PDA

View Full Version : Rifts on PvE World



dre.maa
08-11-2013, 05:27 AM
Is it normal for a rift to have five levels, each with one shadow dragon? And a hero with no army? I was just wondering if this was common. There are other rifts around that have the same thing...some of the rewards are 0 XP. Is it because my domination is so low?

Thanks!

Thorsson64
08-11-2013, 06:53 AM
No it's because they've been around a long time and no-one has attacked them.

AndreanDW
08-11-2013, 09:44 AM
These are rifts that have no aggro against any town in the near because
either there are no towns nearby, or only inactive players or new players that cannot be attacked (< 14 days since start)
They appear from towns of inactive players without alliance, or near new players (< 14 days since start) with alliance

dre.maa
08-11-2013, 10:51 PM
I have been on the world for 6 days; the 3 new rifts appeared 2 days ago. One of the shadow dragon rifts appeared in my territory, one near another inactive player, but the third one was right near a couple other normal rifts (5 levels ~50-100k per level) and a 20 level rift.

The point of the PvE game is to destroy all of the rifts, yes? And at the same time conquer/control the runic fortresses?

Are there any rules about what rifts you attack? It would seem that your alliance needs to build a portal in order to control a runic fortress.

dre.maa
10-21-2013, 03:25 PM
The point of pve is to work together with everyone to beat the DE.

destroying rifts get you points towards this.

yes you need a portal for forts.

it is advisable to converse via pm`s with people near rifts to see what their plans are.

If the point is to work together, why is it harder for larger alliances to hold forts compared to smaller alliances? I am in an alliance of 22 people and our fortresses seem to be attacked by armies of ~14M. There are three one-man alliances that have forts with only about 4 M troops max in them. They never seem to lose their forts, though. That would lead me to believe that the smaller the alliance, the easier it is to defend rifts. That seems counter-intuitive to working together.

Also...is anything on this page even remotely correct? http://wiki-mightandmagicheroeskingdoms.ubi.com/en/special-dark-elves-attacks-on-runic-fortresses

I try to read the "in-game" documentation, but it always seems so outdated...

AndreanDW
10-21-2013, 04:57 PM
The head line of your link should be 'how exactly did it work?

because that is the mechanic in 2011 or so, maybe til middle of 2012

The current mechanism is roughly so:
Take the sum of all dwarfs within all of your fortresses, and add as alliance strength 100 times the value shown for your alliance within the alliance ranking - statistics for army strength (that is e.g. for a leading 30-men-alliance something like 1.60KK or my one-men-alliance 0.07KK = 70 K (a little bit more than a 30th of the large alliance)
That means in your large alliance with a 20KK fortress you get 20KK+160KK=180KK as basic value, in my small alliance with 4 fortresses with 4KK each within I get 4*4KK+7KK = 23 KK as basic value;
now the attack in a fortress with only one defended level is basic value divided by 16;
therefore you get attacks of about 11KK with one fortified fortress (or 4*20KK+160KK)/16=240KK/16 = 15 KK
while my attacks are about 23KK/16 = 1.5 KK

the 'logic' and 'fairness' of the developer seems to be: you get attacks of 1.5KK for your less defended fortresses like me if your alliance has the same alliance strength of 70K like me;
the 'solution' in the sense of the developer's logic is: the leader of the alliance takes his army like before (7 KK), all the other alliance members sacrify their army within the fortresses

dre.maa
10-22-2013, 04:20 AM
Thanks for the update on the current mechanism. I couldn't understand how single players were able to defend with <50% of what our incoming attacks were since according to the old documentation the size of the elves was the same for all attacks.

Now, as for sacrificing, this documentation has to be outdated as well: http://wiki-mightandmagicheroeskingdoms.ubi.com/en/runic-fortress

Even if it was up to date, I don't understand it. I especially love the "Specific details will be unveiled later" line. How long do I have to wait until they are unveiled? If you said the other was from 2012, I would imagine that this is outdated by ~1+ years.

The way it looks like it works is for the first 1,500,000 troops sacrificed, you get double the army strength into the garrison (for a total of 3,000,000). Then for the next 3,000,000 you get equivalent army strength (for a total of 6,000,000). Then for the next 6,000,000 troops sacrificed you get half of that in the army garrison (for a total of 9,000,000). Then for the next 12 million, you would get 25%, for a total of 12 million in the garrison. I am guessing that the formula would stay the same? For the next 24 million, you get 12.5% for a total of 15 million in the garrison. Then to get to 18 million in the garrison you would need to add another 48 million troops? My alliance has ~30 million in three forts, does this mean that we have sacrificed 1.5 billion troops to the fortress? Even spread out over 22 players, that is 69 million per player.

And if all of the other players sacrifice their troops to the forts, how do we defend against the rifts that pop up? Do we just wait for our alliance leader to get to all of the rifts? And I guess we could forget about building grails, as we wouldn't have an army to defend them? It just doesn't seem like a very "cooperative" world if one person is doing all of the heavy lifting in an alliance, while the others are just sacrificing troops.

MartyAmodeo
10-22-2013, 06:43 AM
Do the math, but after a certain point, it makes sense to load up levels that you know will be defeated at the 2x sacrifice rate. When those levels are defeated, you get back 30% of the troops in a dwarf e-mail, which you can add to your larger level. The dwarf e-mail strength goes in exactly as you have it in your mailbox. It doesn't get reduced by any ratio. So your minimum rate of return is 30% of 2x on each sacrifice of up to 1.5M. You just have to plan ahead and make sure you load up these levels so that the dwarf e-mails are there when you need them.

dre.maa
10-22-2013, 01:00 PM
Wait, you get emails back from defeated levels? How was I supposed to know that? Did it say it somewhere and I missed it?

Edit: And who gets these emails?

AndreanDW
10-22-2013, 01:19 PM
Do the math, but after a certain point, it makes sense to load up levels that you know will be defeated at the 2x sacrifice rate. When those levels are defeated, you get back 30% of the troops in a dwarf e-mail, which you can add to your larger level. The dwarf e-mail strength goes in exactly as you have it in your mailbox. It doesn't get reduced by any ratio. So your minimum rate of return is 30% of 2x on each sacrifice of up to 1.5M. You just have to plan ahead and make sure you load up these levels so that the dwarf e-mails are there when you need them.
Minimum rate for the returm of dwarfes is 15% - therefore you get about 30% of your sacrified troops back as dwarfs;
Edit: the leader of tthe alliance gets the dwarven emails
Make sure that he often checks his mailbox, because you get 3 mails per DE attack, therefore til 21 mails per attacked fortress, or til about 80 per day with 4 fortresses; without subscription you will often find the dwarfen messages within the garbage

dre.maa
10-22-2013, 04:44 PM
Minimum rate for the returm of dwarfes is 15% - therefore you get about 30% of your sacrified troops back as dwarfs;
Edit: the leader of tthe alliance gets the dwarven emails
Make sure that he often checks his mailbox, because you get 3 mails per DE attack, therefore til 21 mails per attacked fortress, or til about 80 per day with 4 fortresses; without subscription you will often find the dwarfen messages within the garbage

What do you both mean by "minimum rate of return" is 15%/30%?" If I have 100 Dwarven troops, would I get back 15 after the battle? Is there a minimum or maximum for this? And do those dwarves last forever? Or do they expire like vestige/rift rewards?

AndreanDW
10-22-2013, 08:39 PM
the rate starts for small amounts on the level by 15%, and goes up with larger amounts of dwarfen (we got around 60% or so back in fortresses with 70KK dwarfen on a level)
by the way you get at least one unit back, therefore loosing one spear man you get the spear man back (loosing a bear you get a spear man too)
some years ago there was a bug that you got 10 dwarfs back if you lost one on highly defended levels... ^^

Losing 100 dwarfen you will not get 30 back, but you get some spearmen/bears/dragons that are worth about 30 units (if the rate is 30%)
and the dwarfen mails do not expire

dre.maa
10-23-2013, 03:22 AM
I also have a mechanics question: Why do 7 heroes attack a fortress at a time? I feel like you should have 3 heroes attack, and they keep attacking if they win. It seems like, for the most part, you have 4 levels of 1 spearman and 1 level of actual defense. The first four heroes just mow through the 1 spear chucker and then turn around and go home? That seems odd....

Also, why do you need so many messages when your fortress gets attacked? Why not just two messages: one saying that _x_ fortress got attacked and showing the battle reports; and a second with the "return" dwarves? Each of the returns could have their own drop down box. I don't know if/how realistic this is from a code perspective, but I figured I'd ask. I hate getting 14 mails saying that my fortress was attacked and here are the battle reports. That doesn't need to be 14 messages. At MOST, it should be 7. Ideally, it would be 1.

Thank you Mary and Andrean for answering my (many) questions. I really wish that there was somewhere I could read most of this stuff, though. It would take up less of your time. If either of you could point me somewhere that all this was laid out (correctly), that would be awesome. I really like a lot of the theory behind the game, I just don't understand all of the rules (some of which because I don't even know they exist). Is there a reason that the in-game strategy guide and the game-associated wiki are so out-of-date?

AndreanDW
10-23-2013, 09:49 AM
... Is there a reason that the in-game strategy guide and the game-associated wiki are so out-of-date?
Yes - it costs time to hold it up to date, and knowledge of old and new mechanics and changes