• 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

Discussion Tournament Changes

T6583

Well-Known Member
@MinMax Gamer thank you. That is enlightening and disappointing at the same time. So much for trying to keep loyal paying customers. Part of me kinda feels like I just wasted a lot of money over the past few years. Part of me is happy that at least I’m still enjoying the game enough that I haven’t quit but it’s now pretty much confirmed in my mind it’s not worth spending any more money to support this game because they don’t care about their loyal long time players.
 

Heymrdiedier

Active Member
If you want to get an idea at how Inno is looking at players, you can check out their capital markets deck:


Look at "Longevity and stability of cohorts" slide:

View attachment 8520

Now, it is obviously not based on Elvenar per se, but you can see how they see players across their assets. Basically, if you've been playing the same game for more than 24 months you're a residual. No one is marketing to you (that's for 0-6 months category). So if you stick around and even pay something after that long - great, but if not, well...
doesn't that make you wonder why they would put money into developping new chapters, since it takes you 2 years to get there anyway?
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
doesn't that make you wonder why they would put money into developping new chapters, since it takes you 2 years to get there anyway?

It does not show all data ;)
It's the early 2019 presentation, so elvenar was still looking on the rise.

The cohort data is from 2016 and is mainly compromised from PvP games as elvenar had just started at that time,. and all there other games at that time where PvP.
There is also the possibility of cherry picking, why 2016 and not 2018? this presentation is from 3 months after the end of the fiscal year. and total lifetime revenue did not look like it was from the first year and a bit from elvenar. the value for that was too high so it looks that value was from the end of fiscal year 2018.

It;s how the average cohort spending (at that time) has build up, so on average it looks like that for a single player.
This makes total sense, how many players start, buy the builder package, and quit. Cohort spending 1st HY 100%, 2nd HY 0% ect. then add some cohorts that keep plaaying and that first massive number makes total sense.

What it does not show is how revenue income is distributed, howe many percent of total income vomes from 1st HY, 2ndHY ect
IT could be that 2+ years make up for 5% of the income or 80% of the income. as you do not know the freebee vs paying ratio at each step not, the amount of players in each stage, and the average sales in each stage. nor the revenue in each stage.

It only tells how the revenue is based for the average individual paying player in innogames games that are predominantly different from elvenar that target a different audience. and as we know different audiences have differen needs, demands and behavior.

We know plenty players that came here from those PvP games because they no longer could muster up to wake up in the middle of the night for a pre-planned PvP raid.
 
Last edited:

T6583

Well-Known Member
@CrazyWizard all very good points that I neglected to even think about. But I still wish that Inno would be a bit more transparent at times with some of there changes so we as players have a better understanding. Especially with the tourney changes. So far my FS in general doesn't mind them but we're also have only done the easiest ones so far. A couple members are already struggling with supplies, orcs, mana, and sentient goods. They're struggling to adjust to the changes at the moment. Some have adjusted wonderfully and are thriving. I also think Inno really needs to do a better job of showing us that the claims they're making about benefits outweighing the penalty of upgrading AW's, placing expansions, going further in the research etc because I feel alot of people are on edge about things right now when it comes to that.
 

DeletedUser19418

Guest
Stick with Elvenar and these will be the cities of the future!!!!! Enjoy! :rolleyes:
newtournamentcityv2.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser10158

Guest
Love the city screen shot...I think you are correct:) Unfortunately, my city is huge and I refuse to tear it apart, delete hard earned AW's, or downsize in any way. Guess that means my tourny days are over, as well as my days of spending $$$ on this game. For that matter, I refuse to participate in any game developed or owned by Inno...a company that clearly has no sense of respect for long term players.

Time to start looking at the new PS5, and say goodbye to Inno!!!!!
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
Elvenar is defined as a "Fantasy City Building Game". That is exactly why I started playing this game because I wanted to build a cool city. So why after all these years that I've been playing this game am I being penalized in the tournaments & spire for doing exactly what Elvenar encourages players to do, build their cities?
I'd counter, that you're still able to build to your heart's content. What about "Fantasy City Building Game" says "You'll always be able to do as many tournament provinces as you did in the past." or "No matter what you build, it will never have a negative effect on your city."?
 

Iyapo1

Well-Known Member
Time to start looking at the new PS5, and say goodbye to Inno!!!!!
I cant with the PS5 until I find out what Microsoft is doing with Bethezda. I might have to x-box it.

Keeping this game though. I am really liking it. My largest city is in chapter 4, I benefitted from this change. Also I like highly optimized production marvels. My city build reflects that(not perfectly, but to my satisfaction).

The idea that catering cities might now be a competitive build does not offend me.
 

DeletedUser19418

Guest
I'd counter, that you're still able to build to your heart's content. What about "Fantasy City Building Game" says "You'll always be able to do as many tournament provinces as you did in the past." or "No matter what you build, it will never have a negative effect on your city."?

To be fair, logic and good practice dictate this for both players' interest and the game's longevity.

Maybe if INNO had tried to focus on a real-life performance curve toward city improvement, we would see a lot more acceptance from both midlevel players and veterans with very advanced cities alike. In most forms of activities whether trying to become proficient in violin or basketball, training results in a diminished response with a demand of around 10 years to become an expert. Even in athletics, it is a well-known factor that training response results in smaller and smaller increments of improved performance, but I bet this is something many would be able to accept. Despite training resulting in smaller and smaller gains in performance, there should not be any negative effect. I think there would be a benefit of using something such as a basic athletic curve as a standard model for programmers. If this were something they had aimed for, the response might have been better. Additionally, new players or those with less advanced cities would be much closer to those with more advanced cities but there would be an advantage for veterans that invested more time and money toward developing their cities. It definitely seems like people would pay more for diminished advantages. After all, athletes will train for years for even the slightest margin of advantage to win.

That is my take on this issue.

basic_athletic_performance_curve.png
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
I cant with the PS5 until I find out what Microsoft is doing with Bethezda. I might have to x-box it.

Keeping this game though. I am really liking it. My largest city is in chapter 4, I benefitted from this change. Also I like highly optimized production marvels. My city build reflects that(not perfectly, but to my satisfaction).

The idea that catering cities might now be a competitive build does not offend me.

As far as I understood, you pretty much get the x-box for free with a x-cloud + EA subscribtion, what was as expensive over 2 years (time of contract) as just buying the x-box.

To be fair, logic and good practice dictate this for both players' interest and the game's longevity.

Maybe if INNO had tried to focus on a real-life performance curve toward city improvement, we would see a lot more acceptance from both midlevel players and veterans with very advanced cities alike. In most forms of activities whether trying to become proficient in violin or basketball, training results in a diminished response with a demand of around 10 years to become an expert. Even in athletics, it is a well-known factor that training response results in smaller and smaller increments of improved performance, but I bet this is something many would be able to accept. Despite training resulting in smaller and smaller gains in performance, there should not be any negative effect. I think there would be a benefit of using something such as a basic athletic curve as a standard model for programmers. If this were something they had aimed for, the response might have been better. Additionally, new players or those with less advanced cities would be much closer to those with more advanced cities but there would be an advantage for veterans that invested more time and money toward developing their cities. It definitely seems like people would pay more for diminished advantages. After all, athletes will train for years for even the slightest margin of advantage to win.

That is my take on this issue.

View attachment 8534

They used some vodoo magic math and come to the conclusion that was the case. according to them each chapter and each expansion and wonderlevel is beneficial.
Unfortunatly we aren't that proficient in vodoo magic math, but in reality instead, because of this we are unable to comprehend there brilliancy ;)
 

DeletedUser7738

Guest
I read through this entire thread one more time. As a "residual player" (thanks for sharing MinMax) I can honestly write I am very upset with Inno. I feel betrayed not just ignored. I gave a lot to this game & this is what I get in return? Thanks for living up to the promises of greed & avarice in predatory capitalism. :mad:
 

Clusseau

Active Member
So, what is wrong with this city? It looks like a highly optimized production marvel? What do you see?

Nothing is Wrong... its simply Lame.
Its hard to see- are there any AW? (any place to spend your Tournament KP?)
Are there any places or features where you see anything to be advanced, upgraded, or otherwise improved?

Putting in another expansion will increase tournament cost.
Putting in an expansion, AND and AW will increase costs by Expansions x AW.
Putting in yet another AW will increase cost by Expansion x AW x AW.... (Gosh, already regretting those expansions!)

I think the Point of the Message was (at least partly)....
That it may be a Fair Concept to increase difficulty: - "per each additional thing", and a fair scale can be established.
Each additional thing has a (small) impact on tournament difficulty, and is still worth achieving.

But when "each additional thing" is "Multiplied by all of the previous things"...
Then that Small (fair) impact has been Multiplied....
-and very quickly the impact of adding something is WAY BEYOND its actual value.

People will not seek these advancements..
-they will Destroy whatever previous hard-won Achievements that they can... In the Hope of Going back to a time where Achievements were still Possible.... (and will Quickly Realize the Circular Path that they are On).... And (Welcome to Farmville)- the city Shown may be the Pinnacle of Success.

And, YES... there are some who LIKE FARMVILLE... ?!
They may Do tournament if they see an advantage.. or they can Easily Stop, and be quite content.
This thread (At Least)... is about people who CARE about Tournament... Who would like to USE IT....
Or, who would at least like for it to be an Occasional Measure of power and progress.
 

Clusseau

Active Member
I read through this entire thread one more time. As a "residual player" (thanks for sharing MinMax) I can honestly write I am very upset with Inno. I feel betrayed not just ignored. I gave a lot to this game & this is what I get in return? Thanks for living up to the promises of greed & avarice in predatory capitalism. :mad:

Ditto Milani.
Im not sure if/how this is an example of Predatory Capitalism... (or, even what that IS, exactly)...
but you've always been able to capture the appropriate sentiment.... and im With you Here. Thx!
 

Mykan

Well-Known Member
I'd counter, that you're still able to build to your heart's content. What about "Fantasy City Building Game" says "You'll always be able to do as many tournament provinces as you did in the past." or "No matter what you build, it will never have a negative effect on your city."?

You appear to be making assumptions that people who are upset were doing crazy amounts of provinces and can't now. Perhaps they weren't but are now spending multitudes more on the same. I can't speak for you but I am sure if inno turned around and said this isn't a freeium game but now subscription and everyone pays $100 a year to play but gets exactly the same game there would be cranky people.

What is a decent or respectable amount of provinces and what is too many provinces?

Keeping this game though. I am really liking it. My largest city is in chapter 4, I benefitted from this change. Also I like highly optimized production marvels. My city build reflects that(not perfectly, but to my satisfaction).

The idea that catering cities might now be a competitive build does not offend me.

Catering only works for so long, eventually it becomes too costly depending on how many provinces you plan on doing. But as you said competitive I would assume 40-50+ provinces to 6 rounds as that is what is needed on my server and I see similar huge scores on other servers. Assuming competitive is in the top ranks of tourny players. Lots of subjectivity. My wifes town for round 1 of province 16 costs her 38% of a days T1 production, 25% of a days T3 to cater and some mana (harder to guage that in a days production). Province 15 costs her 30%
5 of a days orc production (if she can produce orcs in all armouries which she can't as she needs the supplies to make troops so she can fight out 15 provinces). At her chapter, wonders (almost all wonders are level 6) and premium expansions I would say catering isn't even miles away from competitive, its on the other side of the world.

Your towns are currently at the target audience so I would be surprised if you didn't like the change. I think what they did at that level is excellent in some respects (wish they would do it with world map provinces for new towns). Do you plan to continue playing through to the last chapters? If you do how will you feel as you start to pay more and more to do less and less? People being unhappy with the changes doesn't mean the entire tournment change is bad, there are some good aspects but there are also aspects that are very different for different towns.

My son has a chapter 7 (close to 8) town and he loves the change, he can do what he was doing before for less cost. But I also know he will be devastated when he reaches the point he can't do that. As he isn't allowed to spend money on the game hopefully he can enjoy the ride long enough until he finds a different game.
 

Mykan

Well-Known Member
This is not being assumed it is being stated out right by players.

No it isn't, it might be stated by some players but not all. I know of towns doubling their provinces and rounds and I know of some who were doing 20-25 provinces to 5 rounds get plastered just trying to do 15 rounds. Personally I don't call 20 rounds excessive or crazy, chapter 6 towns can do that. We knew the goal was to bring scores back to approx 5K as inno stated it was an elite score, but they failed in that objective and created a system that is wildly unfair and imbalanced and reality or not appears to punish progress and casual play for advanced towns (casual play and small towns are in the target group that benefited).
 

Iyapo1

Well-Known Member
Nothing is Wrong... its simply Lame.
Okay, not your thing. Why be rude about it? Yes, there are ancient wonders in the city. It looks like everything is fully upgraded, why is that bad?
Catering only works for so long, eventually it becomes too costly depending on how many provinces you plan on doing
I think this assumption might need a revisit considering the city build that is being so heavily criticized ON THIS FORUM is a catering build. Being competitive! That's impossible! He should go play farmville!


Edit to add release note info:
  • To make Catering a more viable option and to bring it back on par with Battles, Catering costs have been lowered significantly. Costs per Province on comparative difficulty level was about halved in comparison to the old Tournament system. This allows for more strategic options and brings the balance between investments for Battles and Catering on a more comparable level.
 
Last edited:
Top