt as detrimental to the players. Instead it significantly limits the ability for the players to choose their attack strategies (expanded on further down below). Additionally, it is very discouraging when a site you fought over gets randomly selected to be taken over by Dinoville, when other sites remain with their owners and they can upgrade the yield of those sites for the next day.

I believe it is better to keep the site travel and rescue mechanics as they are on the live server. Players should be able to travel and spawn at vulnerable sites, but not at attacked sites.

The buildings are claimed by DV to scale to the population of the server to have comparable scenarios between each server. It should help to make the fights more interessting as the players per building should have a good balance. Nothing is more boring to attack or defend a building when not enough players are avaible vs the building count.

The less sites are available for takeover for the players, the harder it becomes to successfully finish an attack on any of them. It is significantly easier to win some sites as a small attacking group in a map with 13 sites available than as a large group in a map with 4 sites available (against a larger defending force). If everyone is forcefully swept into the same areas, the game becomes a lot less strategic. Players can't try any surprise attacks and take over a gate by remaining unnoticed during the chaos, if the chaos cannot occur due to the lack of available sites. Attackers don't have enough room to try to divert the defender's attention from the sites they want to take over for themselves. Those types of attacks prove very effective on the live servers and they are very far from boring.

What you are proposing instead is an all-out battle. Where both sides gather all their forces in the very limited space they are provided with. There isnt much room for strategy, it is purely a battle of numbers. And while the huge battle may be fun, if your group is smaller and you keep losing it, it becomes very boring in the long run.

Also a small mention - by limiting the number of sites that can be attacked, at the same time the amount of gameplay gets limited. If all sites get taken over before the Attack Phase ends, there will be simply nothing left to do. Players also enjoy big numbers - it purely feels much better to fight over 13 sites than 3.

To scale the amount of buildigns the most fitting metric is the townhall which uses the fame earned from the buildings.

Townhall activity isn't really an ideal metric to estimate player activity on the server. A significant amount of active players do not participate in the majority of elections and there are numerous reasons for this behavior.

Some of them have already won sheriff and t-rex, so they would rather not participate and leave the seats open for other players (instead of directly competing with them). Those players are generally not interested in the Townhall at all, but they will still attack or defend sites for their clan members. It is still important for them to keep sites with their clan (so that their friends and clan members can win) but they stopped taking fame.

Even some players that show interest in interacting with the Townhall do not participate in a majority of elections. Getting fame can be a lengthy process, especially for the higher tier elections. Many players could participate in the low tier elections each week but they choose not to "waste" their fame and instead collect it for later. Gathering fame may take weeks or months for some players, but they are still very interested in the Townhall. On a given week they may be only e.g. 20 players that joined the Townhall, but at the same time there were another 40 players that were gathering fame for the next weeks. And while this week's winners try to regenerate their fame and stop participating for a while, others come to take their place. This means that the number of players that joined the Townhall on any given week is significantly lower than the total number of players that are collecting fame and will want to join elections eventually when they feel that they have enough of it.

 

[vakx]

DV taking gates is really bad idea because many clans will be really negatively affected

it's really not fun

 

[Fluffy Lulu]

As seen on PTR dv took 6-8 gates each map. In my opinion that will negatively affect smaller clans. It would be a good solution if dv would only take max. 3 towers each map.

 

[..Arcadius..]

DV holding the majority of gates in each map doesn't really benefit anyone, neither big clans/alliances (defenders) nor small clans (attackers). Most servers will barely have any gates left, and it will put attackers at an even bigger disadvantage.

Before this update, defenders would be able to regroup in a specific place, and attackers would be spread out, not knowing which place would be hit by attackers. Now, after the update, defenders will be in large numbers at the few gates that remain and will give absolutely no chance to small clans to be able to hold anything.

Currently, many small clans have their chances to hold gates due to there being 5 maps to distribute among clans on each server. If the number of gates decreases, some of these clans will lose their chances to bigger clans. Which still means that the minority is at an even bigger disadvantage with this update.

 

[..Arcadius..]

A lot of new aspects of this update are getting positive feedback and moving the game for the better, but DV holding 6-8 towers per map is a huge drawback.

 

[Pleiadian]

I am going to agree with @DalekRaptor regarding the fact that the Dev team has limited knowledge of how the live server works.

The goal is to help attackers against big monopolies.

Now you're creating a situation where it will be big monopolies clan and their small number of towers, against those small number of attackers.

Numbers always win in the end.

 

[-Kiwi-]

can i ask how dv holding gates is beneficial to any party? its a lose lose situation,with this update you are trying to destroy the monoply of big clans and give more to smaller clans,how can the amount of gates available benefit small clans? even more big clans will then take more of the gates and small clans will be left with nothing cuz now big clans wouldnt want to share the gates and monopolize them instead since dv can now take them?

 

[mogamers.yt]

As i see in the ptr , making dv hold most of the maps according to town hall will affect negatively to the small clans especially clans in the less active servers that will harm both defenders and attackers so i think maybe dv can hold 3-4 gates per map +the idea of letting dv hold most of the maps became far away from the idea of helping small clans to get elections and gates

 

[-Kiwi-]

As i see in the ptr , making dv hold most of the maps according to town hall will affect negatively to the small clans especially clans in the less active servers that will harm both defenders and attackers so i think maybe dv can hold 3-4 gates per map +the idea of letting dv hold most of the maps became far away from the idea of helping small clans to get elections and gates

what is the point of even letting dv have any gates? i dont get the point its lose lose for everyone involved

 

[Pleiadian]

what is the point of even letting dv have any gates? i dont get the point its lose lose for everyone involved

The idea is to not drain a gate without a fight.

But now with the situation in PTR, the aggressive way that there are barely 4 towers in each maps to fight for, now we will fight more than we drain. Speaking from an attacker's perspective.

The idea itself is good. But the fact that we're about to lose half map is the deal breaker. There should be a balance.

 

[-Kiwi-]

The idea is to not drain a gate without a fight.

But now with the situation in PTR, the aggressive way that there are barely 4 towers in each maps to fight for, now we will fight more than we drain. Speaking from an attacker's perspective.

The idea itself is good. But the fact that we're about to lose half map is the deal breaker. There should be a balance.

fighting over gates=content,less gates=less content less gates=less for smaller clans,big clans will be annoyed but not give much of a sht cuz they have the power to just hold all the remaining ones

 

[-Kiwi-]

The idea is to not drain a gate without a fight.

But now with the situation in PTR, the aggressive way that there are barely 4 towers in each maps to fight for, now we will fight more than we drain. Speaking from an attacker's perspective.

The idea itself is good. But the fact that we're about to lose half map is the deal breaker. There should be a balance.

other than that,the less camps there is to fight for means the area that needs defending will be much smaller for attackers,making the outnumbered minority forced to fight in a smaller area against a foe that outnumbers them,there is a big difference fighting over 4-5 maps and fighting over an entire map,an entire map means defenders will split themselves making weak points for attackers to exploit,but less gates means less area's to defend making the defender's concentrations bigger and stronger,i dont know how these updates are supposed to help smaller clans yet it just keeps making shit worse for them

 

[-Kiwi-]

other than that,the less camps there is to fight for means the area that needs defending will be much smaller for attackers,making the outnumbered minority forced to fight in a smaller area against a foe that outnumbers them,there is a big difference fighting over 4-5 maps and fighting over an entire map,an entire map means defenders will split themselves making weak points for attackers to exploit,but less gates means less area's to defend making the defender's concentrations bigger and stronger,i dont know how these updates are supposed to help smaller clans yet it just keeps making shit worse for them

typo mistake sorry i meant 4-5 gates not maps

 

[IParzivaLI]

You Devs are talking about smaller clans will have a chance to have gates but in the meantime there is a thing such as DV which holds random gates smaller clans cant apply on town hall that much because they wont have enough fame to apply and if they cant apply they wont have gates where is the point of this then?

 

[Pleiadian]

I cannot use DinoDollars to teleport to a vulnerable travel gate.

But I can use Teleport Matrix to teleport to a vulnerable gate.

Was this by intention?

 

[europe1]

occupation of buildings should be random from 1 to 3 buildings on each map, a bit longer time of attacking buildings, up to 2h would be good, for protection during the day 1h 30 min at night 1h 30 min attacking and the rest of time should suspend protection of buildings until 6 or 7 am, the dynamics of taking over buildings should also depend on the number of people attacking a building both during the day and at night (the more, the faster you can take over) depending on the time of day. During the day it should be faster because a lot of people are active, at night it should be longer because people sleep, there should also be 3 different colours (friend, clan and enemy) with the possibility of assigning enemy clans to the list of your own clan with the possibility of marking them (players on the map with the colour of the enemy) so that others can see who is who.

 

[Luka Patajac]

I cannot use DinoDollars to teleport to a vulnerable travel gate.

But I can use Teleport Matrix to teleport to a vulnerable gate.

Was this by intention?

Its teleport matrix you are suppose to be able to teleport anywhere but its unusable if person actually attack(gaining duelist in process) does it really help in long run when fights over buildings means either outlaw or duelist it can onyl give headstart but i dont see it as something that determines the battle for building itself

 

[Alewx]

Then the team really doesn't know the current situation on live servers, that is a fun part of the game lol

A situation where a bunch pf players is bullying everyone else into submission or otherwise get set onto a KOS list..... alliances using mutliple accounts and a blackmarket of selling accounts.
So the current situation is there are quite a number of players willing to do anything to just not play by the rules. Does that kind of fit?

 

[S19]

A situation where a bunch pf players is bullying everyone else into submission or otherwise get set onto a KOS list..... alliances using mutliple accounts and a blackmarket of selling accounts.

Solution for black market and multiple account.... when???

Finally you publicly acknowledge it, now do some witchcraft about the multi account.

you kinda prove that it can be solved overnight but you explicitly choose not to do anything about it.. multi account being the biggest plague in the game

 

[Luka Patajac]

You do realize how many % of such accounts are in the game right now?

 

[-Kiwi-]

A situation where a bunch pf players is bullying everyone else into submission or otherwise get set onto a KOS list..... alliances using mutliple accounts and a blackmarket of selling accounts.
So the current situation is there are quite a number of players willing to do anything to just not play by the rules. Does that kind of fit?

hopefully we see some changes to that,but i dont think these updates are doing anything to even help that

 

[Alewx]

Solution for black market and multiple account.... when???

Finally you publicly acknowledge it, now do some witchcraft about the multi account.

you kinda prove that it can be solved overnight but you explicitly choose not to do anything about it.. multi account being the biggest plague in the game

Proof? Where?

 

[Highway]

The idea itself is good. But the fact that we're about to lose half map is the deal breaker. There should be a balance.

The amount of buildings per server is alreay configured so that large servers will have almost all buildings available and the smallest servers will have ~25 buildings to own/attack/defend. But we will monitor this once this is live. Is difficult to estimate how it will really turn out on "live" conditions.

Here you can see the townhall activity counters for each server from the last townhall period.(14 days) They should match a valid user activity on those servers.

 

[-Kiwi-]

The amount of buildings per server is alreay configured so that large servers will have almost all buildings available and the smallest servers will have ~25 buildings to own/attack/defend. But we will monitor this once this is live. Is difficult to estimate how it will really turn out on "live" conditions.

Here you can see the townhall activity counters for each server from the last townhall period.(14 days) They should match a valid user activity on those servers.

View attachment 47302

is basing the townhall seat an accurate representation of how many ppl are active in such server? if i am not mistaken doesnt the townhall give seats based on people applying? there could be people that are active but not applying

 

[Alewx]

is basing the townhall seat an accurate representation of how many ppl are active in such server? if i am not mistaken doesnt the townhall give seats based on people applying? there could be people that are active but not applying

It is a semi accurate measurement, as just using the amount of players would lead to obvious issues. but as buildings that can be attacked is linked to fame and therefor the townhall, it is kind of the next best thing.

 

[Highway]

Solution for black market and multiple account.... when???

Finally you publicly acknowledge it, now do some witchcraft about the multi account.

you kinda prove that it can be solved overnight but you explicitly choose not to do anything about it.. multi account being the biggest plague in the game

You do realize how many % of such accounts are in the game right now?

We know that this is an issue in Dinostorm. Usually the best way to solve the multi accounting is to adjust the game that it does not give any benefits to do so. Believe it or not but with the upcoming update we hope that will get better as just passively draining without acually playing will hopefully not work out anymore. In addition we have clear phases when attacks are possible and there is no need to constantly maintenance the buildings with supplies.

But apart from the gameplay changes we have some additional technical solution that should help this issue as well.

 

[S19]

View attachment 47302

Next year we will see those dead server be shutting down due to the fact that it's too costly to run servers with no activity there.

 

[-Kiwi-]

It is a semi accurate measurement, as just using the amount of players would lead to obvious issues. but as buildings that can be attacked is linked to fame and therefor the townhall, it is kind of the next best thing.

yes but there could be the fact that although there are 40 members active in a clan,only 2 of those member apply for elections because the clan is focusing them,its very inaccurate and unfair to use such a measurement option to make dv hold gates,since a server could be highly active but not many applying for elections at the same time waiting their turn

 

[Alewx]

Next year we will see those dead server be shutting down due to the fact that it's too costly to run servers with no activity there.

You are twisting the activity measurement of the townhall to scale it with the actuall active players; that are to different things.

 

[Luka Patajac]

yes but there could be the fact that although there are 40 members active in a clan,only 2 of those member apply for elections because the clan is focusing them,its very inaccurate and unfair to use such a measurement option to make dv hold gates,since a server could be highly active but not many applying for elections at the same time waiting their turn

Would you want it for them to measure activity and amount of builds dv takes away by for example how many players are active in conflict phase be it by defending or attacking instead?