DeletedUser36624
The level cap in WoW was never 50. Unless you're trying to make people think it was WoW you played but was some other game.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Was Cosmic Raven's Guide even a remotely competitive playstyle for its time?
The level cap in WoW was never 50. Unless you're trying to make people think it was WoW you played but was some other game.
Czari
Active Member
I had been playing over three years, had four active cities and had begun and deleted more cities than I can remember. I was getting burned out by doing the same ole, same ole. I very likely would have left the game - then I stumbled upon CR's post about HQS and decided to test it out by starting a new city. I have now been using this strategy with a few things CR wouldn't have liked, such as adding a few event buildings that help my city, for over a year. I am in one of the top 10 guilds on the server and, before joining, told the guild leader (who was also familiar with CR's HQS) that was how I was playing the city in case it would be an issue in the guild. I was told it was not and the outcome is my enthusiasm for FoE has been rekindled due to a new strategy and fantastic guild.
DeletedUser30312
That's another good point. CR left right around the time sets were introduced with the original Cherry Garden set. There's now 6 different sets in the game. Then just under a year later, Inno added upgradable buildings into the game. Neither really take his strategy into account. They won't be good for spamming supply production quests of course. The upgrade buildings though produce huge amounts of coins for their age, and they go a long way toward completing the Fnord RQ. Sets aren't as effective for coin production, but they're usually pretty good at FP production which is always helpful for a city. They also add boosts to the city, but the coin and supply boosts aren't big when compared to the LoA/SMB/RAH. So I don't really know how much they help with Fnord/Spink/UBQ.
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
When the 500% bonus was active every set piece was able to just about be a complete RQ on its own. As long as you have a high enough boost it doesn't matter if it's a set piece or not as once you reach the RQ amount anything over is irrelevant.
That being said good luck upgrading the set pieces to current age when you age up
That being said good luck upgrading the set pieces to current age when you age up
DeletedUser30312
Right, but not every set piece needs to be upgraded, some have static bonuses, some just boost something like happiness and can be left alone since they're just there to boost the rest of the set, and some set pieces upgrade automatically. You just have to learn which is which.
DeletedUser40495
Cosmic Raven’s strategy is totally outdated now, as the game has changed much since it was published. With that being said, it was the cutting edge of FoE strategy when it came out, and certainly led many a player to greatness. Now though, as the game has changed, there are better strategies to use. Think of it this way: Cy Young, considered one of the greatest baseball pitchers of all time would most likely be mediocre or worse in today’s day in age. Many of today’s pitchers throw more than 100 miles per hour... much faster than Young was said to throw. This is due to changes in sports medicine, training, and diet. This does not make today’s pitchers better than Young though, as Young was phenomenal for his day in age. The same can be said for Cosmic Raven and his strategy. Although in this age of arc leveling, no player should directly follow the HQS, Cosmic Raven is still one of FoE’s all time great thinkers, and if he still played today he would most likely have adapted his strategy to fit today’s game. For this reason, I think there is a lot to learn - still - from Cosmic Raven, although his play is obsolete in today’s game.
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
RQs continue to form the backbone of my strategy and CR's guide is still a great guide to follow to maximize RQs in any city. Yes, per Dulahan, you can build an Arc early, rush it to 80 for FPs, medals, and 'Spend xx FPs' RQs, but if that is the only means of wealth in your city, your entire game then becomes all about the Arc.
If you're not hunting for GBs to 'Spend xx FPs' on, you're city is starving. I built a strong city based on CR's strategy, then used that to power my Arc to 80. By the time I built the Arc, leveling it was quick and easy in combination with some 1.85x threads. By then my HMA city was, with RQs and overall city FP production, producing over 100 FPs a day.
Now with an Arc 80, without doing any 'Spend xx FPs' RQs, my HMA city is close to 200 FPs a day, just from GBs, Special Buildings, SoKs, etc. My game is not dependent on my Arc, or the constant use of my Arc. My GBs level quickly just from the base production of my city. Why is this important? Let me give you a real world example from this week.
I'm in a guild that is heavy into GvG and filled with a bunch of advanced players. Our baseline GE requirement is 48/48 every week. Most weeks all 60 players finish 64/64. The moment SAM was released, 1/4 of the guild aged up into it, with Virgo Projects going up left and right, and everyone racing to the new finish line.
Everyone in the guild was leveling their GBs so members could spin RQs to get the SAM goods needed to advance. I jumped into the fray, on the hunt for medals and called a few top spots on some GBs being leveled. I did't even think about the SAM rush happening in the background. My guild leader explained the deal and asked me to lay off the top spots on the GBs to let the SAMies grab them to run the RQs they need to generate goods.
If my city was solely dependent on FP profits from using my Arc, and 'Spend xx FPs' RQs spun with my Arc, this would be a problem. My city would be starving. Instead, I'm using my abundant city FP production to prime my GBs for leveling, still adding a level a day, taking full advantage of all the SAMies eager to 'Spend xx FPs.' I'm cool grabbing the cheap seats for a week or two until things settle down again. Also, when RL gets in the way, or I don't feel like snipe hunting, I still produce more goods and FPs than I can ever use, and up my GBs go.
The place where CR's guide is most outdated is his advice to eschew Special Buildings in favor of 'Produce 24' buildings for more RQs, but SoKs were the most powerful thing. By the time Dulahan wrote his Arc 80 guide, a new crop of FP producers were on the scene, and he rightly advised to put a preference on overall FP production, replacing RQ buildings with better FP producers as they were acquired. The downside of Dulahan's guide is it also suffers from a sole focus. Getting an Arc to 80 and using that to power your city. Okay great, but that's all you got.
I often wonder if that's why they quit. CR failed to adapt to the changing realities of the game allowing for the new crop of FP producers or fully understanding the power of the Arc. Dulahan built a guide all about the Arc. When he quit, I remember him posting about, doing all he really wanted, seeing the rest of the game as more of the same, and it had become too time consuming. I can imagine why.
Players who simply dismiss CRs guide as being outdated are being shortsighted. I've seen tons of players jump into Dulahan's guide, IA - HMA. They spend all their meager FPs to chase down Arc prints, then spend all their meager FPs to buy Arc goods, then spend all their meager FPs trying to level their Arc. Then they finally quit the game when they discover their meager FPs from their underpowered city, will not be helped by the meager extra FPs from their meager Arc which now demands it all.
I like that I used a blended approach. I have a powerful city with an Arc 80. I don't have a powerful city because of an Arc 80. At it's core I have a powerful city because of CR's guide. The interaction of SMB, LoA, coin and supply boosts from special buildings and the tavern, the levels of CF. I continue to use his core philosophies to maximize my ability to complete RQs, which help maximize my per tile productivity.
As an example, I've balanced my coin boosts so that collecting either 3 SoKs, or 2 SSWs completes one 'Collect XX coins' RQ. Now, pulling down 2 Alchs (a CR no, no) to replace with either of those FP producers doesn't lose me an RQ, I just replace one 'Produce 2x 24-hour' RQ, with one 'Collect xx coins' RQ. CR's guide will continue to form the underlying structure of my city, but I'll also continue to follow Dulahan's advice and prefer FP producing buildings over 'Produce 24' buildings.
Each of the guides has it's pluses and minuses and suffers from the same problem. Each is written from one players' perspective around their particular goals. For players looking to 'follow the dots' to FoE stardom, all the guides have their faults. For players looking to 'connect the dots' and master the game by understanding the game, the key principles taught in each of the guides still stand. Those key principles will continue to inform my game moving forward.
FoE is a fast moving game, but the core principles remain the core principles. The core principles taught in CR's guide will never change. Nor will the core principles taught in Dulahan's guide. Based on these core principles, I built cities that maximize FPs, maximize RQs from collections of every building in my city, with an Arc 80 that will give me as many additional riches as I'm willing and able to spend the time to go after. Guide, no guide, those key principles will never be outdated and will stand as long as FoE is played.
If you're not hunting for GBs to 'Spend xx FPs' on, you're city is starving. I built a strong city based on CR's strategy, then used that to power my Arc to 80. By the time I built the Arc, leveling it was quick and easy in combination with some 1.85x threads. By then my HMA city was, with RQs and overall city FP production, producing over 100 FPs a day.
Now with an Arc 80, without doing any 'Spend xx FPs' RQs, my HMA city is close to 200 FPs a day, just from GBs, Special Buildings, SoKs, etc. My game is not dependent on my Arc, or the constant use of my Arc. My GBs level quickly just from the base production of my city. Why is this important? Let me give you a real world example from this week.
I'm in a guild that is heavy into GvG and filled with a bunch of advanced players. Our baseline GE requirement is 48/48 every week. Most weeks all 60 players finish 64/64. The moment SAM was released, 1/4 of the guild aged up into it, with Virgo Projects going up left and right, and everyone racing to the new finish line.
Everyone in the guild was leveling their GBs so members could spin RQs to get the SAM goods needed to advance. I jumped into the fray, on the hunt for medals and called a few top spots on some GBs being leveled. I did't even think about the SAM rush happening in the background. My guild leader explained the deal and asked me to lay off the top spots on the GBs to let the SAMies grab them to run the RQs they need to generate goods.
If my city was solely dependent on FP profits from using my Arc, and 'Spend xx FPs' RQs spun with my Arc, this would be a problem. My city would be starving. Instead, I'm using my abundant city FP production to prime my GBs for leveling, still adding a level a day, taking full advantage of all the SAMies eager to 'Spend xx FPs.' I'm cool grabbing the cheap seats for a week or two until things settle down again. Also, when RL gets in the way, or I don't feel like snipe hunting, I still produce more goods and FPs than I can ever use, and up my GBs go.
The place where CR's guide is most outdated is his advice to eschew Special Buildings in favor of 'Produce 24' buildings for more RQs, but SoKs were the most powerful thing. By the time Dulahan wrote his Arc 80 guide, a new crop of FP producers were on the scene, and he rightly advised to put a preference on overall FP production, replacing RQ buildings with better FP producers as they were acquired. The downside of Dulahan's guide is it also suffers from a sole focus. Getting an Arc to 80 and using that to power your city. Okay great, but that's all you got.
I often wonder if that's why they quit. CR failed to adapt to the changing realities of the game allowing for the new crop of FP producers or fully understanding the power of the Arc. Dulahan built a guide all about the Arc. When he quit, I remember him posting about, doing all he really wanted, seeing the rest of the game as more of the same, and it had become too time consuming. I can imagine why.
Players who simply dismiss CRs guide as being outdated are being shortsighted. I've seen tons of players jump into Dulahan's guide, IA - HMA. They spend all their meager FPs to chase down Arc prints, then spend all their meager FPs to buy Arc goods, then spend all their meager FPs trying to level their Arc. Then they finally quit the game when they discover their meager FPs from their underpowered city, will not be helped by the meager extra FPs from their meager Arc which now demands it all.
I like that I used a blended approach. I have a powerful city with an Arc 80. I don't have a powerful city because of an Arc 80. At it's core I have a powerful city because of CR's guide. The interaction of SMB, LoA, coin and supply boosts from special buildings and the tavern, the levels of CF. I continue to use his core philosophies to maximize my ability to complete RQs, which help maximize my per tile productivity.
As an example, I've balanced my coin boosts so that collecting either 3 SoKs, or 2 SSWs completes one 'Collect XX coins' RQ. Now, pulling down 2 Alchs (a CR no, no) to replace with either of those FP producers doesn't lose me an RQ, I just replace one 'Produce 2x 24-hour' RQ, with one 'Collect xx coins' RQ. CR's guide will continue to form the underlying structure of my city, but I'll also continue to follow Dulahan's advice and prefer FP producing buildings over 'Produce 24' buildings.
Each of the guides has it's pluses and minuses and suffers from the same problem. Each is written from one players' perspective around their particular goals. For players looking to 'follow the dots' to FoE stardom, all the guides have their faults. For players looking to 'connect the dots' and master the game by understanding the game, the key principles taught in each of the guides still stand. Those key principles will continue to inform my game moving forward.
FoE is a fast moving game, but the core principles remain the core principles. The core principles taught in CR's guide will never change. Nor will the core principles taught in Dulahan's guide. Based on these core principles, I built cities that maximize FPs, maximize RQs from collections of every building in my city, with an Arc 80 that will give me as many additional riches as I'm willing and able to spend the time to go after. Guide, no guide, those key principles will never be outdated and will stand as long as FoE is played.
Last edited:
DeletedUser30312
I do something of a balanced approach myself. My focus is on combat, so I'm about trying to get the attack boosts up as high as I can. But doing RQs with a decent Chat helps to generate goods, FP production gives me more FP to swap with other players and then level my GBs, leveling the ARc increases GB rewards which in part gives me more of the the very valuable FP packs, and so on.
I agree that just focusing on a level 80 Arc without the underlying support structure in the city isn't ideal. You need a foundation first, and the early BA through LMA GBs are that foundation. You've got goods production from ToB/LoA/SMB and FoD if you reach ahead to CA. LoA and SMB also boost the coins and supplies. Combat gets its boosts from Zeus/CoA/CdM. CdM also makes valuable FP, and you could add Hagia here if you want. And while Hagia and FoD aren't critical, they both give happiness which are space savers. Some of these are optional, and it depends on your approach. After those, you go after the power buildings, Arc, CF, Inno, Cape, Traz. At least, that's my opinion.
I'm doing the 80 Arc thing ATM because the many of the guild members had an Arc, and the leaders decided to work on boosting them all as a group effort. I'd have been foolish not to take part. At the time, I was focusing on my TA for the combat boosts, but I put that aside. When there wasn't an opening on a guild member's Arc and mine wasn't ready to level, I worked on leveling my FP GBs instead, because I know the costs for the Arc just keep increasing, and I'd need more and more FP to keep up properly. I also looked for space to add event buildings that boosted FP. CR did seem to be somewhat onto the idea that one uses bar FPs on GBs with an Arc to "bank" them as packs, but then Inno was also only starting to shift things heavily into bar FP at the time. I think CR would have adapted here though, since he did see the Arc's basic power in increasing rewards.
Doing 24-hour supply production per CR's guide isn't a bad thing, but it's only really ideal in a stretch from EMA to CA IMO. BA can do it with Blacksmiths, but BA is also far too limited to spend any time there after getting BA GB bps and maybe building up a small supply of goods. CR himself also felt there wasn't enough profit from BA. BA limits event options, locking the player out of good prizes, there's no investment of FP in other players' GBs, and there's no access to GE, DCs, or Settlements. HMA and CA are the two best for supply RQs because a player can spam pairs of 3x2 producers. EMA and LMA can make do 3x3s as well. But Indy increases the supply quests to 4 production which makes it harder. Then PE jacks it to 5, while the game is introducing 2 lane roads and bloating up the basic buildings to larger sizes than in the earlier ages. At this point, I think it's better to just abandon supply production quests altogether.
He felt the Atomium was important to the strategy, but that's outdated. Any power Arc strategy leaves the Atom in the dust for guild goods, which just leaves happiness. Since CR heavily advocated the Traz and Hagia, and considered the FoD to be useful, then the Atom is no longer needed for happiness either, not if one invests in sets which can provide a useful happiness supplement if spammed for combat bonuses or FPs. CR wasn't looking too much past level 10 on GBs at the time I think, because people were just starting to develop powerleveling strategies. Since he was partially writing the guide with an eye towards GvG participation, a powerleveled Traz would have been part of his strategy if he knew what he was doing. He'd probably jack up the Hagia too for the cheap FP boosts.
On special event buildings he advocated strongly for attack boosts, so he'd probably have been a big fan of the Carousel.
He didn't talk about sets though, since his last update was roughly in the middle of the Spring 2017 event where the Cherry Garden was introduced as the first set. Sets are risky, but they have the advantage of proving little boosts here and there along with happiness and current goods production. The big upgradable buildings didn't start appearing until nearly a year later, and they've had a pretty big effect on strategy. He aadvised shifting over to the old SoK farm after the heavy questing stopped becoming feasible, but I've said before that the SoK farm isn't as good a strategy as it was because of upgradable buildings and sets. He also felt the Graveyard and its upgrade were ideal happiness buildings, but they've become obsolete now. He gave a decent analysis of most of the available multiproducers at the time.
I agree that just focusing on a level 80 Arc without the underlying support structure in the city isn't ideal. You need a foundation first, and the early BA through LMA GBs are that foundation. You've got goods production from ToB/LoA/SMB and FoD if you reach ahead to CA. LoA and SMB also boost the coins and supplies. Combat gets its boosts from Zeus/CoA/CdM. CdM also makes valuable FP, and you could add Hagia here if you want. And while Hagia and FoD aren't critical, they both give happiness which are space savers. Some of these are optional, and it depends on your approach. After those, you go after the power buildings, Arc, CF, Inno, Cape, Traz. At least, that's my opinion.
I'm doing the 80 Arc thing ATM because the many of the guild members had an Arc, and the leaders decided to work on boosting them all as a group effort. I'd have been foolish not to take part. At the time, I was focusing on my TA for the combat boosts, but I put that aside. When there wasn't an opening on a guild member's Arc and mine wasn't ready to level, I worked on leveling my FP GBs instead, because I know the costs for the Arc just keep increasing, and I'd need more and more FP to keep up properly. I also looked for space to add event buildings that boosted FP. CR did seem to be somewhat onto the idea that one uses bar FPs on GBs with an Arc to "bank" them as packs, but then Inno was also only starting to shift things heavily into bar FP at the time. I think CR would have adapted here though, since he did see the Arc's basic power in increasing rewards.
Doing 24-hour supply production per CR's guide isn't a bad thing, but it's only really ideal in a stretch from EMA to CA IMO. BA can do it with Blacksmiths, but BA is also far too limited to spend any time there after getting BA GB bps and maybe building up a small supply of goods. CR himself also felt there wasn't enough profit from BA. BA limits event options, locking the player out of good prizes, there's no investment of FP in other players' GBs, and there's no access to GE, DCs, or Settlements. HMA and CA are the two best for supply RQs because a player can spam pairs of 3x2 producers. EMA and LMA can make do 3x3s as well. But Indy increases the supply quests to 4 production which makes it harder. Then PE jacks it to 5, while the game is introducing 2 lane roads and bloating up the basic buildings to larger sizes than in the earlier ages. At this point, I think it's better to just abandon supply production quests altogether.
He felt the Atomium was important to the strategy, but that's outdated. Any power Arc strategy leaves the Atom in the dust for guild goods, which just leaves happiness. Since CR heavily advocated the Traz and Hagia, and considered the FoD to be useful, then the Atom is no longer needed for happiness either, not if one invests in sets which can provide a useful happiness supplement if spammed for combat bonuses or FPs. CR wasn't looking too much past level 10 on GBs at the time I think, because people were just starting to develop powerleveling strategies. Since he was partially writing the guide with an eye towards GvG participation, a powerleveled Traz would have been part of his strategy if he knew what he was doing. He'd probably jack up the Hagia too for the cheap FP boosts.
On special event buildings he advocated strongly for attack boosts, so he'd probably have been a big fan of the Carousel.
He didn't talk about sets though, since his last update was roughly in the middle of the Spring 2017 event where the Cherry Garden was introduced as the first set. Sets are risky, but they have the advantage of proving little boosts here and there along with happiness and current goods production. The big upgradable buildings didn't start appearing until nearly a year later, and they've had a pretty big effect on strategy. He aadvised shifting over to the old SoK farm after the heavy questing stopped becoming feasible, but I've said before that the SoK farm isn't as good a strategy as it was because of upgradable buildings and sets. He also felt the Graveyard and its upgrade were ideal happiness buildings, but they've become obsolete now. He gave a decent analysis of most of the available multiproducers at the time.