I started off primarily a def player but from bgs mostly it has been changed and i have changed my style so to that now my offence is about 3x stronger than my def

yup totally agree with this and have seen it develop this way in my own account as well

1.playing BG is the only way to grow units and yes the bank payout favours Offence

2.in an attack players lose more on Def compare to Offence

3.with the existence of Cat, there's no need to have Def units except for beacons

1.playing BG is the only way to grow units and yes the bank payout favours Offence

2.in an attack players lose more on Def compare to Offence

3.with the existence of Cat, there's no need to have Def units except for beacons

therefore, naturally players will tend to be Offence heavy

An Offensive player can put all his/her Defense units into beacons and use all Offense to play PvP/BG.

A Defensive player must divide his/her Defense for beacons and PvP/BG.

djmoody said:

 We could easily get to the point that the only way to be a beacon holding league is to have diplo with everyone major because any one of them would have the offence to take you out if they wanted. No one will be able to hold beacons other than at the behest of other leagues. We could be heading for a very broken game.

Isnt that the way it pretty much is on server 1?  With Emperors going around and knocking down beacons and just giving them away to low level leagues.

like you said, the beacon landscape is rapidly changing.  at this point, with the little amount of influence a beacon gives, its almost better to just forget beacons all together and do fortress upgrades.

atleast then, you have something to do with  your offense, since it takes a lot of offense to knock down a fortress given the siege mechanics. 

i beacons go away, and leagues are ranked by their fotress, it may give a better indicator of the power of a league.   Although, i'd like to see influence points for attacking fortresses. 

djmoody said:

 We could easily get to the point that the only way to be a beacon holding league is to have diplo with everyone major because any one of them would have the offence to take you out if they wanted. No one will be able to hold beacons other than at the behest of other leagues. We could be heading for a very broken game.

Isnt that the way it pretty much is on server 1?  With Emperors going around and knocking down beacons and just giving them away to low level leagues.

like you said, the beacon landscape is rapidly changing.  at this point, with the little amount of influence a beacon gives, its almost better to just forget beacons all together and do fortress upgrades.

atleast then, you have something to do with  your offense, since it takes a lot of offense to knock down a fortress given the siege mechanics. 

i beacons go away, and leagues are ranked by their fotress, it may give a better indicator of the power of a league.   Although, i'd like to see influence points for attacking fortresses. 

Lord said:

An Offensive player can put all his/her Defense units into beacons and use all Offense to play PvP/BG.

A Defensive player must divide his/her Defense for beacons and PvP/BG.

Sure but if everyone's defense is in the beacons, on the fortresses or in catacombs how much PVP are you actually going to get?  So you hope to find a handful of builds on someone's castle - big deal, or you run into a castle stacked with alt defense

Just try visiting Stormfall on the Kabam.com server where there are dozens of abandoned beacons - Defense is dead and burried - Long live Offense

You will also see that all forts are level zero, 5 or 8 .... none contain defense

The Flag Tournament was a hideous joke - 2 Leagues captured EVERY flag on the entire server

SeriousSummer said:

I think the answer is to greatly increase the defensive force multiplier for beacons. A level 5 beacon should have a defensive multiplier of 5, and the same for every level of beacon. That way there would be a fair chance to hold on to beacons.

i don't know much about beacons, when you say multiplier of 5, do you mean a 500% increase?  in risk you get an xtra dice, that being a 50% increase for defense.  other games i play have a 5% to 20% increase for both offense and defense depending on terrain.  beacons are a big deal, maybe a 500% increase is proper, maybe not.

that doesn't fix all defense though.  the terrain bonus of a fully walled castle, from what i have read,  seems to be a low percentage as well.  my castle is not fully walled or beyond level 1, and i don't have alot of other improvements either. so i don't know.  {tbh, i don't do formulas.}

but what i don't understand on beacons would be high ranking leagues having trouble defending them.  from what i've seen an attacker can send 3 players at a time and high ranking leagues have a 100 strong players defending.

so it is the issues that create a scenario that 3 players can effectively take on 100 that needs fixed the most.  but i don't know about beacons.  it seems to me that djmoody's points of emphasis are  a start.

SeriousSummer said:

I think the answer is to greatly increase the defensive force multiplier for beacons. A level 5 beacon should have a defensive multiplier of 5, and the same for every level of beacon. That way there would be a fair chance to hold on to beacons.

i don't know much about beacons, when you say multiplier of 5, do you mean a 500% increase?  in risk you get an xtra dice, that being a 50% increase for defense.  other games i play have a 5% to 20% increase for both offense and defense depending on terrain.  beacons are a big deal, maybe a 500% increase is proper, maybe not.

that doesn't fix all defense though.  the terrain bonus of a fully walled castle, from what i have read,  seems to be a low percentage as well.  my castle is not fully walled or beyond level 1, and i don't have alot of other improvements either. so i don't know.  {tbh, i don't do formulas.}

but what i don't understand on beacons would be high ranking leagues having trouble defending them.  from what i've seen an attacker can send 3 players at a time and high ranking leagues have a 100 strong players defending.

so it is the issues that create a scenario that 3 players can effectively take on 100 that needs fixed the most.  but i don't know about beacons.  it seems to me that djmoody's points of emphasis are  a start.

The evolution of any game is to play it as effective as possible. Maximize profit/objective Vs risk. When players learn there is certain objectives and tasks that is not worth the time or effort they wont do them. 

So in the end we left with a very polarized game style. And by how it looks like now, it head towards whoever got the biggest offence is the king on the hill. And in a game where you can spend to enhance that offence, and there is no limits really.  

Poor Oberon, stuck with handle Balur and the becons on his own, but hey, that is how the cookie, or shall we say sapphire crumble.

I've seen different posts about Offense-Defense balance. 

Offenders say this game is for defenders, they have all those Defense boosts in Castles, in Beacons. No real opportunity to overwhelm Defense with current attack limits.

Defenders say Offense is much stronger for the same cost, the bank payout favours Offence, they have Joint attacks, etc.

From this point it looks like it's well-balanced. Of course if you play on one side, you can see all cons of your situation and all pros of your rival's situation. But in fact game balance is considered by several departments, it's analyzed and calculated. 

It's not accidental. And I really doubt our game balance will be changed in the near future. As soon as there are some real reasons for changes which can be proven mathematically, our devs will make their step.

I've seen different posts about Offense-Defense balance. 

Offenders say this game is for defenders, they have all those Defense boosts in Castles, in Beacons. No real opportunity to overwhelm Defense with current attack limits.

Defenders say Offense is much stronger for the same cost, the bank payout favours Offence, they have Joint attacks, etc.

From this point it looks like it's well-balanced. Of course if you play on one side, you can see all cons of your situation and all pros of your rival's situation. But in fact game balance is considered by several departments, it's analyzed and calculated. 

It's not accidental. And I really doubt our game balance will be changed in the near future. As soon as there are some real reasons for changes which can be proven mathematically, our devs will make their step.

Wake up for the love of god why can't you listen to the feedback.

It's not balanced, it exactly the opposite and the server I play on is about to tip because of it. Everyone in the thread agrees. No one is disagreeing (other than you). 

1) This isn't a post about small scale fights on castles. It's about the league scale game on beacons.

2) It's insulting to the quality of the post to just say all of us aren't considering the pros and cons and our rivals position. This post was made because it's bad for EVERYONE, rivals, allies, my league. Not a myopic post from only my personal point of view, post is completely unbiased for the good of the server.

3) If the answer to every point is you have departments working on it and our opinion must be wrong then is there any point in feedback at all. That attitude simply say you think you know best and will never listen to feedback 

4) Sad as it is to say I know a lot more about this game than anyone at Plarium. I have the advantage of playing it 24/7 and being connected to the whole community, multi leauges, on a daily basis via Teamspeak. You guys sit in an ivory tower, disconnected from your players. If you need proof, I know how to trick BG's, something your "experts" have failed to stop over the course of the entire year. I could have fixed that for you in 5 minutes. 

If you want mathematical proof of what I already know is true:

- ask for the total offence and total defence stats for each server.

- ask for the sapphire to power and sapphire to resource value of units and see how much more expensive defence is to buy

- ask for the def/off ratio of a what is suppoed to be a defence split payout in BGs, and have the ratio provided based on troop numbers (the way your game runs), power of the troops and resource value of the troops.

The second two explain the massive imbalance between off and def you will find from the first one.

I am not going to bother making any further feedback to be honest, because hundreds of hours of providing feedback has let to absolutely no changes ever. More often than not it's met by some knee-jerk post that clearly exhibits the Plarium staff didn't even understand the point

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

djmoody said:

Wake up for the love of god why can't you listen to the feedback.

I do hear you, don't worry. And this feedback will be passed to devs. However, I told you how it looks from the outer point of view. 

I would love to hear more from the psycho serial killers who control this game

Snowgoon said:

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

djmoody said:

Wake up for the love of god why can't you listen to the feedback.

I do hear you, don't worry. And this feedback will be passed to devs. However, I told you how it looks from the outer point of view. 

I would love to hear more from the psycho serial killers who control this game

They have every advantage and none of the disadvantages, so why do they still complain?

Remember back in the day when playing Planetarion. If one side in the game got to strong, they ended the round and started over. With a game like this if one side become so incredible strong doe to massive coining or what not. The only medecine to fight it is even more coining, which is just ridicilous. Its like an arms race and its our wallets that got to bleed for it. I got other games to play that offer cheaper and better fun.

"alexander wept for there were no more worlds to conquer"  Life on top not necessary any more fun when whats left is just to steam roll anything in their way. So in the end its like "gg guys you won, now lets find something else to play". Who got the biggest regrets after something like that? the ones who spent a fortune maybe. But at least they had their 15 minutes of fame -)