The Problem

Many wars have been fought and won by the simple fact of one side being more prepared than the other. Either way people will prepare for some event in whatever way they see fit. If you remove the builder start up time, more people will play builder and build crazy things anways. A castle is always built before the war occurs. Just like with any modern military base or stronghold. Without the build phase the other team could just walk into your main tent. Without build time you're team would have less workshops to use;as a result, you would quickly lose more tickets and the team would suffer.

 

Ok maybe i need to repeat myself here when i say how is building OP you guys obviously havent seen Snickering Gentleman as a buiilder he can reduce pretty much any build to Rubble and all this talk about how it isn't balanced there is no way of ever making it balanced. Also what would we gain from nerfing building nothing but the good builders having to spend months getting better at building cause you have taken away what made them good instant block placement can get annoying but its easily countered with one builder being competent every game is won because of what team is more competent its just how public matches and all matches work. Nerfing wont change anything but make players who were orginally good bad your not nerfing buildings your nerfing players.

morale of the Story stop nerfing things cause you want an edge in battle.

 

Maybe people want to keep on nerfing things BECAUSE of the edge that it gives. Personally, i think that enough stuff has been nerfed. First archers, then bombs and jump height. Do we really want to keep nerfing things until we can't do anything at all?

 

I've only had this game for a week fews and i'm already getting tired of nerfing on the forums. I agree nerfing should be done in a proper manner. Some things should not be changed. Builder is a builder period. If you limit what the builder class can make, then what the hell is it?. Now i agree that sky bridging should be looked at in more detail that makes sense. But not allowing people to build things in the beginning is a bad idea.

 

Exactly. Everything is perfectly balanced now, except for skybridges.
If these guys can't demolish a castle, they really need to stop having 10 archers and 12 knights in one team.

To the OP: Get one or two guys to be builders, defend them, destroy the enemy castle and traps. Profit.

 

Ok I wasn't going to reply to you guys but since I've been adressed directly I guess I have to. "Oh everything is fine, just have a builder run over there". This is very much akin to saying something like "Oh just have the server detect griefing and automatically kick people". In fact I'm sure you're saying to yourself that that's a good idea right now as you read this. Superficially it sounds good until one actually considers what it would entail, specifically how do you define griefing? Well breaking stuff in your area, maybe? But how would you then differentiate between griefing and rock dropping, making modifications, salvaging in times of need. You even run into problems of defining your area.

The problem with saying "oh just get a builder over there Contrary you noob" is that you can't because the builder won't survive. Much of what Ive talked about in this thread ápplies mainly to clan matches, but I now see it is a real problem in pubs too. You've all played matches where the lives get low and the enemy team all goes archer. You can't gain ground. Skim this video (which I have already posted here at least once):



I don't expect anyone to watch all of it, I don't think I have start to finish, but just jump around in 5-10 minute intervals and you'll see that after the center is taken at the 5 minute mark, there is over half an hour of stalemate. Granted, we aren't playing perfectly, but I think it still showcases what happens when the game isn't full of scrubs. In that game we have myself, Carver, Kyzak, Wyeth, Rainbows, SpitfireXero, and Wonka against Neat, Cough Drop, Strathos, Rioja, Ikgrid, and Fellere (though he left). You might recognize a couple of these names, and even if you don't let me tell you that they're all very good. And no one could break the stalemate. Strathos who is frequently called the god of offensive building (seriously search his name), couldn't break it. The reason is that buildings and a few other factors make it so tht defense is inherently easier than offense.

So basically these are things I've said many many times in the course of this thread. I'll let you guys have your say and I'll close it up. Someone can start a new thread if they like but I think it's not worth it to have a public thread on stuff like this. Until I lock it, do you understand what I'm saying, ladies?

 

Good players verus good players should be quite the fight. I'd expect a stalemate or long fight. The challenge of any multiplayer game is the unknown elements you don't know. Thats the exciting part of this game is that you can't always predict the enemies next move. Truly no one building style is enough to ward off different types of people and their ideas. When you say the word God, thats a very strong word that people take seriously. You said that Strathos is the god of offensive building. It's almost like you're afraid of a new threat or challenge that you've never seen before. Now maybe i'm wrong here but theres another point i want to bring up. When you see a great sports team play another great sports team that sets peoples nerves on fire. That game is one of those moments that goes down in history. It becomes its own meaning and is remembered forever. Thats exciting to me man those golden moments. You have to keep in mind though, when you're on the top of the charts; theres only one way to go, down.

 

You know if when you say that the builder won't survive the trip there, then how are the knights surviving?
If you aren't able to kill the enemy knights surrounding the building I fail to see why destroying the building is even much of an issue.

Edit: I realize that buildings do give archers an advantage, but that is only a slight advantage. A small group of knights can easily shield or your own archer can keep the enemy archer from continuously attacking your teammates. For the other classes buildings don't do much other than prevent them from going over.

 

Ya i agree a single archer doesn't do to much. You need a solid group of two or three archers to be effective in small battles. Builders need to learn to haul ass to the front to build shops to support the army. Without all the required workshops, you're team won't last very long. Team doors to be effective need to be higher as well. About five or six blocks tall will be decent verus the average knight. However, a group of knights shield climbing can get in there and do work.

 

It shouldn't stalemate.. rather be tennis, how it once was.

 

I dont really find builders op atm, but that might be because its my most played class (just because its the only class im relatively good at). I only played in pub servers tough, so it may be diffrent.
Its indeed annoying when all goes archer and camps in a high tower, but if they are archer-ing, they will usually be in the front tower, meanwhile some builders could dig a tunnel just outside of archer range, and steal the flag.
Removing buildphase would make the game a bit too fast-paced.
A bunch of knights and 2 builders could just roll in and destroy everything, you didnt have the chance to build.
Stalemates indeed are boring, and it can be annoying, mayby, at one point there could be a nerf SOMEWHERE.
but certainly not everywhere, as you seem to be suggesting. if i read it right.