• 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

shimmerfly

Well-Known Member
1602340693815.png

Unbelievable... ( just to be clear this was not meant for @Ed1960)
 
Last edited:

NightshadeCS

Well-Known Member
I would like to explore a little bit the idea of players being punished for progression.

I think we can all agree that it makes sense for the tournament difficulty to scale with a player's progress, and I think I remember in a few corners of the Forum some suggestions on how to calculate this that people think is fair.

What do you all think is a fair measuring stick of a player's progress in order to scale the difficulty in the tourney?
 

Risen Malchiah

Well-Known Member
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.
 

NightshadeCS

Well-Known Member
Ok, those suggestions seem to take into account one's progress, but we know that there can be big differences in players who are in the same chapter. Some have moseyed their way there, and some have raced. Points can be drastically different, also.

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?

I'm not saying I'm necessarily against that. It feels wrong right now, but perhaps that's because it goes against what I am currently used to.
 

Pheryll

Set Designer
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?

Okay, if you want to factor in the non-chapter progress, then my old equation would handle this: Quadratic function(research) + linear function(city size) * linear function(AW levels). Whatever the equation, if it is allowed to be cubic or a higher degree polynomial, it will slowly diminish the ability of people in the later chapters to perform well.
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
I ask'd for information, not where it was located...
Open your ears , @SoggyShorts !!!!!
Except that the answer isn't portable from there to here.
The answer to your question depends on the 7 factors that Yogi Dave listed above (which only you can provide), then that data needs to be put into the calculator, then it spits out the answer in the form of a huge ass chart with all of the data points one could possibly desire.
[/QUOTE]

Again, exactly how much work do you expect us to do for you when we aren't on your payroll?
You asking us to do 10 minutes of work when you refuse to do 5 minutes yourself is insane.

I don't even recall you ever asking nicely.

I reserve the ignore feature for only the worst offenders in any game, and after being here for over 4 years have only used it once before, but I'm going to make that twice if you don't learn some manners. Good luck if the other ~5 active forums users with answers decide to follow suit.
 

GlamDoll

Well-Known Member
Light units are the pain point here and the battles that typically cost me the most troops.

Thanks so much for the whole breakdown...certainly have given me info to sponge on. Looks like I need to get space for my dwarven armories, etc.
Have a great day.
 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
What do you all think is a fair measuring stick of a player's progress in order to scale the difficulty in the tourney?
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.

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.
 

Iyapo1

Well-Known Member
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?
 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
You have a long ways to go. I have 300 AW levels at the end of ch 16 and am looking closer at which to upgrade and if a few should go since I don't get a lot from them. I'll only be getting rid of a few, but haven't decided which yet.
 

Henroo

Oh Wise One
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

hvariidh gwendrot

Well-Known Member
i need a tweek or two on ceravyn but that will be easy enough with the ossi through ch7 and catching up, 148 expansions, 208 wonder levels so nothing major .. the 10 chest worlds all did 11 or 12 chests without any effort .. the 2 newer with 17ish playing K and E wolrds have done 8-9 vs 7-8 chests .. i admit i panicked for nothing on this new format (in my defense it sounded terrible before getting it) .. it's better i think especially for all the newer players we recruit and our multiworlders adjusted very well :cool:
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
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?

The best way is for you to go an entire week and do nothing to improve your city other than to add a couple of AW levels or just an expansion or two. That was you can see the direct impact in has on your starting squad sizes for the Spire and tournament. In my chapter 7 Beta city, adding an AW level barely registers. It might increase my starting squad by one or two. Even in my chapter 16 Live city, adding an AW level only increases my starting squad by about 7 troops.

In reality, the vast majority of normal players are only going to add a couple of AW levels a week, so their increase in squad sizes will be so slow and gradual, it will not even be noticed. The part where I can't say, because I do not do it and don't pay attention to the numbers, is the effect on catering costs.
 

CrazyWizard

Oh Wise One
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.

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.
https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/inde...changes-post-release.15204/page-46#post-88686
https://en.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/upcoming-tournament-changes.12925/post-80671

These are the ones I could quickly find let me summarize them.

It's a system based on research, each mandatory research gets a hidden value. this can range form 1 to unlimited.
The combination of each of these values combined determines the tournament difficulty.
They are spread over all mandatory research in a chapter to smooth out the transition.

Data can be sorted, examined and used to determine these values, they aren't fixed nor are they bound to any formula.
Off course inderectly it would incorporate things like wonders, expansions ecetera.
Because "data analisys" would predict how much the average influence would be as it all does influence the "average results" (after removing junk data) there are several analisys parameters you can setup to determine the optimal range.

This has several advantages
  • It allows unlimited scaling, when chapters make a big jump the "hidden numbers" can be large and therefore increase the difficulty accordingly, if a chapter makes small steps the values can be low to reflect the changes. this guarantees that advancing in a game never has a detrimental effect on your difficulty. this gives also more flexibility to development as a chapter does not require a fixed "improvement" to keep up with any formula as it's self adjusting. in theory you could build a chapter that adds nothing to the spire/tournament but something else out of the box interesting. as you could add a value of 0 to each research.

  • New game material never breaks the game, if changes in the game make it nessesary to adjust the values you could easily change them. this means for the game develops, there are always options to change after the fact, without a need to revamp the system you can just adjust the scale. as those changes can be added gradual and over time. the schock will never be big and people naturally adjust
  • .
  • Never Final: If a chapter turns out to be better or worse than expected, or if game changes create this it's easy to rectify the issue.

  • Wonders and expansions to a degree can be compensated. statistics can tell you how much "wonders" or "expansions" the average player has. as with the former points if data tells that some point in the game gets to much of an advantage a change to a few numbers can solve this.

  • Future proof: no fixed values means that it never runs out of "growth"
 
Last edited:

Darielle

Chef, Scroll-Keeper, and Buddy Fan Club Member
Our fellowship normally gets 6 chests in non-push weeks. This week, we got seven. This is the first week that I've done all catering, no fights, just to save my troops for next week's 10 chest push tourney. The caters were a breeze, I didn't drop seriously on any resource and wound up with just under 2000 points. I could have easily gotten more, but I didn't go for it because I noticed that we would not hit eight and there was no sense breaking a sweat. For those of you who do 4, 6 or more thousand points, I realize this doesn't mean much. But it was significant for our fellowship, anyway. Next week, I'll fight as much as I can and cater the rest. I usually do close to 4K points in the push tourneys, so I hope I'll still be able to enjoy the new format next week.
 
Top