Combat Rebalance Design Spotlight (Stage 3)

[Bootney Lee Fonsworth]

Why drag this out? It sure doesn't seem like the mods, devs or Brad are engaging with the community or responding to feedback in any sort of meaningful way. So this kicks off Thursday, there will be a hundred or so posts about it throughout the following week. I imagine the numbers will keep declining in each stage as people just quit the game entirely and/or realize the futility of using this forum. A week from Monday Brad will pop up to say ''Everything's wonderful! Here's the next phase.'' while inexplicably keeping the actual numbers hidden until the following Wednesday. Thursday: wash, rinse and repeat if there are going to be more than four phases.

It's clear that any opinions on this forum are just commiseration with other players at this point. The mod(s?) will never engage with us about anything but the most milquetoast of subjects. And nothing is going to stop or even slow whatever endgame you had planned all along. So why not just rip the band-aid off so you can get cracking on the next legendary artifact and multi-tiered sale? Unless you are actually going to do something constructive with training times to put a bow on this whole rebalance this 'tease, numbers, rebalance, ignore, ignore, ignore' cycle is getting tiresome.

 

[TinSoldier]

this is a concern the team is considering. We are evaluating single player battles and World War battles during the review process.

 

[TinSoldier]

We haven't been pre-publishing changes before we know they will be included. We have made edits to both the design spotlight and patchnotes, between their original writing and the versions that will be tested and published. Overall, the goals are to make sure World Wars stay engaging, and to add benefits to make previously 'unused' units new reasons to shine in combat.

 

[TinSoldier]

The posting cadence is so that we can let as many players know as possible. If some players don't log in for a day or two, or miss the in-game popup for the rebalance, we wanted to make sure they had plenty of time to understand the changes that will be introduced. The 2nd posting date of the stats is specifically to give the forums more 'meat' to discuss after a few days of speculation.

 

[Cannibals]

TinSoldier that’s helpful, but given the lengthy upgrade times the few days lead time are not enough to prepare for the pending changes. Any thoughts about that?

 

[pckrn]

the last time they said ‘greatly’ it turned out to be about 2.5x buff.. and the defensive rpgs doing splash damage now, as if defensive howies werent enough lol

 

[yemen]

Letting people know before they come out is one thing - announcing changes without stats, then stats, then the release is overkill. Especially as there is literally nothing we can do in the meantime to prepare.

Also, can you guys confirm that you understand the limits on this game are time? As in, we don't like to use tactics in mp because they take time to build? Trade goods for mercenaries take time to gather and refresh? Generals take time (lots of it) to rejuvenate? Losing all of our planes means quitting for a few hours while they rebuild? And researching new units / tactics takes waiting for weeks if not months?

It would take 2.5 months to max out machine guns from level 1. And I have never upgraded them at all. Most players are in similar situations for units they don't use today. All but the richest of us of us are stuck with the decisions we made already, and it will take 3-6 months for us to get to a new equilibrium with maxed out units, if any of us wait that long. Let's not pretend that players can meaningfully adapt to massive game changes in the two weeks between rebalance releases.

 

[BeerMan]

What I've been wondering is if they are looking at the data on a macro level, or if they are breaking it down into smaller sets. My hunch is that it is the former. If the entire goal is to reduce 5* attacks, and at a macro level they went down from 80% to 70% (completely made up numbers, but you get the idea), then it's easy to view this as a "success." However, I'd love to see the data broken down by age, level, etc.

When this rebalance started, my position was "let's wait to see how this plays out, maybe it won't be so bad." After stage 1, I wasn't too concerned, but when MAJOR changes were made in stage 2 (and now 3), it's just not much fun for those of us who have to hit 280+ 3D bases on a regular basis. It's pretty much impossible without premium troop cards, and even then most of my attacks now are in the 3 to 4 star range. Maybe this was the goal, but I'm struggling to see how it makes the game more "engaging." 3D bases were hard enough already.

 

[alexandria]

Keep wars engaging? So stage 5 will be banning cheaters right?

 

[alexandria]

I have not had a problem with any of the changes as of yet. Developers are messing up by the values they are increasing offense. The top players will continue to use the same troops and tactics because that is what worked before and will continue to work until other troops can out DPS and survive. Heavy Tank armies and APC, Heavy Artillery, and Bazookas armies will be the staple until other units provide more value in HP and DPS. All these changes just makes the game require more skill to 5* a base.You have at most 8 units combined in the Barracks and Factory that are actually viable in world war to 5* a base with a high success rate. The rest are too weak, slow, and cost too much space. Even with the reduction of Machine Gun troops, and stat increase, the changes will probably still be weaker compared to the staple army comp for war.

 

[Manifesto]

add benefits to make previously 'unused' units new reasons to shine in combat.

No doubt the whole idea behind the ‘’realancing’’ is to change the stale, repeated styles of attacks and breathe new life into the game, yes? Don’t you think it defeats the purpose of making units ‘’shine in combat’’ when you buff defensive resistance at a greater rate than offensive ability?
Where is the reason for us to use them? In fact, where is the reasoning?
Classic two-steps-back-one-step-forward mentality, at the expense of your player satisfaction and, more importantly, player fun.
But the ultimate reason is quite obvious really. All these combat tier sales after each ‘rebalance’ is no co-incidence.
I mean, you couldn’t shift these troops if we didn’t have a reason to need these troops.
Radzeer mentioned this is like an unguided missile. On the contrary, I think this missile is very much guided, and we all know where Nexon is taking it.
It continues to baffle me why, despite all commentary, despite all negativity, despite all common sense, a company producing an attacking game is bent on making it harder to attack.
Try the new Ford muscle car. It goes faster in reverse but don’t worry, you’ll get used to the different view after a while.

PS: if you want to make 5 starring more ‘’meaningful’’, I think you said in the first rebalance, then make it much more worthwhile to lose a large chunk of your army in the process. The instant retrain is great but its once a day, what about all the other major losses?
And the most worthwhile thing of all: better rewards. Oil, NTGs, etc, etc.
Give us an incentive to log in and play!

 

[alexandria]

I share the same thoughts.

There is a big gap from attacking and defending. All these changes are to give defending bases more of a boost. It wasn't needed in my opinion. The only reason 5 star victories are so common in war is elephant archers. They are over powered. Even with all these offensive changes, it doesn't come close to making unused units viable to bring to world war or multiplayer.

 

[jonbly]

So when you say:

Defenders / Heavy Cavalry / Hitpoints greatly increased

...does that actually mean that attacking cavalry will have different HP to defending cavalry?


That seems... hard to rationalize.

 

[K1ng_kriting]

rebalance? sound good to me. but its better for you guys to fix BUG and kill cheaters

 

[Blood]

I was wondering the same thing. So depot tanks will have more hp and dmg then my offense tanks?

 

[No Angel]

Um, honest question. Is this re-balance necessary cause we score 5 stars too often or too seldom?

 

[Manifesto]

Don’t you remember Tin’s comments? Something about ‘’you all have become highly skilled commanders on the battlefield and are able to dominate your enemies with ease’’

 

[Muschristian]

Keep it up Nexon BHG... your doing a great job!

Of letting me regain hours of each day back... I could never quite tear myself away before. But now I cant war for wars on end while collecting tat to be able to war, 1 raid every 3 or 4 hours... I'm kind of weaning myself off it ready anyway... lol

looking forward to the numbers for this... and then the next stage...

Glad you were happy with your "data" some idiots purchased more event armies than usual obviously.... I've started seeing more in normal multiplayer too...

COMBAT GREEDBALANCE... thats what you should call it. Muggy very muggy the way your treating loyal players.
Mus
British Lions!
British Lions!!

 

[Blood]

Lol read the article on discord. The ceo bragging about making 150 million on dominations and how they did it by listening to the players lol

 

[Blood]

There is an article on discord with the ceo bragging dominations made 150 million in 3 years by listening to their customers. Lol seriously