Enfeeble has been enfeebled?


#1

I haven’t seen a mention of it in the forums, but when I tried to use enfeeble to defend my new, hard-fought-after-many-hours-of-failing-to-waypoint castle, I’d put a castle up from storage, applied troops.

When under attack from several high primarchs I thought ‘great, i’ll use enfeeble’ only to be presented with the message that I couldn’t use enfeeble with more than 3 enemy primarchs on the base.

WTF!?!

That’s Exactly when I need to use it most…

Please tell me this is a bug and not a new feature @PGJared


#2

@moderators please move this topic to Atlas


#3

Thanks, and sorry for the incorrect location


#4

It’s no problem. I initially thoguht you were talking about the spell enfeeble lmao, like what spindra has… then I read your post and realized you were talking about Atlas stuff :sweat_smile:


#5

:joy: naming conventions are a thing… helps to not have two things called the same to avoid such confusion :sweat_smile:


#6

Nothing on this???
Seriously :unamused:


#7

So a lvl 434 with lvl 15 Taunter can park on your base with 150,000 troops and smash they shit out of everything… and you can’t use Enfeeble because there are more than 3 enemies :rage::rage::rage::rage::rage:


#8

This is a feature not a bug.

Though I don’t see the point of having enfeeble as a feature if u can’t use it when more then 3 primarchs are there.

FYI the limit was originally going to be 6 primarchs…not sure why it was lowered to 3.


#9

So one person with 3 Primes can still just run all over everyone if they bring one friend? :man_facepalming:t3:

6 would make more sense!


#10

Basically…it makes no fucking sense lol


#11

Can some admin confirm that this is not intended and that it should work no matter how many prims are present?

You can only use it on one prim every 10min anyway.

If this is intended, it’s absolutely ridicoulos.


#12

It’s absolutely intended. The tower’s original purpose was to counteract solo or small groups of glory hunters, especially those targeting small teams who couldn’t realistically fight back. It wasn’t supposed to counteract large scale coordinated takeover-type attacks. Now, as to how someone picked “3” as the proper number to represent large scale…:man_shrugging:


#13

Maybe we should carefully suggest to up it to… something not too crazy… maybe 4? :speak_no_evil:


#14

It is 4 I’m pretty sure. It says more than 3 I think.


#15

How can you speak to the tower’s original purpose? I’ve never heard that the tower was supposed to limit it. Perhaps you can enlighten us.


#16

It says more than 3 but I have tried it with 3 enemies and it wouldn’t work until one was killed and 2 were left :woman_shrugging:t2:


#17

If you can only use it on one prime at a time!
Why limit it at all?

If 4 Seigers show up and just destroy everything and move fort to fort what does it matter?

PG is encouraging this type of action.
Hey we give you a way to deal with 1 player who has a monster base… but if they bring 3 friends? FU!!! Your ass out :unamused::unamused::unamused::unamused::unamused::unamused:

Can we get an official response on this please?


#18

I kind of agree with this. It already has a built-in restriction…not sure why the second layer was necessary.

You can defend or you can also drop the shield so they cant move?

At least the original concept I saw was meant to stop/decrease lone wolf attacks. This way promotes teamwork at least?


#19

I like promoting team work and honestly love the tactics of it… however, it also just increased the original issue 4 fold…

Now instead of one giant problem… you have 4 giant problems and there is no way to fight them back.

Sure drop shields and trap them… :rofl::rofl::rofl:
Who the hell wants to trap 4 monsters inside their house???
911: Hello… 9-1-1 what’s your emergency?
Person: Yeah, 4 guys with shot guns just broke in!
911: I suggest you lock the doors so they can’t leave.
Person: you want me to do what!!! :anguished::anguished::anguished:
911: sync error please submit a support ticket.
Person: FFS :man_facepalming:t3::man_facepalming:t3::man_facepalming:t3:


#20

hahahaha fair enough…out of curiosity, what do you think would be better/easier, scale loss or simply increase build rate?