Lol have'nt played starcraft in years. Don't think it was ever fully balanced. Wow is no where near balanced pvp. So please don't reference blizzard. Even chess which has the same exact pieces is not balanced.
And to pwnagingu: We're rebalancing on a per-tier level. It won't give an advantage to new players over old players. Not sure what you mean by your statement.
By balanced, we mean that there should be a reason for people to decide to use the other builds depending on your play style. Right now, it appears that people are only building attack buildings.
I just built a SC to see what it does now lol either it staying or going for the misc build lol can u give us a price range for misc build say lvl 1 if possible
Probably a Noob Question, But I am assuming that players who currently have the buildings listed on the front page will have their stats changed without having to destroy and rebuild the building? Correct?
IMHO the problem isn't buildings the problem is potions. Everyone that is has the high tier building has a bazillion of every def pot. The only way to attempt to counter that is go all atk (factory) because atk pots cost twice that of defense. Lower the effectiveness of pots and you'll see the appeal of defense buildings at higher level become more appealing. Pot should NEVER be the end all be all like they are (e.g., required) they should be a value add at a far greater cost. Also add plunder to towers and they will be much more valuable. All in all, make the game be about the build and the pros and cons if a given build. Not about who can buy the most pots.
*maybe* weaker pots but the outrage would be enourmous plunder for towers is silly and they are very effective as is also, defence and equal buildings are actually very useful but no one wants to think up the applications and blindly attack...
This seems interesting. Kinda bored seeing the same builds all over. Just hope it doesn't screw up like plunder though. Doin sth bout towers should be good too. Since current war system is based on plunder and a tower would sort of reduce your plunder? So I don't see many people with it or a very good use for it in war
To Corin: I'm not saying equal plunder to towers but some. It's a give and take. If you want more defense you give up some plunder. The admins are looking for ways to make certain buildings more appealing. Adding plunder to towers would do so. Lessening the effectiveness greatly of potions would naturally increase the appeal of defense buildings. Are my ideas right or wrong I'll leave that to the devs. I'm just tossing them out there as dicsussin points.
Also, the devs have stated that you get more money if you attack someone with pots, taking out the need to reduce their strength.
To Blumpy: how does a guild (spies not consumed or used in an attack) add to plunder?Following your logic (because they don't supply soldiers) they shouldn't add to atk plunder either, yet they do.
Devs, here's some food for thought while you're running your numbers this weekend. Making the buildings listed for review stronger by changing stats given alone probably won't draw many new fans. Existing defense-oriented kingdoms (i.e. turtles) and balanced builds will simply get a bit more powerful. The two areas that should be looked at to bring these now novelty buildings into common usage are in my opinion plunder draw, first and foremost, and troop loss. Were the buildings with less attack power to yield more gold, people would convert in droves. Were these buildings to lose less troops per attack or even just defending, people would also have reason to try them out. Again, just something to think about. Cheers!
Spies can follow the soldiers into the castle after the soldiers defeat the opposing army. Easy. A tower can't follow the soldiers; that makes no sense.