Forums

@Jarv: I edit almost every post I make, but actually the only thing I edit is typo's and grammar and alinea's (sometimes there is a screen half full of text making it unreadable so I edit some enters in). I don't know what you guys think I'm editing to fit the conversation? (quite curious since I really have no clue what I might have changed :P)

@ your first point about science and fameraping: that makes sense. I'll clear up what I mean, note that this is actually pretty much the core of why we first started changing the science system.

What I did not like and considered 'slow' in this game, is that when a new joiner signs up and creates an alliance and even fills it up with friends of him, he will have to learn the game. This takes some time but can be done in a week or so, at least the most important and basic things. Then theoretically this guy is starting to be able to compete with the top alliances, he'll have less experience and will miss some tips and tricks perhaps, but activity makes up for almost everything.

BUT.... This active and nice guy with his full alliance will be obliged to pump science for at least 1, probably 2 lifetimes before they are on an even basis with already settled alliances. Only after that much time they will have okay heritages with about the same science as a current decent alliance. And yeah, it is possible to grow to 3-4k acres in a lifetime and war some alliances at that size and even win those wars. It's only pointless since you'll die soon afterwards and both your heritage and science will suck. To get up a position in which you can actually compete on a longterm-basis takes 6-12 weeks. This is what I'm trying to speed up, cause who wants to join a game that takes 6-12 weeks before you can join competition on an even basis?

'And i dont believe the new science is free either? Before we could at least use our thieves to Napa for some rps. Yes we have the option to not run labs at al. But that's nothing new! If sci was so expensive then we still had the option of not running labs last age to, and use the space for other things.'

Napa hasn't really got to do anything with it? It's gone since labs are part of the decayformula anyway and you can still Templu for money to make up for your labs your might want to run.
Yes you had the option to not run labs at all, but it is undoubtedly a bad option generally. It is also an option to run 10% homes and full yards for fun theoretically. But it won't make you win. In the old system it might have been worth it in 'some' cases to not run labs at the end of your life (last 20 years), but this is not very often and is almost always to make attackers able to grab enemies. And running labs would also in those few cases still be a good alternative.
In short: in the old system labs were always at least 'good', and almost always 'best' to run. In the new system, labs might be really 'completely useless' at some times, and 'extremely good' at other's, and this will much more depend on your own activity than on your enemies (since in the old system it was the more labs the better and it depended on your enemies how low t/m def you could run without getting killed).

Joe: "For the higher off/def: off/def as raw number doesn't make sense, it only makes sense as comparison to others. "
Jarv: 'Well sins al alliances had a relay different amount off sci. There was a great comparison to others. It was not like everyone was having the exact amount of sci. I think there are lesser ways for a tribe now to be bigger or stronger then another tribe.'

I don't understand your point here really. What I was saying is that having 10 offence or 100 offence didn't make sense. What makes sense is having offence that can break x tribes, especially that hated guy that's hitting you. Are you saying this makes no sense? (an open question, I really don't understand your point)
About lesser ways to be bigger or stronger: what ways will be gone then? There still is
- size difference
- off/def difference (strength)
- fame difference
- t/m capability/defence difference
They are only affected in another way than before, since the science is affecting them in another way (more directly I think).


Joe: "but it really didn't help famerapers (unless they ignore alliance science rules)"
Jarv: 'It newer occurred to you that some alliances actually on purpose allowed some tribes to not run labs for a while to help that specific tribe to reach a goal, like higher Acres, fame, or strength. Some times that could gain the alliance and pay back later on, or it could just help to make a nice record.'

Yes, that occurs to me regularly. Still there is no way that a tribe can run both full guilds and full labs, so that still bites eachother. And of course you can let ppl famerape all they want and it might indeed be able to pay off in a few cases, but in most cases it won't (except to break records).
Anyway, the point was that the old science was thought to help famerapers more than the new one because the war tacts and engi gave space for thieves and increased tp/mp, so I was pointing out that that war sci and engi actually is being build up by running labs and that during that time you cannot famerape at all (at least, not efficiently).

-----

Anyway, welcome in the discussion. Feel free to murder me if I am wrong. Just telling you what I think ^^

Desperately trying not to edit, though I see 2 things I want to change already. Firstly I want to edit in a line 'I use to reread my posts after posting them and I almost always edit something in it then' at the very start instead of 'I edit almost every post I make' and secondly I want to add 'so it all evens up' at the very bottom before the last sentence.
And then there is some stupid grammar in 'Napa hasn't really got to do anything with it? It's gone since labs are part of the decayformula anyway and you can still Templu for money to make up for your labs your might want to run.' that whole sentence is messy and a bit unclear. Better would have been 'Napa costs money too (thievery upkeep, thief traning costs and lower citizens/income) and was designed to fit in the old science system as a more effective selfop available at higher acres than WL and Templu. In the new system the amount of labs affects the decay of your research and that's why Napa is removed since it might be possible to keep full combat research up with Napa while warring all the time and this is absolutely meant to be impossible. You can still Templu to make up for the crowns you aren't getting by running labs instead of mines.

There, no edits yet. I hope I'll be able to not read this post back and edit it ^^

See how stupid? I say 2 things and there are 3 in my post ^^

I got bored of reading all those infinite "questions etc"...

Joe, Bolle, Ender and however else worked on this research makeover.. You all know the game and have the best intensions (ofc).. Only way to see if it will be an improvement is to play the game..

i for one cant wait, so good job.

ps. how long before the branches are added?? it's probably in here somewhere but i cant find it through all these words :)..

wait, see, play and then complain (or praise)

I dont know what we are all arguing about here. A few people have put a lot of work into this new lab system so we should atleast see how it goes before we shout it down. It can always be changed again and most probly will at some point so I dont get what all the fuss is about.
My only thing to raise at this moment in time is when can I start investing again =)

didn't i just say that?? :)

I got bored of reading :P

~"You can be running no labs and do pretty well with that I think. " ~ Dev - Joe
~"Now there is no need for labs anymore (running labs all the time is disencouraged with the new high decay and warlike bonuses)" ~ Dev - Joe
~"Unresearch will come back indeed, since alliances stacking up million of rp's without investing them is not something we'd like to see :P" ~ Dev - Joe
~"stacking up rp's in a tribe is still possible safely, but we are thinking of making those rp targetable in a way too (probably by thievery or pure military invading)" ~ Dev - Joe
~"I don't understand why you want to have those labs all the time and raze them again all the time." ~ Dev - Joe

I'm curious how YOU would anticipate an alliance effectively using research {not just for war purposes}? It appears to me that if they hold labs, the decay will likely negate any benefit research points would give them. So, no holding labs.

If they spend a week with labs they first have to build them, hold the research points, then demolish the labs only to rebuild them again {perhaps a week} later once their investments decay naturally. Hard to tell whether that would even be worth it or not. It doesn't seem likely, to me, given other aspects. For instance, the added possibility that research points can be destroyed whether non-purchased {alliance} or non-invested {tribe}.

BTW, in my opinion 'unresearch' should apply to tribes, not alliances.

All this leads me to wodner, are you trying to get tribes/alliances to all but stop using research altogether? You can just consider that question rhetorical. :D

Do you see research as only being a benefit to an alliance for war and not for tribes/alliances to grow? {BTW I do realize that only 1 branch is good for growth} If so, what is the purpose of the other 2 branches? This seems to be what you've suggested in some of your posts but I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding

It appears as if only under VERY special circumstances {like planning for war/after losing a war} would you go to the effort, taking major precautions to keeping from being unresearched and hope that you're lucky enough not to catch other alliance's attention that they don't steal you blind before you get to invest an effective amount.


One more question: Do you anticipate that these changes will make it more difficult for a top alliance to be virtually untouchable? Could this create a situation where top alliances will have yet another tool to keep smaller alliances from growing into their range? If not, why not?

Thanks.

~"Everybody has less army, whats the problem?" ~ Bolle

I'm sure you mean that in a much more complex way than that sentence can convey, so I'm not trying to be facetious. I do have to ask though, if "everyone" is running less military, what is the benefit? If offense and defense are both going to lower, does it really matter if the standard is 400DPA or 300DPA?

An example:
Joe - Dev wrote: "Same goes for strength and acres. It's not the amount of acres you have that count. It's the fact that you have MORE or LESS than someone else."~

I agree. So doesn't this bring us back to "army-fat" as you pointed out? If 375DPA isn't holding you, one is likely to go closer to 400DPA. If that isn't doing it, aim higher... That's survival. So why then a design that will seemingly make it "easier [...] to kill army-fat guys"?

I'll leave it to Joe to reply in his matters :)

@Dragonscorpion: I don't see the word army-fat in Joe's quote, which makes me unsure whether or not you're quoting him correctly with regard to the context. What he pointed out was that things are relative, not absolute. What you seem to point out is that things are indeed relative, and that that's exactly why it won't improve.

What we HOPE for, though we cannot prove it, is that the attackers will try to grow more (because they'll reach a low citz rate at a lower size under the current circumstances). Those who don't will be risking instantaneous death - which means the attackers are kept dangerous and mobile, instead of slow and, practically, only dangerous after a pump, because otherwise they'll get hit by 'bigger fatties' while trying to grow.

----> What I think I know (you can never be sure) is that because the differences in max citz are (mostly) taken away, everybody will:

1) Have a more similar chance to die because higher citizens can't be caused by science (it can be caused by fame).
2) Attackers with, say, 66% engineering will have a far more difficult job in, whether it is consciously or not, playing as a barricade to attackers beneath them who have a science of, say, 40% engineering, and thus less citz and more military (relatively) and thus lower income/easier to kill.

So, to summarize these two points: The changes will lower the chance that barricades are formed and higher the chance that they will be removed. The only question is: will the explorers respond as hoped and explore more with lower defense, or will they keep huge amounts of seemingly useless defense, thus disabling any attackers of attacking.

With this huge post I hope to have cleared things up - at least where it concerns the use of removing the science for attackers.

P.s. I do not guarantee that this is in accordance with earlier posts from me (or, eventually, Joe), but it is my opinion now. The more discussion, the more I look back and think about things I thought to be facts but proved to be assumptions that yet required a logical basis :)

p.s.2. I wish Joe good luck replying to the rest ;)

Because poor Joe seems to be busy and I am not atm I'll reply to another of your concerns:

"One more question: Do you anticipate that these changes will make it more difficult for a top alliance to be virtually untouchable? Could this create a situation where top alliances will have yet another tool to keep smaller alliances from growing into their range? If not, why not?"

The biggest alliances always have some tribes at 10k, and they currently seem to be having those rather regularly. The bigger a tribe, the lower military is needed, the bigger profit engineering sci gives. Thus, removing engineering lowers the profit of these tribes, which makes them easier to kill for other alliances. This only works if what I think will happen (as stated in the post above this one) happens as well. You can practically apply my 2 points to this matter. Of course that's still assuming that the attackers won't get stuck around 2,5k without growth possibilities AND making them more killable, thus enhancing the 10k acre attacker advantage. But, as my reasoning above claims, that will not happen.

Remember, the biggest alliances always seem to have the highest science and the easiest lab rules, maintainable through the pumping of the big tribes, thus allowing smaller ones to grow faster. That's also a reason why I think the new sci system should make it harder for the first alli to remain first.

'I'm curious how YOU would anticipate an alliance effectively using research {not just for war purposes}? It appears to me that if they hold labs, the decay will likely negate any benefit research points would give them. So, no holding labs.'

Logically correct, but if you have a very clear purpose with the research and are aiming for it straight after maxing I expect the labs to be worth it in case of Economic Science. Combat science is without doubt worth it when you go to war, and warding is without doubt worth it if you are going to get warred. At least I prefer to kill my enemies or survive myself over 5 days of increased income :)

'If they spend a week with labs they first have to build them, hold the research points, then demolish the labs only to rebuild them again {perhaps a week} later once their investments decay naturally. Hard to tell whether that would even be worth it or not. It doesn't seem likely, to me, given other aspects. For instance, the added possibility that research points can be destroyed whether non-purchased {alliance} or non-invested {tribe}.'

Well, +25% max mp/tp is a huge bonus in war. If that science is going to get you 6 kills in a war instead of 2... I'd rather call it imba than useless.

'BTW, in my opinion 'unresearch' should apply to tribes, not alliances.'

I agree to that, prolly will see if we can make Unresearch target rp's in tribe and make the unpurchased rp's untargetable but decaying.

'All this leads me to wodner, are you trying to get tribes/alliances to all but stop using research altogether? You can just consider that question rhetorical. :D'

Hehe :P

'Do you see research as only being a benefit to an alliance for war and not for tribes/alliances to grow? {BTW I do realize that only 1 branch is good for growth} If so, what is the purpose of the other 2 branches? This seems to be what you've suggested in some of your posts but I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding'

Yes, 2 of 3 research branches are for (declared or nondeclared) war purposes. The third helps growing effectively, but needs good alliance coordination to work probably or else the labs will most likely not be worth it (as you stated above). I think with good coordination and a well-stacked market this branch is worth it though, decreasing both soldier and citizen cost for exploring and replenishing citizens quickly, this research is just begging for doubleexplores with markets when maxed :)
Note that the third branch can still be useful in war, to increase citizen regrowth and decrease building cost when running low markets and such.

'It appears as if only under VERY special circumstances {like planning for war/after losing a war} would you go to the effort, taking major precautions to keeping from being unresearched and hope that you're lucky enough not to catch other alliance's attention that they don't steal you blind before you get to invest an effective amount.'

Indeed. So spot the circumstances closely, or don't bother about research. I think research can very much be the factor that decides the better alliance though :)

'One more question: Do you anticipate that these changes will make it more difficult for a top alliance to be virtually untouchable? Could this create a situation where top alliances will have yet another tool to keep smaller alliances from growing into their range? If not, why not?'

The aim was to make it harder to stay #1. I expect this to happen since it is easier to kill (big) tribes. Also the 'pumping at huge size to make small tribes grow fast to big size so they can pump for the died big tribes that are now small and grow fast etc.' is gone now. You can pump what you like at huge size but when not using the research at some point it's all pretty useless. So the 'easier longterm science' when being #1 will be gone hopefully.

But it's still possible for #1 to quickly kill all enemy threats indeed. Also t/m's using economy science effectively might get huge sizes and become virtually unkillable (though it won't increase their firepower much).

~"I don't see the word army-fat in Joe's quote, which makes me unsure whether or not you're quoting him correctly with regard to the context." ~ Bolle

Joe didn't write army-fat, you did. I guess I didn't point that out very clearly. Though I quoted him I was still asking you because I thought that both what you had expressed earlier {see the following} and his comment were relevant to each other.

Here is what I was referencing from you: "the lower the population increase, the easier it is to kill army-fat guys refusing to grow. In order to make this well-possible even for small tribes I think it might be an idea to higher the max mage level without land requirements (i.e. ML 15 possible also on 500 acres for DA)."

I see your point more clearly now. I can't say that I will be one of the players that will keep my defenses low enough for attackers to make use of me, though. ;P

~"Remember, the biggest alliances always seem to have the highest science and the easiest lab rules, maintainable through the pumping of the big tribes, thus allowing smaller ones to grow faster. That's also a reason why I think the new sci system should make it harder for the first alli to remain first." ~ Bolle

I hope you are correct. That would be a nice improvement!

~"Well, +25% max mp/tp is a huge bonus in war. If that science is going to get you 6 kills in a war instead of 2... I'd rather call it imba than useless." ~ Joe

That is IF an alliance can generate & hold the research points... I think that will depend on whether there will be a somewhat safe way of keeping them or whether they will be destroyable.

If it goes as you described, "make Unresearch target rp's in tribe and make the unpurchased rp's untargetable but decaying," then I think it can be manageable. But then both invested and unpurchased alliance research points would decay, right? I've seen the decay rate with 30% labs up - it's like a cheetah. :(

The concern among some I've talked to has been that ultimately there won't be much net gain from the other {non-combat} branches of research. Hopefully that will not be the case. Only time will tell, of course, in how they are applied and what {unforeseen} effects they will have.

I could certainly see some alliances really take off from this, while other, formerly strong alliances could wither. This could also create a high turnover rate for top alliances. :P

You mentioned imbalance. One thing that I'm concerned about {perhaps even more so now} is that a semi-effective use of research will become essential to keep from getting stomped on a regular basis. Those that don't make it work to its potentials or simply elect not to use it at all could be at a severe disadvantage. Your comments doesn't suggest that would likely be the case. We'll see.

I can see why some would like research to just go away all together. I also know of reasons why I liked it and found it very useful, but then that was the old. The new seems vague. The verdict is still out.

Thanks for the info!

It seems to be that for every system that is created to level the playing field, those who have power will bend that system to their will to ensure the playing field is as uneven {if not worse} than before. Lo & behold, as this new system is implemented, a top alliance has found a way to beat that system. They get the best of both worlds - maxed out research in BOTH sciences.

Does anyone else detect a disturbance in the force? ;P

Yes, wait 5 days and notice 10 noobish dragons with a petty science ^^

I just noticed something.

Before, we noticed that the citizens growth rate with max economy sci is 43.75%. That means the economy sci bonus works 'over' the MRiver bonus: 1.15*1.25=1.4375

I can live with that, and as Joe PMd me on IRC, we get 3.75% more citz per tick, it's not a major difference.

What is new is the effect of pestilence. I just noticed that with pestilence (still same sci and MRiver running), I now have a 19.375% citz regrowth rate. Is the new sci system meant to outperform pestilence?

* Basic military is trained 1 hour faster for all races, including Brood

This applied to my other military as well (got them incoming in three), and I doubt that's how it's meant to be ;)
According to the guide it isn't, that's for sure :)

~"Yes, wait 5 days and notice 10 noobish dragons with a petty science ^^" ~ Bolle

Hmmm.... How do you figure that? The alliance in question has the same maxed out Research in both the old and new sciences still today. Even if the research DID decay by half within 5 days, they would still have far more in the old science {plus what they would have in the new} than any other alliance will have.

It's quite an advantage. Perhaps there shouldn't have been an overlap in sciences.

20% bonus

* Military returns 1 hr faster on Blasphemy Crusade and Hit 'n' Run


Does this also count for ravens? ;)

The old science decays just as fast if I'm not mistaken, dragonscorpion ;)

@lepel, :o

lol lepel, just imagine a raven hnring a billion times. >.<

I don't think so...

~"The old science decays just as fast if I'm not mistaken, dragonscorpion ;)" ~ Bolle

That's my understanding. I was disputing that. You seem to be missing my point. I'm talking about the imbalance that has seemingly been created here.

I doubt that ANY alliance had all the branches of the old science maxed out prior to the implementation of the new. Yet now when the old science of most alliances has dwindled down to nearly nothing, it's a bit unbalanced for one alliance to be maxed out not only on all the old but on a branch of the new.

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken the decay rate is tied to both acreage and labs...? I'm sure it's safe to assume that an alliance which maxed their science isn't going to keep their labs up. If this is the case, we can expect an alliance with both the old and new science maxed out to have that advantage for quite a while.

In 5 days {about the time the old science has long since decayed for most every other alliance} they could still have a significant amount of both the old and the new. Pretty good situation to be in, I would think.

Fortunately it's a one time event. But then again, with an advantage like this, what more could anyone need? ;D

Yes, one alliance is maxed out on a branch of the new. For instance I inserted 400k rps in that operation. I would think it's quite reasonable that a top alliance of about 70k acres has a very high sci for a few days when they're suddenly down to 10k acres.
Also, with the old decay rate this wouldn't have been a few days, it would have been weeks before it would have started going down slowly.

The decay rate is five days max if no one in the alliance runs labs. It's two days now, so if everything goes as it should, you should be seeing the science go down in 3 days. If not, I'd say wait another three days, and if it hasn't gone down then there is most definitely a bug.

I repeat once again, I don't understand why it's unfair that an alliance that could have chosen to stay first for another unknown set of years (possibly 150), instead creates for itself the best possible environment for a full reset. After all, every alliance could've done this. Everyone could've read the new changes, everyone could have planned to stash rps in your tribes, then when there's presumably a whole lot, invest all and invest them in economics, then all reset. It would give any alliance a big bonus, yet this particular alliance is the only one that did it. And not because they're smarter then the others or had knowledge of these changes first. Other alliances had several days to think of the same possibilities, but no alliance wanted it, simply because it involved giving up every acre and military unit you had till then. It would most definitely not have been worth it. I really think it's a much better situation to have two attackers on top of the ranks with 10 guys beneath you growing on a very fast rate while you're stashing the market and raiding annoying tribes. Try to see the reset as a favor to orkfia and competition instead of an unfair advantage.

Any imbalance that has been created is an imbalance in power due to the sudden demise of the most powerful alliance that existed. Yes, they took advantage of the situation, but at what cost? They lost all their acres, their position, everything. And to what gain? A five day research boost to give them a good start. And even if that is unfair - every alliance could've done it, but they didn't see the possibility, or didn't like it.

~"I repeat once again, I don't understand why it's unfair that an alliance that could have chosen to stay first for another unknown set of years (possibly 150), instead creates for itself the best possible environment for a full reset. After all, every alliance could've done this." ~ Bolle

In spite of your suggestion that this was some sort of sacrifice on the part of such an alliance, it actually works out to being a very convenient one for them. When you're on top there is only one place to go, down.

Would other alliances have made a similar maneuver of exploiting the new and old systems? Oh, I suppose if they would have known in advance what was going to be implemented, perhaps.

No need to play games here. Aren't a good portion of the alliance in question also designers or staff members? Moreover, haven't some of you worked on this very change? Even if you didn't know what age exactly the change would have been implemented, you would have had plenty of foresight to accumulate the massive amount of research points necessary and do the reset beforehand in order to act on that idea with the same "notice" as everyone else.

~"It would give any alliance a big bonus, yet this particular alliance is the only one that did it. And not because they're smarter then the others or had knowledge of these changes first." ~ Bolle

It helps that your alliance just happened to have had tribes with huge acreages and RPA's which maximize the benefit of the old science that everyone else is losing long before any of you do. Rather than it being some sort of sacrifice made for Orkfia, rather, the rest was the ONLY way that this system could be exploited in the way it has been.

And whether or not the new science lasts longer is irrelevant compared to this advantage. The fact remains that this alliance is maxed out in both the old and new sciences still more than 2 days since the reset. And I predict that it will remain so far longer than your comments here would suggest.

~"Other alliances had several days to think of the same possibilities, but no alliance wanted it, simply because it involved giving up every acre and military unit you had till then." ~ Bolle

I don't know of any alliance that just happened to have the necessary research points to pull it off. Nor do I know of any alliance that could have accumulated that much in the few days most would have known about these changes... So, yeah, I think pre-knowledge definitely played a role.

~"And even if that is unfair - every alliance could've done it, but they didn't see the possibility, or didn't like it." ~ Bolle

Quite possibly didn't see it. I'll give you that. But I'd add, didn't have enough notice to have been able to have done so.