The Alliance Tower Defense Team Builder is a small comparison board for lineup decisions. Give three candidates a name, choose the job you expect each one to perform, then rate damage, coverage, utility, and affordability from one to five using evidence from your own account. Adjust the four priority weights for the mode you plan to test.
Compare three unit candidates
Rate units with one evidence standard
Use the same one-to-five scale for every candidate. One means weak for your current account and intended route; five means consistently strong under the same conditions. Do not give a favorite a five because a showcase used a different upgrade level, team, or patch.
For damage, consider whether the unit removes the enemies that actually end your run. For coverage, consider range, target access, lane reach, and whether the unit can answer the enemy types you meet. For utility, include effects that help the whole plan rather than only the unit’s personal number. For affordability, rate how easily you can deploy and upgrade the unit at the waves when its job matters.
Community-maintained unit lists provide leads for rarity, role, and public impressions, but they can disagree or lag behind the live client. The Units hub separates verified fields from community-reported ones. Build your ratings from a consistent live test whenever possible.
If you do not own a candidate, label the comparison as a research shortlist. Do not rate an unseen unit from trade value alone. Desirability in trading and performance in a specific mode answer different questions.
Set priorities for the intended mode
The weights tell the builder what matters in this comparison. A high damage weight suits a test where the current team cannot remove a boss or durable wave. A high coverage weight suits a route where enemies escape through range gaps. Utility can matter when support changes several placements. Affordability matters when the team fails before expensive anchors become usable.
Use all four weights rather than setting unwanted dimensions to zero. The one-to-five floor keeps the result from declaring that cost or coverage never matters. A late unit that cannot be fielded still affects a progression plan, even when raw damage is the main priority.
Create separate comparisons for Easy City, Insane, and Endless. One universal score hides the different timing and survival problems those pages ask you to diagnose.
Change only the weights when asking how the same three candidates fit a different goal. Change the ratings when new live evidence shows the unit itself performs differently than expected.
Build roles before chasing a score
The role menu is a planning label, not an official class system. Early carry means the unit stabilizes the opening. Economy means it supports the resource curve. Coverage means it answers a lane, range, or enemy-access problem. Support means it improves the wider setup. Late anchor means it is intended to handle later pressure after the team can afford it.
Three distinct roles are not automatically better than one. The output only reveals whether all candidates were assigned the same job. Comparing three early carries can be exactly right when that is the missing slot. A final lineup, however, needs a coherent opening, transition, and finish rather than three winners of unrelated comparisons.
Community-reported Alliance Tower Defense planning often distinguishes damage dealers, support, economy, and coverage. That role-first approach is useful because it prevents a tier label from replacing a map plan. Treat public tier lists as shortlists, then verify the job in your own run.
The builder does not enforce a team size. Compare three alternatives for one decision, choose a candidate to test, then repeat for the next unresolved role. This avoids publishing an unsupported slot limit and keeps the board readable on mobile.
Read the weighted score correctly
Each rating is multiplied by its matching priority. The points are divided by the maximum possible points for those weights and shown as a percentage. The score ranks your entries; it is not an in-game stat and cannot predict a clear rate.
A narrow lead is weak evidence. If two candidates land within a few points, test both under the same conditions. A tie is useful: it tells you that the current ratings and priorities do not distinguish the options, so placement timing or actual wave behavior should decide.
A high score with a duplicated role can still leave the lineup incomplete. Read the role line beside the score and ask what happens before the candidate is affordable. A late anchor should not win an early-game comparison simply because damage has the largest weight.
Never convert community trading values into performance ratings. A scarce unit can be expensive to trade yet unnecessary for your route. Use the Value List for market context and this builder for gameplay planning.
Test the winner on one controlled route
Pick a map and mode you can repeat. Keep teammates, Auto Skip behavior, placement order, and support units as consistent as possible. Swap only the leading candidate for the current occupant of the same planned role.
Record the wave where the first leak happens, whether the candidate was affordable on schedule, and whether the clear becomes faster or more reliable. Total damage alone can be misleading if it arrives after the team already needed help.
Run more than once. Public matchmaking and enemy timing can change the feel of a single attempt. Three comparable runs give a better basis for updating affordability or coverage than one lucky clear.
If the candidate improves the loop, use the Coin Farm Estimator to measure whether that improvement changes expected Coins per session. If it does not, the unit may still be valuable for a harder progression goal rather than farming.
Avoid common team-planning mistakes
Do not give every famous unit a five in every field. Ratings should expose trade-offs. If two units receive identical ratings because information is missing, leave the decision open and gather evidence instead of manufacturing a distinction.
Do not compare different upgrade stages without noting it. A cheap opening unit and a fully upgraded late anchor solve different timing problems. Rate each candidate at the stage when you expect it to perform the selected role.
Do not copy a creator’s final team while ignoring access. Limited units, traits, or account progression can make the showcase impossible to reproduce. Start with units you own, then use unobtained candidates as explicit future goals.
Do not treat the first result as permanent. Weekly updates, new units, map changes, and better placement knowledge can alter the evidence. Rebuild the comparison when the live experience changes.
Team Builder FAQ
Is the highest score the best unit in the game?
No. It is the highest result from your ratings and weights for this comparison. Different evidence or priorities can change the order.
Why compare only three candidates?
The tool is designed for one lineup decision at a time. Three alternatives remain readable on small screens and encourage role-specific testing.
Where should the one-to-five ratings come from?
Prefer repeated live tests on the intended route. Use current community guides as leads when direct testing is unavailable, and mark the result as provisional.
Does the tool know my inventory?
No. Enter only candidates relevant to your account or research shortlist. The page has no Roblox account access.
Are names or ratings uploaded?
No. The comparison runs locally in the browser and is not saved when you leave or reset the form.