Feedback Space Age Titan

[CrashBoom]

Here's a question for you. Under the assumption that most battles you fight are going to be against units that match your age, how do you design each age to ensure that the 'desired outcome' of being able to battle more and more as you move up in age is achieved? Or to narrow it down, how would you design the SAT units so that you could win more battles against them than you did against SAJM units? It's not like each new age just gives you stronger units; the game is also going to be using those same units against you. How is it even going to be possible to ensure that fighting gets 'easier' with each age knowing that this is the case?

copy paste previous age unit
increase the stats by x%
but the superior unit gets more than x%

so every age the superior units gets more dominant in every age



(and if the opponent is using that unit it: the result will be just the same because both sides increase the same and the fighting system is based on relative strength not absolute)

 

[-Alin-]

When Titan was released on Beta all of these same issues were discussed and debated. The strengths/weaknesses of the Titan units were well known BEFORE Titan was released on live. Even so, the players complaining the loudest now still took the leap into Titan. What did you expect?

All in all Titan fights aren't that ultra bad, yes, are slower cause You have to change the flying units more often and rogues are pretty useless in this age, you lose a bit more units, but at our stats in the last era, producing lots of things and units, should not be an issue.

I mean, Titan is ultra easier compared to Colonial Age with 150/150% maximum attack stats in 2013, manual fighting cause at that time You haven't any Alcatraz and Rogues just came up with easter event and all fights had the same continent map AI, in which ignored the rogues.
People that are veterans on this game will adapt anyway, others will just complain and are wanting one single unit fits all fights, but they never planned or fought manual fights in which every move and bush counted )

And that's the Issue, this game is letting people doing too many fights atm, instead of being few and more valuable in terms of rewards.

 

[drakenridder]

@-ScytheNinjAlin- even the industrial era’s bonus maps where really though with the 150% cap. I’ve waited till progressive and took those maps down with progressive era units. The difference is that we can now can hit 1.000’s% and still coming out on top when opponents have ~2x our bonus. AO, Kraken and Virgo have made it a lot more achievable. Let’s also not forget the 100%, 200% and 300% bottles which are stackable. Making it possible to push much further than fixed boosts can get anyone. Without those things it’s quite hard, if not next to impossible to do this.

However everything is relative. SAT didn’t release in the era of 150% cap, without AO, kraken and Virgo. It got released in the era where the % is capped to city space and efficiency. Most importantly in the context of SAJM’s meta. Which according to quite a number of SAJM/SAT players, SAT battles are harder/slower compared to SAJM.
Comparing it to lower ages currently is surely possible to berry pick ages with unfavourable meta’s for GbF to compare it to SAT. Than concluding SAT ain’t that bad. However a more fair comparison for GbF enthusiasts would be comparing early ages with favourable meta’s and comparing it to SAT. Imho the benefit space ages have over early ages is a larger city to raise boosts much higher.

In conclusion SAT could be easier than early ages due to more space for boosts and GB’s. However comparing it to previous space ages, it’s fair that the age gets called out for it being a step down.

 

[xivarmy]

In conclusion SAT could be easier than early ages due to more space for boosts and GB’s. However comparing it to previous space ages, it’s fair that the age gets called out for it being a step down.

But it's not the first time an age is a step down. And if they keep making new ages it won't be the last. For the most part new ages probably bounce around their current "intended difficulty" and experience will vary from person to person depending on their situation and what they're looking for in an era.

SAT is not the worst age ever - even in the context of having similar boost in various different ages. But it is following up one of the most one-dimensional ages dominated more by contact than any previous era. I'm not sure it should've been expected to be anything but a step down if that's the thing you most look for in an age. But I think the portion of the population that feels that way is actually probably pretty small - just very active and very vocal when the slightest damage is made to their GBG reward extravaganza

 

[drakenridder]

But it's not the first time an age is a step down. And if they keep making new ages it won't be the last. For the most part new ages probably bounce around their current "intended difficulty" and experience will vary from person to person depending on their situation and what they're looking for in an era.

SAT is not the worst age ever - even in the context of having similar boost in various different ages. But it is following up one of the most one-dimensional ages dominated more by contact than any previous era. I'm not sure it should've been expected to be anything but a step down if that's the thing you most look for in an age. But I think the portion of the population that feels that way is actually probably pretty small - just very active and very vocal when the slightest damage is made to their GBG reward extravaganza

Yeah, it was kinda my point. It's not fair to compare SAT to the early days of Forge. It's more fair how it's judged: in context of previous space ages.
The only redeeming quality of SAT are the GB's. In which the boosts are quite good in relation to fps. As where goods costs spike but that can be tackled through colony + event buildings + CF levelling. Though I can see why the preference is to stick to SAJM and just buy the SAT goods.

 

[xivarmy]

Yeah, it was kinda my point. It's not fair to compare SAT to the early days of Forge. It's more fair how it's judged: in context of previous space ages.
The only redeeming quality of SAT are the GB's. In which the boosts are quite good in relation to fps. As where goods costs spike but that can be tackled through colony + event buildings + CF levelling. Though I can see why the preference is to stick to SAJM and just buy the SAT goods.

I don't even think it's the weakest of the space ages. I personally like it much better than SAAB (which I absolutely *loathed*). And possibly also SAM, based on my re-experience with it on my new main (I took a *major* attrition capability hit moving from VF to SAM).

I think Jupiter was just disproportionately "too good" making it look bad by contrast with the *one* age right before it.

 

[AllamHRK]

Here's a question for you. Under the assumption that most battles you fight are going to be against units that match your age, how do you design each age to ensure that the 'desired outcome' of being able to battle more and more as you move up in age is achieved? Or to narrow it down, how would you design the SAT units so that you could win more battles against them than you did against SAJM units? It's not like each new age just gives you stronger units; the game is also going to be using those same units against you. How is it even going to be possible to ensure that fighting gets 'easier' with each age knowing that this is the case?

First, the fights shouldn't get easier as the ages progress.... it's just the opposite, the units get stronger and more skillful, so the logic is that the fights get more and more complex and difficult.

How do you deal with it?

It's simple, you must evolve your attack more than the game evolves the difficulty of the NPCs age after age. This has always been the logic of the game since I started playing more than 10 years ago...

Want an example? Ignore all other attack sources, consider the basic attack trio (zeus, aachen, and del monte) at level 10. Can you fight smoothly in the early ages campaign with this setup, concorca? However, if you try to fight it in space ages, you won't make it, so what do you do? Evolve these GEs (as well as other buildings), and you increase your attack beyond what the game increases the attack of NPCs, it's simple.

Conclusion, that is not the problem here. The problem we are discussing is the fact of not having a good enough unit to do sequence fights, which is the focus of the vast majority of active players. If there is a key unit, such as the grenadier in SAJM, everyone can do fights much faster, and the performance of these fights should vary according to their attack, the higher your attack, the more fights you can do without changing units, that is, you spend more time fighting and less time changing units...

But without a key unit like in SAT, regardless of how much you evolve your attack, you won't be able to fight quickly, and you'll spend more time switching units than fighting. And this should be even worse for players who have a weaker attack, as they will take even more damage in each fight, that is, it is a bad scenario for big players and even worse for small ones.

To give you an idea, I have almost 7,000% attack and start losing units randomly around attrition 30 already, and every 3~4 fights I have to replace units, not going more than attrition 100 on automatic, and reaching attrition 120 (without forcing). While in SAJM, it started to lose units at attrition 70, fight until attrition 100~105 on automatic passing without problems, and changing units every 10 fights until attrition 60~70 at least, reaching attrition 130 (without forcing).

Realize? HOW MUCH you can do has not decreased much... what has changed is HOW... because now you spend much more time, stress much more and earn much less.

Now if for players with high attacks it's like this... imagine players who have a much lower attack, what is the fighting situation of these players... they must be close to doing fights manually like years ago.

Fact is, 99% of the game's active players in fights want fast fights, the game has moved towards that through CBG and GvG, like it or not that's the reality... so at this point forcing players into a slow fight scenario through bad units is good for who? And don't take this the wrong way, the little game of chess is nice too, I even got to friction 151 myself by spending several minutes in manual fights...

It's just that it's cool in some moments, sometimes... not all the time, like the game's default reality.

 

[AllamHRK]

All in all Titan fights aren't that ultra bad, yes, are slower cause You have to change the flying units more often and rogues are pretty useless in this age, you lose a bit more units, but at our stats in the last era, producing lots of things and units, should not be an issue.

How is that?

"The fights on Titan aren't bad, the fights just..."

"They're slower..."

"You have to trade more units..."

"You lose more units..."

"Agents are useless..."

Boy, what has to happen for fights to turn bad for you? hahahaha

 

[AllamHRK]

but they never planned or fought manual fights in which every move and bush counted

That's a lie... most of the real veteran players (from many years of playing) already fought a lot manually, both in the campaign, as in GvG by guilds and to score... myself, long before they started scoring with champions, I was already fighting mixed units in colonial MANUALLY every day... and yes, considering that in the present day, it was crazy, but it was a phase... and I emphasize PHASE... this game had several cycles, it changed a lot over the years, and like it or not, today's reality are automatic and fast fights, the days of chess games lasting several minutes are behind us. I think this idea makes no sense...

"I like manual fighting slowly, analyzing the battlefield, every move, every unit, the stats, spending 10 minutes on a fight.... THEN... force everyone to play like I play, and end the quick fights of these other players.

I don't know, I just don't think it's fair to force everyone into slow battles... the way it was in SAJM was great. Those who wanted to fight in the manual fought, and those who wanted to fight fast, fought. And since ages are copy and paste anyway, why change the only good part of it?

 

[-Alin-]

How is that?

"The fights on Titan aren't bad, the fights just..."

"They're slower..."

"You have to trade more units..."

"You lose more units..."

"Agents are useless..."

Boy, what has to happen for fights to turn bad for you? hahahaha

Aren't ultra bad, I said, but they are still bad compared to other eras, and that's just because of the higher keen eye, fights are more of a gambling, but I can survive with that, even if I had to trade Jupiter for Titan just for 3 new great buildings, lol.

 

[Grzechu Junior]

Aren't ultra bad, I said, but they are still bad compared to other eras, and that's just because of the higher keen eye, fights are more of a gambling, but I can survive with that, even if I had to trade Jupiter for Titan just for 3 new great buildings, lol.

well, i have very high alcatraz - 130 lvl, so it is 128 units per day. (okey 15hrs) so like 170-200 per day.

I use thos eunits in like thrre hours using 8 fast. It is impossible to fight as much as you done in previous eras. Even in Ocean future situation was not that bad....

 

[Beta King]

well, i have very high alcatraz - 130 lvl, so it is 128 units per day. (okey 15hrs) so like 170-200 per day.

I use thos eunits in like thrre hours using 8 fast. It is impossible to fight as much as you done in previous eras. Even in Ocean future situation was not that bad....

Well at least when you spend the same amount of time fighting as your lower age guildmates you will get 75% of the rewards they get cause you waste all your time swapping out troops but 75% is better than nothing right? Hang in there it might get better in 1.5 years but 40% keen will likely still own you next era so we will see. You could always take a break from the game until the next era come out. I will at least be taking a break from spending any cash until it gets better and let those happy with the current situation pay the bills. I think now that they have added a $25 gold lvl buy line above the silver one that the next obvious option should be a platinum bar for $60 so it will make each event an even $100 then give avatars only to them that just says "WINNER".

 

[Emberguard]

I think now that they have added a $25 gold lvl buy line above the silver one that the next obvious option should be a platinum bar for $60 so it will make each event an even $100 then give avatars only to them that just says "WINNER".

The gold includes all lower priced passes. So a Platinum for whatever price would also include all lower priced passes….. so more likely $40 or $45 for silver + gold + your proposed platinum, not $100. Even if Platinum were $60, that’d just mean a flat $60 due to it including lower passes, not $100

 

[Beta King]

The gold includes all lower priced passes. So a Platinum for whatever price would also include all lower priced passes….. so more likely $40 or $45 for silver + gold + your proposed platinum, not $100. Even if Platinum were $60, that’d just mean a flat $60 due to it including lower passes, not $100

Ahh sorry didnt realize that you didnt have to buy first tier before buying the second so thanks for clarifying. $60 will not be enough if we can only squeeze a dozen events per year so we might need to limit them to 15 days each then maybe we can get by.

 

[Owl II]

I didn't understand what a pass in events has to do with a new age and disgusting battle system in it? In vain inno moved the "Heal all" button. It would be a Klondike in Titan.
Or not

 

[pistanika]

For the fights in Titan on live servers.

I have attack 4000 and defense 3600
My friend has 2000 attack and 1800 defense.
We are both in Titan. He does 2 fights and has to change units if he doesn't want to lose them. I will do 3 fights. That's all right? No, it certainly isn't.
All my progress in building up the advantage for fights is lost. This INNO wanted? In whose head was it born?

What is the difference between level of weakening 0 and 40? Do you know that? Let me tell you. None.

There is no difference in level of weakening, no difference in values for attack and defense. As if the fights in Titan lived in another dimension. Who came up with this idea must have smoked a lot of marijuana. As well as those who approved it.

Sorry for my english.

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

First, the fights shouldn't get easier as the ages progress.... it's just the opposite, the units get stronger and more skillful, so the logic is that the fights get more and more complex and difficult.

How do you deal with it?

It's simple, you must evolve your attack more than the game evolves the difficulty of the NPCs age after age. This has always been the logic of the game since I started playing more than 10 years ago...

Want an example? Ignore all other attack sources, consider the basic attack trio (zeus, aachen, and del monte) at level 10. Can you fight smoothly in the early ages campaign with this setup, concorca? However, if you try to fight it in space ages, you won't make it, so what do you do? Evolve these GEs (as well as other buildings), and you increase your attack beyond what the game increases the attack of NPCs, it's simple.

Conclusion, that is not the problem here. The problem we are discussing is the fact of not having a good enough unit to do sequence fights, which is the focus of the vast majority of active players. If there is a key unit, such as the grenadier in SAJM, everyone can do fights much faster, and the performance of these fights should vary according to their attack, the higher your attack, the more fights you can do without changing units, that is, you spend more time fighting and less time changing units...

But without a key unit like in SAT, regardless of how much you evolve your attack, you won't be able to fight quickly, and you'll spend more time switching units than fighting. And this should be even worse for players who have a weaker attack, as they will take even more damage in each fight, that is, it is a bad scenario for big players and even worse for small ones.

To give you an idea, I have almost 7,000% attack and start losing units randomly around attrition 30 already, and every 3~4 fights I have to replace units, not going more than attrition 100 on automatic, and reaching attrition 120 (without forcing). While in SAJM, it started to lose units at attrition 70, fight until attrition 100~105 on automatic passing without problems, and changing units every 10 fights until attrition 60~70 at least, reaching attrition 130 (without forcing).

Realize? HOW MUCH you can do has not decreased much... what has changed is HOW... because now you spend much more time, stress much more and earn much less.

Now if for players with high attacks it's like this... imagine players who have a much lower attack, what is the fighting situation of these players... they must be close to doing fights manually like years ago.

Fact is, 99% of the game's active players in fights want fast fights, the game has moved towards that through CBG and GvG, like it or not that's the reality... so at this point forcing players into a slow fight scenario through bad units is good for who? And don't take this the wrong way, the little game of chess is nice too, I even got to friction 151 myself by spending several minutes in manual fights...
View attachment 9935
It's just that it's cool in some moments, sometimes... not all the time, like the game's default reality.

if what you say is true and it has 7,000% attack bonus then we have a problem with Inno's percentages because I have the same problems as you, but in the live world I have 33% of the attack bonus than you which is 2,450% and I need to change every 3.4 fights and at 30 attrition it starts to get difficult and at 87 attrition is my limit to go on automatic. So Inno's percentage is incorrect and a lie.

 

[xivarmy]

For the fights in Titan on live servers.

I have attack 4000 and defense 3600
My friend has 2000 attack and 1800 defense.
We are both in Titan. He does 2 fights and has to change units if he doesn't want to lose them. I will do 3 fights. That's all right? No, it certainly isn't.
All my progress in building up the advantage for fights is lost. This INNO wanted? In whose head was it born?

What is the difference between level of weakening 0 and 40? Do you know that? Let me tell you. None.

There is no difference in level of weakening, no difference in values for attack and defense. As if the fights in Titan lived in another dimension. Who came up with this idea must have smoked a lot of marijuana. As well as those who approved it.

Sorry for my english.

Assuming this comparison is being done at very low attrition, the reason is that you're *both* approaching the cap of what you can actually accomplish through these stats.

- Damage cannot be lowered below 1. Long long ago it could (it changed when TE was the last age), but no more. You both will maintain this for a significant range at low attrition. Your extra defense just gives you a higher attrition to which this still holds true.

- Dead is dead. There's a few regions here:
- automatic 1-shot no keen eye needed (disappears pretty quickly for both of you because it requires A/D > 19 to accomplish.
- AO or Keen-Eye 1-shot. This requires A/D > 2.25 to be a guarantee. Both of you probably enjoy this for a good long while.
- Keen-Eye only 1-shot. This requires A/D > 1.21 to be a guarantee.

I'll dig up some numbers to compare where things change for the two of you, but ultimately the issue here is if you're only comparing fighting at low attrition you're both past the point where you can improve significantly further - you've passed the cap until higher attrition.

 

[xivarmy]

As promised, a variety of SAT breakpoints:

​	4000/3600​	2000/1800​
No Auto OHK Heavy​	5​	0​
No Auto OHK Fast​	16​	0​
No Auto OHK Ranged​	17​	0​
No Auto OHK Artillery​	20​	1​
No Auto Crit OHK Light​	66​	43​
1-2 Damage Taken Light​	68​	44​
1-2 Damage Taken Heavy​	70​	46​
1-2 Damage Taken Ranged​	72​	49​
1-2 Damage Taken Fast​	73​	51​
No Auto Crit OHK Heavy​	87​	60​
No Auto Crit OHK Fast​	91​	65​
No Auto Crit OHK Ranged​	94​	68​
No Auto Keen OHK Light​	96​	68​
2-4 Damage Taken Light​	97​	69​
No Auto Crit OHK Artillery​	99​	72​
No Auto Keen OHK Heavy​	100​	72​
2-4 Damage Taken Heavy​	100​	71​
2-4 Damage Taken Ranged​	101​	74​
2-4 Damage Taken Fast​	103​	75​
No Auto Keen OHK Fast​	105​	77​
No Auto Keen OHK Ranged​	108​	80​
No Auto Keen OHK Artillery​	112​	84​
4-6 Damage Taken Light​	122​	94​
4-6 Damage Taken Heavy​	124​	96​
4-6 Damage Taken Ranged​	125​	98​
4-6 Damage Taken Fast​	127​	100​

The difference between the two of you is ~20-30 points of attrition to have "similar" fights.

You both take minimum damage until ~50 attrition, but your minimum damage taken with twice the boost extends to more like 70 attrition.

You both have what should be incredibly easy fights up to about 75 attrition, but your very easy fights with twice the stats probably extend to close to 100.

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

Lv 11 to 100 goods

Pegasus 1,242,000 goods

Centauro 1,656,000 goods

Hidra 2,070,000 goods

Lv 11 to 100 coins

Pegasus 13.635 Billions coins

Centauro 18.180 Billions coins

Hidra 25.225 Billions coins


I think the total values must have been posted here, but I'm posting them again. If not, here are the values