Master Contrail Program
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 350
Until the 'data' says decoys must be nerfed as well.
April 2017 Design Spotlight
- Thread starter SebQuattro
- Start date
Another pay2win change, now you need to deploy troop cards almost every time you are attacking lvl220+ This will introduce loads of frustration, when people start averaging less stars than usual. I already quit world war because of the Stronghold pay2win introduction, more people will follow from frustration.
Veldan
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Messages
- 260
Master Contrail Program
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 350
Just because someone has spent more time or money to get to a higher level doesn't mean they have good base designs. If anything, this discourages the higher level player from rethinking their setup.
''Gee, I'm no longer getting 5 starred by people 2-3 ages lower than me. My base must be good''.
''Gee, I'm no longer getting 5 starred by people 2-3 ages lower than me. My base must be good''.
Last edited:
Nb4powerup
Community Manager
- Joined
- May 16, 2016
- Messages
- 741
Hey everyone, I’m Mike Engle, a Senior Designer on DomiNations. Today’s design spotlight covers a new Alliance feature, some changes to Tactics, and a change to address stalemates in World Wars.
Friendly Challenges
In this update we’re introducing Friendly Challenges, where you challenge members of your Alliance to try to defeat your base. These friendly battles won’t result in either the attacker or the defender losing troops or resources. Challenges are a great way to try a fresh base layout or to test your mettle as an attacker without worrying about losing expensive troops, tactics, troop tactics, blessings, etc.
To create a Challenge, tap the Challenge button at the bottom of your Alliance Chat. You’ll get to pick one of your base layouts (including War Bases), set a description, and then post it in chat. Everyone in your Alliance can then make one attack against it. These attacks are then tallied up on a results leaderboard, which shows you how well they did and allows you to view the attack replays.
A new Challenge may be posted every 10 minutes, allowing you to make some changes to your base after you see how it works and then repost it with the revised layout. Challenges last up to 24 hours, but if you repost a new one before then, it replaces the old Challenge.
Tactics
The next change is the introduction of Tactics Capacity. This works just like Troop Capacity but for Tactics. Betrayal, Sabotage, and Protect will now require 2 Tactics Capacity instead of 1. Our goal is that all Tactics feel like they’re worth bringing, and both the internal data and community feedback showed this wasn’t currently the case.
We briefly considered reducing the power of these Tactics or increasing the power of the other Tactics. The first option (reducing their power) just made these Tactics feel dramatically weaker than they are now, which wasn’t as fun. The second option was a problem because we couldn’t actually buff the other Tactics like Barrage and First Aid enough to balance them without making them wildly overpowered.
This is the first of many changes coming this year which will improve the balance between offense and defense. Currently, according to our data and play experience, attackers have a strong advantage, especially in later Ages. This makes defensive decisions less compelling and can make it challenging to successfully guard your resources. We hope that by improving defenses, players will find attacks more challenging and engaging, and will also find more value in the defensive aspects of the game.
The Enlightenment Age rank of the War Academy (rank 5) is being changed to provide +1 Tactics Capacity (previously it was +0). This is being done mostly to address the fact that the buildings previous 2 ranks also provided +0 (meaning there were three ranks in a row with no increase). Remember this isn’t meant to offset the new capacity requirements of Tactics because our goal is to improve balance between offense and defense.
Fewer World War Stalemates
Lastly, we’ve improved World Wars by adding Elapsed Battle Time as a second tie-breaker. Wars are still won by earning more Stars than the other alliance. If that’s a tie, then Average Destruction is still the first tie-breaker. However if that’s also a tie, then the team with the shorter (better) Elapsed Battle Time is declared the winner.
So the objectives in a war, in order of importance are:
This also applies to individual battles. For example:
That wraps up this design spotlight. As always, it’s great to hear back from you all regarding these upcoming features so if you have any comments or concerns please leave them below.
Friendly Challenges
In this update we’re introducing Friendly Challenges, where you challenge members of your Alliance to try to defeat your base. These friendly battles won’t result in either the attacker or the defender losing troops or resources. Challenges are a great way to try a fresh base layout or to test your mettle as an attacker without worrying about losing expensive troops, tactics, troop tactics, blessings, etc.
To create a Challenge, tap the Challenge button at the bottom of your Alliance Chat. You’ll get to pick one of your base layouts (including War Bases), set a description, and then post it in chat. Everyone in your Alliance can then make one attack against it. These attacks are then tallied up on a results leaderboard, which shows you how well they did and allows you to view the attack replays.
A new Challenge may be posted every 10 minutes, allowing you to make some changes to your base after you see how it works and then repost it with the revised layout. Challenges last up to 24 hours, but if you repost a new one before then, it replaces the old Challenge.
Tactics
The next change is the introduction of Tactics Capacity. This works just like Troop Capacity but for Tactics. Betrayal, Sabotage, and Protect will now require 2 Tactics Capacity instead of 1. Our goal is that all Tactics feel like they’re worth bringing, and both the internal data and community feedback showed this wasn’t currently the case.
We briefly considered reducing the power of these Tactics or increasing the power of the other Tactics. The first option (reducing their power) just made these Tactics feel dramatically weaker than they are now, which wasn’t as fun. The second option was a problem because we couldn’t actually buff the other Tactics like Barrage and First Aid enough to balance them without making them wildly overpowered.
This is the first of many changes coming this year which will improve the balance between offense and defense. Currently, according to our data and play experience, attackers have a strong advantage, especially in later Ages. This makes defensive decisions less compelling and can make it challenging to successfully guard your resources. We hope that by improving defenses, players will find attacks more challenging and engaging, and will also find more value in the defensive aspects of the game.
The Enlightenment Age rank of the War Academy (rank 5) is being changed to provide +1 Tactics Capacity (previously it was +0). This is being done mostly to address the fact that the buildings previous 2 ranks also provided +0 (meaning there were three ranks in a row with no increase). Remember this isn’t meant to offset the new capacity requirements of Tactics because our goal is to improve balance between offense and defense.
Fewer World War Stalemates
Lastly, we’ve improved World Wars by adding Elapsed Battle Time as a second tie-breaker. Wars are still won by earning more Stars than the other alliance. If that’s a tie, then Average Destruction is still the first tie-breaker. However if that’s also a tie, then the team with the shorter (better) Elapsed Battle Time is declared the winner.
So the objectives in a war, in order of importance are:
- Stars
- Destruction
- Elapsed Time
This also applies to individual battles. For example:
- Alfred attacks a war base and earns 4 stars and 80% destruction in 2:00 minutes flat.
- Bob attacks that same base and earns 4 stars and 88% destruction in 2:30 minutes. While his time is worse (he took longer) than Alfred’s, he achieved better destruction and so his attack is the new best attack.
- Carla then attacks that same base and gets the same 4 stars and 88% destruction, but does it in 1:30 minutes. Her attack becomes the new best attack because it tied on stars and destruction but was a shorter attack (less elapsed time).
- Denise makes a final attack for her Alliance and earns 5 stars and 100% destruction in 3:00 mins. Her attack becomes the new best attack because it earned more stars.
That wraps up this design spotlight. As always, it’s great to hear back from you all regarding these upcoming features so if you have any comments or concerns please leave them below.
Master Contrail Program
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 350
It's here now.
Before discussing the huge tactics change, I have a big issue with the alliance challenges. I had assumed, as other games have done, that challenge bases could not be changed during war prep day. If you don't do that, what prevents someone duplicating every enemy war base and letting you practice on it until you crack it? That's huge oversight, imho.
Master Contrail Program
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 350
I think the best thing to do would be to boycott wars entirely until meaningful player, not data-driven changes are made to the entire experience. They seem to be a slave to their analytics more than anything so trite as player opinions or common sense afterall.
Will it happen? No. But a guy can dream.
Always one step forward, two steps back it seems.
Will it happen? No. But a guy can dream.
Always one step forward, two steps back it seems.
Last edited:
SebQuattro
Approved user
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2016
- Messages
- 163
Pure Genius, that's an awesome idea!
Prodigal Clint
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2016
- Messages
- 129
Are we purposely making this game completely unfun by making it impossible to 5* P2W atomics without spending tons of money on every attack? Looking into my crystal ball: Pay for an extra tactic slot or tactic drop armies are soon to b coming as well
Last edited:
Master Contrail Program
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
- Messages
- 350
Yes. One can only hope the whales are enormous indeed. Because the prospect of attracting new players, or even retaining old ones who may not spend big but are vital to a broad, healthy player base seem to be diminishing.
Have any of BHG/Nexon devs or testers played against maxed atomic base with 3 level 6 defensive coalitions and university buffs? Add a few defensive stronghold armies to the mix and good luck 5 starring such base even with 6 or 7 tactics now. It does take a lot of planning and perfect execution already.
Last edited:
Motaz Tarek
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2015
- Messages
- 545
1- nice new feature, have been waiting for long time
2- u just destroyed the game
3- time elapsing is a stress factor on players, shouldn't have been considered, ur now making players try hard for 5* and the boom ur effort gets blown up because of the time u took to do it, i would be so frustrated to see my success goes away because of that,
no stalemates? easy.. reduce amount of troop tactics (cards) to 1-2 instead of 4 cuz they actually the main reason of stalemates
another option is making stronghold detection range to release it's troops as bazooka tower's range so it becomes a challenge to sabotage it
2- u just destroyed the game
3- time elapsing is a stress factor on players, shouldn't have been considered, ur now making players try hard for 5* and the boom ur effort gets blown up because of the time u took to do it, i would be so frustrated to see my success goes away because of that,
no stalemates? easy.. reduce amount of troop tactics (cards) to 1-2 instead of 4 cuz they actually the main reason of stalemates
another option is making stronghold detection range to release it's troops as bazooka tower's range so it becomes a challenge to sabotage it
Motaz Tarek
Approved user
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2015
- Messages
- 545
trap distribution... defense strength, simply it's not just the base design, it's the difficulty of defense which imo is much worse
You are not only ignoring the problem of sandbagging, you are now actively encouraging it with every update. Our last 3 wars in a row have been against 20% sandbag teams, and we are on pace to expend every resource we have to overcome 30+ level gaps to combat it. It takes us every hit, every coalition, every tiny advantage we can have to overcome these crazy odds. Now, with the change to stalemates, instead of being proud to overcome 30+ level gaps, we will have had three straight losses. The 30 level gap on the top 80% of bases gives such a huge time advantage, the bottom couple of bases being able to be wiped out in 30-40 seconds hasnt mattered, we've tested it two wars in a row. Ordinarily I'd say this is a good change, but your lack of ability to do anything about sandbagging makes the game even worse.
Now, in addition to this, you are now presenting us with a decrease in tactics that can be used in battle. This makes sandbagging even more powerful again, as those top end AA bases that exist on nearly all sandbag teams will be much harder to beat, especially when a team is already stretched super thin as it is covering such a massive mismatch.
Dominations is the only game I have ever played, where your are actively and severely punished if you take your most prepared, most talented players. There are exactly ZERO scenarios in which this is good for a team. In 100% of cases, it is significantly more advantageous to instead sit good players, and take iron age alts. Manipulating your matchup is so much more important than any sort of preparation, planning, or strategic actions. Its well beyond ridiculous now.
Its been clear from the beginning, if you solved sandbagging without solving stalemates it would make war awful. Conversely, if you solve stalemates (which you basically already had, I cant believe there are real developer posts touting stalemate changes as sorely needed) without solving sandbagging....you make war awful. And, this is now where we are. Anything positive in your update, for me and my team and many others, simply doesnt matter because of these issues.
Oh, and I like Quovatis' point as well. While it doesnt really impact me like the above issue, its a pretty valid point lol. Would like to hear an answer.
Now, in addition to this, you are now presenting us with a decrease in tactics that can be used in battle. This makes sandbagging even more powerful again, as those top end AA bases that exist on nearly all sandbag teams will be much harder to beat, especially when a team is already stretched super thin as it is covering such a massive mismatch.
Dominations is the only game I have ever played, where your are actively and severely punished if you take your most prepared, most talented players. There are exactly ZERO scenarios in which this is good for a team. In 100% of cases, it is significantly more advantageous to instead sit good players, and take iron age alts. Manipulating your matchup is so much more important than any sort of preparation, planning, or strategic actions. Its well beyond ridiculous now.
Its been clear from the beginning, if you solved sandbagging without solving stalemates it would make war awful. Conversely, if you solve stalemates (which you basically already had, I cant believe there are real developer posts touting stalemate changes as sorely needed) without solving sandbagging....you make war awful. And, this is now where we are. Anything positive in your update, for me and my team and many others, simply doesnt matter because of these issues.
Oh, and I like Quovatis' point as well. While it doesnt really impact me like the above issue, its a pretty valid point lol. Would like to hear an answer.
Last edited:
You could do a rough approximation for practice. In the real attack the trap locations will be different, donated troops may be different,and stronghold troops will be different. And it will be hard to duplicate the level of every building and wall, general and their level, much less the same (unknown) university buffs and coalitions - type and level. So I am not sure it will be as specifically useful as you are suggesting, and may not even be that big of a deal. It's always the surprises that cause trouble, and this doesn't take away all of those, even if you go to all that trouble to set it up that exactly.
Brian Plautz
Approved user
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2015
- Messages
- 3
Mike Engle, I for one look forward to your reply. Your team needs to make this game fun for the player that spends a lot and pays your salary; the player that spends occasionally (myself); and the player that doesn't spend at all. Without all three gamers happy eventually (if not sooner) the game will die off due to gamers leaving.
Our group generally doesn't even try to win at WAR because we are regularly matched up against sandbagged groups. It is a shame your team allows sandbagging.
With the changes your team has already made I am at point I will not spend more unless you can make it fun for the player that occasionally spends money.
My biggest problem is that I cannot edit my base through the editor and I get a 'canned' response from your support team saying their aware of the bug and are working on a fix. That is just an issue of coding- should have been fixed a long time ago. One player in my group hasn't been able to edit his base for a couple of months. Yes we did follow supports suggestions to fix and still no base editor.
Our group generally doesn't even try to win at WAR because we are regularly matched up against sandbagged groups. It is a shame your team allows sandbagging.
With the changes your team has already made I am at point I will not spend more unless you can make it fun for the player that occasionally spends money.
My biggest problem is that I cannot edit my base through the editor and I get a 'canned' response from your support team saying their aware of the bug and are working on a fix. That is just an issue of coding- should have been fixed a long time ago. One player in my group hasn't been able to edit his base for a couple of months. Yes we did follow supports suggestions to fix and still no base editor.
