Tower Balance (Trebuchet, Ballista)

While we are discussing some upcoming balance changes to the towers, I have already added my thoughts to the 3 major towers you have under announcements, but wanted to include my thoughts on what are generally considered the worst towers in the entire game. Not only are these not good towers, but they are so bad as to literally be shunned as completely unusable in any sense of the term.

  • Trebuchet
  • Ballista

Currently we have 5 undisputed “core” towers that every good base must have.

  • Flak for damage
  • Ice for shields (to waste hunter shots, and provide moderate damage).
  • Red Mage to block abilities
  • Blue Mage to prevent shielding
  • Storm to shield towers

Trebuchet:
I think the important part here, is to find where this might fit into the current lineup. What could we possibly do with this tower, to actually give it value.

IMO, I would like to see the Trebuchet target primarily the Ice Turret as an alternative. To do this, I think we really need to drastically change the mechanics behind the Trebuchet. Specifcially, I would like to see its overall damage per second significantly increased so it at least provides some sort of reasonable damage at least in the ball park of the Ice Turret. However, I would also like to change its special ability. Instead of stunning which is only mildly useful, and already done using the far more critical Dark Flak cannon, I would instead like to see this “steal” hunter shots. This could help provide the same overall benefit as shielding would, in reducing the overall damage due to more limited hunter shots being available. Maybe it can provide a small damage debuff to Warriors and Sorcerers since they obviously would not have hunter shots available to steal.

But this could give this tower viability in the Ice Turret Slot, plus help rebalance some of the high level game play that is current very strongly skewed towards Hunters in general for their massive burst damage.

Ballista:
I think in your first attempt to make Ballista more relevant you went completely the wrong direction by increasing the damage, and shortening the duration. That actually makes them less effective, not more effective. Instead I would recommend increasing the duration, so it can’t be as easily countered by simply shielding through it, or popping a quick heal.

I would make Ballista do massive stacking damage, that either resets the timer, or never goes away unless cured.
1hit - maybe 10% dragon health over 30 seconds.
2hit - maybe 20% dragon health over 30 seconds, 30 second timer is restarted.
3hit - 30% dragon health over 30 seconds, 30 second timer is restarted.
etc…

This way, they can basically guarantee at least one kill if they stack enough shots onto a single dragon, and that dragon does not actually cure the poison.

Another alternative, might be to use lower damage, but make the poison last until cured instead of being on a timer. So maybe .5% dragon damage per tick (per shot). But it never expires unless it is cured. So by the time a single dragon travels the entire length of a full base, it should more or less be dead. They can reduce the effects by healing, or shielding, but since it continues well beyond the heal or shield duration, it still has value, especially as an early tower. In this case it wouldn’t tick for massive damage, but since it never goes away, it should do very significant damage during the time it takes a dragon to actually travel through the base.

In this case what we’re looking to do is to trade a significantly higher damage per shot, for the damage over a specific duration. A flak cannon can almost instantly kill a dragon, assuming a same level dragon, we’re looking at maybe 2-3 charged shots to completely drop a dragon to zero health. In this case, we want very few shots to do enough damage to actually kill the dragon, similar to how a flak cannon is, but instead of being applied instantly like a flak, it would be applied over time. So the Ballista should actually do more damage per shot than the flak given a users ability to counter it with shields and heals, but it won’t just go away on its own, it must be cured, or at the very least have a very long duration, so they can’t so easily avoid its effects.

In this case, the Ballista would not be “replacing” one of the core towers, but actually creating an entirely new approach to defending your base, and giving value to actually having a long base, as opposed to everyone constantly having the shortest bases possible. Maybe this change would spur people to start out with a large group of Ballistas try to and stack dots as fast as possible.

9 Likes

I like the ballista suggestion. :+1:t2:

I would love to see more variety and a ballista reboot would do that. Coupled with those enervating and poison runes this could make them a very viable tower! :+1:

Can this be moved to the other thread so all replies together

Each of the towers has their own thread, so there isn’t currently one location for all tower options. I assume in any case the developers will compile a list of the suggestions and try to determine what they believe is the best course of action to take. So while its not centralized here, it will likely be for the devs when they get the list of ideas compiled.

1 Like

i like the ballista suggestion, however i think it would be enough to bump the trebuchets damage by a lot and keep its stun the same. back when lvl 30 was max tower level it was serious fun to have storm and trebuchet paired together, kinda missing that.

  • PG tried to balance Ballistae twice and both attempts failed
  • They made runes for the Ballista tower that work best when the duration of poisoning lasts long so your idea is going into the right direction and PG‘s last Ballista ‘balance’ made those runes totally useless by shortening the duration
  • I‘m pretty much against %ual damage because high level towers would be less effective against weaker dragons and low level towers would be too strong against higher dragons, even if the % scales with the level of the tower

Hello Marez,

I should probably clarify my statement. When I used % values, I did not actually mean to imply that they should use a % value of the dragon. But to give a rough estimate of what kind of power range I had in mind while explaining my thought process. Because the tower will vary in level, and thus vary in power, I can’t just say XXX amount of damage, because the actual amount of damage would vary based on the towers level.

But by using % based values, if we assume that a garnet level dragon has approximately 5mill health, then we can infer that at .5 % of the dragons health per tick I am actually talking about roughly 25k damage per tick, which would increase based on the number of attacks that landed on the dragon. This obviously assumes a similar level tower (garnet would be level 45 towers). So I do expect them to have hard values for the towers given, but this approach simply gives them a better understanding of my thought process in regards to the expected damage without having to get into all of the specific details for the various level of towers and dragons.

Oh I got you, thank you for explaining :grin::+1:t2:

There is a thread made by pg, for changes to the other towers (aka not flaks and fire). I will link it here in a bit

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.