Changes I would like to see for next age

[jmiedema]

There are a few things that I think were very interesting this age, but that need to be reverted (to some degree) or changed. Certainly there are more tweaks that need to be made to things (buffing halfer without gutting rogue, nerfing heretic slightly) and other race/personality changes, but the below are the ones currently on my mind:

1. Move "Double Dens" bonus back to rogue - Putting this on halfling was an interesting experiment, but I think it failed. Rogue is so bad this age. Only halfer has a chance at running it effectively, because double dens (particularly minimizing thief losses) is really the only way that a rogue can have any success with Rogue op Propaganda and AW. Without double dens a rogue is severely handicapped and might as well have just gone heretic because they wont be doing much other than robbing or NS for whole war after the first 36h of "max thief" ops.

Because of this ages failure of rogues it really ruined the "balance of power" that existed between attacking/thievery/magic. Magic was just substantially more powerful this age, particularly with heretic (heretic would naturally be weak against rogues, but without that balance of power, heretics could just roam free this age).


2. Anon destroying honour in war - Land Dropping is a problem, and I think this did help solve that problem to some degree. I actually think we overshot the problem honestly. I don't feel that this "solution" made warring fair for any non-avian attacker. as basically you have to anon many hits as an orc or undead to preserve offense, and preserve incoming land, but now not only do you not get honour (which was fine before because you knew you could always harvest the honour later) but now you destroy it which (particularly after an extended hostile) all the real honour gains for being in the conflict are gone.

The solution I feel is that anon destroy honour Out of War. This solves the land drop issue that it was created for, but preserves the ability to use anon strategically in war, while still allowing your kingdom to compete in honour charts. So as soon as two kingdoms go to war, anon no longer destroys honour. I doubt 2 kingdoms would risk fake warring just to land drop, and if they do it is actionable for fake warring.

3. Blizzard duration - Very neat spell. Too low of a duration, so barely used it. Duration should be around 8-12 tick imo.

4. Science Caps - Need to be tweaked a bit. I feel alchemy is maybe too much bonus for the scientists required, and I feel food isn't enough bonus per scientist required.

5. Scientist Spawn Rate - Needs to be moved away from full random model, and towards a system that increases spawn chance the longer that you have gone without spawning a scientist. (reverting back to base spawn rate after a scientist is spawned). This will help to lessen the extremity of the curve between all players spawn rate.

6. WPA Calculations - I think Scientist Networth needs to be able to be calculated from a SoS. Make a Novice be "X" Networth, then Graduate is "1.5X" Networth and Professor is "2X" Networth. This way third party tools can still use current intel methods to calculate Networth based wpa calculations. Currently it is impossible (or very very hard) to calculate an opponents WPA if their Max Population does not equal their total population (so anything from switching to more/less homes, or being attacked, or losing troops/peasants from MS/Storms all mess with the wpa calculation making it not able to be calculated to a 100% efficiency). Different ideas have been discussed, but the best would be allowing Scientist NW to be 100% accurately calculated from a Spy on Science.

OR There needs to be a new spell or thief op that allows 100% viewing of the opponents wizard count.


I was going to wait to closer to end of age, but figured why wait haha

[Bart of Sparta]

There are a few things that I think were very interesting this age, but that need to be reverted (to some degree) or changed. Certainly there are more tweaks that need to be made to things (buffing halfer without gutting rogue, nerfing heretic slightly) and other race/personality changes, but the below are the ones currently on my mind:

1. Move "Double Dens" bonus back to rogue - Putting this on halfling was an interesting experiment, but I think it failed. Rogue is so bad this age. Only halfer has a chance at running it effectively, because double dens (particularly minimizing thief losses) is really the only way that a rogue can have any success with Rogue op Propaganda and AW. Without double dens a rogue is severely handicapped and might as well have just gone heretic because they wont be doing much other than robbing or NS for whole war after the first 36h of "max thief" ops.

Because of this ages failure of rogues it really ruined the "balance of power" that existed between attacking/thievery/magic. Magic was just substantially more powerful this age, particularly with heretic (heretic would naturally be weak against rogues, but without that balance of power, heretics could just roam free this age).


2. Anon destroying honour in war - Land Dropping is a problem, and I think this did help solve that problem to some degree. I actually think we overshot the problem honestly. I don't feel that this "solution" made warring fair for any non-avian attacker. as basically you have to anon many hits as an orc or undead to preserve offense, and preserve incoming land, but now not only do you not get honour (which was fine before because you knew you could always harvest the honour later) but now you destroy it which (particularly after an extended hostile) all the real honour gains for being in the conflict are gone.

The solution I feel is that anon destroy honour Out of War. This solves the land drop issue that it was created for, but preserves the ability to use anon strategically in war, while still allowing your kingdom to compete in honour charts. So as soon as two kingdoms go to war, anon no longer destroys honour. I doubt 2 kingdoms would risk fake warring just to land drop, and if they do it is actionable for fake warring.

3. Blizzard duration - Very neat spell. Too low of a duration, so barely used it. Duration should be around 8-12 tick imo.

4. Science Caps - Need to be tweaked a bit. I feel alchemy is maybe too much bonus for the scientists required, and I feel food isn't enough bonus per scientist required.

5. Scientist Spawn Rate - Needs to be moved away from full random model, and towards a system that increases spawn chance the longer that you have gone without spawning a scientist. (reverting back to base spawn rate after a scientist is spawned). This will help to lessen the extremity of the curve between all players spawn rate.

6. WPA Calculations - I think Scientist Networth needs to be able to be calculated from a SoS. Make a Novice be "X" Networth, then Graduate is "1.5X" Networth and Professor is "2X" Networth. This way third party tools can still use current intel methods to calculate Networth based wpa calculations. Currently it is impossible (or very very hard) to calculate an opponents WPA if their Max Population does not equal their total population (so anything from switching to more/less homes, or being attacked, or losing troops/peasants from MS/Storms all mess with the wpa calculation making it not able to be calculated to a 100% efficiency). Different ideas have been discussed, but the best would be allowing Scientist NW to be 100% accurately calculated from a Spy on Science.

OR There needs to be a new spell or thief op that allows 100% viewing of the opponents wizard count.


I was going to wait to closer to end of age, but figured why wait haha

1. Agreed, but move GA to Heretic. Move blizzard to Mystic. Also changed -100% thief losses on heretic to -75%.
2. Agreed. I suggested this even before it was implemented.
3. Agreed, although 4-6 is fine.
4. Agreed.

Income: 30% (15 profs)
BE: 20% (20 profs)
Pop: 15% (30 profs)
ME: 10% (20 profs)
Food: 200% (10 profs)
Magic: 150% (15 profs)
Thievery: 150% (15 profs)

125 total.

5. Disagree. Generation has to be fully predictable. We need a bar stretching from 0 to 100%, moving up 5% each tick. Revelation increases it to 6.5%. Labs further increase it. Labs also need to be buffed to +50% based on 50% coverage.

[Bo To]

5. Disagree. Generation has to be fully predictable. We need a bar stretching from 0 to 100%, moving up 5% each tick. Revelation increases it to 6.5%. Labs further increase it. Labs also need to be buffed to +50% based on 50% coverage.

The point of the new system is that you can't pump sci. With full predictability you will pump sci which is what Bishop doesn't want.

[khronosschoty]

The point of the new system is that you can't pump sci. With full predictability you will pump sci which is what Bishop doesn't want.

If that is true than they just need to make it a hard wired constant, with 0 abilities to "pump".

[Bart of Sparta]

I thought the idea of the new system was to remove LDing and ridiculously OP bonusses from the game. On average a random factor or predictability does not alter the results so long as the expected value is the same. Randomness does however go against the feeling of the game and makes peeps feel out of control. We have to cater for the group of peeps that invests most in the game, which mostly are slightly autistic control freaks that enjoy calcing stuff far ahead. Unpredictability should be provided by human interaction, not mechanics.

[Persain]

The point of the new system is that you can't pump sci. With full predictability you will pump sci which is what Bishop doesn't want.

If that is true than they just need to make it a hard wired constant, with 0 abilities to "pump".

Every utopia day when you get your 5 free acres you should get 1 scientist. its predictable easy, simple. If you want a "random" factor have it be if you are below 1 science/day you have a X% chance to spawn to catch up, the farther back you are the higher the %. Universities can say "protect" science" and "raise the cap" while
Libraries can "increase chance to spawn science" and "give bonus %".

makes both buildings useful for everyone. If you have good science u can go above the cap and protect it, while if you have crappy science u can catch up to spawn rate and get your science modded closer to everyone else.

[Elldallan]

I thought the idea of the new system was to remove LDing and ridiculously OP bonusses from the game. On average a random factor or predictability does not alter the results so long as the expected value is the same. Randomness does however go against the feeling of the game and makes peeps feel out of control. We have to cater for the group of peeps that invests most in the game, which mostly are slightly autistic control freaks that enjoy calcing stuff far ahead. Unpredictability should be provided by human interaction, not mechanics.

The way I see it the purpose of the change was both because they're essentially different sides of the same coin. Ie topkd's who pump creates an impassable barrier into the top even if you were to acquire the acres you're still going to farm out because you will have diluted whatever sci you had and your opponents will have sat overpumping their sci for the previous several weeks.
On the flipside you have the landdroppers which does the opposite thing, sacrifice land for bonuses.

I don't think the randomness is neccessarily bad but I do think we need to make it less of a factor, multiply the spawnrate by 10 and adjust the scientist power accordingly, that way each scientist you get "early" or "late" has less of an impact and people will hopefully be able to see the bellcurve.

[Panthira]

I want my FSU stance. Before next age. *Pout*

[handofthrawn]

Get rid of sage personality do to the new science system making it worthless.

I like making halfling the only viable Rogue but halfling needs a major boost in defense. Maybe 7/7 for elites or 4/8.

I absolutely hate the being stuck in normal or aggressive for 4 days. Makes the game boring and impossible to plan as a monarch. One agreed war falls through and your stuck waiting for the next fort in 4 days. Honestly guys just lose interest and stop logging. So go back to the 24 hour cool down.

New science I love but remove the randomness from it. Maybe every 48 ticks in normal you get one new one.

[Bart of Sparta]

Get rid of sage personality do to the new science system making it worthless.

I like making halfling the only viable Rogue but halfling needs a major boost in defense. Maybe 7/7 for elites or 4/8.

I absolutely hate the being stuck in normal or aggressive for 4 days. Makes the game boring and impossible to plan as a monarch. One agreed war falls through and your stuck waiting for the next fort in 4 days. Honestly guys just lose interest and stop logging. So go back to the 24 hour cool down.

New science I love but remove the randomness from it. Maybe every 48 ticks in normal you get one new one.

Agree with handofthrawn, but.

1. Split the defensive and economic bonusses of fort into 2 stances (Fort/Rebuild).
2. Reduce stance duration to 48 hours.
3. Reduce cooldown to 24 hours.

[s0830887]

Man I have liked the extended normal stances so far. Great for being able to plunder hard and stock up on gc before hitting fort, and I'm a bit fan of retal-warring, which has been great as the extended time in normal has definitely increased...kd interaction!

[Andurilas]

1. This a thousand times. Heretics are totally OP without Rogues in the mix.

5. I just want to repeat my proposed solution of doubling or tripling the spawn rate while reducing the overall effect of each scientist. If everyone is getting a scientist or two a day, they will feel a lot less neglected. But labs need to be buffed--they don't come anywhere near to boosting TMs enough to rival an attacker running constant abductions.

Actually my preferred fix is to move back to the old system while making it harder to l337 break the game--lower coefficient for effects, or steeper drop-off (cube root instead of sqrt?) or the like. Remove extreme and give every province a steady generation rate, etc.

[jmiedema]

Yea, I still stand by the suggestions I made here in my Original Post. I think most would agree with them, except maybe how to rework scientists, but you can have 10 people and 15 different opinions about that one :D

[Andurilas]

I'll leave the rest alone, but I disagree with making Blizzard duration long enough that a standard configuration can keep blanket Blizzards on all enemy attackers. Maybe a slight increase in duration from this age, but certainly not 8-12 hours.

[Elldallan]

I'll leave the rest alone, but I disagree with making Blizzard duration long enough that a standard configuration can keep blanket Blizzards on all enemy attackers. Maybe a slight increase in duration from this age, but certainly not 8-12 hours.

Agreed, I think Blizzard should be a niche op for certain circumstances/provs, not a blanket op for an entire kd. Thus since mana/spell is a constant the duration needs to be kept low, although it would be interesting to stop having mana be a flat cost per spell.
So double the duration as that lessens the required activity for coverage but also double the mana cost.