Games are Lasting Too Long; Many Problems Come With

[Sardonyq]

As the title says, Tower Defense games are lasting too long. I oftentimes find that if games go longer than 13-15 minutes people just leave. This really causes players that stay in the game to have a negative view of the game, and about the people who play it. When I play on Cube Craft I mostly play Tower Defense, some things I've noticed are that armageddon time doesn't influence the game speed enough. Games that get to armageddon either end with one Tower dying and the other one taking damage and ending with about 50-190HP. While I guess this can be seen as the purpose of armageddon, armageddon shouldn't take more than 2-4 minutes. Games that tie are genuinely really unsatisfying. Armageddon should be a very short event that speeds up the game, that is if the game hasn't ended already.

Maybe the purpose of Tower Defense is to have extremely long, slow games; maybe I'm missing the point. I am definitely curious about what the rest of the community thinks about this. I truly do think people leaving because of game length needs to stop, but that won't happen unless there are leaver penalties which I don't think are coming.

 

[zMigi_]

Tower defense playtime can vary depending on your playstyle
Not all games have to be fast like all the "pro players", (I've been in games of only 3 minutes.....)
However, I agree with you saying that armageddon should be 2-4 minutes long because by the time every match reaches the armageddon is already been a few mins in-game

 

[Sardonyq]

Tower defense playtime can vary depending on your playstyle
Not all games have to be fast like all the "pro players", (I've been in games of only 3 minutes.....)
However, I agree with you saying that armageddon should be 2-4 minutes long because by the time every match reaches the armageddon is already been a few mins in-game

Yeah, for me it really is just disappointing when the game ends in a tie, after what feels like 30ish minutes of gameplay. I don't know the exact times for how long it takes for the game to start armageddon mode, but it really really hurts when the game ends in a draw.

 

[rezlang]

To be honest, I find all normal games of TD to be pretty boring. I do enjoy the game, but I pretty much always vote for double income. Otherwise it takes far too long for things to get going and the games almost always end in a draw. At least if you have coins it is fairly easy to get EXP and level things up... I don't really have a suggestion on how to improve this other than voting(which obviously requires a paid rank), but it does seem to make the game substantially more fun imo.

 

[70UNIK]

Yes, it's also disappointing to not just see tower defense games run slower, especially in Armageddon, but as much as I like double coins, this can be the major cause of a stalemate (tie), because everyone has built up a considerable defense, requiring coordinated maxed-out rushes and potions to potentially break the tie (sometimes not even). (although normal mode is worse, as it's too slow)

Wither armageddon is too easy to counter (the wither is a glorified giant that can be affected by quake), Horde can be rendered pointless if many people are sending more powerful troops at the same time & lighting I'm not sure of (but depending on how much towers each side has, it should be faster over time and with more towers).

I feel like the Armageddons should scale based on how much towers each side has, as in if both sides have all spaces fill up, Horde will be a continuous flow of maxed out giants, Wither would either have multiple withers at the same time & lightning should be faster with more towers.

 

[Hippir]

Tower Defense gameplay relies on your strategies, so the game length duration depends on your strategies

 

[Matriox]

I don't think game lenght should be decreased, my friends and I often need the whole game to win. We just simply try rush after rush and imo game lenght is perfect

 

[InkAsriel]

i think the biggest problem with armageddon is the difficulty, not the time.
lighting is a joke, it barely changes the game, especially in double income.
wither is risky-ish in normal income, but with double you can easily kill it.
horde also depends on the income, normal income is obviously way harder.

for me the real problem is armageddon adding not too much to the game (except a lot of lagg x3), especially when playing against noobs theres nothing to worry about.

 

[heavenly55]

I really like that you brought this up, and I am excited to see what everyone else thinks about this. Personally, I like long games, and I find it disappointing when people leave the game only because it gets "too long." I also dislike rushing. I think this deters new players from learning the game (especially if you're going against them). This is another reason why I am opposed to large parties going against noobs/inexperienced players. I think it's unfair and demotivating for those on the receiving end.

As the title says, Tower Defense games are lasting too long. I oftentimes find that if games go longer than 13-15 minutes people just leave. This really causes players that stay in the game to have a negative view of the game, and about the people who play it.

I think the length of the game is fine, though armageddon could use some speeding up, but it should not be extreme. Armageddon can give either team the opportunity to recover and attempt to get through the enemy's castle again. I know this doesn't happen often with all the rushing, but I have played great games where this has happened. Even if I lose because of this, it is still a great game, and it makes me appreciate armageddon.

I have found that people do leave if the game lasts more than ~15 minutes, but it is mostly because they are trying to farm wins and get/advance on the leaderboard. There might also be players who might prefer "quick" games. If people remain in the game after ~15 mins, it can become really engaging and strategic. What I mean by this is that everyone in the team can share what they know and come up with a plan for defense/attack. Many times, this is difficult to do, especially when there are varying preferences in game length and differences in languages.

When I play on Cube Craft I mostly play Tower Defense, some things I've noticed are that armageddon time doesn't influence the game speed enough. Games that get to armageddon either end with one Tower dying and the other one taking damage and ending with about 50-190HP. While I guess this can be seen as the purpose of armageddon, armageddon shouldn't take more than 2-4 minutes. Games that tie are genuinely really unsatisfying. Armageddon should be a very short event that speeds up the game, that is if the game hasn't ended already.

I think we have different opinions when it comes to this, and it is completely fine. Personally, games that end in a draw are very satisfying to me. I am not claiming that I win every game, but when a game results in a tie, it draws me back into the game. Why? Because that means that I can find ways to improve my attack or my defense. Even losing in a fair game can be very satisfying to me.

Maybe the purpose of Tower Defense is to have extremely long, slow games; maybe I'm missing the point. I am definitely curious about what the rest of the community thinks about this. I truly do think people leaving because of game length needs to stop, but that won't happen unless there are leaver penalties which I don't think are coming.

I am not sure what Tower Defense was intended to be or how it was intended to be played. If I had to guess (as I have done), I would guess that defense is the biggest aspect of the game, since it's part of the name: Tower Defense. If rushing were the original intention for this game, maybe it would be called Tower Attack/Mob Attack/Tower Rush,Mob Rush/Party Rush, etc.?

I love finding different ways to defend and attempting to maximize/adjust defense. Long, slow games (in my opinion) have allowed me and others to do this. If I were forced to play short games where I just rush, I would never play this game again. I can't see how doing this is fun. Going against new players sometimes results in this, and I can't help but feel bad (even when I am not in a party). If I am in a party (of myself and another person, since I dislike big parties), it is even more dissatisfying to me, and I am curious as to how others see this as fun.

Defense in my opinion, is superior to attack. I think the point should be to formulate a decent/starter defense and then attempt an attack. Obviously, if it is an unfair game, then this attack can lead to an instant win/rush for most players. However, if playing in a fair game with players of similar skill/experience, that attack should not result in an instant win. If you fail, you try again at a later point, such as armageddon. If the enemy's castle took damage, then they should get a chance to attack you. This can result in great games and learning experiences for those involved.

 

[dartz42]

@Sardonyq

As the title says, Tower Defense games are lasting too long. I oftentimes find that if games go longer than 13-15 minutes people just leave. This really causes players that stay in the game to have a negative view of the game, and about the people who play it. When I play on Cube Craft I mostly play Tower Defense, some things I've noticed are that armageddon time doesn't influence the game speed enough. Games that get to armageddon either end with one Tower dying and the other one taking damage and ending with about 50-190HP. While I guess this can be seen as the purpose of armageddon, armageddon shouldn't take more than 2-4 minutes. Games that tie are genuinely really unsatisfying. Armageddon should be a very short event that speeds up the game, that is if the game hasn't ended already.

This is a topic that deserves a more in detail conversation. There are players who like faster rushed wins and those who like longer games. Fairness should be applied equally to all play styles (so long as they aren't against the rules).

How would people who like short games feel if we made a post saying that short games are annoying, boring, and don't allow for game development? How would they feel if we non-ironically suggested that short games should be 'forbidden' or 'impossible,' perhaps by buffing defense to OP proportions, or eliminating double income and introducing half income?

It's ludicrous, I agree, and so are the same suggestions being made the other way around. As much as I personally dislike short games, the fact that TD can end in 5 mins or 45 mins is what allows for variation, strategy development, and a rich atmosphere of competition.

But of course, the current status of the lag in late game kind of does exactly what you want: prevent late games. See https://www.cubecraft.net/threads/tower-defense-game-lag-in-later-rounds.275800/

 

[Sardonyq]

I really like that you brought this up, and I am excited to see what everyone else thinks about this. Personally, I like long games, and I find it disappointing when people leave the game only because it gets "too long." I also dislike rushing. I think this deters new players from learning the game (especially if you're going against them). This is another reason why I am opposed to large parties going against noobs/inexperienced players. I think it's unfair and demotivating for those on the receiving end.


I think the length of the game is fine, though armageddon could use some speeding up, but it should not be extreme. Armageddon can give either team the opportunity to recover and attempt to get through the enemy's castle again. I know this doesn't happen often with all the rushing, but I have played great games where this has happened. Even if I lose because of this, it is still a great game, and it makes me appreciate armageddon.

I have found that people do leave if the game lasts more than ~15 minutes, but it is mostly because they are trying to farm wins and get/advance on the leaderboard. There might also be players who might prefer "quick" games. If people remain in the game after ~15 mins, it can become really engaging and strategic. What I mean by this is that everyone in the team can share what they know and come up with a plan for defense/attack. Many times, this is difficult to do, especially when there are varying preferences in game length and differences in languages.


I think we have different opinions when it comes to this, and it is completely fine. Personally, games that end in a draw are very satisfying to me. I am not claiming that I win every game, but when a game results in a tie, it draws me back into the game. Why? Because that means that I can find ways to improve my attack or my defense. Even losing in a fair game can be very satisfying to me.


I am not sure what Tower Defense was intended to be or how it was intended to be played. If I had to guess (as I have done), I would guess that defense is the biggest aspect of the game, since it's part of the name: Tower Defense. If rushing was the original intention for this game, maybe it would be called Tower Attack/Mob Attack/Tower Rush,Mob Rush/Party Rush, etc.?

I love finding different ways to defense and attempting to maximize/adjust defense. Long, slow games (in my opinion) have allowed me and others to do this. If I were forced to play short games where I just rush, I would never play this game again. I can't see how that is fun. Going against new players sometimes results in this, and I can't help but feel bad (even when I am not in a party). If I am in a party (of myself and another person, since I dislike big parties), it is even more dissatisfying to me, and I am curious as to how others see this as fun.

Defense in my opinion, is superior to attack. I think the point should be to formulate a decent/starter defense and then attempt an attack. Obviously, if it is an unfair game, then this attack can lead to an instant win/rush for most players. However, if playing in a fair game with players of similar skill/experience, that attack should not result in an instant win. If you fail, you try again at a later point, such as armageddon. If the enemy's castle took damage, then they should get a chance to attack you. This can result in great games and learning experiences for those involved.

I appreciate your long response, very good points you highlighted. I think everyone takes the game differently, I just dislike it when the games go on forever, past armageddon, and end with a tie. I understand from an educational perspective, one would take it as "I need improvement" but when it comes to a game that lasts a long time, ending with a draw is unsatisfying.

But again, thank you for your detailed response.

 

[heavenly55]

I appreciate your long response, very good points you highlighted. I think everyone takes the game differently, I just dislike it when the games go on forever, past armageddon, and end with a tie. I understand from an educational perspective, one would take it as "I need improvement" but when it comes to a game that lasts a long time, ending with a draw is unsatisfying.

But again, thank you for your detailed response.

Of course! I think the differing opinions/playstyles make this game fun and interesting. I can understand that armageddon can seem long and weak in a double income game or that a tie might be a downer. However, I am not sure if we can all reach a consensus or that we even need to. Again, thank you for bringing this up, and I hope others can also contribute their opinions to this discussion.

 

[maflenoo]

I would like to see some improvements about this point somehow. Tower Defence is really a good game, but it needs some changes with the time periods.

 

[qopac]

From my experience most games that go to armageddon last till game end, which is the main problem imo. Armageddon isn't a threat on double income and can just be ignored since you'll have enough defences by the time it comes, and even on normal it isn't much of a threat unless you've been playing poorly with lots of failed all in pushes.

Armageddon should be drastically more threatening, especially on the longer maps where it currently does absolutely nothing.
Wither will die after destroying 3-5 towers barely making it 20% through the path if it's lucky,
horde doesn't send enough mobs at a time to make an impact so it just gives free coins,
and lightning just doesn't have much of an impact.

I'm curious if cubecraft have the statistics on what % of armageddon games go to game end and are decided on who did most damage earlier in the match if they dont just tie. Cus I imagine it's a lot

 

[heavenly55]

From my experience most games that go to armageddon last till game end, which is the main problem imo. Armageddon isn't a threat on double income and can just be ignored since you'll have enough defences by the time it comes, and even on normal it isn't much of a threat unless you've been playing poorly with lots of failed all in pushes.

Why is it a problem that games last till the end? I agree that armageddon isn't as rigorous as it could be, but I think it's of a reasonable difficulty for new players. If armageddon becomes too difficult to defeat, new players might never learn how to play and/or may never try to play again, but an option for rank/experienced players could be made in the future.

In addition, armageddon, while not as strong, can be incorporated into an attack that can lead to a win. What I mean by this is that games that go into armageddon don't always last until the game ends and don't always have to, and I definitely don't think that this is the case for me. However, I understand that this is might be the case for you and possibly other players.

Armageddon should be drastically more threatening, especially on the longer maps where it currently does absolutely nothing.
Wither will die after destroying 3-5 towers barely making it 20% through the path if it's lucky,
horde doesn't send enough mobs at a time to make an impact so it just gives free coins,
and lightning just doesn't have much of an impact.

I'm curious if cubecraft have the statistics on what % of armageddon games go to game end and are decided on who did most damage earlier in the match if they dont just tie. Cus I imagine it's a lot

I am also curious about these stats. However, I don't see the problem if it were the case that many games last the full time or result in draws. Could you please explain why this is a big issue? I am only wanting to understand this from other people's perspective.

 

[Shotgun]

I find it interesting in which direction the discussion went. To reply on the "what type of game is TD meant to be?": the key of every game, which I explain in all the guides I made, is teamwork (including communication) and balancing your offence and defence.

A Tower Defence game, from my viewpoint, is called "Tower Defence" because it was originally a single-player gamemode, however people connect the game CubeCraft created with the "Tower Defence" type of game as that type of game has developed itself over the years into a multiplayer game, in which you can even attack.

For playstyles, I currently experience just two of them, which I like to call the "rushers" and "defenders". There could be something in between too but those are the main two ways of playing the game. I also notice that rushers who fail to rush have a pretty big coin difference from defenders in end-game. If the game is balanced correctly regarding playstyles, and I think it is pretty balanced right now, then defenders should have at least 150% coin total in comparison to rushers after armageddon.
This would result in the defenders having an advantage in late-game and therefore they are able to send more powerful final pushes to take down the Castle (even in late-game).

In my opinion Tower Defence should be balanced in such way that there is no possibility for one to defend an organised final push, though that push should not be able to be sent before the last 7,5 minute of the game. This way there is almost no possibility for a draw except from when people don't know how to organise such a final push.

To come back to my playstyle point, I think there should be a third way to play the game, the "balanced playing style", they would be really defensive at first but right after they defended the first few rushes or pokes, they would become aggressive in their playstyle and do everything to win. If they don't within mid-game, then they would go back to defence and focus on winning with the damage they've done in mid-game with their aggressive rushes.

Conclusion, I think the game length itself is okay, which is 40 minutes at max with armageddon as a 25 minute marker. However, I would like to see more options for mid / late-game to make it even more interesting. Because in my experience, after pushing Blaze V there is an empty space of 10-15 minutes (in double inc) before being able to send your next effective push.

Spoiler: Argument against "the empty space"

Some players might say: we need that empty space to build proper defence for the final pushes. However, when I'm playing full defensive playstyle, I can on my own, build the entire defence before a final push is sent. So those who say this are probably rushers. And if there were more options added for late-game pushes, they maybe would indeed have too little time to build proper defence for those pushes. However, from my viewpoint, it would just be the punishment for being that aggressive in the first part of the game. Which would emphasise the key of gameplay: balancing offence and defence

 

[qopac]

Why is it a problem that games last till the end? I agree that armageddon isn't as rigorous as it could be, but I think it's of a reasonable difficulty for new players. If armageddon becomes too difficult to defeat, new players might never learn how to play and/or may never try to play again, but an option for rank/experienced players could be made in the future.

In addition, armageddon, while not as strong, can be incorporated into an attack that can lead to a win. What I mean by this is that games that go into armageddon don't always last until the game ends and don't always have to, and I definitely don't think that this is the case for me. However, I understand that this is might be the case for you and possibly other players.

I am also curious about these stats. However, I don't see the problem if it were the case that many games last the full time or result in draws. Could you please explain why this is a big issue? I am only wanting to understand this from other people's perspective.

For me it's a problem that it happens so often, not that it happens at all. When in the last 15 minutes of a game the troops don't even pass the halfway point it makes it incredibly boring and since it's a bigger problem on normal income it furthers the leaver problem normal income has

I play by myself and am unranked so most of the time I'm in a lobby of normal income with, most of the time people who won't communicate, are new/unexperienced or I can't speak the same language.
None of which is a bad thing but it makes it so it's very difficult to make coordinated pushes.

Most of the time I will have 2-3 good solo pushes before armageddon which usually is enough to win most games but in my experience if it goes to armageddon and both teams fill most/all spaces with towers even if unoptimal paths it'll probably go to game end. Specifically on maps like demons, barren, portals I often just tab out and wait for game end if it gets to the point where I know we wont reach their castle.

Though that is small portion of overall games, it's a large portion of games that go to armageddon. So I guess my problem isn't so much armageddon itself it's the fact that after a certain point like 25-30 minutes, if the game isn't over it's likely going to go to time limit. Especially on certain long maps.
Making the last 10-15 minutes just a boring wait. Most of the time I find in the last 5-10 minutes both teams realise no one is going to reach the tower and at that point it's just a wait till time limit. (However that's not the case in more coordinated games I'm aware)
I do think there's other things that could help it, mainly I believe certain AoEs (freeze) are far too strong as well as some towers. Which are the main contributors in making games go to the time limit IMO.

I didn't mean for my original post to make it seem like I think it's a huge problem since I think tower defence is in a pretty good place at the moment and really it's not a big issue since most games end before armageddon. While I think TD has a lot of balance issues, it's just a minigame in minecraft so it's hardly going to have frequent balance updates.

 

[dartz42]

In response to @Shotgun and others in this thread:

I'll leave the playstyles points of interest for here, as it really deserves it's own thread for discussion, and I know @heavenly55 spent a long time on it. But I can try to tackle your other points.

Summary:

• Teamwork is necessary, but needs proper definition to avoid party imbalance.
• Balance of Offense / Defense is necessary, but that rules out 'Killswitches.'
• Mid / Late Game Innovation is exciting, encouraged, and welcome, enough to justify a new thread...

---

I find it interesting in which direction the discussion went. To reply on the "what type of game is TD meant to be?": the key of every game, which I explain in all the guides I made, is teamwork (including communication) and balancing your offence and defence.

Teamwork
I agree that teamwork is essential. You shouldn't be able to win in most cases if there are trolls on on your defense or even on your offense. But I stress that where teamwork is necessary, I don't think it can be easily defined. For instance, 'teamwork' should not mean ~100% clear communication and coordination of playstyles among at least 4-6 players in order to push an attack or build a defense. I believe a more modest definition is ~70% clear communication and coordination of playstyles among at least 2-3 players in order to push an attack or build a defense.

Ultimately, I am and always have been concerned by the imbalance of big parties vs. randoms / small parties. If 'teamwork' requires a mic, 4+ players, etc., then it should truly be built into the game, but as we know, there is no voicechat or required discord. Thus, in order to make the game most enjoyable for new players, and even experienced players in smaller parties (especially if paired with new players), I believe a game where 4+ parties are heavily favored is dangerous for the community.

Balancing Offense / Defense
I also agree with your point on balanced offense and defense. But when this is said, I think we have to realize the consequences of that.

If defense is too OP, or if offense is too OP, the game will be boring. But if OP defense requires more skill to achieve, then it should be seen as a less problematic imbalance (albeit still an imbalance). And in current TD, OP offense usually only occurs due to 4+ parties, so the question is, which takes more skill, building OP defense, or partying up with other players? I'll leave the answer open to interpretation.

---

Moreover, to your point about late game TD:

In my opinion Tower Defence should be balanced in such way that there is no possibility for one to defend an organised final push, though that push should not be able to be sent before the last 7,5 minute of the game. This way there is almost no possibility for a draw except from when people don't know how to organise such a final push.

Killswitch?
This sounds like a dangerous idea to me that is actually contradictory to your proposition of balance of offense and defense. Suppose, for example, that the game introduced Enderdragon, with 250k EXP cost, 500k Coin cost, and upon summoning it, you instantly (or shortly after) win. There may be a 'skill' to acquiring this hefty cost, but that would supersede any of the skill developed in the game thus far regarding defensive playstyles. It would also not benefit new players to just be thinking 'Enderdragon OP, lets go for that!' and never learn any proper defense, while parties could more easily share coins and concentration 'skillfully' on a late game 'killswitch' to guarantee never taking losses.

Tower Defense should be balanced so that with enough offensive coordination MOST (95%) defenses should be surpassable, but also that with enough defensive coordination MOST (95%) offenses should be defendable. There should never be a 100% undefeatable strategy offensively or defensively.

As to the flow of the game however, I have always seen the game design to be more aggressive in the earlier stages, and defensive in the later ones (I suppose you see it the opposite way?). Certainly some maps will be nearly unsurpassable if you don't attack soon enough, but I believe this is by design, as it promotes attackers to be more coordinated and SOONER. It pushes the skill ceiling for these kinds of players. (I won't even fully describe the fact that many players believe to have unsurpassable defense, until they lose to as simple as a 2 player coordinated magma push).

---

Lastly, to your comment about mid / late game:

I would like to see more options for mid / late-game to make it even more interesting. Because in my experience, after pushing Blaze V there is an empty space of 10-15 minutes (in double inc) before being able to send your next effective push.

Mid / Late Game Innovation
Though my disagreements and concerns above may sound hesitant, I am excited about potential updates / changes to armageddon and mid / late game play, whether that be new mobs (!), or armageddon rebalancing. The goal of such changes though, in my opinion, should again not be to create a 'killswitch' type situation that heavily favors parties and confuses new players, but simply to introduce a newly higher level of gameplay. This will likely be through offense with new mob or armageddon, but is still defendable, provided the players have proper knowledge and skill. This hopeful balance striking of offense / defense would bring competition and innovation from the players themselves in order to advance the meta and make the game more nuanced and interesting.

But just like the playstyles thread, a new thread for mob / arma changes is likely possible...

 

[Shotgun]

In response to @Shotgun and others in this thread:

I'll leave the playstyles points of interest for here, as it really deserves it's own thread for discussion, and I know @heavenly55 spent a long time on it. But I can try to tackle your other points.

Summary:

• Teamwork is necessary, but needs proper definition to avoid party imbalance.
• Balance of Offense / Defense is necessary, but that rules out 'Killswitches.'
• Mid / Late Game Innovation is exciting, encouraged, and welcome, enough to justify a new thread...

---

Teamwork
I agree that teamwork is essential. You shouldn't be able to win in most cases if there are trolls on on your defense or even on your offense. But I stress that where teamwork is necessary, I don't think it can be easily defined. For instance, 'teamwork' should not mean ~100% clear communication and coordination of playstyles among at least 4-6 players in order to push an attack or build a defense. I believe a more modest definition is ~70% clear communication and coordination of playstyles among at least 2-3 players in order to push an attack or build a defense.

Ultimately, I am and always have been concerned by the imbalance of big parties vs. randoms / small parties. If 'teamwork' requires a mic, 4+ players, etc., then it should truly be built into the game, but as we know, there is no voicechat or required discord. Thus, in order to make the game most enjoyable for new players, and even experienced players in smaller parties (especially if paired with new players), I believe a game where 4+ parties are heavily favored is dangerous for the community.

Balancing Offense / Defense
I also agree with your point on balanced offense and defense. But when this is said, I think we have to realize the consequences of that.

If defense is too OP, or if offense is too OP, the game will be boring. But if OP defense requires more skill to achieve, then it should be seen as a less problematic imbalance (albeit still an imbalance). And in current TD, OP offense usually only occurs due to 4+ parties, so the question is, which takes more skill, building OP defense, or partying up with other players? I'll leave the answer open to interpretation.

---

Moreover, to your point about late game TD:


Killswitch?
This sounds like a dangerous idea to me that is actually contradictory to your proposition of balance of offense and defense. Suppose, for example, that the game introduced Enderdragon, with 250k EXP cost, 500k Coin cost, and upon summoning it, you instantly (or shortly after) win. There may be a 'skill' to acquiring this hefty cost, but that would supersede any of the skill developed in the game thus far regarding defensive playstyles. It would also not benefit new players to just be thinking 'Enderdragon OP, lets go for that!' and never learn any proper defense, while parties could more easily share coins and concentration 'skillfully' on a late game 'killswitch' to guarantee never taking losses.

Tower Defense should be balanced so that with enough offensive coordination MOST (95%) defenses should be surpassable, but also that with enough defensive coordination MOST (95%) offenses should be defendable. There should never be a 100% undefeatable strategy offensively or defensively.

As to the flow of the game however, I have always seen the game design to be more aggressive in the earlier stages, and defensive in the later ones (I suppose you see it the opposite way?). Certainly some maps will be nearly unsurpassable if you don't attack soon enough, but I believe this is by design, as it promotes attackers to be more coordinated and SOONER. It pushes the skill ceiling for these kinds of players. (I won't even fully describe the fact that many players believe to have unsurpassable defense, until they lose to as simple as a 2 player coordinated magma push).

---

Lastly, to your comment about mid / late game:


Mid / Late Game Innovation
Though my disagreements and concerns above may sound hesitant, I am excited about potential updates / changes to armageddon and mid / late game play, whether that be new mobs (!), or armageddon rebalancing. The goal of such changes though, in my opinion, should again not be to create a 'killswitch' type situation that heavily favors parties and confuses new players, but simply to introduce a newly higher level of gameplay. This will likely be through offense with new mob or armageddon, but is still defendable, provided the players have proper knowledge and skill. This hopeful balance striking of offense / defense would bring competition and innovation from the players themselves in order to advance the meta and make the game more nuanced and interesting.

But just like the playstyles thread, a new thread for mob / arma changes is likely possible...

I agree with all of the above except from the Killswitch part.

I think you misunderstood my understanding of the Killswitch part. I didn't mean it as one OP troop at the end of the game that would guarantee you the win. Let me explain it in more detail for you:

What I meant is that if the game continues until the Finale phase, in case of an experienced player vs experienced player 6v6 match, there is a 97% chance that with a coordinated push which consists of a combination of troops the castle will be taken down, even if the defence of the defending team is almost perfectly placed.
However, in most matches, which are not 6v6 and not entirely existing of experienced players, that 97% final push success rate will descend drastically.

This means that there is always a killswitch there, but not accessible in most games. Though I do think it needs to be in the game as it would mean that the game is balanced (in the killswitch discussion, I see balanced in a way that a match is balanced in overall (general) offence/defence strengthI couldn't get this sentence properly structured, I hope you understand though)

 

[dartz42]

I do understand what you mean by it, I just was exaggerating the idea by making it clear and simple. I don't think that any killswitch, whether it requires skill in order to unlock it faster, or if it requires team coordination among 6 players, should be in the game. No amount of skill for me is enough to justify a killswitch that overrides any defense (especially if the defending team has 6 players!).

Essentially, if there are killswitches for offense, then the game cannot be balanced offensively and defensively in late game (or whenever the kill switch becomes available). I allow your argument for them to exist, but I don't think they can exist and that we can say that offense and defense are balanced.

Because offense and defense balancing is imo vital to advancing strategies, promotes analysis / game improvement, etc., I'm not willing to accept killswitches.