Discussion Tournament Changes (post-release)

[little bee]

I don´t disagree, that military wonders have greater impact on tournament.
When it comes to spire, then the non-military wonders has a great impact as well.

That is not what I meant. My first argument had nothing to do with how much fighting vs. catering you do. Let me try to do some calculations:
One of the best military wonders is the monastery / sanctuary. Even if you completly ignore the culture it gives, it still boosts all your troops health by 30% at lv. 30. This will not only help you loose 30% less troops, it also allows you to win fights you would otherwise loose. So if you fight at least a third of the tournament / spire then this wonder is easily worth its 9% penalty.
On the other hand lets assume a player caters 100% of tournament and / or spire. And we will also ignore the space that wonders take up. Then the best wonder to build would probably be the mountain hall. At lv 30 it gives you 15% of your working population which correspond to boosting the population you actually build by around 17% (or even 20% when combined with the abyss). However, a well balanced city should not be using more than 20%-25% of its space for population. So the population bonus only boosts your catering ability by around 4%. Now lets look at the second bonus. At lv. 30 the MH will boost your boosted goods by 20% (assuming you have the max. relict boost). However, normal goods are not your only catering goods. You also need gold, suplies, orcs, mana, seeds and sentients goods. Here it gets complicated, because how much of your catering goods are normal goods is determined by your chapter and by how much you play tournament vs. spire. If 50% of all goods needed for catering are normal goods then the total benefit of the mountain halls would be 10%+4%=14%; if only 30% of all catering goods were normal goods then the benefit of the mountain halls is only 10%.
So, the very best non-military wonder in the entire game would barely be worth its penalty even for a player who caters everything. The moment you try these calculations with a player who fights at least sometimes and / or with the golden abyss instead of the mountain halls, the penalty becomes to high. This does not, however, mean that these wonders need to be buffed. The MH and GA are already very good wonders that boost every aspect of the game. They just have a smaller influence on the tournament / spire because boosting your catering ability is fundamentally harder than boosting your fighting ability.

So it´s a valid point, that they should weigh less.
My point is that it would be a logistic nightmare to determine how much less.
Needles has two military components (LR AP) and (barracks training speed).
No doubt military AW.
Martial Monestary has a military component (health), and a non-military component (culture).
I would count that as a military AW.
Pyramid has a military component (free HM barracks units), and a non-military component (free sentient goods).
Some say barracks units are useless. So is this a military AW? If so should it weight differently to a elf, than to a human?
What I´m trying to say is: it´s no easy task to determine the weight of each AW.
It´s by far easier to alter the benefits of AWs, then it is to determine the weight they should have.

No one is suggesting calculating a different coefficient for every single wonder. That would indeed lead to endless discussions. But calculating just two coefficients, one for military and one for non-military wonders, should be doable. Calculating what these coefficients should sensibly be, would, in no way, be more difficult than trying to figure out how much each wonder needs to be buffed to become usefull. And of course figuring out how to count the mixed wonders (i.e. wonders with a military and a non-military benefit) is an important question. But there are plenty of possible solutions. You could count them as 50% military and 50% non-military, you could count them as 100% military and 100% non-military, you could roll a dice each time. It would still be better than the current system.

 

[galrond]

No one is suggesting calculating a different coefficient for every single wonder. That would indeed lead to endless discussions. But calculating just two coefficients, one for military and one for non-military wonders, should be doable. Calculating what these coefficients should sensibly be, would, in no way, be more difficult than trying to figure out how much each wonder needs to be buffed to become usefull. And of course figuring out how to count the mixed wonders (i.e. wonders with a military and a non-military benefit) is an important question. But there are plenty of possible solutions. You could count them as 50% military and 50% non-military, you could count them as 100% military and 100% non-military, you could roll a dice each time. It would still be better than the current system.

No there aren´t plenty of solutions. If it has a military element, then it must count as a military wonder. There shouldn´t be ANY gray areas.
I still don´t like the idea of different coefficents, but if implemented, there should be VERY clear criterias to determine the difference.
There should be NO openings for endless discussions about: is this militaty element good enough, to make this wonder count as military?
INNO ain´t that good at communicating the "rules". As far as I know the formular itself ain´t official. I would really really hate to try guessing what the single wonder counts as
The message we would get, would likely be: We have chosen to lower the influence, that some AWs has on tournament SS.
That could easyly mean: non-military AW count 0,2%, and military AW count 0,4%
I´m pretty sure, that INNO won´t lower one factor, without raising another.
I´m also pretty sure, that INNO thinks, that the total "punishment" for AWs is fine.
I don´t agree.
I think it´s to high.
But I think, that INNO wants to "correct" their blunder, that let to a massive flow of KP (and other stuff).
The most visable gain from this, is highlevel AWs, so they have to be "taxed" in some way.
By making it count in tournament SS, they`re targeting those, who in their opinion gained most from the "blunder".

I know, that you take me for a wet blanket, an INNO tool, and some other (not to pleasent) stuff
I know, that my paranoid ramblings are all only guesswork and speculations.
But I´m only trying to imagine, what drives INNO to do things this way

 

[DeletedUser1953]

how can you battle this at 160%+ ?

For me, the only coefficient for AW in the formula is simple : 0 ! (like for the premium extension, i think we can not hope a negatif value !)

 

[Deleted User - 81672]

All this talk how AWs and expansions affect the tournament difficulty when my biggest concern is that the enemy troops are too randomize, making preparation for a tournament null. Also the military boost buildings becomes pointless.

 

[Karvest]

Military boost buildings are the only way to go really high in new tournaments.

 

[Deleted User - 81672]

@Karvest I'm not referring to "Unleashed Unit Upgrade" or "Dwarven Armorer" but to "Enlightened Light Range" & "Magnificent Mage Multiplier"

 

[Karvest]

you need them for high score as well.

 

[CrazyWizard]

@Karvest I'm not referring to "Unleashed Unit Upgrade" or "Dwarven Armorer" but to "Enlightened Light Range" & "Magnificent Mage Multiplier"

Due to the "randomness" in units it will be much harder to find usecases for melee units, both light and melee.
This leaves Mage, Light range and Heavy range as the only real options to use.

The more damage you can output, the stronger range units become
So you indeed need these buildings.

This is also the reason why on the US forum I am agains introducing light melee and heavy melee boost buildings.
Even if you give them 1000% extra attack, it will be really hard to overcome the range issue.

Melee units need to be real tanks to overcome this problem, and unfortunatly they arent in elvenar.

In the steel tournaments agains thieves, I used boosted blossom mages*. according to the combat "traingle" this is a bad move, but due to range this was the best way to defeat those thieves with 0% casualty at my end. they simply die before they can ever reach my blossom mages
This issue was covered by the fact that each tournament had a limited ranged fixed enemy units, so melee still had a purpose,
Unfortunatly with the new "spire style" format. this advantage is no longer there, and therefore it has become a near "range only" format.
The scew towardsa certain units but not limiting it to certain units did not help at all.

I liked @Heymrdiedier solution. to create a format of 5 scews like the old style. then cycle those trough 9 tournamaments so there is never again an "scrolls suck" tournament, but it will cycle and change continuously and return the usefullness of melee style units again.

*Since the introduction of frog princes in chapter 15, these also became more than excellent exterminators of thieves but for years I used blossom mages

 

[edeba]

Something that really bothers me about the new tournament is the slaughter to the ability to get spells. Since the beginning of time, I've used the PoP spells daily and their availability was part of my decision making in around magic residences. This aspect of the tournament slaughter really bothers me.

I think if you could take your game and play it with another provider, Inno would be dead as a company with how they've treated players, with the constant bait and switch on game resources you've invested into your game.

They don't have a monopoly on the gaming market as a whole, but they do have a monopoly on this game and it is without any higher oversight to very clear malfeasance.

Premium expansions did not add an extra cost to the game and to change it after they've been purchased is malfeasance. It is a bait and switch.

The length of time we've been hanging over this issue is a disgrace.

 

[Deleted User - 89508]

But I think, that INNO wants to "correct" their blunder, that let to a massive flow of KP (and other stuff).
The most visable gain from this, is highlevel AWs, so they have to be "taxed" in some way.
By making it count in tournament SS, they`re targeting those, who in their opinion gained most from the "blunder".

I suppose its "up to Inno" if they think there are too many KP in the game.
To me, first answer would be to Banish cheaters.
Second answer would be to simply reduce payouts, or payouts after 50 provinces, etc.

IMHO, The Battle Formula needs work, to remove the Penalty for Optional Squad Size increases,
but to me, it doesn't really scream for other adjustments.

Sure, then there's Phoenix, Bears, various Artifacts; things that at some point should be available to all, (but not TOO available?).
It doesnt require total Screwup of the game so higher players can continue relative advantages from their work, and then to provide newer players with a path to similar success.

 

[spennyit]

We must be realistic: if INNO wanted to change anything, she would have tested it during the last weeks (when, instead, nothing changed): I cannot imagine going directly live with a different version from the one that has been tested during the last weeks.

The only possible alternative is that they are just waiting for the Marble tournament (the 1st of the 3 Tier 1 tournaments, which are probably the easiest in the new mode) to release it in all other live worlds and hope it will be accepted.

 

[PaNonymeB]

About the scaling of the difficulty of fights :
I think the fights should be made harder in provinces 1-5 and 40+, and easier elsewhere. With current system it seems like beyond province 40 difficulty grows so slowly (it's +0.01 out of >2, so less than 0.5% increase) that it's nearly as if it were capped. So one can still push to do nearly infinite (= 50+, limited by the edge of the explored map) tournaments, although it now requires more boosters (like +150-200% damage and health, so unsustainable now except for maybe 1-2 people). But if they continue to release more ways to get troop boosters (= more places worth spending money = what Inno should do) we'll eventually be back in a situation where completed provinces will be the limiting factor for top tournament players. (@ the few players who tried to get this far in tournaments, correct me if you think I'm wrong).
I'd rather see a scaling like enemy/yours ratio = ×1 in province 10 and ×2 in province 40 (at 1*), and then linear or even exponential increase. Then each star level should correspond to 2-3 provinces and not just one, so that levels aren't too similar in difficulty.

When the uncapped difficulty was first announced I thought those who would get the hardest hit would be the 15k+ tournament scorers, but it looks like it will be us casual end-game players that were doing 2500-5000 points in tournament (you know, those who were lied in the first version of the announcement), who are blocked near ×1.5 enemy/yours ratio and won't see any significant progress in their tournament scores as they grow their fighting power as the difficulty curve us still steep at this point. I didn't test it yet on a big city but I'm worried about what will happen when it will hit live. Even though at the same time I'm looking forward to have much less boring tournaments.

 

[palmira]

Two and a half months and 87 pages of comment posts later and basically nothing changed. I think most of us agree that some sort of change was long overdue for the tournament, most are pleased with the one click situation what everybody complains about is the absurd formula used to calculate the Squad Size, SS, in the tournament.

It makes absolutely no sense, and basically is a first in any online game, that the further you develop your city the harder you are punished. SS should be only determined by how further you progress in the research and nothing else with a care on how each chapter upgrades you fighting/catering capacity. For instances, chapter XVI now increases roughly 20% our SS with a benefit that is very scarce. For all we know, chapter XVII will be even worse. But specially it should be a no brainer that is a really bad idea making the tourney much harder for those that invest more in the game, be it time or money and telling all the players that this is a game they shouldn't bother with because you will be harshly punished if you do.

 

[GerdyaanB]

When can we expect a statement on what will happen next ?
I do notice that this lack of communication loks to be more detrimental then
whatever change to the game.

 

[GerdyaanB]

Looks

 

[GerdyaanB]

Sorry for the confusion....i meant to ask when will tournement charges, if any, be made available in worlds apart from EN...i do see no changes to beta so no eval for changes possible.....lack of communication is worrysome....

 

[DeletedUser3314]

When can we expect a statement on what will happen next ?
I do notice that this lack of communication loks to be more detrimental then
whatever change to the game.

Looks

You do know you can edit your posts ??? No need to post 3 times in a row.

And yes, Inno's communication skill are legendary.

 

[GerdyaanB]

You do know you can edit your posts ??? No need to post 3 times in a row.

And yes, Inno's communication skill are legendary.

Thks...i didnt know ......this was my first post.....i am really concerned...

 

[Marindor]

Hi everyone,

A small head's up already:

We will be bringing a change to the next Tournament's (tomorrow's) fighting difficulty, especially on higher provinces (16+; or 15 with more than one star completed already), but already starting with some minor adjustments at province 8 (or 7 with more than one star completed).

 

[edeba]

Hi everyone,

A small head's up already:

We will be bringing a change to the next Tournament's (tomorrow's) fighting difficulty, especially on higher provinces (16+; or 15 with more than one star completed already), but already starting with some minor adjustments at province 8 (or 7 with more than one star completed).

I didn't notice a thing with the last "improvement" and when minmax posted the graph, well, of course we couldn't notice a change because it was infinitesimal... I had been happy to see the announcement, and well, it wasn't worth announcing...

This has been so drawn out and so disappointing, I should be saying and thinking, "great we are being listened to," but how does the saying go, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I have abnormal response and no trust, so, looking forward to seeing the analysis on this, but kind of broken on the belief system.