Combat Rebalance Design Spotlight (Stage 4)
- Thread starter TinSoldier
- Start date
Itzcaymuhqui
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1
I think the rebalance is good, we don't want the attacker to be too strong or vice versa
Timothy VII
Approved user
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1
My alliance has posited the same inquiry/complaint/suggestion since...we are looking for WORLD WARS that are not so skewed you have ATOMIC vs medieval...is there no way for us to have inter alliance combat that could be competitive, close...dare I say, exciting?
Umm, wouldnt it make more sense to fix war balance rather than make tiny pointless changes to units? We're in our 5th war (from 6) where our strongest player's recommended target is their 8th (or lower!).
We've had three senior members quit, and almost everyone is grumbling; I'm sure more senior members are about to quit.
For the record I like the balancing changes, but its like replacing cushions on a couch, where the couch is perched on the edge of a cliff and also covered in lice.
Dave
We've had three senior members quit, and almost everyone is grumbling; I'm sure more senior members are about to quit.
For the record I like the balancing changes, but its like replacing cushions on a couch, where the couch is perched on the edge of a cliff and also covered in lice.
Dave
Love it! Those buildings I have always thought were too ridiculously weak. Finally I will be forced to use those motorcycle troops I have had no use for in the past.
I can't believe so many people have a problem with adding a little challenge to this game, walk through the park days are over my friends. If adding strategy to placing troops is enough to make people quit than good riddance I guess.
I can't believe so many people have a problem with adding a little challenge to this game, walk through the park days are over my friends. If adding strategy to placing troops is enough to make people quit than good riddance I guess.
Markjharvey42
Approved user
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2018
- Messages
- 5
Well here is my first post. I have been playing 2 1/2 years, level 222 AA. Like others I have read, I spent 3 or more hours most days playing and real money and crowns. One point I think others may have missed is that when you are defending you are not playing. When your army is rebuilding you are also not playing. You only interact with the game and others in it when you are logged on. I lead an alliance of 40 people, we have gone down from 100+ chat messages a day to 4 or 5. Nobody logs in for long any more. I am really upset, I loved this game but making it impossible to be logged in for more than 1 MP battle at a time has killed it. Stage 4 will make MP even harder. I might come back when this gets fixed, but for now I and most of my alliance are gone. What a stupid business decision to alienate and ignore your paying customers.
Manifesto
Approved user
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,920
Maybe so, but this is an ATTACKING game, yes?
I'm all for strategy and challenge but these changes go against the flow of the game.
When you go kayaking do you paddle upstream?
I don't.
Rebalance fans keep focusing on their subjective opinion of ''I like defense so it's great'' aspect while completely ignoring the objective facts i.e. effects this overblowing of defense has on the game.
So, to recap, by blindly supporting this (also not giving any suggestions to tweak this so you support it without condition) you also support:
- killing attack game variety and making only 2 compositions viable to even touch a base
- completely breaking MP in high medals and making only abandoned bases viable to be attacked to sate NTG and diamond needs.
- complete p2winization of the game, before you would need the overpowered troop cards to get fast times (and even then Impi from Marco troop chests would do very well) now you need them to even have a chance. Also shortages of troop cards (mandatory now for every equal age attack) unless rubies and Marco Polo troop chests are increased
- making the game in wars and MP unplayable for casual players who don't take the time to analyze every troop, test compositions, tactics and strategies. That is the majority of the playerbase like it or not.
Finally, as hard as it is to admit for folks like you, this is an attacking game. The active part of the game is attacking. Defense is passive, the computer does it after you set up your layout, and the best layouts have already been found.
You make attack boring by either making you wait for retrain times of tactics, generals, planes and costs of mercs, or make you attack only rushed bases which becomes boring, or in the case of casual players make attacking a nightmare and make them useless. The end result is you make the game boring. And people leave.
So, to recap, by blindly supporting this (also not giving any suggestions to tweak this so you support it without condition) you also support:
- killing attack game variety and making only 2 compositions viable to even touch a base
- completely breaking MP in high medals and making only abandoned bases viable to be attacked to sate NTG and diamond needs.
- complete p2winization of the game, before you would need the overpowered troop cards to get fast times (and even then Impi from Marco troop chests would do very well) now you need them to even have a chance. Also shortages of troop cards (mandatory now for every equal age attack) unless rubies and Marco Polo troop chests are increased
- making the game in wars and MP unplayable for casual players who don't take the time to analyze every troop, test compositions, tactics and strategies. That is the majority of the playerbase like it or not.
Finally, as hard as it is to admit for folks like you, this is an attacking game. The active part of the game is attacking. Defense is passive, the computer does it after you set up your layout, and the best layouts have already been found.
You make attack boring by either making you wait for retrain times of tactics, generals, planes and costs of mercs, or make you attack only rushed bases which becomes boring, or in the case of casual players make attacking a nightmare and make them useless. The end result is you make the game boring. And people leave.
Itzcaymuhqui
Approved user
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1
I mean the att and def must be balance, not too strong and not too weak, imagine if every WW both the enemy base and our base were always totally destroyed, the game would become boring
We want a base that strong enough to handle unskilled players but still could be destroyed by skilled players
I don't mind they make the attack stronger if the defense is too strong
Hope you understand my point
We want a base that strong enough to handle unskilled players but still could be destroyed by skilled players
I don't mind they make the attack stronger if the defense is too strong
Hope you understand my point
