Tower Distribution

[Karawasa]

It's time to look at it again...

The idea is that the support towers will remain in the same place. What we will do is move around the damage towers so that the builds play better (4 and 5 element).

http://tools.eletd.com

[Karawasa]

MagicalHacker is working on a webpage for this...so perhaps let the excel file rest in peace. Regarding the distribution, should we go even further and mess with the supports?

What kind of builds are we looking to create (4/5 element)?

[echinodermata]

In the past I've always made passing remarks about how the support towers aren't distributed symmetrically on the element circle (for example the two element support towers are FE, WN, and DL rather than a symmetric WE, DN, LF). That could be interpreted as a "problem" for fixing. On the other hand, if there's anything we've ever learned from Starcraft, you don't need symmetry for balance.

I'm not sure if this was part of what you meant by tower distribution.

[holepercent]

it is one aspect to look at. also how to differentiate the builds, such that each build has a slightly different play style, or the builds all play different enough? maybe a few builds have a emphasis on fast attacking towers, another set focus on high single target damage towers?

how does the balance change if the dual support are symmetrical around the element circle? in what way it would differ from the current system? elemental damage types? build symmetry?

next is how would the triple support be distributed? currently there are 4 slows, 2 damage amplification and 2 armour reduction towers.

[Twilice]

it is one aspect to look at. also how to differentiate the builds, such that each build has a slightly different play style, or the builds all play different enough? maybe a few builds have a emphasis on fast attacking towers, another set focus on high single target damage towers?

how does the balance change if the dual support are symmetrical around the element circle? in what way it would differ from the current system? elemental damage types? build symmetry?

next is how would the triple support be distributed? currently there are 4 slows, 2 damage amplification and 2 armour reduction towers.

That's more what I want, duals should be more distinct then tripples in the elements they use. But it shouldn't be a "must", only that a larger % of the light towers are for example long ranged. It should not mean there are not 500/700 range light towers. (refering to wc3 range)

[holepercent]

try working out a distribution that 'looks' balanced. it's not as easy as it seems. remember to take into account elemental damage types. and there shouldn't be a build that looks like it would be stronger than any other build (LWFD of 3.0?).

start by switching the positions of the damage towers only and see if it works out. keep all the support towers where they are.

if not, then keep the slots of the support, but the support towers can change position, like DWE is a support but may not be muck.

any other changes probably results in a whole new (im)balance..

[Karawasa]

http://tools.eletd.com

[echinodermata]

For consideration, a ridiculously symmetrical distribution (but not the only), if that's really what you're going for: Here

Hmm, some of you may not even know what "symmetry" I've been talking about this whole time...

I think its most sound to spread the damage type distribution and support tower distribution as symmetrically as possible (the fundamental stuff), while different "styles" of towers for different style builds (necessarily asymmetic, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be different at all!) comes in later.

[Karawasa]

This is my take on the current distribution of the game. There are a few towers that may perplex you, but this takes into account new towers in 4.3, planned for 4.3b, and even for SC2.

Click Me!

[Karawasa]

Here is my first attempt at a new distribution.

Click Me!

Here is what changed.

• LWF <> LFN
• DWF <> DNE
• LFE <> LDE
• WFN <> LWN
• WFE <> LDF

Please feel free to tweak.

[Cisz]

Oh man, I'll have a go at this in a few days, too busy right now.

[Karawasa]

Oh man, I'll have a go at this in a few days, too busy right now.

Can't wait to finally see what you come up with .

[Cisz]

Problem 1:

I consider a build with only one type of dmg (for example only water) as to weak. Also, I consider a build with only dmg types that don't cover each other as slightly better, but still to weak. (For example only fire and water dmg.)

My suggestion:

Each 4 ele build should have at least two different dmg towers of one element that is covered by at least two different dmg towers. For example: Two different dmg towers with earth dmg and two different dmg towers with fire dmg.

Less good would be: The covering ele only needs one dmg tower.

Problem 2:

I consider a build that fullfills the above criteria (that is, it's elements cover properly) still to weak, if it does not offer both single target and splash for both of these elements.

My modified suggestion:

Each 4 ele build should have at least one splash and one st dmg tower of one element that is covered by at least one splash and one st dmg tower. For example: One splash and one st dmg tower with earth dmg and one splash and one st dmg tower with fire dmg.

What happens if we don't use my suggestion?

We might end up with builds that force me to go st water and st light, with no splash option. Or I may even be forced to go st light and st fire only.

Edit 01: Karawasas suggestion doesn't follow my suggested rules, so it has ldwe with no d and only one w dmg tower, and dwfn with only one fire dmg and one one nature dmg.

Edit 02 - As a clarification:

I'm trying to find a defined goal for a tower redistribution, and I try to adress a ballance issue. I assume that builds that meet my criteria will (allmost) allways beat builds that don't. So I see this as a sort of minimum requirement.

[Karawasa]

A point brought up in IRC is that in the WC3 version there were a lot of duplicate (Magic and Hail for example) towers. This contributed to "lack of variety amongst builds" that we are looking to smite now. The SC2 version has seen the removal of duplicates. I wonder how much of an impact this will have on the need for a new distribution.

[holepercent]

the splash/ST tower balance remains?

though the elemental damage type balance should be looked at. a few swaps are most likely needed, like LDWE having poor cover for elemental damage (earth being weak against light, almost the entire build is light or earth, with one water). for 4 element builds, there should be at least 2 towers each of 3 elemental damage types (including support towers).

UPDATE: the key now is elemental damage type balance, following cisz's plan as above.

[Karawasa]

http://tools.eletd.com

[Cisz]

Magical Hacker just contacted me, he sounded promising. Or rather he seems to have solved it.

[MagicalHacker]

My apologies for not posting this earlier, last week has been busy (and me being sick didn't help either).

Attached is a list of 500 tower distributions fulfilling the following requirements:

- each tower has a damage element (composite isn't used) and a damage type (splash or single target);

- each 4-build has a covering element pair in both single target and splash towers, as per Cisz's suggestion;

- each element has exactly four towers dealing damage of that element: one single target dual, one splash dual, one single target triple, and one splash triple;

- each 4-build relies on as much elements for damage as logically possible (for 9 out of 15 builds, two elements are used as a single-target covering pair, and *the other two* are used as a splash covering pair; for the remaining 6 builds like ldwn, three pairs (lw, wn, nl) are covering (at least one single target and at least one splash), with the remaining element (darkness) not relied on for damage).

These last two requirements were added because Cisz's requirement on its own permits far too many valid solutions, prompting me to find the "best" solutions among them (whatever that might mean). As you can see, this problem isn't solved yet - even with these additional niceness properties, there are still over 500 solutions. (This list of 500 solutions isn't complete at all - I just stopped generating more solutions at 500, given that I have absolutely no idea how many solutions there are in total and enumerating the complete list is *slow*. There could be ten thousand more solutions for all I know.)

So, if you can think of more nice properties for tower distributions to have, please tell me and I'll try to reduce the solution space further. As a general rule, hard requirements on the distributions are relatively easy to solve, but optimizations ("please select the distribution that is as close as possible to the current distribution") are hard, so avoid those until nobody can think of any more hard requirements.

eletd_tower_distribution_solutions_1.txt