On Patron Gods

[Umutcan]

Personally I would like a nerf on them, their health and strength is too much. I see many people replaced spartans with centaurs, even myself too, I don't have any more spartans on my base. And they cost the same. And yeah they are fast too I think. But I am not playing much anymore, don't listen to me maybe lol. I dropped trophies now to play calm and relaxed. Other peoples feedback should be more important as they invest more time on their attacks, base building or money.

[Seaweed]

Centaurs that are the archer counterpart of spartan would make it much better. Should make them uncharmable if done so

[Crazy Uncle Oceanus]

Note that replacing the centaurs to be centaur archers is realistically never going to happen. What could happen eventually is the extra addition of centaur archers.

leroy

Heheh good I like them with swords. I kinda knew you guys would release a heavy unit to counterpart the spartans next. I even kinda suspected centaurs, because they would make a good heavy unit and it seemed logical it would be ranged.

You guys are always up on the mythology so i was certain they would use bows, I was very glad it was a melee unit. I much prefer Azlan’s centaurs to Pan’s.

Everyones mad but I have been liking them alot. I have found that the strength is justified because you can charm and reanimate them, which can be quite powerful.

Now on the high end (110-130lv) there may be some tweaking required because they have as much health as mini Gods and 36-50 speed depending if they have they dash boost of not. Thats pretty terrifying.

I dont want to see major reductions in centaur power, but i think tweaking offensive god power on the high end may still be necessary. But having truly high value units opens up alot more possibility for variation in peoples defenses. No matter what the doomsayers might think.


ALSO HAVE YOU GUYS CONSIDERED ADDING A SECOND PATRON??!?! Honestly to me this seems like the most fair and elegant solution to all the people who have been put off by this era of multiple heroes.

[Thorr]

You don't seriously think this do you? Believe it or not, nearly all of the releases we do simply refresh/enhance/improve the game. Releasing a new building/tower/unit makes almost no change in our revenue stream at all. Really the only thing that makes an impact is adding a new god, and that boost is minimal and very short-lived. As for 'players quitting', new releases tend to actually do the opposite and bring more players back, no matter what some people on these forums say about 'everyone in my alliance quit because of centaurs' or whatever.

leroy

Personally I dont care.. As long as I like and enjoy the game I play, I spend and have fun.

All my comments are based on Forum threads and some assumptions which could be completely wrong. You know what suits the most for the game and not me so I can't tell you what to do and what to avoid.

Not only 1 thing I will suggest here which you can either agree or disagree based up on your calculations.

Now that defence has picked up with some margin to improve further, loot penalties should be removed.

Its certain that we will be attacking either equal levels or lower levels, we will be getting far lesser resources. Either reduce attacking cost in terms of gems or remove loot penalties.

Again, whether to apply this or not is your choice not ours👍

[Umutcan]

Feel free to ignore me but I have a one question, is it devs intention for players to attack equal or lower levels? Sorry for my ignorance, I don't know or play any other games too, I'm curious of how the ideal game experience should be according to devs. Do they have anything specific in mind, like a player should not attack 5 levels above, or 10 or should att someone at an equal level?

[Thorr]

Feel free to ignore me but I have a one question, is it devs intention for players to attack equal or lower levels? Sorry for my ignorance, I don't know or play any other games too, I'm curious of how the ideal game experience should be according to devs. Do they have anything specific in mind, like a player should not attack 5 levels above, or 10 or should att someone at an equal level?

If that's the plan, they should be giving less cups in any attack mode. 13 cups, 25 cups etc should be stopped. We kinda rise in offence so quickly that we are up against higher levels in no time. I dont like to attack people above 140 levels but the offence rise is so fast, we can't do much.

[leroy]

Feel free to ignore me but I have a one question, is it devs intention for players to attack equal or lower levels? Sorry for my ignorance, I don't know or play any other games too, I'm curious of how the ideal game experience should be according to devs. Do they have anything specific in mind, like a player should not attack 5 levels above, or 10 or should att someone at an equal level?

When not at the very top rankings, the easy/normal/hard basically translates into the likelihood that we think you will win based on your past performance (and the performance of the city you are attacking). It doesn't really translate to player level directly at all. It is totally based on trophies. Easy we expect you to win most of the time, normal we expect you to win a little more than half the time, and hard we expect you to generally not win. So if you are a fantastically good player, your 'normal' match might be against many, many levels higher than your own level, because based on your past games you've shown you can handle those cities well enough to win roughly half the time. Note that player level can also be a little misleading, because if a player has spent a lot of gems upgrading his gods, his attacking 'power' could be significantly higher than a player that has spent a lot of gems upgrading his city (but they could be at the same player level). This is simply because player level equals stone + gold. So one player can have stone super high and gold super low, and another player can have gold super high and stone super low, but they'd be the same level.

leroy

[Umutcan]

When not at the very top rankings, the easy/normal/hard basically translates into the likelihood that we think you will win based on your past performance (and the performance of the city you are attacking). It doesn't really translate to player level directly at all. It is totally based on trophies. Easy we expect you to win most of the time, normal we expect you to win a little more than half the time, and hard we expect you to generally not win. So if you are a fantastically good player, your 'normal' match might be against many, many levels higher than your own level, because based on your past games you've shown you can handle those cities well enough to win roughly half the time. Note that player level can also be a little misleading, because if a player has spent a lot of gems upgrading his gods, his attacking 'power' could be significantly higher than a player that has spent a lot of gems upgrading his city (but they could be at the same player level). This is simply because player level equals stone + gold. So one player can have stone super high and gold super low, and another player can have gold super high and stone super low, but they'd be the same level.

leroy

Ok, thx for the answer. I know it doesn't translate to player level directly at all. So technically you expected that a player can get a base many levels above his when doing normal/hard. Thats mostly what I wanted to know. Because some people complain about lower levels attacking them, or some of them want extreme balance, like attacking not more than 5 levels etc. So there was no intention to gradually narrow it down with defensive updates but I think there was some balancing needed too. So new defensive stuff added.

I attacked a level 143 base yesterday with Apollo as patron and winning this base was impossible because of many centaurs, they kept coming and Apollo couldn't take them out, and centaur academies were scattered around the base so was hard to charm them before. But I heard this base has more stone than gold, I heard owner of this base bought stones before. Or maybe my losing was simply because my route or skills was not good enough. So centaurs surely brought difficulty in my opinion to attack well built high level bases, even if they are few levels above me, but maybe its a matter of finding and implementing new strategies and not just centaurs are overpowered. So time will show for me.

[Veznan]

If I may, how many centaurs can a max charm troops (both patroned and unpatroned, throw in an Inspiration as well if you like) charm, given the typical builds people do with centaurs? Idk, cuz I still don't have them, but I reckon Aphrodite can't even charm more than 1 of them lol.

On the subject of Patrons, what does max patroned Athena shield even do? Thanks

[Seaweed]

On the subject of Patrons, what does max patroned Athena shield even do? Thanks

If Athena patron shield exceed 100 percent damage reduction, nothing can hurt her.

[Raphasifiout]

If I may, how many centaurs can a max charm troops (both patroned and unpatroned, throw in an Inspiration as well if you like) charm, given the typical builds people do with centaurs? Idk, cuz I still don't have them, but I reckon Aphrodite can't even charm more than 1 of them lol.

It depend of the health of the centaurs. At maxed charm units is around 50 000 and a half with maxed patron it's *2.5
So 125 000
With 0 buffs a lvl 1 centaur is 450hp
So u can theorically charm around 477 centaurs in one charm
But this will never happen haha

[Seaweed]

The amount charmed is based on the hp of the troops i think.

[Raphasifiout]

277 not 477 sorry
Oh an I forgot inspiration ( *2.2 but I'm not 100% sure it's boosting patroned charm) so 277 *2.2= 611 centaurs