I'm asking for the effectiveness of homes compared to forts and TGs. btw, I'm an avian so stables are no go.
ty in advance
Printable View
I'm asking for the effectiveness of homes compared to forts and TGs. btw, I'm an avian so stables are no go.
ty in advance
The proper way to answer a question like that requires more info.
What rough rate of sci are you planning/able to run?
What personality are you?
Are you trying for hybrid, heavy attacker, or T/M (ya unlikely for an avian but just the same)?
A build strategy running homes is a strat centering around quantity (ie raw numbers) while a no-homes strat centers itself around quality (ie modified numbers). I myself don't use any homes as an attacker and stick to making the quality of the troops I have as effective as I can.
Doesnt really matter what you want to do. You should ALWAYS run at a minimum 40% homes.
/thread
Ignore anyone who tells you to run more than 30% of any one building... they are either Gojete, or do no understand diminishing returns. because your question is quite vague the answer wont be too thorough. homes will provide you with a slight economic and military boost but their strength is in fixing your BE if you keep it awfully low, anywhere from 0% to 10% or so is probably an ok ammount to keep around. now about tg's vs forts. unless you are a faery, or are already rocking 20%+ Tg's, i would not even begin to wonder about forts usefulness as it is mostly null.
If anyone ever tells you to run >15% homes, you should take their advise with a grain of salt. Anything over 20% homes merits a complete ignoring of their post.
Anyhow, basically what Fenleone said holds true, what you've given us is not enough for us to go on to advise you about your build. For example, if you're an Avian/Cleric, then you're going to need a different build than say Avian/Rogue. Role and activity are also huge components of what you're asking about.
Also, I'd like to think that you can have both quantity and quality if you play your province right ;)
I disagree with Spamely about Forts/TG. You need to look what you have to work with. If you're going by rDPA like some people do, then all they do is increase your defense, but if you're using a goal mDPA, then forts could free up a sizable chunk of your army to train into elites. Again, it all depends. Forts are more effective the more TGs that you're already running. (you can boost your OPA by 0.5 simply by using the correct mix of forts/TGs @20% total rather than going 20% TGs only.)
Anyhow, I've put together a spreadsheet that you might find useful. You can tinker around with builds and such to see their effects. I'll point you to it: http://sheet.zoho.com/public/ordray/...orkbook-v0-5-1
P.S. I'll be uploading a new version in about 6-8 hours from now that will include a basic attack calculator. Just a bit of a shameless plug ;)
Hey Ordray: A guy I used to know would run ~40% homes + really high pop science, getting him ~34+ ppa, seemed to work pretty well for him at least. Had massive amounts of troops/thieves/etc. So is that type of strat still viable or just ridiculous?? I know the guy who used it was like totally gung-ho about it
"do no understand diminishing returns."
I didn't know the population bonus from homes suffered from diminishing returns...
@twitched
...
@Ordray
forts are less useful than they seem on paper.
Thank you for the responses. I'm sorry to make my questien vague. Actually I'm going to try an Aves/Tact, going an attacker route.
Right now I'm building a lot of homes, around 20%, do you think t's an ok number?
I do aware that more homes means more units and that will make my nw/acre higher, but is higher nw would affect much for my lose/gain? how about making a semi suicidal attacks with fair amount of GS to balance the lose?
don't build homes in war, they aren't great outside of it but they are useless inside.
I would avoid homes, there is better use for the land. Except remember to have 1 home, a man needs a place to live in!
You should go avian cleric is better and easier to run a high homes strat with it.
Running 40% to 60% homes will give you High building efficency if combined with some 10% building science, which means that you can run very few buildings to get the most out of them.
You can achieve 100 opa, 50 dpa home, 3 raw tpa and 1.5 raw wpa very easy and very fast .Good economy and strong army, unless you are playing in a top 80 KD you will probably have a better province than everyone else by running 40% homes .
Its a proven and tested strategy, in war and out of war . It works and delivers.
Most people reject the facts though, i tested it for 2 ages in a heavy warrying kd that won 13 war wins in a row and ended up top 120 in all 3 honor , land and nw in both ages.
Most people will tell you they dont work just because they assume so, i have already tested it, big difference . You guys are all talk nothing more. Just because you "believe " that they dont work, it doesnt mean they dont, can you see the difference between facts and assumptions? grow up .
there are a few problems with this strat. one after a certain % you start to gain less money from having all those ppl. without jobs, which every other type of built acre is, you generate less money even though you have massive peasants. the other problem is if the enemy kingdom kills your peasants, now you make no income and only have 60% of your buildings doing something for your province. ie TG or forts or guild while ppl who dont run high homes will have 20-30% more land dedicated to more functional buildings.
You should ignore gojete and his love for over 50% homes strats.
I would really like to have a discussion about high homes , but most of you are just too closed minded for it.
You are assuming that you will get fireballed , and that your income will drop, and that you will have 60% buildings having no function at all, like dead weight. You are assuming all those things.
After 13 wars in a row , some of them which were utterly destructive for both sides . Where chains were performed, massacres, fireballs, meteor showers, chasitty, pitfalls, dragons from left to right.
You are assuming that the wars were of random hits from highly inactive ghettos full of noobs running 50 opas . You are assuming too many things which are wrong. Again you are just assuming things over and over again.
You are presenting to me, fictional scenarios that you imagine in your head, you are talking out of your imaginations, out of what you believe, out of your prejudice and ignorance, I am saying that high homes work because i have used them and tested them. If not see, can you at least understand the difference between facts and thoughts ? Do you know the difference between theorizing in your mind and having actually been there done that and seen the actual results out of the test?
HAve you run high homes in an avian, halfling, orc and fairy yourself? HAve you, yourself tested in over 2 ages of continuous war and conflict the strat ? Have you seen the results of getting hit, of being fireballed, of being chained from 1400 down to 600 acres when running high homes?
Have you seen the results in the economy by logging into your throne page, and seen the income, and the ammount of troops that you can train, and so on and so on.
Have you done the clicking, seen the surveys, the science reports. Did you log in and built the homes?
You are talking out of your fantasy im talking out of testing high homes for two ages .
Gojete, I am a monarch of a 'ghetto' we finished 32nd last age in the land charts but stay near to 75 most of the age. We use the same name every age so find us we will war you and We will show you where you are going wrong with the high homes strat.
If I wasn't on vacation for 2 weeks at the end of the age I probably have been running ~0 homes as i would have been in better shape.
Modesty he, that's indeed a name that rings a bell :)
If you want to discuss it we better go fact by fact as to make the posts shorter. So post me your dream scenario and ill reply to it from true experience of what happened in that situation
At 40% homes your draft is over 70% and higher,80% is not unheard of. You have very few peasants from start. Your province has income, and as a matter of fact you WANT to get fireballed . Why ? beacuse your low peasantry will give very low gains to the enemy, While for most normal provinces running normal strats, in the first fireball wave you will see their peasants going down by 70%. You are already down to that number of peasants. So you want to be fireballed so the enemy wastes their mana on you.
Since you have so few peasants, its very easy to kidnap and recover the lost pop, making the damages of the fireball neglected.
And from experience , again in all this wars and conflicts. The tm will move on to easier to fireball targets where they see the largest gains. They wont spend their stealth fireballing a fraction of the peasants which they could get from a person running 65% draft .
If you run high homes there will be easier targets than you . Unlike normal strats that rely on low BE and the minimum bonuses the buildings will give , high homes relies on high BE and maximun bonuses from buildings .
CASE 2
"You will be left with 60%homes , which are useless buildings that give no bonuses."
( i would not normally run more than 40% homes in war )
Homes are giving you higher BE making it possible to run less buildings for their max bonuses.
Instead of having several kinds of buildings ,high homes deliver the best bonus from what you really need.
we are a ghetto last age we finished outside the top 100 (we had a bad age) we also started of really badly. we have improved got more players on board. also if you hover around 75-100 most people will still see you as a ghetto.
Also we were in the middle of a war at EOA we were winning in acres so that gave us an advantage.
I have never said that high homes would work in kds in top 100, i have never tried them in that range, im saying that they work wonders in kingdoms that are not top 100.
Whats up with the hate al3x , why would a top 120 kd fight a top 32 kd ?
You are confusing terms, when have i ever said that high homes would work in the top.
gojete:
theory is great with max homes and 10% BE science as you have said you can still only get 110%BE MAX. I was running 100+ with very little homes, I could run numbers all day.
Find us OOP or at the end of the age we will war you you wont get 7/7 again.
Also we are top 100 most of the time i do have to say 32 was a very good result for us. one i would mind repeating.
edit: we were 77 in the networth charts, so we were very land fat
so you choose to stay on the bottom to use the high home strat? technically any strat can work on the bottom but its not because the strat is good. its because you are active and they arent lol. if you used a real strat you would pwn that much harder.
"@twitched
..."
indeed. it was a pretty dumb comment in a thread about homes. :p
btw everyone who is completely against homes in war are wrong. they have merit. they aren't auto-include like tgs for attackers or towers for all provs, but they definitely have a place depending on your prov.
im not anti homes. i run 15% to start wars myself. i just understand that after a certain % excess homes kills your province capabilities
I was a human sage so was able to minimize my home use running into a war. However if i so servery under pop i would put them in there to increase my BR
indeed, boko. thats why you should gauge your home effectiveness. BE*%non-homes compared to BE w/o homes. unless you really, really need that pop space or the br bonus, it's a good indicator as to whether the homes are worthwhile or not. if there is a large discrepancy then the homes are either very worth it or very not.
I still maintain that faeries should auto include 10-15% homes. they actually do need the pop space.
Ok you have some players that will probably never get to the top 100. OR that are very new to the game . (by some i mean most )
What would you rather want them trying to run a non high homes strat and learing the game after ages of experimentation, feeling depressed because their province suck. Feeling like losers because they are playing in kds that suck? Do you want people leaving the game because its too hard and boring and takes too long to have fun?
Or would you rather have them having fun from start, winning wars , doing ops attacking and all that , instead of being frustrated because due to their crapy province they cant even muster 60 opas. And having them wasting week after week trying to have a province ready for a war, while their kingdom either is completely stagnant or they are being vultured by others? Why do you want them to suffer all this time,just so they "earn" the right for having fun?
This is a fact, if you run 40% homes you will see your province achieve an immediate change, that will enable you to attack, and do ops, and spells without having to wait several days by getting ready. With high homes you can have fun from start, without the need to spend several hours and days and months learning to play the game.
Do you see how infinitely superior high homes is for the ghetto player. It enables people to play the game more dynamically from start, This are proven facts.
yes for a deep dark ghetto yes it is a good stat.
However if you want to improve age on age this stat wont work. you will be confined to hitting other ghettos staying at the same level. I don't think the kingdom in play in will every reach the 'top' as we don't have the hyperactivity to do that but we can have 7+ wars an age (winning and losing some) learning from each one.
How many times did you get PKed last age? did you not learn from each time what not to do? Getting better each time.
Yeah i used anonimity a lot afterwards so i didnt die anymore .
What do you mean deep dark ghetto, we was one if not the best under top 100 ghetoo kd around , we won 7 wars out of 7 what are you talking about . Man we was better than 80% of the sever , you are really making some very wrong assumptions out of ignorance right there, i mean no offense there man just stating the facts.
High homes work for 80% of the world and you can have a lot of fun.
The tone of the " you will be confined to hitting other ghettos staying at the same level.
I dont think that you are aware of what your statements really mean.
If the strat has been proved to work and give results where 80% of where all the players play at in this game. Why do you keep flaming it if works? or undermine it . Its more like a personal issue that you bring in here than the game itself.
My posts end up being so long because you bring your views and beliefs of your private life when you come here, im just talking about ways of playing the game that give great results.
I dont really want to have to repost the super long post i deleted, but it appears neccessary that you understand the deep implications of your comments and false statements, which come out of your imagination and prejudice.
I talking facts here and results , and stating where the strat works wonders, and you flame it with personal views and thoughts .
Cant we just stick to discussing strategy and not out of the game points of view in life? If you have the need and the idea of " getting out of the ghetto" or "becoming better" or "wanting, and all that they brainwash you with thats great, but why bring it into the game?
ok you can run 60 opa without a high home strat. you just need to not suck and train enough leets for the most part.
if ppl feel like losers because they are in a crappy kingdom, there are plenty of kingdoms that are looking for players at higher levels of activity. they just need to look in the recruiting thread here or go to #recruiting in IRC. kingdoms are willing to teach and be patient with new ppl. hell im still looking for one more player and sinners and stoners and hung3r, and vice n virtue, and canwe, and starcraft...not hard to find a good kingdom where you wont be bored and suck
you can attack and do ops without homes. you know what enables attacking and ops better? guilds, TD, TG, rax, towers, libs, stables, dungeons, hospitals, GS, forts, ect...
high homes is infinitely better for ghetto players that want to STAY on the bottom, with no aspiration for greatness or wanting to achieve something more with their gaming. whats the point of beating up crappy players all age? who gives a flying fark if you have 7 war wins against kingdoms with 5 active ppl and 15 inactive players?!?! war and beat up RPG, NGNG, bodega, an abs kingdom, fluffies, jerks, the apes and then come back with 7 war wins and brag about it. this is why we dont rank WW.
wtf does my private life have to do with your sucky strat? im not close minded if thats what you are going for. i dont hate homes, i just hate that you want other ppl to follow your underachieving advice because it works on the worst play level we have. not everyone is content staying on the bottom.
now now E_Boko, why would someone want to get better in this game and try to achieve higher ranks and goals. That would be stupid. Rather just use 50% homes and be the king of the darkest ghetto.
damnit reducing post again
Ok , see you dont understand what i mean that you bring your personal life to the game, and not stick to discussing strategies.
This is a fact that high homes works with 80% of the server. Why do you want to force everyone to "want to get better" "to achieve greatness "
First of all those terms you use so much, have a meaning to you, a specific meaning, greatness for you might not be the same for someone else.
I really truly understand what you mean man, im just having a very hard time trying to make myself understood here by what i mean.
When i say you bring your pesonal life and private issues into the game. IS because in your world, your world defined as everything you know . You have been put into your head , that you have to be something, that you have to be better, that you have to achieve, that you cant just be a nobody, you have to have a car, you have to have a house perhaps.
Whatever is it that you do in real life, you are bringing it to the game. A game that is purely fictional, that the only thing that you get out of it are the feelings that you get when you play.
It seems like you are striving towards the feeling of "achieving greatness". Can you isolate that feeling ? see how it feels ? Thats all you are getting , right ?
Well what if others dont care about that feeling at all.
Can you achieve what you call greatness, without that feeling ?
Is it being better than the rest all you want, because how it makes you feel? Why do you want to be better at the game, and be better than others.
See in life, of course the better paid your job is, maybe the better off you are. But relating real life into a mental thing like utopia. Do you see the wrongness of it ?
because he wonders why we beat down on his ridiculous strat when we are in the strategy section. its my civic duty to tell other ppl why high homes is crap and if you want to do something with your game to not listen to him.
its like playing a game without any upgrades or new equipment and staying level 1. yes you can do it and it can be fun and challenging but you arent going to break damage limit like that. youre gonna be running from random creatures left and right which is all he is doing. hes hiding in the damn ghettos cause he knows his strat would fail on a mid level kingdom.
i will not let him drag down more noobs with him. not when i need a damn player still... btw FiH is still recruiting 1 more player...lol
gojete is like vines. ignore both.
see how you ridicule in your posts and overall everything you are writing is being done not with a feeling of friendliness and meaning well, but with negative emotions like making fun of people because they dont think like you and so on ?
This is also what im saying about bringing your personal life about it. Being this a strategy and mathematical game. How hard is it to understand that if you use high homes , and you dont have much experience of the game, you can instantly have better results in a quick manner without struggling and being able to compete againsat 80% of the server ?
This are just numbers man . you are the one bringing in that you yourself want to fight against only 5% of the server, because it makes you feel like you want goals and are good and superior. What you are writing is nothing but an ego trip
"But you see 80% of the players in utopi as inferior, as not worth living nor even breathing."
this is simply not true. also 80% of the server isn't inactive or in an inactive kingdom.
It's people not listening to good advice and using it or taking it on board. Not one person has said high home stat is good, the most ever anyone has really said is 20% but you refuse to listen. You could be a good player even a great one because you has ambition but you stop yourself from achieving by not adapting or evolving the way you play the game.
people here try giving advice on how to better your province. Last age MY province was made better by a guy in my kingdom by changing the build about. I still didn't have >10% homes. I am trusted to be the monarch I still get things wrong but I say when I do.
yes high home stats work in some builds but have excessive % of any building is not a good stat. (i would never say more than~20% of anything unless pumping)
All you have to do to be in my kingdom (one of those mentioned by boko) is attack twice a day in war. once before you got to school/work one after, I am sorry this is not hard and there are many more kingdoms out there wanting the same.
Having run numbers in theory - homes are not optimal for most provinces. However, they are close to optimal, so the lost "power" using them will be small. All these calcs on provs similar to what I run, optimizing for static military. (Don't bother with the static optimization rants - I'll note for you right now that many believe it a worthless measure. I only claim it is a useful guideline, requiring dynamic considerations and "experience". But it's all I can calculate on directly.)
My opinion: I suspect a high homes strat will work quite well for many "getto" players - those that aren't really getting the game. The extra pop is blindingly easy to make use of. Having such a large chunk of land locked up in homes also forces you to focus the rest of the buildings down to essentials - aka, no 15% farms or 10% mills or any junk like that.
However - a good player can do better. TG/Forts is usually stronger, and homes do hit a bit of a DBE effect (naturally, I know the coded DBE doesn't apply) where to many get weaker. Since good BE science lessens their impact, a good player is expected to find them worse as well - a true getto player won't push science as hard as a more skilled player.
In short - the numbers I've always come up with say homes are mildly sub-optimal. I'm good enough that doesn't cut it, so I keep them at a low % (I use 5-10% as a "fast convert" so I rebuild less between pump and war - one of those pesky dynamic considerations I can't model.) But for a lot of the server, mildly sub-optimal is an improvement, and so high homes represents progress of a sort. (And a very simple way to achieve it.) I believe advising someone to try it *when framed as: easy but only acceptable, not best* is a reasonable thing to do.
gojete probably moved from weak strats into high homes, which is why he sees such an improvement. Many of the other posters are already using even better tuned builds, so they see a fall off. Given that it looks (to me) like gojete *is* listening and learning, even while spouting some fairly silly statements at times... I'm prone to just aiming to let time and experience prove it to him. Although I also offer they following: once your build is done with high homes - post all the info up here, and I'll rebuild it with a 0 homes strats and beat your military numbers. (Of course to be fair I'll hold everything else constant that I can.) Mind you... I'll be optimizing MPNW, not MPA. (Which, oddly enough, most of the anti-homes crowd will argue is wrong... even though homes *are* clearly better of OPA/DPA!)
The static part is critical Ethan - you are not static in war.
A long running debate - my argument, in short, is that - assuming things like hospitals, gs, etc. are constant - starting stronger in war means staying stronger in war. Don't care much how you got stronger to start with. I know many disagree with this theory - and I know that things like a chain "bypass" the normal losses and requires by its nature a dynamic analysis - but I've found it to be a good guild so far.
Edit: The long running debate I refer to is the "static strength" vs. "dynamic factors", myself vs. Bishop et. all. Not the homes argument. Sorry for the confusion.