Rebalancing buildings

  • Thread starter Thread starter admin
  • Start date Start date
If quest success wasn't't based upon attack, you might see more balanced builds. When I first started playing I had a much more balance mix, but it soonnecame clear that the only way to complete quests was to maximize attack
 
It's based on troop strength so towers, lookouts, and guilds don't help.

A circle has equal chances to win as a sub does.
 
Here is an idea. If successful def. An attack is benefical e.g. Earn some $$$. Then the def. Builds will be much valuable. The game play is focused on attack so far. Def is not that important to active players. my 2 cents
 
4xyz, that idea was re-shot down yesterday. Logically, defenders shouldn't earn gold for a win.
The attackers didn't bring their castle's treasury with them.
Any trinkets and equipment stripped off the battlefield would be used for future troop regen supplies.
The defender is in a castle and possibly towers. The attacker is in the fields..able to attack or withdraw as they please.
The extra plunder from the other side could be negated with both sides respecting each other and stripping their own dead...

Etc.
 
Corinthian_P-Moderator said:
It's based on troop strength so towers, lookouts, and guilds don't help.

A circle has equal chances to win as a sub does.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I remember reading somewhere that attack power was the most important factor when it came to winning quests. Could you please double check with the devs?
 
Cor
While I agree with you that defenders getting gold might lead to "turtling", I find ur reasons for defenders not making money to be false.

Deending has always been a valuable strategy
 
Sorry pressed button by mistake.
Waiting for an opponent to wear himself out against your defence, and then destroying him is a very common strategy.
Enemies rarely give each other time to strip their dead.
And atk may not have brought their castles treasury, but they still needed gold to pay their soldiers(no checks)as well as food horses etc which in the event of a full retreat would be easy plunder.
So I agree with you about it not being good fir the game, I just think your logic is wrong.
 
Also if u can adjust how much spies make I make the excat same as I did with level 3 guilds spies have it hard... Make it so you may get about 7m a steal in beggining but it never goes lower than 1m a steal this way it is more balanced for spy builds cuz we have the roughest if we are pure spies (with no attack building)
 
Cor : defensive buildings have same strength as offensive buildings only in QUESTS

I think u were confused about the chance of winning part.

We take a 1 buildings vs 1 building analysis

Attacking vs defense

1 forge vs 1 catherdral
33 to 40% chance of winning

1 forge vs 1 beastery
40 to ~49% chance ( someone check pls)

1 forge vs 1 forge
50 to 64 % chance

So you can see how the different builts employ different strategies , this is stated as a 1 building vs 1 building scenario.

And based on their stats using a catherdral for offensive purposes are silly because the maximum chance of winning is only fewer than 40%.

Hence they are termed defensive buildings.

Approaching the counter attack viewpoint - attacker losses can go to quite a large amount. In the event of a win , reach up to 1.4 times defender troops.

In the event of a loss , can be as high as 2 times . In which case that's where the defensive builts can launch a counter attack easily.

(above stated are ideals) and is open for scrutiny.
 
The most gold is made with offensive buildings, as you need the least amount of pots to punch through, thus people use 24 subs. These builds are popular because if their higher win rate. A kingdom with 24 balanced T3L3's would do just fine among all the sub fac kingdoms. The argument could be made that a player could save money by using the turtle buildings (200/400 chain) in opposite effect of the sub fac player (subs save money on offense pots, turtle saves money on defense pots). But even using the 10 offense pots to counter the 24 sub defense pots, turtle's offense = fighter's defense. Thus why turtles aren't that popular. Pure aviary is a good alternative though, and shouldn't need any changing.
 
You have 3 builds - attack, balanced, defense. Each able to trump each other in some way. It's your basic rock, paper, scissors. 

The problem is - Outrageous Potions. 10 attk cancels 10 defense - providing little if any profit.  So it boils down to who can buy/burn the most pots to win...  Currently, pots stagnate the game not enhance it. 

What about reduce pot power [and price] to half - so they provide the necessary "temporary" advantages or protective barriers.  And redirect the emphasis to build strategies, ally strategies, clans, and build modifications and active play
 
Kyan - may have to disagree. Why?

Cause potions are expensive. They are. You can buy a forge with 3 of the most expensive def pots etc
 
cor , your not the only person with an opinion and just because your a mod dosnt mean your always right, your ment to listen to players and help them , not shoot them down just because of your own opinions, i hope the devs are smart enough to listen to everybody and consider all opinions not just one power hungry mod
 
I'm not power hungry lol..oh well prehaps I'm deluded or the like.

They do, I'm just the person who will put your idea through the crucible. Should it survive yay you. If you don't defend it, if will fall away..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top