Condense the spire from 48 to 12 encounters.

[BrinDarby]

There will never be 4x the prizes if there are 1/.4 as many
encounters. Also, a bad RNG will now be 4x as bad ....

I have 4 worlds, I love Spire , but its my choice to have
more than 1 world. Timewise, its something to actually
do, rather than watching the paint dry after doing maint.

Yes, I'd like more Spire as some have said, but this is a
horrible idea.

 

[Darielle]

Interesting as we get a lot of requests to extend the Spire as players would like to see more levels appear than we currently have to increase rewards and give extra play time.

You can count me in the more level camp. I'd love to see the spire have a 4th level. Just like I'd love to see the FA have a 4th map before the youknowwhat.

 

[Darielle]

No, what if they attempt the encounter and their troop supply is too depleted for a second attempt? Or, after success in 2 attempts they do not have enough troops for the next chest... It matters because in separate encounters you would use a wider variety of troop type depending on the encounter conditions. It has been a while since I fought in the Spire, but if I recall correctly, my troop choices are set but the enemy troop types can change per wave. Is that right? If so, the difference is rather than using - 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the 15 troops options in one encounter - 4 encounters allow the use of greater variety depending on the encounter conditions of 4 separate scenarios.

I would not want to wipeout my mages and frogs in a failed encounter preventing from attempting the next chest - or far worse limiting the amount of tournament encounters for the week.

Good point.

 

[BrinDarby]

Alrighty then, just me who's burnt out.

Fewer clicks. Less repetition.

Problem solved, just do less each week, like 80%
of the playerbase does. Those req's of a gold spire
FS, have burnt you out, or maybee its just playing
for 7-8 years now, burnt you out.....

Thats no reason to ask that the game be changed
to basically benefit you.

Elvenar is a "watch-the-paint-dry" game ... other
than Maintinence and doing specific maintinence,
all thats left is Spire & Tourn.....

1600 pts as I've seen in another thread is 6x6 or 5x8.
48 (fixed #) isn't bad, when ppl have to do 36-40
tourn encounters to just hit 1600.

I have 4 worlds, and it doesn't take much time to do
Spire in all. Remember tho, I choose to do 4, if I only
had 1 world..... alot less clicks/repitition, duhhhh.

Please Soggy, explain to me what other there is
as I explained earlier...... because maintinence itself
is not playing the game, its doing maintinence.
Forcing then maintinence to be the crux of events
is like asking to be burnt out by the game....

Soggy, you have hit the "been there done that" wall.
changing the Spire will NOT fix that feeling.....

 

[BrinDarby]

each gate is more expensive than the last 3 encounters.
how exactly would that work then ???

 

[SoggyShorts]

@BrinDarby
Move on mate, the idea is dead with zero support. I massively underestimated the playerbase's love of repetition.

 

[Lelanya]

@BrinDarby
Move on mate, the idea is dead with zero support. I massively underestimated the playerbase's love of repetition.

I am with you. But there is the opposing view as well.

 

[Moho]

I massively underestimated the playerbase's love of repetition.

Ha. This game has always seemed to resemble a parrot's dream to me.

 

[Yogi Dave]

Move on mate, the idea is dead with zero support. I massively underestimated the playerbase's love of repetition.

LOL I don't think it's love of repetition. In some ways I like your idea, but it's not fleshed out enough. And maybe it's time just hasn't come yet. The idea is now out there for people's brains to stew on. So, a couple of things to add to the stew.

• If the rewards are increased from 1 to 4, it should not be 1 reward times 4, but 4 rewards. Essentially, have the 16 rewards that existed for the 4 encounters, and you get 4 of them, which means they may all be different, but you could get 2 frags, sips, and a PP. You couldn't get sips and a DA since they are in different sets of 4 encounters.
• Multi-wave battles: Would they go away or would all of them become multi-wave? I tend to like the multi-wave battles, but I suspect many would like the gone, gone, gone. Generally, they are easier than the single wave ones. Yes, there are lots of exceptions to this. It's just my thing. Also, the boss should still be multi-wave.
• I presume the diamond cost for another guess would be 100 instead of 25.
• Maybe go from 4 to 2 encounters per gate or cut the number of gates in half.

But there is still @Moho's comment about encounters from events.

So, yeah probably a dead issue, but not because the playerbase loves repetition. That sounds a bit condescending to me.

 

[Moho]

That sounds a bit condescending to me.

It is condenscending, but I don't mind it. There's a lot of repetition in many other exciting endeavors and activities, like driving fast cars for example. Tradition also teems with repeated stuff, and although many look down on it, tradition is the foundation of our civilization (and I admit it despite the fact that I tend to side with opposing trends). Finally, leading a good life consists in planning well thought-out routines that keep you and your life companions in perfect shape.

 

[defiantoneks]

i'm glad the idea was proposed, because everyone has a differing opinion. at this point in my game play i would be in the "more encounters please" camp simply for the fact that my AW's kick out unurium for every chest i open. more encounters = more chests.

 

[defiantoneks]

odd thought… you could change the spire setup so you had TWO paths up: the normal, slower way with existing fight stats OR
create an option when you enter the spire to select a "secret mission" style attack, with fewer encounters and tougher fight stats.

edit: this could even be a "high achiever" option. say you reach the top of the spire X times and this choice becomes available.
(and yes of course they'd have to pull all player data so you don't have to start the count from scratch)

 

[Yogi Dave]

i'm glad the idea was proposed, because everyone has a differing opinion. at this point in my game play i would be in the "more encounters please" camp simply for the fact that my AW's kick out unurium for every chest i open. more encounters = more chests.

Ah, yes unur. Maybe the AW could increase the amount of unur produce per chest, or at least the main chests. But that does bring up the question of the unur from the bonus chests and the odds of them coming about. Anyway, the seed thought has been placed.

 

[defiantoneks]

any changes would also have to be set up with proposals on how the battle count affects gold level, etc.
if you roll the same points to fewer battles, does that make it harder or easier to get gold? if you implement the alternative i suggested, how do you assign points to equate to someone fighting the "normal" way? would it become an advantage or hindrance to getting gold?

 

[Gkyr]

Interesting as we get a lot of requests to extend the Spire as players would like to see more levels appear than we currently have to increase rewards and give extra play time.

I am probably the only one who would like to see more Waves. Keep the levels but increase the rewards depending upon winning 4 or 5 or 6 waves. Keep going until defeated. There is a lot of preplanning and skill there.

 

[SoggyShorts]

In some ways I like your idea, but it's not fleshed out enough.

I felt the first step was to gauge players' initial reaction to see if it was an idea worth pursuing. With an overwhelmingly negative response, I don't believe it is. Fleshing out the idea would serve no purpose now because too many players enjoy doing the encounters so much that they want to do more of them, not fewer. The distribution of prizes and other details are pretty obvious issues with almost equally obvious solutions, but in the end it's moot because the whole premise was flawed.

I appreciate your effort, and there was a time I would have contributed more, but I find myself less interested in Sisyphean tasks these days.

So, yeah probably a dead issue, but not because the playerbase loves repetition. That sounds a bit condescending to me.

Perhaps condescending, I can see how it came off that way, but I was caught off guard seeing players who have completed 8,000 - 32,000 (or even more) spire encounters wanting to do more of the same every week.

 

[BrinDarby]

but I was caught off guard seeing players who have completed 8,000 - 32,000 (or even more) spire encounters wanting to do more of the same every week.

I wouldda quit long ago without the spire, but the draw for
me is in catering, and when game progression forces me to
switch to fighting because simple costs are too high to replace
each week....

Add to that its common practice that ( us ) the playerbase asks
for improvements and what we get is 2 steps fwd, yet 5 steps back.
Enuff ppl complained there were too many Frags and too few CCs,
hense the (2) MA crafts for 8 or 1 CC, using 5k Frags. We also were
given (2) new ways for CCs, while Frags were cut back. Spire changes
led to changes in MA, ie- the big MA nerf of 2022....

@SoggyShorts if you truly believe Inno will give us players
(4) individually randomized prizes for complete'n what now is
(1) gate encounter..... Thus as you put it, "same rewards" for 1/4
the effort .... I don't need Inno to chime in here, that will Never
ever happen .......

Bonus chests are basically 10% ( give/take ) ... thus (48) 10%
chances... does that mean now its only (12) 10% chances ???
or would that be increased to 40%......( when pigs fly , lolol )

Gate encounters are more expensive both troop wise and
goods wise, exactly how are you going to cost that out ???
IF now cost is 1,1,1,2 , does that equate to 5 then ???

Think about it Soggy, we complained that Moonestone Lib
was static on scrolls, thus a glut..... what was thier solution ??
It certainly wasn't to just chg it to a +1 or +2, ohh no ... they
eliminated totally winning Moonestone pieces... Just think
how that 1 change effected every single new player who
decided to try Elvenar.......

Just as there's a difference between macro-economics and
micro-economics, it seems you want a micro solution to a
problem "you" have (bordom), that has macro ramifications.

Tell ya what Soggy, you want less bordom, howabout you
help us ( the playerbase ) successfully get Inno, rather than
ruining tourn/spire further, to add in elements to the game
that isn't just glorified maintinence, because that is the
biggest root of the mindnumbing clickclickclick, and
watch-the-paint-dry.......

I actually tried to brainstorm if Your suggestion was fiesable
and @ every turn.... either something gets nerf'd/ruined or
its just not possible. I gave it the benefit of the doubt but you
are correct..........

@BrinDarby
Move on mate, the idea is dead with zero support. I massively underestimated the playerbase's love of repetition.

yet doesn't seem as dead as you think... Therefore I will
continute to logically show reasons why this either will not
be a net gain for players, or not be fiesable to change......

---- Long Live whats left of the Spire ----

 

[SoggyShorts]

dd thought… you could change the spire setup so you had TWO paths up: the normal, slower way with existing fight stats OR
create an option when you enter the spire to select a "secret mission" style attack, with fewer encounters and tougher fight stats.

This idea actually has merit.
Simply allow players to fight their current gate boss at any time.
"Warning, if you don't defeat this gate dude's guards first, you'll have to fight them all at once!"

So you can play the spire as is, or, after opening any gate, skip ahead to your current gate boss and challenge him at a greater cost.
If you defeat him, you get the chests from all of his guards as well.

It would be the same number of waves as the gate boss, which makes it quite a bit higher cost, so perhaps a slight reduction from "total of all guards+miniboss" cost.
E.g. the first 4 fights are 1,1,1,2 waves whereas skipping to the boss would be one big 2 wave fight, so losses would generally be higher.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Gate encounters are more expensive both troop wise and
goods wise, exactly how are you going to cost that out ???
IF now cost is 1,1,1,2 , does that equate to 5 then ???

Slightly less since gate bosses have more waves. So 1+1+1+2 = 4ish?

Think about it Soggy, we complained that Moonestone Lib

This idea isn't about the moonstone library. If you are going to relate every proposal to a previous failure from inno, don't bother reading the ideas forum.

, it seems you want a micro solution to a
problem "you" have (bordom), that has macro ramifications.

Yes, that's how suggestions work- I have an issue and post a thread to see if others share it. It seems most did not, so unless there's a major shift in the solution to my issue that doesn't impact them (see post above this one) it dies.

Tell ya what Soggy, you want less bordom, howabout you
help us ( the playerbase ) successfully get Inno, rather than
ruining tourn/spire further, to add in elements to the game
that isn't just glorified maintinence, because that is the
biggest root of the mindnumbing clickclickclick, and
watch-the-paint-dry.......

Yeah, except players are constantly complaining that they are overwhelmed with events, FAs, spire, tournament, the cauldron, seasons quests and guest races, so there's not really room for another feature unless some of the others get streamlined a little, eh?

 

[BrinDarby]

This idea isn't about the moonstone library. If you are going to relate every proposal to a previous failure from inno, don't bother reading the ideas forum.

I'm certainly gonna point out how any suggestion gets
twisted by Inno, in order to continue the 2 steps fwd...
and 5 steps back.....

Not to mention the constant friction between endgame players
and Everyone Else .......