Behind the Scenes: Battle Redesign discussion

[Buttrflwr]

Ok, I don't know how to tag players, but thank you Dhurrin, Draconomicon, Kayleegrrl, and Kat (and everyone else) for your very helpful and detailed explanations. I have only been playing since 9/11 (I know, I know) and there is a LOT about this game I have yet to learn, and I am sure unlearn as INNO loves to change things mid-stride.
I didn't realize I could sell, and then rebuild, the training grounds. I just ASSumed they were like the barracks. I am here to learn, and I thank you all for teaching me.
Dhurrin, that is great news about AS, squad size, etc., in Orcs. I will wait until I hit the AS in Orcs to actually start bldg up my armories again. I will keep one for now...well, I will keep all 3 for now, and when I need the space, then I will start selling them. That's 32 spaces I can use otherwise.
Merci beau coup, and cheers.

 

[DeletedUser4778]

I started playing Elvenar only a little earlier than you @Buttrflwr, in mid-August, so I still consider myself a noob. To tag, just type the @ symbol and then the player name. Happy gaming!

 

[Mykan]

There is a list of many of the quests in my guides. The repeatable quests only update based on progression of mainline techs, specifically the advanced scout tech.

In my experience negotiating has always being easier/faster then combat and that hasn't changed with the battle update. What did change is battles are actually more even in all eras and possible to be won at all levels now. Before you would reach a point where you couldn't win in battle and would negotiate a little, techs would catch up and you would fight again. When, where and how long this occurred depended a lot on your race and skill in combat, including ability to manual fight rather then auto-fight.

In relation to tournaments earlier era towns got a huge boost by the combat changes as they could not fight in tournaments effectively pre-update. Now they can as they get fair fights. This and catering allows them to compete on an even footing to an advanced town. I know of some people who can't fight in provinces now who focus their goods on province expansion and military on tournaments. This gives them a good way to participate in both areas, learn combat and protect their resources. Fighting in tournaments is often cheaper then catering and with fixed squad sizes your squad size techs really have no impact on ability to compete. The smaller squad sizes in tournaments makes it easy for your barracks to keep up with troop production with minimal armouries. Tournaments are a good way to farm KP/relics and runes, once you know what you want you set your strategy to match.

Having tried combat and negotiating tactics I am finding that a balanced approach is one of the most effective. You cater/negotiate the harder encounters and fight the easier ones with minimal losses. This hasn't really changed pre and post update depending on your specific situation.

 

[Buttrflwr]

In relation to tournaments earlier era towns got a huge boost by the combat changes as they could not fight in tournaments effectively pre-update. Now they can as they get fair fights. This and catering allows them to compete on an even footing to an advanced town. I know of some people who can't fight in provinces now who focus their goods on province expansion and military on tournaments. This gives them a good way to participate in both areas, learn combat and protect their resources. Fighting in tournaments is often cheaper then catering and with fixed squad sizes your squad size techs really have no impact on ability to compete. The smaller squad sizes in tournaments makes it easy for your barracks to keep up with troop production with minimal armouries. Tournaments are a good way to farm KP/relics and runes, once you know what you want you set your strategy to match.

This is exactly what I have been doing. I can only fight up to certain point, then I get creamed, but it does help me save those T1 goods for catering those I know I can't win. Though I must say sometimes I confuse myself when going from this server, to Beta...which is a whole 'nother story for me, as I am actually behind my tech tree atm.

@Draconomicon Thanks.

 

[DeletedUser3696]

There is a list of many of the quests in my guides. The repeatable quests only update based on progression of mainline techs, specifically the advanced scout tech.

In my experience negotiating has always being easier/faster then combat and that hasn't changed with the battle update. What did change is battles are actually more even in all eras and possible to be won at all levels now. Before you would reach a point where you couldn't win in battle and would negotiate a little, techs would catch up and you would fight again. When, where and how long this occurred depended a lot on your race and skill in combat, including ability to manual fight rather then auto-fight.

In relation to tournaments earlier era towns got a huge boost by the combat changes as they could not fight in tournaments effectively pre-update. Now they can as they get fair fights. This and catering allows them to compete on an even footing to an advanced town. I know of some people who can't fight in provinces now who focus their goods on province expansion and military on tournaments. This gives them a good way to participate in both areas, learn combat and protect their resources. Fighting in tournaments is often cheaper then catering and with fixed squad sizes your squad size techs really have no impact on ability to compete. The smaller squad sizes in tournaments makes it easy for your barracks to keep up with troop production with minimal armouries. Tournaments are a good way to farm KP/relics and runes, once you know what you want you set your strategy to match.

Having tried combat and negotiating tactics I am finding that a balanced approach is one of the most effective. You cater/negotiate the harder encounters and fight the easier ones with minimal losses. This hasn't really changed pre and post update depending on your specific situation.

Hmmm, I play human and cannot ever remember a time when fighting was difficult. I'm 60+ provinces ahead and haven't scouted/fought since the update.
I have zero interest in trying to start a new city just to see if it's easier or harder or somewhere in between. The game just isn't that interesting to me to try and run multiple worlds.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

In my experience negotiating has always being easier/faster then combat and that hasn't changed with the battle update. What did change is battles are actually more even in all eras and possible to be won at all levels now. Before you would reach a point where you couldn't win in battle and would negotiate a little, techs would catch up and you would fight again. When, where and how long this occurred depended a lot on your race and skill in combat, including ability to manual fight rather then auto-fight.

Sorry, I had to read that a couple of times and still don't see any sense in it, nor any proof of that, If I even bring my troops to the field they are often decimated before I can make my first move.

It used to be that was able to fight long, drawn out battles and win against enemy armies that were much larger than mine.
Now, if I hit more than twice my size, battle is for all practical means impossible. Since I'm only seeing enemytroops that are 3 or 4 times mine, there is no use in even trying.
So the statement that battles can be won in all era's and at all levels is just untrue. It is only true if you add the phrasse : when players stay within the defined space where Inno thinks they should be, a ring that is not made visible on the map.

 

[Mykan]

So the statement that battles can be won in all era's and at all levels is just untrue. It is only true if you add the phrasse : when players stay within the defined space where Inno thinks they should be, a ring that is not made visible on the map.

Sorry but the statement is true. To be untrue a person must prove that 100% of players cannot win a single fight in every era. The moment one person wins in an era it proves it is possible for that era.

You are 100% correct that there are people at every level that cannot win any province fight as they fall outside Inno's invisible line. That is a sad but simple truth.

What we do not know is the % of people succeeding or not at different levels. We can guess and we can speculate but we don't know. We do know that not everyone can and not everyone can't. Only Inno truly knows where in the middle is the reality as they will have copious metrics to analyse the data. If that data shows impossible fights where they expect them to be possible then a change will come, but it might be a long wait to have enough data to prove it and plan, program, test, etc. etc.

 

[DeletedUser4778]

I agree with Mykan especially since I am very resistant to blanket statements.

If I were to to go by forum comments alone and view the forum as a small sample of the actual number of players (although I suspect the actual number of fighting players is much fewer), very few people are winning fights compared to the many who aren't.

My current problem is that I used to lose only 2 fights out of 20-30 but now I'm losing as many fights as I win even though I'm in the Goldilocks zone. When I do win, the losses are often so heavy as to not be worth it. So I'm saving my troops for tourneys and I might start fighting in provinces again when I've done some of the squad size research in my current chapter.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

Sorry but the statement is true. To be untrue a person must prove that 100% of players cannot win a single fight in every era. The moment one person wins in an era it proves it is possible for that era.

You are 100% correct that there are people at every level that cannot win any province fight as they fall outside Inno's invisible line. That is a sad but simple truth.

What we do not know is the % of people succeeding or not at different levels. We can guess and we can speculate but we don't know. We do know that not everyone can and not everyone can't. Only Inno truly knows where in the middle is the reality as they will have copious metrics to analyse the data. If that data shows impossible fights where they expect them to be possible then a change will come, but it might be a long wait to have enough data to prove it and plan, program, test, etc. etc.

Exceptions are always there. But a 100% coverage requirement is just a lot of hot air.
Anyway, I would be greatly interested in ANYONE succeeding in ANY fight in the provinces where his troops are outnumbered by 3:1 or more in the new system, I'll bet a bottle on it that you'll get a 99.99% negative on that.
Such a rate means it is practically impossible.
That 0.01% (at best) chance that one will be able to win such a battle makes it completely uneconomic to invest space, pop and resources on the buildings and the troops.

 

[DeletedUser4778]

Anyway, I would be greatly interested in ANYONE succeeding in ANY fight in the provinces where his troops are outnumbered by 3:1 or more in the new system, I'll bet a bottle on it that you'll get a 99.99% negative on that.

I was able to once and just once but that was before they nerfed the sorceress even more by reducing her attack range. Also take note that it had favorable terrain (I was able to wipe out the archers in the first round) and most of the enemies were the really slow orc generals. I knew I could possibly win it without any losses and spent quite some time figuring out how. I remember I spent a lot of time arranging my troops just so and reloading the fight 2-3 rounds in after seeing where the enemy would move to be able to win without any losses. Was it worth the time and effort? Probably not but I viewed it as a strategy exercise so that made it worth it to me.

Now I can barely win without mid to heavy losses due to the nerfing.

 

[qaccy]

Exceptions are always there. But a 100% coverage requirement is just a lot of hot air.
Anyway, I would be greatly interested in ANYONE succeeding in ANY fight in the provinces where his troops are outnumbered by 3:1 or more in the new system, I'll bet a bottle on it that you'll get a 99.99% negative on that.
Such a rate means it is practically impossible.
That 0.01% (at best) chance that one will be able to win such a battle makes it completely uneconomic to invest space, pop and resources on the buildings and the troops.

Those situations are the ones intended to be 'impossible'; you're well beyond what the tech tree says you should have conquered. That's your 'invisible line'. If you're staying in the range dictated by the tech tree chests, your battles will be more than reasonably winnable, and that's the way it's supposed to be. If you're playing an RPG, do you take your level 1 character into a level 20 area and complain that the game is unfair? It's not a great analogy, but that's basically what people are complaining about here.

 

[Buttrflwr]

Those situations are the ones intended to be 'impossible'; you're well beyond what the tech tree says you should have conquered. That's your 'invisible line'. If you're staying in the range dictated by the tech tree chests, your battles will be more than reasonably winnable, and that's the way it's supposed to be. If you're playing an RPG, do you take your level 1 character into a level 20 area and complain that the game is unfair? It's not a great analogy, but that's basically what people are complaining about here.

Actually, it's a great analogy. The difference is, in an RPG game, WE KNOW it's a lvl 20 area. We chose to take our baby mage in against Master Magicians and get slaughtered. Here, we weren't told that ring whatever was going to be a lvl 20 area past tech tree lvl whatever. In fact, we had been maneuvering quite well in that lvl 20 area with our baby mages, winning some, losing some, until we woke up after an update and the rules had been changed mid-spell. See the difference?

 

[DeletedUser2963]

If you're playing an RPG, do you take your level 1 character into a level 20 area and complain that the game is unfair? It's not a great analogy, but that's basically what people are complaining about here.

lol really bad analogy! This is more like playing an RPG with your level 20 character and having your DM suddenly decide you need to learn a lesson, so he just randomly up and decided to throw a ton of new rules on you and hostile level 80 npcs.
This is all new, the people who got stranded in the back 40 by the new rules do have a valid complaint.
The new players who are hitting the same wall also have a a valid complaint, these new rules are not presented in game....and in game scouting and conquering is rewarded and encouraged. Players have a right to be upset that the line is invisible.

 

[DeletedUser4778]

Sorry but I don't get how the next ring suddenly makes it jump from a Level 1 area to Level 20. The difficulty jump, combat ratio difficulty or, to use D&D parlance, CR (challenge rating) shouldn't be that high.

 

[DeletedUser43]

If that data shows impossible fights where they expect them to be possible then a change will come, but it might be a long wait to have enough data to prove it and plan, program, test, etc. etc.

I don't think they are actually looking at individual fights and seeing if anyone can win anything. I asked about this long ago on beta and I was pretty sure the response was that they can't see this sort of information. That is why they were so keen on people describing in detail each and every fight where they are having difficulty. The problem is that the response is always that they are not in the goldilocks zone. I think a better question might be: who is in the goldilocks zone? Maybe if we asked people that specific question? idk.

If I were to to go by forum comments alone and view the forum as a small sample of the actual number of players (although I suspect the actual number of fighting players is much fewer), very few people are winning fights compared to the many who aren't.

All I can go by is what I hear in the forums and what I hear in my fellowships. In those areas the response is about 15% who are in the goldilocks zone and who are such good fighters that they are able to win while in that zone, and 85% have mostly given up on world map battles. I also have heard the same thing from about a dozen other folks in other fellowships and they are reporting the same thing.

 

[DeletedUser4778]

I am in the goldilocks zone and I will have to start fighting again this week or the next to get expansions for granite mines. I'll try to document those as best as I can.

 

[DeletedUser3297]

My city in Arendyll is in the goldilocks zone. I am at 91/100 provinces. I am winning in ring 6 and 7 now and I do not need to scout ring 8 to unlock Dwarves. Ring 6, the squads are between 180-240. Ring 7, the squads are between 220-310

 

[DeletedUser2870]

lol really bad analogy! This is more like playing an RPG with your level 20 character and having your DM suddenly decide you need to learn a lesson, so he just randomly up and decided to throw a ton of new rules on you and hostile level 80 npcs.
This is all new, the people who got stranded in the back 40 by the new rules do have a valid complaint.
The new players who are hitting the same wall also have a a valid complaint, these new rules are not presented in game....and in game scouting and conquering is rewarded and encouraged. Players have a right to be upset that the line is invisible.

Exactly. The problem here was people were progressing and all of a sudden de DM decided not only to add not just one or two, but dozens of opponents at much higher levels, at the same time taking away a lot of the gear the players had, and leveling their characters down, all in the name of 'balance'.

Furthermore, the chests were introduced as MINIMUM requirement for that bit. There's no indication ingame ANYWHERE that tell you you have to stay within a certain range. You'd have to scroll through the techtree to the chapter next to the one you just opened up to see what the next requirement is, which is ridiculous.

So your solution is I will have to wait for months and months before ever being able to do a battle again? Thanks very much, not exactly a way to encourage people to play.

I STILL have not heard a single technical reason that would make it needed to keep players from advancing.
I STILL have not heard as single game-playing reason that would require to not gently increase the slope of difficulty but put up hard roadblocks.

 

[Mykan]

I don't think they are actually looking at individual fights and seeing if anyone can win anything. I asked about this long ago on beta and I was pretty sure the response was that they can't see this sort of information.

I am certain they don't have detailed fight data. What I expect they would have is general information like how many fights are being won. or how many people combat verse negotiate. Very broad statistics to give them an idea on how the mechanics are working. I also won't be surprised if they can filter out towns beyond the "Goldilocks zone".

I think a better question might be: who is in the goldilocks zone? Maybe if we asked people that specific question? idk.

I have several towns inside that zone (some a little past it). Sadly I have not had an opportunity to obtain the data they need.

All I can go by is what I hear in the forums and what I hear in my fellowships. In those areas the response is about 15% who are in the goldilocks zone and who are such good fighters that they are able to win while in that zone, and 85% have mostly given up on world map battles. I also have heard the same thing from about a dozen other folks in other fellowships and they are reporting the same thing.

Interestingly with the fellowships and people I play with I have found the opposite stats. Of those I play with if it is 15% those players have been very quite about it. I know of about 5% affected and 1% quitting (maybe) partly due to changes and partly age to adapt to those changes. That information would be based on around 100 people. Honestly I have been surprised the changes haven't been more noticeable in the little pocket of the worlds I play in.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

I am certain they don't have detailed fight data. What I expect they would have is general information like how many fights are being won. or how many people combat verse negotiate. Very broad statistics to give them an idea on how the mechanics are working. I also won't be surprised if they can filter out towns beyond the "Goldilocks zone".

I would expect that as well. It would make no sense for a company not to keep such statistics, but the problem with these would be that you'd need to apply another filter to see how players are doing who already were beyond the set range when all of a sudden that range was introduced.
For newer players fine, they don't know any better, but for those who already have been playing longer the blocks definitely came down like a ton of bricks.

I have several towns inside that zone (some a little past it). Sadly I have not had an opportunity to obtain the data they need.

I tried one new town on the belgian server for a while. It works fine, until chapter 2-3. And I have the unfair advantage of KNOWING I'll hit a wall.
Just following the quests and the suggestions thatn scouting will open up new expanses, I found I quickly ran up to a roadblock as well. Not to mention there is no in-game communication about the 'goldilocks zone'.

Interestingly with the fellowships and people I play with I have found the opposite stats. Of those I play with if it is 15% those players have been very quite about it. I know of about 5% affected and 1% quitting (maybe) partly due to changes and partly age to adapt to those changes. That information would be based on around 100 people. Honestly I have been surprised the changes haven't been more noticeable in the little pocket of the worlds I play in.

Perhaps so, but in the worlds I left, about half the original members left the game over this issue. And for me it was a reason to fold my account on those worlds as well since I'm not going to keep spending time on 4 worlds to be frustrated on.
In the 2 worlds I now still am active on, it's about the same. We have lost many members over this issue. And some haven't left, but are doing the same I am: play less frequently.

If I take a look on the dutch world, when I'm making my rounds there are many, many cities now with the following titles "quit"..."on hold"...and interestingly enough: "members wanted"
More and more FS's, especially ones a bit higher in the ranking, have a problem keeping their members to the max allowed number.
I'm sure that will even out over time as some will merge, but it is a strong indication that players are leaving. As is the fact that even when I'm not upgrading buildings (or gaining points another way) I sometimes suddenly move up several places in the rankinglist.
Just last week I went from place 173 to place 90.
Sure, I upgraded a few buildings, but mostly residences and there is no way that the few points gathered there would let me pass so many members...besides, directly above and below me in the rankinglist are still the same names as before.
Also, just after I was moved it looked more promising than the goldmines, but at least 80% of the towns there are inactive (meaning no increase in points, nor any new buildings or upgrades added in at least 2 weeks) and the number is increasing weekly.

I see the same kinds of thing happening on my US world as well.