• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.

Update 1.02.14877

DeletedUser

Guest
It's great to hear that AI was improved. Been waiting for that one for very long time. But then u need to remove collect points completely from ranking score formula. It already was way disproportunate effort vs effect wise, but with smart AI I'd imagine PvP becoming just completely worthless in that regard.
 
piohh

piohh

Baronet
You can't remove the points of the players... it's not a beta more and the player will kick the ass of FoE if you steal points. He do anything for this points, fight, produce and so on...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I mean updating the formula not some retroactive points recalculation.
 

DeletedUser2752

Guest
Exactly, I know some people who currently get only a quarter of their points for PvP. If they have to spend more time battling, there should be a major increase in these points.
 
piohh

piohh

Baronet
You can get nearly the same amount of points as before... if you have enough units. But u can't fight in all Towers... I think max. in two towers... for more u don't have the space in your cities...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
piohh said:
You can get nearly the same amount of points as before... if you have enough units. But u can't fight in all Towers... I think max. in two towers... for more u don't have the space in your cities...
Click to expand...

With old AI it would take an hour of fighting to get 250k PvP ala 5k rank pts even if u fought very fast and with bonuses. While u could get around 15k pts per day by just collecting once per 24h hovering ur mouse for couple of seconds in more extreme examples. If with smart AI this means I need to fight 3h per day and increase the amount my military buildings at cost of economy buildings multiple times, then it would not only be easyer but also more benafical score wise to drop PvPing at all. I know players who already gave up PvP because the effort being worth such a minor benafit compared to collecting that it just frustrated them out of it. But with smart AI causing very high casualties and need for much more military, it could be just worthless to PvP all together if u chase rank...
 
piohh

piohh

Baronet
Thats what I all the time say but InnoGame don't notice this...

3 hours? you are good... Cooldown show me from 2 hours up to 10 hours in my neigborhood... thats 8 hours... for PvP each day...
 

DeletedUser3411

Guest
HaekelHansi said:
but..... but...... When I see longrange units in my opponent's defense, I'd aim at killing them first as well so they can't do any further damage - why on earth would you want to prevent the AI from doing the same now?! The AI is slowly beginning to earn the "i" in it's name, before the tweaks, it was rather an AS (artificial st00pidity).
Click to expand...

lEARN ME HOW TO KILL MORE THEN 4 LONGE RANGE THE FIRST ROUND

so if someone has 8 catas as defence that day he shoot at least 4 times back. if i have 6 or 7 canons then he even shoots more times back, and damaging al doesnt work because they damaged even hit hard back at longrange. so longe range are .... now. worthless, u lose many every atack if the other has more then 4 long range, maybe u should do some fights yourself to find it out instead of coming with this nonsens
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Hansi is saying that now the AI is doing what you would be doing if you were controlling the defense. Hence, 'earn the "I"'. I think this is a much needed improvement, and will make PvP both more interesting and more fair, even if it is a lot more difficult than you are used to.
 

DeletedUser3411

Guest
shmike i know that they want an better defence. and i love that they work on it, i alrdy said i like that part.
My point is only the longe range atm. its getting shot down to easy so not good to use, for now jaeger, lanciers etc are much better or u lose to many units. Maybe they should make the battelfield longer. to many units can atack in second round the others units. i was surpriced alrdy that in first round rifleman kould shoot at units that where stil in starting position ????????
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I wouldn't go as far as saying that long range are now worthless. They are weak in certain formations and very effective in others. Just as riflemen are weak against lancers or jaegers in forests, and hugely effective against howitzers and breech loaders.

The real difference is that it got harder to get a flawless battle. From now on, we'll have to bleed to get out PvP points, ensuing ranking points and our medals. I totally understand hint's concern for players whose only purpose to play this game is ranking. It's true, it would be much easier to just get a LoA and a RAH fully leveled and collect supplies all day.

However, I hope that many players will take this as a challenge and try to adapt their tactics to minimize their losses and keep a high PvP score. It could serve as a new motivation to a game that, honestly, has become victim of boring routine for all top players.
 

DeletedUser2752

Guest
altaica said:
I wouldn't go as far as saying that long range are now worthless
Click to expand...
They are not worthless, but they are not useful as they should be. The only formation where I would use my breech loader against any InA formation would be 8 howitzers... (well, give or take one of them for another InA unit)
Maybe they are more useful in the past ages, but these long range feel like a worthless building from CA and up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser3411

Guest
breech loader are great, but only when your target has no or maxx 1 long range barack
and with diamonds 1 barack can have 5 of them, so stil verry painfull if u get as defence 5 longrange.

My point is, there are no infanterie or calverie who can stop the target from atacking the longe range even in round 1. This is not logic

In a real war to make this happens as is works now an archer would run over the whole battelfield pass soldiers, archers and calverie and place c4 on an artilerie and kill/damage it (long range) even rambo cant do that :p)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
In real war history, different time periods were dominated by different unit types. The greek dominated the world with phalanxes, Genghis Khan conquered Europe with mounted archers, and tanks ruled the warfields for the first half of the 20th century. It doesn't mean that other units were absent, but it's true that there was a "star" unit type that made the difference in battles. So it's realistic to have units effective in certain ages and less so in other ages.

In all cases, even with the old AI, unless you have 50+ A/D boost, you can't take CA+ troops with 7 breechloaders without taking casualties.

The advantage humans have over software is high adaptability. (I know that hardcore programmers will probably attack me with the fact that AI is supposed to be self-learning program, but let's face it. I don't think that's what's behind what we call "AI" that controls the defense in FoE, otherwise, it would have gotten "smarter" without Anwar and his colleagues having to reprogram it) Anyway, as we fight more and more battles against the new AI, we will figure out new formations that ensure us minimum loss in PvP. And maybe we'll figure out a use for those long range other than the 7+1 gren. Maybe 2 to 4 BLs + other units turns out to be the optimal formation against any mix with mostly howitzers and riflemen.

It's been so long we're all making fun of the stupidity of the AI and asking for an improvement. I guess we should take the time to test it and adapt our strategies before deciding which units are now useless.

What I don't find realistic though is expecting to go to battle KNOWING BEFOREHAND that you will get out flawless. That goes against every principal of war. You go to war, you take casualties. It's the sad nature of it.
 

DeletedUser2752

Guest
I'm just saying you pay the most coins, supplies, and population for them AND you have to reach the end of the research tree to unlock them. They should have some sort of use...
Btw, I forgot to mention: Great job on the update, keep 'em coming!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Improved AI is long overdue, many thanks for the update. The closer AI will resemble a human player, the better. But, as any one-sided change, this one also brings some imbalance. I'm afraid PvP towers will be abandoned - no one will fight, maybe only 1-2 players in each 'hood. PvPing doesn't give any real bonuses: medals - there are simpler ways to get more medals; plundering - useless, you can't steal GB bonuses; game points - lately, it was the only rational reason to fight, but I'm afraid after 1.02 it is better to use space (and FP) on economics rather than on military barracks/GBs.

I hate battles as they were before - no losses, the same routine each time. Winners of PvP towers were determined not by skills, but by number of guildies in the neighborhood. More difficult battles, more losses - more interesting. But there should also be some commensurate rewards. I'm not talking about increasing plundering capabilities - we hear enough whining already. But maybe there should be a small chance (5-10%) to get a "prize" after winning battle - a few medals (makes sense, don't you think?), a couple of FP, maybe even diamond or two. Otherwise the only reason to fight would be our everlasting lust for blood...
 
piohh

piohh

Baronet
I think someone understand it...

I take yesterday the IZA Tower with 1.35 Million Points and the KA Tower with 520.000 Tousend points. ^^

Today after 5 Fights 15 Units need to healed and 2 Units need to recruit... and thats with a bonus of 145%. Only this player will win in the future who have enough space and enough Bonus. And thats have something to do with skill?

YOU kill PvP
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm sure u can think of new strategies to conserver your troops better after a while. Best troop conserving strategies with old AI didn't become popular on day 1 as well. Anyways actually just wanted to say that I watched some of the battle replays from attackers on me and I was not too happy.

I defend with 6 archers and 2 rogues. Attackers with heavy long range etc all got away clean still, cause archers were all lured to the nearby rocks instead of pushing forward as much as they can so they could reach the AI on turn 2. None of them moved enough on turn 1 to be in shooting range by turn 2. And this happened in 3 different fights I looked. If you want AI to be really nasty and actually play like human, it should never play as passive and defensive with short range if enemy has long range. The moving on rocks also showed that they were looking for a bonus, but archers get no defensive bonus on rocks and they didn't attack anyone when going there. I'd understand if spearman goes to forest hiding for long range shots, but short range should ignore rocks in their thinking process unless they are attacking within the turn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top