An option for “No troop cards, no glory” wars

[Lord P]

So Nexon has chosen to put all their eggs in the pay-2-win troop cards basket. That’s fine, I personally think it is the wrong way to go but it is what it is, and its never going change. If alliances want to buy their way onto the leaderboard with elephant stables and bazooka towers then good on them - we are usually hovering around the leaderboard ourselves so we enjoy a good tussle as much as the next alliance.

However, we are not pay2win and never will be. No amount of offers are going to force us to start spending hundreds of dollars as an alliance per war just for a bit of glory. I am certain we are not alone in this thinking either.

What I would love to see is a tick box on the “start war screen” where you can disable the use of card troops both for offence and defence but also disable glory. Wars just for the fun of it where the only commodity that separates both alliances is skill.

Those alliances that wish to play for glory and a shot at the leaderboard can keep doing so, and pay2win in the process, we would certainly continue to war for glory most of the time. But for those alliances who will never buy troop cards but want to keep playing/warring purely for the fun of it, or for the alliances that just want to take a break from the constant need to use cards, this is an option for them.

Wars used to be great, for everybody. Before troop cards, glory and sandbagging wars were played solely for the fun of it. For many alliances this is not the case anymore. Surely from Nexon’s viewpoint it is better to keep the casual, non-paying players active in this game than slowly force them to quit the game due to Nexon’s obvious and constant progression towards pay2win troop cards.....

 

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

Bravo. Been thinking/saying this for years. Still think no card wars should have some glory though. Maybe 20 or 25% as much as a regular one. I figure most alliances have made peace with never making the leaderboard in its present state, however glory gained/lost does give an indicator of where each alliance stands in the scheme of things. Not necessarily strength, but positioning. I seem to remember a few AMA's ago they said they were going to finally reveal war weights. I wonder what happened to that or if this boosts reveal is what they meant?

 

[KniferX]

Great idea to be implemented for free players who don't care about glory or buying troop cards.
Which is why it won't be implemented, buying advantages like elephant archers, el. stables and bazooka sentries would be greatly diminished as most free teams would leave the glory and TT enabled wars.

 

[Loonies]

Who will the payers prey upon then?

 

[Quovatis]

Pay to win killed this game, but there is still time to change course if the devs want to. Aside from asking us where they said they were against pay to win (which the community pointed to their own webpage), they haven't addressed our concerns about pay to win at all or even have a conversation with us. Marco polo was supposed to help, but it's all crown offers...more paying.

 

[Lord P]

I do agree as I suspect a number (the majority in fact) of warring alliances don’t care for this pay2win nonsense.
That being said I think there are enough serious alliances out there that realise Glory is the only way to be recognised for war superiority (read: big wallets) I suspect a large enough number of those serious alliances would continue warring for glory so that pay2win would still happen. I know our alliance would probably do 2/3 or our wars still for glory and the remaining 1/3 as non-glory wars as a way to balance card usage...
And let’s face it, those free alliances that don’t like glory or buying troop cards are leaving the game anyway - surely it’s better to try and keep them playing the game rather than ditching it entirely?

 

[Manifesto]

Am l the only person who disagrees that this game is pay to win?
l think it's more like pay (if you want to) to win.
Are you telling me there are no teams on the leaderboard that are there solely with dock troops, coalitions and skill & experience?

 

[Mcnasty]

Nope I’m with ya

 

[Lord P]

Manifesto I’m not sure I see the distinction between pay2win and ‘pay if you want to win’ - surely those that pay for cards and chests are doing so to increase their chances of winning, ergo they want to win.
I’d love to know if there are any alliances on the leaderboard that don’t pay2win in some degree. Kudos if there are teams like that but we’ve certainly not run into any top 100 alliances that just use dock cards/free Marco Polo troops.

Besides I think the leaderboard is a bad way to judge ‘a normal’ alliance. Those that are on, or near the leaderboard have committed to being there and probably accepted that some form of premium troop card usage is necessary (we are certainly in that category) They are also the alliances that defining ‘winning’ as being glory/leaderboard related, which is fine and I think those alliances would continue to think like that. But for the many casual alliances that don’t care about glory or the leaderboard and will never buy troop cards, I think having a casual form of war (as wars were played pre glory) will keep them interested in the game.

 

[Manifesto]

Lord P , l meant to delineate alliances that might pay occassionally, compared to the ones who pay for every match just to be on top.
I refuse to believe there are no alliances in the leaderboard who got there with skill & experience, not money. Well, maybe a little money.

 

[Loonies]

Learn2Play > Pay2Win

 

[Saruman the White]

Using 1-4 tactic troops is not bad for me. Glory is essential. In my opinion, which I have analyzed in many posts, matchmaking itself should be based upon Glory

 

[KniferX]

I don't see any difference between those terms that you stated.
One thing though.
What's the point of the game if you aren't playing it to win? Are you playing to lose? Are you playing so you can just collect resources and look at timers ticking?

For me, personally, the whole point of the game, all resource collecting and waiting on timers, culminates in world war and proving your team's skill and using those toys you waited for.

But this is eroded by the fact that we know and have faced other teams that compensate their lack of skill with paid advantages. An optimist would say, that's a learning experience, you can become better at the game overcoming those challenges, but you can only improve up until a point. In fact you can be the best team in DomiNations, you will still lose against probably the top 20, just because elephant archers bring guaranteed faster clear times than anything else in the game.

DomiNations isn't nearly as bad as many other games of this type, but still any p2w is going to suck for this reason, and limit a fairly good game from becoming an excellent game.

 

[Manifesto]

KniferX , not sure if you're asking hypothetically but I'll answer anyway. I enjoy the game, just playing. Not trying to get a particular goal, just trying to be a better attacker with each mp battle.

 

[Bedlam]

People still don't seem to get it. Any player who does not spend big bucks on this game is nothing but background noise to companies like Nexon(commonly referred to as spam by some). They do not care about your opinions. Everything is geared towards getting the people who already spend big bucks to spend more. I mean do you ever see anyone from the top alliances in here complaining about troop cards? Stop stressing about it and learn to play the game the best you can.

 

[KniferX]

Interesting that you find the MP battles aspect of the game compelling.
You have 30 seconds to analyze a base that is randomly picked, so not a lot of strategy to make there during attacks.
The loot requirements of the game (especially oil) are large and several of the more important tools in our hands (planes, tactics) have long rebuild times (unless you pay and use crowns).
This facilitates being very picky with your targets, wasting time skipping bases and dropping medals, it becomes a simple boring grind after an hour of attacking (this last is my personal experience).

 

[Quovatis]

Yes, me and many of my alliance mates complain about troop cards, and we're the top active alliance on the leaderboard. We all think it's stupid to buy cards, but to compete with other top alliances you have to. We would not win any wars against top alliances without paying for cards and elephant stables. How some can say that's not pay to win simply doesn't understand.

 

[Bedlam]

Oh yes it's definitely pay to win and its a huge shame.

 

[Manifesto]

KniferX , you find a whole hour to play? Good for you!
I just do 15 or 20 mins here and there, sometimes on the weekend I make an effort to use a TB for an hour. When I have enough rss I upgrade something. Rinse and repeat.
No stress, no mess, and no money. Well, not anymore, that's what whales are for!

 

[Necksahn]

My alliance wins all the time and we never buy cards. That is how we can say the game is not pay to win. I jumped around many mobile games similar to this and this is (by far) the least pay to win. Other games you would buy archer elephants for $100 and it would be permanent. They then come out with archer elephants with bazookas you need to pay $100 and it is permant. If you don’t buy you quickly get your butt kicked.

This is is the longest I have been with a game like this precisely because the pay to win here is not near as bad as others. This one requires some skill in war. Something unheard of in other games.