Design Spotlight: Combat Rebalance!

[Lordzeus]

"so that 5-star victories always require strong army compositions, highly-skilled troop deployments"

TinSoldier How they will help us to improve troop deployment?

The troops bar sometimes gets stuck when we move it from left to right while searching troops or tactics. A few months ago I made a post about this topic and remember a guy that that gave a very good idea. The idea was to move to the far right the troops that are already on battle instead of having empty spaces between troops and tactics. Just like the university.

https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexo...mpty-slot-when-every-troop-are-fully-deployed

 

[FozzyOH]

No Title

Let’s work on war matchmaking!

 

[FroggyKilla]

Lmao they go in circles with their new features, not even giving them a chance.

 

[SiuYin]

I don't see any good way to solve war matching problem. Given that mis-match is mainly because the small player base, especially CWA.
And it is not a stopper of re-balancing.

For me, the #1 issue is troop cards. for each war. we deploy 4 troop cards, which is equivalent to 8 HT (24 * 8), I would say it is more powerful than our own 155 troop.
It is #1 imba if premium card contribute more compare with basic combo.

In my point of view, we should expand the troop size to 300, and allow player to "produce" premium army by consuming Troop tactic. Premium army could be 10% buffed in values, so that Paid played can have some advantage, but not as much as current situation

 

[Spaceboy]

exactly ! got the same problem this week..not able to select my armies as troops bar got stuck. It is stupid to scroll to the far right to deploy one army.
Push the used boxes to the right !

 

[Imaera]

...
6. The option to check a OTT (zero troop tactics) box when searching for wars (and then properly disabling their use), would allow a lot more even fights.

This will never work for them, cause it hurts their wallet. On the contrary, they want us to use troop cards on offense and defense.This "rebalance" thing isn't created to make the game more engaging, but to boost sales. Why do i feel it will have a completely opposite effect?

 

[LordStark263AC]

I can't say I look forward to even more "tougher bases". Unless you using Elephant Archers, 5 a World War Base IS tough enough already, why make it even tougher?

Majority of players DON'T spend money on Stronghold troops, after "rebalancing" 5 high level bases will be even harder, plus we haven't seen Marco Polo is weeks, even months now.

Rebalancing of Nations would've been a more sensible choice but do you ever listen to our pleas and suggestions Nexon/BHG??? No, never.

And maybe, just maybe, make tactics like they used to be, 1 sabotage = 1 Tactic space? That just might make battles more even but what do I know? You guys (Nexon/BHG) know better than us.....

 

[oddin]

it is sad that this great game is moving to the wrong direction. I will wait for the rebalance notes and then, if I feel that this is indeed wrong, then that is the last drop in a glass full of water. The world is full of interesting games that devs show more respect to their player base. I will just start playing something else. Problem solved!

 

[MartinK12]

I also like the 1st solution In BB it's not replay but live defense. You start defense whenever you want (within 24hr event period) and u can tweak your defenses between waves. Domination is perfect for this type of defense and make player pay more attention to their defenses and base layout.

 

[MartinK12]

Good one, nice read Ans sadly it's very true

 

[MartinK12]

Very true. I'm in the same boat. But I think that it will be nice to finally play some triple A games that are actually cheaper than Dominations.

 

[Bedlam]

Ha...god nexon sucks

 

[ratata]

It is true, some of the best attackers in this game are able to 5* a maxed defense base, but that is a great minority, as are those top bases which can only be found in top alliances.
The true problem is the massive difference in skill and game knowledge and most players do not have what is requiered to 5* a decent base.
And not to be forgotten, the access to premium TT (but without the right way to use them, it still won't lead to a certain 5* win), by buying them or as some players do, by abusing bugs.
So rebalancing defense is only because of that 1% of you player base with enough skill and EA available.

In my opinion, the biggest issue are the mismatches in worldwars.
For example, my alliance is ranked around 400th with 25K glory and the last wars we were matched against an alliance with 31.500 glory, ranked 20 twice in a row.
Before that one, we were matched against an alliance with 14.000 glory ranked 7500.
And if I look at the history, we haven't matched a single alliance within our range (+2500/-2500 glory) in 3 weeks!

I really can not understand how that is possible with a decent algoritm.

Nexon wants to make money, which is totally normal for a company, but other ways can be used for that other then aggresively pushing every player to buy TT.
Take a look around at other games how they do it.

 

[oddin]

in every competitive game I played so far, the equivalent of glory was used to match opponents. The better you became, the harder the opponents. Simple and easy. I don't understand why in Dominations, it is different...

Solution: erase all glory points back to 12000 and make the matchmaking anew based on GLORY only! Simple as that

 

[KniferX]

Take a bit of time to think it through and you will realize glory matchmaking would be magnitudes worse than what we have now.

Small hint, there are war players ranging from level 40 classical to level 300 CWA.

 

[KniferX]

Glory has nothing to do with the matches you get. Average war weight is used.

 

[Xabar]

TinSoldier @
First, Thanks for taking care of this matter
On the one hand, I agree with the changes they are making, in which the great imbalance between attack and defense, which is in the game, would be partially corrected.
On the other hand, there are 2 things that are not correcting so far:
1) The game favored England and Germany, starting from global age, while disadvantaging Japan and Greece very strongly, Japan has no useful benefit in battle, and Greece with the appearance of very high level traps and the rocket arsenal , its only advantage in battle, the tanks, is useless. Germany being the only Nation, thanks to the theuronic fury that has a plus of attack in range sige and in all the factory troops, it became the only superior option in the Age of the Cold and Atomic War. The same happens with the advantage of +1 of reach in shooters, that has England, what turns it into an option of attack sumanete easy and unjust, is full of players England that only improved shooters and range sige.
These things and more produce a huge imbalance of numbers of players in each nation, which results in a lower diversity of types of attacks (which makes the game a bit boring), a shortage of certain national products, and that players of underrepresented nations receive a greater number of attacks.
Look at the table

Players	Cold War Age		Atomic Age		Global
Total	19459		87254		101093
China	1757	9,03%	12551	14,38%	15547	15,38%
England	5812	29,87%	16649	19,08%	14750	14,59%
France	2871	14,75%	11279	12,93%	11911	11,78%
Germany	3690	18,96%	6929	7,94%	8045	7,96%
Greece	1017	5,23%	9509	10,90%	12682	12,54%
Japan	659	3,39%	9194	10,54%	12626	12,49%
Korea	1404	7,22%	7349	8,42%	8017	7,93%
Rome	2249	11,56%	13794	15,81%	16493	16,31%
	Chi-Test	0,9996892773		0,9999988643		0,9999997025

-Recommend to disable the Teutonic fury in world war attacks, OR reduce the percentage in wars to 5%, to equilibrate nations

2) From the age of the illustration there are a number of extremely sub-improved bases, changing age should represent a certain challenge and permanence in age. See the following table. Clearly there should be a smaller number of players in each following Age, this is lost from the Age of the illustration due to the extremely lax limit of level to pass of age.

Cold War Age	19459
Atomic Age	87254
Global	101093
Industrial	210182
Enlightment	244392
GunPower Age	527506
Medieval	776550
Clasic	909035
Iron	281353

I suggest that you change the level limits to pass ages

Cold War Age 230 Atomic Age 180-190 Global 155 Industrial 115

 

[oddin]

I believe that in the beginning it would be hard for all but a few but later, once the better alliances start gaining glory points, the system will eventually work for the better. Starcraft works that way for example in the form of points and leagues.

 

[oddin]

I believe that in the beginning it would be hard for all but a few but later, once the better alliances start gaining glory points, the system will eventually work for the better. Starcraft works that way for example in the form of points and leagues.

 

[Blood]

Dominations and samurai siege tried this tactic. We organized a boycott and when they didn’t listen we mass uninstalled. Both games are dead now. They lost millions in long term revenue for a short term jump in revenue. Very bad business practice. The customer is always right. I’d much rather see a fair game with no pay advantage with a 1.99 per month fee then this nonsense. Pay $200 to max your artifact then crush my cw base I’ve worked on for over 3 years with your global troops.