• 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)

spennyit

Well-Known Member
You forgot that troops from mercenary camp are more valuable than the rest. So let me offer you a bargain: You give me 76 100 Dollar bills, I give you 82 50 dollar bills. Would you tell me that you made a good deal because you got more notes???
No, but if you give me 76 100$ bills + 20 50$ bills +20 10$ bills (i.e. 3 queues) I will be happier ;-)
 

Karvest

Well-Known Member
Effect of expansions and AW levels have on tournaments and spire + overall increased demand of units. And latter is there even if you don't build all 3 facilities with all appropriate AWs, just for possibility to do that. =(
 
Last edited:

spennyit

Well-Known Member
Effect of expansions and AW levels have on tournaments and spire + overall increased demand of units. And latter is there even if you don't build all 3 facilities with all appropriate AWs, just for possibility to do that. =(
This "tax" is there if you have 3 queues or not, so it does not seem appropriate in this example: 3 queues are better in any case, may be just a little, but still better :) This does not change the "bad" evaluation of the new formula and the steepness of enemy troops growth :)
 

Karvest

Well-Known Member
First part of tax depends on your city build, full use of all 3 queues require building of all 3 types of barracks, upgrading all 3 AWs and producing more supplies for them = occupy more expansions and raise your AW levels = increase costs in tourney and spire.
Second - yes, introduced by Inno. For me if they wanted to make tourneys easier - it would be better if they just lowered costs (adjusted a single variable in spire/tourney formula) instead forcing us to train more cannon fodder...
 

galrond

Well-Known Member
First part of tax depends on your city build, full use of all 3 queues require building of all 3 types of barracks, upgrading all 3 AWs and producing more supplies for them = occupy more expansions and raise your AW levels = increase costs in tourney and spire.
Second - yes, introduced by Inno. For me if they wanted to make tourneys easier - it would be better if they just lowered costs (adjusted a single variable in spire/tourney formula) instead forcing us to train more cannon fodder...
Noboby is forcing you to build cannon fodder. If you don´t want the troops, then don´t build them.
Being able to have 3 simultanious building ques, is NOT the same, as you must have 3 simultanious building ques :rolleyes:
 

Ainor

Well-Known Member
it's not mandatory to use all three queue all the time.. it's an opportunity that can be exploited when it's more useful, f.e. when supplies' storage is full or when feeding effect of brown bear is active ;)
 

ErestorX

Well-Known Member
No, but if you give me 76 100$ bills + 20 50$ bills +20 10$ bills (i.e. 3 queues) I will be happier ;-)

The corresponding elvenar question was if building victory springs was worth it in the new system or not. The 3 queues exist with or without it.
 

Karvest

Well-Known Member
it's not mandatory to use all three queue all the time.. it's an opportunity that can be exploited when it's more useful, f.e. when supplies' storage is full or when feeding effect of brown bear is active ;)
Fighting is also an opportunity that can be exploited when you want higher results in tournament, but you can cater-only...
 

spennyit

Well-Known Member
The corresponding elvenar question was if building victory springs was worth it in the new system or not. The 3 queues exist with or without it.
You quoted: "504h of boosters would still leave the production boost above the penalty." and your answer was: "You forgot that troops from mercenary camp are more valuable than the rest."
So:
- there is no victory spring relationship (they don't affect MC)
- although I agree that MC troops are the best, having additional "almost free" troops is better: you can use your strategy as per 1 queue, but you can also use additional "cannon fodders" :) I see it as an opportunity: it does not solve the problems, but can help in mitigating (maybe you can do one more province than without them).
 

DeletedUser1953

Guest
You forgot that troops from mercenary camp are more valuable than the rest. So let me offer you a bargain: You give me 76 100 Dollar bills, I give you 82 50 dollar bills. Would you tell me that you made a good deal because you got more notes???
It is not the case, some barrack unit (paladin/priest/golem) are often better. Your remark is only valid for end player because 3 star troop and training speed is more important.

I am glad that the KP gain from tournament is being drastically reduced. I have never even played to province 20, but it still felt like I was getting to many KP. I have in fact stalled my game on live. Not because I was afraid of damaging my tournament score, but because it felt like I was moving to fast. I want to be able to see my city grow slowly and enjoy the architecture of each new race before moving on to the next.
I finally understand. The problem is for top 50/100 players, it is a massive nerf, sure if your target is 1.6/2k, it is mainly a bonus (! cost mana/orc & random).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3039

Guest
I just want to say thank you to all those who are still trying to convey to INNO that the new tournaments are not balanced for players with a high level of development. Many of the players who are not satisfied with these changes do not have enough time for discussions on the forum or knowledge of the English language. Thank you for defending an adequate position ;)
 

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
we'll be able to get a better view on the actual status and things like impact on resource stocks in the long term and stuff like that. When everyone has a lot of resources in stock, they'll probably cater provinces more easily than when these stocks get less, and the same goes for unit productions.
How does inno measure this?
Will they look at progress each week and see if there is a downward slope to a plateau? (Result)
or
Will they monitor stockpiles by measuring #of squads and resources to see what's sustainable (Cause)

Either should work, (with both being obviously better) I'm more just curious about how much data mining they do and how deep it goes.
Obviously I don't expect this level of data to be shared with us, but how great would it be to see :

"In the first week on EN1 players had 7.2b resources and 2.5m squads. This dropped by 7%&11% after 7 days, and another 6%&9% the following 7 days... After 28 days the numbers started to rise by 0.2% again as expected with an ever-expanding/advancing population indicating we've reached sustainable levels.
This has also coincided with a 31% drop in total tournament scores across the server, but with a 13% increase in the number of FS reaching the 10th tournament chest"
 

Heymrdiedier

Well-Known Member
How does inno measure this?
Will they look at progress each week and see if there is a downward slope to a plateau? (Result)
or
Will they monitor stockpiles by measuring #of squads and resources to see what's sustainable (Cause)

Either should work, (with both being obviously better) I'm more just curious about how much data mining they do and how deep it goes.
Obviously I don't expect this level of data to be shared with us, but how great would it be to see :

"In the first week on EN1 players had 7.2b resources and 2.5m squads. This dropped by 7%&11% after 7 days, and another 6%&9% the following 7 days... After 28 days the numbers started to rise by 0.2% again as expected with an ever-expanding/advancing population indicating we've reached sustainable levels.
This has also coincided with a 31% drop in total tournament scores across the server, but with a 13% increase in the number of FS reaching the 10th tournament chest"
you really expect something so clear as an answer? You realise you're talking to someone who has been giving us the silent treatment for at least 2 years now?
 
Top