-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
News from Beta - May Contain Spoilers!
- Thread starter Xelenia
- Start date
- Status
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
To be fair, she said she talks with the devs directly at a virtual-in-person meeting, so the only thing they can shred is their own notes.
edeba
Well-Known Member
It is unbelievable that with the most negative feedback ever, they went ahead with only minor lip service changes to what they started with.
I had a look at inno, the company, https://www.innogames.com/company/about-us/#c1918.
I think this new tournament has been a major fail in following any of these standards... There is nothing fair about slaughtering the game for hundreds of players, and players that are the reason for the success of the company. The speed one also had me choking. The length of time we were just left in limbo with thousands of comments that this is a bad idea was insane.
This team in inno has truly lost its way.
Xelenia
Ex-Team Member
Good Morning,
Idea and suggestions are not only received from beta. Yes they are tested on beta....thus the name of beta, which is short for "Beta Testing". Ideas and suggestions are populated from across the board and all CM have the same communication set up with developers. The beta CM simply handles them more in the 'face' because well, again..."Beta Testing".
Xelie
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
On a really busy server, there are fewer than 500 people who are going to be adversely effected by the tournament (and yes, I'm one of them) once a month or so. Probably fewer than 200 who will be affected more than twice a month. Meanwhile, there are probably at least 1000/server who will be affected in a positive way, able to do more in the tournament than they could previously.
I suspect Inno knows exactly who they are listening to.
I suspect Inno knows exactly who they are listening to.
Pheryll
Set Designer
Yeah by implementing it on live, they have locked themselves into a system that does not meet many of their goals, and will have a hard time shifting to a system that does meet their goals because so many people had an easier time with the incomplete fix.
I have looked at the many statements that the moderators and developers have communicated, and I am fairly certain that they were looking for an equation like the following: Quadratic function(research) + Linear function(city size) * Linear function(wonder levels). The function gives a reason to progress as it allows more wonder levels/city size to be taken to maintain the same percentage as you advance, and the research would be in line with the training speed.
However, this is not the first time that the Elvenar team has adopted a model that did not match their goals in the slightest. Previously they introduced the infinite quest system and made mention that they would not be returning to the limited quests. Well the infinite quest system was abandoned, and who knows what will happen with the new tournament, other than the transition to a new system in the distant future may be fairly rocky.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
That's all assuming that you know their goals and are correct about the disconnect. Maybe their experience is that the UK server has sold more diamonds than it did before the changes rolled out. After all, diamond sales is the only feedback they have to listen to.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
I'm sure people want to believe this doesn't meet most of Inno's eight listed goals, because it makes them feel better about opposing it, but I don't see how to come up with that:
I think on the whole there's zero evidence that it has failed to meet Inno's corporate goals. The fact that it's going to be an annoyance for the squeakiest forum participants doesn't change that.
- Fewer clicks, and fewer provinces completed reduces energy consumption might be a net + for sustainability. At worst/most-likely. it's probably neutral.
- Appears on the surface to be in line with fair play for the majority of players. Some are negatively affected, but most are either neutrally or positively affected and the vast majority are affected the same.
- No apparent relationship to Open information sharing (exactly like all the other dev actions related to Elvenar).
- Nothing to indicate it will make the leadership or their teams less passionate, and converging code between Spire and tournaments while eliminate constant complaints about Optional SS techs might just improve their ability to handle changes and feedback, so make them more passionate.
- If the goal is diamonds sales, we have no evidence that it will have a negative effect on the total across the company. Getting rid of giant scores on the leader-board seems like a way to improve competition (and therefore diamond sales).
- Not entertaining our whinging on the forums is defintely in line with quick decisions. Delaying for more changes is defintely not in line with this.
- They've encouraged tons of feedback by giving a longer than usual beta process and a secondary semi-beta on the UK server. I don't recall any past change that allowed more feedback opportunities. (Encouraging feedback is not the same thing as catering to it.)
- Simplicity is hard to judge without access to and experience around the code, but only having one combat code base for both Spire and Tournaments pretty much has to be simpler than having two different mechanics.
I think on the whole there's zero evidence that it has failed to meet Inno's corporate goals. The fact that it's going to be an annoyance for the squeakiest forum participants doesn't change that.
DeletedUser9601
Guest
It is a gross misunderstanding of what corporate principles are if you expect to apply them to individual game tweaks. Give me a break.
Pheryll
Set Designer
I am not even referring to corporate goals. I am referring to the goals that they had particular to the spire/new tournament equations, including the following:
1: Players are encouraged to advance through chapters as remaining in a chapter and just building up wonders/land will penalize them.
2: The formula brings even difficulty across chapters.
3: The randomization of enemies makes fights more interesting and engaging.
4: Moving away from squad size and province based systems, the formula is more balanced.
There are many other statements made, and these are not word for word; but they do accurately express what the moderators and and official announcements claim.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
That wasn't a reply to you.
Which is not to say I think we have data on whether it achieves the goals you've identified, but that wasn't a reply to you.
SoulsSilhouette
Buddy Fan Club member
In a total alien way... I am going to take a wait and see approach to the tourney changes. Maybe the changes won't kill me as much as I think they will. Maybe I won't lose anything significant. Maybe....
Jackluyt
Platinum Leaf -FB
What concerns me about the new mix of enemies seen in Beta is that many of the Encounters feature several or even all five enemy types. The old system, typically one only had to deal with a maximum of 3 enemy categories, which made choosing your army much easier.
We all know that the Barracks troops are 'generalists' - equally effective against two types of enemy. The Merc Camp and Training Grounds troops are 'specialists' - very good against one of the two possible enemies, and weak against the other.
It appears to me that having every fight featuring so many enemy types, it makes using the advanced troop types more difficult or even impractical, so for many Encounters I have reverted to Barracks Troops which have fewer losses on AutoFight.
This at a time when they have given us the ability to train in all three buildings simultaneously - so we can make plenty and plenty of 'advanced' troops - which we are less likely to be able to use.
In the current tournament, most of the Encounters needed a mixture of Golems and Archers, and it was difficult to use the 'advanced' troops on AutoFight, because they were likely to get slaughtered.
I wonder if the developers considered this?
We all know that the Barracks troops are 'generalists' - equally effective against two types of enemy. The Merc Camp and Training Grounds troops are 'specialists' - very good against one of the two possible enemies, and weak against the other.
It appears to me that having every fight featuring so many enemy types, it makes using the advanced troop types more difficult or even impractical, so for many Encounters I have reverted to Barracks Troops which have fewer losses on AutoFight.
This at a time when they have given us the ability to train in all three buildings simultaneously - so we can make plenty and plenty of 'advanced' troops - which we are less likely to be able to use.
In the current tournament, most of the Encounters needed a mixture of Golems and Archers, and it was difficult to use the 'advanced' troops on AutoFight, because they were likely to get slaughtered.
I wonder if the developers considered this?
StarLoad
Well-Known Member
did you really ask this? LOL
hvariidh gwendrot
Well-Known Member
speaking of squad size .. is there any advantage to spire or tournament play going back for the optional squad size increases ?
edit add: reading up having 500 people negatively effected is saying 20 full fellowships of pissed off players .. that's a lot of negative buzz for the 1k who will play the game and will grow in to the problems the 500 are bichin about .. that's a bad system to implement for those numbers
edit add: reading up having 500 people negatively effected is saying 20 full fellowships of pissed off players .. that's a lot of negative buzz for the 1k who will play the game and will grow in to the problems the 500 are bichin about .. that's a bad system to implement for those numbers
Last edited:
hvariidh gwendrot
Well-Known Member
yes that is someones opinion is there a for real break down that has been done ?
edit add : cool thanks Ed & Pheryll
edit add : cool thanks Ed & Pheryll
Last edited:
Pheryll
Set Designer
The statement is based on MinMax's data. His equation shows that optional squad size technologies do not have any influence on the spire or tourney impacting the number of troops you bring in.
Those advocating for taking optional squad sizes now do so because of its positive effects for world map fighting and its synergy with several wonders.
- Status