Neither do I welcome the changes to Spirit Wardens

It only helps to protect the FIRST Spirit Warden

All other Spirit Wardens have their losses rounded up, which means we are still losing EXTRA Spirit Wardens

http://prntscr.com/lojvs7

Why can't they ever give defenders a level playing field?

Not sure what the issue is or what you consider a level Field ? this is a war game !  and as history shows the best armies have money to Make them the Best !  I'm a non coiner I play for many hours a Week to compensate  for My lack of funds that I can put into the Game .  But looking for a level field that can make non-coiners equal to payers  is not realistic And would take away the incentive for Coiners to spend. 

The best a non coiner can Do is get into a Large  league and Make themselves useful to the League and benefit from the rewards that time and Daily play will get for you  !

D is cheaper to build as Offense Cost more to build and takes longer  to build that would affect the Kill /defend Ratio :)

Sir Dan Saul Knight said:

I don't get what the hell they are doing with spirit wardens.

I assume it is was as much coding mistakes as it is intentional game mechanics, as there is no logic to some of the results we see.

"However, if the attacker sends enough Units to overpower the first Spirit Warden, all Spirit Wardens involved in the battle will be lost."

That sentence doesn't even make sense, it implies that if one spirit warden dies then all defending units die. I am sure that isn't what they meant but it is what they managed to write.

Now it's not a cardinal sin to write some confused English. You would have thought that mass communications were reviewed by a manager before they went out so stuff like this couldn't happen. But where I start to think it's incompetent is when they make that kind of mistake on an announcement which itself is fixing an earlier cock-up. When you are in that scenario you would think the comms would be double and triple checked as you can't afford to compound the mistakes without looking really stupid.

PS to Wes I don't think Snow is complaining about coining balance his point is def vs off balance. And I am not sure why you think offence takes longer to build than def the power per hour from both types in a queue is pretty much identical. There is no advantage in building any particular troops as all have their build time tweaked so the power per hour from building them is the same (although interestingly that isn't true for the SH troops).

Build times for Pathfinders is 2 minutes Longer than Huntress and cost about twice as much prospectively Griffin build time 53 Minutes and dragons are 2 1/2 Hours

Sir Dan Saul Knight said:

Now check the power on them and divide that by the time. Then you will see that troops are balanced to be exactly the same power per hour.

The dragon takes two and a bit times longer to build because it's two and a bit more times powerful in stats.

FYI The pathfinder is intentionally a "bad resource" unit so it can be loaded into BG's. It's not meant to be built to use as a fighting unit (unless you are lucky enough to get the relics). Check the paladin vs def infantry if you want to see like for like.

It is far too easy to kill defense by sending the right units. The def stats are loaded against them
Griffins have pathetic defense against infantry, and so do Gargoyles http://prntscr.com/lony6l

An army of Fully Boosted Dark Pathfinders with twin Ulrich relics can wipe out thousands of Griffins and Golems
Using Siege Mechanics makes it even easier to kill our defense

p.s. Why no Duel Points from Stoneheart Battlegrounds?

Sir Dan Saul Knight said:

I assume it is was as much coding mistakes as it is intentional game mechanics, as there is no logic to some of the results we see.

"However, if the attacker sends enough Units to overpower the first Spirit Warden, all Spirit Wardens involved in the battle will be lost."

That sentence doesn't even make sense, it implies that if one spirit warden dies then all defending units die. I am sure that isn't what they meant but it is what they managed to write.

You need to learn Plarium-speak .... it is a language very similar to that used by all politicians
Every carefully chosen word can have a hidden meaning

Pretty sure it was a deliberate ploy, not a coding error
A smaller attack does not involve all spirit wardens, only enough to repel the attack ... but all involved will be killed because all losses are rounded up

This is why the first warden was dying - even the tiniest amount of damage was rounded up

We are seeing the same effect on battlegrounds according to Agent Pavel

All Balur damage is rounded down on the server ..... but our client based battle reports are showing a different number of balur casualties because it rounds up the losses
In simple terms, if balur loses 1.5 units then the server rounds this DOWN to one unit lost, but shows 2 on battle reports
In the screenshots I posted it shows that 4 Invokers were killed when only 3 exist
Now, if you understand all battlegrounds, you might know that all bg battles involve multiple attacks until one army is obliterated
If balur losses are being nerfed, then it causes extra losses for us

Smoke and mirrors

Sir Dan Saul Knight said:

I had noticed a one troop army (1 of all 4 types) attacking a lvl 21 SH BG loses all units except the perg. A one garg army wins no losses all the way to lvl 28 or even more (depending on your stats and bonuses).

Much, could I teach you, young Skywalker  lol

You need to send 2.5x balur strength for a one troop army to survive .... but only need to win for a single unit to survive
I send around 103 single troop armies to normal battlegrounds, but have had occasional disasters if I miscalculate bg strength - only one pike returns

Imagine you send 500 pike plus one archer to bg and want the archer to survive

If more than 250 pike live then the archer will always live
If more than 250 pike die then the archer will also die
The sweet spot is lower than 50% Algorithm Loss Percentage
For that you need to send 2.5x balur strength

here is maths if you are interested (I think I assumed 12% obelisk of power and 40% lost arts bonus for all troops - but it's the same for all troops so the assumption used don't skew the analysis)

The Def resource production table cropped out of the picture but is 540k resource a day to build the optimum troops that minimise resources used i.e. virtually identical to the 523k for the offense.

If you are wondering the avg and max power columns on def this is because the def units have a range of stats against each troop class. The max is the value if the attacker sends an army of exactly the troops that unit defends best agains (theoretical best case). The avg column is the simply avg of the 4 def stats.

So the best you could say is that def has a marginal advantage if you catch the right troop match up. Seeing as def is generally sitting out vulnerable (in fortresses, beacons etc) the attacker always has the advantage of choosing the match up (if they take the time and effort to look).

Also note that defensive infantry / cavalry are the standout, they actually suck compared to everything else.

Wesley Pringle said:

Yes  so there is no imbalance people just can't expect all Bestiary or any other  category D to compete head to head with Offence as more time and resources are put into individual units respectively 

An attacker can easily choose which units will be most effective