Forums

Seriously Joe, stop putting your words in my mouth! Read al my posts, i have never said 'because we grow slower!' as you pretend to quote that i had.

I can make up quotes to! Joe: "i think i can predict the future, so i know exactly how this new sci system will work out"

"What you say is that growth speed is slower (which might be the case for explorers, since build and explore costs aren't adjusted to the lower incomes)."

Im not saying this will slower the game only for explorers, i think it might slower the game for attackers to! They wont have the benefits from extra wood, money taxes and citz either! You know, attackers will still need money for soldiers. And with the old sci system a active attacker, for example a raven could benefit from high war sci al the time.

Everybody has less army, whats the problem?

They do? Or will the game just be slower because it will take more time to produce the same amount of deff?

It takes more time to produce the offense as well, so I don't see why you would want so much defense.

For the same reason as now. No one wants to be the one in their size with the lowest deff.

Bad Karma, you're really active I wanna recruit you. >.<

But.. keep in mind we don't know what will happen until we actually see the effects. Also, the engineering and defence tactics (mainly) will slowly decay away, allowing for us to slowly decrease our DPA's to make way for the less cits that we'll have.
Also, there might be more than one change this age so just wait and see. ^^

Yes i agree to that. To quote a well known poet: w"e will just play, and try to have fun and we will se." <-- he spells just as bad as me :P

And i do hope there will be more changes to balance this. And if we are lucky HaRRy or Ender will be in charge of that instead of mister "know best" :P

Fine I'll shut up if you don't get my point :P

We will see :)

(now he can sleep god, when he got the last word)

Im bored, so lets continue this (LETS NOT!)

Joe: "I am stating the obvious, since explorers need only 2 branches (engi and def) and attackers need 3. The third one will always lag behind (since explorers won't need war tacts that badly)"

War tactics is not laging behind for everyone :P Some alliances take care of there attackers ^^

Alliance Research - XXX (#XX)
Branch Amount
Production 50.97 %
Engineering 43.22 %
Defence Tactics 41 %
War Tactics 43 %

Also, are banks going to become useless for non-brittonian races?

Exceptions aren't the rule Bad Karma.

Fine, Joe pretends to know the future and you pretend to know the future, both on different factors... let's see which factors have most influence, it'll be good to see. But I must say that Joe has many more factors in his calculations then you have ;)

@Bolle: Its always so cute to see how you to lowers always stick up to each other!

@Player 2: "Bad Karma, you're really active I wanna recruit you. >.<" - Yes i am active :P Bolle and Joe has to work i shifts to argue with me..

uhm, what do you mean with 'how you to lowers always stick up to each other!'? I can guess the meaning, but my guess definitely has nothing to do with my understanding of the language, more with you.

It'd be good if you realized we're being nice and reasonable where you've long ago started a flaming campaign with suggestive words, and most importantly, without any arguments or even to-the-point comments.

Would you please be so kind as to post your point (We'll just grow slower it was, wasn't it? Or 'game will be slower'; something vague like that anyway as you refuse to clear things up appropriately) once again? Everybody can read it and you'll be very happy because when you turn out to be right you'll be able to say "see! I told them all the time but they just didn't want to listen!". No one would even dare to mention that not trying something that might (and I think, will) improve overal gameplay would be a very stupid thing.

p.s. do read the whole post before replying.

@Player 2: Banks will still be useful, but britts will have a certain advantage here. I'm not sure yet if that's a good thing or a bad thing: britts military cost is adjusted to double citz in homes, so a mine 'should' produce 800. But, it's 400. Thus, you could say they're disadvantaged. But somehow I believe they're balanced not only to their improved tax but also to the relatively lower mine income :P

Ok, I made this post about 10 hours ago but decided to wait some time before posting it to read it through again sometime later (I changed very little). In the meantime Bolle made my post already, but I'll state it myself too to make clear that what you did was one step too far for me to remain ignored (in contrary of all the previous stuff which I chose to ignore or interpret in a humoristic way).

I wouldn't mind if you would stop making low comments and instead stick to facts when you're trying to convince me of your views, whatever they might be.

Low comments as in:
1- Calling me 'mr know-better' and 'oh god now he can sleep' when I am honestly trying to grasp your point.
2- Taking a superior stance for yourself, calling it 'cute' how we stick up to eachother, and calling yourself the 'mature' one.
3- Claiming that I think myself to be superior and able to predict the future, suggesting that all what I say is crap and big talk.

Then what you also do is avoiding questions, not answering to the point and using wrong arguments like the 3 personal attacks above as well as the following:
4- Making it impossible for Bolle and me to agree with eachother, since it'll be seen as 'cute sticking up of 'two lovers'(?)' instead of 'having the same view after thinking things through'.
5- Saying 'let's continue this (LET'S NOT!)' is putting yourself in a position of suffering, appealing to your readers to see you as a hero suffering for common good (an absolute non-argument).
6- Quoting me 'I am stating the obvious' and then pretending that one counterexample of my example makes the whole argument worthless (which isn't true. It still is obvious that 2 branches are cheaper to max out than 3 and that therefore explorers can easier benefit from current science than attackers and that therefore removing the current science branches will benefit attackers compared to explorers)
7- Suggesting that the new research system is unbalanced without giving any arguments for it (which I have been asking for explicitly), and suggesting as well that I'm extremely stupid (when you say you hope HaRRy and ENDer being in charge for other changes)
8- Ignoring arguments I give why these changes might actually speed the game up, as well as not allowing me to interpret your own arguments when they are not clear enough to me and refusing to clear your own arguments up yourself.
9- Systematically avoiding to answer my questions clearly, questions like:
- Why will it slow the game down?
- What does 'slowing the game down' mean if it doesn't mean that the growth speed is slowed?
10- Not allowing me to explain my own arguments by suggesting that I know everything better and that the fact that I post again proves your point that I know everything better.

Excuses would be the least you could do to offer a cease fire.

-----------------------------------

And now, back on topic please, I am happy to answer any questions or hear any comments :)

@Joe: I have not had time to read your hole comment yet, sins things have came up, but i will do and i will leave a response..

There's really no need BK, you stated your opinion earlier about the effects of the new research system and all we can do is to wait and see if you're correct.

This thread can be used better to let Joe (who worked with this since early this year) answer questions. You had your shot at convincing the rest of us already (read for instance Player 2's reply).

Are there any more questions on the new research?

Cheers

On the new research - I like the prospects.
It seems that it has been decided that Alliances at War will indeed be alliances at war. Making war seem more economical and beneficial is awesome.

Its either grow by war, or grow by turtling?
Nice.


---
Just to add. Didn't find it appropriate to provide a new post. I'm really lazy - and am still hoping that direct links can be placed within Alliance and Tribe News..
I have to admit I have gone to Alliance News, checked out retals and than gone to the Alliance Page only to wonder which alliance I needed to check out.

Also.. any idea if it's possible to introduce dynamic new-items-of-interest? New Tribe News entry.. automatic yellow high-light? Like Facebook with notifications and the messenger feature?

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there any other benefits added to winning a war besides the fame now that science is not really a factor? Without such, I don't see how these changes encourage war more than the previous system.

If you war now it slows your own alliance's progress and you'll get behind in science, especially compared to other alliances. With the new system sci pumping won't help you much unless you use it to win a war - or to survive one. Because the disadvantage to warring is gone, people will most likely war more - especially because it means that if you're successful you're one place up in the rankings :)

@Joe (and Martel): when you edit your post long after(with out pointing out the changes) it makes it hard to respond to them. Or it just changes the hole conversation history..

@Bolle: I relay do hope you are right about people will war more. But with the old sci-system alliances were encourage to go to war because there were sometimes a big amount of sci to conquer. That factor will be removed now.

@Bolle: "Everybody has less army, whats the problem?" Well i used to play a game that is similar to Ork before. It had two servers. One regular and one Speed. The only difference was that at speed you were getting more resources. And believe me, although it was the same for everyone, it was so much slower at the regular server. There were much less attacks and other things going on each hour (less human interaction). Old ork-sci is like the speedsever. I hope the new sci wont make Ork like the regular server.

@Joe:
Now seriously Joe, I have been writing al my posts with a big smile on my face and trying to make it obvious that my tone is humoristic. And i thought you were writing and reading with the same smile on your face..
But obviously you didnt.. I could not in my wildest imagination think that you were so "snarstucken" (i dont know the exact english word for that, but i think it is something like "easy ofended" or "touchy").
But sins my comments were not taken with the humoristic tone they were suppose to be, and you got offended, im truly sorry. It was not my intention to hurt someone's feelings. You should here the tone i normally use with my friends. :P

But dont get me wrong her. I DO apologise for anything that might have insulted you (or any one else), but i do not apologise for my thoughts about the new sci system. I still believe that it might risk to slow the game down.

Now to this: "as well as not allowing me to interpret your own arguments when they are not clear enough to me and refusing to clear your own arguments up yourself."

I did not explain it any further because i thought it was obvious what i meant. IF it was not then it probably got lost in translation and i cant do it better in English. English is not my first languish so i find it hard to argue for my point in that languish.

But i will make one last try to clear this out:
"9- Systematically avoiding to answer my questions clearly, questions like:
- Why will it slow the game down?
- What does 'slowing the game down' mean if it doesn't mean that the growth speed is slowed?"

When i said: "Wont the game slow down allot?" I thaught it was obvius that what i mean by the gaming slowing down is that what we do in the game getts slower (or take longer time/more updates. Just use your imagination..
For example:
-Building Deff will be slower (or take more time) because with out sci we will make less money.
-Building Off will be slower (or take more time) because with out sci we will make less money.
-Exploring will be slower (or take more time) because with out sci we will make less money, AND haver fewer citz.
-Fame raping by thievery like Arson will be slower (or take more updates) because we will have less TP (except for when "Combat" is running) and it will be harder to run high TPA without "Enginering".
-Boze will be slower (or take more updates) because we will have less TP (except for when "Combat" is running) and it will be harder to run high TPA without "Enginering".
-Fameraping as a mage will be slower because mana will regenerate slower without sci (except for when "Combat" is running).
-Income will be "slower" (or lower) without sci.
-Fewer human interactions each update because of less mana, TP and resources.
-It will take longer time to reach high strength, fame and acres because of less mana, TP and resources.


I know you had a argument against this.
"We in dev were reasoning that the need for research is forcing all alliances into 30% labs or more builds to keep growth speed high and that that fact was slowing down the game. Now there is no need for labs anymore (running labs all the time is disencouraged with the new high decay and warlike bonuses) we expect the game to be faster, since all tribes have 30% extra space to use for anything they like (income, ML + guilds for some killing, walls or weaps, whatever you like)."

Al tribes has 30% extra space? I don agree! The god thing with the old sci system was that the big tribes could help the small tribes out. Small tribes could run NO labs, and big tribes could run labs! I dont know how you do it in your alliance but i relay doubt you run 30% labs from 16-100 years! I wont mention un exact formula but the most efficient way was like running 30-40% labs your last 25-30 years. And you would still do a nice income. So you will probably only have more space for other buildings with the new sci system the last 25-30 years of your life.


Oh and im not against al changes in ork. Last age i was looking forward to the changes you guys made for age 16. And the Ally-merging thingy was great!

Now sorry again if i hurt someone's feelings! I relay do hope im wrong about this slowing the game down. Guess we will find out!

Mr. Hands - You'll still gain research from other alliances by warring, how do you mean it is no longer a motivation for warring?

@BK thnx, now you are perfectly clear :)

@BK's points:
It seems that you are forgetting that the old science wasn't free though. You assume increase regeneration and high citizens, but that is at the cost of pumping science for 4 of your 6 weeks of life with 40% labs or so. Fameraping, bozing, and also income aren't doing well with 40% labs at all, as well as human interaction. The labs were worth it ofcourse (so income is high in a way), but it really didn't help famerapers (unless they ignore alliance science rules)

For the higher off/def: off/def as raw number doesn't make sense, it only makes sense as comparison to others. Having 10 million or 100 million offence shouldn't make much of a difference. It will take more time to reach the 100 million offence with the new system indeed, but there will be no need to reach that hopefully.
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 tryed to stay out of this discussion, but i cant any more..
@Joe: First of al, you relay should stop editing your posts a long time afterwards to make them fit the conversation!!
And about sci:
"Not just 'whew if I run 30% (that is EDITED NOW) labs the last 2 weeks of my life, then I can explore every 36 ticks once I died"

"that is at the cost of pumping science for 4 of your 6 weeks of life with 40% labs or so. "

Make up your mind and stop editing the posts! BK is right, most alliances only pump sci in the very end of there life, for a short time, NOT 4 weeks. And you dont have to famerape the same week that you are pumping sci. I find fameraping very efficient while you are smal. (look at alliance #35). And the last two weeks you will have such increased fire-power and income even with a high amount of labs.

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.

Joe: "For the higher off/def: off/def as raw number doesn't make sense, it only makes sense as comparison to others. "

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.

"but it really didn't help famerapers (unless they ignore alliance science rules)"

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.

EDIT:
"Before we could at least use our thieves to Napa for some fame."
Is changed into:
"Before we could at least use our thieves to Napa for some rps."

1) Quote: Before we could at least use our thieves to Napa for some fame. <-- napa doesn't give fame, it's a typo? If so, edit please ;)

2) I tryed to stay out of this discussion, but i cant any more.. <--- could you please edit that into a way that it doesnt look as if you're correcting severe injustice? Can you remove it because it doesn't add to the discussion in any way? Saying "Joe, I think that you're wrong" would be sufficient.

3) @Joe: First of al, you relay should stop editing your posts a long time afterwards to make them fit the conversation!! <--- it would indeed increase his credibility, though the incredibility of his posts is created mostly because of people saying things like you did there, i.e. it is a problem created by the opponents.