News from Beta - May Contain Spoilers!

[Steelhail]

Consolidation of encounters have no impact on average expected value of losses, wins ...So you're more likely to deviate from the expected values, but it works both ways - positive and negative....So yeah, bad matchups would cost 4x. Good matchups would cost 4x just as well. The expected total values though stay exactly the same.

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 do agree that consolidating 4 encounters to 1 is overall better. And I generally defer to MinMax on all things math. However, I would add to @Ashrem that, since the update simultaneously normalizes 5 enemy slots, it seems the update also reduces the frequency of those "unusually good" battles the old system used to give even in the upper-level provinces: 1-2 enemy unit slots are generally the best (see below if unconvinced). INNO's consolidation seems more like taking 4 different encounters (in the present system), dropping the highest-scoring encounter, and then averaging the three remaining into one number for the new system. (I am a self-professed humanities nerd, so if my attempt at mathing crashes and burns, please forgive me.)

For example, compare using human priests (spell buff of divine curse is -40% opponent defense) to a fight against only two enemy unit slots vs. five enemy unit slots:

2 ENEMY SLOTS:
-only have to cast divine curse twice total for full effect
-can be attacked by a max of 2 enemy buffs per turn
-autocombat priests only have to dodge 2 enemy units
-lineup with max. of 2 types are easier to balance against (e.g., LR+HM--maybe use toads instead)

5 ENEMY SLOTS:
-have to cast divine curse at least five times total for full effect
-can be attacked by a max of five enemy buffs per turn
-5 enemy units escalate "idiot AI" factor, where priests move within strike range of one enemy unit to take out a different unit
-more potential for diverse, trickier lineup (e.g., LR+HM+mage).

It seems pretty likely to me that excluding the 1-2 enemy lineup out of the gate is going to decrease the current percentage of "easiest" battles and thus the average expected ratio of wins and losses. I'm not complaining about the 4-->1 change here. But it doesn't seem a straightforward consolidation if you're comparing the 4 encounters now with the 1 encounter in future.

 

[Pheryll]

since the update simultaneously normalizes 5 enemy slots, it seems the update also reduces the frequency of those "unusually good" battles the old system used to give even in the upper-level provinces

It also reduces the 7+ enemy slots as well.

 

[Deleted User - 3932582]

...since the update simultaneously normalizes 5 enemy slots...

Since the update does a lot more than even that, it is pointless to compare old vs new in aggregate - we simply do not have enough data for that yet. I was referring specifically to atomic change of 4:1 reduction if implemented today with no other changes.

 

[BrinDarby]

Does any of this address the fact that as a new player I'm completely confused on how to target train troops. In my city is says SS is lets say 69.. but its different in Spire, provinces, and tournament..... currently the only place I can fight is tournaments cause the SS is small enough that 1 bad encounter doesn't take 50% of my troops that takes weeks and weeks......

I see so many dead new accounts in my local map its dumb..... new players start trying, and pushing to get to a usable point in the game, only to find EVERY fight "very hard". They realize as I have, my only way out is to sit on my butt for 3-4 months... usually they just quit or go inactive.. It sounds like this change makes tournaments 1/4 of the active fights I then can do.... I need more fights to get better at them, not less fights so I'm even longer SOL in the game. I cannot fight in Spire or reg encounters, if Tourns are then nerf'd so I get much less fights, I have less chance to learn and get better.

to a new player if in my Barracks it says SS is 69, then thats wht my SS should be in Tourn, encounters and Spire..... othewise I have no chance to target train troops, or know when I can stop training cause I have enuff troops.......

Does Innogames want participation ? If so then many aspects have to be accessable to newer players as they are the best source of new revenue to the game. even something as simple as trading is pointless for a new player....... when all the offers are 1000 this 3000 that 25000 something else..... the CH 1-4 players can't and don't need those offers and have such a limited trading area for local neighbors, many just quit cause they never can trade to progress...

I hope any Tournament changestake into account what exactly newer players are up against, if the focus is helping newer players in enjoyment and ease of participation...if you nerf Tourns so that its pointless for me...... then nowhere on the game will I be able to EVER fight unless I just research nothing, play nothing, fight nothing.... for the next 4 months waiting for the game to balance itself out between where I am and what research I have done.....
BrinD

 

[Ashrem]

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.

No, I don't think. If all else were equal, yes. But blow-out losses are almost invariably terrain related. My chance of getting a terrain disadvantge is not affected by average losses in a normal combat, it is selected by the game and I do not get four or nine times as many terrain advantages as disadvantages depending on how effective my troop mix is under ideal conditions.

 

[DeletedUser26692]

Please make auto-fight more viable. Currently it's looking like manual fight is almost required past the first few provinces.

I agree... A lot of us are on mobile and that is our ONLY option!

 

[Deleted User - 3932582]

No, I don't think. If all else were equal, yes. But blow-out losses are almost invariably terrain related. My chance of getting a terrain disadvantge is not affected by average losses in a normal combat, it is selected by the game and I do not get four or nine times as many terrain advantages as disadvantages depending on how effective my troop mix is under ideal conditions.

This only means that your actual average is not 10%, but significantly higher. You can't have it both ways. It does not matter what is the reason for higher/lower losses, only that distribution stays the same. If you do 100 encounters with 1x SS and you do 25 encounters with 4x SS all average expected values stay the same, as long as matchups+terrain distribution is the same. Yes, this includes blowout losses as long as their probability of occurrence stays the same (which would be the case if matchups+terrain distribution is the same).

 

[Risen Malchiah]

I need more fights to get better at them, not less fights so I'm even longer SOL in the game. I cannot fight in Spire or reg encounters, if Tourns are then nerf'd so I get much less fights, I have less chance to learn and get better.

This is a good point. While the one aspect of the changes I liked was reducing the encounters to 1, this point cannot be overlooked.

I've always suggested to players to use tournaments to learn to fight since troop losses would be minimal and I'd be able to help guide somewhat by having a sense of what enemies they'd likely be facing. Frankly, this point is enough to convince me that all the changes (including ones I thought might be good) could actually be a detriment to the learning curve. There are ways to improve tournaments and reduce clicks without reducing the fights to 1.

 

[Ashrem]

This only means that your actual average is not 10%, but significantly higher. You can't have it both ways. It does not matter what is the reason for higher/lower losses, only that distribution stays the same. If you do 100 encounters with 1x SS and you do 25 encounters with 4x SS all average expected values stay the same, as long as matchups+terrain distribution is the same. Yes, this includes blowout losses as long as their probability of occurrence stays the same (which would be the case if matchups+terrain distribution is the same).

OK, I shouldn't have used "average" when I meant typical. My apologies for that. I'm not talking about averages, I'm talking about typical results. In most combats (which I elect to fight), I lose very few troops. The number I save by winning outright does not equal the number I lose by losing-outright. Those losses are acceptable because of the time they saves me. Now those losses will be four times larger. The ratio of outright-wins to Outright-losses might or might not change. The overall ratio of troops lost per combat will increase.

 

[Shyama1]

... or know when I can stop training cause I have enuff troops.......

Never stop training. Your Military Buildings should never go iddle.

 

[Deleted User - 3932582]

OK, I shouldn't have used "average" when I meant typical. My apologies for that. I'm not talking about averages, I'm talking about typical results. In most combats (which I elect to fight), I lose very few troops. The number I save by winning outright does not equal the number I lose by losing-outright. Those losses are acceptable because of the time they saves me. Now those losses will be four times larger. The ratio of outright-wins to Outright-losses might or might not change. The overall ratio of troops lost per combat will increase.

Typical results are irrelevant from the long-term perspective, only averages matter. In order for you to get 4x "blowout" losses, you need to progress 4x further in the tournament. Basically, all that matters is how often your losses happen, and for how much you get dinged (that's loss distribution). So if today you have a 5% chance of having an encounter where you will experience 100% losses with 1x squad, there will be 5% chance of having such encounter with 4x squad. But to get the same tournament progress you need to fight 4x fewer encounters. So, if in the current setup you fight 100 encounters, then your blowout losses will occur 5 times on average for the loss of 5x5=25 squads. In the new setup to get to the same progress you will fight 25 encounters, and expect blowout losses in 1.25 of them for the average loss of 1.25*4*5=25 squads. It's a wash, except for higher variance in the second case (not important over the long term).

 

[Ashrem]

Typical results are irrelevant from the long-term perspective, only averages matter.

All right. I'm not capable of arguing math with you.

I fear it will not feel that way for a lot of people.

 

[Kekune]

All right. I'm not capable of arguing math with you.

I fear it will not feel that way for a lot of people.

I think you're right about the psychology of it. People generally feel losses more deeply, so the perception may very well be that they're losing more, even if mathematically they're not. A lot of folks will just remember that one fight where they lost 25 squads in one fell swoop.

 

[Deleted User - 3932582]

A lot of folks will just remember that one fight where they lost 25 squads in one fell swoop.

Looking at the Beta comments, a lot of people are feeling those losses even before they actually occur

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I personally look forward to the Great AW Purge of 2020 and all the ranking points that people will be willing to sacrifice to the gods of the tournament. It will be interesting to see how many ranks I jump after this goes live. lol

 

[Deleted User - 4646370]

I personally look forward to the Great AW Purge of 2020 and all the ranking points that people will be willing to sacrifice to the gods of the tournament. It will be interesting to see how many ranks I jump after this goes live. lol

Probably not that much, as most players will only see the INNO version : "[Leveling your wonders] will always provide more benefits than it would cost you."

 

[Deleted User - 3932582]

I personally look forward to the Great AW Purge of 2020 and all the ranking points that people will be willing to sacrifice to the gods of the tournament. It will be interesting to see how many ranks I jump after this goes live. lol

I am doubtful it will happen. AW levels have been a part of Spire equation from the beginning, and known for quite a while, and I am yet to see anyone actually deleting any AWs to make Spire easier. Even some janky AWs are still out there. Not to mention L30+ AWs with questionable benefits.

I still keep my low-level EE, ToS etc, even though I realistically don't derive a whole lot of benefits from those at this point. But removing AWs is easy and can be done at any point, but rebuilding them back for whatever reason is expensive. So I personally am not going to drop existing AWs because things change, they can become useful again etc. I'll just eat this relatively small (for me) penalty.

 

[Ashrem]

The benefit to cost is also more complex for some thann others. Things like how many seeds you are getting from extra collections, and what effect that has on your ability to generate sentient and upgrade buildings. Even a level one Wonder is getting me nearly 200 extra seeds per day along with it's other effects, and noNe of my wonders are at level one. Tearing my library down might be worthwhile, but will I miss 3500 seeds a day (along with the 6000 of each T1 through T3 (on average))......?

 

[kctanzen]

I did remove a level one EE a while back -- it was primarily around to supplement supplies from several events ago when we had random event lines and I had my big workshops tied up on long running builds. I needed the extra supplies at the time. A level one wasn't painful at all and as slow as I progress, was essentially unnoticed on my seeds collection. I have no intention of dropping any wonders that have passed the first rune wheel -- the benefits (real or perceived) that I get from them are worth it for me. If it means I have to drop back to doing what I was doing before the fire phoenix / crafted battle buildings to around mid 3k tourney averages, then I'll adjust accordingly.

 

[Risen Malchiah]

I am doubtful it will happen. AW levels have been a part of Spire equation from the beginning, and known for quite a while, and I am yet to see anyone actually deleting any AWs to make Spire easier. Even some janky AWs are still out there. Not to mention L30+ AWs with questionable benefits.

Here I am. Deleted Endless Excavation (it outlived its usefulness anyway) and opted not to build Blooming Trader, Sunset Towers or Vortex of Storage because they offer no real benefits to the Spire. I'm debating dropping Pyramid so I've stopped leveling it. If the tournament is also impacted by AW levels, then I would purge others as well. Just have to do the math to see which ones help more than they hurt, which is such a lame thing we shouldn't have to do.