Rebalancing buildings

  • Thread starter Thread starter admin
  • Start date Start date
Rebalancing will not affect building strength calculations when determining plunder or leaderboard values.

There will be no plunder with towers. However defensive tower strength will be adjusted to match the changes (not spy defensive).
 
wh33lz, those are part of the 'stats' adjustments we're looking at right now.
 
Necroshade its not going a to be a bunch of beefed up defensive players. They arent going to change it so drastically that everyone will switch from subs. Subs will have an advantage that is different from those offered by the other buildings, and itll just be a matter of preference player to player
 
Also, the primary reason that defense is currently less valuable than attack is because:
1. You don't lose that many units when you defend
2. Even if you lose on defense, you don't lose as much money as if you attacked successfully.
3. It's harder to attack successfully with a defensive build.

Because of this imbalance, defense is generally less 'valuable' than attack for active players. Each attack point has a higher inherent value than a defensive point. The first adjustment will be along these lines.
 
If you want to play around with these effects on my buildings id gladly be the guinea pig for your experiments. :)
 
Reason T3s were introduced is that people were beginning to land complete en masse. There was no ally cap so people just kept buying allies and growing getting bored. It was easy to switch from forges to guilds and T3s were introduced (I would like to quote here but not precise) "For higher level players / leaderboard players"..meanwhile a reason to get players to reset was being worked on...

Think of T3s at the time as an achievement..
 
I like the idea of making all potion effectiveness more random. i.e. 25-75% chance that the potion bonus will come into effect when used. It will still give buyers an edge, but it won't be a given. Thoughts everyone?
 
Think about a random number genorator that is tyed to the castle that assigns a random power value to each attack/def. Of all battles. Most farming will then not be a given outcome. Like a slot mash. Power value is added to the battle as the attack/spy button is hit.
 
Hostr, seen a similar effect of % chance. Has potential here vs there because it doesn't take a few months to get these potions vs what I'm thinking of..

Anywho, prehaps. Still get an outcry but 'might' get supported.

As for the castle idea, the banner and scout/defender items give us that random chance that everyone doesn't like to successfully win or lose a spy/attack/defence
 
Call me silly or whatever, but even if def stats were buffed a ton why would anyone still get them?? The new war system is set up so that most plunder wins, so having a d. build seems kind of silly. I'm not convinced that changing stats will create diversity, because people will still figure out maybe 1-3 optimal builds, and then everyone will be the same build (again). SC was balanced because it let players change and adapt to diff strategies (like rush a corsair against a mut rush), so unless players can actively swap buildings around mid-battle everyone is just going to do find the new optimal build and then copy it 9,001 times.
 
Psst, hotch, some of the best war builds involve building switch outs. The trick is most of the community hasn't caught on yet
 
Lol, when I saw the devs use Starcraft as an example, I got excited! GREAT EXAMPLE!! XD

p.s. I'm serious on the great example part, major Starcraft fan!
 
kaw_admin said:
Also, the primary reason that defense is currently less valuable than attack is because:
1. You don't lose that many units when you defend
2. Even if you lose on defense, you don't lose as much money as if you attacked successfully.
3. It's harder to attack successfully with a defensive build.

Because of this imbalance, defense is generally less 'valuable' than attack for active players. Each attack point has a higher inherent value than a defensive point. The first adjustment will be along these lines.
Click to expand...

kaw_admin, in response to your three points.
1. It should be that way, it's called home field advantage. The defender generally will know the terrain and have defenses in place that would give them a natural advantage. Therefore they should lose less on the defensive then offensive.
2. This is a major reason that I believe the economy of the game is wildly out of whack. Significant amounts of money are generated out of thin air on attacks.
3. I intend this with the most respect possible; Well duh! Defensive builds SHOULD be harder to attack successfully with. That is the nature of defense, to DEFEND, not attack. If you go defensive you make the choice to give up the ability to attack in exchange for security behind your walls. If you mitigate the downside of a defensive build, by buffing their buildings, you're doing nothing but encouraging people to hide in their shells. What fun is that?

I don't believe it's a good idea to inflate defensive and mixed buildings. Let people play the game how they want. If they want to go hog wild and full offensive, let them. Clearly they are having fun or they wouldn't choose to play your game.
 
Alk, so you are supporting the current system that THE PEOPLE YOU ARE TALKING TO THOUGHT UP<-on second thought that should be italics...

Anywho, point is, if they got it right the first time, prehaps they know what they are doing??

Let's wait and see.
 
@dlav, industry typically is ugly but effective. nature buildings like the other 2 are more graceful..sorry but just an honest truth
 
Another factor you could play around with is success rates. Make a certain type of building have a higher success rate and the more you have of that building the likelier it is that you will win
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top