Nations Rebalance

[MSS-Gaming]

I wanted to find the distribution of the player base in the available nations. To gather the following information, I pressed next in multiplayer 100 times and recorded my data at 632,1617, and 2613 medals. Here is what I found. (I put them into percentages, because x/100). For further reference, I am in the atomic age.

632 Medals
British 30%
German 22%
French 14%
Korean 13%
Roman 7%
Chinese 5%
Japanese 5%
Greek 4%

1617 Medals
British 39%
German 19%
French 11%
Korean 10%
Roman 9%
Chinese 6%
Japanese 3%
Greek 3%

2613 Medals
British 57%
German 23%
French 9%
Korean 8%
Roman 2%
Chinese 1%
Japanese 0%
Greek 0%

Average for Each Nation
British 42%
German 21.33%
French 11.33%
Korean 10.33%
Roman 6%
Chinese 4%
Japanese 2.67%
Greek 2.33%

As you can see the distribution is quite different in the three medal ranges, but some truths remain. British and Germans are the preferred nations of choice for Dominations players. If all nations were perfectly balanced, all other factors aside, each nation would occupy on average 12.5% (100% player base divided by 8 available nations) of the player base. Romans, Chinese, Japanese, and Greeks are heavily under represented in all three medal ranges. (Disclosure, some bases may have been counted multiple times as I was frequently kicked out of the multiplayer by the game.) My solution to resolve this disparity is not to nerf the British and the German, but to buff the 4 least used nations. The following is my suggestion for the changes to each nation.

Romans
Current Attribute: +10% army size
Suggested Attribute: +15% army size, +10% DPS to the nation specific unit

Chinese
Current Attribute: Bonus defenders from town center, +1 mercenary camp limit, +1 citizen
Suggested Attribute: Town center spawns nation specific units instead, +2 mercenary camp limit, +1 citizen

Japanese
Current Attribute: Town center shoots at invaders, +25% peace treaty length
Suggested Attribute: Town center shoots explosives that deal area damage and has a range of 14, +25% peace treaty length, while a peace treaty is active +25% to resource production buildings

Greeks
Current Attribute: Refund cost of upgrades 5%, Faster instant finish for upgrades 15m base +5m per age
Suggested Attribute: Refund cost of upgrades 10%, Upgrade times are reduced by 10%

Please review this topic and let me know your thoughts. Thank you.
TinSoldier Nb4powerup

 

[Manifesto]

Kudos to you for the patience to do the experiment.
Plus your suggestions are reasonable and make sense.

 

[SiuYin]

I fount that available nations highly depends on Coalition NTG requirement.
And I believe you should take more experience in the range 1600

 

[MSS-Gaming]

I fount that available nations highly depends on Coalition NTG requirement.
And I believe you should take more experience in the range 1600

It took a while, but I gathered the information you requested and also added averages for each nation.

 

[LClaz]

The idea has merit, something other than the call to nerf British. I have tried several nations and currently am British for the loot especially oil. And this nation struggles with lvl 14 walls and silos. The British blitz is not as easy as it once was. Which is fine. I must say though I really don't have trouble finding the ntg's I need for lvl 7 coalitions

 

[_Flash_]

Nice thread! Good analysis and suggestions to buff some of the nations!

A few suggestions:

For the Greeks, instead of a refund, a direct discount in the resource cost might make it even more attractive (similar to the Notre Dame discount). If somebody is nearing full storage capacity, and an upgrade is about to be completed, the full benefit of the refund will not be available to the player through the refund mechanism. A discount approach will make it less of a grind to start the upgrades, and players might appreciate that benefit more than the refund benefit.

For the Japanese, instead of increased resource production during a peace treaty, a permanent increase in production at all times might be attractive too. The percentage boost in production (should it be 25% or some other number) can probably be decided. There can be times when a player is not attacked, or might get raided without a peace treaty. Since getting a peace treaty is outside of the control of the player, it might help to provide the boost to production without tying it to the peace treaty.

For the Chinese, instead of increasing the mercenary limit by 1 more, it might even help to give a small percentage increase to the troop capacity (similar to the Romans). This will help in both multi player battles as well as wars. Typically, most players limit using mercenaries only to wars.

Overall, a great post! It'll be nice to see some of these nations buffed up!

 

[Saruman the White]

I use the Greek nation and am very happy with the refund trait, especially when being refunded 20k oil from an upgrade to factory. I'm not happy with speed up bonus as it is useless. If they implemented let's say 10% (as for resources) instead of a fixed 50 minutes in AA, which is useful only for Generals retrain under circumstances, it'd be a lot more useful

 

[Tomson]

I like it! It is good and it fits the nation's playstyle!

 

[Master Contrail Program]

I would think adding 1% upgrade discount reduction per age would be good for Greeks. I believe CWA is the 12th age. So....2 weeks=336 hours. 336× 0.12 = 40.32. So that 2 week upgrade would take 295.68 hours. Or roughly 12 days 7 hours 41 minutes. Not overpowered but much, much nicer than the 50 minutes one gets now.

 

[Quovatis]

Agree with this. It's very difficult to find silk and scrolls at medal counts over 1000. The nations need to be better balanced to encourage even use.

 

[MSS-Gaming]

The 50 minutes now is almost insulting.

 

[SiuYin]

The main point of re-balance should a balanced but diversified attack ability in war.

British got a large advantage with its long range shooter
German got good buff for troop cards

but apart from them, other nation got a very limit buff
Roman : 15 troop space useless UU
Chinese: 1 Merc slot, virtually 10 troop space, above avergae UU
France : 6 troop space, UU is ok
Korean : 1 tactic, slightly better than a tank, Good UU

Jap : No attack bonus, UU is useless
Greeks : No attack bonus, UU is fine

--------------------
I will suggest
1. British : No DPS bonus for their shooter
2. German : Teutonic Fury not applicable for Troop Card
3. Roman : 15% troop space (22)
4 Chinese : 2 more merc
5 France : 18 additional Alliance Troop
6 Korean : 2 more tactic

7 Jap / Greeks : I dont know, but it need 10% buff at least

 

[MSS-Gaming]

Do community managers actually review this area in the forums? has anyone gotten a comment from them in the ideas, features, and requests section?

 

[Houkai]

During the reddit ama I asked if they consider nations rebalancing. TinSoldier said that nations are balanced. We, players, simply can't see it. That's why there wont be any rebalancing happening.

 

[kloputzer]

Nations are not balanced at all. Everyone who played this game since it was released can see this. British and German are overwhelmingly the majority's pick for a reason. Nexon developers claiming otherwise are either blind or not testing the game nor listening to the community.

 

[SiuYin]

did they ever listen?

 

[Master Contrail Program]

Beyond saying, ''That sounds like a neat idea! I'll pas it to the dev team!'' Where it is subsequently never spoken about again? No.

To try to implement even a fraction of the ideas here would be madness. But to keep tabs on the most workable and most requested ideas and ask for feedback from the community doesn't seem very difficult.

Then again, despite all the myriad issues, arguably the biggest flaw the game has is lack of communication and community engagement.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

Nope. That's what Moctezuma is for. The fact that alliances are 2/3rd British past 18,000 glory is just an astonishing coincidence.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

My math is off. It would be 39.72 hours in my scenario. Still nearly 39 hours less build time than the current one. Not gamebreaking but certainly worth giving Greeks a look for in later ages.

 

[MSS-Gaming]

It is a mystery to me as to why the balancing of nations is not on the top of BHG's priorities. When 4 out of the 8 nations available together make up roughly 15% of the end game player pool, it should demonstrate an urgent need for change. I put a lot of consideration into making the suggested changes because 1. I did not want any nation to become overpowered 2. I wanted the changes to be reasonably easy to implement 3. I wanted the changes to sway someone like me who has played Dominations since the first week of release to want to give other nations a chance. There is a huge opportunity for Nexon and BHG to profit from this re-balance as well. If all 8 nations were viable, more players would feel comfortable trying different nations in their play-through which would mean more crowns spent in game. It is pretty much a win-win situation for both players who get to experience the different nations' play styles and for the developers who would profit from the fee for the nation change.