Cor how is there a downside to T4 buildings? I dont plan on resetting and Tier 4 buildings would be awesome, it could definitely change the layout of the game as more players are LCing and maxing their builds, a new tier would take the top players and make it unprofitable for them to hit someone smaller players, and it would give players (like majesty) who have nothing else to achieve in the game and are considering quitting, another accomplishment to strive for. The full T4 build. Sounds like something they would go for to me.
martinirichi
Well-Known Member
I posted about fourth tier there is a point in the game that gets boring w a fourth tear it will make it more challenging that's my opinion
Corinthian
Well-Known Member
Thought my last post here gave reasons. Hence why I didn't reply the first time.
Your reason in last post is also how T3s got in initially so if you are bored now then T4s are a temporary solution..
Your reason in last post is also how T3s got in initially so if you are bored now then T4s are a temporary solution..
PanseIliniIIIllllIllIIIllIlliG
Well-Known Member
Usually when devs start "fixing" games they end up ruining them. Don't end up like star wars galaxies.... Empty due to " balancing"....
Imaginary-Numbers
Well-Known Member
Btw I think flipping the costs of the potions would stop all the crying about potions.
Or you could put a cap on max power, thus limiting how many pots are used and which strength are used.
The later would kinda promote the other "unpopular" buildings. The former would make the game more entertaining for me.
My personal choice between A and B? Both!! =p
Or you could put a cap on max power, thus limiting how many pots are used and which strength are used.
The later would kinda promote the other "unpopular" buildings. The former would make the game more entertaining for me.
My personal choice between A and B? Both!! =p
Corinthian
Well-Known Member
Explain your wording?
I didn't understand your proposal
I didn't understand your proposal
Imaginary-Numbers
Well-Known Member
By flipping the costs I mean make offense cheaper then defense.
And by making a limit on power I mean cap out what defense can be overall. That way 24 sub guys spend less on attack potions, but more on defense, and 24 turtle guys would spend less on defense potions but more on offense.
And by making a limit on power I mean cap out what defense can be overall. That way 24 sub guys spend less on attack potions, but more on defense, and 24 turtle guys would spend less on defense potions but more on offense.
We won't be flipping costs of potions because:
1. Lowering attack potion costs too much would present an arbitrage opportunity, and unlimited income.
2. Nobody would by defensive potions because they are automatically used and people would potion burn with weaker players just to make them lose money.
1. Lowering attack potion costs too much would present an arbitrage opportunity, and unlimited income.
2. Nobody would by defensive potions because they are automatically used and people would potion burn with weaker players just to make them lose money.
Godsninja13
Well-Known Member
I don't think this is the best idea, by making the defence stats stronger then the attack stats, it will be harder for attackers to hit defenders, which will increase the amount of defenders by a lot and attacker numbers will drop
Corinthian
Well-Known Member
That's the idea. They said that. Current ratio is 10 atk builds for every mixed+defence build..
_L0rdDuN3bLaZ3r_
Well-Known Member
Y would u want that?
_L0rdDuN3bLaZ3r_
Well-Known Member
So people don't farm?
Corinthian
Well-Known Member
To balance out the buildings..? Give the mixed and defensive buildings uses? Read the whole thread...
_L0rdDuN3bLaZ3r_
Well-Known Member
Ok I'll read again but let me just say this then I might change the upcoming answer
so if u give a better advantages to def then yes it will balance it for a little bit of time then on the long run it will make the key point of this game to b defense cuz it's better in the game
in my point of view it would b better to give advantages to the ones with equal attack and def
so if u give a better advantages to def then yes it will balance it for a little bit of time then on the long run it will make the key point of this game to b defense cuz it's better in the game
in my point of view it would b better to give advantages to the ones with equal attack and def
Corinthian
Well-Known Member
Both are getting the change, and it's not neccessarily stats..
In case you didn't notice changes were supposed to start happening slowly at the end of the weekend this was posted.
With the flux on ingame mechanics and the 10:1 ratio things prehaps have changed and no one have noticed lol..
In case you didn't notice changes were supposed to start happening slowly at the end of the weekend this was posted.
With the flux on ingame mechanics and the 10:1 ratio things prehaps have changed and no one have noticed lol..
Godsninja13
Well-Known Member
The thing that may happen though is that it may change to 10 def to 1 attack and balanced unless balanced is upgraded enough also, then it's either going to be a 10 to 1 with the 10 being either balanced or defense, this is going to take a lot of work to fix
*_Nemesis_ (01)
New Member
or maybe they can change the effect of the war banner too,as currently,the war banner is more of a decoration than of any meaning or use. will be good if they actually affect the game,like a percentage instead of bonus of 3000 in total now.
Imaginary-Numbers
Well-Known Member
And why no spy flags?
Anyway. The buildings will always favor the more economical choice. Right now max offense has no downsides, since you need less offense pots and still need 10 defense pots anyway. You lose little unless you lose an ally. Where the game is now it all comes down to allies and pots, and that hinders newer players.
Find some magical way to alter pot effiency and buildings won't need balancing.
-put a cap on how many pots can be used at once?
-put a cap on a maximum power? *my preference*
-take off the 10th potion? *least favorite*
etc.
Anyway. The buildings will always favor the more economical choice. Right now max offense has no downsides, since you need less offense pots and still need 10 defense pots anyway. You lose little unless you lose an ally. Where the game is now it all comes down to allies and pots, and that hinders newer players.
Find some magical way to alter pot effiency and buildings won't need balancing.
-put a cap on how many pots can be used at once?
-put a cap on a maximum power? *my preference*
-take off the 10th potion? *least favorite*
etc.
The_Dragon_Sage
Well-Known Member
This has been an interesting thread. Everything from spy quests and roaming buildings to the actual topic.
1. I support the idea of multiple types of spy build (attackers, balanced and defenders).
2. I do not support the idea of giving buildings bonuses such as spies with the building. However, w33lz idea of regen, troop count, plunder, and so on bonuses are good.
3. The easiest to way to encourage switching is to alter the plunder bonus given to each type of building. While I saw that the devs mentioned they were disinterested in this idea I think it would sustain the longest amount of switches.
4. I think the devs may be jumping the gun on these changes. While I like that they are being reactive/proactive about wanting to balance the builds I think as clans begin experimenting with builds inside the new war system more mixed builds will appear.
5. Another benefit which should be examind is troop loss in accordance with defensive buildings. A def building should be better prepared to withhold a siege than an attacking building. Thus they should lose less troops when they defend successfully than an attacking building loses.
1. I support the idea of multiple types of spy build (attackers, balanced and defenders).
2. I do not support the idea of giving buildings bonuses such as spies with the building. However, w33lz idea of regen, troop count, plunder, and so on bonuses are good.
3. The easiest to way to encourage switching is to alter the plunder bonus given to each type of building. While I saw that the devs mentioned they were disinterested in this idea I think it would sustain the longest amount of switches.
4. I think the devs may be jumping the gun on these changes. While I like that they are being reactive/proactive about wanting to balance the builds I think as clans begin experimenting with builds inside the new war system more mixed builds will appear.
5. Another benefit which should be examind is troop loss in accordance with defensive buildings. A def building should be better prepared to withhold a siege than an attacking building. Thus they should lose less troops when they defend successfully than an attacking building loses.