DeletedUser
You think that will help mate? Some other company is doing other worlds and not Inno? Same thing everywhere mate
Can't argue with that. You've already dismissed Augustavian as "inadequate", and I'm not about to claim that I'm any more adequate. Undoubtedly, the very fact that we're answering means that we're "inadequate", in your view. Of course, you may want to look up the word; it may not mean what you think it does.No one adequate will ever answer to any of my statements
Well, I didn't see a question, and neither did anyone else. There was only a bunch of statements, consisting of some bragging, one tiny grain of truth, and a lot of confused whining.First because they will say that they didn't see a question, and second thing is that they know all this is true
That seems to be the general consensus, for the very good reason that it's absolutely true. The developers are ignoring the basics, in favor of cosmetics, and working very hard to squeeze more money out of an unchanged and buggy basic game, instead of improving the game so that it's worth more. So, hard to disagree with you, there.I can speak from experience that FoE is going worse and worse by each update. This used to be fun and relaxing game. But now Inno only thinks of more ways to cost you real money, nothing else.
Well, I might have asked the same thing, given that you think 169/106 is remarkably high for AF, and that your failure to win is a bug. The GE is hard for everyone. If you want to do better, then you must get better.2. I have 169 attack /106 defence boost when attacking and I can't finish level 3 GE fighting ) When I contacted support, some smartass asked me if I know that units have a terrain boost. LOL I asked him if he is insulting me or he is just plain stupid
The percentages Inno is giving are undoubtedly accurate. They have nothing to gain by lying about them, and setting up a decent RNG is easy enough. Again, it's the same for everyone. Last, but not least, I have no idea how you expect to get lots of good relics, if you can't be bothered to level up ToR.3. GE worth doing? In my opinion no. My guild is keeping records what we have won each week... Always the same pattern... So procentage that Inno speaks about is just plain simple: crap. Leveling ToR? Don't be silly guys...
Yet again, it's the same for everyone. Either that, or Inno is out to get you and your guild specifically. Is that your theory?4. GvG fighting. It used to be about procentage. But not anymore. You ALWAYS get different from what you need/want.
By adequate I ment someone that is actually involved in creating the game. Nevertheless all opinions are more than welcomeCan't argue with that. You've already dismissed Augustavian as "inadequate", and I'm not about to claim that I'm any more adequate. Undoubtedly, the very fact that we're answering means that we're "inadequate", in your view. Of course, you may want to look up the word; it may not mean what you think it does.
People can comment on statements, as you did. Bragging? What you call bragging I call facts. You don't think it's important to mention a few basic facts that are important for the things that I wrote? I'm sorry bud, but apparently you have an issue with that... I don'tWell, I didn't see a question, and neither did anyone else. There was only a bunch of statements, consisting of some bragging, one tiny grain of truth, and a lot of confused whining.
Agreed. That was my point.That seems to be the general consensus, for the very good reason that it's absolutely true. The developers are ignoring the basics, in favor of cosmetics, and working very hard to squeeze more money out of an unchanged and buggy basic game, instead of improving the game so that it's worth more. So, hard to disagree with you, there.
Undoubtedly? How can you claim it so surly? Are you a developer or something? It all comes down to a simple math. Level 11 ToR. You calculate it for yourself mate.The percentages Inno is giving are undoubtedly accurate. They have nothing to gain by lying about them, and setting up a decent RNG is easy enough. Again, it's the same for everyone. Last, but not least, I have no idea how you expect to get lots of good relics, if you can't be bothered to level up ToR.
Of course Inno is not after my guild only, who said that? I was complaining about the changes in the game that were made over some period of time. Where did you got lost mate? LOLYet again, it's the same for everyone. Either that, or Inno is out to get you and your guild specifically. Is that your theory?
No I was complaining that the game is not fair in some thingsYou come off as some tween n00b complaining that the game is too hard.
Yes, I can't disagree with you on that... A while back we didn't have GE, and we had a way less events than these days But injustice pushes my buttons )I'm colonial pressing industrial in my main world(been playing since the 2nd of December 2016)I don't know how things will change at the high end ages, but gold relics giving 100 fp, 10 rogues? They may not come along often but when they do it's a huge windfall. If you're getting 1 jade per week, that sounds pretty good to me. As for the rest of it I haven't stepped into GvG yet and as stated, not even close to AF, however as the way units work is starting to change, it appears to become easier, not harder. I use rogues and whatever regular unit is best for taking out both waves, most times my losses are minimal. I've found GE very worth doing, perhaps if you buy diamonds in large quantities it isn't.
Yes. Only that's not what "adequate" means, is it?By adequate I ment someone that is actually involved in creating the game.
Only they're not, really. Your ranking is completely irrelevant. Your number of fights and boosts aren't really relevant, either. The relevant fact is that you keep loosing, and you don't like it. That makes you look like a n00b, and makes me doubt your claims about rank and number of fights.You don't think it's important to mention a few basic facts that are important for the things that I wrote?
I'm a developer and programmer, yes, though not a game developer. I've also managed to master simple math. There are two factors that may cause your perception:Undoubtedly? How can you claim it so surly? Are you a developer or something? It all comes down to a simple math. Level 11 ToR. You calculate it for yourself mate.
Only, if it's the same for everyone, it is fair. The only way it can be unfair, is if someone is treated differently. Since you're on record as not believing you've been singled out to be picked on, you should also be able to realize that the game isn't unfair.No I was complaining that the game is not fair in some things
To me yes it does. Your point of view is only your personal opinion.Yes. Only that's not what "adequate" means, is it?
Yes those facts are relevant. The number of fights done, the experience gained over the years, fighting boost, those are all relevant facts when someone is complaining about fighting. Are number of coins or supplies relevant information to you? LOLOnly they're not, really. Your ranking is completely irrelevant. Your number of fights and boosts aren't really relevant, either. The relevant fact is that you keep loosing, and you don't like it. That makes you look like a n00b, and makes me doubt your claims about rank and number of fights.
I do not care or did I ask you what you are mate. I'm talking about a developer of THIS GAME. Your education is irrelevant here. And to me it looks like you haven't mastered math because obviously you can't calculate a simple task I put up. And I am talking abouth math not philosophical approach on the matter. Leave the schooling for your closest ones.I'm a developer and programmer, yes, though not a game developer. I've also managed to master simple math. There are two factors that may cause your perception:
Of course, it's true that Inno has introduced a lot of lousy rewards among the relics, probably to address some imbalance. Possibly, they believed some of those rewards would become popular; they do tend to overestimate the value of pretty pictures. None of this affects whether the probabilities they give are accurate, though, nor change the fact that it's the same for everyone.
- We only notice what stands out. Even when we compare notes or make lists, what stands out is more likely to be mentioned. For most, "bad" stands out even more than "good".
- In randomness, there will always be clusters. If you play long enough, it will even out, but the experience of the clusters won't; you'll spend most of the time in one streak or another. Among so many guilds, there will even be entire guilds having unlucky streaks.
I see you have a huge issues with math and reading both. Can't help you with thatOnly, if it's the same for everyone, it is fair. The only way it can be unfair, is if someone is treated differently. Since you're on record as not believing you've been singled out to be picked on, you should also be able to realize that the game isn't unfair.
Oh please do enlighten me What are you talking about? Be patient? Think it again? LOLThe only unique thing about you that will affect the game, is how you play it. Other than random clusters of events, it's the only thing that can cause the game to be particularly troublesome for you. If you don't think it's randomness, then you need to play differently. If you think it's randomness, you need to be patient. If you think it's unfairness, you need to think again.
You're one of those, are you? The attitude that your words mean what you think they mean is fine, but only so long as you don't expect to be understood. Language is a collaborative product, and your private language doesn't work outside of your head. In fact, since Wittgenstein, there's pretty much a consensus among linguists, psychologists, psychiatrists and philosophers that private languages don't even work inside the head.To me yes it does. Your point of view is only your personal opinion.
No, they're not. You're complaining about loosing. The fact of your loosing isn't changed by your stats. You believe that the stats are relevant, because you believe that the fact that you're loosing means that the game is broken. That's a false assumption, no matter what your stats are. You're not the only player; if the game works for others, it works for you. Others are winning; there's no reason why you should be among them, regardless of your stats.Yes those facts are relevant.
Yes, you did ask. Specifically, you wrote "Are you a developer or something?" You may believe that you were more specific, however, in fact, you weren't. If you want to be understood, you need to use the language in an adequate way. Leaving it up to others to read your mind simply doesn't work.I do not care or did I ask you what you are mate.
My reading is fine, as is my math. The problem is your failure to understand basic concepts. In a game or contest, fair conditions are equal conditions, even when you lose.I see you have a huge issues with math and reading both
If it's a matter of randomness, then, yes, the only cure is patience. It's a well known fact that you may have missed, due to your language issues. Also, if you believe that you're being treated unfairly, even if you're treated exactly like all others, then, yes, you need to think again. That's a well known fact, as well.Be patient? Think it again?
Apparently you don't even understand yourself, so I don't expect you to understand me or anyone elseYou're one of those, are you? The attitude that your words mean what you think they mean is fine, but only so long as you don't expect to be understood. Language is a collaborative product, and your private language doesn't work outside of your head. In fact, since Wittgenstein, there's pretty much a consensus among linguists, psychologists, psychiatrists and philosophers that private languages don't even work inside the head.
Yes they are relevant. In you brain they are not. Can't help you with that. And most certain I am not here to convince you in anything else. And again, like I said a few times before, and you obviously can't comprehend: It's a matter of math.No, they're not. You're complaining about loosing. The fact of your loosing isn't changed by your stats. You believe that the stats are relevant, because you believe that the fact that you're loosing means that the game is broken. That's a false assumption, no matter what your stats are. You're not the only player; if the game works for others, it works for you. Others are winning; there's no reason why you should be among them, regardless of your stats.
No I did not ask. Apparently you read what you want and in the way you want it. Your lack of plain comprehension is not something you can cure here. Again (and maybe you will finally read it this time) I'm talking about a developer of THIS GAME. And the obvious need to mention that you are a developer, without anyone asking you, only proves your deficiency. It seems you have a big Napoleon complex that needs to be cured.Yes, you did ask. Specifically, you wrote "Are you a developer or something?" You may believe that you were more specific, however, in fact, you weren't. If you want to be understood, you need to use the language in an adequate way. Leaving it up to others to read your mind simply doesn't work.
Your reading or understanding of what I wrote is not fine. Given your language difficulties, and a lack of comprehension, it's certain that you're trying to express something that you don't even understand yourself. But I truly beleve your English is your least problem...My reading is fine, as is my math. The problem is your failure to understand basic concepts. In a game or contest, fair conditions are equal conditions, even when you loose.
That is not a fact. Only your personal opinion. If you say that something is a fact, it doesn't mean it is.If it's a matter of randomness, then, yes, the only cure is patience. It's a well known fact that you may have missed, due to your language issues. Also, if you believe that you're being treated unfairly, even if you're treated exactly like all others, then, yes, you need to think again. That's a well known fact, as well.
So, you have trouble with the concept of time, as well? Yes, you've specified your question, now. Back then, when I replied, you hadn't. I answered the question you had asked, not the question you would later claim to have meant to ask. You know, just because you've forgotten what happened 30 seconds ago, doesn't mean that it didn't happen, and just because we remember something now, doesn't mean that we remembered it before it happened. There's no way for anyone to answer a question that you will later claim to have meant to ask.I'm talking about a developer of THIS GAME.
Of course. Just like it's my "personal opinion" that "adequate" isn't a synonym for "Inno employee".That is not a fact. Only your personal opinion.
Not my worst typo/misspelling ever. In fact, it doesn't even makes the top hundred list. Thanks for catching it, though.it's losing not loosing
90% is a MUST HAVE from developers point of view in AF, so anything below that is your own fault from their perspective. And so, most (not saying all) battles have crazy % with higher than that for AF battles. With that 90% you don`t have advantageous good setting on battlefield, just a average-normal setting, because enemies have similar %.What do you mean by no advantage with 90% att/def bonus?
Apparently you don't even understand yourself, so I don't expect you to understand me or anyone else
Instead of reading what I wrote in the first post you are jabbering about some rubbish that you picked up during your therapy
Yes they are relevant. In you brain they are not. ......
........... It seems you have a big Napoleon complex that needs to be cured.
......................... it's certain that you're trying to express something that you don't even understand yourself. But I truly beleve your English is your least problem...
And I'm sorry to say this, but I do not have any reassuring words for you. What goes on inside your head has a medical term. Your need to "raise" yourself is pathetic. Apparently you want to compensate your lack of success in real life here
If you can't tolerate doing battles manually, then that's your problem. Personally I enjoy setting up my attack so that I walk away without a scratch. Autobattle is exactly how it should be, an AI that's not good at winning. That is one area where making it quicker is NOT the way to go because that would simply play the game for you if your AI was competent but the GE defending AI was not.Not everyone is getting the point here. Winning GE(2nd and 3rd map) or taking continent area is very hard through auto battle even with big boosts in offensive power. In order to win more of the time you need to manually do battles, which for a whole continent map can take up to an hour.
This is very bad because manual battles are boring, the fighting in this game is UNBALANCED, NO FUN, ABSURDLY DIFFICULT. Its unbalanced because the devs are complete garbage on balancing, clearly not game developers, but rather artists and coders, no real game directors and producers.
Its not fun because again it's not balanced, it's not strategic, it's not consistent in the way battles shape out.
Its absurdly difficult these days, because again Inno has a garbage balancing style, where 10 people have 200% offense attack power, so Inno make it ultra hard for EVERYONE, for the rest of the 99.990 people!
Again this game fighting is not heroes of might and magic or similar games, its crap, its NOT fun, its imbalanced, units are boring and uninteresting. Its based on a ridiculous rock-paper-scissor system which NO RTS/TBS GAME has ever done since the early 90's!!!!!
@SlickR
So, what I'm getting is that, in your mind, a well balanced game is a game where you can do well, without putting in any effort whatsoever. That's a pretty curious definition. Most would say that you're describing a very poorly balanced game. You may want to consider acquiring some crayons and a coloring book for small children. That might be "balanced" enough for you.
Fighting manually is supposed to be an advantage. What's questionable is that there is an option of auto-battle at all; it makes it possible for players to succeed without any mastery of a basic game element. I suspect the main purpose is to allow players to conclude already won battles, without having to spend more time on them. The intended option for those who don't like fighting is negotiation. With better auto-battle, both of these main options would become meaningless, which would be truly bad balancing.
When you fight manually, there's very little random about the outcome. In fact, it's almost painfully predictable. I can usually tell how many troops I will loose in a battle, before I make the first move. It's also not very hard. Winning nearly every contest in Rock, Paper, Scissors is impossible, yet there are a lot of players winning nearly every battle in FoE. In other words, there's no similarity between the two games. The randomness you're experiencing comes from you own gaming style.
Of course the battle opponents need to be the same for everyone, regardless of their boosts. If battles were adapted to minimize the effect of the players weaknesses, then there would be no rewards for the players strengths. Someone spending no FPs on military technology, no FPs on military GBs, and no effort to learn how his two spearfighters work, would still be able to fight through GE level IV in AF. On auto-battle. Now, that would be seriously bad balancing!
If your ideal for strategy gaming is Heroes of Might and Magic, I guess that explains why you find the troop types in FoE boring, since they completely lack magical abilities. If the presence of magic is vital for your entertainment, you may want to find another game.
The technological platforms of HMM and FoE are also different. While the FoE client is restricted by the limitations of browsers, bandwidth, the Flash platform, or, worse, mobile platforms, HMM can stuff your device with a large amount of data, to be near instantly loaded from disc on demand, utilize as much RAM as is available on your HW, and gorge itself on CPU access. Finally, the development strategies are diametrical opposites. While HMM develops a new, stand-alone release every few years, FoE is an incrementally developed Web/mobile game. There's no sensible way of comparing the two.
The bottom line, though, is that you're complaining that it's too hard, and I'm complaining that it's too easy. That's balance, right there.