StarLoad
Well-Known Member
You would all be better off ignoring that user as I did weeks ago, it makes these posts so much more entertaining
Quadratic function of research or chapter, similar to how squad size is a quadratic function of chapter if all techs are taken.What do you all think is a fair measuring stick of a player's progress in order to scale the difficulty in the tourney?
What I think would be fair would be if the tournament difficulty was based on *mandatory* squad size upgrades alone, ignoring expansions & AW levels. Then let optional squad upgrades improve the ratio between our troops & the enemy, thus allowing people to push slightly deeper into the tourney as we progress. The squad sizes are fairly evenly peppered throughout each chapter so there's not a single big jump before the chance to upgrade troops or buildings.What do you all think is a fair measuring stick of a player's progress in order to scale the difficulty in the tourney?
I'm just wondering what would happen if the formula only took into account progress, how over-powered someone who really crunched the numbers and concentrated on military efficiency could get. Do you feel like it would be ok to have one powerhouse player get max chests for their fellowship each week?
Except that the answer isn't portable from there to here.I ask'd for information, not where it was located...
Open your ears , @SoggyShorts !!!!!
Light units are the pain point here and the battles that typically cost me the most troops.
One's progress isn't just linear and it involves more than just techs. However, using the techs as the exponent overshadows all other factors as more techs are done. So that's the 1st problem. The next problem is that the other parts are all multiplied together, which multiplies the geometric effect.What do you all think is a fair measuring stick of a player's progress in order to scale the difficulty in the tourney?
My Khel fellowship has been averaging 6 chests for 3 months. Under the old format we got 7 once, in the last steel tournament. We are going to get 9 this week. In terms of demographics, we have about 20 active members. I am the most advanced player and I am in Woodelves. 11 other members are in the early guest race chapters, 4 of them in Fairies and 7 in Dwarves. Everyone else is chapter 5 or under.6 chests is a good spot to test. I imagine there will be some improvement since doing the tournament is obviously less tedious, and some loss since there is increased difficulty/cost at advanced levels. The end result being.......?
Please let us know how it goes.
So I have a question. At what point does it become detrimental to have wonder levels? In chapter 4 the space saved by my GA can be used for additional production. At my level the GA wonder levels are worth the added cost. When does it tip?
https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/inde...changes-post-release.15204/page-46#post-88686One's progress isn't just linear and it involves more than just techs. However, using the techs as the exponent overshadows all other factors as more techs are done. So that's the 1st problem. The next problem is that the other parts are all multiplied together, which multiplies the geometric effect.
Actually, I like @CrazyWizard's idea of an equation for each chapter since they all differ. That would make it much easier to balance since the equation wouldn't have to work across the whole game. It would allow adjusting a chapter a bit without it throwing off the entire equation. I have no idea where he expressed that idea. I think it was in one of the 2 billion posts in beta about the tourney changes. Since each chapter requires a certain number of provinces completed to move to the next chapter, that can be used instead of expansions placed. Now, for AW advances, I think a low degree polynomial would be fine. Quadratic would probably suffice. The coefficients must be low enough so we aren't discouraged from building any of them to do well in tourneys. Last the AW contribution must be additive, not multiplied, or you begin to move back to the same problem of geometric growth.
To be honest, there isn't an actual way to measure total progress, nor would it be fair for it to be used to completely level the playing field. Working population, goods production, troops production all are part of ones progress.
That being said, there is virtually no chance Inno will do something like this in the near future. They've invested too much into this model. Heads will have to roll before any real change can occur.
Thanks. I was hoping mentioning your name would bring in your comments here. I know what I wrote was a gross simplification (and complication) of what you had written.These are the ones I could quickly find let me summarize them.