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

[Tedi925]

Are we playing same game?

Dominations is game for offense and defense and one side shouldn't be in advantage on other.

Now offense is overpowered vs defense and thats so easy to see.

Especially when players with medium heavy attacking museum like mine take down top def base on opposite side in less than a 2min
And where is fun in that?

I see lot of ""attackers"" are now very happy with this so they can finally get 5 stars on top def bases and before they couldn't get 5 star on medium heavy def base.
I can see you, Theoneandonly is one of those players.
Finally people without knowledge on attacking can say they are best attackers in game.

Balance doesn't exist and lot's of things should be changed to make defence equal to offence.

-Recon nerf
-museum don't affect TT
-new def nation
-new anti barrack coalition
-shorter time for upgradeing (18 days is ridiculous)
.
.
.

 

[Theoneandonly]

You missed my point with that comment quite obviously. If you don't understand something, I would advise to either ask in an appropriate way for an understanding or not say anything at all. As the old saying says 'If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all'.

Oh, don’t worry, I got your point. If you aren’t able to handle sarcastic comments, feel free to ask for explanation.

The whole discussion was started the wrong way, by giving a „ready solution“ Without sorting out all variables involved.

And still empirical data are non interesting for all who think defense should be boosted. Analyze the domistats data and you will get a good idea how many time wars are really in this game.

Play 0TT and after that tell us again that defense is to weak.

It’s neither defense to weak nor offense to tough in this game. The issues are museum, council, premium TT. In combination that results in time wars - for top 30 teams.

You see, I can write without sarcasm. But I expect a solid Argumentation and not „everyone’s reality is a reality“. It isn’t, the game mechanics are one singular reality, only in the multiversums of a few players it isn’t.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Are we playing same game?

Dominations is game for offense and defense and one side shouldn't be in advantage on other.

Now offense is overpowered vs defense and thats so easy to see.

Especially when players with medium heavy attacking museum like mine take down top def base on opposite side in less than a 2min
And where is fun in that?

I see lot of ""attackers"" are now very happy with this so they can finally get 5 stars on top def bases and before they couldn't get 5 star on medium heavy def base.
I can see you, Theoneandonly is one of those players.
Finally people without knowledge on attacking can say they are best attackers in game.

Balance doesn't exist and lot's of things should be changed to make defence equal to offence.

-Recon nerf
-museum don't affect TT
-new def nation
-new anti barrack coalition
-shorter time for upgradeing (18 days is ridiculous)
.
.
.

I Never Said I am one of the best hitters in this game. You told me once I am mate and I said “Nope“.

But taking your question which is really good „is Dominations a game for offense and defense?“

Yes it is, and all event wars with empty museums or 0TT have shown that defense wins wars. Also in the Event wars „3D versus 3O (all Players) always D won.

I am always surprised that no one is remembering those wars, I was participating in most of them.

 

[oddin]

Yes it is, and all event wars with empty museums or 0TT have shown that defense wins wars. Also in the Event wars „3D versus 3O (all Players) always D won.

I do remember them. But It was a different game back then. Not the same parameters/variables with the present

 

[Theoneandonly]

I do remember them. But It was a different game back then. Not the same parameters/variables with the present

What was different except helis and council? We already had recon, museum and PTT. Just finished an event war with helis only and blackhawks were forbidden to use. Not all bases got five starred, tho bases can hold against helis.

 

[Theoneandonly]

I do remember them. But It was a different game back then. Not the same parameters/variables with the present

The real question is: does the game fit End Game requirements.

PERSONALLY, I think no. But this discussion was never discussed from the beginning.

 

[SomeRandomPlayer]

This thread needs more cow bell.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Are we playing same game?

Dominations is game for offense and defense and one side shouldn't be in advantage on other.

Now offense is overpowered vs defense and thats so easy to see.

Especially when players with medium heavy attacking museum like mine take down top def base on opposite side in less than a 2min
And where is fun in that?

I see lot of ""attackers"" are now very happy with this so they can finally get 5 stars on top def bases and before they couldn't get 5 star on medium heavy def base.
I can see you, Theoneandonly is one of those players.
Finally people without knowledge on attacking can say they are best attackers in game.

Balance doesn't exist and lot's of things should be changed to make defence equal to offence.

-Recon nerf
-museum don't affect TT
-new def nation
-new anti barrack coalition
-shorter time for upgradeing (18 days is ridiculous)
.
.
.

Mate, I really like you, tho not taking your comment negative.

But: you also are coming with the usual „solutions“ of nerfing offense. Why not talking about ways to boost defense appropriate, eg by doubling the damage of sniper towers or giving them two or three shots the same time?

Why not defining some basic rules like:

- a maxed D base should be only taken down by outstanding attacks
- maxed offense should always be able to five star a not maxed D base
- limiting ALL museum stats to a maximum, not only the „minus“ ones

Research times are a valid point, but for O and D. I counted 48 D buildings and 47 O upgrades, generals are excluded, tho there is only a minor advantage for O with upgrades.

Added @oddin , probably we can start a valuable discussion.

 

[Kev's (Empire)]

Oh, don’t worry, I got your point. If you aren’t able to handle sarcastic comments, feel free to ask for explanation.

The whole discussion was started the wrong way, by giving a „ready solution“ Without sorting out all variables involved.

And still empirical data are non interesting for all who think defense should be boosted. Analyze the domistats data and you will get a good idea how many time wars are really in this game.

Play 0TT and after that tell us again that defense is to weak.

It’s neither defense to weak nor offense to tough in this game. The issues are museum, council, premium TT. In combination that results in time wars - for top 30 teams.

You see, I can write without sarcasm. But I expect a solid Argumentation and not „everyone’s reality is a reality“. It isn’t, the game mechanics are one singular reality, only in the multiversums of a few players it isn’t.

This is the reason why I don't comment much in this forums. When you are trying to have a serious conversation, people want to have a go at others instead of contributing to it. You have some points worth discussing; however, your approach to this could be better. I shall stay in the background once again.

 

[Theoneandonly]

This is the reason why I don't comment much in this forums. When you are trying to have a serious conversation, people want to have a go at others instead of contributing to it. You have some points worth discussing; however, your approach to this could be better. I shall stay in the background once again.

Read your first comment, it’s full of ad hominem and subjective comments. It’s always the at forums. Some are asking for things they are not providing theirselves. Enjoy your day as it looks like you don’t really want to discuss objective points. From the beginning it more looks like that someone sent you to cause drama.

 

[King Crimson]

The argument that offense and defense must be the same (ie: balanced) perplexes me. That would result in détente - and that's just ridiculous. (like M.A.D.)
Scenario: If everyone can clear a base in 2mins - which some are arguing against - this ends with evenly matched scores.
Scenario: if defense is stronger for everyone - and everyone only gets 3 stars where they previously got 5 - you'd end up exactly where you currently are with the same outcome you're arguing against.

Also, if the "defense needs improving" camp want to be taken seriously then maybe you shouldn't be using your own experiences as proof. You might - might - garner more sympathy if you were more objective. It would also help your argument.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Just saying: the council stats have increased, except some few lines. But this might be oil in the fire as council have more for offense as for defense.

 

[King Crimson]

Just saying: the council stats have increased, except some few lines. But this might be oil in the fire as council have more for offense as for defense.

Does the council really have the stats to make significant changes? I stopped bothering with mine after the first few weeks of ineffective fusions.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Does the council really have the stats to make significant changes? I stopped bothering with mine after the first few weeks of ineffective fusions.

Well, some examples:

18% on attack helis damage and hitpoints
38% on sabotage duration
36% on mercenary damage
28% on mercenary hitpoints
31% on fighter hitpoints
16% on bomber damage

Not really bad from my point of view, it’s all an addition to Museum boost.

 

[Theoneandonly]

Does the council really have the stats to make significant changes? I stopped bothering with mine after the first few weeks of ineffective fusions.

Two examples how a council can look like

 

[ionzahid0987]

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

Its such a bullshit....if defense gets this much hard, players beyond Info and drone age will start to quit.
Try to think of everyone and every age.

What suggest , if that become the main defense, new players cant get beyond industrial even if they use 10s of artifacts or Councilors.

 

[ionzahid0987]

Honestly I don't think defence is weak at all. Good bases are genuinely hard to beat. Mortars aren't overpowered, sure they decimate generals but against defender HTs and cav, theyre very weak. Mortars should say as they are. If you experience your base geing beaten too much then the enemy is either an excellent attacker/uses a lot of troop tactics or your base is badly designed. Offense isnt overpowered. Sure its favoured (which it should be) but not impossible to counter. Don't forget the museum exists which can lower your defensive building health and damage plus increase their troop health and damage. Troop tactics are there for the extra push. Using conventional army + mercenery + gens + war tactics + alliance troops without TTs to beat a very well designed base is going to be very hard and painful. You might win, but theres a chance for you to lose the quick star or have 90% of your army destroyed by the end and then lose your troops to traps or defenders and miss the 100% star. Troop tactics are the main game changers.

Exactly... The effectiveness of the defense lies on the best layout. A proper defensive layout can hold attacks even from its successor age.

 

[Hacksaw]

all the previous players sum up the situation perfectly.
If i could select only 4 things you should change, those would be:

1. nerf recon damage+duration (this is the most important)
2. nerf sabotage duration (council made this even worse btw)
3. nerf Black Hawk Medics and Tupolevs (balance the TTs)
4. mortars are too overpowered. A slight nerf (around 10-15% in dps) is needed.

Odin. Just curious. What age are you in now to think mortars are overpowered?

 

[Theoneandonly]

Exactly... The effectiveness of the defense lies on the best layout. A proper defensive layout can hold attacks even from its successor

Odin. Just curious. What age are you in now to think mortars are overpowered?

Drone, as most of the involved participants. Most of us have maxed troops. Yep, mortars are a way of op due to range and damage. Barrack troops are releatively weakier in lower ages, they have their best time starting at Info Age.

 

[theBobNamedDan]

100% of the complaints should be against the museum. This is not a neglect of defense but an over power of the museum.

Run this example.

Damage per second is 500 base. A defense player has a +100% bonus. Dps is now 1000 dps. The attacker has a -80% dps. That then reduces dps to 200 dps. Defender even with the larger percentage still sees a weaker defense.

The best solution IMO is to nerf the museum. Cap all reductions in war at -50% and all boosts at +85%. This would cut both ways but would bring things more in line.