Brainstorming about Tournaments

[DeletedUser61]

Let's see how good we are at reading tea leaves. Other than the information in the December InnoGames YouTube promo we don't know anything at all about the Provincial Tournaments, but we can still guess and speculate.

Here's what I'm guessing

• There will be an Arena Building, one per city, that's very much like an Ancient Wonder.
  • The benefit to the owner will be reduced scouting costs, level by level
  • The benefit to the participants will be Tournament Points and map related Spells, reduced scouting times in particular
• You'll get Tournament Points by REacquiring discovered provinces, every week anew, using either goods or troops
  • The number of Tournament Points will depend on the sector's ring distance from your city, and thereby its difficulty
  • There won't be any secondary scouting costs, BUT the acquisition costs/combat difficulty will be identical with what we've seen during the initial discovery acquisition.
  • You'll still get Relics and Rune Shards
  • Tournament Points will be ephemeral. The tournament sectors AND your accumulated tournament points will be RESET once per week. In other words, you'll need to complete your tournament sectors AND contribute the consequent points to an ARENA of your choosing, including your own Arena, or else you'll lose the points during the reset.
  • The Arena itself isn't effected by the reset. Contributed points are safe.

Optimizing your tournament efforts is going to be a quite a challenge, so of course I'm working on a map related spreadsheet. If you've been following the related discussions at

• https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/winyandor-vacancy-watch.1572/#post-10612
• https://en.forum.elvenar.com/index....e-and-number-of-trades.1827/page-3#post-12633
• https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/arendyll-pileon-consulting.1441/

then you're already onboard with the use of a map related spreadsheet to track

• Trading Partners
• Scouting Costs
• Vacancies
• And now Tournament Points

The key features of Excel 2013 ScoutingTemplate.xlsx, that will be attached to one of the recent posts, are as follows:

• If you type a City Name into the map portion of the spreadsheet, the name automatically appears in the related City IDentity list
• Outlining, and the Excel Trace Precedents/Dependents widget, helps you easily move around in the spreadsheet.
• The default City IDentity is based on the hexagonal rings that are used to build the global map, and your particular instance thereof.
• The dashed hexagon shows the shape of the underlying flat-topped hexagon that is emergent from the local algorithm that's used to tile the map. It's a spiral, except that the 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock top edge backfills concurrent with a forward fill from 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock.
• The Blue/White pointy-topped rings represent the SCOUTING cost rings, which is the important feature of the spreadsheet. The Cities are just there so that you won't get lost. The relic sectors PER RING are sequenced clockwise starting at 12 o'clock, except that every 3rd ring has a city at 12 o'clock, so the first relic sector is at 12:01.
• There's a very strong pattern for the relic sector count in each ring
  • 00 06 06
  • 12 18 18
  • 24 30 30
  • 36 42 42
  • 48 54 54

Spoiler: Zoom map

 

[DeletedUser61]

A fascinating concept popped up in the Beta forum at https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/battle-spells.4121/. How about spells that improve your COMBAT capabilities for say 30 minutes. And the implementation should be straight-forward.

• You could temporarily activate an upgrade tech for that type of unit.
• You could temporarily borrow a capability from some other type of unit, or even from a different race.
• Or something unique, that would be to powerful for general usage? How about an "invisibility shield" for Paladins, that gives them a very high defensive boost for the remainder of the current engagement? For when you're about to lose a fight??

Over the next few weeks I'll be pouring in scouting data from unverified sources, https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/scouting-costs-and-possible-provinces.3371/ in particular, but also some data from my various cities. If you aware of other sources, or have been keeping decent notes, I'd be delighted to consider multiple datasets. Spline fits do a wonderful job of dealing with outliers.

There are several factors that effect scouting cost observations, and of course the unverified data will be a hodgepodge of those factors. So be warned.

• The number of scouted sectors is the primary cost driver. The formula is somewhere around Coins = 100*n^1.05. Exponential costs are obviously a soft cap, as is the subsequent cost/difficulty of acquiring the sector.
• There's an actual hard cap somewhere around 300 explored sectors, because you won't be able store enough coins in your Main Hall to cover the costs of scouting an additional sector.
• The displayed numbers are rounded to a couple of significant digits, so the available data is pretty lumpy.
• Within the same ring the "next scouting cost" will be exactly the same for all of the remaining relic sectors in that ring, so the sequence is a matter of convenience. It's pretty easy to get lost if you're not being orderly but, frankly, access to active trading partners is a a lot more important than being orderly and it's hard to have it both ways.
• Jumping to a more distant ring RAISES your costs, and I suspect that it may be a Fibonacci sequence wherein the next jump in the series is the sum of the previous two jumps. The jump values would thereby be Ring Jump Costs = (Ring -2)+(Ring-1) = 2 x Ring - 3, which flattens out as the numbers grow, and thereby compensates a bit for the exponential effect of more and more relic sectors per ring.
• The Advanced Scouting technology, at the start of each chapter, LOWERS your costs by somewhere around 20%. Unlock the Advanced Scouting technology soon as you can, because it lowers the cost of ALL subsequent scouts.
• It's pretty likely that we'll get some Scouting Spells.
• The time required for scouting, stated in minutes, is somewhere around 0.25% of the cost in coins.
• Hurry up Diamonds will cost you somewhere around 80% of the REMAINING minutes.

Once we have enough data for some decent numerical analysis, then I'll post formula driven numbers and you'll be able to mix and match the various factors that effect your scouting costs.

I'm also supposing that we'll be able to take advantage of the tournament resets to run repeated experiments with acquisition goods and combat difficulty, so this is a pretty open ended project.

 

[DeletedUser61]

Here's a snapshot of the Advance Scouting technology that's at the beginning of Chapter II. The effect for each of the Advanced Scouting technologies is probably a simple 25% reduction in the scouting costs. We have yet to determine if the cost reduction applies equally to all rings, or just to the incremental costs.

Once we get the pieces all put together, we'll probably discover that the costs are actually an accumulation of the linear scouting cost increases within each ring times the number of available sectors within each ring Please keep your eyes open when you research an Advanced Scouting technology, and let us know precisely how it's presented.

LordB has provided some very useful Ring data at https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/inde...costs-and-possible-provinces.3371/#post-30502.
You won't like the results. The cost for the next sector in each ring varies with the SIXTH power of the ring distance. That's brutal.

Several samples yielded the same exponent

• Sector 87 for rings 1-11 for Advanced Scouting III
• Sector 207 for rings 8-14 for Advanced Scouting IV
• Sector 207 for rings 8-14 for Advanced Scouting V
• Sector 228 for rings 8-15 for Advanced Scouting V

 

[DeletedUser61]

Within Ring 8 the increases in Scouting Costs are linear, and the average increase per sector is 32,692 Coins. Even with all sorts of fancy analysis to account for the roundoff error, because the program only displays two significant digits, there's a fitting error of less than 0.5%, so we'll go with linear.

We have not yet determined if the size of the incremental scouting costs are ring dependent, but that's probably the case. Any sort of exponential influence would have caused the graph to curve a bit, but in fact it's a carpenter's dream.

 

[DeletedUser61]

I've plowed through the data for the increments within each ring, and they appear to be linear, but the over all data doesn't make any sense at all.
Whatever the reason, we do not yet have a useful model.

• The Advanced Scouting technology is probably more complex that just a 25% reduction in costs
• The scouting costs may not be displayed correctly
• We may be making too many assumptions about the meaning of the displayed scouting costs for distant rings

 

[DeletedUser627]

Yes, the Linear Scouting Cost chart (two posts above) is unreliable. Presently I have 231 provinces cleared, with only 1 province with a cost of 2.7mil, and numerous ones at 3mil and 3.4 mil in 3 different rings. Finally, in level 15, are two provinces showing 4.8 and 6.1 mil, despite the fact they are in the same ring.

 

[DeletedUser61]

That's actually good news. The implication is that they have subdivided the rings that have more than 50ish relic sectors.

We'll get there, but I don't have any expectation that it's going to be a simple model.

• There are at least three variables:
  • # of scouted sectors
  • Ring distance
  • Advanced scouting technologies
• The scouting costs need to make sense even when a player's exploration sequence is arbitrary
• There are a great many opportunities for the developers to "adjust" things to get the scouting cost distribution that they want
• They have every right to tune things along the way. Sort of like most businesses.
• It's really tough to perform repetitive experiments, although I'm expecting that that will change in a hurry once the Provincial Tournaments are released.

To close the loop a bit, my guess is that plowing the same ground on a weekly (or monthly) basis will allow folks to pour in goods and troops until their eyes bleed. The provincial tournament model doesn't really have an upper limit on effort, and it will be very easy to set up various leagues. All you'd need would be a variety of Tournament Arenas that have different sets of spells as prizes. Economy, cost effective, bleeding edge, and fireballs.

From a design point of view, spells are ideal incentives.

• They don't take up any building space, once you have a Magic Academy
• They're consumable, so you don't have to worry about their long-term effects
• They're IDEAL awards for special events, in addition to the baseline spells
• Designing special event tournaments would be very easy to accomplish, and they would favor the folks who are dedicated to the game.
• There's nothing that limits tournaments to combat. Scavenger Hunts would be equally effective. You could provide a "clue per day" that would allow folks to find objects in multiple sectors of a type, or in particular types of buildings, as a temporary extension of the baseline quests.
• The special event tournaments could have a fairly flat prize distribution: 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 forever. That way the developers wouldn't need to be as concerned about participation levels nor population levels.

 

[DeletedUser61]

Cool! I've created a counter-example that may knock most of our current scouting cost theories into a cocked hat.

I started out at 4 o'clock, intentionally looped out around the adjacent sector at 2 o'clock, and completed the loop at 12 o'clock.

• The 3 sectors adjacent to HOME have a scouting cost of 1400. (1000 once Advanced Scouting II is applied.)
• The nearby sector in Ring 2 ALSO has a scouting cost of 1400. (1100 once Advanced Scouting II is applied.)

The "simple" pointy-topped hexagonal ring models all suggest that Ring 2 should cost more than Ring 1. Note that it's also possible that there really is a difference, but it's hidden under the roundoff error.

(A couple of hours later) we applied the Advanced Scouting technology, and verified that there was a hidden difference. BUT the consequent difference of 100 implies a difference of 100/0.75=133 without the Advanced Scouting technology, and that WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN swamped by the round off error. There's something more going on, that we'll have to isolate. For example, the Advanced Scouting technology MAY be controlling the ring distance cost jumps in addition to the indicated (scouting?) cost reduction from 100% to 75%.

As a minimum, the unscouted Ring 1 sector will allow us to isolate

• The incremental costs for each scouted sector, which is somewhere around 100 times Sectors to the 1.05th power.
• The incremental costs for ring distance, which is somewhere around Ring to the SIXTH power.
• We'll also need to account for the effect of the Advanced Scouting technologies, which is somewhere around Chapter-1 to the 0.75th power.
• Once we have a reliable model we'll be able to post hypothetical numbers with more significant digits, whereupon the patterns will become more apparent.

I'll be extending my experiment using a larger loop that leaves more unscouted interior sectors, to see if I can amplify the anomalies.

I'll do a move-by-move recap tomorrow, but my working theory is that the program only makes local decisions and doesn't have a clue about the emergent pointy-topped hexagonal rings that we're all so fond of. It may very well be the case that we're getting hexagonal rings simply because we're filling the interior sectors first, and there's nowhere else to add new sectors.

The scouting cost in Ring 1 is 1400 Coins.

The scouting cost in Ring 2 (I'm just showing a different tooltip) is ALSO 1400 Coins.

By leaving interior sectors unscouted, we MAY be able to finesse some of the scouting costs.

I'm also be very interested in anything that you notice that seems to be a break in the normal pattern. Good counter-examples are pure gold, and we'll then try to design an experiment that will emphasize the anomaly.

 

[DeletedUser594]

I'm with you on the tournaments. These AW's make no sense without them but become game changers in tourneys. I've switched from entirely manufactoring based to heavy supply to keep my troops coming. I've been stockpiling troops and putting points in my Monastery and Bulwark.
The few extra slots in the from the dwarven armories also click into place if fighting becomes a big point/growth/expansion driver.

Magic Academy with any sort of military spells will be worthwhile immediately but since that's the only thing I can't un-do I plan to wait until something definitive happens. It's good timing for shift in the gaming experience. Another guest species and series of updated buildings is nice but the fighting could shake the game up entirely. Each of these buildings and tech releases has been more baffling than the last in the current game schema. I have seen enough of Inno-games that I can't imagine they would stumble this badly with a series of non-sense techs like this and the way they would fit into tourney rings true.

 

[DeletedUser627]

I raised the issue of fighting on the Beta forum. I think I'm not supposed to quote other moderator comments, but I will admit to being confused.

There when I mentioned that there was rumor/discussion about the possibility of modified PvP, a moderator immediately replied that, since Inno hasn't released any details re joint fighting, we shouldn't be indulging in rumor.

Herein we have an entire thread based upon speculation.

 

[DeletedUser61]

I'm running a series of scouting tests wherein I'm INTENTIONALLY avoiding ring oriented discovery zones. Lopsided is a bit more expensive, of course, but what I'm really after is the behavior of the scouting algorithm when it has to deal with odd shapes.

In the following trial I intentionally looped around a sector that was adjacent to my home city, and that allows me to get a much longer series of numbers that should™ vary only because of the number of scouted sectors.

As you examine the following data, look for TWO things:

1. The scouting costs climb faster and faster. n^1.07 provides us with the best least squares fit.
2. At the end of the trial without any Advanced Scouting technology, the scouting costs in Ring 1 and Ring 2 were BOTH 1400 coins.
3. The increment between Sector 6 and Sector 7 would be around 150 if we were dealing with a smooth exponential curve. In fact the increment is only 110, much less that one would expect, so the program is somehow aware that the first ring only contains 6 sectors.
4. After we applied the 100%>>75% cost reduction provided by the Advanced Scouting technology at the beginning of Chapter II
   • The Ring 1 costs dropped to 1000
   • The Ring 2 costs dropped to 1100
   • This separation CANNOT be attributed to roundoff error, because 100/0.75=133, and that's a LARGER difference. Something else is going on as well.

In theory, if you log into a new world, perhaps in a different region, you SHOULD™ be able to replicate my experiment, or try something slightly different. I'd be delighted if somebody made that effort. The game is Free to Play, and you don't even have to verify your email again to play in other regions. How's your Danish?

Analysis for scouting a 9 sector loop with no Advanced Scouting Trial Ring 1-02 Delta 100*n^x LS Fit 0 100 100 100 0 1 200 100 210 -10 2 300 110 324 -24 3 410 100 441 -31 4 510 120 559 -49 5 630 130 680 -50 6 760 130 802 -42 7 890 110 925 -35 8 1000 200 1049 -49 9 1200 200 1174 26 10 1400 ~ 1300 100 ~ Average 130 1.0698 150

If you intend to have some serious fun with the Provincial Tournaments, I very much recommend ordering a pad of 1/4 inch ruled hexagonal graph paper. It's cheap, and it's wonderful for keeping map notes.

 

[DeletedUser61]

Here's the data for the above trial, with a separate column for each step. You'll see this pattern several more times over the next few weeks, as I chase down the algorithms.

Position	Model	#0	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10	AS Ch II
Ring 0-00	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0	C0
Ring 1-01	R9	100	200	300	410	510	630	760	890	1000	Rn	R9	R9
Ring 1-02	1000	100	200	300	410	510	630	760	890	1000	1200	1400	1000
Ring 1-03	R1	100	Rn	R1	R1	R1	R1	R1	R1	R1	R1	R1	R1
Ring 1-04	1000	100	200	300	410	510	630	760	890	1000	1200	1400	1000
Ring 1-05	1000	100	200	300	410	510	630	760	890	1000	1200	1400	1000
Ring 1-06	Rn	100	200	300	410	510	630	760	890	1000	1200	Rn	Rn
Position	Model	#0	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10	AS Ch II
Ring 2-01	R8	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	920	Rn	R8	R8	R8
Ring 2-02	C6	~	~	~	~	~	C6	C6	C6	C6	C6	C6	C6
Ring 2-03	R5	~	~	~	~	540	Rn	R5	R5	R5	R5	R5	R5
Ring 2-04	C2	~	C2	C2	C2	C2	C2	C2	C2	C2	C2	C2	C2
Ring 2-05	R2	~	230	Rn	R2	R2	R2	R2	R2	R2	R2	R2	R2
Ring 2-06	C1	~	C1	C1	C1	C1	C1	C1	C1	C1	C1	C1	C1
Ring 2-07	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 2-08	C~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 2-09	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 2-10	C10	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	C10	C10
Ring 2-11	1100	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	1400	1100
Ring 2-12	C9	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	C9	C9	C9	C9

 

[DeletedUser61]

Position	Model	#0	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10	AS Ch II
Ring 3-01	C8	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	C8	C8	C8	C8	C8
Ring 3-02	R7	~	~	~	~	~	~	1700	Rn	R7	R7	R7	R7
Ring 3-03	R6	~	~	~	~	~	1500	Rn	R6	R6	R6	R6	R6
Ring 3-04	C5	~	~	~	~	C5	C5	C5	C5	C5	C5	C5	C5
Ring 3-05	R4	~	~	~	1300	Rn	R4	R4	R4	R4	R4	R4	R4
Ring 3-06	R3	~	~	1200	Rn	R3	R3	R3	R3	R3	R3	R3	R3
Ring 3-07	C3	~	~	C3	C3	C3	C3	C3	C3	C3	C3	C3	C3
Ring 3-08	1700	~	~	1200	1300	1400	1500	1700	?	2000	2100	2300	1700
Ring 3-09	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-10	C~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-11	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-12	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-13	C~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-14	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-15	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-16	C~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-17	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 3-18	1700	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	2000	2100	2300	1700
Position	Model	#0	#1	#2	#3	#4	#5	#6	#7	#8	#9	#10	AS Ch II
Ring 4-01	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~
Ring 4-02	6700	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	?	8800	9000	6700
Ring 4-03	C7	~	~	~	~	~	~	C7	C7	C7	C7	C7	C7
Ring 4-04	6700	~	~	~	~	~	~	8300	?	8600	8800	9000	6700
Ring 4-05	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	~	^	~
Ring 4-06	6700	~	~	~	~	8100	8200	8300	?	8600	8800	9000	6700
Ring 4-07	C4	~	~	~	~	C4	C4	C4	C4	C4	C4	C4	C4
Ring 4-08	6700	~	~	~	~	8100	8200	?	?	8600	8800	9000	6700

 

[DeletedUser594]

There when I mentioned that there was rumor/discussion about the possibility of modified PvP, a moderator immediately replied that, since Inno hasn't released any details re joint fighting, we shouldn't be indulging in rumor.

Herein we have an entire thread based upon speculation.

To spread a rumor one would have to claim knowledge of said event ie. I heard they are gonna make axe barabarians wear pink tutus.
This discussion is conjecture and speculation based on the limited information they did release. There are no rumors in this discussion.
C'mon bobbi I thought you were a lawyer, or is that the other bobby?

 

[DeletedUser61]

My next experiment is going to be as non-circular as possible. I intend to discover, but not scout, one sector per row, and actually scout just enough sectors to provide an adjacent, scoutable sector in each ring, as highlighted. I'm not going to touch the map until I've unlocked the Advanced Technology at the beginning of Chapter II.

This will allow me to track 10 rings, concurrently, as I fill in the other sectors that are closer to my base city, and are therefore fairly cheap.

Having 10 datasets that differ only by ring distance should allow me to corner the effect of ring distance.

 

[DeletedUser]

To spread a rumor one would have to claim knowledge of said event ie. I heard they are gonna make axe barabarians wear pink tutus.
This discussion is conjecture and speculation based on the limited information they did release. There are no rumors in this discussion.
C'mon bobbi I thought you were a lawyer, or is that the other bobby?

That would be "the other bobby".
@bobbipiazza did not call it rumor, from her statement it appears it was a Forums Mod on the Beta server who called it "rumor", bobbi clearly stated it is "an entire thread based upon speculation". It is a moot point my friend, it is all speculation and ramblings, and voicing of opinions. And I still think that the mental image of axe barbarians wearing pink tutu's is amusing. If Celtic warriors wore kilts commando style, so they could drop them and startle the enemy into pausing long enough to give them an opening to exploit that pause... would axe barbs showing up for battle in tutus not have much the same advantage? Having big burly men wearing tutus charging me while swinging axes would make me stop and back up a few steps...

 

[DeletedUser61]

The Nature of the Combat that supports the Provincial Tournaments is certainly worth examining. We may be creating a tempest in a teacup, or it may be that a significant portion of our current membership will or won't care for the feature that was alluded to at the 2:05 minute mark in the December YouTube promo.

I'm entirely comfortable with speculating about the metagame and features that would allow Elvenar to be more engaging for a good many people, but if you want to jump into the discussion do please grant us the kindness of reviewing the Beta thread at https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/will-future-fighting-be-pvp-in-all-but-name.4176/.

My personal view is that a worthy opponent allows you to play your best game, a tennis match is a good analogy, but I'm not about to put up with some obnoxious 8th grader.

 

[DeletedUser]

The Nature of the Combat that supports the Provincial Tournaments is certainly worth examining. We may be creating a tempest in a teacup, or it may be that a significant portion of our current membership will or won't care for the feature that was alluded to at the 2:05 minute mark in the December YouTube promo.

I'm entirely comfortable with speculating about the metagame and features that would allow Elvenar to be more engaging for a good many people, but if you want to jump into the discussion do please grant us the kindness of reviewing the Beta thread at https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/will-future-fighting-be-pvp-in-all-but-name.4176/.

"Our" current membership? And "please grant US..."? So who is this "us'? And by saying "Our" you are claiming ownership of game membership? So you are on the Inno Team, perhaps in "not-so-good-at-Stealth" mode? Do you have a piece of the action Kat? Is that where you get all this "inside" info you always "speculate" about? Or do you always just refer to yourself in the possessive plural?

 

[DeletedUser61]

So who is this "us'?

You're trying much too hard. Collective nouns and pronouns are entirely common. http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/06/collective-nouns-2.html and a great many other grammar blogs will inform you regarding their usage.

So yeah, we are STILL having this issue or out of order Quests.

Who is this "we?" Are you speaking for the entire user community in some official capacity?

You are hoist on your own petard.

 

[DeletedUser627]

To spread a rumor one would have to claim knowledge of said event ie. I heard they are gonna make axe barabarians wear pink tutus.
This discussion is conjecture and speculation based on the limited information they did release. There are no rumors in this discussion.
C'mon bobbi I thought you were a lawyer, or is that the other bobby?

Thank you, Reza...and Varron, yes there's a difference between rumor and speculation. Reza is correct, I didn't claim that this thread is anything other than speculation. The long story is that KJ previously on another thread herein said, "Wait 'till the players find out that..." and concluded with some statement about the "Provincial Tournament" offering awards to competition winners. That post was longish, didn't have the disclaimer, and implies certainty / private knowledge about a number of aspects. The de facto nature of the post caused me enough concern that I went to the Beta forum and posted:

I'm hearing some discussion that the proposed joint fighting may be a competitive tournament - where players compete in an attempt to outscore other players for rewards.
Does anyone here think that this type of relative PvP is, in effect, no different than direct PvP?

In outcome, is there real difference between having my city overrun by an invading army or having it languish without prospect of progress if my fighting can't excel others?​

Elvenar is appealing because everyone can "win". Slowly or quickly, cooperatively and non-competitively...anyone can attain the game goals. The only discriminator is payer vs non-payer, and thus far even this variable is limited to pace: it doesn't make attainment impossible. If Inno releases a limited number of rewards made available only to "winners", this will re-define the game.

We've seen some conflict over soliciting Fellowship members. We've seen Fellowships go into protect-and-defend mode over Rune "sniping". Competitive fighting, with its inherent exclusions, is another incompatible concept, and I think a worse one than the Rune Shard competition (released without adequate consideration of its impact on the total game environment).

Joint fighting will be an enjoyable addition to the game - IF the rewards are available to all players who meet specific goals. I know that in Beta we review existing pre-release features, but in this instance, can we go on record regarding this concept (before Inno commits and our opinions are limited to bug fixes?)​

The moderator there slammed the door on the thread by stating that rumors are inappropriate, and since Inno hasn't released any information we just have to wait for them to do so. I replied:

Thank you for this clarification. Within these parameters, it still feels practical for us to engage in some theoretical discussion about possible game developments.

Perhaps if we had brainstormed about the Wonders beforehand, thus giving the developers some player frame of reference, players would now have a better understanding of the future here. Since the majority of comments about Wonders are negative, it gives me pause. Should I assume that Inno

1. isn't aware of what players enjoy or dislike
2. doesn't care what current players enjoy or dislike or
3. has some hidden genius plan which will mysteriously transform the unpopular details into something enjoyable.

As example, consider a simple issue, like the fact that Wonders and Spells were added without corresponding updates to the scoring mechanism. The devs establish a goal, define the process for ranking players, and then ignore their own system. Does this mean that Inno thinks score / rank is irrelevant to most of us? Do they have plans to eliminate / modify the scoring system, in which case those of us who have cities based on score will suddenly be at a disadvantage? Currently there's not enough information to allow speculation as to their motive. Since we didn't have a Forum discussion where players discussed their perspectives about score / rank, we still have to assume that Inno could be relatively clueless and just have overlooked the issue.

When it comes to fighting, I'd like to avoid this type of "benefit of the doubt" scenario. Given that the game has introduced competitive elements, we should strongly consider an open discussion about PvP.

Personally, I'm an excellent fighter, have a huge army in reserve now, and could engage successfully in competition (if I connect with an equal partner). Still, I don't want to be in a situation where my success in Elvenar depends on defeating other players. I enjoy the process of succeeding because of cooperative Fellowship play. ....

Everyone has their own personal playing style - does anyone else have thoughts they'd like to make public before the content is fully developed?

​

Aside from the fact that I wish all of us would "go on the record" so to speak, about competitive fighting...what we have are two different standards within Forums. In Beta I can't even theorize publicly without censure...here another player gets to write in a manner that implies he has pre-release information and to speculate at will.

Lastly, Varron...based on the limited information I wrote, you were right to call me on the post. I appreciate your forum presence, thus the long explanation...

NOW - does anyone else have thoughts about the long term effects of in-game competition? Katwijk posted above the link to the Beta thread, but I won't repeat it because it's one of those things that some of us aren't allowed to do.