I have lots to say about this army. First i dont like it. Second its not balanced. Third its not fun.
Four its almost a rock-paper-scissors and there are no much armyes can beat it.
I dont think offense towers are good for the game. That mess every army based in spells.
Towers are used for defense, then, lets make a game that force players to use towers in DEFENSE.
Towers are almost non-used in defensive. Just in geomancer armyes and now i hope it will be used soon with conjurers gates.
What army? I have no idea what you're talking about.
The Geomancer + Lots of towers. The Geomancer is deployed first, next turn he will walk foward. Then next turn he will change castle location. Same turn towers can be deployed and used in offensive.
I will admit, I believe I may be the major designer/user of this army.
A quick synopsis. You play the Geo, and walk it forward, as Kran states. When you have the commands and opportunity, you begin playing towers. If you are lucky, you can inch your Geo forward and advance your tower line.
I have run this army about 20 times since I have come back to the "fold" of Zatikon. I do not think it is unbalancing, but I will say I have probably won PvP all but twice. Probably 10 and 2.
Against the computer, I win less than half of the games, and in Co-op I have split my wins.
This army can be beat handily by an army with ONE shieldbearer. It can also be beaten by a RUSH deck, or armies that can stay out of range or use catapults, etc.
Kran IS correct, that if you are running an army of mages (the army I hate playing against and in some aspects the army this design is prepared to defeat) you are going to run into some trouble.
I feel for Kran, as he has lost to me a couple of times, but I do not think this is a huge problem army. He is a good player.
I appreciate the feedback on this subject, however.
Sloth, I think you did a fine job of making a unique army and for that I commend you. It doesn't sound like it is unbalancing the game to me, it just sounds like people who love mages should think twice before they play you! :)
That being said, the sheer amount of variety in Zatikon is why I think tournaments and not single matches should be the true measure of skill. In single matches, it is easy to confuse and frustrate an opponent by cycling through different armies each match. In a tournament format (if you are unsure what I am taking about, please read my tournament topic) your chosen army has to withstand several matches with the same player, which allows you and your opponent to react to each others' strategies. Furthermore, your army will have to beat more than one player to win. I think that is a much better way of determining who is the best player.
Well, its RPS anyway. I dont like the fact to be forced to use a shield bearer in any armyes.
<please: no flaming> ;)
Well, I guess I am "proud"(?) that I managed to "break" the game(?) with my towers? :)
I assume there has been raging back-and-forth discussion about towers ELSEWHERE in the board, because the ONLY person I have seen complain about towers is Kran, and now they are changed. Should I complain to get them back? :)
I have to assume it was changed b/c of the Geomancer/tower army. If this is the case, I think it is overkill as the Geo can no longer be moved with the sergent so why change the point value of the tower? Is there a universal agreement that they are under-valued? Did I prove this point? Just riffing a bit I suppose.
Just funny, I think. Now to "break" the......ummm......ACOLYTE.
Sounds like a good deck, but it seems easily thrwarted. Shield-bearer+rider to take out early geo. Then, those towers ain't gonna matter much, especially with 1 alcolyte. It does, on the otherhand, sound like a very good deck.
Oddly enough, this discussion reminds more and more why I don't play constructed though. Even without the wizard & sergeant, I hate rock-scissor-paper type games. Most of my armies & torques have been made to be robust to most armies, but with the constant addition of units, it's just too much.
Solution: Monthly cycle which type of units can be used for Constructed armies. This will limit down the options that are able to be played, keep constructed more balanced, give the game more flavor and ultimately keep constructed fresh and fun to play.
I've known for awhile that the towers were undervalued, but underplayed because they're primarily defensive. I might revise them a bit to adjust to their new cost. Any suggestions?
Quote from: mongolian on May 31, 2009, 08:34:56 PM
Solution: Monthly cycle which type of units can be used for Constructed armies. This will limit down the options that are able to be played, keep constructed more balanced, give the game more flavor and ultimately keep constructed fresh and fun to play.
Solution: We keep having these discussions to balance the level of RPS in the game. Easily thwarted by 2 specific units means rock-paper-scissors, and arguments calling it a very good deck are only supporting the problem you hate so much.
if you think R-P-S is a good thing, think again. Why do I want to play that entails next to no way for me to win when my opponent draws rock and I draw scissor. The game was very balanced for the longest time and the game can still be balanced with some tweeks. I'm merely suggesting alteratives to constructed format. If most people are playing coop, single and random, that should give you a clue about why constructed is the least popular. I simply don't enjoy combo decks and not having the ability to win when a game begins.
Mongolian, I totally agree with you but I think it is unrealistic to make the game so balanced so that every army can be beaten by every other army. I love the constructed format because I think it has the most depth, but I think some kind of structure would be good to keep things more fair.
And that is why I am a big proponent of having a tournament format with a sideboard to let players adapt to their opponent. It is the only way I can think of to keep some semblance of balance, since armies will have to be made to defeat several opponents. And with a tournament, you can limit the unit choices for more balance.
That's not what I said at all, mongolian.
"Sounds like a good deck, but it seems easily thrwarted. Shield-bearer+rider to take out early geo."
That pretty much amounts to "It beats paper but rock kills it, so it's fine." That whole line of argument encourages that style of development.
This is a interesting, robust discussion.
Yeah, this army (or many particular armies) RPS other particular armies at different times. I do not know that there is a solution for RPS conflicts. If the towers were due for a change, so be it.
I do know I used to get very annoyed and stopped playing construct for a while because you would face UNBEATABLE armies, unless you played the COUNTER army to beat only THAT army. It made it very un-fun to play. There were a couple of people that played a couple of armies that had this effect.
I guess this was just a ramble.... anyway! Game on! :)
If you encounter an unbeatable build, post it.
My goal in balancing the game has been to break away from the typical RPS model by saturating it with elements, making it too complex to solve. So we're playing rock, paper, scissors, toothbrush, shoebox, broom, anvil, lighter, soap. All the basic counters exist in a 50 pt form, so you can plug up any holes with them.
Even the counters aren't meant to stop a specific unit, I try to design them to be versatile packages of effects.
Most games of Zatikon involve racing to build up to a perfect formation at maximum range from the enemy formation before your enemy does, then breaching their formation in a way that's most advantageous. So you have to examine what role a unit plays in that system, and why that unit is the best at that role for its cost.
I actually feel the geo+scout army was more dangerous and harder to stop, because there are lots of ways to make towers ineffective (dodge, acolyte, shield bearer)
But with the update to sergeant, it's lost most of the speed because the geo can't move 4 (1 turn geo + 2 turns rally) but only 2.
The general discussion about unbeatable armies deserves a new thread.
People seem to be going overboard on what they consider to be a Rocks-Paper-Scissor situation. Saying that you *need* a shield bearer to beat the towers army is entirely inaccurate. The thing is, the shield bearer is ideally-suited to fighting it. Units having strengths is a GOOD thing! Using other units and armies, it is still possible to fight forward towers, but you need to be able to weigh the pain of triggering them versus going around or destroying them, much like you do with all enemy armies.
You do not have a clear-cut directed graph of superiority, because the different units are useful in many different ways. The various units capable of dealing easily with forward towers are all 2-armor units (especially knights and dragons, since they can easily destroy towers, and even better if you have someone who can heal that first step into range!), heretic (kills the geomancer and everything needed to actually take your castle), anything with greater range than the towers (such as warlocks, ballistae and catapults), shield bearers, acolytes, archangel, dodging units, and anything that creates chaff-units, like summoners, barracks, necromancer, druid, hydra, and mason. Keep in mind that if you absorb the shots from the tower, the opponent cannot pick a specific target on his turn because the tower's out of actions.
When about half of all available units can be used to combat this strategy, it's not a question of "my army is paper to your scissors" but rather that your army has a huge gaping hole in that it cannot respond to ranged enemies, and/or has no power of attrition.
I think Lumen succinctly and accurately summarizes my opinion on this issue. Nothing against anyone who is terrified of forward towers, but as Lumen stated, they are not a problem in any manner and can be dealt with in a variety of ways. I think they are pretty weak, actually, and think the 100 price was fair. They are easily destroyed/spoofed/avoided.
I especially like Lumen's quote, "When about half of all available units can be used to combat this strategy, it's not a question of "my army is paper to your scissors" but rather that your army has a huge gaping hole in that it cannot respond to ranged enemies, and/or has no power of attrition."
I do not think it can be stated any plainer than that. :) Now, if the designers feel the change needs to made and have been considering making the change for a while, which they have stated is the case, the full speed ahead! I will be interested to see how many people run the 150 point towers now. Maybe after a few weeks we can start a poll to see if the change has had an effect.
My guess is that we will see nearly no towers on the battlefield, unless they come in as random units. They were already used rarely, at 100 points, and I would assume at 150 points they will be a rare sight indeed. :)
Just my 2.5 cents. :) Great Game!
One Tower is no problem to deal with. 3-4 Towers is usually a game ender if they don't have Siege or a Shield Bearer, and at 300-400 cost is a pretty thrifty way to shut down the enemy army.
Most constructed armies, don't have a problem with Towers. Can someone post a deck where Towers are being abused, cause I don't see this as an issue, even with a geomancer. If my opponent plops out a geomancer on turn 1, I ususally go for my rider turn 1. Without towers being able to be moved up, they aren't that strong, and yes they are beatable, even with 4.
PS - I'd actually like to see a +$50 tower that has +1 power. :)
oooOOOoooo. Cool!
A VARIETY of towers, like in Warcraft. Towers that do different things.
Quote from: zatikon on June 02, 2009, 05:59:32 PM
One Tower is no problem to deal with. 3-4 Towers is usually a game ender if they don't have Siege or a Shield Bearer, and at 300-400 cost is a pretty thrifty way to shut down the enemy army.
What about making the tower 100$ again, and the limit is 1 tower per player?
Lots of tower could be fun, but need to be studyed carefully before in game.
no one would play 1 tower then..
Quote from: mongolian on June 02, 2009, 08:30:14 PM
no one would play 1 tower then..
At 100 points, max 1? Why not? It's not a poor defense for mages/clergy/etc.
I cant see also why people would not use the towers... we only use towers if we can use lots of them?
Kran
This message is specifically a reply to Mongolian and his question;
"Can someone post a deck where Towers are being abused, cause I don't see this as an issue, even with a geomancer.
"
This is my recipe for the "Unbeatable, tower army of death" :P which is an unholy, deadly army, that must be neutered 'else the universe explode. ;)
UNITS
General
Sergeant
Geomancer
Scout
Tower x 5
Gate Guard
(Hopefully this army gets to go FIRST, otherwise it is QUITE vulnerable, especially to RUSHING)
Turn One:
General, Sergeant, Geomancer, Gate Guard, Scout
Turn Two:
Sergeant moves Geomancer north one space.
Scout movers to protect Geomancer from rushers.
Geomancer MOVES Castle north.
Tower #1 is played as far north as possible.
Turn Three(A):
(If opponent is pathetic and has not advanced and instead has played out a WEAK magic-using army that just sits around, the following occurs)
Sergeant moves Geomancer one north.
Geomancer moves castle north
Tower #2 in played as far north as possible, which now is able to reach to the opponents back row.
Turn Three(B):
(If opponent has taken the fight to me my low number of actions preclude me from placing another tower or moving the castle.)
Geomancer stones a near opponent.
Other units move to defend, leaving...
Less than the commands needed to play more towers.
Turn Four(A):
(Assuming I have established towers in the middle)
Game over as I am now within range of his castle. I play more towers as I see fit, using the Geomancer to stone any problem units.
Turn Four(B):
More towers are played to defend. Position is probably degrading rapidly as one tower falls a turn and they are expensive to play more.
I cannot keep people off of me and the towers are ineffectual. Surrender occurs rapidly.
And there you have it, in all of its unfair, nefarious glory. Ignore the fact that it can be defeated by a slew of units and strategies. This is just posted as an informational exercise. :)
Towers are more expensive and sergeant dont move units anymore. But i dont think making tower 150$ resolve the problem. Thats almost the same that remove it from contructed ^^.
I've been thinking about the why the Tower has been too good, and it comes down to this:
The area of coverage is too big, multiplied by it triggering twice per turn.
It needs a deep revision. Any ideas?
Any within 3 is the most obvious answer. Triggering twice with full coverage in a shorter range still makes it a good defensive unit, and limits its offensive capability.
Give it a minimum range. Make it possible for units to cross from outside its range to its blank area of minimum range only getting shot once if they all travel in a single wave. Give it range 2-4 and a wave of 3-action people will get shot only once if they can move fully into the range. At that point, the tower is more a way of fighting commands than anything else.
Combined with that, if you made it 1 action, but power 4, it would be easier to distract while still hurting units quite a bit.
I would like something like becomes a guard when killed.
have to say that towers have become almost completely useless now that they are 150 and the additional changes that were made. i used to use em fairly often if i had a ranged deck that needed to defend itself from magic as they were a cheap viable inorganic but i think increasing their price ended that for me. I actually have nothing against the towers being 150 if they did more damage.
I suggest increasing the power to 4
How about towers back to $100 but with 1 less hp?
In my opinion let the price stay give em another action
Brute power is not the problem with towers. They have lack of strategical options. But one more action is considerable too, really.