• Good day, Stranger! — Are you new to our forums?

    Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!

Are They Making the Tournaments Harder?

FieryArien

Necromancer
This is very interesting thread and I’m closely watching it to gain some insight.

I do notice significant difference between my two cities. My main is in Woodelves and my young one hasn’t reached guest races yet. Here’s what I see in recent tournament:
- In early provinces my older city has significantly harder enemy setup. While the young city gets a lot of fights consisting of just light ranged+melee units which can be both taken down by heavy ranged unit, my older city almost always gets also heavy melee unit(s) in the mix.
- On the other hand, my 3* units in the older city are usually able to handle these mixed fights in early provinces effectively even on auto-fight (app-player here!).
- Also the higher provinces feature units with up to 3* and there my young city with 1-2* units has no chance to win (or win reasonably), so the easier early provinces might be a balancing act.

My personal conclusion, how I FEEL this (since I don’t provide any math to back up my conclusion) is:
- The tournaments DO GET HARDER AS MY CITY ADVANCES. However, I’m also getting better by adding stars to my units. After that I should be getting better by utilizing Training Grounds/Mercenary Camp units (once they upgrade a star or two). I should also be getting better by utilizing some wonders to improve my troops effectiveness. The game seems to be expecting it from me in order to improve/keep my tournament performance.
- On the other hand, I don’t believe tournaments would get harder if I stayed put and stopped developing my city altogether.

PS: CleverAngel777, I don’t think the other people are trying to attack you. They might have different priorities (but they are clear about their point of view) and they are backing up their claims with math and experiences. You are not forced to follow their advice. However, others can, if they want. Personally, I’d like to hear why your strategy is better, because I failed to notice or failed to understand your priorities so far. (That’s where is boils down to: game priorities and style.)
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
This is very interesting thread and I’m closely watching it to gain some insight
@CleverAngel777 this is why @Killiak and I are pushing a little harder than we would if it was just the 3 of us in a conversation. This thread has over 900 views, which means at least a few other players are reading it.
Where have I disputed this fact? The only thing I said, that it doesn't align with my strategy.
You have stated that your strategy involves not having a Shrewdy Shrooms, but having 3 armories instead.
Could you please share your strategy with us? (and by "us" I mean everyone who might ever read this thread)
I ask because I can not think of one, and I even designed a calculator to test it.(LINK)
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
PS: CleverAngel777, I don’t think the other people are trying to attack you. They might have different priorities (but they are clear about their point of view) and they are backing up their claims with math and experiences. You are not forced to follow their advice. However, others can, if they want. Personally, I’d like to hear why your strategy is better, because I failed to notice or failed to understand your priorities so far. (That’s where is boils down to: game priorities and style.)

You have stated that your strategy involves not having a Shrewdy Shrooms, but having 3 armories instead.
Could you please share your strategy with us? (and by "us" I mean everyone who might ever read this thread)
I ask because I can not think of one, and I even designed a calculator to test it.(LINK)

Being accused of not listening, having a rant, pushed to play differently and criticising my city is a personal attack.

I put a lot of time and effort to be as accurate as I can and provide good information so other players can choose the right strategy that is perfect for them because not everything that is accepted as correct in this forum is correct. I see more and more players being stuck in low chapters for a very long time, there's a need for a better advice. If my only reward is being attacked why should I be spending more time on helping and sharing my knowledge and strategies? Where's appreciation and thank you?
 

FieryArien

Necromancer
Being accused of not listening, having a rant, pushed to play differently and criticising my city is a personal attack.

I put a lot of time and effort to be as accurate as I can and provide good information so other players can choose the right strategy that is perfect for them because not everything that is accepted as correct in this forum is correct. I see more and more players being stuck in low chapters for a very long time, there's a need for a better advice. If my only reward is being attacked why should I be spending more time on helping and sharing my knowledge and strategies? Where's appreciation and thank you?

If I offended you by the PS I wrote, I’m truly sorry. My interest in your priorities was genuine, though. I’d be interested to understand WHY your strategy is better for you. It’s right in the section you quoted, but you probably missed it:

(...) Personally, I’d like to hear why your strategy is better, because I failed to notice or failed to understand your priorities so far. (That’s where is boils down to: game priorities and style.)

EDIT: Even “I don’t want this or that ugly building in my city ever!” is a valid reason. As well as “I like the challenge of playing without wonders”. However, such a city design can’t be sold to others as the best. It’s only the best for the like-minded people and any advice based on such design should include this disclaimer.
 
Last edited:

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
not everything that is accepted as correct in this forum is correct.
Totally true, that's why we have to show proof if we are going to share our information with others.
criticising my city is a personal attack.
I hope you aren't referring to anything I said, because if pointing out a slight inefficiency in your city as an example while offering an easy to implement improvement is "a personal attack", then I think you need to do some soul-searching.
why should I be spending more time on helping and sharing my knowledge and strategies?
No one is forcing you to share half of your ideas, but if you make a claim I think everyone would find it helpful if you were willing to explain how you have reached your conclusions.
Where's appreciation and thank you?
For what? I'm really not trying to be mean here, but I don't think you've explained anything in full in this thread yet, and so I'm not sure what players may have gained from reading your posts that they should be thanking you for.
I don't recall you thanking me for taking the time to explain and prove to you over multiple posts in multiple ways that taking optional SS techs is bad.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser7733

Guest
@SoggyShorts Thank you for more personal attacks. haha

No one is forcing you to share half of your ideas, but if you make a claim I think everyone would find it helpful if you were willing to explain how you have reached your conclusions.

I think that I made enough posts to explain what I'm saying (this thread is a proof).

For what? I'm really not trying to be mean here, but I don't think you've explained anything in full in this thread yet, and so I'm not sure what players may have gained from reading your posts that they should be thanking you for.
I don't recall you thanking me for taking the time to explain and prove to you over multiple posts in multiple ways that taking optional SS techs is bad.

Players gained correct information from my posts that I spend my time on and corrected others that claimed that their information was correct while it was not mathematically sound and inconsistent. If this is not appreciated or wanted, I'm happy to stop. But as you can see others (including yourself) want to know more and want me to spend more time on sharing and explaining my views. Why should I do it? To get more personal attacks?
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
@SoggyShorts Thank you for more personal attacks. haha
I think that I made enough posts to explain what I'm saying (this thread is a proof).
Players gained correct information from my posts that I spend my time on and corrected others that claimed that their information was correct while it was not mathematically sound and inconsistent. If this is not appreciated or wanted, I'm happy to stop. But as you can see others (including yourself) want to know more and want me to spend more time on sharing and explaining my views. Why should I do it? To get more personal attacks?
Wow. None of what you just posted is true.

  • @Killiak and I have both stated that having the SSS is superior to every other strategy we have found.
  • You stated that not having the SSS works for your strategy.
  • I asked what your strategy and how it is better off without the SSS.
  • You have not shared that information.

This is why you have not been thanked for your contribution. We have learned nothing from your claim, and I suspect that it is in fact untrue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dr.nYo

Adventurer
:confused: Seriously, this went in totally opposite direction...CleverAngel you should really take a deep breath and re-read this thread slowly.
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
:confused: Seriously, this went in totally opposite direction...CleverAngel you should really take a deep breath and re-read this thread slowly.

Wow, the hits keep coming!

Here's the posts just in case anyone's wondering, I had to copy them as it didn't like quotes withing quotes (there's also many more posts if you care to read them):

I try to explain it more clearly. First, please tell me which calculation is right because it's different in your two posts and that's why I'm confused.


your SS is 1000
round 3 is 15% enemy boost
province #2 is 20/2=10 so 10% your size
1000x(1+0.15)x0.1=1150
your enemies SS will be 1,150 vs your 1,000

Let's say SS 1,000 for easy numbers

Province #10 in round 5 would be
prov 10*5% = 50%, so you bring 500 troops.
round 5 is +45% so the enemy brings 500*1.45 = 725
Your 500 vs the enemy 725.
Good chance you get your butt kicked.

Province # 22 round 1 would be
prov 22*5% = 110%, so you bring 1,100 troops
round 1 is -15% so the enemy brings 1,100*.85 =935
Your 1,100 vs the enemy 935
Also, in case the first calculation is correct then please tell me the correct result of this function: 1000x(1+0.15)x0.1=1150 because it's not what you say.


I’ve done my own numbers and this is what I came up with:

- our squad size increases by 5% as you progress through the provinces, it’s the same for every round and stops increasing at province no 20 when in becomes 100% (eg in province no 1 our tournament squad size is 5% of our total squad size, in province 2 its 10%, in province no 10 it’s 50% - if our total squad size is 1000, our tournament squad size in round 1 is 50, in round 2 100 and in round 10 500)

- enemy squad size is based on percentage of our tournament squad size and doesn’t change as you progress through the provinces, it increase from round to round by 15% starting at -15% ON AVERAGE. So in round 1, our enemy squad size is -15% of our tournament squad size on average, round 2 is 0% on average, round 3 15% on average etc (eg if our total squad size is 1000, our tournament squad size in province 1 and round 1 is 50, the enemy size on average will be 43 – -15% of 50)

- there are four fights in each province. Our squad size is the same for all four fights based on the calculation above, the enemy squad size changes but it’s AVERAGE is as calculated above. The problem is that the range can be quite large, it can vary +-10% and in some case even 25%. So it’s possible that even in province 1 round 1, you can face enemy squad size bigger than yours. Of course if you lose in this province, it will not cost you much as your squad size is quite small. However, if you lose in province 10 round 1, it will cost you 10x more. The higher the province, the harder it will be to recoup your losses as you squad size is higher. This is the reason why I stop on the first loss and wait for the next day when my squad size and therefore risk goes down again. Also, I forgot to mention that I don’t have any AWs that boost my troops.


- our squad size increases by 5% as you progress through the provinces, it’s the same for every round and stops increasing at province no 20 when in becomes 100% (eg in province no 1 our tournament squad size is 5% of our total squad size, in province 2 its 10%, in province no 10 it’s 50% - if our total squad size is 1000, our tournament squad size in round 1 is 50, in round 2 100 and in round 10 500)
Very close, I've highlighted the only error. It keeps going up by 5% as you say, but it does not stop, ever. In province 30 it is 150%, in province 60 it is 300% etc.

- enemy squad size is based on percentage of our tournament squad size and doesn’t change as you progress through the provinces, it increase from round to round by 15% starting at -15% ON AVERAGE. So in round 1, our enemy squad size is -15% of our tournament squad size on average, round 2 is 0% on average, round 3 15% on average etc (eg if our total squad size is 1000, our tournament squad size in province 1 and round 1 is 50, the enemy size on average will be 43 – -15% of 50)
Perfect.

- there are four fights in each province. Our squad size is the same for all four fights based on the calculation above, the enemy squad size changes but it’s AVERAGE is as calculated above. The problem is that the range can be quite large, it can vary +-10% and in some case even 25%. So it’s possible that even in province 1 round 1, you can face enemy squad size bigger than yours. Of course if you lose in this province, it will not cost you much as your squad size is quite small. However, if you lose in province 10 round 1, it will cost you 10x more. The higher the province, the harder it will be to recoup your losses as you squad size is higher.
Bang on. The disparity comes from enemy # of stacks. When it's your 5 vs 5, then the formula is perfect. However, there is another sneaky formula involved when the enemy has more or fewer than 5 stacks of troops.
I'd have to go find it again, but basically, if the enemy has more than 5 stacks they will have more total units than they should, and if they have fewer than 5 stacks, they will have fewer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dr.nYo

Adventurer
Sry CleverAngel im not doing some personal attack on you. And from what i can see Shoggy and Killiak arent doing that either. o_O

If u would read thread slowly again im sure you would notice why i said it. And realise what are they trying to tell you. Their strategy is correct in this case and explained why (and worst part of it all, u didnt even bother to consider it or try to understand why). You wrote your strategy and stated its correct and best without some kinda proof or example or something. Not to mention, looks like you started some kinda argue instead discussion, couse u keep ignoring facts . No1 forces u to use that exact strategy, you just got advised to use it. I have all squad techs like u, i do tourney like u, losses are terrible couse of that i know. but i also use armoury + shroomy couse its more efficient that way, i made calculations and it checks. Squad calculation from tourney is reliable i think since it has been done many times on forum, but i skip that part mosty couse pain in as* for me :)
things u calculated and strategys u tried are probly done already by some1 before and can be found on forums. U can always check and compare if they are. Some are right some are wrong. If u can come up with something better, feel free to share but with some valid facts and info.
My humble oppinion :cool:
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
@Dr.nYo I would really love some examples :)

Also, the discussion was about SS upgrades and I supported all my claims by math and logic, I'm not really sure how many more posts or details do I need to do to put it across. The discussion (shroomy) that got started quite late in the thread is a new topic and requires new research and new explanation on my part. I'm sorry but I'm tired of arguing and being attacked to have motivation to do more while it's not very pleasant. :(
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
Wow, the hits keep coming!
No, they don't. You are taking it all the wrong way. Maybe you have your back up because you are upset at finding out how much taking optional SS techs sucks, or maybe it's something else, but you are seeing enemies where there aren't any.
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
No, they don't. You are taking it all the wrong way. Maybe you have your back up because you are upset at finding out how much taking optional SS techs sucks, or maybe it's something else, but you are seeing enemies where there aren't any.

I can say the same thing about you and losing your argument and being corrected on your calculations :)
 

Deleted User - 341074

Guest
I can say the same thing about you and losing your argument and being corrected on your calculations :)
What are you even talking about?
  • I taught you that increasing your SS size is bad for tournaments.
  • I proved that 2 armories + the SSS is better than 3 armories.
Those are the only 2 "arguments" we had, and they weren't even arguments until you took being wrong personally. They are simply facts that you didn't know. There's no shame in that, no one started off by knowing them without checking or being told.

You're in chapter 13, so you must have come across players who didn't understand non-boosted factories, right? And you had to explain it to them? Remember that one player who took it really personally and got upset with you? That player is you.:(
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser7733

Guest
You're in chapter 13, so you must have come across players who didn't understand non-boosted factories, right? And you had to explain it to them? Remember that one player who took it really personally and got upset with you? That player is you.:(

Wow, where all this hostility started. Is there a point in all this? How important is it to you to win? Do you actually realise how low this conversation went? Is the only thing that will make you to let me be me saying "you're right"? Is this how you win your arguments by personal attacks or by logic and numbers?
 

Killiak

Artisan
@CleverAngel777
There were no personal attacks against you, only well constructed arguments.You;ve been proven wrong over and over again, and instead of accepting that fact, you are trying to twist it into "I got attacked!".

You weren't attacked on a personal level. You were simply proven wrong, with solid arguments to back that up. Deal with it.
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
only well constructed arguments.You;ve been proven wrong over and over again

Can you show me where? That's called a well constructed argument, you actually need to show something for it, just by stating it's a well constructed argument doesn't make it so. I'd love some logic and numbers please in relation to topic that I got involved in. I do provide numbers and logic so it's only fair if you do too :)

You weren't attacked on a personal level.

Our definition of personal attack obviously differs. If you address me directly it means personal, if you criticise me or aim to upset me, it's an attack.

It would be great if you focused on game strategies rather on me as a person. :)
 

Killiak

Artisan
Can you show me where? That's called a well constructed argument, you actually need to show something for it, just by stating it's a well constructed argument doesn't make it so. I'd love some logic and numbers please in relation to topic that I got involved in. I do provide numbers and logic so it's only fair if you do too :)

Numbers and logic were provided to you this entire thread. It showed clearly where you erred.
It is not my problem if you do not understand it right now. Luckily, this thread will remain available to people, including you, for re-reading at their leasure.


Our definition of personal attack obviously differs. If you address me directly it means personal, if you criticise me or aim to upset me, it's an attack.

That would mean that every time you are having a discussion, every time someone shows you that you are wrong, you would take it as a personal attack. That seems, to me anyway, as a very hard way to go through life.
Your choice though.


It would be great if you focused on game strategies rather on me as a person. :)

I did. And once again, it is not my problem if you do not see it.
 
Top