Jump to content

Xengre

Defender-In-Training
  • Content Count

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Xengre

  1. Well this is awkward... I thought that a billion digits seemed slightly high to be under 1 gb... So I tried converting it... When I converted it was well over 1 gb... and then I realized... I forgot Kb in my conversions @.@ So everything in the original post was off by a factor of 2^10... My bad lol. Correcting the post now. Kinda just reinforces your point though, seeing as that means it'd be less than 1 GB a month from my estimates (though, again, reality should be considerably larger than my estimates). Thanks for updating the topic. I realized this morning something was off about the numbers but assumed they were right due to it being a very rough estimate, along with the effort you put in, and tired/lazy forgetting (until this morning) that this is with DD2's population. Yup, its quite insignificant so it really should be logged. Keep in mind that pulling the data out of the database isn't an issue with a proper query system and formatting/indexing. It is non-issue. The data is already logged... when it spawns, enters our inventory, swaps equip slots/inventory, gets sold, etc. This is already happening. If it was laggy due to databases it was due to inefficient queries or some bug, not because of the type of problem at play here. Hell, MMOs do this already. Imagine something like WoW/FFXIV's logs or League of Legends (heatmaps/statistics/purchase history for real money or in game items/runes/masteries/chat/etc) and their millions of players. Far more complex then this.
  2. Make it apply a DoT. This. Blaze Baloon seems like a tower that should apply decent damage to those within the flames but not comparable to other area defenses like flame aura, sacrificing some of its power for a DoT effect that results in a larger total damage dealt. It would be ideal for longer paths to wear down mobs or knock out stuff like Kobolds without needing 3-4 FA to accomplish the same effect. It would require mobs stay alive long enough to really see the damage toll out and it would require a long enough route (frosty/etc. could couple with this to help). If stuff is able to reach walls fast enough this is not the defense to use. If stuff can be delayed long enough it can really wear down targets. It would couple very well with a FA or PDT to weed out squishies and let core towers (especially more powerful single target towers and Geysers/CC) deal with the tougher enemies that do reach walls. The actual damage would be up for question and the effect of the Phoenix may have to change to better suit this nature. With proper tuning it wouldn't be a PDT scenario all over again (limited range, placement importance, how it spreads and bonus damage from explosions that PDT had, and other issues that separate the two).
  3. They have plenty of proof. They just need to look at logs. Even if there were 30 million players who played and had massive inventories full of loot text files are so tiny they could easily back it up weekly without issue. Even as time goes on it would be non-issue to manage with a half intelligent system in place. Any developer that tells you otherwise is either so early into development and haven't added this feature (extremely early closed alpha), need to get their priorities straight, or is lying. You clearly have no idea how programming works ... just logging every drop ive had and sold would take multiple gigabytes, now if you log everything from every player, that would be a terrible amount of data. Theres a reason games with buyback dont have infinite buyback. I am familiar with programming (in fact you can actually find my threads from 2 years ago during a fiasco in which I busted Trendy hard, after much of the community didn't believe me, about a BS stun regarding an unnecessary wipe because they "lacked" a feature and couldn't complete it in time... then they accidentally admitted to it on Stream less then 24 hours later...). It would not take multiple GB. A 1 billion digits of Pi text file is less than 1 GB... https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/pi/ This is before compression or any culling of unnecessary data and the data can be cheaply archived for virtually no cost on TB drives for years. The only issues are implementing efficient/fast search queries for data, detail of data presentation/available, and a few quality of life additions to such a system. None of this is difficult, either. Even a college student could accomplish this with basic programming skills and knowledge of data structures/Big O notation. Do tell me all about your programming knowledge though. Great post. I'm not sure of the format they use or what data they need to keep and how short it can be cut but as a rough estimate of 311 GB a month comes at under 4TB a year which is very doable. Thanks for the example.
  4. FA is as strong if not stronger than the WM when upgraded. If you compare a 3 node WM (120 DU cost) to 3-4 FA (90 or 120 DU cost) placing the FA in the same spots as the WM, the FA will outperform the WM. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1088813312 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1088813276 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1088813210 http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1088813234 Not sure if the links to those work or not. They show that 3 FA by wave 4 when placed similarly to WM, will do more damage. The 3 FA did 199.9 Million damage. The 3 node WM did 188 Million. So, valid point, FA is as strong if not stronger than the WM, given upgrades during the run. In the current meta/chaos tier, WM is chosen because it is convenient, another valid point. Probably made other valid points, but don't feel like going back a page or two to review everything I wrote. And Xengre dude, all I was saying initially is the WM is NOT OP when compared to other towers, and it is not. If you take most other defenses and use the same DU cost, upgrade them to tier 3, they outperform the WM. WM is only used as much as it is now, because it is convenient and efficient. I do not want them to nerf it, because it is balanced the way they designed it. Other people have made the point that if they adjust the WM to be upgradeable instead of being at tier 2.5 from the start, should be cheaper at start in this case, it would and could fall right in line with every other defense. I am hoping Trendy reads most of this and does not nerf the defense, an adjustment to make it upgradeable would be fine. I just do not want to come back online and see the WM completely put out of commission. I do not normally use it, but it is still a decent defense, I tend to use defenses I can actively buff up by upgrading because part of the fun for me is running around upgrading stuff. The links do work and thanks for the test. It wasn't so hard. Glad someone managed it. I would like to point out a potential issue with the results though. The WM as far as I am aware are reknowned for their crits and the no gear WM from test heroes function even has crits ~4x their attack value. You seem to have a medallion, I am guessing, or abnormally low crits and thus, potentially, not utilizing WM anywhere near its real potential. This is purely speculation from me because I do not own the hero to have proper experience, myself. If you are up for it repeat your tests using a comparably powerful mark and proper shards for it and see how the results change (I expect WM performance to certainly improve but that is no guarantee). In addition, test in a much more populated lane. The kill count for that lane is seems kind of low and test until wave 5 completion. Reason is that the low mob count actually heavily favors FA biasing the results drastically towards FA if there isn't a target cap on WM since it allows FA to not suffer due to limited target cap with low mob density. Don't expect you to put further effort into testing, though would be great if you do. It is already far more effort then the brief attempt would take from anyone else who hasn't bothered here. Most definitely agreed. Makes me wonder if that is a core focus of the "change" that will occur to it soon.
  5. False. Gear score can definitely still be figured based off sell value. I am in C6 Ascension 106 but reached mid-end C5 at Ascension 39... only got so many because of the sheer amount of runs to farm Stun Fire shard and some other shards and I was not carried unless I was in an area I was purely farming a shard I could already build and solo myself reliably. I used sell value to get to this point very fast and it has not failed me at all. I can guarantee stats that are sometimes 200 lower on the primary are not IPW upgrades. Sometimes the items I equip with lowered stats result in substantially better gear dropping despite a reasonable drop of the main stat compared to a prior item after the swap. Compare main stat only if you want the lazy/dirty way that doesn't involve math, often if rushing in between waves and someone is carrying you that doesn't want to wait or you got a group of randoms/others in your game.
  6. Took me about 100 C1 Shards to get Stun Fire and 150 C5 to get Explosive Poison. Keep at it as it can just be that bad RNG cause Trendy wants to extend playtime. It isn't fair RNG tho, it is incredibly biased to favor certain shards over others. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
  7. They have plenty of proof. They just need to look at logs. Even if there were 30 million players who played and had massive inventories full of loot text files are so tiny they could easily back it up weekly without issue. Even as time goes on it would be non-issue to manage with a half intelligent system in place. Any developer that tells you otherwise is either so early into development and haven't added this feature (extremely early closed alpha), need to get their priorities straight, or is lying.
  8. Nor am I. The points I have made are valid. I do not need the WM to do anything. It is not the best tower out there. It is a convenient defense, in the current system, which is why it is used. The PDT, imo, is much more OP comparatively, but it's hard counter is worse than the Cyborks and present in C7. I get through maps with ease with FA, PDT, Cannons (when geodes are not present), Ramsters and Skyguards. Change the meta, and the WM would go out of style, more than likely, if it is countered. PDTs would again be the meta, and people will be wanting the nerf there, which Trendy did say they were looking at the PDT as well as the WM for the 'adjustments to reduce dominance'. Just because it is a convenient and easy to use defense does not make the WM OP. Most other towers can perform just as well, if not better than the WM, given upgrades. In another discussion about using towers to complete C7 without the WM, someone used Blaze Balloons to great effect. Pretty sure it was also said that just about any combination of defenses could work in C7 without WM, as long as you cover each lane with appropriate defenses. You have not made a single valid point. Don't mean to come off harsh but it is the truth. You are giving an opinion without ANY supporting testimony whatsoever. Literally, none. Regarding the PDT, I like the tower but have yet to see my PDT pull off the kind of damage WM does and the poison doesn't stack nor does is it a crit oriented monster. I'm glad you get through content very easily with your end game gear. Kind of like the other thread you mentioned that discusses how any build works (including crazy setups such as 100% walls, also used for DPS not just blocking), etc. due to how overkill high end C7 gear is. Several posters even make this point in the thread. Not really supporting your stance. Nor is the ability to succeed with inferior options supporting your stance. Just because I can probably get from Normal to C7 using ONLY Squire tower options and heroes doesn't mean that something overpowered isn't. PDT is arguably to strong as well, though, and this isn't being denied. One potentially to powerful tower vs another OP one doesn't mean that the 2nd one can be called balance because it shares the status of being to strong atm. I know FA, PDT, Cannons work because they are what I used to get this far as I don't own EV2. Doesn't mean squat. The entire point of the topic was buffing other towers to be comparable (which would mean the game would be even easier than it already is) or nerfing WM (bringing it inline with other options that work just fine for most part so it isn't grossly outperforming). There is a reason the community sees WM to much and why it is being patched... Not just from users with C7 gear but even for progression (it is horribly over used). Anyways, not touching this thread any further. It will be interesting to see how both PDT and WM change without potentially breaking their identity (irony being one of the core uses of WM not even being factored in due to the sheer performance of the aura... the rest gets overlooked) or over nerfing.
  9. It should be noted that your claims about WM performance, the target cap, and FA/PDT/Ramsters/etc. being superior to WM have literally no evidence or logic (though evidence of the contrary certainly exists (figures I have provided, Trendy's own reaction and up coming patch concerning, player excessive usage... often near 100% usage rate at some chaos tears confirmed by other posters and Trendy) with only PDT potentially at a competing level) thus far. You can keep making claims but your posts are heresy until you stop playing the "I say so so it is true" game. Not really interested in continuing such a pointless discussion, myself.
  10. Apologies, but I feel no obligation to search through the forums to find "proof" that the target cap exists when your only "proof" is the absence of proof. I simply attempted to list possible explanations why your test is showing such a drastically exaggerated result compared to most everyone else (including people that agree with the nerf), and give you a chance to provide any reasoning or logic as to why your decision to focus on Damage over DPS can be argued to be more valid when the reasoning I showed provides reasoning for it to be less valid. The closest thing to "proof" I'm afraid I can provide for you that flame auras are not performing at a tenth the power of a weapon man, is that the only thing I use flame auras for is running 4 mans in the rare chances I do them, as that usually removes the chip damage my walls start to take from the MP scaling after wave 2... Considering that's no more substantiated than yours, would seem stupid to use that as counter-evidence though... wouldn't it? Additionally... just to put into perspective your focus on this target cap... Say that you agree on the DPS comparison (since you don't seem to be arguing against that, and are simply saying it's due to target cap), a weapon man has roughly double the DPS of a T1 flame aura (emphasis on roughly). That means, that for it to do 10x the damage in the same time it'd have to hit 5x as many targets at once (can prove that algebraically if you're that desperate for proof). The cap is 8. That is 40 enemies. Please show me "proof" of any map in which there are 40 enemies at once on average (because it can't be a single tick to create this skew) and I will believe your claim that the target cap is the culprit. Otherwise, I will be forced to default to my original explanation of why the target cap is largely irrelevant. And without that argument, I still lack one for why damage is the more valid quantitative value. Lastly... while I agree we need proper testing... That doesn't mean I'm not going to be cynical and actually point out what I consider a non-proper test. You dislike it, or disagree with it, so be it. Ignore it if you wish. I simply put out the reasoning for those that do not see what I do, or to be otherwise proven wrong by those who see something that I do not. Then you are bowing out of the discussion until you wish to provide a worthwhile statement I assume? I searched a fair amount because I was curious about WM and other towers target caps and could find nothing. In addition, this is the only potential reason provided thus far for the massive gulf in damage dealt and general performance of the two defenses. Literally not one person has provided any explanation as to why and clearly WM wouldn't be used so much if they were that close as even T2 should provide comparable performance. To many people are looking at DPS as evidence of any equality between the two when this applies exclusively to single target damage... while the damage dealt between the two seems to be vastly different. No one else has had different results from mine. Not a single person in this entire thread, literally. I am the exclusive person here to look at damage dealt while every other entity has vouched for the DPS... the incorrect figure for the discussion. If defense 1 does 100k DPS while defense 2 does 98k DPS they are nearly identical right? This is the argument people are using here. However, during a wave defense 1 has a damage dealt figure of 34m while defense 2 has a damage dealt figure of 3.4m. Clearly they aren't equal, a magnitude difference in performance. Your example with 4 man... just do the same thing with WM that you do with FA. Even at T5 the damage advantage is not significant. You would be far better invested in putting that mana into upgrades on something else since you don't have to upgrade WM in normal runs unless you have the stats to basically afk with all auras for a given map/difficulty at which point it is kinda moot. It is possible that FA is wasting overkill damage/crits on small mobs beyond their HP threshold while far less damage from WM is wasted because it is hitting everything or more at the same time where FA only gets to hit 8 targets at a time. This becomes far more apparent when numerous mobs are making it through a given aura. Your assumption that it would take 5x the number of mobs is wrong because it assumes every mob has identical health which is such a disastrous assumption. Thus with a smaller number still reasonably larger than 8 but potentially way lower than 40... falls totally into realistic territory. My test is not improper. If the damage dealt gap is a magnitude different or even close to so then it can be found reliable. The damage dealt would have to be fairly close after testing in order for it to not be found reliable even considering potential variables. You know what margin of error and real world results are correct? I believe there is no real debate that WM is outperforming FA atm correct? This is kind of a universal belief by both the community and Trendy and can even be seen in c4+ runs as it is almost always what you will encounter, almost exclusively... as cited by several people. I would test it but I do not own the hero and I do not support Trendy after some very disagreeable behavior from them in the past on several occasions (check my DD2/Steam discussion history if you want to dig for some examples, including several self owns by Trendy accidentally outing themselves). Doesn't mean I can't enjoy this type of game and that is another discussion entirely. No one has argued against my point or provided any comparison (such as it only does 2x the damage, etc. in their experience). In fact, every poster in this thread has looked at DPS exclusively regarding the two towers... neglecting Damage Dealt entirely so it is obvious why no one is bringing it up. They haven't even noticed/looked. It isn't difficult for someone to actually test this and provide video of the test or even numbers for comparison. If they were so similar in performance then WM wouldn't be so lopsidedly popular. Getting to T3 is nothing on a defense where it supposedly begins to outperform.
  11. Lightning strikes aura will only cost 20DU in the patch and it's targeting will be improved so it is definitely getting some love. Targetting improvements is prioritization or is it related to it hitting air most of the time? If it is the latter then this might actually be a nice patch for it combined with DU decrease.
  12. So, just to say, you realize you get DPS by measuring the damage done per second? Damage done over XX amount of time can be turned into DPS numbers. So your suggestion to look at the damage done by the WM compared to the FA and not the DPS is kind of silly. The literal reason WM currently outperforms the FA is because we are limited to 5 waves. To get through a level you can not upgrade a bunch (3 or 4) of FA to tier 2 or 3 on each lane. You can however drop WM, because you do not need to upgrade it. If there were more waves of enemies say 10 or 15, it would be preferable at that point to use 4 FA (costs the same DU) along the lanes over the 3 node WM, because the FA would outperform as soon as you can get the upgrades across them. 1. WM doesn't take any setup time. 2. As xArcAngel stated all auras got the same 8 enemy limitation, so not a valid point either. Honestly, my test is not foolproof and probably can't be considered a 'valid' test, but as you say "getting a completely accurate one will be almost impossible with the tools we have". I still think though that the test remains valid for the point I was making. The Flame Aura performs as well or better, using the same DU cost, as the WM, if the green mana was readily available to upgrade the FA. DU is the limiting factor on most maps for how many defenses we can put down. Green mana is only limited by how many waves we are to go through. So with Onslaught coming out 'soon', we should see an increase in the usage of FA over WM. Granted with the 'adjustments' Trendy is making, we will probably see the FA spam start even sooner. As for my previous tests, I only included the setup time required because I have no way to drop 4 FA at whatever upgrade level in 0 seconds like the WM, which comes out at 2.5. That is also why I let the tests run a small amount longer on the FA runs. To be honest, the test is biased towards the WM, it comes out already going at full power, nothing extra needed, FA requires more time for the setup and so is not going at full or whatever level of power for the time it takes to get them setup. Also, the longer the defenses run, the more accurate the DPS # should be. So, if wanted I could let the WM run for 5-10 minutes and then the FA run for the same, the DPS # listed then should be pretty accurate as to how much DPS those towers will do. As I stated initially, all I did was just throw out a quick test. Uh... Wrong. DPS is damage per second for SINGLE target. Damage over time is total damage ever dealt and if calculated within a specific time frame total DPS something you are not getting in tavern/town (not enough targets to hit to compare much less compared to a massive wave) or from tooltip DPS stat. Actually, longer waves would benefit WM more as the damage of FA wouldn't even scale significantly for per target DPS but units will become tankier meaning AoE DPS would be most valuable and this seems to possibly be where WM is performing so strongly (due to possibly a lack of target cap, in addition to strong single target DPS). Unless there is another explanation for why WM is doing 10~14x the DPS of comparable stat FA even in wave 1 overlapping each other (and a T5 FA doesn't gain 10-14x the DPS). He didn't provide any tests/comparison to back up his statement it is not performing that much stronger but I have. My method is certainly not perfect as we do, indeed, lack the tools but if the gap is that significant it will provide a very reliable answer. If the damage dealt over the course of a map run is a particularly massive gap from spawn aura vs barricade aura then it can be reliably said that it hits more than 8 targets at once. If someone can somehow make WM aura large enough to hit more than 8 targets in tavern that would be another test (don't own it so can't test either, only test what I see from other players). If the target cap is, in fact, 8 as unlikely as that is... then whatever is causing the massive gap in damage would be a bug tho what kind remains to be seen. Problem Argonias, is again, you are testing DPS which is incorrect for the situation if they do not both share 8 target cap which, as far as I know after substantial Googling online (just searched again and no such reference to WM was to be found), is one of very few defenses to share such a cap and others can be readily found as well (Ballista, Cannon). It is also possible the DPS being shown is incorrect for some reason both from tooltip and dummies. - xArcAngel The entire reason they may not function so identically as it appears that I have been pointing out is the amount of targets both can hit... one may hit far more than 8 (you claimed against with literally zero evidence and nothing shows online). Yes, I am aware of those technicalities this is why I suggested testing on such a difficulty that stuff can actually reasonably survive getting to the barricade (feel free to place the FA ever so slightly ahead to further give it advantage for sake of testing). There is clearly something up when WM is doing such a massive difference in damage dealt. My test method is actually quite reliable if despite this setup WM does a very massive difference in damage (again, we aren't talking about some 30% increase... but from what I have seen a magnitude difference in performance). This allows us to reliably rule out variables beyond target count or some extremely obscure unknown bug involved. It wouldn't be so usable if the damage dealt was so close. You would want range to be roughly identical (my mention of range prior was based on it being larger and whether or not that is an advantage or disadvantage to the tower, itself, not a discussion of raw DPS limited by a target cap in a comparison to WM and FA... you do not want to count it here). Nope. Comparing DPS is totally inaccurate if the target difference is even 1-2 and even more so if it is much larger. DPS is single target damage purely in this game. This is probably one of the core reasons damaged dealt is a figure on the tooltip at all, and for the rare DoT tower. No, you seem to have not properly read my post... The test would need to be repeated several times on several map clears to help average out the variance in lanes. It would be comparing the performance of, primarily, the spawn defense but would also make a comparison of how well the wall defense held up. This would give us a rather rough comparison but if the performance gap is excessively large between FA and WM then we got an answer. If it is much closer as people are repeatedly suggesting with, literally, zero evidence here then the test will be inconclusive even if it appears to favor WM. Those passives and total lane HP will generally not come into play for spawn defenses as they will remain there far to briefly at standard aura size, especially when repeated over several runs 3-5 will probably be more than sufficient if the gap is particularly massive as I have seen... if not well that has been repeated as well. You provided literally zero evidence towards any of your claims... target limit, it not performing 10x-14x better in raw damage, etc. Honestly, not sure what to say about such a post. Didn't really benefit us. What we need is proper testing.
  13. Looking at the age of your older posts OP it seems like you are in the same boat as me and others who came back from back then. Trendy chose to not reward us a campaign reward only new players. This isn't a bug but a poor decision from them towards those who financially supported their game and tested it helping them out during alpha just like some of their other "rewards" to veteran players (a certain pet without stats, etc.).
  14. Looking at the damage dealt by a WM is going to be off when compared to a single FA. Depending on how many nodes the WM has, it totals all the damage dealt by all the nodes. So for a 3 Node WM, you would have to compare 3 FA at least. I haven't done that myself, so no idea how that comparison will look. As for the max targets, I have no idea. I, however, disagree, WM does not need even a slight nerf. They needed to bring the Node Increase shard bug back into line, but other than that the WM should be fine. Placing one 120 DU (3 damage node) WM should initially outperform 1-2 FA, when initially placed. Once the FA's get upgraded they are doing more damage, a lot of the time though that takes at least a wave or two to occur. So in the current 5 wave design that Trendy has, the WM is better. Once we get Onslaught or an Endless mode where there will be many more waves, the FA will outperform the WM. WM might be placed initially to do a bit of damage but you can have 4 FA, for the cost of a 3 node WM. Those 4 FA will completely outstrip the WM when you get some upgrades into them. WM is a 2.5 tier tower when placed, with 3-7 nodes. Each of those nodes is comparable to a FA being around 2.5 upgrades. So with the current 5 wave system, which limits the amount of green mana you can use, the WM will always outperform. With a endless/onslaught mode having a lot more waves the FA won't do as much initially when placed but will outperform the WM, as you will have the green mana necessary to upgrade them all to max tier. Doing some quick tests in a Private tavern. All with the same Medallion, with Defense Rate, Power Transfer and Destruction Shards. Using 120 DU as my baseline since that is what the 3 node WM takes. 3 Node WM over 62 seconds did 55,519,388 damage, which equals 895,474 DPS. 4 FA with no upgrades over 66 seconds with around 6 seconds setup time did 40,149,714 damage, which equals 608,329 DPS. 4 FA with 1 upgrade each over 70 seconds with around 9 seconds setup time did 61,696,320 damage, which equals 881,376 dps. 4 FA with 2 upgrades each over 69.5 seconds with around 11 seconds setup time did 77,095,238 damage, which equals 1,109,284 DPS. Didn't bother with the 3 upgrades since the 2 upgrades already outdid the WM, I did the full upgraded FA test first just to see the damage. 4 FA fully upgraded over 82 seconds with around 20 seconds setup time did 130,175,738 damage, which equals 1,587,509 DPS. That shows with more green mana the FA would completely outclass the WM in damage. In 5 waves the WM will do more, with more than 5 waves the FA will outperform. So, in my opinion, the WM should not be nerfed because it will not be a powerful contender in anything that lets you have more green mana for upgrades. It is only powerful right now because we are limited to only 5 wave missions. No, looking at the damage from a WM in a lower chaos game from someone with near/maxed C7 gear is going to be accurate because almost nothing will make it past the first node from WM (something that isn't true for Flame Aura even when able to 1-shot unless you have a massive range which has substantial disadvantages for FA and also can be totally ignored when comparing damage values here). You can further verify by the fact that all mana is dropped at the first node for any lane you aren't watching. The problem is T5 FA with identical stats are NOT doing more damage than a WM node it appears (even if the DPS may seem comparable, which it has not thus far in my experience, the actual damage dealt by its ability to hit more targets or higher DPS results in a absolutely massive gap in damage dealt node for node). Do not look at DPS this is incorrect. Look at damage dealt. Everyone in this thread is looking at DPS. Damage dealt a T5 flame aura appears to be getting obliterated from what I have seen on several cases. It should perform as you suggest but this is not happening at current and that is the problem. Instead, it drastically outperforms. You tried to claim in your personal tests FA was outperforming at X period but there are some problems... 1.) You didn't include WM setup time and the longer duration from FA just to equal to WM... Definitely can't say your tests were accurate for use in the discussion. 2.) The reason WM may be so massively outperforming FA might be due to the 8 target limit on FA that WM may not have. The actual damage dealt is what is relevant here, not DPS, which being shared by multiple nodes is giving no advantage to WM due to the fact nothing reached past node #1 in real world experience when I was comparing. Yes, the game is limited to 5 wave missions and the FA is still limited to 8 targets max which severely hurts its ability to deal with groups and weed out enemies like Kobolds/Geodes reliably well before walls unless your stats substantially outclass the difficulty level. A better test would probably be to do a couple of runs with 1 WM node at spawn and one at walls, then same with FA, and compare damage dealt and how effective it was (could it protect your walls without your help bar repairs? how healthy were your walls during the rounds, could you even beat the map with just this method, damage dealt at spawn and damage dealt at wall on average) on a difficulty that at least some stuff can get past the first defense and reach the one at the walls.
  15. Lightning Aura from my testing is bugged (unless this is some bizarre masochistic design choice) and this bug causes it to be one of the worst towers in the game. It fires at air missing potential targets within its range quite a lot. I would say maybe 60% of the time from some light testing against a single target and multiple targets when testing on dummies in tavern. There would be cases where it wouldn't hit any target despite having multiple in range for 10-20 second periods. This means even for a boss or lady orc it is an extremely bad tower to use atm, even before getting to its other flaws.
×
×
  • Create New...