When is the Attacker/Defender Buff nerf actually happening?

[DriftwoodDino]

I’m opening this thread because we were told a while back that the current attacker/defender buff system was going to be nerfed and fixed, but here we are still dealing with the same nonsense. Does anyone actually have a timeline or a dev response on when this is happening?

The state of the game right now is complete chaos for anyone trying to play fairly

- Afk draining or healing, people are literally parking multiple accounts at sites, going AFK, and winning just because the buff makes them unkillable.
- Unfair advantages, attackers have all the leverage. You can have multiple clans stacking against one defender clan, and because of the shared buff, they basically act as allies.
- The buff stays active way too long after someone leaves a site. You shouldn't be able to wipe players across the map with a lingering buff that was meant for a specific zone.
- 0 skill requirement, it’s not about coordination or gear anymore; it’s about who can sit still the longest. PvP is being punished while passivity is rewarded.
How much longer is this going to prolong? The "dismantle alliances" goal has completely backfired it just created bigger alliances and dead PvP.

We need an update. Is there a specific patch date for these?

 

[Theus]

Concordo completamente com isso. O sistema atual acabou incentivando gameplay passiva e abuso de múltiplas contas, enquanto o PvP real e competitivo foi deixado de lado.

Hoje parece que estratégia, coordenação e habilidade importam menos do que simplesmente ficar AFK acumulando buff. Isso não está saudável para o jogo nem para a comunidade.

 

[DarkMyth.]

bump

 

[V01D]

Currently in Europe_1, after some clans got kicked, a lot of people are AFK draining or using alt accounts to increase the draining. Those accounts are getting banned left and right, but instead of creating a permanent solution, the developers seem more interested in ruining the gaming experience for normal players. It’s always disappointing to see developers stop caring about the player base and focus only on cyber/supreme/cynergy cores to make some extra money.

 

[Narokath]

Dear rangers,

Please forgive us for taking a little time before we weigh in again on the topic of Dino Storm's endgame in general, and attacker/defender buffs in particular.

We share the view that there are multiple aspects within the current state of the endgame that warrant attention. Rather than putting together a large package of changes whose effects are difficult to break down in hindsight, we prefer to carefully adjust individual aspects and observe the impact of these changes.

The first of these changes concerns the duration of the attacker/defender buffs: effective later today, we halve their runtimes from 30 to 15 seconds. This means that the buffs will expire much more quickly than before once you leave a contested site's perimeter. We're eager to hear about your experiences, especially with the bigger battles you often have on the weekends!

 

[Theus]

Gostaria de sugerir uma redução no tempo do efeito “Doente de viagem”. Atualmente a duração parece longa e acaba atrapalhando bastante a jogabilidade. @Narokath

 

[DriftwoodDino]

Dear rangers,

Please forgive us for taking a little time before we weigh in again on the topic of Dino Storm's endgame in general, and attacker/defender buffs in particular.

We share the view that there are multiple aspects within the current state of the endgame that warrant attention. Rather than putting together a large package of changes whose effects are difficult to break down in hindsight, we prefer to carefully adjust individual aspects and observe the impact of these changes.

The first of these changes concerns the duration of the attacker/defender buffs: effective later today, we halve their runtimes from 30 to 15 seconds. This means that the buffs will expire much more quickly than before once you leave a contested site's perimeter. We're eager to hear about your experiences, especially with the bigger battles you often have on the weekends!

Halving the runtime from 30 to 15 seconds is a great step forward to stop people from carrying the buff to hunt players down. It's good to see the team actively looking at endgame feedback

That said, it’s going to be tough to properly gauge the full impact of this change until the weekend when the bigger battles happen and players actually start trying to abuse the buff system again

While the duration nerf helps the "map roaming" issue, the core problems inside the contested sites are still making endgame a headache:

- The main issue isn't just how long the buff lasts outside a site; it's what's happening inside it. Alt accounts or passive players can still sit AFK, stack the buff, and become completely unkillable due to the buff

- Attackers still hold a massive unnatural advantage that rewards passivity and numbers over actual coordination

- Attackers still hold the advantage of having allies attacking together, multiple attacking clans stack the buff in a gate if they have at least 5 different dinos, while the defending clan will get bullied, as they are the only ones with defender buff, basically attackers can benefit from having allies but the defenders are being punished to be forced into defending alone, which is what made defending really pointless ever since the buff came out

Also just so it's clear, with 15 seconds cooldown buff it's also still possible for the attacking clan to leave the gate as they see defenders coming, and kill them before they reach the site circle and take their defender buff, that's another advantage for the attackers which must be mentioned, but surely better than a 30 seconds cooldown

Cutting the timer to 15 seconds is a good band-aid, but we really need to see what the upcoming, deeper nerfs to the buff's actual power and mechanics look like

 

[yewhuiyuan]

Dear rangers,

Please forgive us for taking a little time before we weigh in again on the topic of Dino Storm's endgame in general, and attacker/defender buffs in particular.

We share the view that there are multiple aspects within the current state of the endgame that warrant attention. Rather than putting together a large package of changes whose effects are difficult to break down in hindsight, we prefer to carefully adjust individual aspects and observe the impact of these changes.

The first of these changes concerns the duration of the attacker/defender buffs: effective later today, we halve their runtimes from 30 to 15 seconds. This means that the buffs will expire much more quickly than before once you leave a contested site's perimeter. We're eager to hear about your experiences, especially with the bigger battles you often have on the weekends!

Seeing the current state. It is a trend for 2 clans to hold 1 map. If its possible it could be tweaked so as to make attacker have chance of holding for at least few phases. Instead of being swarmed by mapholders l. And losing gate right after alliance call all their allies up to retake.

Example current situation of active server 10 clans are vsing about 3-4 clans. Its natural to be losing end as attacker.

Possible mechanic: to give buff based on how many gates they hold —> more gates weaker buff
(when they are helping allies kill attacker)

Example: Clan A 6 gates —> 40% attacker buff power

Clan B 4 gates -> 60% attacker buff

Clan C (attacker clan) 0 gate —> 100% buff

Their massive spanning alliance can still help allies but at lesser impact.

 

[DriftwoodDino]

Seeing the current state. It is a trend for 2 clans to hold 1 map. If its possible it could be tweaked so as to make attacker have chance of holding for at least few phases. Instead of being swarmed by mapholders l. And losing gate right after alliance call all their allies up to retake.

Example current situation of active server 10 clans are vsing about 3-4 clans. Its natural to be losing end as attacker.

Possible mechanic: to give buff based on how many gates they hold —> more gates weaker buff
(when they are helping allies kill attacker)

Example: Clan A 6 gates —> 40% attacker buff power

Clan B 4 gates -> 60% attacker buff

Clan C (attacker clan) 0 gate —> 100% buff

Their massive spanning alliance can still help allies but at lesser impact.

We need mechanics that reward active PvP and actual coordination, not a system that hands free wins to anyone who can bring more afk/alt accounts to a site

Plus your suggestion would backfire completely. You’ll just end up with gateless clans intentionally keeping 0 gates just to abuse a 100% power buff to wipe active attacking clans, it destroys any incentive to hold

 

[Theus]

Opinião sincera sobre a existência desse sistema em si. Na nossa visão, esse buff nem deveria existir, pois acaba afetando diretamente a dinâmica e o equilíbrio do jogo. O que queremos é uma remoção completa desse buff, e não apenas ajustes ou alterações nele.

 

[Orochii]

The only thing the attacker/defender buff did was make alliances even bigger, so clans don’t get abused by multiple enemies using this system to wear down the same clan 24/7.

 

[xx-predator-xx]

Perhaps people forgot that the core of this game is to....create big alliances, hold buildings. Yep. If you cannot create a big alliance and hold it steady it's not the devs fault. It's yours. Oh no multi accounts parked etc. Its simple to get rid of those multi accounts. But it take a lot of work - SplitScreen needs to check their server logs for ip addresses logins etc. To stop the multi accounts issue would be to allow them which lots of people dont want or to proceed as other games do , go on steam and buy as many as you want(from lvl 1 ofc). Anyway nothing is perfect, therefore as soon as the devs will find a way to deal with the multi accounts the ones who use them will find a way to go around it. Live long and prosper

 

[OrionZG]

Another issue that also affects building drainage is that dominant clans have multiple clans that hinder the attackers' ability to drain effectively; in other words, having a secondary clan only serves to steal the buff and, in the process, benefit from it.


I think it's time to seriously consider increasing clan sizes—I mean, from 80 to around 200–300.

Another option would be to allow clans to merge, but obviously with a size limit and a high DDS cost.

 

[OrionZG]

And I still maintain that attacking clans are way too nerfed; at best, a decent attacking clan can capture or steal 1 or 2 portals. From there on, the subsequent battles get tougher because the entire opposing alliance starts to join in. I speak from experience. It’s tough for that stage of the game.

So it wouldn't be a bad idea to increase the drain rate on buildings. I mean, it could also benefit the alliance, but overall, they'll have the advantage of successfully defending their territory thanks to the number of players they have.

Controlling an SV or a map should come with risks, and one of those risks is having your resources or buildings stolen more frequently or more effectively.

In my opinion, if the drain rate were increased, it wouldn't be unfair; it would be fair, given the huge numerical difference between the defending and attacking clans.

 

[Andersonoliveira]

Personal opinion, the buff should come out of the attacker or defender as soon as it leaves the heal/attack zone of the portal or gold mine. A possible suggestion would be 5 seconds after leaving the zone, it would be balanced.

 

[Galaxy]

And I still maintain that attacking clans are way too nerfed; at best, a decent attacking clan can capture or steal 1 or 2 portals. From there on, the subsequent battles get tougher because the entire opposing alliance starts to join in. I speak from experience. It’s tough for that stage of the game.

So it wouldn't be a bad idea to increase the drain rate on buildings. I mean, it could also benefit the alliance, but overall, they'll have the advantage of successfully defending their territory thanks to the number of players they have.

Controlling an SV or a map should come with risks, and one of those risks is having your resources or buildings stolen more frequently or more effectively.

In my opinion, if the drain rate were increased, it wouldn't be unfair; it would be fair, given the huge numerical difference between the defending and attacking clans.

The real problem is that the game doesn't reward PvP, so players feel more comfortable joining large alliances and waiting their turn.

For players to stop being so passive, the game should encourage in-game battles, have interesting rewards that can only be obtained through PvP points.

The Sheriff's Monument itself should be for the "strongest" sheriffs and not for those who have the patience to spend all day doing the same missions every day to earn conquest points.

 

[DriftwoodDino]

Personal opinion, the buff should come out of the attacker or defender as soon as it leaves the heal/attack zone of the portal or gold mine. A possible suggestion would be 5 seconds after leaving the zone, it would be balanced.

Just like how it was when released, 4 seconds, the best

 

[OrionZG]

The real problem is that the game doesn't reward PvP, so players feel more comfortable joining large alliances and waiting their turn.

For players to stop being so passive, the game should encourage in-game battles, have interesting rewards that can only be obtained through PvP points.

In short, forcing clans to fight each other... But how would that work with the game's current system? I mean, how could two clans from the same alliance face off in a serious way

I suggested something similar a while back.

Maps BUT

Hello, I was thinking that instead of introducing new maps with additional levels (because absolutely no one wants more levels), we should focus on creating new maps with a sandbox approach or slightly different gameplay, while keeping the current levels (50-55 or exclusively 55). My idea: The...

forum.dinostorm.com

But that involves more mechanics or other elements for a standalone update.

But something closer to your idea would be to create a system that allows you to “DECLARE WAR” on a specific clan; if you win, you get substantial rewards, but if you lose, you face penalties (for the clan) or walk away with nothing. This would be done using “tickets” scheduled to force every clan to participate, so that every so often, there would be “scheduled wars.”

 

[yewhuiyuan]

In short, forcing clans to fight each other... But how would that work with the game's current system? I mean, how could two clans from the same alliance face off in a serious way

I suggested something similar a while back.

Maps BUT

Hello, I was thinking that instead of introducing new maps with additional levels (because absolutely no one wants more levels), we should focus on creating new maps with a sandbox approach or slightly different gameplay, while keeping the current levels (50-55 or exclusively 55). My idea: The...

forum.dinostorm.com

But that involves more mechanics or other elements for a standalone update.

But something closer to your idea would be to create a system that allows you to “DECLARE WAR” on a specific clan; if you win, you get substantial rewards, but if you lose, you face penalties (for the clan) or walk away with nothing. This would be done using “tickets” scheduled to force every clan to participate, so that every so often, there would be “scheduled wars.”

Most mmo game uses story line based in game lore "faction" for event wars, i dont know why ds dont have that and let the community handle the war aspect it will always end up with a broken system no matter what.


Even popular game like albion has it

Different faction

 

[OrionZG]

Albion Online also has its dark side; while its system is more “balanced,” elite clans are rife with corruption, mafia-like groups, and betrayals. I mean, it happens here in Dino Storm too, but by default, this is something that’s bound to happen given the war-like nature of some MMOs.

 

[DriftwoodDino]

In short, forcing clans to fight each other... But how would that work with the game's current system? I mean, how could two clans from the same alliance face off in a serious way

I suggested something similar a while back.

Maps BUT

Hello, I was thinking that instead of introducing new maps with additional levels (because absolutely no one wants more levels), we should focus on creating new maps with a sandbox approach or slightly different gameplay, while keeping the current levels (50-55 or exclusively 55). My idea: The...

forum.dinostorm.com

But that involves more mechanics or other elements for a standalone update.

But something closer to your idea would be to create a system that allows you to “DECLARE WAR” on a specific clan; if you win, you get substantial rewards, but if you lose, you face penalties (for the clan) or walk away with nothing. This would be done using “tickets” scheduled to force every clan to participate, so that every so often, there would be “scheduled wars.”

Ally clans are often getting into dramas between each other, fight each other, sometimes in a very serious way that a clan ends up losing everything, and sometimes they resolve, it's how the system normally works, u cannot "force" clans to fight in a 1v1 just because you want the game to work in that way, they will fight when they see fit and there's problems, simple as that

Making allies, attacking, defending, joining, leaving or leading etc. it's all the player's choice on how they want to play the game, nothing can prevent them from forming alliances in a game like this

 

[NazzaFire]

Ally clans are often getting into dramas between each other, fight each other, sometimes in a very serious way that a clan ends up losing everything, and sometimes they resolve, it's how the system normally works, u cannot "force" clans to fight in a 1v1 just because you want the game to work in that way, they will fight when they see fit and there's problems, simple as that

Making allies, attacking, defending, joining, leaving or leading etc. it's all the player's choice on how they want to play the game, nothing can prevent them from forming alliances in a game like this

Agree , this often happens in Eu_1 as well