4.0 Update and Tower Balance Changes


#1467

I won’t speak of any vertical progression here because I am fine with my progression and having fun with each tier.

I can think of daily or 2-day events which are just personal and happen twice a week or so.
One is speed-killing contest - in this there are tiers depending on dragons den level where players with same dragons den level can compete how fast they can destroy fixed AI generated bases with single dragon and the best flying time is recorded . Leaderboard players get decent rewards while player timing progression earns them normal rewards like personal prizes.

This kind of event can be implemented in different variations related to specific dragons ( preferably lineage).
This kind of event would boil down to skill and the player’s roster.
This can in turn also motivate players to max out powerful dragons relative to their base level .
(Just a thought, sorry if this is repeat of an old event or another proposal.)


#1468

How far do you think tower level should be extended?

Please choose only 1. I messed up, it will not help if you choose more than 1. And I cannot change it, since someone already voted. :slight_smile:

  • Unlimited/Not sure
  • Level 200
  • Level 150
  • Level 100
  • Less than 100

0 voters

If will take me a little time, and this is just a thought experiment to show that kinds of problems that are built-in to a game of this nature (as well as one possible solution).

As I said before, if at least 20 people answer, and there is a majority for any one answer, I will show what it could look like.

I do realize this is tied with scaling and other problems that have been discussed at length elsewhere (some kind of catch-up mechanism that is fair to all but that still encourages new players to get involved, rebalancing of towers and, to a lesser extent, dragons, having a greater variety in what constitutes a good defense, and in making all dragon types useful). I want to do this without golden hammer solutions, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument. Examples of golden hammers in recent history include Noctua and pre-nerf Dark Flak Towers.


#1469

Another small thing would be to add more achievement quests and a way to track them. Like bred all of whatever tier dragon…experted all of that tier. Towers killed, bases killed, dmg caused, tower HP healed when defending, wood, food and egg tokens consumed/used, how many times you were MVP during war, etc… Rewards don’t have to be anything drastic, Just a few rubies, but just something a little extra to look at. Make it like a digital journal.


#1470

Idk if it’s so easy you must kill every team easily. Please teach me to be as amazing as you lol.


#1471

Don’t get me wrong I’m an offensive player. I’d love to have more ppl which are higher than myself to tear their bases apart that’s why I have the best dragon of each tier after the release and dedicate my free time to expert it as fast as I can.

It’s just a question of fairness. Let’s say I’ve invested something like $15-20k in this game to be where I am and PG would implement some sort of absurd catch up mechanism how is this fair? I mean why should other ppl pay less than myself to get where I am (you said caught me so same base same dragons)?

That’s not justifiable in any means.

If they implement back breeds to bring ppl faster from garnet to emerald or even obsidian I couldn’t care less bc they would not catch me. But maybe others who spent a ton to get to emerald and like those dragons would be offended if everyone else can get it now easier? Idk


#1472

@Ragnar
IllinformedPlumpGalapagosalbatross-max-1mb


#1473

Lwhmqxy


#1474

Companies always get backlash from the oldest, most established spenders once they deviate from strict vertical progression. However, then their game ends up having longevity, outlasting those that don’t adapt to stay appealing to newer players.


#1475

I pretty much meant that that in general if someone were to get to end-game it would have to include spending a ton of money either way, but for sure I understand that that would suck knowing someone got there for less $.

I don’t know what a proper “solution” (for lack of a better term) would be that wouldn’t piss off some portion of players in one way or another, but at the rate it’s going my concern is that I’d imagine (without any data as evidence) you’ll start seeing more big spenders quit/stop spending than you’ll see new players download this game and decide to spend to the top. Again just my opinion, but if that is the case then new content will be delivered to a smaller and smaller % of the player base with each release. I just really enjoy this game and don’t want it to eventually end up going the way of the dodo (no pun intended) like the last game I played that ended in one final update/money suck before shutting down.

Again this isn’t data-based just my opinion, I appreciate the discussion.


#1476

I don’t know a single company acting that way tbh.

Let’s say I buy a brand new iPad Pro (harbinger) and Apple would say well it’s out there for a month we’ll offer it now for 50% how would costumers react?

Catching me is exactly this.

Summary: You’re in the tier that you can afford. And you drive cars and have phones you can afford. RL doesn’t offer free rides either.

Simple as that.


#1477

One could say you paid to have the content as early as possible. Same goes for how console games get cheaper over time. Granted a bit different. The argument could also be had, why should someone who starts this game three years from now have to pay what you did to get to the point you’re at now?


#1478

Shiiiiiit I paid monthly for this phone, like 3 years ago :joy:


#1479

Think of it another way. How much time and money did it originally take you to get to end game (when end game was sapphire or whatever)? How much time and money does it take to get to end game now?

We don’t want people to be able to catch you, long time spenders should always have some advantage. However, it is not sustainable to have goal posts that most players can never catch up to.


#1480

Well also isn’t it paying more to have the newest thing?


#1481

That is based on what the player chooses to go after and focus on first…plz, what are u really doing here…i see ur hand out, what u want?


#1482

N-1 will keep the top tier or two, depending upon how you structure it always out of reach of all but the top 2-3%.

It is catch-up that helps ensure longevity. A new player who starts now is looking at years of time or many thousands of dollars to get to where the sidewalk ends right now. But the end of the sidewalk is always moving further away.

Do not think I want new players to catch up to me. Lol. That would reduce what I have accomplished over 3 years BUT, I don’t mind of it is easier for “younger” players to get closers without spending tens of thousands.


#1483

Let me find the thread when garnets or maybe sapphires were introduced in 2016. You’ll find the same arguments there. It’s the same old same old with every new tier.


#1484

Been played out


#1485

You are wrong. For instance. Magic the Gathering couldn’t keep allowing all cards to be used, the oldest players had the overpowered cards that ended up being very rare and expensive, so no one could compete without those super expensive overpowered cards. So they came up with Standard gameplay, where only the most recent sets could be used.

Or World of Warcraft, they made it easier to progress through the lower levels as higher and higher levels came out.

What do these games have in common? Longevity.


#1486

It is… And it will become more and more apparent as the levels go higher and higher. Sure, maybe I spent 10k to get to where I am now… But do I want to spend another 10k to get, not 11 tiers, but 5? Or 10k more to get 2? Or 10k more to get 1? Eventually, it all falls apart.

This is not new… And it’s related to what I was trying to start here, but it is not the same.

But this wasn’t really what I was getting at here. I apologize if I wasn’t specific enough.