• 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)

ErestorX

Well-Known Member
I know plenty of players who get big scores in tournies and they either cater the occasioanal province or cater heavily in spire.

If you have 2 firephoenixes or one and a few brown bears and you are using the boosters you win in the spire for troop production, you don't need to cater at all even if you play more than 80 provinces on average.
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
Considering 100% trading is a niche build what would you expect? Why is it a niche build? Look at our towns and quests and what buildings we can't delete, it is obvious we are meant to have both approaches for a balanced town. Could be wrong but have a feeling that having both has been mentioned sometime in the past. You do realise with the new system 1,600 pts can be done by combat with minimal losses compared to a caterer who has to pay for every round?

The point Dony was making is you can lose half your army in a single fight now with a bad match-up. You don't lose 50-100% of your goods on a bad cater. Both areas need to be reasonable so players can choose the best approach for they play style and skill. Both catering and combat has received numerous comments for adjustment in the new system.

I like the scaling difficulty I think it brings back a skill challenge but I do believe they need to address the rate of increasing difficulty and the massive squad sizes. If they had done one of those there would have bee a lot less complaining, still plenty but less. However they chose to take a double hammer and miscalculated the chest levels based on the new high scores. Not the first time they have done that so we will see what the adjustments are.

In terms of 500kp for free that's impressive, did you track those costs, gut feel, or just exaggerating for towns who put out dozens of temp buildings on the easiest tournaments? While I never tracked my KP from tournies I did track losses and losing 500-1,000 squads was common depending on the tourny and temp buildings. I know plenty of players who get big scores in tournies and they either cater the occasioanal province or cater heavily in spire. Only people I have seen who combat spire and tourny either get "low" scores on tourny or they are a couple people on the forum. To me that shows that combat only is not not combat only, many players pay the price to have to cater spire as a result.

There is some benefit to the change to even up the tournaments, so we don't see the wild swings in losses and scores, but it sadly comes at a price of making learning combat harder for new players, opposite of one of their goals. Hard for a new player to learn combat on world map when they face impossible squad size difficulties, different compositions to tournaments and the tournaments they do face basically cant be lost. So no learning what units to use against what.

Gain ~800KP
Loss ~1400 Units ( ~700 production hours aka 4.1 weeks to replace with a max sapiens and max lvl 35 booster
Using +100-125% HP boosters + depending on tournament mage and or archer boosters.

So yeah it ain't cheap nor easy lol
 

galrond

Well-Known Member
Considering everything that has been said and my experience as dwarf in a FS on beta plus as elvenar in a FS live I must say that I have mixed feelings.
On beta I play in a FS that is not that great in tournaments and with a lot of smaller players. But, in the new system we managed to gain 10 chests by accident. It was not planned, nobody was trying, it just happened. That was a first. Before we were trying but did not succeed. So, for a mediocre FS the new system is great.
Live I play in a top FS with several top tournament players. And I fear that the new tournament system will hit some of our top players hard. They did extand with premium expansions and they have a lot of well filled AW's. We are a 10 chest and golden spire FS and we really like to stay that way. It has been a lot of hard work to come this far. Also among other reasons: because it takes a lot of guts just to go for it.
I think it is not right to implement a new tournament system that hits hard on top players who did a lot to become top players and at the same time is nice to mediocre players who are usualy either casual players or just not very good in tournaments. It must be possible to rethink the maths and maybe be a little less nice on mediocre players (who might not even care) and take more care off our top players.

Adding this later: And also: a lot of top players are in a FS with different kind of players, they play a big role not only in tournaments that benefits a FS as a whole but also as examples, tutors and coaches for new members.
I do think, that they are making it too hard to score big in tournament, if you have a well developed city.
I´ve heard "you´re just jealous of the big players", many times when someone has written something not in sync with most posts. Sometimes it might be true, but this is the first time someone admit to be jealous of the small players. Neither is pretty :rolleyes:
 

galrond

Well-Known Member
Update, we can even face 5 classes at the same time with highest attack ranges

View attachment 7678

View attachment 7679
I dont know maybe i am missing something, but can any mobile user tell me how they will combat this?
If devs really desperatelly wants to have 2+ mistwalkers, then they should be banned from composition of 4 classes
The problem is, that there are more than 3 classes in an encounter. Not that there are 2 identical troops.
 

spennyit

Well-Known Member
If you have 2 firephoenixes or one and a few brown bears and you are using the boosters you win in the spire for troop production, you don't need to cater at all even if you play more than 80 provinces on average.

@ErestorX, double Fire Phoenix and few Brown Bears are very few cases in real worlds (if any). They can simply say: "just 1 Fire Phoenix and 1 Brown Bear will be considered". Really easy :) "Normal Active Players" have one of both and, not always, can put on of each "tree" every week (it is not that the Academy gives us a lot of chances to get those trees every week). This should be the target together with casual players. To address very few "Super Powered Players" by nerfing all "Normal Active Players" it is not a good idea, IMHO. BTW, I do 4,3k points every week (5-6 stars in first 16 provinces and 2 stars up to 30° province) and a total of 216 KPs. This costs me form 50 (Elixir) to 270 (Gems) squads, 1650 squads in 9 tournaments. The Spire is a completely different beast and I cannot do it without some catering :-(
 

spennyit

Well-Known Member
I do think, that they are making it too hard to score big in tournament, if you have a well developed city.

@galrond, I don't agree with you: it's already difficult in real worlds that we don't need it to become more difficult :-( Tournaments losses sum up to Spire losses which is already more difficult than Tournaments. Not all "Normal Active Players" are here since the beginning (I have being playing the game since mid October 2017) and not all "Normal Active Players" have high level AWs (mine are 7-8 level on average): we have not had the time to develop yet and it seems INNO will not give us the time (already chapter 16 has taken away thousands of KPs from AWs development) :-(

Ther are definitely at least 3 kinds of players:
- "Super Powered Players": they should be addressed with easy ad hoc solutions to "level them down a bit" maintaining the competitiveness among themselves;
- "Normal Active Players": they should be incentivaded in continuing their good job in learning the different aspects of the game and developing their city without any unuseful nerfing;
- "Casual/Beginners Players": their game should be simplified so they continue to play or start the long path of becomimg "Normal Active Players". If the problem is that they don't get Blueprints, give it to them not only through tournaments; if they need to train in combat, give them a way to train (I am always sad that I cannot analyse post mortem a combat that was strange to me and have the chance to replay it with a different formation. I have not the time to do anything else than fast auto-fight and, when a combat is done, you cannot resee/replay it (not to alter the result, but just to learn. Another BIG issue is that you have no way to know the terrain in advance expecially for app only players)).

I hope that @Marindor has the time to read all comments :)
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser2713

Guest
I have a city on the French server in the era 16 that makes 16K in the tournament every week only by fighting and a city on the beta in the era of orcs that made (before the modification of the tournament) 3.5K in the tournament every week only by negotiating

Is it normal that this week at 2 players of my fellowship we will make 40K of points in the tournament: NO
Is it normal that I win 650 PC in individual each week in the tournament for 7 months: NO

It was therefore necessary to modify the tournaments and lower the highest scores which, thanks to the individual winnings of PC, spells and runes, ended up making the game without challenge for these players, and give the impression to new players that they will never be able to catch up with these players.

A score of 8K maximum in the tournament seems to me something reasonable for the most hardcore players


The positive:

Going from 4 to 1 fight per province is rather good because it saves time for negotiations, but for combatants it takes longer to do 1 fight in manual rather than 4 in automatic
Making the 1600 points much easier for all players is also a good thing ……….. provided you don’t realize in 1 year that too much brotherhood is coming to the 10 safes and finally decide to move the plan to the 14 or 15 safes
Putting the growing difficulty in the provinces is also a good thing, currently the only thing that allows to choose the best players is the number of provinces explored, it will make competition between these players, on the other hand a slightly less rapid increase in difficulty might be to see because the fights become impossible to win too soon


The negative:

The formula for calculating the base squad size needs to be completely reviewed. You wanted to remove the 1:2 gap that might exist between players having or not unlocked squad sizes not required, and with this system of calculation you have put gaps of 1 to 3 see more between the players by penalizing the players who have allowed to live the game since its beginnings

You said you wanted to make it unnecessary for players to voluntarily stay stuck in the lower ages, and with this new system my city in the 16 era will go from 16K to 6K a week and my city on the voluntarily blocked beta to the orcs has gone from 3.5K to 5.5K every week. My 2 cities will thus have the same level in the tournament while I spend 10 times more time on the game with my city of the 16 era. I think there’s a problem here, right?


In conclusion there are positive things in this new tournament, but the negative points are so important and detrimental to the players that they erase any benefit to this change.
 

Aeva

Well-Known Member
I do think, that they are making it too hard to score big in tournament, if you have a well developed city.
I´ve heard "you´re just jealous of the big players", many times when someone has written something not in sync with most posts. Sometimes it might be true, but this is the first time someone admit to be jealous of the small players. Neither is pretty :rolleyes:
I have no clue were you read I am jealous. I am not. I explained how different the new system works for different players. And I stated that that should not be the case. Besides I have several cities, small and big.
 

ErestorX

Well-Known Member
They can simply say: "just 1 Fire Phoenix and 1 Brown Bear will be considered". ... To address very few "Super Powered Players" by nerfing all "Normal Active Players" it is not a good idea, IMHO.

Concerning balancing between chapters I agree, it should be done taking into account the same number of phoenixes (and brownbears, but that is a minor issue) for everybody. And that number should be 1 or 0.

But the discussion started with the advantages fighting has over catering. Even without firephoenixes and brown bears the power of fighting increases much faster than that of catering both in the old and the new system. As far as I know Inno wants fighting to be significantly stronger than catering and that is fine with me. But it is true that firephoenixes (and to a lesser extent brown bears) have increased the advantages of fighting end gamers way too far. On live I am currently averaging more than 18K with only 1 firephoenix and without catering at all. And while doing that I do not need to spend all my time boosters from the tower but can either save some boosters for later or use them to increase the number of my provinces.

Inno had to do something about this and increasing the difficulty of fights in higher provinces is the best way I can think of. On the other hand abusing the troop size formula to penalyze endgamers in a way that can be overcome only with firephoenix and brown bear (and in some cases deletion of wonders and in the future by building smaller cities) is definitely the wrong approach to deal with this problem.
 
Last edited:

spennyit

Well-Known Member
On live I am currently averaging more than 18K with only 1 firephoenix and without catering at all. And while doing that I do not need to spend all my time boosters from the tower but can either save some boosters for later or use them to increase the number of my provinces.

Great!!!! Can you let us know how? I am really struggling to get 4,3k :-( Maybe the main difference is your AW levels ;-) I have had not the time to up them :-( BTW, I am an "end gamer", but a quite different type from you (and from Benito1, for what he writes) :) If they are "penalize" me as you, I think it will be unfair and it will be unfair to all other players whe they get to my condition ("weak end gamer").
 
Last edited:

ErestorX

Well-Known Member
Can you let us know how?

4 brown bears is probably the main difference but you are right, I have some useful wonders as well. I also have a player in my live fellowship who joined us about 18 month ago. At that point in time his city was very much like you describe yours, now he is averaging more than 18K in tournaments as well. I do not think this is unfair in general it is just that the difference is way bigger than it should be. And this difference will shrink with the new system of increasing difficulty in higher provinces.
 

Heymrdiedier

Well-Known Member
I have tried it so you dont need to, i have removed all buffs and even enemy units moved horribly
Im not 100% sure, but i feel like you might have been able to win that fight with rangers. with their -defense debuff, that should give a little advantage.
 

PaNonymeB

Well-Known Member
I have tried it so you dont need to, i have removed all buffs and even enemy units moved horribly
With such a difference between enemy and own squad size I'd never fight anyway except very good setups... what this isn't.
 

maxiqbert

Well-Known Member
IMHO, @Dony regular LR would have done better.

About the tournament, I think 3 big issues need to be addressed. Some other may be addressed too, but with a lesser priority.

1) squad size formula isn't good. This needs to be clear. There is no way around by tweaking it. This formula just needs to be dropped, and something else needs to be found. This is also true in the spire, by the way.
2) the difficulty growth is too steep. IMHO you shouldn't face numerical superiority before province 15 on the first round. This gives those with several phoenixes a too big advantage over us without.
And the squad size growth is too steep too. a week's production on the battlefield isn't reasonable. This gives those with several brown bears a too big advantage.
3) the tournaments really need to be different from one week to the next in a foreseeable way. This is one of the pleasant things, helps build a fellowship's cooperation and gives people a sense of achievement.

other issues :
- mana and orcs shouldn't be demanded in the "next" chapter. At least +2 chapters to give players some time to build up production.
- proportions between gold/tools/orcs/mana/ tradable resources needs to be reviewed.
- quite often, when you finish your fight (more so when you cater i think), you don't get or at least don't see the rewards.
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
Concerning balancing between chapters I agree, it should be done taking into account the same number of phoenixes (and brownbears, but that is a minor issue) for everybody. And that number should be 1 or 0.

But the discussion started with the advantages fighting has over catering. Even without firephoenixes and brown bears the power of fighting increases much faster than that of catering both in the old and the new system. As far as I know Inno wants fighting to be significantly stronger than catering and that is fine with me. But it is true that firephoenixes (and to a lesser extent brown bears) have increased the advantages of fighting end gamers way too far. On live I am currently averaging more than 18K with only 1 firephoenix and without catering at all. And while doing that I do not need to spend all my time boosters from the tower but can either save some boosters for later or use them to increase the number of my provinces.

Inno had to do something about this and increasing the difficulty of fights in higher provinces is the best way I can think of. On the other hand abusing the troop size formula to penalyze endgamers in a way that can be overcome only with firephoenix and brown bear (and in some cases deletion of wonders and in the future by building smaller cities) is definitely the wrong approach to deal with this problem.

And how many bears?
Unless you are talking about steel tournament since you can play that one "lossless"
18K per week on auto without multiple bears is not possible
 

spennyit

Well-Known Member
BTW, can somebody let me know why "you all" think that steel is the easiest tournament while for me elixir is by large the easiest (50% losses than steel) and planks the 2nd easiest (which is "identical" to steel, but in steel I use also the "LR tree" which I don't need in planks)?
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
BTW, can somebody let me know why "you all" think that steel is the easiest tournament while for me elixir is by large the easiest (50% losses than steel and planks which are "identical" to me)?

Steel has a option to play without losses in manual mode.
If you boost mages and light range sufficient it's very easy to do manually

Originally it was also the "easiest" tournament for all races.
Elixer has became "easy" with the now unlocked frog prince, + phoenix. so this "easy" part only counts if you are at that stage in the game.
Try battling elixer with mortars and 1 or 2 star frog princes and you will end up crying instead of calling it "easy"
 

DeletedUser2803

Guest
In terms of 500kp for free that's impressive, did you track those costs
Elixir tournament. 1 fire phonix. 5 Frogs in every battle. Single losses no matter how many provinces you do.
Other tournaments are a little bit ahrder but still I can easily keep up with the losses without using any brown bear, time boosters or anything else. Just regular production of troops in barracks.
 
Top