• 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 Tournament Changes (post-release)

DeletedUser2705

Guest
I just thought ... I'm not a mathematician at all and far from formulas, but no one canceled logic. If something is taken away from me, then maybe it is necessary to give something in return, so that people like me do not become angry at all? And I mean canceled guest resources from technology. We, who saved up these guests in case of a setup from the developers, which happened, wasted time and resources on them. Now you, the developers, have let it all go down the drain, plus added. Would you like to compensate a little so that we would not be so offended and we would not throw the chairs that had been cut into the wall?
I think that would be fair .... What do you think, Marindor?
 

Pauly7

Well-Known Member
If you like enars embassey (most worthless wonder in game) you should be able to place it in your city without consequenses
And I had a fellow who did exactly that. Placed it because she liked it. Now on top of the loss of space there's a needless tournament penalty.

Me... I built Thrones of the High Men for a technically pointless reason. For me it was the best centrepiece for a central square I was designing in my city. Not only did I build it, but I levelled it up. I don't care about ranking points. I levelled it because I figured - if I'm gonna have it anyway I might as well feel like its existence is in some way justified by giving me a better culture bonus... Now it's going to be like an anvil around my neck.
 

Deleted User - 81190

Guest
I'd say there shouldn't be a situation in the game where you would prefer to teleport expansion back. And it can be achieved way easier than implementing teleportation.
Why not? This potentially opens up another playstyle, where instead of maximizing your production in a given space you would put up the most efficient production in the minimal space. I know that I'd like to do something like that. I already have 4 unplaced expansions in storage, and could teleport away a few more if that would be possible.
 

Deleted User - 86438

Guest
Hello.
Shouldn't there be an option at least for those who looked ahead and already have produced the resources needed for the optional SSUs?
I think its pretty unfair since it was costly both in resources and especially time.

Assuming we get notice ahead of time before these changes hit live, why not spend those saved resources on the SSU research just before the change and then you get to save whatever the new costs will be. Of course, this means having to load KP into them prior if you haven't already, but it's an option that you have that another player that didn't think ahead won't.
 

edeba

Well-Known Member
The premium expansions should come out of the formula. The spire is based on the same kind of formula and I added 3 expansion while doing chapter 16 and the change from before chapter 16 to after was enormous... The spire is quite costly to do on live now, far more so than on beta.

So, for the spire, I do not believe being further and with more resources has benefited me, and with the propaganda that you should always be better off advancing your city.

There are far too many compounding items in the formula. You can only approximate it to work for a short range, and very clearly we are already beyond the range that it works.

This would be a temporary solution but not a permanent one, it would be an delay of execution.
In a few chapters this gap will just grow larger and larger again untill again it's no longer "acceptable" but at that time we are stuck with it for years.

The main issue is how the formula was build from ground level. it's one that simply cannot be sustained in the long run.
For example 100 reseach adds alone will result in a 60% bigger gap, then new expansions increase that gap again as it multiplies with that 60% and last new wonders / levels increase the gap again. so within no time you end up with a gap that increased with 100% or more.

So the core issue is the design itself, not the result. the result it an result of it's design.
 

Karvest

Well-Known Member
Why not? This potentially opens up another playstyle, where instead of maximizing your production in a given space you would put up the most efficient production in the minimal space. I know that I'd like to do something like that. I already have 4 unplaced expansions in storage, and could teleport away a few more if that would be possible.
Because that leads to stagnation instead of evolution. Same as current formula for spire/tourney (you won't even think about teleporting expansions without that formula, since you can use free space for events/pretty look/etc without affecting your performance).
Once you build such city and upgrade all needed AWs (very few of them) you have nothing to do ingame, any change would result less efficient city.
 
Last edited:

ErestorX

Well-Known Member
And for Enar's? Placing it is NOT without consequences. You use some space, you use your KPs, you use your runes/shards. ... Not that much different from before.


There is a difference. With respect to space, KP, runes,..., I know all the consequences of the choices I make. Thanks to you I know all the consequences of my choices in the new system as well, but that is against Innos will. As far as Inno is concerned they are trying to hide the negative consequences of some choices from the players. That is exactly what their misleading text concerning squad size upgrades did in the past. Even that one resulted in a lot of anger and frustration when new players learnt about the negative consequences of this research. And now Inno has decided to go way farther down this murky road.
 

maxiqbert

Well-Known Member
FYI, I already own an account "for easy play of spire"

It's chapter 4, it does not unlock expansions as it makes the spire harder, it has an overflowing kp bar since I do not want a wonder as golden abyss, endless excavation ect those coins/supplies migt not benefit the cost for everyting else in the spire. as a scrolls producer it was much more beneficial to fix myself on the spire set for it, I do not want to advance in the game, I don't want to mess with T3, Orcs, mana and seeds, sentient that require me to login more often, especially decaying goods suck.
please feel free to empty your kp bar into my AWs. I just won't be good at spire and tournament anymore, but I don't mind ;)
 

Deleted User - 81190

Guest
Because that leads to stagnation instead of evolution. Same as current formula for spire/tourney (you won't even think about teleporting expansions without that formula, since you can use free space for events/pretty look/etc without affecting your performance).
Once you build such city and upgrade all needed AWs (very few of them) you have nothing to do ingame, any change would result less efficient city.
OK, in chapter 7 I've had 40 residences on 320 tiles to barely cover by pop needs. Past chapter 16 I have 11 magic residences on 220 tiles, and have such excess that I can drop 3 of those right now. Obviously, there are some event buildings, but I had some in both chapters. I can do more with less. Am I stagnating? Why number of placed expansions is a determinant of progress?

And I definitely did think about teleporting expansions even before the Spire formula. Not because of the prescient vision of the future, but because I like to keep configuration flexibility for the future chapters. That's one of the reasons that I have quite a few unplaced expansions even today.

And once you build an efficient city in the end game there is nothing much to do. In this game, no matter what the rules are, that's going to happen. Grinding tournaments and Spire week in and out for a couple of extra AW levels makes little difference. How many changes to the cities in the end-game have you seen? I didn't see many; once the settlement is gone and new efficient equilibrium city is rebuilt, it usually stays the same till the next chapter. Because nothing fundamentally changes in the meantime.

The best chance of some excitement in the end game is reacting to some external changes - such as this one. At least that requires some re-thinking, re-buildings, making some new choices. Not just run on autopilot. To me, that's stagnation.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Well-Known Member
I just don't get the whole "efficiency expert" some people are trying to act like. More space in your city means more variety. A larger range of different buildings that do not have to be cutting edge in the numbers they provide. More decorating options and a nicer looking city. I would be the one quitting if I thought I have to make my city look as uniform and uninteresting as everyone else's. And I am not picking on any particular people. I am just glad we do not have to all be the same. That is boring.
 

Karvest

Well-Known Member
That's why new chapters are here - to add something new, which require re-thinking etc. But with that formula they literally tell us to stop evolving if we want to be efficient in spire/tourney...
Teleport expansion to add flexibility (say to place it in a different spot where you like it more) is not the same as teleport it because otherwise you would be penalized in weekly events.
 

DeletedUser2021

Guest
this past tourney a team mate went 75x6 with a score of 20 k , that can never happen again a massive nerf for them
 

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
Hello.
Shouldn't there be an option at least for those who looked ahead and already have produced the resources needed for the optional SSUs?
I think its pretty unfair since it was costly both in resources and especially time.
Assuming we get notice ahead of time before these changes hit live, why not spend those saved resources on the SSU research just before the change and then you get to save whatever the new costs will be. Of course, this means having to load KP into them prior if you haven't already, but it's an option that you have that another player that didn't think ahead won't.
optional SS.png

Use your Guest race goods, save millions of coins!
 

galrond

Well-Known Member
try to compare the 60+ provinces KP loss to that 14 “balance” provinces... that’s pretty lame, IMO
Yes indeed! So don´t ;)
kyhd is reporting on how the tournament changes affect the lower end encounters. That´s constructive feedback.
Inno have deemed, that they want to nerf the KP income of the biggest players.
So that is almost impossible to do as many provinces as before..... What´s the big surprise?
It´s good, that big players post how difficult it has become. That´s usefull and constructive feedback as well.
But, that the huge majority of writhers here are pissed about loosing huge amounts of KP, that´s already stated within the first 2 pages of this thread, and is another matter.
 

galrond

Well-Known Member
My personal concern is still for those fellowships that have members who play for fun and attempt a 10-chest push at most once a month. That type of group doesn't have a large percentage of big players. Maybe a few who can, on occasion, push for 6-8K points to help their group make the goal. I know that this type of fellowship exists, I am Archmage for 3 of them.

We look forward to doing these infrequent efforts. We plan for what troops we need, what goods to stock up on. The top players accept 0-star and 1-star trades to help the lower ranked players stock up. And the top players do their best to score points so that everyone in the group gets some nice rewards including a blueprint. I admit that this is not your typical "go all out all the time" type of play but I think that Innogames wants this type of player and fellowship.

With the current changes I can't see this type of fellowship succeeding in a 10-chest effort. I know that I won't be able to get 6-8k points anymore without doing serious damage to my inventories. And I don't expect that very many of the other members will be willing to do so. We may try once and then just settle back into doing 4 chests a week and expect that individual players will do more when they need that week's relics.

The purpose of this type of tournament play is NOT about ranking points, it is providing a group a focus for a week and seeing everyone doing their best as a fellowship.

Maybe this type of tournament play is rarer than I think. Maybe this type of fellowship activity is not worth considering. Perhaps Innogames is only concerned about ... I don't know what they are concerned about. But I am getting frustrated with tedious chapters, lousy event rewards, and now this.
Hmmm most of the feedback says it´s easier for a fellowship to get 10 chests, when it´s easier for small players to get more points. So your concern seems misplaced.
 

Burger Meister Meister

Well-Known Member
There is only 1 thing equal between all players who progress through the chapters further into the game: mandatory upgrades. All others things are a choice left open for the players. Some will build AWs, some will build more factories, some will build more military buildings, some will buy expansions, etc. So if you want to make the tournament equally hard for everyone the formula should only look at those mandatory upgrades. If a player then choose to build an AW which increases the strength or health of his troops he shouldn't be penalized by it, after all it was Inno them self who introduced such AWs. If they don't want players to have a little advantage they should never have introduced AWs in the first place. Similar, if someone instead wants to build more factories to have enough goods to negotiate in the tournament or builds more armories to have more troops and for that buys extra expansions should he also be penalized by it ? No, of course not, else Inno shouldn't have given us the option to buy expansions at all. Tournament shouldn't become more difficult by these thing, all these things where introduced to help (the casual) players in the first place. If you want to limit (the hardcore) players you shouldn't make the tournament harder for everyone, instead you should make it increasingly less rewarding the further you go in the tournament. Those players that have build AWs and invested KPs into them or that have build more factories or armories can still go further in the tournament then the more casual players but it will be less rewarding, giving those casual player in-time a chance to catch up with the hardcore players.

View attachment 7624
SSo = Own Squad Size
SSe = Enemy Squad Size


Of course this would mean that the entire reward/scoring system needs to be changed but I think that would be less troublesome then what they are trying to do now.

@Marindor there is a lot of value in what Lord Soth is proposing. I also feel that the battle difficulty should be heavily weighted on basic chapter progress and possibly ranking points.

While it is true that some players may want to stagnate at the same level to keep them at the same battle difficulty but if ranking points are taken into consideration then even if their City stays idle they will still progress and their battles will get harder. At this point in time the player will be forced to progress to build structures and optional features that will help to improve their strength.

Other factors like expansions, AWs, SSU should not be incorporated into the battle difficulty, they should be seen as a method to improve your strength to counter your Cities growth and your increasing ranking points. This gives a counter balance between strength and difficulty.

Is there any chance that you can share some more details of the algorithm used to determine battle difficulty, ie how much influence do each of the variables (chapter progress, ranking, AWs, expansions, etc) contribute to battle difficulty?

Thanks,
BMMB
 

Dony

King of Bugs
how much influence do each of the variables (chapter progress, ranking, AWs, expansions, etc) contribute to battle difficulty?
Zero, battle difficulty is set for every province exactly like in old system for every single player for every single chapter.
Battle difficulty is ratio between your SS and enemy SS and introducing 2* and 3* into provinces.
When a quest asks for a stack of units, I think it is always equal to your normal squad size, not your training size.
I fail to see where i mentioned training size in that quote
 

DeletedUser3289

Guest
Other factors like expansions, AWs, SSU should not be incorporated into the battle difficulty, they should be seen as a method to improve your strength to counter your Cities growth and your increasing ranking points.
You counter yourself. Expansions lead to ranking points (directly or indirectly-culture) AWs also contribute ranking points
 
Top