State of the game

[Horsepower]

Dominations is now an unbalanced game. What is sad is that BHG has allowed this problem to continue. The Eisenhower-Recon attacks are killing the game. To make matters worse attackers are upgrading their general damage and HP in their war museums. No defense, no matter how strong can withstand this. 5 star attacks are now a cake walk.

if any players out there are considering becoming a defender you can forget about it. As a matter of fact, many defenders are so frustrated now that they are considering quitting the game. What is sad about this I saw this coming and warned Josh about it many months ago. BHG had the opportunity to fix this yet they have installed new Recon upgrades and nerfed the CGI’s to make matters worse. They’ve also been pushing and selling more Eisenhowers continually. Even some offense players have admitted that offense is to OP now.

I ask BHG, did you originally intend for Dominations to be a constant 5 star attacking game? I don’t think so. A 5 star attack should be the exception not the norm. Then we have a crappy war matching system which has been that way for years now. Every update is loaded with bugs also. BHG, why don’t you just hire some outside software consultants to fix things? Why allow this to continue?

If you don’t start nerfing this Eisenhowers circus you will surely lose you big spending defense players. It’s already happening. It’s my opinion that you should have a sense of urgency to fix this now, not in months. Make the game more balanced. Take the hit on Eisenhowers revenues in order to assure that Domination has longevity.

 

[Chadwicke]

Totally agree spending 10s of thousands over the years taking months to make a great defense museum was killed the day gci and bastion were nerfed and as dradis says esinhowers and recon are a cake walk for top end defenders bases so war had to be perfect and then on time , the balance is off has been off for a long time now , it was almost balanced at the 9.0 but quickly unbalanced again on purpose, 5 star should be be the norm why give out participation trophies at least make the attackers use skill

Suggest take esinhowers off the museum card effect

Reduce range of esinhowers to 5
Reduce damage and hp by 30%
And no spawn of a second general

Recon

Reduce the radius of tbe effect making them run more and less other cards or take the effect down to 80-100%


Oh and parliment cannon doesn't fire at current range it's actual range is 3 so it's worthless

Also target issues with many building vs esinhowers
Only machine gun towers towers and air defense fire at him

Mortar no parliment cannon no anti tank gun no
Traps no only sam and gci

 

[Jamboys]

I completely agree with Dradis regarding the Eisenhower cards.

As a participant of the Ares vs Hercules War...50 vs 50 info age accts...it should of been an enjoyable event for both offense and defense. What we got was a complete flattening of all 3D bases at the top of their game (in terms of museums and buildings). Here is your proof of everything that is wrong with the game presently.

As a 3D acct, my only interest is to see the reward of my hard work and money spent on creating a good defense base. We constantly plan new bases, craft and purchase new artifacts and test everything. It’s hugely time consuming and can be very expensive.

I know lots of defenders...even in my own team that are very unhappy. After years of playing the game, going through a very painful rebalance a few years ago to make 5 starring a base extremely difficult, the game has reverted back to the same scenario.

Players that have played a long time will not play much longer if their base is of no value. I’m not interested in trying to slow players down en route to their 5 stars.

Terribly disillusioned presently trying to encourage other defenders not to leave the game. I have addressed previous imbalances with CS regarding the cgi being too overpowered and was unfair to offense players. I want to see a balanced game.

Something needs to be done pretty quickly here. I will not invest in another legendary artifact either until this situation with the Eisenhower cards is resolved and promptly.

it is a very simple solution...nerf these cards!!

Jam

 

[Horsepower]

Also, the defense air defense is useless because many attackers are now taking 4-5 sabotage. The sabotage needs a time limit nerf. 20 seconds is much to long. Should be more like 10-12 secs. As for the Recon, it also needs a time limit nerf. Again, 20 seconds is much to long.

 

[Tedi925]

What to say after Dradis and Chad.
I am absolutely with you for Recon and Eisenhower attack.

Museum lines shouldn't give advantage/disadvantages to any TT(not only for Eisenhower)
​​​​​​
Also number of same TT can be capped on one or two same for attack/donations. Then you will not se 4 Eisenhower in attack or defence.

The game like this is not fun anymore.

 

[Ram]

Thanks for starting this thread Horsepower, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one out there that feels this way.

Think about all the things D players have to deal with. Satellite Scan, Sabotage, Blitz, Gladiator, Teutonic Fury, Recon, Ikes, Tupelovs and many more. It is amazing that we ever stop anyone anymore if you ask me. I mean for crying out loud, Recon is a troop tactic...lol

I'm sure that the Ares vs Hercules war was a lot of fun, for the offensive guys...lol But that war was emblematic of the current problems with the game. All of the above suggestions and grievances are absolutely legitimate. I could add many more that I've sent to BHG and the infamous Josh. Unfortunately, I get the same response every time "I'll take your suggestions to the team and let them know".

We saw that Ares is clearly the top alliance and no one is close to matching them, then maybe the next 4-5 and then everyone else. Their really is no parity in the game and it's exacerbated by everything pointed out in the OP. To be a 384 level 3D player that plays with Abu, ASDIC, VZ, and Drone or Caesar everytime with a well balanced museum and my only hope is keeping the offense from 5 * me in under 2:30 is just disheartening and really has taken the fun out of the game for me. I'm on the brink of giving it up I have to say. And being a 384 player, you can imagine how much money I've spent on it. Of course I'm very proud of it as I'm sure the rest of you guys are yours.

I hope something is done soon or my money and time will be spent elsewhere. I will miss all my Dom friends but I'm sure I can make some new ones ;-)

Thanks for listening

 

[KnattyNate]

I do completely agree that Eisenhowers are overpowered, made worse by recon, and even more worse by them receiving the boosts from generals damage and generals hp lines in the museum.

However, I also think that this issue is affecting a very small percentage of the player base, mainly only those at the tip top of the leaderboard.

I personally have multiple accounts in several different alliances ranging in rank from 150-350 and I can say that this issue is not affecting us often because the majority of alliances that we match are not top 50 alliances who are loaded with big spenders who tailored their museums specifically for this Eisenhower/Recon meta and consistently buy Eisenhowers for each and every war.

For the majority of players, which basically is all players outside of the top 100 leaderboard, the real issue that we face is the ability of defenders to build museums with All Defensive Towers Damage and Hitpoints as high as they can get them to go (I’ve seen +120% and higher) but attackers can only bring -85% damage and hitpoints to the table when doing the calculations. On top of them having the advantage here they also tend to focus their weapons and armor on invading fighter, invading bombers, invading paratroopers, invading heavy tanks, and invading guerrillas. Attackers are commonly outmatched when it comes to museums and this is why I believe they have made a way for attackers (who wish to pay) to compete with the massively game wide overpowered defense.

Unfortunately because they offer this strategy you will see players here and there in the lower ages and ranks who take advantage of it and sometimes you see a Cold War age attacker five starring an Information Age defender. This isn’t the norm and it shouldn’t be possible.

BHG definitely needs to address this, in my opinion either by a very dramatic nerf of Eisenhowers or by making troop tactics generals not affected by museum or even go a step further and just make all troop tactics not affected by museum on both offense and defense which is my personal preference. I believe by making all troop tactics unaffected by museum it would be a good and fair start to see how it affects the meta.

 

[Dracula3811]

I’m a defender and have been playing the game for a long time. I concur with everything stated above. This last war was yet another mismatch against a much higher ranked team. I have a defensive museum but went 2O to go for axp and hit their #4 base which was 3D. 4 star 98% with going 0tt. I know there are lots of variables but a defensive account should not be able to clear a defensive base with 3D loaded. This actually happens routinely. The ares community war had a final score of 243-250. That means offense succeeded at 98+%. That’s a ridiculous rate. Most community wars end in the 90+% rate and they’re the most balanced matchups you can find regularly.

There are two things that need to change. First, TT should not be affected by any boosts or nerfs. They should be classified as “stronghold troop”. Second, the time to build defenses needs to be vastly decreased. It takes so much longer to build up defenses than it takes to build up offense.

 

[King Crimson]

I don't begrudge attackers spending money to help win their games and if Eisenhower/Recon/Sab is the current trend then so be it - I'll ride it out until the next strategy. The 'general' gameplay has become too overbalanced towards defense and things like additional troops or extra planes and even the occassional Eisenhower (if you're willing to pay for him) is good.
If you're a top tier player who likes to have a good defense but have issues with strategic attackers, just remember you're a top tier player. You shouldn't be asking for nerfs to suit your game if it's detrimental to the majority of players. You can afford to take the occasional hit.
Besides, I suspect the offensive cash cow is better business than the defensive cash cow and this is BHGs game plan: make defense hard and sell OP offensive troops.
Better get used to it.

 

[Dracula3811]

The general gameplay is trending to stronger offense not stronger defense.

 

[oddin]

what can I say.....the other players said it all.

I am a level 332 info age defender and I have regretted every moment I spent building my base and my museum. This is ridiculous!! Every game must have different end game army combo possibilities.
This game has only one and it's called HT/2xRecon/Aizen....

The Ares vs Hercules event really showcased this problem!

 

[LordStark263AC]

However, I also think that this issue is affecting a very small percentage of the player base, mainly only those at the tip top of the leaderboard.

You've said it. 100%

 

[King Crimson]

The general gameplay went to defense with the ''rebalance'' a few years ago. Why else have they introduced Coalitions, Stronghold troops, additional troop capacity (Sun Tsu research) paid troops like Eisenhower or Vickers bomber, increased alliance gate capacity???
They need to introduce these things to help people win wars - and they know people will pay to win.
What you call 'trending' is just careful strategic marketing by BHG. The upward trend towards OP troops comes and goes as they build up expectation (demand) then deliver what people need. At a price naturally.

 

[Spaceboy]

I love my Eisenhower in the stronghold for a Powder base. It needed 6 attacks to get it destroyed. So as defence troop card, he is excellent.

I am playing defence, but with the recon plane and some bombers, I can take out difficult bases too. I don't have the impression that the game is unbalanced. We have players of all ages. They all can defend and attack bases at their level.

Everyone has fun, except that we are always matched with bases of 1-2 levels above us. Probably because we max our bases so we are overweight..lol

 

[oddin]

we all acknowledge that there is an issue and even if that issue applies to say a 5% of the players, it still has to be addressed. Every part of a game must be balanced. High level offence and defence too!

 

[King Crimson]

It would be nice to have that type of game but it will never happen. Sometimes you can't strike a balance and have to settle for 'median'.
What I find amusing is that the top tier players complaining about this are players that, because of their top tier status, have likely been picking on lesser players for years, but don't like payback.

 

[Houkai]

While I can believe there is an issue that affect some players, I do not believe that it is a game ending issue.

I mean come on guys, it's just a simple nerf to the cavalry.... wait, no. It's just the british archers... ah darn it. I mean, you upgrade AT guns for those pesky EA... Oh. You are angry because of the war tactic nerf... Ah crap! What was the issue you are complaining again? Bazooka Tower?

 

[demon]

From a small number of people to change the mechanics of the game again? I'm against. The majority of people are happy with everything. It was better to remove the museum in the World War. Previously, they won with their skill, and now who has the stronger museum

 

[rêvasserie]

you speak for many and so eloquently, jamboys

well done!

lex

I completely agree with Dradis regarding the Eisenhower cards.

As a participant of the Ares vs Hercules War...50 vs 50 info age accts...it should of been an enjoyable event for both offense and defense. What we got was a complete flattening of all 3D bases at the top of their game (in terms of museums and buildings). Here is your proof of everything that is wrong with the game presently.

As a 3D acct, my only interest is to see the reward of my hard work and money spent on creating a good defense base. We constantly plan new bases, craft and purchase new artifacts and test everything. It’s hugely time consuming and can be very expensive.

I know lots of defenders...even in my own team that are very unhappy. After years of playing the game, going through a very painful rebalance a few years ago to make 5 starring a base extremely difficult, the game has reverted back to the same scenario.

Players that have played a long time will not play much longer if their base is of no value. I’m not interested in trying to slow players down en route to their 5 stars.

Terribly disillusioned presently trying to encourage other defenders not to leave the game. I have addressed previous imbalances with CS regarding the cgi being too overpowered and was unfair to offense players. I want to see a balanced game.

Something needs to be done pretty quickly here. I will not invest in another legendary artifact either until this situation with the Eisenhower cards is resolved and promptly.

it is a very simple solution...nerf these cards!!

Jam

 

[Theoneandonly]

I completely agree with Dradis regarding the Eisenhower cards.

As a participant of the Ares vs Hercules War...50 vs 50 info age accts...it should of been an enjoyable event for both offense and defense. What we got was a complete flattening of all 3D bases at the top of their game (in terms of museums and buildings). Here is your proof of everything that is wrong with the game presently.

As a 3D acct, my only interest is to see the reward of my hard work and money spent on creating a good defense base. We constantly plan new bases, craft and purchase new artifacts and test everything. It’s hugely time consuming and can be very expensive.

I know lots of defenders...even in my own team that are very unhappy. After years of playing the game, going through a very painful rebalance a few years ago to make 5 starring a base extremely difficult, the game has reverted back to the same scenario.

Players that have played a long time will not play much longer if their base is of no value. I’m not interested in trying to slow players down en route to their 5 stars.

Terribly disillusioned presently trying to encourage other defenders not to leave the game. I have addressed previous imbalances with CS regarding the cgi being too overpowered and was unfair to offense players. I want to see a balanced game.

Something needs to be done pretty quickly here. I will not invest in another legendary artifact either until this situation with the Eisenhower cards is resolved and promptly.

it is a very simple solution...nerf these cards!!

Jam

as an participate in the Hercules Event war as an attacker i have to agree with this statement in principle. If 100 Information Age bases are matching for a 50/50 and approx 1.000 or more Eisenhower cards but no other ones are used (for Defense and offense!) this says simply something is wrong with the game design. We are not talking about any 100 accounts participating, we are talking about 100 bases maxed out in offense or/and defense, played by experienced long time players.

I disagree that it’s only related to Eisenhowers. It’s also the Recon which causes the situation. This airstrip troop is pretty much op, more as Eisenhower’s are. Nerfing Eisenhower and ignoring the role of Recon will not help much. Most end game attackers have a generals damage Boost from museum over 100%, there are Even some with 170/180. And most other top alliances attackers are continuously rebuilding their value to increase from 100 to 150plus. With such an additional boost even a 50% Eisenhower damage nerf will not change much. Recons are nerfing building hitpoints much more as they are boosted by museum and coalitions. Tho Eisenhower will still the best way to flatten monster bases. In addition those Helis are not attacked by most Defense buildings, makes it easy to protect them.