DeletedUser3289
Guest
Sounds eerie, but if I manage 1 da per week, throwing my mm to rubbles might benefit my city more 
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate on the forum by joining discussions or starting your own threads or topics, you need a game account and to REGISTER HERE!
Discussion Upcoming Tournament Changes (pre-release)
- Thread starter Marindor
- Start date
- Status
DeletedUser724
Guest
I think INNO is a super liar and cheater
squad-size tech both increase enemy army size and our army size
if they have no impact in the new tournament, they just remove squad size tech from all chapters
the only way that squad size tech that has NO IMPACT on us
enemy army size lock on squad size 1
when we do squad size tech, we get bigger army size while enemy size has UNCHANGE ( no increase)
if u click the meaning of squad size upgrade
it say "allow you to fight with bigger armies, which make your fight easier"
That statement, to me, it increase my army size
but NO INCREASE in enemy size
it is player technology , not enemy technology, why enemy get bigger and stronger
We avoid squad-size tech becos
every one know, the actual meaning of squad size tech
"allow you to fight with bigger armies, and give u a bigger enemy army size that result make your fight <opposite to easier>"
I object the change
if Inno keep their statement "allow you to fight with bigger armies, which make your fight easier"
keep our army size increase squad size tech
and
Lock enemy army size back to squad-size 1
that is the only change we want " INNO keep your words as your statement in squad size tech"
squad-size tech both increase enemy army size and our army size
if they have no impact in the new tournament, they just remove squad size tech from all chapters
the only way that squad size tech that has NO IMPACT on us
enemy army size lock on squad size 1
when we do squad size tech, we get bigger army size while enemy size has UNCHANGE ( no increase)
if u click the meaning of squad size upgrade
it say "allow you to fight with bigger armies, which make your fight easier"
That statement, to me, it increase my army size
but NO INCREASE in enemy size
it is player technology , not enemy technology, why enemy get bigger and stronger
We avoid squad-size tech becos
every one know, the actual meaning of squad size tech
"allow you to fight with bigger armies, and give u a bigger enemy army size that result make your fight <opposite to easier>"
I object the change
if Inno keep their statement "allow you to fight with bigger armies, which make your fight easier"
keep our army size increase squad size tech
and
Lock enemy army size back to squad-size 1
that is the only change we want " INNO keep your words as your statement in squad size tech"
palmira
Well-Known Member
One easy way out of the discrepancies was to make all squad size researches mandatory, giving some time so players can get the necessary KPs for research and voilà, everybody should be on the same foot.
Potvorisko
Well-Known Member
Based on video I am thruly angry. I am building my city more than four years with some strategy and instead of harwest of my work, I get now pure NERF? If it should be like said in the video, just keep it the way it is now.
Ashrem
Well-Known Member
"Easy" being a relative term, since some of us would have to replay chapters, including getting the Amuni portal to level 4 without being able to use portal profits.
edeba
Well-Known Member
Two hours of video? You did say just listen as background while doing something, but seriously, most posts can be skimmed in under a minute.
I've made awild speculationanalysis commentary on the incoming changes (and forum comments) for my FS. Instead of typing in a bunch of text that will be obsolete very soon, I decided to make a couple of videos which are really podcasts (e.g. there is not much to see there, you may just listen to it while doing other things). I go through the announcement and some forum comments, and provide my initial reaction. I figured some other people may also find it useful
Deleted User - 86438
Guest
Since this is a side effect of the tournament changes and actually a stand-alone issue, I've created a suggestion to change those requirements. If this would impact you (or you just agree on principle) feel free to chime in there.
edeba
Well-Known Member
Totally agree here. If this is the case only the needles, MM, bulwark, forge, shrooms, flying academy, dragon abby, toads, pyramid of purification, victory springs, simia and tournament arena should be included in the calculation.
Really curious as to how this you can't make a mistake because only half the benefit gets into the difficulty. It looks to me that we have several that help attack. So with 4 AW that help attack that only could half it looks to me that you get one point increase each in attack for 4 different units, but you 2 (4*1/2) points of increase in difficulty.
Really curious as to how this you can't make a mistake because only half the benefit gets into the difficulty. It looks to me that we have several that help attack. So with 4 AW that help attack that only could half it looks to me that you get one point increase each in attack for 4 different units, but you 2 (4*1/2) points of increase in difficulty.
Deleted User - 87976
Guest
About you playing the devil's advocate with the including premium expansions in the difficulty, although partially you are correct, I still see this as a big issue. It's safe to assume that the players willing to do a cost-benefit analysis (with the actual formula being unavailable to the players btw, although I'm pretty sure that you'll manage to reverse-ingineer it) before buying an expansion are a minority. And the much more often use-case with buying an expansion is just fitting some beautiful event buildings or running ot of space because of the lack of the optimization skill. So mostly this change would be just punishing players for not willing or being able to use space with the maximum efficiency. Besides even players that do optimize their cities for the tournament efficiency are suddenly getting much less value of the money they've already spent on the extra space, which also doesn't exactly add to the desire to spend more money on this game.made awild speculationanalysis commentary on the incoming changes (and forum comments) for my FS. Instead of typing in a bunch of text that will be obsolete very soon, I decided to make a couple of videos which are really podcasts (e.g. there is not much to see there, you may just listen to it while doing other things). I go through the announcement and some forum comments, and provide my initial reaction. I figured some other people may also find it useful
Ashrem
Well-Known Member
It's not required watching. And MinMax did say more of a podcast. What is the upside to criticizing something someone else put effort into at no cost to you?
DeletedUser3039
Guest
Elvenar is the only game where players who invest money in the game are punished. First the spire, now the tournament (probably?). Are you kidding?
I will not invest in a game where my money will make it harder for me to play.
I will not invest in a game where my money will make it harder for me to play.
Deleted User - 81190
Guest
Much less value comparing to what though? It's comparing to "what could have been"
We don't get less value for the space that we've got - the space is still there just like before. As the whole formula (both for Spire and tournament) is new, there is nothing to benchmark against. It's not like there was no premium expansions in calculations, and now there is. Remember, if you've got +1 premium expansion, you still have more space than someone who doesn't. Or if you have the same number of expansions as someone else but you have more premiums, then you will have better time in the Spire, all other things being the same. That's not exactly penalizing.
Maillie
Well-Known Member
I have to say that this is a huge disappointment. I have had as many as three cities in EN worlds. My main city in Winyandor was where I bought and spent the diamonds on expansions. That city is massive in comparison to the others, and now is getting punished for it? Really? We come here to have fun. If that includes tossing in a little money now and then it should not be a punishable offense. Others have much larger cities than mine. I think that's great. Many have much higher AW's than mine. That's awesome too! Why punish them even more than me? The game is designed so that purchasing diamonds gives an advantage over not purchasing diamonds, so why punish the ones that do?
Ashrem
Well-Known Member
Well, it's almost certainly not as much of a penalty as the advantage of the extra square, but it is a cost to the expansions which is being imposed after the fact, and therefore is retroactively imposing a negative effect on the calculation of value of the purchase.Much less value comparing to what though? It's comparing to "what could have been"
Spending money isn't going to make it harder to play, it's just making it not as much easier as it used to be. Still kind of the equivalent of a bait-and-switch, but the game is easier for having bought those expansions. Not as much easier as before, but not harder than if you hadn't spent the diamonds.
PaNonymeB
Well-Known Member
1. Reducing tournament encounters from 4 to 1 per province. A welcome change which will save a lot of clicks, although it has some downsides that had already been pointed out. But the need for everyone to have the manual fighting option becomes pressing. (In my opinion they should have fixed this issue even before releasing the Spire.)
2. Reducing catering costs vs. fighting. I support this change, as I consider fighters were outrageously advantaged in tournaments.
3. New chests. Another good change, which was waited for quite a while in 10-chest FS. It will have intersting impacts on FS leaderboards.
4. Increasing difficulty of fights in later provinces. I'm for this change. This will avoid people stockpiling enough boosts to make infinte (well, actually limited by number of scouted provinces) tournament pushes with almost no losses.
However, as the # of province already increases the cost of the province, the # of * should remain the main factor changing difficulty. Provinces at 1* should not become harder than 1st 6* before province 20. This way we'd really have to choose how much provinces we do to 5* (6kp) and how much we stop at 2* (5kp) instead of doing all 2* (previous tournaments) or all 5* (new tournaments).
5. Randomized troops in tournaments. This avoids having tournaments easier than others, which is really bad for FS not doing 10 chests every week but which can be viewed as a balance improvement. But it raises a lore issue : tournaments take place in provinces of a specific relic, where we face specific enemies. Plus, it wipes out training strategy. (And they skipped this in the video !!) It'd have been better to rebalance troops if the aim is making all tournaments roughly the same difficulty
6. Randomized goods. This change is supposed to avoid goods imbalances, but I'm worried it'd have the reverse effect. If weekly imbalances are removed, permanent imbalances remain. Before, even if one's FS has a slight excess of one's boosted good, one can expect being able to trade their boosted good at good rates every third week. Preparing stockpiles of hard to get goods during your boosted tournament was part of trading strategy. This is removed by this change. And it raises the same lore issue.
7. Catering now requiring mana. It means that now, in addition to factories we'll need mana producers in our city to cater in tournaments. I'd say why not. But mana is a decaying good, which means it's very hard to stockpile between tournaments or to prepare a push. Especially if it's required before unlocking chapter 10 wonders that allow storing undecaying mana with spells and reduce decay. Mana use in tournaments should be restricted to chapters 12+ (or even chapter 14+ when research starts requiring less mana), if not completely removed.
And tournaments should remain close to map provinces, that doesn't require mana (although I understand there should be differences between tournaments and map provinces, a case in point being the reducing of number of encounters from 8 to 4 and now 1 as we do much more tournaments than map provinces.)
8. Changing the way costs are calculated. I agree that using squad size as parameter for tournament costs was quite bad, especially for caterers as they find themselves having to research "mean" technologies, that do nothing else than making the game harder, to advance. (At least fighters get a slight benefit in squad size upgrades.) But making changes that would impact choices made in the past and not undoable is bad too.
9. The new tournament cost formula, assuming a change is to be made. The video shows AW levels and expansions as parameters influencing Tournament costs. This should not be the case. These are hard to get, and even are probably the main way INNO gets money (The last expansions are where players pay over 10k of diamonds. And the recent adjustment in cost of KPs in AWs show they're expecting to get money on these.) So these have to be wonderful, and not penalize tournaments. (And the parameters aren't even mentioned in the announcement !! A strategy game shouldn't hide things that directly impact strategy !!)
I think a tournament cost based on completed provinces would be better. Something similar to how costs and enemy squad size in map encounters are calculated. (Remember : tournaments are in the world map.) This couldn't be abused as a number of provinces is required to enter each chapter.
The appearing of orcs in tournaments would be triggered by doing all provinces that doesn't require orcs, plus one. (This potentially postpones arrival of orcs in tournaments to end chapter 10, which is close to where orcs currently appear if all optional SSUs are skipped.) Then we'd have the choice between completing more provinces to get more expansions, or not completing them for easier tournaments. (Perhaps this would require adding more province expansions to make scouting over province 500 interesting. And this would give a compensation to those who'd be hurt by such a change.)
2. Reducing catering costs vs. fighting. I support this change, as I consider fighters were outrageously advantaged in tournaments.
3. New chests. Another good change, which was waited for quite a while in 10-chest FS. It will have intersting impacts on FS leaderboards.
4. Increasing difficulty of fights in later provinces. I'm for this change. This will avoid people stockpiling enough boosts to make infinte (well, actually limited by number of scouted provinces) tournament pushes with almost no losses.
However, as the # of province already increases the cost of the province, the # of * should remain the main factor changing difficulty. Provinces at 1* should not become harder than 1st 6* before province 20. This way we'd really have to choose how much provinces we do to 5* (6kp) and how much we stop at 2* (5kp) instead of doing all 2* (previous tournaments) or all 5* (new tournaments).
5. Randomized troops in tournaments. This avoids having tournaments easier than others, which is really bad for FS not doing 10 chests every week but which can be viewed as a balance improvement. But it raises a lore issue : tournaments take place in provinces of a specific relic, where we face specific enemies. Plus, it wipes out training strategy. (And they skipped this in the video !!) It'd have been better to rebalance troops if the aim is making all tournaments roughly the same difficulty
6. Randomized goods. This change is supposed to avoid goods imbalances, but I'm worried it'd have the reverse effect. If weekly imbalances are removed, permanent imbalances remain. Before, even if one's FS has a slight excess of one's boosted good, one can expect being able to trade their boosted good at good rates every third week. Preparing stockpiles of hard to get goods during your boosted tournament was part of trading strategy. This is removed by this change. And it raises the same lore issue.
7. Catering now requiring mana. It means that now, in addition to factories we'll need mana producers in our city to cater in tournaments. I'd say why not. But mana is a decaying good, which means it's very hard to stockpile between tournaments or to prepare a push. Especially if it's required before unlocking chapter 10 wonders that allow storing undecaying mana with spells and reduce decay. Mana use in tournaments should be restricted to chapters 12+ (or even chapter 14+ when research starts requiring less mana), if not completely removed.
And tournaments should remain close to map provinces, that doesn't require mana (although I understand there should be differences between tournaments and map provinces, a case in point being the reducing of number of encounters from 8 to 4 and now 1 as we do much more tournaments than map provinces.)
8. Changing the way costs are calculated. I agree that using squad size as parameter for tournament costs was quite bad, especially for caterers as they find themselves having to research "mean" technologies, that do nothing else than making the game harder, to advance. (At least fighters get a slight benefit in squad size upgrades.) But making changes that would impact choices made in the past and not undoable is bad too.
9. The new tournament cost formula, assuming a change is to be made. The video shows AW levels and expansions as parameters influencing Tournament costs. This should not be the case. These are hard to get, and even are probably the main way INNO gets money (The last expansions are where players pay over 10k of diamonds. And the recent adjustment in cost of KPs in AWs show they're expecting to get money on these.) So these have to be wonderful, and not penalize tournaments. (And the parameters aren't even mentioned in the announcement !! A strategy game shouldn't hide things that directly impact strategy !!)
I think a tournament cost based on completed provinces would be better. Something similar to how costs and enemy squad size in map encounters are calculated. (Remember : tournaments are in the world map.) This couldn't be abused as a number of provinces is required to enter each chapter.
The appearing of orcs in tournaments would be triggered by doing all provinces that doesn't require orcs, plus one. (This potentially postpones arrival of orcs in tournaments to end chapter 10, which is close to where orcs currently appear if all optional SSUs are skipped.) Then we'd have the choice between completing more provinces to get more expansions, or not completing them for easier tournaments. (
Last edited:
DeletedUser3039
Guest
It all depends on the rating. If I had known in advance that spending MY money would complicate the process for me , I would not have spent it. My extensions were bought before the era of wells, then they really increased my potential. Now this is not the case, if I buy an extension and get 1-5% efficiency, I will not spend money on it. Because it's not worth it. And I perceive such changes as a punishment for my spending money.
Ashrem
Well-Known Member
It has to be your choice, of course, but a single expansion adds significantly to production (whether goods or troops or culture or population) It should more than make up for a slight shift in difficulty.
DeletedUser3039
Guest
Are you serious? In Chapter 16?)
Well, I won't argue with you. My opinion remains the same. I rate this as a punishment for my spending money - first in the spire, now in the tournament. When I spend money, I expect the game to be simpler for me. If I didn't spend it, I wouldn't lose anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted User - 81190
Guest
I think what you're referring to is a rather unavoidable feature of a persistent world game such as Elvenar. Here, many choices are fixed in the past (sometimes years ago, and sometimes made with real money), so introducing any changes to such setup invariably leads to reassessing those choices, and quite often regretting some. And in many cases those choices you cannot revert without restarting with a new city. So unless developers decide to keep the game completely static for years and years, that's just how it will work. Unless all the changes that they're introducing are strictly non-negative for ALL the players. Which is unlikely
And back to the topic specifically on premium expansions. If we leave existing expansions out as sunk cost (see above) and focus on choices that we're going to make on a going forward basis (this is especially for people who think that new setup disincentivizes premium purchases). Let's say today I need/want to add more space to my city, I have the following options: I have some research expansions I can place, I have some province map expansions that I can place, or I can buy a premium expansion with diamonds. Which do you think I will choose? Yeah, I will choose premium expansion nowadays if I can afford it (in terms of diamonds, this does not have to be cash) and will keep regular ones in storage. Because that makes for better Spire and probably for better tournaments for me. So at least for me, priorities have changed. If previously I'd place all the regular expansions that I have and then go premium for what I can afford, nowadays I would go as much premium as I can (and need), and only then will go regular expansions and only if I really have to have that extra space. Looks like good priorities as far as Inno is concerned.
- Status