• 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!

Status
Not open for further replies.

CrazyWizard

Oh Wise One
Gems will be useless for the tournament. It was mentioned in the video that nothing you could do could make things worse. If you increase your ability 10%, the strength of troops will only go up 5%. I am thinking more will still be better and add those squad sizes when the event asks for a tech tree update. Perhaps a way to get around this is to have less manufacturing and less WS and use more spells and event/evolve buildings. This should make battles easier. The downside is that you will lose ranking points, the same ones you try to get by scoring high. Where are our numbers people?

Folks spent time and money to build a superior city one that caters to INNO's set up. Now INNO is changing the rules to make those who built all their AWS up to 30 gazillion less effective. Between this change and the various event buildings, AWs are becoming less and less important making push accounts less effective.

There is a very simple counter to this claim they made.
How does a spire library make your city stronger, how does any increase in difficulty be justified by this wonder?

even if that wonder adds 0.000000000000000001% difficulty, you will in no way become even 0.000000000000000002% stronger.

As long as they have not thought about these kinds of dillema's there statements simply can't be correct.
 

Deleted User - 3932582

Guest
Perhaps a way to get around this is to have less manufacturing and less WS and use more spells and event/evolve buildings. This should make battles easier. The downside is that you will lose ranking points, the same ones you try to get by scoring high. Where are our numbers people?
Not sure why you think that less manufacturing and WS would do anything. If they use calculation similar to the Spire, then these have no impact. You can try to do something like that in a new city where you specifically will focus on lean manufacturing and hence would be able to use less expansions (as these impact the calculation). But that won't work for an existing city (well, not for existing expansions).
 

Gath Of Baal

Well-Known Member
I don't like change :p..

I will hold off on judging this un till it goes live and I get the chance to try it over the course of a few tournaments.

It does sound like a time saver and makes it seem that instead of me having to auto fight 30 provinces all 4 encounters to save time, I will now be able to manual combat all the provinces and not have it be too time consuming. This would also please me

If it makes it more like fighting in the Spire then I most likely will enjoy the change, because I love the challenge of manual fight my way to the top of the spire as it get progressively harder.

If the encounter are now becoming random on what units you are fighting I can see the devalue of ELR and MMM and think new troop damage buildings need to be created that give a damage bonus to all troops and not a specific type.

Are the Blueprints still in the 10 chest? If so this makes it seem like it will be easier to obtain them.. As it is now the fellowship I am in only goes for a 10 chest run every 5th week because we do have a lot of lower chapter city players and even though they try their hardest to contribute it seems like only a handful of members are doing the lions share of the work, which is really starting to wear on me.. If this change will help make newer cities or low chapter cities have an easier time and be able to contribute more then this is a win for every fellowship..

Now if a new city or lower chapter city can suddenly keep up with me as I go all out in a tournament, then I will be upset... An increase is great just not on par with a developed later chapter city

My 2 cents worth
 

DeepTerminal

Active Member
Just wondering, how exactly does this update affect optional SSU? Does it make it good to have, or neither good nor bad to have? The World Map encounters still runs on the old algorithm, which means increasing your own squad size also increases the enemy squad size, right? Isn't this at least one downside to getting those SSU?
 

Pheryll

Set Designer
Just wondering, how exactly does this update affect optional SSU? Does it make it good to have, or neither good nor bad to have? The World Map encounters still runs on the old algorithm, which means increasing your own squad size also increases the enemy squad size, right? Isn't this at least one downside to getting those SSU?
The world map encounters are based upon the scouting cost for the province at the time the scouting is completed (there is a possibility of lowering the cost midway by researching advanced scouts). They are not based upon your squad size.
 

DeepTerminal

Active Member
The world map encounters are based upon the scouting cost for the province at the time the scouting is completed (there is a possibility of lowering the cost midway by researching advanced scouts). They are not based upon your squad size.
But my question is still unanswered, are SSU good to have, or neither good nor bad?
 

Pheryll

Set Designer
But my question is still unanswered, are SSU good to have, or neither good nor bad?

Squad size is beneficial for world map encounters in that the enemy is just as tough regardless of your squad size, but you take 5 squads into the combat, so the higher the squad size, the more troops taken.

Squad size is also part of the troop production calculation for several ancient wonders, and is what the troop instants are based on. So higher squad size gives more of these benefits.
 

Shyama1

Active Member
Marindor said:
As you can see, the difficulty doesn't increase until you are really far into the Tournament (roughly 5000 points' worth), which is typically reached only by the most hardcore and veteran Tournament players, for whom we intend to offer more of a challenge.

Hardcore tourney players actually do 20K tourneys. 5K is considered a good score but nothing impressive.

I would be curious to see this graph:

Tournament-Difficulty-New.png


for provinces 1-80. I'd be curious to see what color provinces 60-80 would be ! (based on the actual color scale)

Its not unusual for some players (including myself) to do 80 provinces @ 6 rounds. Or should I say it was ... :(
 

Pheryll

Set Designer
for provinces 1-80. I'd be curious to see what color provinces 60-80 would be ! (based on the actual color scale)

I am not sure if the color hue is exactly tied to the magnitude. If it is, then we are looking at the increase for moving downward or to the right as diminishing the more moves taken. I estimated using a constant value of 5% increase for each move as that lines up with the values given for the 6-1 to 1-6 diagonal, and the 20-1 to 15-6 diagonal, but the green area is a little too short for that, while the orange a little too long (when put in context with the green to dark orange scale showing the current difficulty progression of 85% (1 star) to 160% (6 star)).
 

SoulsSilhouette

Buddy Fan Club member
So I've watched the video. I've read this thread..... this is my take on the available information....

1. You are penalized for not being a new player.
2. You are penalized for buying expansions or 'over expanding'
3. You are penalized for having upgraded AW's
4. You are penalized for building FS that have balanced goods production and trading
5. You are penalized for playing with a strategy of training heavy on the troops you need.
6. You are penalized because you played this game for more than ten minutes.

7. Make no mistake... This is a NERF of the military AW's. They did this to my beloved Crystal Lighthouse and now they are hitting our troops. I can barely make enough to get through the first two rounds, much less not being able to target train for a tourney.
 

OnlyElves

New Member
Reading the last few pages I see that people are ready to blow up over the new tournament rules. I think it is too early to panic, and after watching the video twice I am willing to wait and see. InnoGames is clearly looking for feedback. Those of use without the time or inclination to register for a beta site will have to trust that those who do will represent the overall player community. I don't have a beta account and don't plan to get one, so I am relying on our fellow players.

My take on this is that InnoGames is trying to address player concerns, but inevitably maybe some correction will be in order.

First, it is stupid to offer players a technology that hurts them. Removing the proportional scaling of the tournament enemies to the squad size is long overdue. That change is a plus.

Regarding the encounter changes, I have only one city (in sorcerers) and score about 1500 or so points per week. Even at that output the tournaments are tedious. I can't imagine how anyone can stand to score 5000 or 20000. Collapsing the provinces to one encounter is a qualified plus, the qualification being as others have pointed out that losing an encounter is much more painful. We'll have to wait and see ... again relying on the beta site players.

I don't agree (yet) with the statements that this removes the incentive to improve your city, or new players can do as well as long-time players. The video clearly states that they intend to ramp up the difficulty of the encounters less than the upgrades strengthen the player's army. No doubt InnoGames will get this wrong the first time -- no one can get it right, this calculation is too complicated -- but if they are following modern software practices they will improve it over time. I don't believe they can mess it up so badly that long-time players with big cities don't continue to score many more points than new players.
 

Kekune

Well-Known Member
as others have pointed out that losing an encounter is much more painful.
I keep seeing this, but it ought to also work in reverse, right? Yes, an unusually bad fight counts four times as much, but so does an unusually good one. I'm not clear why people are zeroing in on this as a concern. For newbies learning, I can see that more fights with lower stakes is better. Beyond that, though, consolidating seems neutral to me. (But yay for fewer clicks!)
 

Risen Malchiah

Well-Known Member
If tournament difficulty will be increased by AW levels, then it will be a strategy to limit our AWs *only* to the ones that actually help. With a Fire Phoenix, I could potentially ditch all the extraneous military wonders that boost troops (HF, Toads, VS, etc) keeping only Sanctuary, Needles, Shrooms & Simia, but I'd be super unhappy about it. I've spent a long time investing in all of those. And of course wonders that don't impact fighting are out completely. Forget Watchtower, Lighthouse, Bloom, Pyramid, Sunset, Maze, etc. They'd all be detriments to tourney difficulty without adding much of value to offset the increased difficulty. So lame.
 

Xelenia

Ex-Team Member
Hello!

I thought I will drop in here to remind everyone that, though I do not moderate this thread on a regular basis, it is moderated nonetheless. Let us remain civil, express your dissatisfaction and disapproval while remaining civil with one another and, of course, not breaking forum rules.

Happy Chit-Chatting :)
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
I keep seeing this, but it ought to also work in reverse, right? Yes, an unusually bad fight counts four times as much, but so does an unusually good one. I'm not clear why people are zeroing in on this as a concern. For newbies learning, I can see that more fights with lower stakes is better. Beyond that, though, consolidating seems neutral to me. (But yay for fewer clicks!)
Not only that, but while losses due to mistakes cost 4x as much, won't they happen 1/4 as often?

On top of that, since the difficulty will be an average of the 4 encounters it makes for fewer losses.
i.e. before the change, an unusually difficult encounter resulted in a total fail while an unusually easy one would result in a flawless win.
Far better to have average fights because those fails result in a second attempt which may fail again, or force a cater.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
If tournament difficulty will be increased by AW levels, then it will be a strategy to limit our AWs *only* to the ones that actually help. With a Fire Phoenix, I could potentially ditch all the extraneous military wonders that boost troops (HF, Toads, VS, etc) keeping only Sanctuary, Needles, Shrooms & Simia, but I'd be super unhappy about it. I've spent a long time investing in all of those. And of course wonders that don't impact fighting are out completely. Forget Watchtower, Lighthouse, Bloom, Pyramid, Sunset, Maze, etc. They'd all be detriments to tourney difficulty without adding much of value to offset the increased difficulty. So lame.

Regarding effect of AW levels on tournament difficulty, if it scales the same way it does for the Spire, then every single level of every AW will increase your tournament squad size. I know a lot of people did not look at the numbers, or only see the formula that was the end result, but those of us doing the testing for the Spire formula found that each new AW level we added raised the starting Spire squad size by just over 6 troops. For example, if you added 10 new AW levels during a week, when the next Spire spawns, your starting squad size would go up by between 60 and 65.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
I keep seeing this, but it ought to also work in reverse, right? Yes, an unusually bad fight counts four times as much, but so does an unusually good one. I'm not clear why people are zeroing in on this as a concern. For newbies learning, I can see that more fights with lower stakes is better. Beyond that, though, consolidating seems neutral to me. (But yay for fewer clicks!)
If an average fight cost you about 50% of your troops, that would be true. But if an average fight costs you less than 25% of your troops, then a single blowout costs as much as winning three without a loss.

Consider four consecutive combats:
  • Average, lose 25+25+25+25 =100% (of the troops for one combat)
  • Good, lose 0+25+25+25 = 75% "
  • Bad, lose 100+25+25+25 = 175% "
You need three blowout-wins to pay for the losses from a single blowout-loss (75% more than normal)

Now bump that to usually losing around 10%, and it goes horribly worse.
  • Average, lose 10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10 = 100% (of the troops for one combat)
  • Good, lose 0+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10 = 90% "
  • Bad, lose 100+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10 = 190% "
You need nine blowout-wins to pay for the losses from a single blowout-loss (90% more than normal)
 

Deleted User - 3932582

Guest
You need nine blowout-wins to pay for the losses from a single blowout-loss (90% more than normal)
That's how averages work, don't you think? ;) If your average loss is 10%, and in addition to 10% losses you can experience 0% losses and 100% losses, than these have to occur in 9:1 ratio, to keep total average at 10%.

Consolidation of encounters have no impact on average expected value of losses, wins, catering amounts - anything really. It does increase variance as you have 4x fewer samples. So you're more likely to deviate from the expected values, but it works both ways - positive and negative.

On top of that, since the difficulty will be an average of the 4 encounters it makes for fewer losses.
I don't think that was the intent of implementation (and it's kind of difficult to do given you can't just average matchups). All they had to do is to pick matchups from the same pool as before, but instead of doing this sampling 4x per province, just do it once with 4x amounts. So yeah, bad matchups would cost 4x. Good matchups would cost 4x just as well. The expected total values though stay exactly the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top