Towers Deployment

[Kran]

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.

[travcm]

What army?  I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Kran]

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.

[SLOTH]

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.

[glunkr]

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.

[Kran]

Well, its RPS anyway. I dont like the fact to be forced to use a shield bearer in any armyes.

[SLOTH]

<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.

[mongolian]

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.

[zatikon]

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?

[Jezebeau]

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.

[mongolian]

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. 

[glunkr]

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.

[Jezebeau]

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.

[SLOTH]

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! 

[zatikon]

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.