Brilliant Idea: Recycle Towers instead of giving FREE STUFF AWAY


#61

Excellent idea!


#62

Do stored towers count towards your player level and defense rating? I’m not sure.

I think it would be a great idea to be able to either Scrap Towers for at least a 25%return rate (and like someone said above this could be a resource only used outside of forts)

or

give us the option to change a tower to another type:

  • based on what type of resource the tower uses.

For example: cannon > archer, lightning, trebuchet, ballista, red mage, blue mage, storm but not a tower that uses embers or shards.

  • So you can change an archer to a mage but you can’t change an archer to a flak or turret.

  • The change mechanic would require a cost of rubies just like everything else: scraping runes, removing gear ECT.

It would work and it would help players change their base around and strengthen it more effectively and would also help update it when new towers came out making certain towers obsolete.


#63

Yes

No


#64

I proposed Scrapping towers to PG. Got same generic message.

Mine different from some, I purposed they make stored towers not effect player level, only placed towers would effect player level and defense rating. Effectively eliminating problems with Tower/Dragon level requirements from dropped player level.

I also asked that they make it cost 25-50 rubies per tower scrapped, similar to how scrapping gear works.


#65

This causes much worse problem than scrapping towers, which is a bad suggestion IMO.


#66

Sorry mate but that is a terrible idea. You would end up with tons of players that only had a handful of towers on their base, all max level, with max level farms and dragons, but with a player level lower than required to build said towers and own said dragons.

I’d say keep pushing PG on a tower transformation direction, this is the right way to go about it. But this is all I can say on the subject


#67

Can you elaborate so I better understand your idea


#68

Sorry I cannot elaborate further on that due to an NDA I have in place.


#69

Lol, tell me more about said Non Disclosure Agreement???:thinking:


#70

Lolol


#71

This help you enough?


#72

This whole thing reads more like a discussion about what´s “fair” instead of how the actually scrapping mechanics would be.

Some players have made “mistakes” and built many towers which are useless now.
Some players didn´t.

I am not sure how I would feel about the fact that someone who used to be behind me (lower level and/or crappier base) all the sudden jumps ahead of me because he/she can change decisions from the past.

Asking for changing the past is asking for free stuff hidden under a “suggestion”.

The only valid reason for me would be the progression of the game. Due to the fact that new tower types get release constantly making some old towers obsolete is reason enough to consider a “changing/rolling back/srapping” option. The difference here is: all players are affected equally by this.


#73

Consider this.

Player 1 has been playing for 3 years. They were smart and only leveled 10 towers ever. Their towers are 7x L60 and some L30 odds or something like that. They are L300

Player 2 has been playing for 6 months. They were smart and also only leveled 10 towers ever. They have identical tower levels to Player 1.

The difference is that player 1 has a trebuchet, Archer, cannon, and storm. Player 2 has a dark flak, fire flak, earth flak. The only difference in these players is when they started playing. Do you think it’s fair to hinder older players based on tower selection (which was optimal at their time) or should it be more fair for players to be able to update their towers to the latest and greatest as new tower types are released. (same level for same level, with costs of course)


#74

depends on which side are you on? From perspective of player 2, do you think it´s fair that a player who is as high as you but playing much longer all the sudden can improve his base just because “he is playing longer”?

as I said before: releasing new towers is the only valid argument for me for this idea.
You are right that both players didn´t do anything “wrong” yet are in different position.
The other perspective to consider in your examply is that Player 1 has had the advantage of having a base 2,5 years longer then Player 2. That seems not valuable, but in fact is.

So the problem of “old towers being worse then new ones” hit us all equally - just from different sides.


#75

I do think it’s fair for a player of the same level to have the opportunity to improve his base (not higher than yours, but up the the same standards if they have made equal decisions).

That’s why combining multiple low level towers into one higher level tower is a bad idea. It’s also why scrapping towers for XP is a bad idea. But if someone has played the higher tower level shorter base for their entire time then yes, when they spent their money or time should not matter to the effectiveness of their base.

Think of it this way. Player 1 made a decision to go with the best DPS tower in the game for his base 3 years ago and settled on the Archer. Player decided to also go with the best DPS tower in the game for his base this year and ended up with an electroflak that does 125% (or whatever the figure is) of the damage of an Archer.

By releasing new towers without a way to upgrade old towers or update them you are in essence nerfing old towers each and every time you release a new tower. Which begs the question, why are you hindering the oldest and most loyal players?

And don’t get me wrong, it’s going to be costly to upgrade to a new flak tower. You are going to need timers. You will need a ton of embers. And lots of rubies. But the reality is that even a L450 base will only be swapping out between 5 and 7 towers likely. Newer players will maybe swap out 1 or maybe 2 if they decide that they want a different combination of flak towers.


#76

$$$ of course. made whales need to start some towers from scratch instead of maintaining the +5 a tier (now +10). In general you know i agree with you and my tower type change post is similar to what you want to see… however i am starting to reconsider this:

After all, many players “abandoned” those towers when they were max (or close to it). I agree mistakes are mistakes but i think many of those towers in many peoples storages don’t fall under the built by “mistake” category, but more under the “screwed by PG” category due to them

I agree the combining of several lower level towers is a bad idea in principal, but because it has been so long and PG still has no “fix” base mechanic, I would almost encourage them to allow it to some degree. but ill settle for anything at this point.


#77

This is why we need it. Even if you don’t think it’s fair now, you will in a year or two when theres a combo red/blue mage tower that attacks or a super tesla coil or whatever else they come out with. We do need a mechanism to recycle.

I see nothing wrong with my suggestion, it doesn’t break the game and makes it very easy. Just charge rubies to scrap a tower. Give them virtual wood, virtual shards, etc… no points to use in fort event… and use those virtual rss to build something new with zero timers. You keep the same level you’re at but you get new towers instead of old. Charge like 35,000 rubies or something to scrap a level 60 trebuchet — that’s basically like $100 so the cost would be steep and PG could still profit (because we know they will never do anything if there is not profit in it for them) … but it would be worth it for many people.


#78

Or you could make it easier and just charge a conversion fee instead of transferring resources 🤷

Fee consisting of rubies, embers (if it’s an upgrade and not just a swap between equivalent types aka flak for flak), and timers.

You DONT want resources or rubies or anything here to be exploitable, hence the no refunds. Do a “pay to transform” and there is less risk of exploits or “things PG didn’t think of” that can come back to bite them when they make tweaks in the future.


#79

I’m down for that. But Conversion – what about those that have more towers then the base will hold? Many of us built quite a bit of old towers. And as more and more towers become obsolete, this problem will just come up again if we can’t scrap and can only convert. But conversion is at least a good start.


#80

:thinking:
120% total cost for Premium rss…
500 rubies…
200% last upgrade duration…

(Doesn’t count during fort)