TROOP restructuring

[king miller]

I would think their time would be better spent on the WW mismatch issue, then increase or decrease troop capabilities, just because some are not used. All to make 5 star victories less possible. REALLY???????

 

[Diddles]

Agreed, that should be the priority.

 

[SharkyFinn]

Rebalancing doesn't automatically mean they're making 5-star victories less possible. There are definitely some under-utilized troops that need changes if they're going to make it into the meta. As for matchmaking, from what I understand, there's not going to be a quick or easy solution. It'll be a long, evolving process if you expect to have a computer find a equitable matchup between two completely dissimilar groups of players who are eaching trying to gain an advantage. Personally, I think I'd prefer to have warring be more like a boxing match. Just pair up bases by ages and if one side flattens the other, tough cookies.

 

[Rogue Squirrel]

Totally agree - rebalancing the troops isn't such a bad idea. But the biggest issue in this game is matchmaking. Sharky Finn is right, the relative ages of each team should be a bigger factor in the algorithm. If your top bases are in the industrial age and you face global/atomic age bases you don't stand a chance of winning.

But there is a trade-off between good matchmaking and time spent searching for a match - if we want good matches then we shouldn't expect to be matched straightaway. In the long run better matchmaking will encourage more alliances into war and reduce the waiting time for matches

 

[Festivus]

I'd say that the odds that they screw this up are much higher than the odds that they actually improve the game.

I'm generally not one to complain about the game - I usually defend it - but there's a nonzero chance that they break the game doing this. And there's no question that they're going to piff a lot of people off with this, as people who have been playing a certain way - and invested real money into building their game around that - are going to have the rug pulled out from under them.

Nexon needs to be very, very careful with this. I'm not confident in a good outcome.

 

[Manifesto]

Interesting that the devs are making changes based on 'vast mountains of combat data'. l have to wonder what, if any, feedback they've used from the forum. They could've saved themselves lots of time and just asked us.
I'm happy if they decide to buff unused troops and leave existing troops out of the ''rebalance'', except l fear that there will be both nerf and buffs.
And it will be based on what THEY think is best, not what we want.

 

[Tsamu]

Yes, it must only be buffs to underused troops. Nerfing anything would be totally unacceptable. When they buffed field mortars I started using them (after researching the increased range in the library) and they are very effective for me.Hopefully Nexon will do something equally good with the other weak units.

One change I would like to see is for raiders to not defend themselves, but just keep attacking resource buildings. Most of the time that will lead to better survival, since they will just outrun whatever is damaging them.

 

[Festivus]

One of the leaders in my alliance who was taking a couple of weeks' break just decided to make his break permanent because of this. Said he's not interested in learning the game all over again.

He spend a good chunk of change on this game too. Nice work, Nexon.

 

[Dhruv patel]

To fix this somewhat address the sandbaggers and abandoned accounts. Inactive iron age or lower accounts have 2 months before being permanently deleted. Then the higher you are, the greater time frame you have before your account is terminated

 

[KingCally]

Dhruv patel that is a terrible idea! This game’s economy almost completely depends on attacking abandon bases for the 5 star victory. Not to mention that doing so would also drastically reduce the amount of bases players can attack.