Reduce pay2win: Nerf Elephant Archers & Bazooka Tower

[Max_imus]

Could I be even more specific? Hardly. And yet those two defensive aspects are the deciding factors in middle-heavyweight wars in last few weeks. Factors bought for money. Im not saying you (BHG) should reduce the whole P2W aspect because thats obviously your business model right now, so lets not talk about that,because its pointless.
But you can do a small change in stats and BIG Huge for entertainment for occasionally or permanently spending alliances. It will take you just few hours. Lower bazooka tower fire rate or range by 20-30% .Remove elephant archer splash damage plus decrease his HP by 10 or more percent to make it possible kill it by 5 mk6 SF(for the future wars).

You may ask why, when all those top alliances still continue to spend. Aye, thats true. But dont be fooled, they will not, few months from now. Top spending alliances are:
A)Bothered they have to spend money to get those best buildings/cards to stay on HARD earned top of the game, or

B)Are becoming restless cuz wins because of cards. Do you think they dont know that

Haha, they know the game the best in ghe world, in details. After every update they have tenths of people thinking what it will meant to the game in the future. And after few days they know what they need to do to continue to be amongst the best. Such effort that no average dev team never puts together cuz they dont have such big incentive and HR to do so.Now those great teams who spend biggest portion of money know, that before next age will come, only those cards and buildings I have written above will decide if they stay on top or move even closer to it/ drop their several months effort. Listen to those players, because if not, you may end your journey soon. And it would be a great shame because lot of those love the game so much that they will continously spend money on it. But in reasonable amount and mainly with reasonable FUN return.

Devs should take into account that even some players of (long time) best alliance in the world I know are complaining on it BIG time. Well, thats serious alert imho, considering they are certainly the top spending in game too (not only reason why KA is first tho, they are the most adaptive and skilled players up to date without any doubt!)

Thank you for reading this and considering these steps and futher investing time and resources in it. If the tone sounds too harsh Im sorry , its not meant to be. I just really like this game and I wanted to share mine and other most loyal alliances opinion on current situation, since Im in contact with lots of them.

Thanks for advancing this further if possible.
Maximus

 

[Europeos]

It's so true Maximus. The pay to win element is way too strong, especially extra troops cards. Until now, players like me who spend close to nothing in the game were behind but still could compete at the top. Now not having premium cards in offense AND defense makes it almost impossible to compete. If only people who spend hundreds or thousands of euros in the game can compete the game's future isn't bright. It's really sad but the game was so much better a few months ago :/

 

[Nb4powerup]

Hi! We're always looking at balance. From units to nations, the goal is to keep the game as fun as possible. Thanks for your feedback!

 

[S_How]

Hi! We're always looking at balance. From units to nations, the goal is to keep the game as fun as possible. Thanks for your feedback!

Sorry to say, but actions speak louder than words.

1) BHG made the strongest defense building of all time only available in quantity >1 by purchase only

2) In late age wars, the biggest deciding factor are now Elephants in the stronghold, which are essentially pay only

3) The only way to get a maxed out base is to pay, and those bases are rewarded with an unfixed glitch giving them the war weight of an Industrial or lower, a huge and wrong advantage in matchmaking

4) Sandbagging is ubiquitous and because BHG has only responded to horrid matchmaking problems with empty words and reduced offensive tools, the only way to combat it is now troop tactics which are a pay feature in any material quantity.

When you combine these facts with an inability to do any sort of effective communication or discussion with the community, it just makes it look like you're doing a last minute cash grab before abandoning the game. And for what its worth, Im a spender and trying to hang on, with a little hope things could be made better, but that hope is dwindling every day.

 

[Veldan]

Hi! We're always looking at balance. From units to nations, the goal is to keep the game as fun as possible. Thanks for your feedback!

Uh, nobody will take that statement seriously in a thread that's (partially) about the bazooka tower. That thing is not balanced in any definition of balance, and it's so obvious that no developer could have ever been unaware of that.

 

[Master Contrail Program]

I started a new account to try an archer nation. The fact that you can build a stronghold at bronze age speaks volumes. I'm sure it's loads of fun for brand new players who are literally armed with sticks and stones seeing their 15-30 troops wiped out in two shots. But hey, they can buy troop cards, amiright?

To be fair, I have actually been attacked multiple times at that level. On my other accounts I'm usually well into classical age before my first defense. So maybe there are new players coming in. It's just as likely that these are budding new sandbag accounts climbing to iron age though.

 

[DynoBot]

Agree with Maximus as well. Greed has ruined this game. Sad to see.

 

[poop_]

Fix world war match making.

I don't care about anything else.

 

[Max_imus]

True. Well, even if its just a small nerf it would help. But Im more concerned about elephants tbh. They are the real decider, even more than BT.

 

[SebQuattro]

Nothing will happen when you've still got people buying them. If they were nerfed, the spenders sitting on a big pile of them would kick up a stink too...

 

[Max_imus]

Nothing will happen when you've still got people buying them. If they were nerfed, the spenders sitting on a big pile of them would kick up a stink too...

Well, 50% of posters in this and Quovatis' thread are from spending or top spending alliances. And they are shouting all the same.
As I said, people can see whats over the line, even the usual spenders. According to those alliances words, sales will start to decline in near future if this is not solved. Not much people want to ivnest their hard earned money into P2W game. Funny, I know right.

 

[Quovatis]

I didn't personally buy the bazooka tower or elephants, but I know plenty in my alliance did. They felt pressured into doing so because we just can't compete if the enemy does the same. It's an arms race. The community warned them for 2 weeks not to sell the bazooka tower or at least tweak the stats before they offered it, but not a single comment on it was made by the devs, and it went forward, just as we feared.

They aren't going to change anything. Like the government, they make almost all their revenue on the top 1% of the players. They don't care about the other 99%. They found this business model works for them, so don't see it changing. Again, I urge people to give the game a low rating on the app store/ google play if you feel the game has turned in the wrong direction. It's really the only voice we have. Dev rarely, if ever, respond to things like this here.

 

[Veldan]

I didn't personally buy the bazooka tower or elephants, but I know plenty in my alliance did. They felt pressured into doing so because we just can't compete if the enemy does the same. It's an arms race. The community warned them for 2 weeks not to sell the bazooka tower or at least tweak the stats before they offered it, but not a single comment on it was made by the devs, and it went forward, just as we feared.

They aren't going to change anything. Like the government, they make almost all their revenue on the top 1% of the players. They don't care about the other 99%. They found this business model works for them, so don't see it changing. Again, I urge people to give the game a low rating on the app store/ google play if you feel the game has turned in the wrong direction. It's really the only voice we have. Dev rarely, if ever, respond to things like this here.

The thing is if a significant amount of people starts giving low ratings in the stores, all that will do is keep new players out of the game, which in turn will shrink the population and make the devs even more reliant on P2W techniques and catering to whales to make their money. It won't benefit anyone in the end. It's in everyone's best interest that more players join the game, not less.

Besides, I think it's morally wrong to do. A great game does not suddenly become an absolutely horrible game when the devs are making suboptimal decisions at the high end of the game in order to increase revenue. The style, graphics, sounds, gameplay, historical informations etc are all as good as they ever were. If you rate 1 star, you say that Dominations is now down there with the trash of the gaming industry, which it's clearly not, so you'd be lying.

 

[vincentdang4]

People can rate games as they see fit. It's based upon an opinion, some folks weigh certain things more than others. I gave it 3x 1 stars recently for the direction the game is going. It isnt to the same 5 stars game i played a year ago. You are of course free to give 3x 5 stars to counter my rating. This is a democratic process after all

 

[Max_imus]

The thing is if a significant amount of people starts giving low ratings in the stores, all that will do is keep new players out of the game, which in turn will shrink the population and make the devs even more reliant on P2W techniques and catering to whales to make their money. It won't benefit anyone in the end. It's in everyone's best interest that more players join the game, not less.

Besides, I think it's morally wrong to do. A great game does not suddenly become an absolutely horrible game when the devs are making suboptimal decisions at the high end of the game in order to increase revenue. The style, graphics, sounds, gameplay, historical informations etc are all as good as they ever were. If you rate 1 star, you say that Dominations is now down there with the trash of the gaming industry, which it's clearly not, so you'd be lying.

I like the idea Quovatis wrote about. Different design for building. Some statues or diffefent roads. More TC design to choose from etc
or heck, even another more expensive Estate. Or special Uni workers. Everything development or economic like is better than direct impact on war.

 

[wChiefw]

Gentlemen Thieves,

Our recent war and this post was enough to bring me from my years of lurking on this forum.

On the face of it, this was the first really good match up we have had in a in a long time. No sandbagging or maxed cash bases. Some tricky, well designed bases and had the potential to be a legitimate stalemate or very close 1 or 2 star war. The type of wars that we want to fight.

Just because it was the Thieves we bought out some long hoarded 'toys" and you did the same. The outcome was a failure of both alliances to clear the other, not because of a lack of skill on either behalf but because of overpowered towers and troop cards. Still reasonably close in the end but should have been much closer.

If we ever match one and other again lets go no troop cards or towers to rule them all and see how close we can make it.

Cheers

 

[wChiefw]

Gentlemen Thieves.

After years of lurking on the forum and never signing up our recent war and this topic has finally bought me out of hiding

Finally a good match with no sandbags or ridiculous maxed cash bases. Just the type of war we want to fight.

Outcome, we both failed to clear each other, not for a lack of skills but because of the above mentioned overpowered Nexon specials employed by both alliances. Yeah! We got an outcome but not via the reasons we want to achieve an outcome.

Hats off to you guys, If we ever match again, let's leave the BS nexon specials out of it and go back to the start when a stalemate was legitimate or 1 or 2 stars could decide a war.

Regards

 

[Motaz Tarek]

actually these 2 things should be permenantly removed from the game

am against any overpowering feature to premium players
bazooka towers remain a huge threat because of it's range damage and splash damage not just the rapid rate of fire, if it's well placed u need at least 2 sabs to avoid getting ur entire army wiped out by a SINGLE building!!!

paying aspects of the game should be for time factor only, any non strategic advantage is a complete destruction to any strategy game

it's an act of greed that wl ruin the game and make it a game of ghosts eventually

 

[Max_imus]

Gentlemen Thieves.

After years of lurking on the forum and never signing up our recent war and this topic has finally bought me out of hiding

Finally a good match with no sandbags or ridiculous maxed cash bases. Just the type of war we want to fight.

Outcome, we both failed to clear each other, not for a lack of skills but because of the above mentioned overpowered Nexon specials employed by both alliances. Yeah! We got an outcome but not via the reasons we want to achieve an outcome.

Hats off to you guys, If we ever match again, let's leave the BS nexon specials out of it and go back to the start when a stalemate was legitimate or 1 or 2 stars could decide a war.

Regards

Hi Chief,
it was a nice war for sure, we needed to dig really deep. We will be glad to go without defensive SH troops whenever it will be agreed. Just come by to our alliance in early planning day and we can arrange it. Good luck to your future adventure and wars!

Max (PT)

 

[S_How]

Great match and battle from your team! Hope to meet again, you have a ton of very skilled players.