Melee t6 capacity

9 Replies
User
20 September, 2018, 8:34 PM UTC

Hi,


Didn't know where to put this so decided to put it here since I think it's a game error.


I was thinking that it must be an error and Plarium accidently made melee troops the ONLY ones where t6 and t5 have exactly the same capacity. No other troop type is like that. In my opinion it's not fair against melee users (yes I am one).


Has it been done deliberately? If yes then why? If not then will it be fixed?


Thanks,

Kazberro



UTC +2:00
0
User
21 September, 2018, 1:26 AM UTC

This point has been raised before.

Can you explain why you think its unfair?
UTC +0:00
0
CIM
User
21 September, 2018, 8:41 AM UTC
It seems that this is a mistake if it is true ... no reason why one troop type out of the five would not have an increase in capacity.
UTC +1:00
0
Administrator
21 September, 2018, 9:06 AM UTC

kazberro said:


Hi,


Didn't know where to put this so decided to put it here since I think it's a game error.


I was thinking that it must be an error and Plarium accidently made melee troops the ONLY ones where t6 and t5 have exactly the same capacity. No other troop type is like that. In my opinion it's not fair against melee users (yes I am one).


Has it been done deliberately? If yes then why? If not then will it be fixed?


Thanks,

Kazberro



Hello, KAZBERRO!

This situation is not a game failure, it is part of the game's functionality. It has been introduced to maintain balance in the game.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions while playing the game. 

Have a good day!



Bearer of the highest Knowledge
UTC +3:00
0
User
21 September, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

Dear Ivar Marksman,


What balance you're talking about? The balance would be there if siege players (an example) wouldn't have to spend twice as much resources/time and money to be  where melee player is with their troop knowledge. That would be balance and not decreasing melee's t6 capacity just to make it look more "fair". Just my opinion.
UTC +2:00
0
User
22 September, 2018, 6:59 AM UTC
if it was balance, the 2nd t-6 to be unlocked in the t-6 tree(ARCHER) would have a handicapped payload also.  But, it increases inline with the other t-6.  IT definitely needs development review.
UTC +5:00
2
CIM
User
22 September, 2018, 11:57 AM UTC
I would also be interested in how this supposedly does "maintain balance" ... the logic escapes me ...
UTC +1:00
0
User
22 September, 2018, 12:31 PM UTC
Maybe it was a deterrent from everyone and their brothers specializing in melee troops before the shamans came out... No reason for it now, of course.
UTC +7:00
0
User
31 March, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

turbomaster74 said:


if it was balance, the 2nd t-6 to be unlocked in the t-6 tree(ARCHER) would have a handicapped payload also.  But, it increases inline with the other t-6.  IT definitely needs development review.

It is actually the opposite the payload for the T6 Archer is even greater than it should be as it should have the same capacity as the T5 Siege but in fact it's payload is even greater than the T5 Siege, They have done exactly the same thing with the T6 Killer and T6 Cavalry capacity too, The T6 Killer should have equal capacity as the the T5 Melee but actually has the same capacity as the T5 Siege giving it an even greater payload than it should have and the T6 Cavalry troop should have equal capacity to the T5 Archer and T4 Siege but in actual fact has a greater capacity than those two troops. The T6 Siege troop capacity increase is as it should be it has not been overly increased. As well as the handicapped  payload for the T6 Melee the speed of that troop has been decreased so it has the same capacity as the T5 Melee but a much slower speed even slower than the T6 Archer which has a far superior payload.

UTC +7:00
0
User
14 April, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC
And they reverted the situation with t7 - now t7 melee have almost 3 times the capacity of t6 melee. This finally demonstrates that it is a bug, not a feature, buy nobody is gonna take care of it 😑
UTC +7:00
0
6326374 users registered; 82473 topics; 411846 posts; our newest member:pdvol209