• 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)

Dony

King of Bugs
Anyway.. my intent for posting the image...
i'd prefer people accept and use the Concept of Unwinnable Battles... and not duck behind "All Battles are Winnable"...
sorry mate, this thread is about new tournament, and everything in new tournament is winnable
your scenario will never happen in new model even if it would be 5v5
if you wanna cry about scouting in 1 direction and then wanting to win those fight then yes, only way is to wait few years to gather enough squad sizes from researches to boost your SS, feel free to make new discussion thread about it
but here it is just confusing, its not tournament related and kind of offtopic
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
Anyway.. my intent for posting the image...
i'd prefer people accept and use the Concept of Unwinnable Battles... and not duck behind "All Battles are Winnable"...
Dony's reference to all battes are winnable was to the tournaments, yes that battle you posted is unwinnable, but it's tournamament equivalent would be provincie 37652 or so

Yes of course. INNO announced that the tournament would become easier for players doing less than 2500 points and everything I read here and on the EN forum seems to confirm that. So you can just count how many players fall in that category. I think I remember someone on the EN forum posting the numbers and only around 10% of active tournament players were doing more than 2500 points. I'm not on EN and didn't confirm it myself. But it would fit with the numbers from my own world.
roflol,
Off course the mayjority will benefit form this change. since the mayority doesn't play more than 5 provinces anyway
to be precise those who do not play they tournaments anyway, and those who play little and are in the "I don't spend a penny" range.

The ones who get hurt (not talking about able to do less but simply unable to compete) the most by this change are those that love and play the tournaments, and those that "keep elvenar alive by spending money"

Go figure.
 

MinMax Gamer

Well-Known Member
INNO announced that the tournament would become easier for players doing less than 2500 points and everything I read here and on the EN forum seems to confirm that.
So you're taking Inno's statement as the truth, and corroborate it with some (?) statements from forums that you said are not representative of the playerbase? OK then.

By the way, Inno's announcement originally claimed that difficulty breakeven point is 5K. They also adamantly claimed many other things. You don't have Enar's Embassy, do you? Or do you want to argue that 30 levels of that would somehow outweigh the penalties?
 

ErestorX

Well-Known Member
INNO announced that the tournament would become easier for players doing less than 2500 points and everything I read here and on the EN forum seems to confirm that. So you can just count how many players fall in that category.
No, you have no chance to count how many players fall into that category, you can only count how many cities fall into that category. Only 12,5% (=1) of my cities are currently doing more than 2500 tournament points. But guess what - I am only interested in the one city that does, the other 7 cities will die with that one if I decide to quit playing because I have no place left to put KP without hurting my tournament results.
 
Last edited:

little bee

Well-Known Member
So you're taking Inno's statement as the truth, and corroborate it with some (?) statements from forums that you said are not representative of the playerbase? OK then.

By the way, Inno's announcement originally claimed that difficulty breakeven point is 5K. They also adamantly claimed many other things. You don't have Enar's Embassy, do you? Or do you want to argue that 30 levels of that would somehow outweigh the penalties?
INNO will be gathering data on EN that shows exactly how many players play how many provinces and whether they are doing better since the change or not. I do not have all the data and therefore I am making calculated assumptions based on the informations I do have. If you want to laugh at me because I am assuming that more than 50% of all active tournament players will be doing better, then that is fine. It will not change the data INNO is gathering.

And @CrazyWizard I have absolutely no interest in getting into a discussion about who is the more valuable player. I was just questioning spennyits assumption that 50% of all players would dislike the changes.
I do not believe that any change that benefits a mayority a little is good despite hurting a minority a lot. This has nothing to do with one player being more valuable than another, just with being fair to everyone.

No, you have no chance to count how many players fall into that category, you can only count how many cities fall into that category. Only 12,5% (=1) of my cities are currently doing more than 2500 tournament points. But guess what - I am only interested in the one city that does, the other 7 cities will die with that one if I decide to quit playing because I have no place left to put WP without hurting my tournament results.
O.k. fair point. I am still guessing that a mayority of players does not have one tournament city and multiple small ones. I'm sure that INNO is has data about that, so they should still be able to find out how many players do less than 2500 points.
 
Last edited:

edeba

Well-Known Member
claiming your wonders always benefit you more than they cost is just a pure lie.
The are facts, there are opinions and there are lies, pure lies... What liars tend to do is dress lies up as opinion. What Inno did was dress lies up as facts.

Exponential with exceptions can still be faster than exponential. Take the mana sawmill as an example. It produces 720 Mana in chapter 9. With a perfect exponential growth of 20% per chapter it should give 2580 Mana in chapter 16, but it does in fact give 3500.
That's one way of looking at it... Here's another...
Woodelves
City expansion 36 20k mana required
City expansion 37 37.5k mana required
City expansion 38 45k mana required
Squad size 28 15k mana required
Squad size 29 30k mana required
Squad size 30 30k mana required
Squad size 31 55k mana required
Woodelves style barracks 25k mana required
Woodelves style residences 50k mana required
Mercenary camp improvements 85k mana required
Main hall 40k mana required
AW tech 100k mana required
Street upgrade 90k mana

Sorcerers and Dragons
City expansion 39 60k mana required
City expansion 40 65k mana required
Squad size 32 45k mana required
Squad size 33 50k mana required
Squad size 34 55k mana required
Squad size 35 60k mana required
Sorcerers style residences 80k mana required
Sorcerers style workshops 100k mana required (none require for woodelves ws)
Armories 50k mana required
Main hall 105k mana required
Training grounds 135k mana required
Street upgrade 115k mana required
AW tech 200k mana

Just between these two chapters there is nothing about it that suggests mana increase was in the 20% range and actually for this chapter the mana sawmill increased by about 32%


It seems that customers satisfaction is no more the key to success.
Nope, it is a key to specifically having players quit. I am very annoyed to have lost a very good teammate over this.
 

PaNonymeB

Well-Known Member
There are no unwinable fights in current tournament, but there are unnegotiable encounters, max advanced city province 94, round 1, require 55 mils coins to cater or 5,5 mils supplies and there are players who were doing more then 100 provinces in tournament
So its other way around, catering is very limited compared to fighting
I have two questions about this :
As we're looking at theoretical limits, how much province can someonre scout at most (before having scouting costs higher than MH capacity) ?
Also, how much boosts do you think it would require to fight this far ?

Edit : found out that even with bad enemy setup, battles are winnable at this level with sustainable amount of boosts and all wonders (1 DA, 2 UUU, 2 ELR + Phoenix seems sustainable with lvl 30 timewarp allowing making boosts during for 2 tournaments). Example in attachement.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Dony

King of Bugs
As we're looking at theoretical limits, how much province can someonre scout at most (before having scouting costs higher than MH capacity) ?
I have never cared about how formula for scounting works, but my estimated guess would be around ring 30 now.
Also, how much boosts do you think it would require to fight this far ?
If you can count how many provinces we can open in ring 30, then you can easily find out how many bonuses you need in my spreadsheet
You just need to 1 shot mages with ranger
and 2 shot hm/hr with mages
 

maxiqbert

Well-Known Member
we're drifting away...

Issues that aren't adressed haven't changed for several weeks.
Now we have production from 3 sources, with 3 queues. To make it work, it also means having :
- those 3 troops producing building (space used up to be counted)
- the tools to make them run al the time (space to be counted/AW levels to be counted)
- the 3 corresponding wonders to make them fast enough (90 AW levels , meaning +60? and space used to be counted)

Is someone desperate enough to make the actual calculation to see if the penalties for having all those things is actually making it worse or if you're still better off by having them?
 

little bee

Well-Known Member
Is someone desperate enough to make the actual calculation to see if the penalties for having all those things is actually making it worse or if you're still better off by having them?
No, problem! First, you are already supposed to have those 3 buildings, so I'm not counting that.

Having all 3 wonders at lv. 30 will allow you to train 100% more troops which should be 152 400 at chapter 16 (without a brow bear or Simia). If a single units still costs 14 supplies then this will cost you 2 133 600 supplies. Without culture bonus this would take around 58,5 3h collections from a lv. 37 workshop. Assuming that you do have a culture bonus of at least 150% and are using PoP spells (without Prosperity towers) this would be reduced to 13 3h collections. So an active endgame player should need 2 lv. 37 Workshops. Each of these has a base size of 30 squares and uses 10155 population and 7149 culture. So, using the population/culture values from the hybrids in the pilgramage event, it would have an adjusted size of 46 squares (48 including optimal streets). So you should be able produce the supplies on no more than 4 expansions.
The wonders themselves take up 55 squares, bringing us up to 6 expansions total.

Now, a city at the end of chapter 16 would be expected to have 110 normal expansion. So our 6 expansions will make 5,5% of that.
Multiplying this with the 27% penalty for the 90 wonder levels this will bring the total penalty up to 34%.

But on the other hand you get a 100% increase in troop production, a 40% damadge boost to both LR and LM and 1,5 squads of mages every 3h.
So yes, these wonders will clearly benefit you a lot more than they cost.

@edeba I do not think that INNO is lying. As my example above shows, some wonders do add much more than they cost. INNO probably just didn't compute the penalty with the least usefull wonders in mind. I was hoping that we could send them a suggestion to recalculate the penalty explicitly with the sunset towers in mind. But comments like yours make me worried that some of you are no longer interested in constructive solutions and my suggestion would just get voted down.
 
Last edited:

Heymrdiedier

Well-Known Member
And @CrazyWizard I have absolutely no interest in getting into a discussion about who is the more valuable player. I was just questioning spennyits assumption that 50% of all players would dislike the changes.
I do not believe that any change that benefits a mayority a little is good despite hurting a minority a lot. This has nothing to do with one player being more valuable than another, just with being fair to everyone.
I personally think 80% of the players will like these changes, since 80% is still growing as fast as they can. For those people its probably gonna become easier. The problem is, all those people who like it now, eventually become part of the 20% where the difficulty becomes problematic. So then it becomes a problem. This change pretty much says we don't care about end game players, we only care about the new players, those who reach the end, can just quit, we don't care.

So we like to look at the big picture when changes come, and not only think about our own game (well some do that anyway lol) and when we see its problematic, we say that here. I think thats the point, no? That there is no signal coming back that either proves us wrong or acknowledges it, that just takes it to a whole other level...
 
Last edited:

Karvest

Well-Known Member
So yes, these wonders will clearly benefit you a lot more than they cost.
I don't use light melee, as well as any unit that can be crafted in training ground => still don't have training grounds and victory springs built. May be I build training grounds themselves for cannon fodder, but a very big doubt about victory springs.
 

Heymrdiedier

Well-Known Member
I don't use light melee, as well as any unit that can be crafted in training ground => still don't have training grounds and victory springs built. May be I build training grounds themselves for cannon fodder, but a very big doubt about victory springs.
I build the victory springs in the hopes my light melee would become better, and the scrolls and magic dust tournaments would become easier.
I was very dissapointed, those light melee are still as weak as before, so I regretted building it. But invested too much time and kp in it to tear it down... So i think you made a good decision there.
 

little bee

Well-Known Member
strange assumption
I think it would be strange to assume that a large number of players would not build all 3 buildings, especially now that they can all produce simultaneously. Unless of course they do not fight on principal in which case they also should not build any fighting wonders.

I personally think 80% of the players will like these changes, since 80% is still growing as fast as they can. For those people its probably gonna become easier. The problem is, all those people who like it now, eventually become part of the 20% where the diffuculty becomes problematic. So then it becomes a problem. This change pretty much says we don't care about end game players, we only care about the new players, those we reach the end, can just quit, we don't care.

So we like to look at the big picture when changes come, and not only think about our own game (well some do that anyway lol) and when we see its problematic, we say that here. I think thats the point, no? That there comes no signal that they realise its problematic as well, that just takes it to a whole other level...
Some of these players still growing their cities will not want to stick around after reaching the end or will start over in a new city. And speaking as a small player on the way to eventually becoming an end-game player: If something benefits me during 80% of my playtime than its fine by me.

I am not trying to say that the tournament changes do not need to be fair to hard-core end-gamers just because they are a small minority. Of course they should. I just don't understand your need to argue that you would somehow represent a mayority.
 

maxiqbert

Well-Known Member
I think it would be strange to assume that a large number of players would not build all 3 buildings, especially now that they can all produce simultaneously. Unless of course they do not fight on principal in which case they also should not build any fighting wonders.
it's strange to compare cost and benefit and only consider benefit

Some of these players still growing their cities will not want to stick around after reaching the end or will start over in a new city. And speaking as a small player on the way to eventually becoming an end-game player: If something benefits me during 80% of my playtime than its fine by me.

I am not trying to say that the tournament changes do not need to be fair to hard-core end-gamers just because they are a small minority. Of course they should. I just don't understand your need to argue that you would somehow represent a mayority.
end game players represent 100% of players, except those who stall voluntarily
we consider that it's a bad game design if people do stall voluntarily, or even if there is a legitimate reason to consider it
 
Last edited:

Heymrdiedier

Well-Known Member
end game players represent 100% of players, except those who stall voluntarily
we consider that it's a bad game design if people do stall voluntarily, or even if there is a legitimate reason to consider it
funnily enough its exactly what I'm doing with one of my accounts, Im actually having quite some fun with that account, and I find it hard to explain why i deliberatly stopped in research tree, while everyone wants you to keep going. For me its simple if i keep going in tech tree, i need more goods, more hammers and basically more time, to be able to have the same enjoyment. So its not worth it. I like tournament and spire as a small players quite a bit, since costs are so rediculously small compared to extremely high they are for my main big account (where I do invest much time in)
 

little bee

Well-Known Member
it's strange to compare cost and benefit and only consider benefit
Well, I was comparing the cost and befits of building the 3 wonders. I thoght it was obvious, that doubling the training speed of a building would only make sense if you actually had that building. But apparantly we have different definitions of was is obvious and what is strange. Let me more precise: Whether or not the 3 training buildings and their corresponding wonders are worth building depends on your playing style. In particulary on whether or not you are going to fight with any of their units. If you are only going to use troops from the mercinary camp then you still need to build the barracks, but you should not train any units in them and you should not build the needles. Unless of course you want to have the needles.
If, however, you do have any of the training buildings and you are training in them at all times and you are also planning to actually fight with them, then my calculation above shows that building the wonders will increase your troop production compared to your tournament squadsize.

end game players represent 100% of players, except those who stall voluntarily
Seriously? You have never played a game without finishing it? You have never played a game and then stopped after finishing it? You have never heard of someone else doing that? Even if that is true, you can not possibly claim that 100% of all players are end game players at 100% of the time.
 

maxiqbert

Well-Known Member
Well, I was comparing the cost and befits of building the 3 wonders. I thoght it was obvious, that doubling the training speed of a building would only make sense if you actually had that building. But apparantly we have different definitions of was is obvious and what is strange. Let me more precise: Whether or not the 3 training buildings and their corresponding wonders are worth building depends on your playing style. In particulary on whether or not you are going to fight with any of their units. If you are only going to use troops from the mercinary camp then you still need to build the barracks, but you should not train any units in them and you should not build the needles. Unless of course you want to have the needles.
If, however, you do have any of the training buildings and you are training in them at all times and you are also planning to actually fight with them, then my calculation above shows that building the wonders will increase your troop production compared to your tournament squadsize.


Seriously? You have never played a game without finishing it? You have never played a game and then stopped after finishing it? You have never heard of someone else doing that? Even if that is true, you can not possibly claim that 100% of all players are end game players at 100% of the time.
Are you totally out of your mind?
1) you argued that having the 3 buildings was obvious, well guess what, it isn't, So not considering the space they occupy isn't very rigorous.
2) what I do or did or may do isn't relevant to the game design. A game is supposed to be designed to lead you to go further in it, not make you back away from progress. In this particular game, you get a score which is supposed to show your progress. So, I guess the game design isn't thought to induce you to stall.
 
Last edited: