Ok, I wanted to try to get more of my comments together prior to actually making my post, but I don't want to put it off any longer.
There are a lot of factors in the game, experience and gold, your health and mana, your attacks your dodge and armor, your buildings, the strength of them, creeps, types and strength, the list goes on a bit obviously.
What has come to my mind most recently is that purchases of the same amount in gold do not equal the same expenditure in another area. I'm sure you've seen citadel upgrades that include only one column, or a couple of columns. That shows pretty plainly how some dynamics are negligible in many circumstances (not all, I think they can factor a bit, but I've seen grossy imbalanced citadel upgrades win matches). One of the things this does is provide a place to lose money, which has obvious consequences. Of course there is a qualitative difference between these things, and making the right choice is important. But upgrading your towers often isn't as effective as getting a good suit of armor and driving your attackers back. In some sense what I'm trying to say is that comparable expenditures for similar purposes don't have equitable value. Some of this is a good thing, some bad. If there were only one solution to the problems you faced in game, not only would the game be boring (because a simple pat solution to each problem is just repetition after a while) but it would destroy another dynamic in the game, that is forcing you to respond to things that are ongoing, dealing with multiple issues etc. The ways in which it is bad are pretty obvious, portions of the game are literally of little value, and the potential that game options could be discarded and not significantly affect the outcome of games means that there are bad design elements.
I think this becomes most obvious when you're dealing with a particular demigod. You buy something to do a certain thing, and if it's ineffective, that's money wasted, even if it is an ostensible solution, and you often subsequently can't afford an effective solution. and cash management is an important factor in the game.
being untouchable is a difficulty. I think this is part of where the issues with Regulus and Erebus come from. Erebus is untouchable in mist form, and Regulus can stay out of conflicts really easily. Early on Regulus players will often hide behind towers and fire at you, or running as soon as you advance, making them nearly unapproachable at low levels. You also take damage consistently as you approach, possibly also having to deal with mines. Closing the gap for most of the players is crucial to attacking effectively, but going into enemy territory before having done a lot of damage to their towers is a death sentence, or very likely. he can also attack enemy buildings without getting hurt. This makes a kind of logical sense since he has a missle weapon, but in terms of game balance I think it's a problem. QoT, ostensibly good at tearing down structures, takes damage from towers if she melees them, which she needs to do to get things done quickly (yes she has uproot, but that isn't enough on it's own). This strikes me as a problem someone ostensibly good at doing damage to these things has to take damage to attack a tower, but regulus doesn't, he can even throw mines at towers and have them do damage without getting hurt. I think one thing to do with regulus that would help would be to limit him to one set of mines at a time. If he has a set out, he can't throw another set until those he has already thrown get set off. Maybe he could have the ability to right click them to set them off if he wants to move them...
anyway, this post sort of blows, but I wanted to post some of my thoughts so I wasn't neglecting to contribute. I was sort of too distracted by the trolls to do anything yesterday. Sorry.
