Feedback Wanted: Site Conflict Adjustments Part 2

[- Leyenda -]

I would like to talk about the issue regarding the maintenance of Dv. I think it is good that it is compensated with triple fame, but the portals do not last 1 day before Dv takes them, could it be extended to 3 or 2 days maximum?

 

[OrionZG]

Expectation of the update: Destroy the large alliances.

Result:
America_1: Almost all clans allied (1 clan left out).
America_2: Almost all clans allied (1-2 clans left out).
America_3: There are no alliances, only 1-3 clans with 5-8 members who join just to drain.
America_4: ALL clans on the server have united in one alliance.
America_5: I don't know the server, so I’m not sure about the status of the server.

america 2???? What are you talking about? I've been playing on that server for weeks, and the number of defending and attacking clans has been relatively even, but right now there are more attackers, and it's more because two clans stupidly betrayed.

Currently there are 5 vs 8 clans.

and believe me, the rivalry between the players remains the same.

 

[Nebulon Galaxus]

logically speaking, attackers will have allies if both of them have 5 different dinos [same drain rate]

even when attacker clan takes gates, big alliances will have the same drain rate on their gates, so basically this attacking clan won't be doing 1vs1 but will simply lose, 100% lose

i thought only 1 clan will take the buff, but if every attacking clan with the same drain rate takes it then dont expect anyone to defend u didnt change anything

and to be fair with the exploits i mentioned above, 1 or 2 clans against a stronger force than theirs [bigger alliance] will literally be toyed with around the maps, bcs they are gonna coordinate and abuse this buff

oh yes i forgot about that possibility seems i was living in the past a bit myself and forgot that draining is based on number of defenders gate held and not the difference of sites held betwene both so you are corect if there are large enough aliance clans capable of getting their players to use 5 different dinos since there might be a few issue with it like players not having the dinos unlocked or refusing to play them because they dont like them however i think it could be fixed by what highway sugested making it give adrenalin based on draining done in that case atleast for that multi clan attack thing wouldnt change anything about adrenalins duration

 

[SPA]

I have already proposed an idea that has been ignored 100 times, now everyone is complaining about something about the update on July 9th

 

[Hardwell]

I have already proposed an idea that has been ignored 100 times, now everyone is complaining about something about the update on July 9th

Whats about to happen ?
Judgement day for attackers?

 

[OrionZG]

What if there was an item that could manually improve building yield without having to defend a phase? I mean, this item can only be obtained if the building is successfully defended with 400%.

 

[OrionZG]

Is it just me or does the saloon not open the window?

 

[SPA]

Whats about to happen ?
Judgement day for attackers?

I think nothing bad, but the game feels more uninteresting.

 

[DarkMyth.]

oh yes i forgot about that possibility seems i was living in the past a bit myself and forgot that draining is based on number of defenders gate held and not the difference of sites held betwene both so you are corect if there are large enough aliance clans capable of getting their players to use 5 different dinos since there might be a few issue with it like players not having the dinos unlocked or refusing to play them because they dont like them however i think it could be fixed by what highway sugested making it give adrenalin based on draining done in that case atleast for that multi clan attack thing wouldnt change anything about adrenalins duration

If the amount of sites a clan holds would affect their drain rate then it’s most likely clans are going to have different drain rates (unless they hold same amount of sites) and that’ll give better chance for the defending clan to not have multiple clans killing them because they can take the buff due to the same drain rate, that’s one solution

Another solution would be either the clan which has the most players in site taking the buff (including the 5 different dinos) OR simply as you said the clan which have drained the most HP or % takes the buff alone

That way it’ll give better chances to smaller forces (original attacker clans) into defending instead of having a bunch of clans able to attack them together

@Highway it’s logical, for example on eu1 if one attacker clan took a gate or two, next phase they’ll have to defend but the alliance is 6-9 clans, these clans are going to have the same drain rate on that clan and they’ll also take the buff, it’s not close to being fair and the long buff won’t even help them because all these clans also took a 30 seconds attacker buff

 

[OrionZG]

So with these changes, would it be a good idea to increase the members of a clan from 80 to 100?

 

[Hardwell]

Anymore PVE elements still to come in EG3 ? @Highway

 

[ashwanth.madhannan]

The last update about attackers having to defend one site before taking over it has weakened the combat in my server for site fame. We are less in number and its really hard for us to defend against enemies that have multiple clans and multiple accounts. It also made the drain rate so low for a gate that has almost 80k HP. Enemies here, hold few sites like 3 or below even its a big clan, to not allow the attackers to have more drain rate. They won't worry about defending hard now because even if we takeover a site, we wont be able to defend it for a whole phase against a lot of enemies.

Reverting back to the old site mechanism with a combination of some of the current features will surely please any side of players. If u create a new thread for the idea of reverting back to the old mechanism with some changes, you can gain alot of constructive feedback and do justice to smaller clans as well as make the gameplay as good as it was before. We all could even see the poll held in the forum. Heed to the players that have stayed with the game for more than a decade. I mean all the players that have stayed here for years, this game's mechanism has kept it alive for these many years and it still is fresh and has scope to it.

 

[Rockspider19]

The last update about attackers having to defend one site before taking over it has weakened the combat in my server for site fame. We are less in number and its really hard for us to defend against enemies that have multiple clans and multiple accounts. It also made the drain rate so low for a gate that has almost 80k HP. Enemies here, hold few sites like 3 or below even its a big clan, to not allow the attackers to have more drain rate. They won't worry about defending hard now because even if we takeover a site, we wont be able to defend it for a whole phase against a lot of enemies.

Reverting back to the old site mechanism with a combination of some of the current features will surely please any side of players. If u create a new thread for the idea of reverting back to the old mechanism with some changes, you can gain alot of constructive feedback and do justice to smaller clans as well as make the gameplay as good as it was before. We all could even see the poll held in the forum. Heed to the players that have stayed with the game for more than a decade. I mean all the players that have stayed here for years, this game's mechanism has kept it alive for these many years and it still is fresh and has scope to it.

Something has to truly be wrong for me to agree with PIGROTY... but he is 100% right!

Well said.

 

[Domino]

Why is EP gain from attacking removed? N.v.m. I'm blind. Ignore my question

 

[VENOM661]

congrats all developers u all killed the fun of the game !

 

[OrionZG]

If you mean that this update is in favor of the defending alliance, well, maybe xd

But for my part it has been quite entertaining so far.

 

[DarkMyth.]

From what I've been seeing mostly on my main server eu1, attacker clans aren't taking sites because they want to try making fame out of it but they are taking sites simply to flex the fact they took sites.

If your clan doesn't have a strong force, why are you taking 10-20 sites? (only to make zero fame in the end)

My clan currently follows a tactic of simply holding 3 sites (and trust me 3 sites on excellent gives a decent amount of fame), knowing that if I want to hold more, I might struggle due to the lack of defenders sometimes, you never know when you might have less or more players online, but if another clan will attack and take 10-20 sites how are they gonna be able to defend it, I mean they won't even bother trying to defend, they just go ahead and attack 10-20 more sites on next phase while other clans retake what's lost from last phase.

In the end, attacking more than you can handle will simply be a waste of your time, logical.

But I do wanna know what's happening on other servers too, am1 took attacker clans in their alliance and offered them gates, eu3 is peaceful, am2 some chaos but would like to see feedbacks too.

 

[NazzaFire]

From what I've been seeing mostly on my main server eu1, attacker clans aren't taking sites because they want to try making fame out of it but they are taking sites simply to flex the fact they took sites.

If your clan doesn't have a strong force, why are you taking 10-20 sites? (only to make zero fame in the end)

My clan currently follows a tactic of simply holding 3 sites (and trust me 3 sites on excellent gives a decent amount of fame), knowing that if I want to hold more, I might struggle due to the lack of defenders sometimes, you never know when you might have less or more players online, but if another clan will attack and take 10-20 sites how are they gonna be able to defend it, I mean they won't even bother trying to defend, they just go ahead and attack 10-20 more sites on next phase while other clans retake what's lost from last phase.

In the end, attacking more than you can handle will simply be a waste of your time, logical.

But I do wanna know what's happening on other servers too, am1 took attacker clans in their alliance and offered them gates, eu3 is peaceful, am2 some chaos but would like to see feedbacks too.

I think the update before this one was better for everyone, if you have problems now imagine how many problems a small clan has to get medals

 

[istencsaszar]

From what I've been seeing mostly on my main server eu1, attacker clans aren't taking sites because they want to try making fame out of it but they are taking sites simply to flex the fact they took sites.

If your clan doesn't have a strong force, why are you taking 10-20 sites? (only to make zero fame in the end)

My clan currently follows a tactic of simply holding 3 sites (and trust me 3 sites on excellent gives a decent amount of fame), knowing that if I want to hold more, I might struggle due to the lack of defenders sometimes, you never know when you might have less or more players online, but if another clan will attack and take 10-20 sites how are they gonna be able to defend it, I mean they won't even bother trying to defend, they just go ahead and attack 10-20 more sites on next phase while other clans retake what's lost from last phase.

In the end, attacking more than you can handle will simply be a waste of your time, logical.

But I do wanna know what's happening on other servers too, am1 took attacker clans in their alliance and offered them gates, eu3 is peaceful, am2 some chaos but would like to see feedbacks too.

Because defending as a single clan against a whole alliance is impossible still. If we take a few gates and try to defend it the full power of the enemy (many clans) will be concentrated on that small amount of buildings.

If we take many gates it's basically the same reason as site swapping in defending alliances (which they still do btw, the new update didn't fix that at all, and now it's used as an exploit to block the way to claims). Doing this is WAY more rewarding than spending 100+k dds on defending a few sites each phase and gaining an amount of fame that can be mined in 1-2 hours.

 

[xx-predator-xx]

From what I've been seeing mostly on my main server eu1, attacker clans aren't taking sites because they want to try making fame out of it but they are taking sites simply to flex the fact they took sites.

If your clan doesn't have a strong force, why are you taking 10-20 sites? (only to make zero fame in the end)

My clan currently follows a tactic of simply holding 3 sites (and trust me 3 sites on excellent gives a decent amount of fame), knowing that if I want to hold more, I might struggle due to the lack of defenders sometimes, you never know when you might have less or more players online, but if another clan will attack and take 10-20 sites how are they gonna be able to defend it, I mean they won't even bother trying to defend, they just go ahead and attack 10-20 more sites on next phase while other clans retake what's lost from last phase.

In the end, attacking more than you can handle will simply be a waste of your time, logical.

But I do wanna know what's happening on other servers too, am1 took attacker clans in their alliance and offered them gates, eu3 is peaceful, am2 some chaos but would like to see feedbacks too.

if you were ok with this update before it was launched we needed to addopt a new strategy. its all about who gets the fame therefore buildings going from one side to another without being able to defend them means nobody gets the fame but most important thing your side doesnt get that fame.

 

[Domino]

Because defending as a single clan against a whole alliance is impossible still. If we take a few gates and try to defend it the full power of the enemy (many clans) will be concentrated on that small amount of buildings.

If we take many gates it's basically the same reason as site swapping in defending alliances (which they still do btw, the new update didn't fix that at all, and now it's used as an exploit to block the way to claims). Doing this is WAY more rewarding than spending 100+k dds on defending a few sites each phase and gaining an amount of fame that can be mined in 1-2 hours.

Wait, you asked the developers what to do during the other 19 out of 20 hours before and after phases. Now you say you waste the 5 hours for zero fame because you don't care to defend and only want to take gates? If you want fame and don't care about defending, why not farm claims for 5 hours?

 

[istencsaszar]

Wait, you asked the developers what to do during the other 19 out of 20 hours before and after phases. Now you say you waste the 5 hours for zero fame because you don't care to defend and only want to take gates? If you want fame and don't care about defending, why not farm claims for 5 hours?

Because blocking out the fame production of competitors is still worth it.

 

[DarkMyth.]

Because defending as a single clan against a whole alliance is impossible still. If we take a few gates and try to defend it the full power of the enemy (many clans) will be concentrated on that small amount of buildings.

If we take many gates it's basically the same reason as site swapping in defending alliances (which they still do btw, the new update didn't fix that at all, and now it's used as an exploit to block the way to claims). Doing this is WAY more rewarding than spending 100+k dds on defending a few sites each phase and gaining an amount of fame that can be mined in 1-2 hours.

Multiples solutions posted, ignored.
Sad to disappoint you but holding sites is basically passive fame which you need to defend and not grind, and what you mine is an extra for your OWN election as a player, and what you earn from 1 excellent gate (28080 fame) you need 1-2 hours to farm it from claims depending how many players are farming

if you were ok with this update before it was launched we needed to addopt a new strategy. its all about who gets the fame therefore buildings going from one side to another without being able to defend them means nobody gets the fame but most important thing your side doesnt get that fame.

Because blocking out the fame production of competitors is still worth it.

My clan itself collects 115k fame from what we hold, meanwhile you go to drain 10-20 gates each phase (to earn nothing from it) thinking you're blocking us in some way well you're wrong, you're draining gates we sometimes let you drain knowing it doesn't change anything as you can't defend 10-20 sites

Your clan was offered 6 gates (almost half a map) and official peace with elections without being a part of the alliance (around 170k passive fame on a daily basis from gates) and your leader rejected the offer because he believes mining is better for you and he also mentioned holding gates without any claim means nothing, well enjoy the outcome of not holding nor producing fame and simply grinding ores (since it's better) if that's your leader's plan

 

[istencsaszar]

Multiples solutions posted, ignored.
Sad to disappoint you but holding sites is basically passive fame which you need to defend and not grind, and what you mine is an extra for your OWN election as a player, and what you earn from 1 excellent gate (28080 fame) you need 1-2 hours to farm it from claims depending how many players are farming




My clan itself collects 115k fame from what we hold, meanwhile you go to drain 10-20 gates each phase (to earn nothing from it) thinking you're blocking us in some way well you're wrong, you're draining gates we sometimes let you drain knowing it doesn't change anything as you can't defend 10-20 sites

Your clan was offered 6 gates (almost half a map) and official peace with elections without being a part of the alliance (around 170k passive fame on a daily basis from gates) and your leader rejected the offer because he believes mining is better for you and he also mentioned holding gates without any claim means nothing, well enjoy the outcome of not holding nor producing fame and simply grinding ores (since it's better) if that's your leader's plan

Since when is feedback about peace deals?

There is no way to defend even 1 site as a single clan as we are vastly outnumbered(no, not only one attacker gets the buff before that argument). So we take more sites, that's our only option.

 

[xx-predator-xx]

Multiples solutions posted, ignored.
Sad to disappoint you but holding sites is basically passive fame which you need to defend and not grind, and what you mine is an extra for your OWN election as a player, and what you earn from 1 excellent gate (28080 fame) you need 1-2 hours to farm it from claims depending how many players are farming




My clan itself collects 115k fame from what we hold, meanwhile you go to drain 10-20 gates each phase (to earn nothing from it) thinking you're blocking us in some way well you're wrong, you're draining gates we sometimes let you drain knowing it doesn't change anything as you can't defend 10-20 sites

Your clan was offered 6 gates (almost half a map) and official peace with elections without being a part of the alliance (around 170k passive fame on a daily basis from gates) and your leader rejected the offer because he believes mining is better for you and he also mentioned holding gates without any claim means nothing, well enjoy the outcome of not holding nor producing fame and simply grinding ores (since it's better) if that's your leader's plan

6 gates and another deal with nemesis AND nksf for them to attack us right?

 

[Rockspider19]

Well after tonight's first phase prooved NkSF will take gates no matter how bad the update or how many enemies are on the server.

We might not get any fame but that doesnt mean our enemies will have an easy time
The update is still bad and needs to be fixed since other small clans are struggling.

 

[RetroRevolution]

Since when is feedback about peace deals?

There is no way to defend even 1 site as a single clan as we are vastly outnumbered(no, not only one attacker gets the buff before that argument). So we take more sites, that's our only option.

well he made it clear ur clan doesnt want to hold or defend even with peace since u decline 6 gates. and u are again mentioning the same point i mentioned twice before this update is release, i mentioned every exploit, but nothing can be done to it thats the buff and its always gona have a some way to exploit or abuse it tbh
attacker got used to attacking with high drain rate and collecting free fame

 

[RetroRevolution]

6 gates and another deal with nemesis AND nksf for them to attack us right?

are nksf or nemesis ally to them if i may ask? and if u cant handle their alliance u also cant handle 2 clans? 6 gates still worth fighting for, if their deal is dirty, u can then go back to attacking and forget the deal, but if the deal from them is 6 gates and then 2 clans who arent allied to them will attack u, then i think u can defend with a proper strategy if only against 2 clans depending how big they are. and for what reason will they attack u? are u already enemies or?

[edit] also from what i remember seeing nksf was attacking them with u, now they are attacking u?

 

[xx-predator-xx]

well he made it clear ur clan doesnt want to hold or defend even with peace since u decline 6 gates. and u are again mentioning the same point i mentioned twice before this update is release, i mentioned every exploit, but nothing can be done to it thats the buff and its always gona have a some way to exploit or abuse it tbh
attacker got used to attacking with high drain rate and collecting free fame

 

[istencsaszar]

well he made it clear ur clan doesnt want to hold or defend even with peace since u decline 6 gates. and u are again mentioning the same point i mentioned twice before this update is release, i mentioned every exploit, but nothing can be done to it thats the buff and its always gona have a some way to exploit or abuse it tbh
attacker got used to attacking with high drain rate and collecting free fame

Bruh, stop talking about things you don't know. We had more buildings than that before they attacked our gates with alts like 2 years ago and our clan was smaller back then. Ofc we decline, it's not about wanting to defend or not.

Nksf insulted some of our members, then joined the defending alliance.