Yes I believe some towers are balanced. Are the 33 towers in the screen I posted some towers to you?
You'll never have to fight your way through 33 towers, you can easily get to the village by coming within range of about 5 in that screenshot. If you sneak some troops in the right side you'll only go past 3 towers. And in a map like that you always have the option of attacking one of the spammer's allies, who will be at a disadvantage because the spammer won't have many troops to help him. Once you've defeated his ally you can just walk around the back of his village and all his 33 towers are useless. Only in the most narrow maps will you have to walk past a lot of towers, but I doubt you could ever be forced to go past 33 unless the player had built towers and nothing else.
Based on the responses here I count 7 people in this topic who don't like towers as they are now and 6 people who like it.
Which means it's unpopular either way, 1 person extra isn't enough of a majority to conclude much.
Maybe you are right but for me it's not about tower accuracy, it's about tower spamming. I honestly have no problem at all with a tower that kills 5/5 as long as I don't have to break through an insane amount of towers to reach the enemy troops.
As I said above you can avoid most of them, and I don't think 5 towers is an insane amount. As long as you're careful you can avoid most of them, then your enemy has wasted all that time and resources for nothing.
99% agreed here. It's just, nobody wants to play without towers because they serve a purpose. One of them is to prevent the enemy from scouting you. In multiplayer this is very important. And yes it makes it more fun if the game isn't decided in one big battle early after peacetime. The point is that there is no battle between troops before you find a way through the towers because most of your troops are killed in the process. As a reward your enemy can easely counterattack because you have no troops left. It's as simple as that.
Not if you use disposable units like militia to empty the towers.
I think I speak for most of us if I say we rather want to win a game by clever use of our troops instead of facing a wall of towers we can't take down.
Yes I agree, but I don't think it's like that. It just means you'll need a slightly bigger army before you can walk into the enemy village, you can't do it with just 6 troops now.
IMO better players's oppinion is more important.
Don't ask me why, but it just makes sense.
Yes somehow it makes sense but saying things like this won't make you more popular here I guess. I'm not saying we are better players but we take the time and effort to test this beta so our opinion should be taken seriously of course.
Everyone's opinion is equal in discussions like this. I'd say that experienced players will know more about the game so they can present evidence of what they have experienced to the others here, but just saying "take our word for it" is arrogant and doesn't help anybody else understand your opinion. You need to explain and demonstrate to us why tower spam is a problem and why our counter arguments are invalid, then we might come over to your side. But just saying "we're right because we're more experienced" without convincing others just isn't how this community works. Think of it as like a democracy, if you want people to support you, you have to show them why your policies/ideas are best. Just saying "I'm most experienced so I'm right" won't get you anywhere.
I think it's really representative. Atleast I thought we as beta testers are here to help solve problems like this. Even if there are only 20 of us.
We've sent the RC to over 80 people, and most of those people send it around to all their friends. I'd guess we have between 120-160 people who have the release candidate. 20 people is a significant enough number to take your comments on board, but not enough to say "we MUST change this because the majority wants it".
the game will be a lot more like "the one who wins the first fight wins", because if towers don't kill enough units, they will let a lot of people in, and it'll be so frustrating to have players inside your city just because the few towers you built didn't do any damage (I'm not talking about tower spam here)
I think it's really sad that you give towers such an important role to play in your gameplay, so without towers you expect yourself to lose the game? If so it's better to play against equally skilled players instead, I'd say. But maybe I didn't understand your point completely. If you mean you don't want to spam towers but the towers you have do decent damage I totally agree here. We only need a way to prevent people building all those towers.
I don't think that's what he meant, he was saying that if you lose a battle and have almost no troops, then without towers that hit more than 1-2 units you've lost the game. Towers means your opponent must significantly outnumber you before they can overrun your village. That doesn't mean you'll lose the game without towers, it means whoever loses a fight and doesn't have towers has already lost the game because the enemy can just walk into their village even if they only have a few soldiers.
