Vladimir Stojanovic said:

gaianeka said:

2183 wyverns is not even enough. Even at level 20 Wyvern's Blood Lost Art for 40% bonus does not match my entire offensive army power gained without intensive BGs. Giving 5000 wyverns should be more like it.

This is about 5milion O power, you want to say that you can build 5milion O in 3 to 4 weeks ( for this payout you need from 3 to 4 weeks if you do not use cards ).

I certainly can't build 5 million in 3 to 4 weeks.

Questions:

1. How much offense power does it take to fill up the bank for such payout at level 73?

2. How much time is needed to build such needed offense power?

Now, if I need the same 5 million offense power (assuming zero taxation on behalf of the government of Plarium) for such payout, then how long does it take to build my troops up to 5 million offense power? If it takes 3 to 4 months without spending money, then why bother?

Now, if you say the BGs are just converting units, then am I right to say if I can train wyverns on my own (researched the Wyvern's Blood), does that mean the BGs are useless to me now?

I might as well train the wyverns on my own instead of doing the BGs and pay tax.

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

gaianeka said:

Because every algorithm is secret, playing this game is more like solving secret puzzles, don't you agree?

Very unlike a game of strategy.

Very unlike a systematic gameplay.

It's a common thing that game developers keep game mechanics in a secret. I would even say a commercial secret. I'm sure you know very well why exactly.

While other game mechanics are secret, they are not as unfair and outrageous as Plarium's games.

While other game mechanics are secret, they are FINAL and do not get adjusted and re-adjusted over and over and over again endlessly from time to time (those games have patches to solve bugs, not re-adjusting the algorithm differently that has nothing to do with bugs).

If the game mechanics keep changing over and over and over again, then what is so systematic or strategic about the game?

Even a dumb board game with very basic game mechanics are more fun and enjoyable than this.

With an ever-changing game mechanics, playing Stormfall is like buying a home. This home is very special in a sense that once awhile it will change location elsewhere. And once awhile the size of this home will shrink a bit smaller. And once awhile the design of this home will alter. And these kind of changes will take place every now and then. If you want to buy a home, will you buy this kind of home? For me, I will not buy. I will just rent for free.

You may say your game mechanics or algorithm is unique and special thus warrant constant changes, but that would mean other games are not. Games like Diablo, Half-Life, Total War, Tomb Raider, Halo, The Elder's Scroll, Fallout, etc are great games and top games but they have FINAL game mechanics and they don't change their algorithms except to get rid of bugs. Can we say these games are less good because they don't have ever-changing game mechanics?

Joke of the Day

Me: How do I get 5 million offense payout doing BG level 73 in 3 to 4 weeks?

Moderator: Well, it's possible but that's for you to find out (this is a puzzle game).

Later....

Me: YESSS!!! I finally found the way...!!!

Moderator: Congratulations! Now we are going to change the BG's game mechanics just to make sure you can no longer game the system and to make sure it's fair to newer players.

Me: Whoa, what??? How am I going to get another 5 million offense payout???

Moderator: Now that's for you to find out. This is a puzzle game, remember?

Me: Whoa, I thought this is a strategy game?

Moderator: Yes, it is a strategically puzzling game.

Me: FUUUKKKKKKKKKKK.....................!!!!

any change in bgs mechanics had made these less "profitable" (actually BGs were not profitable but if in the past the bank tax was 5% , now is greatly increased ). Was the algorithm cheated? Be serious , an algorithm cant be cheated, can be exploited if you find some vulnerable points,  that presume some strategy and work (and in Plarium opinion , Stormfall is a strategic game), players who find these points must be rewarded.

But when players figure out how the things work, Plarium change the mechanics - so a strategy cant be followed when everything changes so often.

Its true BGs give better units? No, its false. Look at the time you need for building , a dragon need over 3 hours to build and has 2500 offense, in the same time you can produce 30 paladins with the same offense, this is applying to all units, its no major diference between units, is diferent only in interactions between them

Remain the question-to play or not at BGs ? Yes -when are tournaments , making some points for some sapphires( but dont try to achieve a place in the top if you are a f2p ) or if you have a huge army and you have nothing else to do with units. Not- if there arent tournaments. This is the only strategy left regarding BGs

ion said:

any change in bgs mechanics had made these less "profitable" (actually BGs were not profitable but if in the past the bank tax was 5% , now is greatly increased ). Was the algorithm cheated? Be serious , an algorithm cant be cheated, can be exploited if you find some vulnerable points,  that presume some strategy and work (and in Plarium opinion , Stormfall is a strategic game), players who find these points must be rewarded.

But when players figure out how the things work, Plarium change the mechanics - so a strategy cant be followed when everything changes so often.

Its true BGs give better units? No, its false. Look at the time you need for building , a dragon need over 3 hours to build and has 2500 offense, in the same time you can produce 30 paladins with the same offense, this is applying to all units, its no major diference between units, is diferent only in interactions between them

Remain the question-to play or not at BGs ? Yes -when are tournaments , making some points for some sapphires( but dont try to achieve a place in the top if you are a f2p ) or if you have a huge army and you have nothing else to do with units. Not- if there arent tournaments. This is the only strategy left regarding BGs

I've already answered this question multiple times, about a month ago.  

It's not so bad as you think, and you had a lot of time to raid BGs and make sure that you will still get your big payout as you did before. the only difference is for the players who are used to yellowing BGs - they will need a bit more of them until they receive a big payout. If you were doing BGs one by one, you won't even notice any changes. 

ion said:

Its true BGs give better units? No, its false. Look at the time you need for building , a dragon need over 3 hours to build and has 2500 offense, in the same time you can produce 30 paladins with the same offense, this is applying to all units, its no major diference between units, is diferent only in interactions between them

Wow, wait a minute. Hang on a second. How are your dragons having 2500 offense each while mine have only 1650 each?

ion said:

I asked some things but i also responded in same post. I also asked in other posts some questions regarding BGs, but without answers -like :The amount of resources eldritch units are payed? Cause i doubt these units are considered into the bank. I received some answers from players but i want an official answer

The eldritch units are now a rare and endangered species. They are also the best units in town. Don't waste them onto the BGs to exchange for inferior units.

gaianeka said:

ion said:

Its true BGs give better units? No, its false. Look at the time you need for building , a dragon need over 3 hours to build and has 2500 offense, in the same time you can produce 30 paladins with the same offense, this is applying to all units, its no major diference between units, is diferent only in interactions between them

Wow, wait a minute. Hang on a second. How are your dragons having 2500 offense each while mine have only 1650 each?

Is Plarium gaming the players?

upgrades from arts, from hero, from paragon - actually my dragon has 2746 offense- you can achieve this things in months of playing many hours in a day. My point was all units have same value , regarding the time for build them.

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

ion said:

any change in bgs mechanics had made these less "profitable" (actually BGs were not profitable but if in the past the bank tax was 5% , now is greatly increased ). Was the algorithm cheated? Be serious , an algorithm cant be cheated, can be exploited if you find some vulnerable points,  that presume some strategy and work (and in Plarium opinion , Stormfall is a strategic game), players who find these points must be rewarded.

But when players figure out how the things work, Plarium change the mechanics - so a strategy cant be followed when everything changes so often.

Its true BGs give better units? No, its false. Look at the time you need for building , a dragon need over 3 hours to build and has 2500 offense, in the same time you can produce 30 paladins with the same offense, this is applying to all units, its no major diference between units, is diferent only in interactions between them

Remain the question-to play or not at BGs ? Yes -when are tournaments , making some points for some sapphires( but dont try to achieve a place in the top if you are a f2p ) or if you have a huge army and you have nothing else to do with units. Not- if there arent tournaments. This is the only strategy left regarding BGs

I've already answered this question multiple times, about a month ago.  

It's not so bad as you think, and you had a lot of time to raid BGs and make sure that you will still get your big payout as you did before. the only difference is for the players who are used to yellowing BGs - they will need a bit more of them until they receive a big payout. If you were doing BGs one by one, you won't even notice any changes. 

And we explained multiple times, that that isn't true. You cant raid BG without yellowing task because you need less amount of units than you need to fill bank, except if you use out of sense tactics (removing upgrades and/or attack BG with wrong units).

So, you have to spend extra units (needed to fill bank) somewhere, and in turn you're in yellowing algorithm.

In turn that means that you punished all regular users, because without my wish to complete task I have to complete it to make new room for spending units. By the other words, I have to pay taxes when I don't want to pay them.

Once when player would yellow all tasks nothing will prevent him/her to complete all yellowed tasks, taking small payouts.

With last changes you cheated all players who had yellowed tasks, and pushed them into big problems. I don't speak about coiners, because they always have solution - they will use coins. I'm talking about non-coiners. You had only one idea with change: to push con-coiners into coiners. I have no problem with that, that is your idea how to lead business.

I have problem when someone tries to explain me that donkey is Arab horse. Or swan. As you tries with your answers about BG.

Every explanation like "your troops are still inside", "be patient you will get payout" are true, but conditions and results are dramatically changed, and we're talking about our problems with your rude and unfair changes in the middle of the game, without any warning.

If you wanted to help non-coiners, or to be more precise (why you want to help con-coiners? Do you?) to kill exploiting system, you should to do only one thing (if such thing existed): to remove clearing of negative balance, so every player who 'exploited' old system will have long way until next full payment.

All other changes are only for your idea to push all users into problem hoping that some of non-coiners will buy sapps to avoid long waiting before some full payout.

There is no need to emphasize your previous answers because they aren't answers.

Plarium is just paranoid with being transparent about the BG game mechanics, as if some other company will steal that, as if the developers at competing companies are stupid and cannot think for their own game mechanics/logic.

If the game mechanics is overly complicated, then it may worth less than Plarium thinks.

Who wants to steal broken car?

Every secret in game has only one purpose: it could be changed without explanation, making more mess in already stated mess, so you can't predict any outcome. When players found any kind of logic in secret things Plarium change them.

Main point is make situations where player has to make mistakes. To correct them, many players will use sapps.

BG is premium filed for such things.

Ask yourself:

Did we ever get right answer on any question about BG (no! Secret)

Who made world wide tools for calculating BG outcomes? Regular users? For free?(don't be silly)

Who made association on bank? Is BG a bank? (with bank you have concrete, clear and well defined contract, and you can take back your money exactly when you want)

There is no right algorithm to deal with BG because BG uses randomized process.

You can beat every casino! Every time put sum of amounts what you lost + some amount for reward, on same choice (simple version: on black).

Easy.

Or not? Why?

investment limit, amount of cache which you have to have to put on board and amount of luck in randomized process.

What is better association for BG: bank or roulette? (no one, because BG has behavior of both at same time)

How many money you want to put in such hypothetical RL bank? (0 zero)

But bank revealed amazing lottery. So, how many money now you want to put in? (ZERO!!!)

A Battleground game mechanics (or logic) can be as such (basic descriptions):

(Note: These are just my cheap suggestions/opinions after all the criticism.)

1. There is only one resource bank. This resource bank can contain unlimited amount of resources. This resource bank is shared and tapped by all the Battlegrounds of all levels.

2. Each Battleground has its own maximum payout with no minimum payout. For example, a level 1 Battleground may have a maximum payout of units that consume 1,000 of total resources (gold and iron). Payout is based on resources in the resource bank as well as the resources 'invested' in finishing that particular Battleground level.

Thus, if a player yellowed a level 40 Battleground but does not finish it, and then proceed to finish a level 10 Battleground, then the payout will be based on the maximum payout of this level 10 Battleground. And resources not paid out from the resource bank will remain in the resource bank. There will be no negative balance. Only surplus is possible.

3. Payout from each Battleground is strictly based on the gold:iron ratio in the resource bank, regardless of the type of Battleground finished (red or green).

Thus, if a player tries to send offensive units to a green Battleground and fill up the resource bank with more iron than gold, he will get paid mainly offensive units. Nevertheless, the payout will still be limited to the level of Battleground attempted. Because offensive units are sent to do the green Battlegrounds, it will be far less effective, but the resource bank will be filled up faster, and as payout is limited to the Battleground level, there will be additional leftover of resources in the resource bank.

If Plarium insists a green Battleground must primarily pay defensive units (and red Battlegrounds must primarily pay offensive units), then a bit of complication may arise, because if the resource bank is full of iron and little of gold, then finishing a green Battleground may pay out few number of defensive units in addition to lots of iron as resource. And if the player filled up his warehouse to allow no payout in resources, then there will be extreme imbalance in the resource bank.

4. In times of extreme imbalance in the resource bank, the imbalance will be resolved by paying the player in resources regardless of whether the warehouse is full or otherwise. This is to resolve the resource bank's imbalance. Thus if the warehouse is full, the resource paid out will be lost.

If Plarium and player disagree with this, then to resolve any extreme imbalance in the resource bank may 1) make no payout whatsoever until such imbalance is resolved by the player making the right investment, and 2) require disclosure of this resource bank to the player, thus letting the player know that there is imbalance in his resource bank. For example, if the resource bank has many iron but no gold, then the player will know he will not be getting any payout until he send more defensive units to the Battlegrounds.

5. Tax or growth can be incorporated into the 'investment'. If Plarium wants to impose tax, then whatever the resources deposited into the resource bank will be multiplied by a multiplier, such as 0.95 (for 5% tax). And because surplus in the resource bank is possible, then imposing tax may not be fair, but instead having a multiplier of say, 1.05 (for 5% growth) may be more conducive to achieving balance, as well as making attempts on the Battlegrounds a positive investment.

If my game mechanics/logic above is faulty, please say so and state the faulty part. By the way, they are just a variation of unlimited possibilities. I don't want to get into too detailed unless queried. And because there are unlimited variations, there will be variations that lead to imbalances, and variations that lead to balance. I hope and believe my simple logic above leads to balance.

I believe that if there is any complication on the Battleground game mechanics, it may not be arise from programming code error, or from defects of algorithm that players can game, but arise from developers implementing certain game mechanics policies that are not conducive to achieving game balance, which ultimately lead to complications.

I believe the policy that green Battlegrounds must primarily pay defensive units and red Battlegrounds must primarily pay offensive units give rise to imbalance and complication.

I believe that beside this policy, few other policies also contribute to imbalances and complications in the Battleground game mechanics.

Policy that maintain the resource bank to be kept secret so that players have no idea how much 'investment' he has put in may lead to bad 'investment' as well as so-called 'gaming the system' (which is not really true) and thus lead to complications that require further adjustments to balance out the system. If the initial policies are not made right, then any adjustment to correct any imbalances will lead to more complications and imbalances.

A right policy should revolve around transparency of the resource bank, to have the right limitation on the maximum/minimum payout, to have less restriction of the type of units paid out (i.e. green Battlegrounds may not necessarily need to pay out defensive units strictly), etc.

If the resource bank (along with the resources in it) is known, the player will be able to make the right 'investment'.

If the payout rules are made known (you invest this much, you get this much back), the player will be able to make the right 'investment'.

All these will help to achieve game balance. There would not arise the issue of unfairness or the false excuse of player gaming the system. To say that certain style of playing create unfairness or gaming the system is just an excuse to justify adjustments to the game mechanics to resolve imbalances that are actually due to bad/wrong gaming policy in the first place.

Finally, to improve the Battleground feature to be more attractive, the players may be allowed to choose which and what type of troops to be paid out after a Battleground is done, in accordance to the amount and ratio of resources in the resource bank. Thus (for example), if the player's resource bank has more iron than gold, and the Battleground level allows a maximum payout of say 50,000 of total resources, then the players may be given options to choose to be paid out 8 warlocks, or 6 necromancers, or 3 wyverns, or 2 dragons, for example. In other words, it makes the payout transparent and put the players in control.

Features that give players more control and empowers them to make their own choice enhances gameplay and enrich the experience.

However, many (if not most) of the Battleground features serve to do just the opposite, disempowering, creating frustration and dissatisfaction. And this is not good.

djmoody said:

Conclusion 3 is absolutely wrong.

Killing offensive BG's leads to offence based payouts and defence defensive payouts. You could do all offensive BG's and take payout on a defensive BG for your payout and you would get a defensive lead payout.

As that's the way it is done, thus there will be imbalance in having far more iron than gold in the resource bank. As this imbalance is going to persist, doing another green BG next may get little to no unit payout as there is not enough gold, and may also have payout in loads of iron as resource to clear the imbalance. If the player's warehouse remain full for no payout in resources, then the imbalance of having lots of iron and little gold in the resource bank will persist and give rise to complication. And such imbalance and complication are due to such policy as killing red BGs must lead to offense unit payout and killing green BGs must lead to defensive unit payout. That's why I give the point #3 to relax such policy so such resource imbalance in the resource bank does not arise.

The split payouts in terms of power and resource aren't calculated very well as the split is based on the number of units not the power or resource. Unfortunately this leads defensive splits to be quite even (dragons / griffins is just 50/50). You will see that the type of troops the payout is in has a massive bearing on the split, golems/necros is more like 75/25% (nothing to do with what you loaded in).

Conclusion 2 isn't really right either. BG's have a base value, max payouts are randomised around this value. Typically as the mechanics now leads people to be overbanked ppl will see payouts close to or at the max. Minor payouts are paid on most BG's, these are randomised  around a % of the base value. People used to talk about the guaranteed payouts being 10% in the old mechanic for example, they were actually about 8-12% because of the random factor applied to BGs.

Yes, they need to randomize the payout within a band, because this involves resource allocation of varying amount from time to time thus the payout cannot be fixated to any fixed percentage. This is the details that I did not get into.

Conclusion 4 is generally right, resource payouts generally come from being significantly over banked.

Overall your final conclusions are flawed. The memory of the bank works fine. The problem with BG's is that they don't always payout anymore even when you are appropriately loaded, that can go to nearly 200%. In the end it doesn't matter as the resource comes out but the unpredictability is causing a lot of upset with players who don't track their bank.

No, I did not say the memory of the bank has any problem.

I was not stating what the current BG game mechanics are that warrant a right or wrong reply.

I was stating how the BG game mechanics can be to avoid any imbalance or complication.

As I have also stated, my logic is just a variation of unlimited possibility. The current BG game mechanics is just one variation.

Problems do not appear on their own. There must be a cause to it, especially when it involves computer programming. Do you know what exactly is the cause of that problem you stated ("BGs don't payout anymore even when appropriately loaded")?

Because of resource imbalance?

Why is there resource imbalance? What causes it?

Because players overbanked one resource far more than others?

Why does the algorithm allow such overbanking to happen and to persist, leading to imbalance, and leading to no payout?

It can either be wrongly coded algorithm, or wrong gaming policy.

Wrong gaming policy, in my opinion:

1. As you've stated, green BGs must give defensive units and red BGs must give offensive units. Maybe relaxing this rule may clear the imbalance?

2. Resource bank not transparent, causing players to keep making the wrong 'investment'.

If Plarium (and its developers) insist that red BGs MUST payout offensive units and green BGs MUST payout defensive units, then an easy solution to clear any potential imbalance is to just have 2 resource banks instead of one. The red BGs will have its own resource bank while the green BGs will have its own resource bank. These resource banks are not shared and tapped by the other BGs.

gaianeka said:

If Plarium (and its developers) insist that red BGs MUST payout offensive units and green BGs MUST payout defensive units, then an easy solution to clear any potential imbalance is to just have 2 resource banks instead of one. The red BGs will have its own resource bank while the green BGs will have its own resource bank. These resource banks are not shared and tapped by the other BGs.

After giving some thought on this, even having 2 resource banks do not solve the imbalance.

The payout may need to be based on the gold:iron ratio to resolve all imbalance and complication once and for all.

For example, assuming a player's resource bank has 150,000 gold and 50,000 iron banked in (a bit extreme case).

The player finished a BG (regardless of red or green) level that gives a maximum payout of 90,000 worth of total resources (gold and iron combined).

1. As the resource bank has more gold than iron, thus payout in defensive units is the only way to go (regardless of red or green BG).

2. Because gold is around 75% of total resources and payout is in defensive units, then golems and/or griffins (not demons) will be paid out.

And because the defensive and offensive units generally either cost around 74% of gold/iron or 62% of gold/iron, thus no matter how bad the player makes the 'investment', any resource imbalance will stay within 62% to 74% and this can be cleared easily. There will never come a situation where the resource bank has 95% in gold and only 5% in iron. As there is no unit that costs 95% of gold/iron from total resources to produce/train/make, such imbalance is impossible to happen if the payout is based on gold:iron ratio, regardless of which BG type is done.

However if Plarium insists payout based on gold:iron ratio is not good enough, then the resource bank must be transparent to the player for him to make the right 'investment' and avoid any imbalance and complication.

And if Plarium insists payout based on gold:iron ratio is not good enough AS WELL AS the resource bank kept hidden and secret, then imbalance and complication will persist. This has nothing to do with anyone gaming the system.

Update:

If Plarium wants everything to stay the same, then the only way to clear any imbalance and complication and prevent players' frustration and disappointment is to make the amount of gold and iron in the resource bank known and transparent, so that the players may make their right 'investment' to avoid imbalance and complication.

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

If you were doing BGs one by one, you won't even notice any changes. 

That is not true. I always done bg's one by one and now I notice a huge difference

I loose way more now with smaller big payouts.

before I could clear all my BG's now I cant even do half of them before loosing everything.

such a lie.

Techway_GrandMarshal said:

PLEASE PEOPLE BACK ME UP ON THIS ONE IF YOU NOTICE THE SAME THING

I do.