Quark Games forums

Any big change to this game can break the thin present equilibre.

Creating a new troop couldn't be done without at least 6 month beta-testing in a real sized world, with feedbacks and studies...

Do you think Quark has time to work on it?

I see we are still discussing this 2 years on ..... still nothing has been done to change nor put archers in place. Its a real shame as archers would have been around way before the sword the ram and the guard in my eyes .. They are needed "BUT" will it make QUARK more money that is the question ??

CollinzTheGreat

kakao : CollinzTheGreat

I think we have all see the little buildings atop the level 20 wall and higher. These should definitely be used for archers. Which would mean you cannot build archers until your wall is high enough. It's been said before and I agree with it....Archers should only be used for defense against ram and ballista. There currently is no real way to defend against them. They should only protect the wall tho. Ballistas aimed at other buildings would not be protected. They should be in the workhouse and be above ram and ballista. They should take up 3 in the farm for each unit and don't leave the city. Or if they do, they travel at half the speed of a scholar, have only the attack of a lancer and carry no loot back. This make make them unused in a attack for the most part. They should have a low deffence as well, like a zerk. They should be the cheapest and fastest unit in the workhouse. That way you can build them quickly and cheaply. Remember, they are primarily a level 20 or higher wall defense unit. Because everything has it's upside and it's downside they will help save your wall but take up 3 in the farm. This will not add to the wall bonus. They will attack ram and ballista aimed at the wall while being attacked. Kind of a "the archers get knocked off the wall and die" thing. So, instead of your wall going from a 25 to a 15....it only gets knocked down to a 20. Hence taking more ram to lower a wall guarded by archers than an unprotected wall. That's my thoughts on the matter...for what it's worth.

I know Pwn likes it defined well enough that he can see the battle in his head. I hope this helps and we get us a new unit. Valor is, after all, always evolving. Right?

Hominyhustler wrote:I believe the only way you could ever make it balance out is to use the idea of archers being defense for rams and ballistas. With that, you would need to make lancer's and sentry's defense non existent against your artillery units, like the defense a zerk has. You then would need to strengthen your attack strength of your rams and ballistas to accommodate the defense of the archer. This would let there be balance while making the archers a necessity to prevent your wall from falling. But I like the current balance myself. This is just my opinion anyways.

This idea adds in a whole new defensive category, one for siege only. Plus, rams do tend to help ward off enemy rams and ballista along with lancers, sentries, and guardians. Would guardians stay the same or would they change as well? The new defensive category just adds a lot more work for quark and another thing on the list of promises unfulfilled

I believe the only way you could ever make it balance out is to use the idea of archers being defense for rams and ballistas. With that, you would need to make lancer's and sentry's defense non existent against your artillery units, like the defense a zerk has. You then would need to strengthen your attack strength of your rams and ballistas to accommodate the defense of the archer. This would let there be balance while making the archers a necessity to prevent your wall from falling. But I like the current balance myself. This is just my opinion anyways.

Oops. To clarify,

Rams only target gatehouse. If gatehouse is destroyed, and there are no archers, wall bonus becomes 0%.

If the gatehouse is destroyed and there ARE archers, wall bonus remains intact.

Trebuchets kill archers (and vice versa), but also destroy the wall. So using them to kill archers would also reduce the wall, and therefore the defensive bonus you would get if you capped, then sent archers as support, would be reduced in accordance with the level of the wall.

How about this, we introduce a new building called the gatehouse, rams only target the gate. If the gate is destroyed, then walls only provide a defensive bonus if you have archers. Destroying the gate without any archers in the city would allow you to keep the walls intact upon capturing the city, and if you send archers as support, you keep the wall bonus for yourself

1. Rams would cost less population space. Trebuchets would take up huge amounts of population space, require lots of resources, and would have minimal defensive value, therefore becoming liabilities that need protection.

2. You might not realize it but all other units in the game have a unit that cancels another unit out IF you have enough of them. For example, defensively, Lancers will murder Guardians and Knights provided you have enough while berzerkers will destroy those same lancers. All defensive-ish units cancel out seige equipment, so on and so forth. How many archers you would need to counteract trebuchets would depend on how many trebuchets are attacking you, and vice versa.

Two questions.

1. How would you make a plan to keep rams from becoming obsolete and unused?

2. If you just make trebuchets and archers for the purpose of canceling each other, what have you really done? You've just created more work for your device and the servers at quark hq.

Enough Archers would cancel out trebuchets and vice versa.

Oh, and just for fun, if the defenders successfully kill all attackers, 25% of the attacking trebuchets should be absorbed by the defending city to simulate post-battle scavenging by the victors