Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified

Pearl Towers

Reply
Copied to clipboard!
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 5:08:16 PM
BPrado wrote:
You know, you´re not supposed to kill the enemy army with a tower. They´re meant to provide you a small relative advantage, and engaging a damaged a army is better than engaging a full health one. Especially when your hero increases his attack using the life lost by the enemy.




Of course, but the damage is so minimal, that the affected army (of only 6 units) regenerated it completely the next turn. I wouldn't want towers to deal massive damage or even a lot of damage. But towers should allow you to wage a war of attrition and slowly whittle an army down over several turns, especially if you have several layers of towers. This can be done by the Allayi especially, thanks to safe retreating.



But as it stands, the damage is way too small. I'd increase it a bit.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 5:27:27 PM
BPrado wrote:
You know, you´re not supposed to kill the enemy army with a tower. They´re meant to provide you a small relative advantage, and engaging a damaged a army is better than engaging a full health one. Especially when your hero increases his attack using the life lost by the enemy.




Which they aren't doing. Hence the issue.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 5:40:57 PM
Were they slightly damaged for a turn? Could you have chosen to engage them in a moment they were hurt instead of full health? If so, the towers are working. They can´t deal significant damage without being greatly unbalanced. They don´t care about defence stats, about turns in a battle, about anything - it´s flat, free damage.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 6:01:42 PM
BPrado wrote:
Were they slightly damaged for a turn? Could you have chosen to engage them in a moment they were hurt instead of full health? If so, the towers are working. They can´t deal significant damage without being greatly unbalanced. They don´t care about defence stats, about turns in a battle, about anything - it´s flat, free damage.




We are talking about minuscule damage. As in 5-10 hp per unit. Damage which would be even less if it had to be spread out across 8 units as opposed to 6.



We have to take into consideration that the radius of the tower is very small and that an army needs to start its turn in its area of effect for damage to be applied. It is quite easy to avoid them, and especially avoiding getting hit by them twice. So they should deal a bit more damage than that, during the rare occasions that they can.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 6:35:46 PM
How can I put this? The same way Fortifications alone are not supposed to stop a large invading army, Towers alone are not supposed to damage a large invading army. 10 hp on a 200 hp unit is 5% damage for free. The enemy army can choose to not stop near it, but that´s their point - to reduce movement options and to make invading a more expensive business. If an enemy army chooses to take the damage, and both armies are on equal footing, then -5%~-3% health is an advantage. If your armies are not equal footing, the towers must not be strong enough to be the balancing factor. The superiority of the defence over the offence presumes armies with the same capabilities.



I´m not here arguing they are the best investment for pearls, or just as good as other things - they´re not. But there will always be things that are better and things that are worse, even among valid things. And I think it´s prefferable if pearls were responsible for better economic investments than military ones, just like I´d preffer defensive towers to be a little underwhelming than for them to be extremely annoying. If they´re more worth it than other economic bonuses, then you´d start to see every cult with 10% of their territory made up of free-damage-dealing tiles.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 6:49:41 PM
BPrado wrote:
How can I put this?




There is a difference between being ineffective and being useless. The way I see it, the chances of them affecting the outcome of a battle as of now are so minuscule as to be negligible. There has to be a middle ground between "complete and utter waste of resources" and "doom towers of death," right?
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 1:16:26 PM
Am I the only one who is finding them really weak? I have them upgraded, but they do so little damage that the enemy army regenerated the whole damage dealt the next turn.



Their damage needs to be buffed, imo. Because as of yet, they are only viable if you have a hero increasing the power of all defensive improvements through accessories, which shouldn't be the case (this should just make them more potent, not just viable).



EDIT: Thanks to Cat-o-nine-tales, I've realized that tower damage is dependent on city fortification and not their own. Since there are many ways to increase city fortification, and thus increase tower damage, I now think that towers are fine as they are.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 7:56:29 PM
Defense tools are already very insuffisant compared to offense.



Because units are super fast and the moral effect is not enough.





What I propose is (but I don't think I will be listened) :



- Suppress any health regeneration when units siege a city.

- Add +200 % fortification damages to all system (any system, towers or the building).

- Auto inflict these damages at any unit who begin to siege the city (so one time when they begin it, and one time when the next turn begin).

- Each advanced defense tower (the tower which need to be at winter 3, which cost a lot of pearls) in a region decrease by 1 the moral of any ennemy unit present in the region, for any tower (so it can be -4 if you got 4 advanced defensive tower) (so any ennemy at war, neutrals or yellow unit).



With these measures, there will be a real choice between scout tower and defensive towers. Because today, as scout towers give vision and detection and cost no pearls, it will be really interesting and regions may be transformed into true great fortress.
0Send private message
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 8:27:07 PM
I think Jojo's suggestions are very excessive (no offence).



The first tower has 10 fortification and deals 0.3 damage per fortification, aka 3 damage which is spread to all units of an army (I think it's not divided? If it is, that is a pathetic amount of damage). The 2nd, has 20 fortification and deals 0.5 damage per fortification, aka 10 damage.



What I suggest is for the first tower to have 15 fortification and to deal 0.5 damage per fortification, aka 7.5 (rounded up to 8). And for the 2nd tower to have 20 fortification and to deal 0.75 per fortification, aka 15.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 8:40:37 PM
Some small attrition damage each turn seems reasonable; what's not reasonable is being able to fully heal it. These towers should stop healing while in their area of effect.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 9:24:35 PM
I have to say, and I have said so from day one in this forum - I agree with anyone saying this game needs to reduce army healing.



But I´m firmly against increasing free damage to make up for excess healing. I think the pearl Wards are pretty much exactly what this game has always needed in terms of city defence. Damage from Defensive Towers, for me, is just sweet topping.
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 9:49:32 PM
Back up a second folks...



Where are the Pearl Towers?



Are you referring to the Tower of Truth and the Tower of Fidelity?



Regards.



Marc
0Send private message
9 years ago
Apr 16, 2016, 10:22:30 PM
Yes Marc, that's what I'm referring to.



Tower radius removing regeneration is actually a cool idea. It could help cement its role as a tool of attrition.
0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment

Characters : 0
No results
0Send private message