Randomization

[PunKZ]

As you all know, some towers has abilities that has for example 25% chance to trigger, in my opinion, they should be remade into; "triggers every 4 attacks" or something like that...

Why?:

Because a TD shouldn't contain luck, it should contain skill, and this will also improve the strategy of tower placement. I think it's wrong that players can keep from leaking if they are lucky enough.

Some other Examples:

Quaker Tower

Jinx Tower

Thoughts?

[Karawasa]

Jinx = Radius = Non-% based. That just leaves Quaker.

[PunKZ]

Jinx = Radius = Non-% based. That just leaves Quaker.

As well as Hydro, and on top of that, I think it's a nicer way of using the towers, more strategy if you ask me.

[jolin012]

the thing about hydro and quaker is taht you need to build at least 3 (or use well or trickery tier 3) to be safe i guess that's a part of strategy - but maybe it's a strat we don't like.. I'll pass voting on this one.

[Karawasa]

Jinx = Radius = Non-% based. That just leaves Quaker.

As well as Hydro, and on top of that, I think it's a nicer way of using the towers, more strategy if you ask me.

Yes, Hydro too of course. Curious to see what other people think.

[Cisz]

..aaaand drowning.

[Karawasa]

Drowning I don't consider in the same category. This change wouldn't apply to Drowning either.

[echinodermata]

i dont know what difference it would make. are you really gonna micro hydro differently knowing that every 4th attack will trigger the effect?

[PunKZ]

i dont know what difference it would make. are you really gonna micro hydro differently knowing that every 4th attack will trigger the effect?

The difference it would make is to make it more like a basic tower which you know will trigger every 4th attack, at the moment, you can be very unlucky, believe me. -.-

[holepercent]

Debatable.. how much would you micro to get the best of the 4th attack?

sure, there would be times where the towers don't trigger at all.. but it makes for some exciting games at times.. whether to take the chance or not.. There are probably other options available to players who do not wish to take any chances with those towers..

players have to take into account the chances when building those towers.. it fits into certain strategies but may not really be for everyone..

in some cases, the best chance to clear the wave/recover from leaks (more in random mode) may come from the tower going off at a higher rate than chance dictates..

[PunKZ]

Debatable.. how much would you micro to get the best of the 4th attack?

sure, there would be times where the towers don't trigger at all.. but it makes for some exciting games at times.. whether to take the chance or not.. There are probably other options available to players who do not wish to take any chances with those towers..

players have to take into account the chances when building those towers.. it fits into certain strategies but may not really be for everyone..

in some cases, the best chance to clear the wave/recover from leaks (more in random mode) may come from the tower going off at a higher rate than chance dictates..

True, So in your opinion, it's just "whatever" with this suggestion?

[Kaini]

Interesting idea.

From the maths point of view there is no difference but the player may notice it.

But that would remove luck a bit. I don't really know if this bit is relevant, and I don't think player notice their luck that much.

And there is enough luck if you play random. And there is enough micro if you play random.

I am not sure what I shall think about that. Usually I really want to be sure that something does work or not. (Yeah, I am a Math and Logic guy.)

So my result: +0 (I like it but it is not really necessary)

(I voted for Yes...)

[Cisz]

You guys are aware that all rnd towers do a bigger average dmg than non rnd towers to compensate for the randomness? So in general you will do better using them? The dev team will make you happy.

[Kaini]

You guys are aware that all rnd towers do a bigger average dmg than non rnd towers to compensate for the randomness? So in general you will do better using them? The dev team will make you happy.

Um why? 25% chance is every 4th attack if you look on a longer period.

[Cisz]

Why - to compensate for the randomeness.

Let me clarify even more: Quaker, drowning, hydro have a higher dmg/sec than other towers of the same level/kind. Hydro does more dmg than electricity. Drowning outperforms zealot.

[PunKZ]

Why - to compensate for the randomeness.

Let me clarify even more: Quaker, drowning, hydro have a higher dmg/sec than other towers of the same level/kind. Hydro does more dmg than electricity. Drowning outperforms zealot.

Maybe we could try the idea in a beta? It's much better to see that way what people think.

[ImmolatusBurn]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to implement a Pseudo-Random Distribution system for these towers, it would allow the average % to trigger to be the same, but would prevent outlying chances for strings of non-procing attacks.

[Guest serdelus]

Like the idea,thought the only noticeable change would be that you could count more on random towers to kill leaks. Still, where competetive play matters, the importance of luck should be minimal.

[Guest Sancdar]

I don't like losing to luck, but I think a little bit can add some excitement to the game for you and everyone else in the game. The luck-based towers make wave timing a little more variable, and require more effort to use well without overbuilding. Luck towers are really good, until suddenly they aren't and you lose.

[m0rph1ing]

I think a pseudo-random system would work pretty well. Blizzard uses something similar for % chance of crit strikes. If pseudo-random things such as crits and miss chances can work for warcraft3 and starcraft, then EleTD should be fine with it too.