this is what is wrong with defense it's called neglect!

[Theoneandonly]

hahahaha ok you got a point...
But I am not backing down in what i said and I still strongly believe the game must be tweaked in certain areas (i mentioned some earlier - it doesnt have to be all anyway). And why am I insisting?

Because with Oddin (a pure defender with nothing to help my offence), I equipped 2 stallion + 2 Black Hawk medics and was able to kill our best defender with 100+ adtd/adth / 140+ dst!!!!! This should have never happened no matter the leaderboard rank we are playing at. Never! I do believe you see the folly of this.... You know this is insane and clearly shows that BHG must act.

Which base - Demetreus? And in FC I assume? You will have no chance if he is on 3D.

 

[oddin]

Lili... he has ASDIC/Ramses/Glove . His base is tested against many top 20 alliances. We know it takes time to kill it. Even top strikers need 1:45-2:10 to kill it.
And YES it was during an FC (which is miles different from a WW attack with coalitions enabled) BUT it should never have happened in the first place. Me beating that base? Nope! Never! See my point?

 

[oddin]

I want to emphasize that I understand that we are fighting at the very top and against the best players in the world but this doesn't justify being five starred in 1:30-1:40.

I would have absolutely no issue getting demolished every single time in 2:30-3:00 mins cause then my defensive base would matter at the end result. Would have a significance. Now it has nothing.

There are games out there that are balanced for all levels of play and every alliance rank.
The matchmaking is far from perfect (like in dominations) but nobody is whining cause we all accept that we can't reach the perfect score. So, top players get a near perfect score , and everyone else is below them.

Transferring this analogy to dominations....
Every war doesn't have to end in 75-75 or 100-100 and then do a time war. And if the wars up to rank 200 do not end in perfect scores then why not make the same for the rest of the wars at the top 200? What do people care if wars end up 73-74 or 64-65 ? It is the same end result for alliances below rank 200. But it would make a big difference not to have that many time wars in the top 100.

So, here we are discussing dominations balance issues, yet we have no clue if they will listen to us or even bother implementing anything. All we can do is play and have fun till the moment we do not. Simple as that

 

[Horsepower]

The question is, under present conditions within the bigger alliance wars, are defenders having fun? Does the repetition of putting up open war bases and constantly being 5 starred quickly by OP attack weapons bore you? I wonder, do attackers really appreciate defenders or are defenders nothing more then a pawn to eat up attacks. Seems to me that even attackers may be starting to get bored doing these easy OP attacks over and over. The challenging nature of a war game has diminished greatly. I would think more attackers would welcome a more challenging game. Or, is the need to run over a big defense in 1:30 minutes greater so he or she can feel a false sense of accomplishment? Let’s face it, it doesn’t take much strategy when using OP helicopters, black hawks and Recons.

Attackers should want more challenging defenses. It’s in their best interest, otherwise things get boring. As for BHG, it’s obvious they are more interested in generating revenues selling OP weapons for attackers then losing defenders who are big spenders. Attackers are the clear majority.

I wonder. suppose many defenders in big alliances decided to leave those alliances and moved to lower level alliances. Alliances where there aren’t many time wars and defense mattered again. Would it be more fun? Would attackers then appreciate the defender frustrations after they left those big pay to win-time war alliance? Don’t get me wrong, I know many attackers who agree and support defenders posture that the game is unbalanced within the higher levels. But, the majority of attackers are in denial and only want easy chest pounding 5 star attacks which are quick.

 

[Theserver]

This thread is again another legendary moment. And I really hope that BHG responsibles and devs DO NOT hear to the five or six people being always the loudest are asking for a nerf of offense PLUS a boost for defense. They don’t understand the dependencies, they are only driven by individual motivation. You did this error once by hearing to the 30 stooges, BHG, don’t do it again.

If BHG wants to reduce revenue significantly they can nerf troop tactics as recommendended, if they want to reduce crown sales they can nerf offense and if they want to loose one third of their players base they can boost defense. It is up to them to decide.

The overall situation is:

1. all alliances outside the top 100 are happy with the current status of the game

2. mostly wars outside the top 100 aren’t time wars, they are decided by stars and/or average destruction

3. wars between top 30 to 100 teams are most likely time wars, but often the top bases are a challenge for both sides (always assuming it’s not a mismatch)

4. in top 30 wars between those teams are crazy tough time wars, knowing in advance that both sides will have a perfect score at the end of war.


The loud and regularly complainers about bad defense are the defenders of top 30 alliances. I can understand they are frustrated, but the therapy can’t be done by BHG and the other players. They can either go for a group therapy with their current alliance about sense and nonsense of Defense and investing money in troop tactics, or they can move along, visit lower ranked alliances and learn a little bit more about the realities of 98% of the players.

Well, I am an offense player, and support the concerns about defense. Our offense also tires of constant time wars and would prefer some variety.

I did want to know if it was only top alliances or widespread. It sounds from these few posts here, that it is more a top 100 concern. Although, our family alliance, Tactical Chill reports that lately 3-4 out of 10 of their wars have been time wars and they are currently #411. So perhaps there is at least some relevance to those outside the leaderboard. If it is more focused on leaderboard alliances, then maybe some of my suggestions would be applicable. I think it is a mistake to suppose that one person can correctly sum up the overall situation; that's why it is good to get multiple viewpoints here.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Well, I am an offense player, and support the concerns about defense. Our offense also tires of constant time wars and would prefer some variety.

I did want to know if it was only top alliances or widespread. It sounds from these few posts here, that it is more a top 100 concern. Although, our family alliance, Tactical Chill reports that lately 3-4 out of 10 of their wars have been time wars and they are currently #411. So perhaps there is at least some relevance to those outside the leaderboard. If it is more focused on leaderboard alliances, then maybe some of my suggestions would be applicable. I think it is a mistake to suppose that one person can correctly sum up the overall situation; that's why it is good to get multiple viewpoints here.

I know that you are offense. I can go D and O, but I don’t support the comment of Chadwicke. A discussion about this by many players would be fine, but I have doubts that many will participate. It was the complete wrong opening, typical legendary. One sided, overdrawn and not balanced, the view of top 20. Tho i argued against, that’s it.

Its even not a top 100 issue, it’s top 20/30/40. Ofc your attackers are bored too, time wars are no fun. That’s why I am struggling to visit the top 20 teams. But all top teams are responsible for this situation. Mergers, asking for Info Age Players only to join and consistently running the money way has resulted to a couple of op alliances and many casual ones. Defenders crowned their D, offenders bought TT, no one asked for slowing down the process.

And then, regularly and loud, always the same people are asking for a nerf of O or boost of D. But wth is nobody suggesting to do 0TT wars? Cause all are freightened to loose glory on the leaderboard. That’s it.

Tactical Chill might had a bad run - or - other alliances are getting better, who knows. But look on domistats and watch the war results, not so many time wars there, as a percentage of all wars.

My critic is that such discussions are always starting with suggested solutions, doesn’t matter if Chad or Dradis or others are starting them. Never a discussion is starting with a description of the as-is situation, based on quantitative figures and some empirical data. That’s how I learned to do such work. 30 years ago, and it’s still being valid in every business. Doing it this way might show a variety of views AND solutions.

But well, it is at it is. Personally I don’t think there is a solution for top 30 teams and the rest of the alliances, due to the situation of the game and the non existing community.

 

[Theoneandonly]

The question is, under present conditions within the bigger alliance wars, are defenders having fun? Does the repetition of putting up open war bases and constantly being 5 starred quickly by OP attack weapons bore you? I wonder, do attackers really appreciate defenders or are defenders nothing more then a pawn to eat up attacks. Seems to me that even attackers may be starting to get bored doing these easy OP attacks over and over. The challenging nature of a war game has diminished greatly. I would think more attackers would welcome a more challenging game. Or, is the need to run over a big defense in 1:30 minutes greater so he or she can feel a false sense of accomplishment? Let’s face it, it doesn’t take much strategy when using OP helicopters, black hawks and Recons.

Attackers should want more challenging defenses. It’s in their best interest, otherwise things get boring. As for BHG, it’s obvious they are more interested in generating revenues selling OP weapons for attackers then losing defenders who are big spenders. Attackers are the clear majority.

I wonder. suppose many defenders in big alliances decided to leave those alliances and moved to lower level alliances. Alliances where there aren’t many time wars and defense mattered again. Would it be more fun? Would attackers then appreciate the defender frustrations after they left those big pay to win-time war alliance? Don’t get me wrong, I know many attackers who agree and support defenders posture that the game is unbalanced within the higher levels. But, the majority of attackers are in denial and only want easy chest pounding 5 star attacks which are quick.

Honestly, 98% or more of the community don’t care, if player’s of top teams have fun or not. If attackers wants a challenge they can play 0TT, that’s the easiest way. But … you all don’t want to loose glory For the fun, face it, that’s the real reason for op attacks.

Do some 0TT wars and your base will hold, I bet my head.

 

[Theoneandonly]

since information age release offense tactics got double and Triple action and rangers that exceed the limit of defense. defense building have not changed function since gunpowder ages the ranges are the same the rate of fire is the same only difference is hit points and a damage increase that doesn't represent the hit points of offense units

in drone age mortar, sniper towers , garrisons, ambush traps, land mines, towers are all useless as that they deal on damage is no where close to what offense can take. as well anti tank guns slow rate of fire makes them obsolete machine gun towers deal no damage either their only saving grace is suppression.

what needs to happen here is defense needs taken out of gunpowder age and brought up to the drone age
signal flare needs 7 range
garrisons use 10x damage and Hitpoint troops
anti tank 3x rate of fire 2x damage 3x hit points range of 10
air defense 2x damage 2x hit points range of 12
machine gun tower 3x damage 2 x hp range of 10
mortar 7x damage 3x Hit point range of 15 and exploding shells that damage in a area effect
sniper towers 10x damage 25x vs gens and infiltrator
silo needs to deal 3x damage and 3x hit points make it as relivent as it was when it came out
walls need to effect helicopter a slow down or something

defense needs to become relivent beyond being a speed bump for the offense this is what I suggest for drone age

Mate, already out of this discussion? As so often, starting something and running away if you don’t get the expected support? Or only throwing something in without substance?

Do 0TT wars and your base will not be 5 starred regularly.

 

[B like Big Bug]

There is not a lot max bases in game.you can see a lot of players with good defensive museum and SA or DA buildings.then they protest why defence is weak.
We have 3 deffender and just one of them is max.and its hard to bit his base.need good plan even with AH.
museum work on decfence when you work on buildings.age rush not good idea when you have old buildings.
Deffence is good in game.maybe a bit nerf not bad idea.but big cgange is mistake.
ww gone to time war as black hawk & heli is a bit stronger than normal.(also its just in top alliances ).this two troops can get nerf.

 

[Theoneandonly]

There is not a lot max bases in game.you can see a lot of players with good defensive museum and SA or DA buildings.then they protest why defence is weak.
We have 3 deffender and just one of them is max.and its hard to bit his base.need good plan even with AH.
museum work on decfence when you work on buildings.age rush not good idea when you have old buildings.
Deffence is good in game.maybe a bit nerf not bad idea.but big cgange is mistake.
ww gone to time war as black hawk & heli is a bit stronger than normal.(also its just in top alliances ).this two troops can get nerf.

Blackhawks are not the game changer, RAH Apache combined with SuperCobras do the same work. And having 161 boost on heli damage and 79 on hp idc about „a bit nerf“. Nvm I see people with similar stats failing with helis Regularly. It’s all about execution, and that mean Skills.

Again: the top 30 teams and the top 100 attackers of the game can’t be the measurement for an overall rebalance impacting ten thousands of players. If s o m e players are not happy with the current situation, doesn’t matter if defenders or attackers they have several options to work against. They can quit the game, they can move to a lower ranked alliance, they can agree on 0TT wars, they can attack 0TT. They can do it by their own instead of impacting the whole community of players (every few weeks).

Also again: even if a specific troop unit will be nerfed attackers will find a way to five star monster bases, this is the general sense of this game. It’s called „Dominations“, not „please make me feel good as defender“.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Only a snapshot from domistats @Theserver , one of nine wars is a time war. Tho, looks like that the reality of the game isn’t what @Chadwicke wants to tell us. Wondering that neither he nor @Horsepower has had a closer look on the empirical data before stating that most wars are time wars.

Facts, facts and facts, that’s the way to start every change process and get support from a higher number of people. Stating opinions and wishes usually isn’t successful.

 

[oddin]

yes you are correct. speaking with evidence is the right way.
This is a snapshot from our WW history. 6 time wars, 5 normal ones.

 

[Theoneandonly]

yes you are correct. speaking with evidence is the right way.
This is a snapshot from our WW history. 6 time wars, 5 normal ones.

View attachment 9691

Sure, evidence it is. And evidence is that all your time wars were against a top 30 team. Watched up the stats for Tactical as @Chadwicke mentioned that they have mostly time wars. Well, 5 of their last 15 wars were time wars. For me this is not mostly.

So, the stats are showing what I said: it’s a top 30 issue, more a first world problem. I understand that the players don’t like that, but for 10.000 other warring alliances the situation is different.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Just saying: if anyone is giving such a detailed advise to boost defense like hell, he should have done his analytical homework better BEFORE posting nonsense.

@Chadwicke , if you send me your adress via DM I can send you a keyboard without broken „.“ and“,“ - trust me reading is much easier with both.

 

[King Crimson]

do you have defenders In your alliance? do you tell them it's an attackers game? how would no defender game be?

I'm in an alliance that doesn't war. We're happy and stress free - you should try it
Besides, I did say first and foremost". The other side of the coin is that there should be defensive strategies but it can't have priority over offense.
I'm happy for people to take my exposed rss - I have enough and besides ... it's a game!

out of 20 7-9 are defender so not really a minority

I think you'll find that's the definition of a minority.

 

[Chadwicke]

exactly this being 5 stared by a great attacker is fine but just not in less than 1/2 the available time if it's that easy something is wrong 10$ should not be stronger than 1000$

 

[Theoneandonly]

exactly this being 5 stared by a great attacker is fine but just not in less than 1/2 the available time if it's that easy something is wrong 10$ should not be stronger than 1000$

Money rules the world, money rules the game. But if money rules it’s not about quantity, it’s about efficiency. You want a money rule like „as more I spent as stronger my base is“. Face it, you are simp,y wrong, it’s like in real life.

 

[B like Big Bug]

Blackhawks are not the game changer, RAH Apache combined with SuperCobras do the same work. And having 161 boost on heli damage and 79 on hp idc about „a bit nerf“. Nvm I see people with similar stats failing with helis Regularly. It’s all about execution, and that mean Skills.

Again: the top 30 teams and the top 100 attackers of the game can’t be the measurement for an overall rebalance impacting ten thousands of players. If s o m e players are not happy with the current situation, doesn’t matter if defenders or attackers they have several options to work against. They can quit the game, they can move to a lower ranked alliance, they can agree on 0TT wars, they can attack 0TT. They can do it by their own instead of impacting the whole community of players (every few weeks).

Also again: even if a specific troop unit will be nerfed attackers will find a way to five star monster bases, this is the general sense of this game. It’s called „Dominations“, not „please make me feel good as defender“.

Agree.thats all i said every times.top ranked alliances ww, is diffrent with all others.
using TT and skill are part of theire ww.
out side top ranked(not top 100 mean may be 30-40 Aliances),you can see normall fighting.its mean game go on right way.

 

[Dracula3811]

It isn't just top ranked teams. My team ranges from 600-1100. I used to be a defender. Not anymore. My museum is hybrid and on its way to full offense. The reason for this? Bhg has demonstrated through action that it doesn't care about defenders. They nerfed the house spawners and aren't acknowledging proof of it. They add offense without adequate defense countermeasures. They refuse to reduce time and resource costs for any of the lower ages.

Fyi, it's actually much more expensive to create a max defense base than to create a max offense base. Offense may cost more per war if you're a spender, but that pales in comparison to the costs to max your defenses. Prove me wrong. (Fyi you can't cause I've done the math already).

One of the prime indicators for offense vs defense is stars in wars. One side almost always completely clears the other. In time wars, both sides completely clear the other. Even in some "close" wars, both sides are over 90% cleared. That is very indicative that defense is not holding.

I am glad that there's an mp museum and a war museum. That means that bhg can fine tune offense and defense in wars without impacting mp attacks as much.

So, this is from a week 1 player who is above average in base builder games. Offense is much stronger than defense in domi. That is why I've switched from defense to offense. And I'm not in one of those spend to win teams. Wars are boring most of the time due to offense being op and mismatches.

 

[Theoneandonly]

It isn't just top ranked teams. My team ranges from 600-1100. I used to be a defender. Not anymore. My museum is hybrid and on its way to full offense. The reason for this? Bhg has demonstrated through action that it doesn't care about defenders. They nerfed the house spawners and aren't acknowledging proof of it. They add offense without adequate defense countermeasures. They refuse to reduce time and resource costs for any of the lower ages.

Fyi, it's actually much more expensive to create a max defense base than to create a max offense base. Offense may cost more per war if you're a spender, but that pales in comparison to the costs to max your defenses. Prove me wrong. (Fyi you can't cause I've done the math already).

One of the prime indicators for offense vs defense is stars in wars. One side almost always completely clears the other. In time wars, both sides completely clear the other. Even in some "close" wars, both sides are over 90% cleared. That is very indicative that defense is not holding.

I am glad that there's an mp museum and a war museum. That means that bhg can fine tune offense and defense in wars without impacting mp attacks as much.

So, this is from a week 1 player who is above average in base builder games. Offense is much stronger than defense in domi. That is why I've switched from defense to offense. And I'm not in one of those spend to win teams. Wars are boring most of the time due to offense being op and mismatches.

So ..l let’s look on the facts. Dark Camelot had one time war the last 15 wars, not really much. Looks like that D worked on both sides.

FYI, it’s approx at the same cost to max O and D. As I am doing both i know this. You need much more legendaries for O to have different attack approaches, for D you need at least three.

I am tired and bored about reading always the same (And wrong) statements, next is CoC for sure. If you are annoyed with the current status of the game leave it.