• 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

Tournament Changes

Clusseau

Active Member
@Ed1960, ditto.
I used to make the occasional chart, and very much appreciate the effort that people put into them.
But, on this topic specific numbers have become numbing, and invite analysis that often obscures the point.
Tweaks have been suggested - totally different methods- even totally different goals have already been suggested.

Using "general" numbers to make a point, myself as an example; In last two Planks, i scored 17k, and 18K. ATM, i have spent a weeks worth of boosts, troops, and time, for 3750. Im undecided if i'll Overspend my budget or not, to get 5K. I dont think it's helpful to over-analyze different choices or decisions- (ideas that, if all are good, might put me in range of 6k?). IMHO, if the changes are in any way fair, players such as myself would still have a shot at top scores, whether top is 5k, or 17K.

What INNO has done to this game looks much like the first hill of a roller coaster- with no track on the other side.
People maybe can go different pace, different ways to the peak, but- the other side is the same for everyone.
After figuring this out, many players will not enjoy their ride to the top as much- expect them to jump off.

Also, regarding charts in previous two posts;
I dont look at enemies x2 as any particular sticking point, or tweaks to that being especially important. Those battles are winnable, often easily so. The PROBLEM is when you must send 40 squads into such battles. When you get to 80+ squads, it is not affordable to take ANY hits at all. There is little tweaking, or strategy to put a dent in this. You can only Play such battles to the point that a hit becomes unavoidable- then retreat, and decide if you want to try it again.

Im just saying... FYI, to everyone still climbing that hill, the track is out on the other side.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
@Ed1960
Using "general" numbers to make a point, myself as an example; In last two Planks, i scored 17k, and 18K. ATM, i have spent a weeks worth of boosts, troops, and time, for 3750. Im undecided if i'll Overspend my budget or not, to get 5K. I dont think it's helpful to over-analyze different choices or decisions- (ideas that, if all are good, might put me in range of 6k?). IMHO, if the changes are in any way fair, players such as myself would still have a shot at top scores, whether top is 5k, or 17K.

You will have to explain this one to me. This will be my 3rd straight week getting 5250 points, and I could do more if I wanted. All I am doing is putting out either 2 UUU or 1 DA, maybe a light ranged or mage building, and feeding my fire phoenix. I auto-fight all of that, so my only expense each week is the supplies to replace the lost troops. I do not go past province 22 and do not do any encounters that are harder than the old system's 160% troop difference.
 

WolfSinger

Well-Known Member
MHO, if the changes are in any way fair, players such as myself would still have a shot at top scores, whether top is 5k, or 17K.


This right here is the problem and why we need more information on what INNO's actual goal was - if it was to limit the amount of the purse being won, if it was to add a handicap to the top players to level the playing field a bit more or was it actually what happened - flipping the formula in such a way that the top tourney players were left in the gate.

To continue with the horse racing analogy: If a handicapper does their job correctly in figuring the amount of weight each horse will carry during the race - the horses will finish in a dead heat. This is not what has happened.

What has happened here is that Secretariat has had enough weight added to him that an unknown horse who has never won a race has beat him by a quarter mile.

If the goal of the Dev team was to limit the amount of KP and maybe scale back the top scores they need to look at races like the Kentucky Derby, Prekness and Belmont - ones that have the horse the same weight so the best horses can shine and develop a system that works evenly so EVERYONE has the same SS / Enemy SS and difficulty level for the exact same province. Those who are stronger and faster will do further and win more based on the distance they cover.

If the goal of the Dev was to handicap the top players to level the playing field (and by doing so also limit the amount of KP being won) they seriously screwed up the weights and need to re-evaluate the system so that if brings everyone closer to that dead heat as far as top scores. You will still have the hard core players will push past the line the Devs think they are drawing - but if it's only a furlong or two ahead of the rest of field - you'll have done a good job. Also keep in mind there will also be those who trail the pack as well.

If the goal was what actually happened then you'll see players retiring from the game much like Man O War's owner retired him while he was in his prime as a racehorse because of the ridiculous weights the handicappers were putting on his back.
 

StarLoad

Well-Known Member
You will have to explain this one to me. This will be my 3rd straight week getting 5250 points, and I could do more if I wanted. All I am doing is putting out either 2 UUU or 1 DA, maybe a light ranged or mage building, and feeding my fire phoenix. I auto-fight all of that, so my only expense each week is the supplies to replace the lost troops. I do not go past province 22 and do not do any encounters that are harder than the old system's 160% troop difference.
Enevhar, it's really simple, you can ONLY compare YOUR individual results to past or future, but not TO others even in the same chapter or rank as the cities, and how it affects the Formula is unique.
SO any comparisons must be generalized or they can be statistically argued like a presidential debate.
 

Clusseau

Active Member
You will have to explain this one to me. This will be my 3rd straight week getting 5250 points, and I could do more if I wanted. All I am doing is putting out either 2 UUU or 1 DA, maybe a light ranged or mage building, and feeding my fire phoenix. I auto-fight all of that, so my only expense each week is the supplies to replace the lost troops. I do not go past province 22 and do not do any encounters that are harder than the old system's 160% troop difference.

Explain it???
Ive put out a DA, and 3 more boosts. I hand battled 15hr in first 3 days. (And, im not "Bad" at it...) and used Zero Auto.
My troop costs are Well Past a week's production... (apart from my time Instants, and "Free" from AW)...
In Previous Planks, with that Spent, and ALL AUTO, i'd be Nearing a Top Finish, and 18K points. -Today, i have 3750, and well outside top 100.

I dont mean to Dismiss your question... but.. im not sure how much more detail is required?
POINT IS, YOUR costs are not MY costs. MY costs have become Stupid-high, and you'll be there Soon.

@WolfSinger, yes- racing analogy is visually effective, and Likely more relatable. But... alas, perhaps still UnderStated??
It seems to apply; Beginning at the final turn, we need people throwing Sand Bags at the leading horses??
(or, just Shooting them??)

In my Mind... (From Where I AM).... the roller coaster with No Track seems to better hit the spot...
...but.. you know.. the racing thing is effective too.
 

Mykan

Oh Wise One
You will have to explain this one to me. This will be my 3rd straight week getting 5250 points, and I could do more if I wanted. All I am doing is putting out either 2 UUU or 1 DA, maybe a light ranged or mage building, and feeding my fire phoenix. I auto-fight all of that, so my only expense each week is the supplies to replace the lost troops. I do not go past province 22 and do not do any encounters that are harder than the old system's 160% troop difference.

That is kind of his point, you are doing 5K score without much trouble and room to do more. He is wiping out a weeks worth of work (sustainable effort) for under 4k. I know other advanced towns having exactly the same problem. As has been said, the system is not fair. Scaling back, rewards, difficulty are all not really the issue when you read the complaints, it is fairness.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
Enevhar, it's really simple, you can ONLY compare YOUR individual results to past or future, but not TO others even in the same chapter or rank as the cities, and how it affects the Formula is unique.
SO any comparisons must be generalized or they can be statistically argued like a presidential debate.

Every encounter has a set difficulty and everyone gets the exact same difficulty in the squad size differences per encounter. For example, the 1st star of the 22nd province is about 160%, whether you are in chapter 1 or chapter 16, whether you have zero AW levels or 500, whether you have zero premium expansions or all 37.

All that other stuff does is make your starting squad bigger and make the amounts of catering goods higher to match. If you can make the goods or the troops to sustain completing the encounters, then none of the rest matters.
 

StarLoad

Well-Known Member
Every encounter has a set difficulty and everyone gets the exact same difficulty in the squad size differences per encounter. For example, the 1st star of the 22nd province is about 160%, whether you are in chapter 1 or chapter 16, whether you have zero AW levels or 500, whether you have zero premium expansions or all 37.

All that other stuff does is make your starting squad bigger and make the amounts of catering goods higher to match. If you can make the goods or the troops to sustain completing the encounters, then none of the rest matters.

Which is the point you are missing, its not the formula per se, but the impact each individual sees in the results from before and now.
Yes smaller cities are seeing a great benefit and that seems to be by design but the larger and hence more advanced cities are being adversely affected and as others have stated. Its a fairness issue
 

DeletedUser19418

Guest
If INNO is adamant about keeping the AW/expansion aspect to determine a player's tournament SSs (troop loss), then the best option as suggested in Beta forums a long time ago is to reduce advanced city penalties as they progress within higher chapters. At least if this was the goal to avoid players from sitting in lower chapters while building up AWs.

I still think the required SS is the most logical system toward making a tournament rank system fair.
 

Clusseau

Active Member
Every encounter has a set difficulty and everyone gets the exact same difficulty in the squad size differences per encounter. For example, the 1st star of the 22nd province is about 160%, whether you are in chapter 1 or chapter 16, whether you have zero AW levels or 500, whether you have zero premium expansions or all 37.

All that other stuff does is make your starting squad bigger and make the amounts of catering goods higher to match. If you can make the goods or the troops to sustain completing the encounters, then none of the rest matters.

Dude... i dont know what to add... (Speaking to You, Others, Inno)...
"Difficulty" .. .ranging from 1.6 to 2.8.... or whatever whatever... difficulty is not a problem.

Its sending out 40 or 80 squads per battle, to be Shot At by 90 or 170 enemy squads.... Its rarely "difficult".... but it is Always EXPENSIVE.
 

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
And here comes the girl who has zero experience in the competitive arena of the tournaments and who can sometimes screw up simple addition...

I think it's a matter of cost and sustainability. If it was an equitable shift in formulas from the prior tourney structure to the current tourney structure that simply moved the earlier cities up the ladder faster to join in with the top competitors I would expect to see:
#1 The actual score numbers be different (?smaller) due to the increased cost.
#2 The early/less developed and/or overall lower ranked city competitive players moving quickly up in the lower tourney rankings.
#3 The later/more developed and/or overall higher ranked city competitive players remaining in the upper tourney rankings with perhaps some shifting around of their positions as they adjust.
#4) Catering becoming a viable alternative to combat as a method of becoming competitive in tourneys.
I don't see any of that. I see group #3 running out of resources/having much lower scores and group #2 posting scores in the range of what group #3 was posting under the old structure. And I haven't seen any evidence of #4 happening at all. Goods requirements were reduced in some cases, but other resources: coins/supplies/orcs/mana (a decaying resource!) were added and seem to limit the viability of catering for a competitive player.
This discussion feels a lot like under the old structure when we talked about how much more difficult scrolls/dust tourneys were. Combat wasn't actually more difficult, you could still win the fights. It was just much harder to sustain troop production to keep up with the increased losses.
 

CrazyWizard

Oh Wise One
Every encounter has a set difficulty and everyone gets the exact same difficulty in the squad size differences per encounter. For example, the 1st star of the 22nd province is about 160%, whether you are in chapter 1 or chapter 16, whether you have zero AW levels or 500, whether you have zero premium expansions or all 37.

All that other stuff does is make your starting squad bigger and make the amounts of catering goods higher to match. If you can make the goods or the troops to sustain completing the encounters, then none of the rest matters.

You are partly correct, yes all battles have the same difficulty.
The issue is you in the same chapter , same provincie, same round need to field 100 units, the other player 100.000 units in the same battlefield.
This means you loose 5 units and he lost also 5% so 5000 units.

So the other player need to produce a lot more units in the same chapter. which is an impossible handicap.

No advancement in goods production or unit production can overcome such odds in any sensible way.
This is what is happening right now,

As @WolfSinger analogy of a horse race, you handicap a horse with 1000kg on his back, the horse will no longer be able to race.
It;s not that we are talking about a difference of 2kg here. no one would care about that.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
Oh well. I am done with all the exaggerating and straw man arguments from so many people here and on the Beta forum about the tournament numbers. All these extreme numbers people like to throw around just invalidate your argument, or make you sound like Trump. It's going to be huuuuge and amaaaaazing!
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
Oh well. I am done with all the exaggerating and straw man arguments from so many people here and on the Beta forum about the tournament numbers. All these extreme numbers people like to throw around just invalidate your argument, or make you sound like Trump. It's going to be huuuuge and amaaaaazing!
Ok then, look at actual numbers

You:
232 AW levels
132 expansions (how many are magic?)
How many techs completed?

@clusseau
360 AW levels
143 expansions (how many are magic?)
How many techs?

+whatever else the formula needs

You can each enter your numbers into minimax's calc and compare your squad size in province #20 star #5 (or province 1 star 1, whatever) and they you will see that @clusseau losses roughly x% more troops than you every week
.
 

StarLoad

Well-Known Member
Oh well. I am done with all the exaggerating and straw man arguments from so many people here and on the Beta forum about the tournament numbers. All these extreme numbers people like to throw around just invalidate your argument, or make you sound like Trump. It's going to be huuuuge and amaaaaazing!
No, A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile, the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"

There is no exaggeration of the facts, as I said the results have to be looked at against your own past and not others, and as soggy said you cant compare except in what you do and what others do.
 

DeletedUser7540

Guest
Enevhar,

Put the percentages off to the side and look at the final rankings. Top players are not getting top rankings and not because they are not playing as often but because they are resource handicapped for having followed INNO's rules in the past. The new tourney rules have created a set-up that forces them to fail.

Our FS will most likely lose our AM, mentor and a great player, all because the developers modeled instead of looking at all of the angles of impact on the real peolpe that play this game and our group is not alone. It is heartbreaking to have worked so heard for so long and to be treated like this. Unbelievable.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
@SoggyShorts You have always at least used real numbers for what you present, rather than pulling random numbers out of your butt, like others here are doing with randomly saying a squad size of 50k or 40-80 normal squads in a tournament squad without any proof.
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
@SoggyShorts You have always at least used real numbers for what you present, rather than pulling random numbers out of your butt, like others here are doing with randomly saying a squad size of 50k or 40-80 normal squads in a tournament squad without any proof.
Sure, but unless you are going to give your actual accurate numbers so that we can compare with his, I think it's totally unfair for you to comment at all on what others are experiencing compared to you.
Some estimate, some exaggerate and some theorize, and it's all bad so, as you seem to be the lone voice saying "Things ain't so bad, I'm doing fine" please do share your numbers
 

Nightguest

Ex-Team Member
Hey folks!

I'm doing a really quick reply here - but I will go over everything later today/tomorrow and give a more personalized reply where needed.

What I want to say here is that I've started a separate thread where I'm asking you (players) to actually give direct feedback/review the tournament system, and really highlight where things are good or BAD.

Please see it here: https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/tournament-changes-community-feedback-and-data.25576/

Do please keep that thread for the actual feedback and not for conversations between one another, and use this thread to continue your discussions.
 
Top