• 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!

Discussion News from Beta (may contain spoilers!)

DeletedUser8409

Guest
Hi guys.
looks like 29 techs to complete c17 ?
thats 1.0045^29 = 13.9% increase in tourney and spire costs.
from minmax blog, barrack, tg, and merc camp goes from 450 to 500 training speed = 11% increase ?
does this mean I’m punished more for teching than benefitting ? @CrazyWizard @Pauly7 @MinMax Gamer
Can you take these numbers to beta threads for discussion/ clarification please which I hope will lead to a re working off those numbers. (I lost my beta account )

PS : I stopped first tech at c16. So it would cost me ~50 techs = 27% cost increase to progress but give me 11% training benefits ?
Considering there was no Barracks upgrade in XVI, the difference between XVI and XVII which is 54 technologies. From 1.0045^54 there should be a minimum 27.5% increase in Training Speed which takes from 450 to 575 being the minimum training speed needed to not lose out.

To give only a 50 increase in Training Speed in this chapter, after none in the previous chapter, is absolutely ludicrous. In comparison Halflings gave an increase in Training Speed of more than 100, which considering that was many chapters ago exponential growth from there is worth well more than a puny 50 increase many chapters later. Even a 100 increase would be insufficient now, but to get less than half of that is madness.
 

Pauly7

Magus
from minmax blog, barrack, tg, and merc camp goes from 450 to 500 training speed = 11% increase ?
does this mean I’m punished more for teching than benefitting ? @CrazyWizard @Pauly7 @MinMax Gamer
Can you take these numbers to beta threads for discussion/ clarification please which I hope will lead to a re working off those numbers. (I lost my beta account )
A lot of people have commented that the small increases to training speeds is not even close to matching the exponential growth in difficulty. I think there can't be much doubt that anyone deciding to play through chapter 17 would have to do so with the knowledge that it will make tournaments more difficult.
 

DeletedUser7526

Guest
A lot of people have commented that the small increases to training speeds is not even close to matching the exponential growth in difficulty. I think there can't be much doubt that anyone deciding to play through chapter 17 would have to do so with the knowledge that it will make tournaments more difficult.
Generic yes. But I see no one posted those explicit numbers.
And doesn’t it take 100 pages of posting stuff, to get a response ;)
 

Sir Derf

Adept
29 Techs in Chapter 17 makes a 13.9% increase in difficulty in Tourney and Spire?
And, if you look back long enough, 54 Techs in Chapters 16 & 17 makes a 27.5% increase in difficulty in Tourney and Spire?

Training speed in the Barracks increased 11% not good enough?

  1. Positive. Somebody do the numbers for me... What was the impact made by opening up all three training queues on Training Speeds? If we're going back to include Chapter 16, then we can go back to the time of this change, yes?
  2. Negative. The Barracks is one of three troop production buildings. Unless you were doing all your building in the Barracks alone, this 11% figure needs to be decreased, possibly by a factor of 3, as you old-style round-robin between the buildings, new-style simultaneously build in all buildings.
 

CrazyWizard

Shaman
Hi guys.
looks like 29 techs to complete c17 ?
thats 1.0045^29 = 13.9% increase in tourney and spire costs.
from minmax blog, barrack, tg, and merc camp goes from 450 to 500 training speed = 11% increase ?
does this mean I’m punished more for teching than benefitting ? @CrazyWizard @Pauly7 @MinMax Gamer
Can you take these numbers to beta threads for discussion/ clarification please which I hope will lead to a re working of those numbers. (I lost my beta account )

PS : I stopped at first tech c16. So it would cost me ~50 techs = 27% cost increase to progress but give me 11% training benefits ?

yup in essense yes, then you add a handfull of extra expansions and 70 wonderlevels en kaboom there explosed your downfall.
It should blow the mind of every (external) game designer with the main question, how did that happen? who was stupid enough to sign of on this mistake.

It's like designing a competitive shooter like CS: GO, PUBG, or Fortnight and then decide that poor players should carry neutron guns with automatic headshot correction and guided bullets instead of pairing good players together and allow them to improve there game.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
To give an idea of the difficulty in winning stuff in the Misty Forest event - Today I wanted to go after the daily prize. I used 800 in event currency and in spending that currency I uncovered a total of 4 Lost Items (chests). Of those 4, the one with the greatest possibility of winning the daily had a chance of 6%.

Needless to say luck will usually be a bit better than this, but there's absolutely nothing you can really do to improve your chances much. There are various points of strategy, of course, in where to use the light sources, when to uncover squares, when to leave them hidden, but essentially you are just clearing a path and hoping something comes up.
So, 4 chests and you only got from 3 of the 12 chests types, the 5%, the other 5% and the 6%. Ewwwww....

Just a non-Beta here, really wanting some observational data here. Ultimately some large-scale, crowd-sourced data...

800 currency and uncovered 4 chests.... Good, but tell me more...

How many squares did you uncover at a cost of 800 event currency?
How many Cats did you find?
 

Pauly7

Magus
How many squares did you uncover at a cost of 800 event currency?
How many Cats did you find?
Sorry, I wasn't counting squares. Give or take, I got in the region of 25 cats.

I can be reasonably specific about the light sources used though, as I got one big bundle, one small bundle, two separate lanterns then the rest were extra candles. So, that's about:

36 candles
12 lanterns
9 flasks
 

Pauly7

Magus
Oh, by the way, after my first message I then bought one extra candle, uncovered a 16% daily (lost item) and won the daily with it... so at least that's a happy ending.
 

DeletedUser8409

Guest
29 Techs in Chapter 17 makes a 13.9% increase in difficulty in Tourney and Spire?
And, if you look back long enough, 54 Techs in Chapters 16 & 17 makes a 27.5% increase in difficulty in Tourney and Spire?

Training speed in the Barracks increased 11% not good enough?l

  1. Positive. Somebody do the numbers for me... What was the impact made by opening up all three training queues on Training Speeds? If we're going back to include Chapter 16, then we can go back to the time of this change, yes?
  2. Negative. The Barracks is one of three troop production buildings. Unless you were doing all your building in the Barracks alone, this 11% figure needs to be decreased, possibly by a factor of 3, as you old-style round-robin between the buildings, new-style simultaneously build in all buildings.
You need to compare like for like. Everyone now has access to simultaneous 3-barracks training whether they do the research or not.

I have halted my research at end of Chapter XV (technically 1st technology into XVI so that I gain XVI event buildings and Magic Workshops and Residences). I have access to all 3 barracks types training simultaneously - 2 of the 3 at 450 base training speed. Technically to be fair the TG is below that, but TG is the lesser priority for me at least as an elf all the good units are in Merc Camp and that's what I use time instants in for training.

Now compare to someone who continues to research until end of Chapter XVII. They also have access to all 3 barracks types training simultaneously. Due to exponential growth their costs go up approximately 27% yet their base training speed only goes up 11%.

Which means I - and anyone like me who camps out at end of XV and doesn't bother researching any further - have a massive competitive advantage over anyone who continues researching. Continuing researching under into the new chapters massively hurts your Tournament potential. If you want to be competitive the message is clear: Do not research XVI or XVII. Indeed XV after Frog Prince research is probably the sweetest spot.

In order for the new chapter to be worth doing base Training Speed ought to be about 600 not 500 fully upgraded. Only that would make it worth doing, any less than that and don't bother advancing.
 

Sir Derf

Adept
I see where you're coming from.

My point was that INNO did introduce a change that improved training time significantly, in between introducing chapters with relative detriments.

While, on absolute terms, you have better tourney/spire outputs if you forgo 16 and 17, on relative terms, simultaneous queues + 16 & 17 is better than before made either introduction.
 

DeletedUser8409

Guest
I see where you're coming from.

My point was that INNO did introduce a change that improved training time significantly, in between introducing chapters with relative detriments.

While, on absolute terms, you have better tourney/spire outputs if you forgo 16 and 17, on relative terms, simultaneous queues + 16 & 17 is better than before made either introduction.
No its not since there's the new tournament.

Even on relative terms single queue, old tournament, 15 is better than multi-queues, new tournament, 17.

But anyway need to compare like with like. The question that should surely be answered is why it is counterproductive to research. I have zero intention of researching any further as it stands which gives me a major competitive advantage over anyone who doesn't do the maths and just progresses without thinking about it. That is a foolish situation for Inno to be in where players are literally worse off for doing the new chapter - with no new troop types why bother advancing chapters if it only makes you worse off?
 

C-Nymph

Necromancer
But anyway need to compare like with like. The question that should surely be answered is why it is counterproductive to research. I have zero intention of researching any further as it stands which gives me a major competitive advantage over anyone who doesn't do the maths and just progresses without thinking about it. That is a foolish situation for Inno to be in where players are literally worse off for doing the new chapter - with no new troop types why bother advancing chapters if it only makes you worse off?
That's just it; Inno hopes players will not do the maths and will thus be worse off, so that they'll be tempted to (buy+)spend diamonds to advance. It's that simple. Inno cares about revenue, not about players.
 

Pauly7

Magus
That's just it; Inno hopes players will not do the maths and will thus be worse off, so that they'll be tempted to (buy+)spend diamonds to advance. It's that simple. Inno cares about revenue, not about players.
So the old players leave and new ones come through... but the new ones eventually figure out what's going on just like we did and then they leave... and maybe all that is fine for Inno... but why develop chapter 17?
 

Verde

Soothsayer
So the old players leave and new ones come through... but the new ones eventually figure out what's going on just like we did and then they leave... and maybe all that is fine for Inno... but why develop chapter 17?
Perhaps the final chapter?
 

C-Nymph

Necromancer
So the old players leave and new ones come through... but the new ones eventually figure out what's going on just like we did and then they leave... and maybe all that is fine for Inno... but why develop chapter 17?
Maybe it was already done? The design team had been paid already? They have a strict development calendar? God knows why. I've given up trying to understand Inno logic :p
 

Laurelin

Sorcerer
Maybe it was already done? The design team had been paid already? They have a strict development calendar? God knows why. I've given up trying to understand Inno logic
Being rather old and lacking much else to do these days, I spend much time mooching around online, seeking answers to this sort of conundrum. And I've concluded that Inno's logic, although this is not immediately visible solely from the perspective of what we, as players, are usually told, whether in-game, here on the Forums, and/or [more often, much to my personal dislike] on anti-Social Meeja, is more or less the same logic as is used by (almost) all high-grossing 'strategy/simulation' mobile games of the last five, and especially two or three, years. The mobile gaming industry has, it appears, quite rapidly moved away from the model which many gamers, quite understandably, still consider to be the underlying focus of not only Elvenar but indeed most 'Free-to-Play' games, whereas this 'old' model (which was in place for so long - over 15 years - that it became virtually 'standard') is in fact no longer the foundation of most F2P games which aim themselves primarily at the mobile (as opposed to browser/PC/console) playerbase.

Until the past few years, the 'standard' model for F2P games was (typically) to regard the game's long-term and strategy-intensive (or at least some-strategy-required) base game as the primary focus of gameplay (in Elvenar, of course, this is the concept of a slowly improving and increasingly powerful City), with various short-term, repeating competitive elements being added as secondary aspects (first Tournaments and then, with growing importance, both FAs and the Spire). However, the comparatively new model which mobile-focused F2P games, in particular, have now adopted is largely reversed, being based upon an easier and non- or less-strategic underlying game which is no longer the primary focus of gameplay, but instead is effectively a support structure for the now centrally placed repeating and permanent competitive elements which, as far as the gaming company is concerned, have become the intended core purpose of gameplay, even in games such as Elvenar which do not offer 'traditional' PvP-style conflict.

Of course, players can choose not to engage in the game's competitive elements, and can also choose to play in a solo fashion, but most (not all, of course) players are usually not willing to accept the resulting comparatively slow progression and/or the sense of isolation in a multi-user game where player grouping is not only strongly promoted (by both company and players) but also incentivised with immediate and long-term gameplay-related advantages, the most important of which, in Elvenar, appears now to be shifting - even if this will take some time - from Tournaments to the Spire, with FAs being quite obviously encouraged (some would say near-mandated?) as well.

In addition, and perhaps responsively to [the majority of] online gamers' expressed views and observed behaviours/preferences over the past few years, many mobile games now also include elements which are not only intended to be more 'fresh' and engaging than both the base game and its permanent repeating competitive elements alike (hence Elvenar's now very frequent, always different, and increasingly complex Events), but which are also, behind their overt 'fun' factor, based on the now-well-known revenue-driving concept of 'FOMO' (Fear Of Missing Out). This is typically created by offering otherwise impossible or difficult-to-obtain but evidently important in-game elements (in Elvenar, primarily 'rare' buildings which confer obvious and notable [if sometimes short-term] advantage, e.g. Evolving Buildings) as well as non-advantageous but graphically attractive in-game elements - and in Elvenar's case (to nobody's surprise, I am sure) the graphical aspect of the game is especially important and is almost certainly one of the primary 'hooks' which attracts many players and then keeps a good percentage of those in the game for at least a while.

Elvenar has been intentionally re-positioned as a 'mobile-first' game* (in line with the overall policy of InnoGames, especially since their acquisition by the Modern Times Group), and, as such, Inno's decisions over the past couple of years, which do indeed make very little sense when considered in terms of what a [browser-based] F2P strategy game used to be, actually make a lot of sense when viewed in the light of what Elvenar has now become.

* One of many online sources : From Browser To Mobile Game Development - An InnoGames Retrospective
~ Side Note : The above article also explains, in some detail, why many Forge of Empires features have been and still are being ported into Elvenar.

So the old players leave and new ones come through... but the new ones eventually figure out what's going on just like we did and then they leave... and maybe all that is fine for Inno... but why develop chapter 17?

The addition of increasingly difficult-to-complete, prestigious (or presented as such), and, significantly, graphically attractive and interesting-sounding later Chapters also makes sense when one realises that these are not, as they once were, aimed at strategy-focused long-term players who start any given game with the intention of remaining with it long enough to reach the end-game, but rather are intended to be enticing but rather remote 'future possibilities' for new players who are far more likely to stay with the game for a much shorter time, but who still do not, as a general rule, wish to join a game which has an obvious 'end point', since the idea that a game can ever actually be 'finished' is, in modern mobile gaming philosophy, not only undesirable, but likely to reduce even early-earned revenues, upon which mobile games now depend to a constantly growing extent as players become (on average) ever more fickle and easily distracted into other, similar, free-to-download games.

Incidentally, I wonder whether the undeniably growing habit of younger players to 'game-hop' between similar online titles may not even be, primarily, simply part of their inherent nature, but may instead, and with more than a little irony, actually be largely the result of the adoption by so many game publishers of the precise kind of short-term, high-speed and competition-focused gameplay which has so often been intentionally introduced into games which, under the 'old' F2P model, still rewarded loyalty, dedication, and the concept of slower progression towards greater advantage...?

And just for the record: what I say here is in no way intended to convey any admiration of, or support for, the gaming trends I observe and describe.

I could turn this into an (even longer) essay justifying the premises and conclusions above, and/or bore on at length about the psychology which underpins it all (and which, as I've probably said before, successful gaming companies now know about in much detail), but I'll resist the urge... :D
 
Last edited:

Hekata

Artisan
I see that today's daily prize is Dr Freakenspleen, and before that we had the Scream of Halloween, the Daunting Pumpkins and Windmill of Evil. All those prizes where (grand) prizes of previous Halloween mini-events and players had to complete the events to get them. And IMO they should be unique buildings and not something one can have a whole field of if he/chooses. I absolutely don't mind they are back so that people who didn't play that event can also have one (I had never had the Scream, so I'm glad to see it), but they should be amongst the grand prizes, between artifacts instead of the 3 runes and other similar filler prizes. That way everyone could have 1 but not have entire rows of Freakenspleens or Screams. It really devalues those original buildings and the effort we've put into getting them.
 
Top