DeletedUser3289
Guest
Sounds eerie, but if I manage 1 da per week, throwing my mm to rubbles might benefit my city more
I object the change
if Inno keep their statement "allow you to fight with bigger armies, which make your fight easier"
keep our army size increase squad size tech
and
Lock enemy army size back to squad-size 1
that is the only change we want " INNO keep your words as your statement in squad size tech"
"Easy" being a relative term, since some of us would have to replay chapters, including getting the Amuni portal to level 4 without being able to use portal profits.One easy way out of the discrepancies was to make all squad size researches mandatory, giving some time so players can get the necessary KPs for research and voilà, everybody should be on the same foot.
I've made awild speculationanalysis commentary on the incoming changes (and forum comments) for my FS. Instead of typing in a bunch of text that will be obsolete very soon, I decided to make a couple of videos which are really podcasts (e.g. there is not much to see there, you may just listen to it while doing other things). I go through the announcement and some forum comments, and provide my initial reaction. I figured some other people may also find it useful
Since this is a side effect of the tournament changes and actually a stand-alone issue, I've created a suggestion to change those requirements. If this would impact you (or you just agree on principle) feel free to chime in there."Easy" being a relative term, since some of us would have to replay chapters, including getting the Amuni portal to level 4 without being able to use portal profits.
There are a lot of wonders that add nothing to either the tournaments nor the spire, yet they still add difficulty to those parts of the game.
Just how "usefull" is for example the spire library? how does some KP and ranking points benefit you in any way shape or form?
Yet why does it add difficulty?
About you playing the devil's advocate with the including premium expansions in the difficulty, although partially you are correct, I still see this as a big issue. It's safe to assume that the players willing to do a cost-benefit analysis (with the actual formula being unavailable to the players btw, although I'm pretty sure that you'll manage to reverse-ingineer it) before buying an expansion are a minority. And the much more often use-case with buying an expansion is just fitting some beautiful event buildings or running ot of space because of the lack of the optimization skill. So mostly this change would be just punishing players for not willing or being able to use space with the maximum efficiency. Besides even players that do optimize their cities for the tournament efficiency are suddenly getting much less value of the money they've already spent on the extra space, which also doesn't exactly add to the desire to spend more money on this game.made awild speculationanalysis commentary on the incoming changes (and forum comments) for my FS. Instead of typing in a bunch of text that will be obsolete very soon, I decided to make a couple of videos which are really podcasts (e.g. there is not much to see there, you may just listen to it while doing other things). I go through the announcement and some forum comments, and provide my initial reaction. I figured some other people may also find it useful
It's not required watching. And MinMax did say more of a podcast. What is the upside to criticizing something someone else put effort into at no cost to you?Two hours of video? You did say just listen as background while doing something, but seriously, most posts can be skimmed in under a minute.
Much less value comparing to what though? It's comparing to "what could have been" We don't get less value for the space that we've got - the space is still there just like before. As the whole formula (both for Spire and tournament) is new, there is nothing to benchmark against. It's not like there was no premium expansions in calculations, and now there is. Remember, if you've got +1 premium expansion, you still have more space than someone who doesn't. Or if you have the same number of expansions as someone else but you have more premiums, then you will have better time in the Spire, all other things being the same. That's not exactly penalizing.the tournament efficiency are suddenly getting much less value of the money they've already spent on the extra space
Well, it's almost certainly not as much of a penalty as the advantage of the extra square, but it is a cost to the expansions which is being imposed after the fact, and therefore is retroactively imposing a negative effect on the calculation of value of the purchase.Much less value comparing to what though? It's comparing to "what could have been" We don't get less value for the space that we've got - the space is still there just like before. As the whole formula (both for Spire and tournament) is new, there is nothing to benchmark against. It's not like there was no premium expansions in calculations, and now there is. Remember, if you've got +1 premium expansion, you still have more space than someone who doesn't. Or if you have the same number of expansions as someone else but you have more premiums, then you will have better time in the Spire, all other things being the same. That's not exactly penalizing.
Spending money isn't going to make it harder to play, it's just making it not as much easier as it used to be. Still kind of the equivalent of a bait-and-switch, but the game is easier for having bought those expansions. Not as much easier as before, but not harder than if you hadn't spent the diamonds.Elvenar is the only game where players who invest money in the game are punished. First the spire, now the tournament (probably?). Are you kidding?
I will not invest in a game where my money will make it harder for me to play.
Spending money isn't going to make it harder to play, it's just making it not as much easier as it used to be. Still kind of the equivalent of a bait-and-switch, but the game is easier for having bought those expansions. Not as much easier as before, but not harder than if you hadn't spent the diamonds.
It has to be your choice, of course, but a single expansion adds significantly to production (whether goods or troops or culture or population) It should more than make up for a slight shift in difficulty.It all depends on the rating. If I had known in advance that spending MY money would complicate the process for me , I would not have spent it. My extensions were bought before the era of wells, then they really increased my potential. Now this is not the case, if I buy an extension and get 1-5% efficiency, I will not spend money on it. Because it's not worth it. And I perceive such changes as a punishment for my spending money.
It has to be your choice, of course, but a single expansion adds significantly to production (whether goods or troops or culture or population) It should more than make up for a slight shift in difficulty.
I think what you're referring to is a rather unavoidable feature of a persistent world game such as Elvenar. Here, many choices are fixed in the past (sometimes years ago, and sometimes made with real money), so introducing any changes to such setup invariably leads to reassessing those choices, and quite often regretting some. And in many cases those choices you cannot revert without restarting with a new city. So unless developers decide to keep the game completely static for years and years, that's just how it will work. Unless all the changes that they're introducing are strictly non-negative for ALL the players. Which is unlikelyWell, it's almost certainly not as much of a penalty as the advantage of the extra square, but it is a cost to the expansions which is being imposed after the fact, and therefore is retroactively imposing a negative effect on the calculation of value of the purchase.