Fire Flak Tower Balance


#22

B here too seems the best of the presented options in my opinion


#23

Fire flak seems under powered. It barely does anything unless it’s under protection of storm towers and supershot.

I feel like you can reduce the damage, but the period of time that it debuffs dragon attack during a supershot could be extended and make this tower useful. (Just my opinion)

Of these options I’d think c is the best.


#24

I’d like to see dragon attack power Cut to 60% for 3.5 seconds :grin:


#25

I think all of this is highly dependent on what’s the range of the death explosion. As some others have included, the range is important. If the range for the explosion is the same as the supershot/attack, I think that option C is an interesting idea. It would make this tower a priority to destroy before coming in range of it and would also make it so that getting rid of this tower is a hassle.
It changes the game play where hunters won’t be able to snipe solely just that tower when it’s protected by other towers but can’t destroy it as they’re passing overhead. Warriors will have to focus on nailing that tower before coming into its range too.


#26

It would be very boring if the Fire Flak would be made similar to the Dark Flak.

I‘ll go with option C.

The Fire Flak should be good at what makes it unique. Instead of a strong attack, it deals less damage but it deals the damage faster and much earlier due to its range which makes it so good. In fact the eange should be even longer.
The explosion on death also makes it super unique and makes the runs more intersting as @Gox1201 mentioned.
If a lvl1 Ember can be used to clean a high level base, it‘s a clear sign of horrible game balance, nothing more.
The debuff duration could be longer aswell if the damage isn‘t so high, that would make it a great strategic tower on long islands.


#27

I like B on this one. As with the other towers, I don’t want the normal attack or death explosion to be too high so that it overbalances things. But the supershot should always be painful otherwise what’s the point?


#28

I like B or C but I would like to see C implemented. Lets be honest we only get so many supershots and though things should be better if we use a super shot I would like to see the fire flak deal great damage on it’s own .


#29

C adds strategy. You wouldn’t be able to clear a (sanded/vined) base as follower with Ferga due to the fact that one explosion of a let’s say 55+ fire flak would instantly kill an emerald and Ferga can’t cloak (even with added cloak spell or invincible the second fire flak would end the run).

Also true for damaged obsidians who would die also with 50% health left


#30

Would the explosion need to be that strong? That might actually be a little too OP. But a fair amount of damage would add some nice strategy to it I think.


#31

Does this mean lvl 60towers will get an increase from what ever lvl y’all stopped them at(what was it lvl 45 then no increase)?
Or is max power right now what lvl 60 towers will get with this change?


#32

I hadnt built a fire flak, but i am against a strong explosion… it would ruin the game and turn into a non skillfull field… just build them to explode and people would build them overall … really stupid for people who even stand behind versus high players.

For me the question would be A or B
But if there is written flak property ? Does it mean a short range ? With same explosive power as it is for point A ?
If so then point B looks better, because it can attack of longer range, the explosive damage is weaker and the supershot powerful… While defending under this situation point B would suit at most.

But we even dont know the dimension of this mistake , how much more power this would mean ?..
Because it would be meaningless if a powerful dragon die too easily because of that miscalculation before…
And tower levels just got increased to adapt to dragon… now the situation is that dragon need to be adapt to a fail ?

In that case change the power of our dragon *XY to balance it instead of trying again to bring out new things.


#33

I’m all for hard bases. Makes the game more enjoyable and actually some spent hard cash to be where they are. (Talking about the legit super whales)


#34

But even if its nice to be competitive on the highest spot, making overhard bases dont help that.
I am more for to keep a good balance between it, so that bases arent going to be worse …

Bases you cant pass defended , would be like selfkillers undefended… But the only fun would be undefended to try tacticly what can i do…
And i say that playfield isnt right here, its better to implement it in assault events, but not overharden in this one.


#35

Go with Option A


#36

IMO, you have two major problems with finding a spot for the Fire Flak…

  • The Range
  • The Cost

I would recommend, giving the fire flak a slightly longer range, and changing it from Elemental Shards, to Fire Shards to craft it. Right now there is absolutely zero reason to spend Elemental Shards on the Fire Flak instead of on leveling, or adding a second Dark Flak tower, which is significantly more powerful. Changing the cost means you are no longer having to make that choice, and giving it extra range, will give it more versatility in the back half of the long islands, as it has no place in the first half of the long islands, there is no alternate tower you can reasonably swap this with as it currently stands. It does no where near enough damage to replace the Dark Flak, and doesn’t offer any worthwhile bonuses that would allow it to replace any of the other core 5 towers that MUST exist on the front half of the long islands.

So it will never replace a core tower, but with longer range, and costing Fire Shards, it could arguably be used in the back half of the long islands.


#37

D none of the above.

  • If one MUST be chosen …then C, i think the death trap of being too close when it explodes upon destruction is an exciting new feature. This adds to a players overall skillset value when attacking and will make players plan a little better before hittin that attack button.

#38

More range @Hostage67 means attacker can kill it without triggering the death shot. This flak needs to be in first row or it’s pointless.

Normal shots are too weak and you rather super shot your dark flak and the mages plus storm twice than the fire flak


#39

I see what you’re saying, and you bring up some good points. However, I believe that this isn’t completely true. By implementing option C and putting it on one of the first islands to be attacked, it creates a problem for most attackers.
Hunters would be hesitant to take it out because of the explosion and not making it to the end of the base. A follow would then have to take it out but then also take the brunt of the damage reducing the likelihood of survival to the end of the base as well. I believe trying to finish with 2 dragons might be problematic with a dreaded kaboom right from the beginning… especially for wars.

-edit-

btw, what I’m disagreeing with is the part where building a fireflak is not worthwhile.


#40

Option C for me in this one. :smiling_imp:


#41

Seems like that option made you think and strategize about the way you attack the base.
That‘s actually the point in making unique towers that cost a lot of rare RSS to build them.