How to address balance issues

Der BabyHund

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
120
I would like to make a suggestion on how to address the issues of game imbalance if there is any. Some defenders have been calling for nerfing all sorts of troops because their bases cannot defend against said troops. I am not here to debate whether or not the game is balanced. I am simply saying that the constant cycle of buffing then nerfing then buffing then nerfing is a bad idea as it will upset everyone attackers and defenders alike.

BHG needs to change the way it addresses those issues. Do not just listen to a loud minority that do not represent the vast majority of players. Most players do not face the same problems this tiny whiny group does.

Simply put, BHG should provide defenders with the tools they need to defend their bases and not just do the work for them by nerfing every viable troop in the game. Give them something they can put to use instead of taking away other players’ tools esp. that many of these attackers have invested their hard earned money into their attacking styles.

I will try to give some examples. These are not perfect examples by any means but the idea still holds—give defenders the tools they need instead of taking away other players’ tools.

  1. Give them more defensive artifacts.
  2. Introduce a new spawn-able anti air unit that can chase down aircrafts (maybe robots of sort).
  3. Allow the Command Post to send “Defensive Commands” to other defensive buildings connected to it by road. For example, a Command for towers to fire at higher attack speed or for other buildings to spawn other troops they don’t normally spawn etc..
  4. Introduce a new game mechanics where players can formulate a “Defensive Strategy.” Generally, attackers need more than just artifacts and a good army composition—they need skill. Similarly, defenders should be able to show some skill to earn their wins. This will at least shift the responsibility to them to defend their bases instead of blaming mortars, bombers, or the universe for their failure. This Defensive Strategy should include the ability to choose (1) what types of troops they use to defend, (2) where they spawn from, and (3) what buildings to defend.

Example: allow players to choose a limited set of troops which could be a combination of any type of troops that can spawn from any part of the forest they choose. The whole set does not need to spawn from the same part. They can have a couple of helis spawn from the north and a couple of zooks from the south, etc. Also, allow the ability to send troops to pre designated areas. For example, if you want to send some of your troops to protect your TC, RA, Drone Command, or whatever, you should be able to do that.

Another example: Allow players to choose where Commanders spawn from. In my opinion, BHG totally missed the mark by tying Commanders’ level to one building (fort) and their spawning to totally different building (Town center). In addition to the obvious disadvantage that Commanders rarely spawn on defense because TC is sabotaged and taken down, this is just unnecessarily complicated, confusing, and overall not a clean design. A much cleaner and more obvious solution was to have them upgraded and spawned from the Command post.

Bottom line is this: BHG, nerfing troops is a really bad idea esp. that people invest their hard earned money into their attacking styles. Find ways to give defenders more tools to defend instead of taking away from attackers.

Again you don’t have to agree with my examples above, but we can at least agree on the principle that giving defenders more tools is better than taking away from attackers.
 

Deosbrae

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2023
Messages
23
It’s sad that BHG NEVER listen to their players. Otherwise this game wouldn't be as dreadful as it is today.
 

Ezekiel

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
72
The mods and messengers on this forum consistently turn a blind eye to the game’s core issues. Whenever players offer sound suggestions, they play dead.
 

King Crimson

Approved user
Joined
Apr 21, 2016
Messages
1,865
I would like to make a suggestion on how to address the issues of game imbalance if there is any. Some defenders have been calling for nerfing all sorts of troops because their bases cannot defend against said troops. I am not here to debate whether or not the game is balanced. I am simply saying that the constant cycle of buffing then nerfing then buffing then nerfing is a bad idea as it will upset everyone attackers and defenders alike.

BHG needs to change the way it addresses those issues. Do not just listen to a loud minority that do not represent the vast majority of players. Most players do not face the same problems this tiny whiny group does.

Simply put, BHG should provide defenders with the tools they need to defend their bases and not just do the work for them by nerfing every viable troop in the game. Give them something they can put to use instead of taking away other players’ tools esp. that many of these attackers have invested their hard earned money into their attacking styles.

I will try to give some examples. These are not perfect examples by any means but the idea still holds—give defenders the tools they need instead of taking away other players’ tools.

  1. Give them more defensive artifacts.
  2. Introduce a new spawn-able anti air unit that can chase down aircrafts (maybe robots of sort).
  3. Allow the Command Post to send “Defensive Commands” to other defensive buildings connected to it by road. For example, a Command for towers to fire at higher attack speed or for other buildings to spawn other troops they don’t normally spawn etc..
  4. Introduce a new game mechanics where players can formulate a “Defensive Strategy.” Generally, attackers need more than just artifacts and a good army composition—they need skill. Similarly, defenders should be able to show some skill to earn their wins. This will at least shift the responsibility to them to defend their bases instead of blaming mortars, bombers, or the universe for their failure. This Defensive Strategy should include the ability to choose (1) what types of troops they use to defend, (2) where they spawn from, and (3) what buildings to defend.

Example: allow players to choose a limited set of troops which could be a combination of any type of troops that can spawn from any part of the forest they choose. The whole set does not need to spawn from the same part. They can have a couple of helis spawn from the north and a couple of zooks from the south, etc. Also, allow the ability to send troops to pre designated areas. For example, if you want to send some of your troops to protect your TC, RA, Drone Command, or whatever, you should be able to do that.

Another example: Allow players to choose where Commanders spawn from. In my opinion, BHG totally missed the mark by tying Commanders’ level to one building (fort) and their spawning to totally different building (Town center). In addition to the obvious disadvantage that Commanders rarely spawn on defense because TC is sabotaged and taken down, this is just unnecessarily complicated, confusing, and overall not a clean design. A much cleaner and more obvious solution was to have them upgraded and spawned from the Command post.

Bottom line is this: BHG, nerfing troops is a really bad idea esp. that people invest their hard earned money into their attacking styles. Find ways to give defenders more tools to defend instead of taking away from attackers.

Again you don’t have to agree with my examples above, but we can at least agree on the principle that giving defenders more tools is better than taking away from attackers.
Bloody brilliant example of a great suggestion with no hysterics.
The only issue, in general, is that this is why the game is so bloated. Rather than tweak something that is clearly 'wrong', they'll add something to correct it. Then if they do correct something they overcorrect it - then add another thing to boost the overcorrection - and so on, and we end up with the game we have today.
 

Seek

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2022
Messages
1,076
I would like to make a suggestion on how to address the issues of game imbalance if there is any. Some defenders have been calling for nerfing all sorts of troops because their bases cannot defend against said troops. I am not here to debate whether or not the game is balanced. I am simply saying that the constant cycle of buffing then nerfing then buffing then nerfing is a bad idea as it will upset everyone attackers and defenders alike.

BHG needs to change the way it addresses those issues. Do not just listen to a loud minority that do not represent the vast majority of players. Most players do not face the same problems this tiny whiny group does.

Simply put, BHG should provide defenders with the tools they need to defend their bases and not just do the work for them by nerfing every viable troop in the game. Give them something they can put to use instead of taking away other players’ tools esp. that many of these attackers have invested their hard earned money into their attacking styles.

I will try to give some examples. These are not perfect examples by any means but the idea still holds—give defenders the tools they need instead of taking away other players’ tools.

  1. Give them more defensive artifacts.
  2. Introduce a new spawn-able anti air unit that can chase down aircrafts (maybe robots of sort).
  3. Allow the Command Post to send “Defensive Commands” to other defensive buildings connected to it by road. For example, a Command for towers to fire at higher attack speed or for other buildings to spawn other troops they don’t normally spawn etc..
  4. Introduce a new game mechanics where players can formulate a “Defensive Strategy.” Generally, attackers need more than just artifacts and a good army composition—they need skill. Similarly, defenders should be able to show some skill to earn their wins. This will at least shift the responsibility to them to defend their bases instead of blaming mortars, bombers, or the universe for their failure. This Defensive Strategy should include the ability to choose (1) what types of troops they use to defend, (2) where they spawn from, and (3) what buildings to defend.

Example: allow players to choose a limited set of troops which could be a combination of any type of troops that can spawn from any part of the forest they choose. The whole set does not need to spawn from the same part. They can have a couple of helis spawn from the north and a couple of zooks from the south, etc. Also, allow the ability to send troops to pre designated areas. For example, if you want to send some of your troops to protect your TC, RA, Drone Command, or whatever, you should be able to do that.

Another example: Allow players to choose where Commanders spawn from. In my opinion, BHG totally missed the mark by tying Commanders’ level to one building (fort) and their spawning to totally different building (Town center). In addition to the obvious disadvantage that Commanders rarely spawn on defense because TC is sabotaged and taken down, this is just unnecessarily complicated, confusing, and overall not a clean design. A much cleaner and more obvious solution was to have them upgraded and spawned from the Command post.

Bottom line is this: BHG, nerfing troops is a really bad idea esp. that people invest their hard earned money into their attacking styles. Find ways to give defenders more tools to defend instead of taking away from attackers.

Again you don’t have to agree with my examples above, but we can at least agree on the principle that giving defenders more tools is better than taking away from attackers.
Like allot of this post but issue I have why should defenders have to completely buy new artifacts for problem that was caused by BHG not listing to players base.
Fair thing to do is EDST capped just like defense has cap on what we can nerf.

As for new artifacts how about just adjust the ones already out there or add DST lines armor and weapons slots as well. No force defenders to have to pay double to compete like the suggestion of new artifacts we have spent as much as o players and have to already do 20 levels on munitions to get the good stuff
 

Der BabyHund

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
120
Bloody brilliant example of a great suggestion with no hysterics.
The only issue, in general, is that this is why the game is so bloated. Rather than tweak something that is clearly 'wrong', they'll add something to correct it. Then if they do correct something they overcorrect it - then add another thing to boost the overcorrection - and so on, and we end up with the game we have today.
Although I admit that I like the layers of complexity they keep adding to the game, I have to agree with you King C that they tend to over correct instead of tweaking and fine tuning which understandably often times upsets many players.
 

Der BabyHund

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
120
Like allot of this post but issue I have why should defenders have to completely buy new artifacts for problem that was caused by BHG not listing to players base.
Fair thing to do is EDST capped just like defense has cap on what we can nerf.

As for new artifacts how about just adjust the ones already out there or add DST lines armor and weapons slots as well. No force defenders to have to pay double to compete like the suggestion of new artifacts we have spent as much as o players and have to already do 20 levels on munitions to get the good stuff
I get your point about pushing defenders to buy more artifacts but I think that’s the fairest way to deal with the situation at the moment. Capping stats after attackers invested their money in buying artifacts would be unfair (although BHG did something similar with nerfing fighters after people invested in fighters artifacts). So yeah I agree that it’s not the perfect solution but I think it would be the fairest one.

Adding DST lines is actually an interesting idea that I haven’t thought about before, but it can help for sure.
 

King Crimson

Approved user
Joined
Apr 21, 2016
Messages
1,865
Although I admit that I like the layers of complexity they keep adding to the game, I have to agree with you King C that they tend to over correct instead of tweaking and fine tuning which understandably often times upsets many players.
Complexity is fine - and always welcome (like the manufactory) - if it improves the gameplaying experience and offers new challenges, not as a result of constantly adding corrections.
But we all know why they make these decisions. 😏
 

Seek

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2022
Messages
1,076
I get your point about pushing defenders to buy more artifacts but I think that’s the fairest way to deal with the situation at the moment. Capping stats after attackers invested their money in buying artifacts would be unfair (although BHG did something similar with nerfing fighters after people invested in fighters artifacts). So yeah I agree that it’s not the perfect solution but I think it would be the fairest one.

Adding DST lines is actually an interesting idea that I haven’t thought about before, but it can help for sure.
How is fair to the defender to force us to buy new artifacts just keep from nerfing problem BHG caused by not making the DST line equal to EDST lines in all previous artifacts simple either nerf offense or boost the defense legendary and mythicals already released to balance it out. This would be fair to defense and fair to offense fix what should have been fixed and no nerf for the O players but Defenders should not have to pay twice as much to compete because they chose to make defenders mythical and legendary way less powerful.For every boost there should have been counters implemented long ago
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
635
Way to go guys..we have a win rate of 62% since 10yrs, now we lost 4 wars consequently..people are getting unmotivated and quitting. The Robo age makes things really too difficult. People often do 0* so this is not fun seeing all the effort that people put in this game. I don’t ask for easy 5*, but please, make this game fun again. 80% are NOT hardcore players…
 

Arknights P R T S

New member
Joined
Sep 2, 2025
Messages
24
Adding defensive relics is an easy solution, but it's also only a temporary measure. Defenders must invest significant capital, which only exacerbates the already heated competition. I believe we need to encourage Big Hughes to boldly pursue rebalancing with determination. Naturally, I will act, and if it leads to a better game, I can support this idea as a wise choice.
 

soul

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2024
Messages
19
The reason why the balance is broken is because there are two attacks and you can enter the same base multiple times. Everyone goes on reconnaissance and knows the location of the trap. So wouldn't it all be solved if we set the number of attacks per person to 1? We have to predict where the trap will be, and I think it would be more fun.
 

nobodyknowsthetrouble

Approved user
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
616
Way to go guys..we have a win rate of 62% since 10yrs, now we lost 4 wars consequently..people are getting unmotivated and quitting. The Robo age makes things really too difficult. People often do 0* so this is not fun seeing all the effort that people put in this game. I don’t ask for easy 5*, but please, make this game fun again. 80% are NOT hardcore players…
If your win rate is above 50%, that means another alliance's win rate is below that. In a fair game, it would be 50/50. Maybe you need to change your mindset rather than making the game easier.
 

nobodyknowsthetrouble

Approved user
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
616
The reason why the balance is broken is because there are two attacks and you can enter the same base multiple times. Everyone goes on reconnaissance and knows the location of the trap. So wouldn't it all be solved if we set the number of attacks per person to 1? We have to predict where the trap will be, and I think it would be more fun.
The idea only works if there are good equivalents in the other alliance in all positions.
However, this is not the case in reality.
 

Spaceboy

Approved user
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
635
If your win rate is above 50%, that means another alliance's win rate is below that. In a fair game, it would be 50/50. Maybe you need to change your mindset rather than making the game easier.
No..you are not taking into account how the game has evolved. 5 years ago it was quite easy to get 5* if you had some skills without buying gimmicks. There were much more alliances than today. We had one strike of 6 months being unbeaten (top 10 French alliance). So it was possible and fun at that time. This time is now revolved. Why?
 
Top