You simply get duellist in dinoville in this way and allowing also low levels/new players to get golds/fame
forum.dinostorm.com
why not just make it for all servers instead of eu1? this just seems biasedWe drafted a concept to have dynamic drain rate based on the clan owned sites as we already mentioned here. Unfortunatly its not ready to be tested yet though. Check it out the concept and drop your feedback there:
Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)
Hey everyone, we think it's a good idea to give this adjustment idea an extra post so that we can have a focused discussion on it. Please let us know what you think of this concept and feel free to drop your constructive feedback below! Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2) Site Yield Changes...
For EU1:
We will go back to the -20 and +5 rate for now as this ensured a gameplay for both side. I know its hard to defend the tank attacker strategy but they barely managed only to get 3 sites out of 65 max (only ~5%!) with a lot of dollar invenstment. The dominating alliance also pulls of strategies that could also not considered as "fair" against such a small opposition even when they are in the majority on the server. I hope both sides understand this and can swhy till enjoy combat vs. none until the next update is ready to go live.
I can understand that but its like that because EU1 is very different to other server structures. Its just temporary until the proposed concept is ready to go live, which hopefully balances it better naturally.
well its okay,eu1 will just keep gates at basic and good percentage and this wont affect them,lose lose
Then the attackers in that server simply will farm gold from PvE.
they wont be able to,ppl in the alliance farms gold as well and wont let enemy
@Highway thanks alot! Waiting for the dynamic rates too. Finally u understood our problems <3.We drafted a concept to have dynamic drain rate based on the clan owned sites as we already mentioned here. Unfortunatly its not ready to be tested yet though. Check it out the concept and drop your feedback there:
Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)
Hey everyone, we think it's a good idea to give this adjustment idea an extra post so that we can have a focused discussion on it. Please let us know what you think of this concept and feel free to drop your constructive feedback below! Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2) Site Yield Changes...
For EU1:
We will go back to the -20 and +5 rate for now as this ensured a gameplay for both side. I know its hard to defend the tank attacker strategy but they barely managed only to get 3 sites out of 65 max (only ~5%!) with a lot of dollar invenstment. The dominating alliance also pulls of strategies that could also not considered as "fair" against such a small opposition even when they are in the majority on the server. I hope both sides understand this and can still enjoy combat vs. none until the next update is ready to go live.
the problem still is the fact we can't attack at any hour we want and that the game play is restricted to the times imposed by you, making a boring and predictable gameplay without surprisesWe drafted a concept to have dynamic drain rate based on the clan owned sites as we already mentioned here. Unfortunatly its not ready to be tested yet though. Check it out the concept and drop your feedback there:
Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2)
Hey everyone, we think it's a good idea to give this adjustment idea an extra post so that we can have a focused discussion on it. Please let us know what you think of this concept and feel free to drop your constructive feedback below! Site Conflict Adjustments (3.2) Site Yield Changes...
For EU1:
We will go back to the -20 and +5 rate for now as this ensured a gameplay for both side. I know its hard to defend the tank attacker strategy but they barely managed only to get 3 sites out of 65 max (only ~5%!) with a lot of dollar invenstment. The dominating alliance also pulls of strategies that could also not considered as "fair" against such a small opposition even when they are in the majority on the server. I hope both sides understand this and can still enjoy combat vs. none until the next update is ready to go live.
"Dislike" and "like" don't mean much if these people don't give valid arguments as to why they disagree.
you will understand it when it happens to you,when a dev goes out of his way to help a clan that consist of 10 members against an entire alliance that consists of 150 members,minority deserves a chance but you reach a point where no matter what the minority cant beat a majority that is x10 its size,its annoying and tedious
everyone is fine if highway made the changes to every server but doing it in 1 server just to help 10 players is very biased in my opinion
let me guess, you are part of a great alliance
Did these 10 players manage to take over the entire server?
i have no problem with enemies taking a gate fair and square,but the fact they can take a gate before we can even reach it is very funny and stupid
If your side holds the entire server, why does it hurt when the alliance loses a few Sites?
the enemies on eu1 no longer log and its just a clan that has 8-10 players fighting against an entire server
you forget that the alliance consits of multiple clans that are big and small in their own right,losing a gate for the alliance is a small number is nothing but to individual clans who hold limited gates hurts them,especially if they lose it in an unfair way such as legit taking it before being able to reach the gate
but as i said,i have no problem with a system like this if it was implemented across the board to other servers and not just eu1
I agree that it feels unfair. We might add this settings to the other servers as well until the next update is ready.
I watched closely how todays attacks and defences on EU1 and must say that it was well played from both sides.
