Damaged defenses

Just a quick idea!

Let's say a Cannon is 50% detroyed, it should deal 50% the damage it normally would. If a X-Bow is has 75% of its basic HP left, it would only deal 75% of its original damage. If an Archer Tower is 90% destroyed it would only deal 10% its original DPS.

You all get the drill here!

Ofc this would require a huge balance patch...


However, the idea makes sense, doesn't it? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volcano

Just a quick idea!

Let's say a Cannon is 50% detroyed, it should deal 50% the damage it normally would. If a X-Bow is has 75% of its basic HP left, it would only deal 75% of its original damage. If an Archer Tower is 90% destroyed it would only deal 10% its original DPS.

You all get the drill here!

Ofc this would require a huge balance patch...


However, the idea makes sense, doesn't it? :)

---

It makes sense, but this game doesn't follow common sense lol
Also, it would greatly affect the whole gameplay.
Bases would be so much easier to attack and they'd have to find a balance point between troops and defenses.

Are you not satisfied with the current gameplay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GonGon

It makes sense, but this game doesn't follow common sense lol
Also, it would greatly affect the whole gameplay.
Bases would be so much easier to attack and they'd have to find a balance point between troops and defenses.

Are you not satisfied with the current gameplay?

---

I'm satisfied, just thought this would make more sense. And yeah, as I mentioned, this would require a huge balance patch.

Personally I think it would be worth it. This would allow a more strategic approach when attacking ad defending.

Well, with that logic, damaged troops should work like that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 966souchou

Well, with that logic, damaged troops should work like that too.

---

I like that thinking, never thought of it... But yes, you are absolutely right! :cool:

It would just complicate it too much. Keep it simple. The game play is fine and I don't see why to change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtmyama

It would just complicate it too much. Keep it simple. The game play is fine and I don't see why to change it.

---

I agree that is complicating it too much they are good as they are and they get you more defence as they are

I'm pretty sure a 50% damaged car will still kill me 100%. Same with a gun. Who said common sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tommy0guns

I'm pretty sure a 50% damaged car will still kill me 100%. Same with a gun. Who said common sense?

---

lol nice examples

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volcano

I'm satisfied, just thought this would make more sense. And yeah, as I mentioned, this would require a huge balance patch.

Personally I think it would be worth it. This would allow a more strategic approach when attacking ad defending.

---

I think the game is pretty balanced right now,
except maybe attacking is a bit easier than defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volcano

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 966souchou

Well, with that logic, damaged troops should work like that too.

---

I like that thinking, never thought of it... But yes, you are absolutely right! :cool:

---

Yeah, so basically if everything gets weakened depending on their health,
it would be the same as what we have right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gtmyama

It would just complicate it too much. Keep it simple. The game play is fine and I don't see why to change it.

---

It's overall the same thing, but just in a different way.
And it's more complicated, like gtmyama said.
So the game is fine as it is =)

Logical idea, but clearly clash doesn't have much logic LOL