Hey forum friends,
I need some help. See, my leader and I disagree on some aspects of base layout… and I’m fairly certain that I’m right, but I need some math from people who know math better than me.
My question: Can I get some cold, hard math that proves leveling one tower is more effective than spreading out your towers/building more? Ex. building and maxing one Dark Flak tower is much more effecient (in HP/atck) than building three at the same time?
I’m not sure where to find this information if it exists already, so forgive me if this has been answered. I’ve got people to help and a few stubborn ones to prove wrong.
Hey forum friends,
It’s an easy question… would you rather face 15 level 60 towers, or 30 level 30’s? Considering that a tower doubles in strength every 5 (guesstimate) or so levels, not hard to choose.
@mechengg you want in on this?
Ask him to watch below movie
Ditch ur team and go somewhere that knows what they’re doing…
I could. I do want Atlas and we are nowhere near getting there. But I’m comfortable where I am for now and I’ve made good friends of my teammates. Call me sentimental but I’d hate to leave them unless the whole darn team falls apart.
One level 30 dark flak gives roughly same amount of xp as 2 x level 23 and 1x level 24. So assuming XP is the determinant here:
Level 30: attack 666,347 HP 587,244
Level 23: attack 220,700 HP 194,444
Level 24: attack 259,225 HP 228,398
Total: attack 700,625 HP 617,286
So, on paper your leader has a point. But this doesn’t factor in a very important input which is time. Remember the tower keeps firing even if it has only 1 HP left. The smaller towers die faster which means they have less time to fire. The bigger tower lasts longer so does more damage over time. I’d graph it for you but I’m too lazy. Basically imagine a straight line at 666347 for the level 30 dark flak, while the line for the 3 smaller towers combined starts at 700625 but steps down as each tower is destroyed. So total area under the level 30 chart is much larger than the area under the smaller towers chart. Ok geek out.
Hopefully u can understand the scribble. Area underneath each line approximates the total damage dealt.
Amarok vs one zillion lvl 1 towers
Amarok solos base with zillions of dp
Amarok vs one lvl 50 tower
Amarok dies on base with low dp
Take a look through the theory section of my base building guide for a start.
The math is fairly straightforward. Take X amount of player XP gained from a single tower, and then divide it by 3 (or however many towers) and then see what level they end up being as a relative XP.
Alternately get them to fly through my base being defended vs a long base of a L280 and see which one they get further in.
Not only factor in time, but bulk density. If you could pack 1000 towers into the same island space as 5 towers, then building tons of small ones may be viable. But space is a huge constraint
Lol, I love the scribble and it makes sense. Thank you again
I think damage potential is DPS x max(1,HP / fdps), omitting any skill.
Therefore, that one lv 30 DF is still stronger, and by the time their damage potential are the same, the dragon will be too strong for that tower anyway…
fdps means dps inflicted to the tower.
It’s actually far more extreme than the math makes it seem because there are other factors that start to kick in.
For example try to heal (use a hammer on) a level 1 tower, now try to heal a level 63 tower. Aside from the fact that you don’t even have time to drop a hammer that fast, the percentage is also static. Which means a tower with 20m hitpoints heals (I think it’s 40%) 8m per hammer vs almost nothing on level 1.
Also you have things like perches and buffs that target sections of towers. You can also focus those efforts and get additional compound benefits. (Atlas rider and dragon buffs 15 towers at a time, and you can craft 3 sets of crappy gear or one set of really good gear, which applies to one set of really high level towers.)
There is caution to too few towers. Some dragons have abilities that defeat a tower no matter its HP, and for this reason you don’t want too short of a base.
The other kicker is that it’s technically cheaper to build out, so if you had no interest in a good defense you might build out.
There are many other nuances which compound the fewer higher towers are better situation. And really the direct math provided above should solve the argument on its own.
Is your leader a fan of ballistas too? ( I kind I kid)
But seriously if you like your team and want to stay then I wouldn’t push the issue into a fight. Even the math won’t change a stubborn player. It’s been proven time and again short high tower bases out perform long low tower bases. Have fun and do what you know is the best move.
Alternatively if it’s an issue the are lots of teams with really good people looking for players. Heck my team would pick you up (we have atlas too ). In the end it’s your fun and I wouldn’t waste too much energy arguing about it. Your leader could come on the forums here and find out you’re right in 45 seconds if he wanted. He probably doesn’t care if you are right, he’ll just build how he wants.
Sorry, totally out of subject, but I have to say, when I’ve read “I’d graph it for you but I’m too lazy” I was far from expecting a graph, so seeing this “graph” more down make me spit my coffee latte by my nostrils … It wouldn’t have been a problem if I wasn’t in the train.
Thank you very much for the laugh, you just make my day!
I hope you didn’t get coffee down your shirt
Nope, and anyway, it’s a black jacket, I was lucky, we have a rainy day today !
There something even easier that discards any math:
Towers max levels have been pushed to match last tier drags. It means that if you have a flak ready to smash let’s say garnets, imagine what they will do to a platinum. It may just take one shot
The math is complicated, if you let it be.
Essentially, it’s about damage over the lifetime of the tower. And there are many variables here.
At very low levels, the differences are difficult to see. They become more and more obvious, especially above level 30.(but really, the difference is enough you can start to see it in the teens).
I don’t have time right now to show it definitively, but if you use XP or time as your pool of resources to spend, investing the same amount in fewer towers will, after the lowest levels, be better in a measurable way.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.