About the game
Sign in
Top Players
Authorization required
You are not logged in
   Forums-->General game forum-->

Battle Campaign Update


AuthorBattle Campaign Update
I know that if you repeat a campaign at the same level and with the faction you get 0 xp, 0 fsp and 0 rewards... but can you improve a bad result?
If the difficulty increase is 0 is more than shop arts is worn, then if every player wore one event art and rest shop the difficulty would stay at base and everyone would be happy?

That's not how I understand it. Here's my interpretation.

In a 'dynamically balanced' system, when you win a fight, the next fight will be more difficult, but when you lose one, the next one will be easier.

This is how TG works, for example. When you ambush a caravan and win, your next caravan will be stronger. When you lose to a caravan, your next caravan will be weaker. (By how much the difficulty goes down is rumored to depend on how many faction skill points you receive in your loss.) Note this balancing is strictly individual, meaning that the difficulty of your own ambushes does not affect the difficulty of ambushes for any other players and vice versa.

Dynamic balancing also applies to battle campaigns, but in a different way -- collectively. It covers *all* players* of a given combat level that complete any battles in the same campaign. So, for example, when you beat the Pirate in 'Finding the Healer,' this particular battle becomes a little harder for the next player attempting it. If that player then loses to the Pirate, the player that attempts it next will get a somewhat weaker Pirate, and so on and so forth.

I do not know whether this collective dynamic balancing is specific to each campaign difficulty level (pawn-bishop-queen) or combines all three difficulty levels.

Therefore, what item 2 in this news states is that this collective dynamic balancing system stays the same in principle, but no longer takes into account victories achieved with equipment beyond shop AP. The expected consequence is that eventually, campaign battles will decrease in difficulty to a level where they're beatable with shop AP.

Another consequence is that for those who still prefer to get equipped way beyond shop AP, the battles will also be easier. But their victories will not affect the collective balancing for others.

Disclaimer: the above is my personal opinion which is in no way official.
I'm pretty sure this "dynamic balancing" for AG is strictly one-way. The difficulty can only increase, not decrease, over time.
I'm pretty sure this "dynamic balancing" for AG is strictly one-way.

What are you basing this on?
for Omar Contreras:

That's not correct. When you lose the same fight three in a row, the difficulty will reduce by 10%. This reduction rate will continue with additional defeats (e.g., 4 straight lose will resulted in another 10% reduction).
That's not correct. When you lose the same fight three in a row, the difficulty will reduce by 10%.

I'm aware of the reduction, because I've experienced it. I know how it works.

What I should say is that, the balancing is one-way, for all practical purposes. It's at least one step forward for each step backward.

I thought about drafting a long explanation, but you know, I'm sick of this guild. I don't want to spend any more time even thinking about it, let alone discussing it.
so why are you here?
yes it is one way but there is a ceiling, a low ceiling compared to before update.
with few event arts mixed to the shop arts, the hard difficulty is doable
What are you basing this on?

precisely my thought
Thoughts are thoughts, there is no basis of fact in any of these to get too worked up with.

It is however not too hard to test. If someone is willing one can easily use an alt and do the first battle and test it on that.

Logically I would expect it to go up globally with a win (when not exceeding the new AP limit for these increases), but to only go down globally when you lose 3. If it went down globally when you lost once, then for the first battle it would be better to quite the campaign and start again.

I may test it to know.
is it not OK to ask for someone's reasoning or evidence behind a claim?

"one step forward for each step backward" falls under "dynamic balancing" just fine. we should not assume that the increase in difficulty after a win exactly equals the decrease in difficulty after a loss. it could be tied to AP, to factions skill points received in the loss, and/or a number of other things. finally, they could simply be unequal for the sake of making things more challenging globally. all of this is well within "dynamic balancing."
So I did some testing with my alt as follows

Won battle - elf
Lost battle knight

Restarted campaign and won again
No change to army size of opponent as a result of previous win

Fought battle with knight again- no change to army size as a result of loss

Given that when you restart a campaign, you gain no new FSP from a previously won battle, I think it only registers the results of each fight after the campaign is completed. As such in order to test it you would have to complete a campaign and then repeat to know the effect. Thats a bit too much effort for the likes of me.
As such in order to test it you would have to complete a campaign and then repeat to know the effect.

as the balancing is 'collective,' or 'global' as others have called it, other players may have fought the same battle between your attempts. IMHO, this theory is not testable individually
Theoretically at low server time on a low difficulty you could probably zoom through one to test it, especially if you skipped the non essential battles, though why anyone would care enough to bother is another matter. As such I agree, not really testable.Its not as if knowing properly how it is balanced would change how we engage with it anyway. I just like to understand how things work, tis my way.
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
Back to topics list
2008-2024, online games LordsWM