Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Entropy42 last won the day on January 27

Entropy42 had the most liked content!

About Entropy42

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You are not forced to do Conquest. Sorry its not your cup of tea.
  2. Yeah, your situation seems really strange. Maybe they were scoring other points right around the same time you were taking their village? I'm not sure how fast the scoreboard updates the other teams' scores, but I know it updates our score instantaneously. We deployed a 2 pt tower with 10 sec left, then grabbed that SS (which you can see says the CQ was "finished"). Also, are the village/mine/library worth different amounts in different tiers? They were only worth 10 points for us.
  3. We finished (and deployed) a tower with seconds remaining. Our score went up by enough that we should have gotten to 1st place, but we still got second. It's possible the other team also had last second points, but there is no way to see the final scores from CQ for some reason (feature request!). Edit: Here is a SS someone our on team captured of our thrilling last second "victory".
  4. Entropy42

    Research tree

    I think the tech tree for this CQ was very well done, at least for teams on our level. The +1 Def and +1 Attack troop techs were deep enough in the tree that they were hard to get without a library, but obtainable with one (making library more valuable than usual), and the tree had 2 branches so you had to focus on building or energy reduction (at least to start).
  5. 3rd tier, looks like 200 teams (40 go up) In order of current placement. Us - Rank 378, 48 members, lvl 45, CQ HQ lvl 6 Other - Rank 306, 46 members, lvl 44, CQ HQ lvl 7 Other - Rank 255, 59 members, lvl 56, CQ HQ lvl 7 Other - Rank 253, 47 members, lvl 65, CQ HQ lvl 7 I should add that this ended up being a close grouping. With 10 min left, the scores are 340, 339, 293, 216
  6. But I used 2 of them on something that had 1d 18 hrs left, if it was just a display bug, it should've finished when i used the 2nd one? Edit: It did finish I guess, but didn't show up until i logged out and back in... Thanks for the quick replies Madlen.
  7. Yes, do they not work on wave upgrades at all? I have another I was going to use on a heal tower, but didn't want to after losing 2 of them. Edit: I tried it on a heal tower, it works. I guess just not on wave upgrades.
  8. The 1 day upgrade tokens do not work with this event. I used one on something with 1day 18hrs left, and it didn't change. I used another one, still didn't change. So I've lost 2 tokens and wasted a worker on a small project 😞 Turns out they just don't work on wave upgrades. I used it on a Heal Tower and it worked as expected.
  9. Is there a phase 5? The picture makes it seem like there would be, but they have been starting at 10 AM EST, which was 30 min ago. Edit: Nevermind, I think they have been starting at 11, which is 30 min away.
  10. I welcome the idea that my basic premise is wrong, but I would challenge your premise as well. If you think forcing higher skull counts on players as they level is a bad gameplay mechanic, would you then support just making all bases worth 1015 skulls, regardless of player level? If it is a good gameplay mechanic as people get stronger from lvl 1-95, why is it no longer a good mechanic as they get stronger from 95-130? Maybe a full 7 skulls per level is not warranted after lvl 100, but bases unquestionably continue to get stronger. I don't know what level you are, but can you point me to some lvl 95 players who can beat any base in the game? I don't personally know any. We have many lvl 95-115 players who can't beat many lvl 130 bases. Your assertion that it "a Tower Defense and Attack game, meaning a delicate balance must be kept between the two" followed immediately by "If you get to 95, you should then be striving to hit 130 as soon as possible" is not logically consistent. This means the correct strategy is not at all to balance your attack and defense, since leveling increases your attack power far more than your defense value (only making your defense beast stronger). By recommending this, you are making my point for me, which is that the "correct" strategy is not to balance your offense and defense, but to focus completely on your offense. The food cost is not an equivalent issue. A food cap makes sense, as there is no longer way to improve your food income/storage once your farms are maxed. A lvl 95 player is not maxed out in attack/defense capability.
  11. Yes, there are bad bases at every player level. There are always players who don't bother to invest enough in their defense in a Tower Defense game. Those players still exist at lvl 95. Why are we worried that they are going to start losing a lot of fights? That's what should happen if you have bad defenses. Similarly, if your alliance doesn't have boosts, you should expect to lose more, otherwise what is the point of boosts? On average, lvl 115 players have stronger bases than lvl 95 players. That is the reason to alter the cap. The game appropriate rewards you for tackling harder bases as you level up, and then this suddenly stops at lvl 95. This argument about harming players who level up faster is not even consistent with how the game works right now. Somehow capping it at 95 doesn't harm players who level up faster on their way to 95, but a cap at 105/110/115 would?
  12. Entropy42

    Sergeant rank

    The game just needs a different set of ranks for Conquest. The skills needed by Generals and Sergeants have very little to do with what they do the other 3 weeks of the month when conquest isn't running. Have a promotion system for the Alliance to acknowledge dedicated members, then have a separate system for Conquest.
  13. Among active players there are only about 20-25k above lvl 95, and 180k total players, so saying "this is only a problem in low/mid level alliances" means it's only a problem in most alliances. Yes, I understand, at the top you fight the highest trophy base you can while wearing your skull gear. In top level alliances you don't just pile on the lvl 95, because there is someone else you can beat up instead. But the strategy would clearly change if skulls continued to scale up until lvl 105 or 115. The quality of your defense would matter, rather than just how much you manipulate your trophy count before a war. A lvl 95 base is just not as hard to beat as a lvl 115 base, so it's not logical that they give the same reward. I think people are so used to how its been that they don't seem to be able to think about whether that still makes sense. You say a cap increase wouldn't change anything, then your very next sentence says the "problem goes away at 95+", which implies that the cap has an effect, and raising that cap would make it affect fewer players (i.e. would change something).
  14. How do you not see that everything you are saying "should never happen" could happen right now. Dystopian future with no skull cap: "You never want to be a in a case where a team of 45 people all lvl 110 can't win against a team of lvl 100s due to skulls lost per attack" The game right now: "Totally fine for there to be a case where a team of 45 people all lvl 95 can't win against a team of lvl 85s due to skulls lost per attack" I'd argue that in either case, if the higher level team can't win, it's because they haven't done a decent job making a defense and should lose because of it. They've had 10 more levels (and 600M XP!) worth of gold\pearls to improve their bases and find better skull gear. It takes nearly triple the XP to get to 110 than it does to get to 100, what were they doing in all that time? Why is it backwards to stop leveling at 90 right now? Is it because you will continue to get stronger and be able to fight higher level bases as you level up? If so, isn't this still true at lvl 100? If the cap was 105 instead of 95, you'd be saying " if you are a level 90 100 king that isn't levelling up due to skull increases, then you're playing the game backwards"
  • Create New...