Hope there’s an actual way of making sure someone without a head in ye olde ass is representing their level range if that even ever actually becomes a thing. That said, using myself as an example, hope there’s checks and balances to make sure I don’t get to decide what level 80 towers look like. I feel like this is going to end not well
Not to break things up, but this thread is getting huge. I think it still has a purpose, so I will post here if Crisis has any updates.
I am working on some related elements here:
High levels mostly come down to lower leagues because it’s too hard to beat bases in PVP events when people defend overpowerful dark flaks, and to avoid drama caused by trying to win wars against teams that have money players with level 400 bases no one can beat.
I would say high level people come down because they are sick of the game and want to play at a more relaxed pace.
Are the invisible Dark Flak cannons part of the update?
Yea its a New Future which you get when purchasing their 100$ pack just 12 Times.
It’s not just the last week …
It’s been the last year or so since PG took over WD …
I understand exponential growth, but I don’t see why it cannot be modified. I mean seriously look at the rate of change, IMO regardless whether it pertains to dragon power or towers, it needs to be drastically reduced. I’m not advocating linear progression but the rate of slope increase per level needs to be reduced significantly beginning at level 42 and higher. From a longevity persepective it currently is absurb.
I think, ideally, it would change.
The trouble becomes one of the correction which is needed weakening bases that already exist. This will, I think rightly, anger players who have spent significant resources, either real or virtual, to acquire a particular level of power.
I really think only a few towers may be overpowered, and many are underpowered or do not really work as I think they were originally intended (based on descriptions). If all towers were properly adjusted at one time and put on similar (or identical with different starting points) curves, not only would progression be greatly simplified, but we would see more diverse defense arrangements, reliance on other towers, and no more “ideal” defenses, since what works well against some dragons would not work well against others. Also, making more towers relevant again would reduce the weakening, since many towers that have not been used would actually be stronger. The net effect is that the game would be more interesting, and there would be no one strategy that is more or less universally seen as acceptable/ideal.
The flip side is that there needs to be more viable dragons of every class and element. I think we all recognize that spell sets make or break a dragon. Certainly, power and HP matter, but not nearly as much as the right combination of spells. This could partly be corrected by allowing for players to forge spells we cannot presently forge. But really, dragons should be revisited, and if any changes are made, runes should be placed back in storage (or just remove all runes for everyone if this change is made–I doubt many would find the inconvenience of redoing runes outweighing the benefit of being able to reclaim rune on dragons no longer needed).
The two issues (towers and dragons) are interlocked. The puzzles must be solved simultaneously. If not, then whatever side is not fixed will be broken (either OP dragons or OP bases).
I’ll post that spreadsheet so those who are interested can see what I did. You will want to look at it on a computer though.
Here is the sheet that shows all my work and how I got the numbers I did.
It is only a possible solution, not even one I consider the best… But but is more scalable than the current growth we are seeing.
Update and "Balance" 4.0 and following
Farms should be nerfed across all levels. It’s ridiculous for farms having more health than towers.
Wars should not be won by farms. Towers will be easier to balance if farms are not used as a part of base defense.
The lvl 100 column makes me tremble. It’ll be great to be able to assign an old dragon to a tower and make it more powerful with a tower level constraint, just like builder hut type of thing. So the old dragons can have its places other than Den and our wallets wont scream running away…
Green still kind of has a point if you aren’t comparing level to level. Since farms and mills are so cheap to build, they are often the highest level towers on a base, and the hardest to kill. My farms/mills are always waiting for my next Builder Hut upgrade but I haven’t hit max level on a defensive tower for a very long time.
It is a bit frustrating to own an entire base and then have to bring in a second dragon just for resource producers. It’s especially annoying when you can’t get 70% without killing those.
The problem is that players bases have been designed around the farms/mills being hard to kill so I am not sure changing that would be a good thing.
This is the new number. Before the update, farms have way more HP than towers. Farms should have way less HP because farms not intended for defense.
I’m not saying that doesn’t make sense, but players have been designing bases with the HP of farms and mills as a major consideration. By changing the HP, how and where to place your resource buildings (and what they are good for) has also changed. I think you can see why this might upset people.
if they properly balance everything else who cares lol
The farms and mills right now are absurd. They need to have more HP. That’s what i built and i want something close to it
Players don’t like major changes, but this game needs major changes to balance things. It’s PG’s own fault for ignoring tower balance for so long.
PG can do two things to players happy:
- Give players ability to salvage towers. You sell a tower and get certain amount of lumber/ shards and timer back.
- Or allow players to change one tower to a different one. You changed a 45 archer to a 45 trebuchet for example. This will take certain amount of time to complete. This is similar to rider reassignment.
A “should” analysis is different. What goals should farms serve is a different topic than Savage’s proposal. He’s trying to do analysis on how to make more sense under the current system. A should question is a normative one, and it does not involve numbers.
Your opinion is worth discussing, but its in a different realm.