Changes to Tower Attack


There was a shot, I just didn’t manage the SS until right as the stream started. Either way, that is a LOT more damage than usual.

I tend to cloak as well, but got zapped by some towers earlier on a loot run, poor fella fell fast. Oh well.


According to my previous calculations, lv 45 fire turret, if it has increased its attack as they should, will deal 1.3M damage.Tower damage revised

My Borgian lv 45 has 9M health, so probably attack is being more than doubled still. Well it might be effect of supershot, but if supershot intends to double the damage taken by dragons, damn that’s OP!


Yes, I know what a TOS is. Thank you for asking. I was talking about ethics, not legality. One is usually a higher standard than the other. Some things are legal but still unethical…

Are they required, by the legal agreement we entered, to notify us of anything they ever change? Probably Not.
Is it good business and economic practice to communicate changes in your underlying functionality that affects the expected experience of your customers? Yes. Do they legally have to? Maybe not, depends on the details.

My statement about PG’s employees having an obligation to disclose changes that impact the customer and their service was about ethics. If you would like to discuss that, instead of misquoting the context of my statements, that would be appreciated.


“Back on topic… Without an audit log, PG can’t guarantee us that only three types of towers are only affected.”

“The development team needs to provide video evidence or statistical logs of every type of tower, totems included, demonstrating that the stats shown in-game are not fraudulent”

"That’s like saying a bank can mislead an investor on the condition of a piece of property they sell to them and everything is just fine and dandy as long as they voluntarily agree to give the investor some better property next to it to compensate for the money they have already accepted from them… "

“If we were talking about three financial products or investments that a company reported false statistics for two consecutive quarters, no one would be laughing right now.”

I can’t remember how to quote multiple times in one thread but these are all quotes from what you have posted. As I stated earlier you keep talking about “Need” and “Guarantee”. In fact, you are the one who commented about Legal Reasons. You even compared this to Banks selling real estate and Company investors, both examples that strictly imply legality, not ethics.(Since both those examples are strictly regulated by legislation)

So no, I’m not misquoting you. Also no, I’m not interested in discussing this with you. You appear to be incapable of keeping your discussion strictly to the ethical standpoint you keep mentioning and continue to attempt to blur the line between ethical and legal behavior.

In fact, I even agreed with you that from a pr standpoint these are things we should know. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your “Need to/guarantee us” arguments and examples.

Good day


You need to read peoples words more carefully. I didn’t say you misquoted my words, I said you misquoted the context of my statements. I should have said full context.

Thanks for quoting a bunch of statements that don’t mention legality, great assumptions on your part. From my perspective, everything you quoted was about ethics. I’m not sure how the words need or guarantee can only be used from a legal perspective.


First quote says legal reasons :joy::joy::joy:

You spoke of Legal Reasons therefore legality is implied in the rest of your comments. (For someone who reads all the posts at least) I read your words just fine, I also read your tone.

Not into a discussion with you and not interested in your perspective, you were already very clear on that. Later.


To quote multiple times just open up the post dialogue box, highlight some text, and then click the quote button. You can do it multiple times.

Hope that helps.

Back on topic: We’re still keeping an eye on the tower issue and working on balancing. I hope to have more info soon but I can’t say anything for now. This one is pretty delicate.


Nope the opposite, I was saying I want max defended bases to be unbeatable by a single or two dragons.

We need base BUFFS not nerfs.

On the topics note though

I’m 100% sure my lvl 55 towers were doing a lot more damage than my lvl 42 towers before 3.90.

I’m not sure where this bug comes from, but it definitely did not lvl 42 towers = level 55 before 3.90

And I don’t mean displayed damage, I mean on reply


Im also 100% sure that dark flak supershots deal significantly more damage as they go up in lvl past 40 (pre 3.90).
Everytime new tower levels come out, we have had to change attack strats to deal with the new power.
Is there a chance it was only their normal shot that wasnt increasing? Bc the supershot most definitely was.


Thanks for the update and glad it’s still being monitored.


Thanks for letting me know. That is literally what I tried but every new quote erased the previous quote. Is it different on mobile maybe?

Oh well, I’ll keep rocking my workarounds :grin:

Thanks @PGJared I’m waiting patiently to see the final outcome before making any judgements. I know this is a difficult one.

I have made the internal assumption already that towers will be buffed a portion that they should originally have increased due to level and Dragons will also be scaled up based off increased tower difficulty that wasnt a factor during design.

I don’t expect the outcome to be decided immediately as there are so many different factors involved.

Cheers and Merry Christmas :blush:


That is pretty sweet. I had been using the reply button at the bottom which does not seem to allow quoting.

On the topic of the elemental towers:

It seems pretty clear to many of us that things are not at all how they were before 3.90. I’m not sure if that’s undisclosed nuance, or if you guys really believe elemental towers should be behaving as they did before the update. Elemental towers are definitely dropping dragons where they did not used to. I’m not sure this is bad, it’s just contrary to what I’m reading.

It also seems clear to me that fire turrets have been doing much less than they should have. I built one up to 35 forever ago and by itself would take down dragons. I then built 4 more, all up to 45+ and they are a joke. I’d hate to put all of that player XP in storage. But I also don’t know how some bases would ever be beaten if full effects were in play.

To me this is a touchy subject. On one hand I invested a lot in turrets that I already was regretting I needed to store, but on the other hand, a single defender could put any level 300 base out of reach of 5 flames even with maxed Rhyo and Necryx. Suddenly sapphire teams will no longer win wars on defends.


Maybe they over did it the other direction? I doubt that they implemented their quick fix by putting the exact bug back into the code. They probably tried to simulate the effect by altering tower stats.


That is exactly what was happening. HP and super shot power was increasing but the normal attack power was not increasing.


After roll back, dark flak instantly kills Rhyo’s minion. And I mean INSTANTLY.

It’s clear the roll back was not a proper roll back.


Fire torrents supershot is also a super super shot still. Not sure if intent on them or not. Also seems to still fire and hit when cloaked


The slow fireball is his normal shot.


I disagree, banana took off half health off of 35 zam, normal shot, bases are easier to defend, and heaven forbid I think I can take a fire shot with hau or necryx. Even on 45+ towers pre 3.90 fix, I would sand ice over fires bc I knew I could take a fire hit over ice damage, now I am promptly reminded that fires freaking hurt now.


My level 33 fire shows as more damage than my level 33 ice. That’s not right.


Doing some digging, that appears to be possible. I’m going to spend a little time this weekend taking dark flaks for different levels from 33 and up and having them shoot the same dragon over and over to get some data. Stay tuned!