Abducts

[NighT]

@JeffT,

I cant decide whether you are in favor of improved abducts or not.
Because 200-250 scientists end of age for a TM is sad compared to attackers (I'd argue it's a fine number of scientists to end an age with, just that attackers shouldnt be able to come close). I'd take the statement from you putting the honor crowns at 200-250 scientists as arguing that TMs have crap sciences.

Then again, you seem to be in favor of this low amount of scientists compared to attackers who wouldnt have the mystic/rogue science bonus. Completely forgetting that a pure attacker has double the population scientists a TM does. The attacker can run much higher numbers a TM can. I created my Avian Rogue about three before the age ended and I had 300++ scientists by the time the age ended, and I definitely stopped abducting at least a week before the age end and we had a war mixed in there too. It's silly to put an avian rogue with a three week old province on far beyond capped sciences and crazy high numbers.

Abducts need weakening. I bet there's people out there who already have capped three categories by now, probably more. I myself have 74 scientists and I havent really been that focused. The non-abducting TM would have like 50? At best?
This is still early age where revelation is relatively strong compared to abduct.

Regards,

NIghT

[Chris121]

I don't think every discussion about science should end up being t/m versus attacker though. I wasn't supporting the idea because I thought t/ms should have a boost. Even if we look solely at attackers, I don't think abducts should be so extremely overpowered in comparison to spawn rate that there's no viable way to run labs (at any %), and compete with someone doing abducts - ie max labs would still not come close to doing abducts.

Aside from that, my thoughts on the points above are:

- If the honour system is balanced towards t/ms and if that is a problem, I don't see it as an answer to balance the science system towards attackers. Why don't we fix them both (science fix is easy, honour fix is much harder, I accept).

- If t/ms have to rely on the racial +x% bonus to be competitive because of a lack of science, that is effectively forcing them down a limited number of personalities. That seems odd from a design perspective. I appreciate that t/ms will probably pick those personalities anyway (except maybe Pally, as of last age), but why should the science mechanics force them to do so?

- Clearly I don't have the stats to properly assess it, but I doubt that +75% thievery or magic makes up for the difference to +30% (sage) on a much higher number of scientists (and particularly not before near end of age when t/ms reach the soft caps). [Edit: I meant sci overall in all categories, rather than just the magic/sci]

[elmoheadbutt]

Wanna balance science between attackers and t/ms? Buff t/m defense and remove -25% attack time for abducts.

[LuckySports]

Or, take my suggestion that I have made other times this has been brought up.

Scientists spawn as normal
Scientists gain experience at a significantly reduced rate
Scientists cap as normal
Abudct, instead of taking scientists, gains their experience, call it research notes.

This would not discourage abducts, it would make labs a more viable option. An abduct would not set someone back weeks in professors.


You could even make a weak thief op to steal notes.

[Bo To]

The non-abducting TM would have like 50? At best?

Regards,

NIghT

I have 48 and I've been in 52h war(no reve or labs) with 24h preparation time when I had to rebuild the labs.

I still think pure attackers(drayd/tact, orc/und etc.) having stronger sci is not a problem but hybdrids([d]elf/sage/pala/here) having stronger sci could be a problem.

[Chris121]

Wanna balance science between attackers and t/ms? Buff t/m defense and remove -25% attack time for abducts.

The stated aim of the devs was (and I think, still "is") to make attackers able to nearly 2x a t/m at the start of a war. I don't like that aim either but we might as well try to work within it. Your suggestion would do a lot more than balance science - it would change the dynamic of attackers being able to easily break t/ms.

Or, take my suggestion that I have made other times this has been brought up.

Scientists spawn as normal
Scientists gain experience at a significantly reduced rate
Scientists cap as normal
Abudct, instead of taking scientists, gains their experience, call it research notes.

This would not discourage abducts, it would make labs a more viable option. An abduct would not set someone back weeks in professors.

You could even make a weak thief op to steal notes.

I think that takes us too far the other way. Currently my issue is that abducts massively overpower labs. With that suggestions, labs (and rev) is the only way to speed up addition of scientists. Unless the abduct rate of notes was set at a low level, it would be pretty easy to use abducts to keep all of your scientists near to their max experience so the only differentiating factor on the amount of science between provs would be % of labs they used (and rev).

Isn't it easier just to reduce abduct gains? I don't think it's an issue that t/ms lose scientists (and i don't see any difference between losing scientists and losing the experience the scientists have).

[Chris121]

Actually, sorry, I missed the part where scientists gain experience at a significantly reduced rate.

With that point too, then generation of scientists becomes less important so the science spread between provs (which I think is desirable) is achieved partly through differing experience levels. So actually I think your idea would work (although I still wonder if it achieves anything that wouldn't be achieved by the easier solution of weakening abducts?).

[RattleHead]

Problem I would see with weakening abducts is that people already moan when they only get 0-1 scientists ... extending the period at the beginning of the Age where this is possible would flood the server with tears.

[Chris121]

They just have to hit in range :) Abducts is around 5% atm before mods in perfect range, right? So even if you abduct someone who has only 30 scientists (starting amount), it should be possible to still get 1 scientist if abducts were ~half as effective (~2.5%), unless it's a round down formula in which case 3.5% would still give 1 scientist (and it should be very easy just to change the round down part).

[Persain]

Problem I would see with weakening abducts is that people already moan when they only get 0-1 scientists ... extending the period at the beginning of the Age where this is possible would flood the server with tears.

early age learning was garbage when we had the old science system and gains were roughly the same. that is

They just have to hit in range :) Abducts is around 5% atm before mods in perfect range, right? So even if you abduct someone who has only 30 scientists (starting amount), it should be possible to still get 1 scientist if abducts were ~half as effective (~2.5%), unless it's a round down formula in which case 3.5% would still give 1 scientist (and it should be very easy just to change the round down part).

based on the old science system abducts and learns were/are about even. The only reason t/m's didnt have such a big issue was because in the past you had to bottomfeed 1 tap a learn into a t/m v 2-3 times a topfeed learn. It was highly unproductive to total gains to learn a t/m compared to an attacker. Thing is gains were literally the same rate as we have now and no one was *****ing back then. Night somewhat comment at/around the issue

Because 200-250 scientists end of age for a TM is sad compared to attackers.....

Abducts need weakening. I bet there's people out there who already have capped three categories by now, probably more. I myself have 74 scientists and I havent really been that focused. The non-abducting TM would have like 50? At best?
This is still early age where revelation is relatively strong compared to abduct.

in that t/ms have less overall science. i'd would personally argue the reason why in the PAST this wasnt an issue is because of 3 reasons
1. in the past there was no "Flat->diminishing returns" in science
----having half someones science now means having half their bonus untill categories are maxed out. A t/m will rarely max out ALL categories and 1-2 learns can have a large impact on overall science whereas in the past 1-2 learns were ALWAYS effected by the sqrt(bpa) formula so no one learn hurt.
2. science can be re-allocated
--in the past if you were an attacker and u were learning a t/m you got pop/channeling/crime which wasn't that usefull for an attacker and u were stuck with it. now you can learn a t/m "safely" compared to another attacker then readjust the books you get into your desired category. This has a HUGE impact on target choice as you always pick the target that will be safest..and thus hurting t/m's.
3. t/ms have less def
--as i said above in the past the option was 1 tap a t/m or x3-4 tap an attacker, now u can x1 a t/m AND x1-2 an attacker. meaning you can hit the same kd more safely w/out giving ops. My kd got abduct once a day for basically ALL AGE by CoL last age and we lost a TON. Most of their hits were x1 into a hybrid then x1-2 into an attacker in a differnt kd. had that attacker been unable to multi-tap like that they'd of been limited to less overall hits and less overall science.


Now my "solutions" are a several different ways.

#1, could be to go back to all diminishing returns. The net effect would be a learn doesnt matter that much to the bonus. This however just tweaks the science formula and i'd argue makes science less impact-full overall....doesn't get my vote.

#2. Lock in scientists. We just changed it from random spawn, lock their category. It would massively lower the desire for an orc undead to learn say a feary mystic as he gets science that doesnt help him attack. This is my preferred change, its basically old science w/out being tied to land, and making science more dynamic at low levels.

#3 massively INCREASE abducts IN WAR. I know omg its op already...but hear me out. If you say made abducts in war x3-4 base in war an abduct on a low def attacker by a t/m could be devastating. T/m's would massively gain science, and attackers would lose it....the reverse of whats happening oow. As it stands right now abducting in war is pretty dirty. The one time an attacker cannot defend himself is when he gets chained, goes super low def and is unbuilt(oh build univercities, dont go 0 def, blah blah blah not viable options if u argue this you need more experience in the game). As it stands right now an abduct in war isnt exactly beneficial, massacres are so insanely buffed that if u chose to abduct someone instead of just massing tpa/wpa/peasents you are litterally just saying "i dont wanna win i just want your science" (its why my kd will almost always abduct wave any kd we beat in war if they start abdcuting us).---not a huge fan because "Good" kds then just tac on both massive science AND honor advantages against regular kds.

[Chris121]

based on the old science system abducts and learns were/are about even. The only reason t/m's didnt have such a big issue was because in the past you had to bottomfeed 1 tap a learn into a t/m v 2-3 times a topfeed learn. It was highly unproductive to total gains to learn a t/m compared to an attacker. Thing is gains were literally the same rate as we have now and no one was *****ing back then.

Whilst I agree that is a factor, it is also the case that in the old system you could buy science (either directly or hourly through income). That's a big difference to the current system where there are very limited ways to speed up generation of science, hence being abducted has more impact.

I also reiterate that my issue is not about whether it is fair for t/ms or not, but that abducts are vastly overpowered compared to the other way of gaining science (spawn). Locking in scientists doesn't address this - it only focuses on the t/m v attacker issue. It also means we lose some strategic options that come through being able to move scientists around.

I think the current system is fundamentally great - sci pumping is gone and that is a huge step forward. IMHO it just needs a bit of balancing rather than a big re-write which will probably throw up some other issue.

[Persain]

Whilst I agree that is a factor, it is also the case that in the old system you could buy science (either directly or hourly through income). That's a big difference to the current system where there are very limited ways to speed up generation of science, hence being abducted has more impact.

no, you used to MAX at 2 bpa/tick. so at 1000 acres you could get max 48000 books/day. More reasonable rate was 1 bpa/tick and that maxed you at 24000 books. Mid late age a learn would take 100-200k books. So between 2 and 8 days worth of science depending on what you could afford. People RARELY ran 2 bpa/tick when doing anything beyond science pumping so lets go with slightly faster than the 1 bpa/tick rate as a lucky player.....slightly faster than 8 days would be what 6? So your average learn back then took 6 days worth of science. Right now a scientist takes ~12 hours to gain, a learn taking 12 science thus takes 6 days worth of science. Its litteraly the same rate and it takes yout o mid to late age to have the 240 scientists needed to lose 12 in a single abduct.

The issue isn't gains are to big, its that the impact of 1 abduct feels huge. That can be mitigated via the 2 methods i suggest of removing all flat bonus's or locking in science to make t/ms less likely to be constantly learned. Again alternatively if t/m's just dont get enough science compared to attackers, changing it so they can get science more freely at their safest time IS an option, i just dont like that one.

[Chris121]

But your assumption is that people would want to re-gain the lost science in the previous system without science pumping, hence you use an average of 6 days of science lost through an abduct. Yet you could pump under the old system, so using your maths/figures above there was the option of regaining that lost science during a sci pump in 2 days (plus the cost of switching build). Now you can't pump, which I like, but in turn that means that the sci gains in an abduct is vastly disproportionate to the sci that can be spawned.

Edit to add: Thinking some more, I also wonder how far a comparison with the old system takes us forward. Even if we work on the basis that the number of days' science abducted under the old / current system are the same, and the reason for the complaints are solely the points you made, it doesn't necessarily follow that this means the % gain on abduct is set at the right level. It's a different system in many ways, including for the reasons you outlined. Can anyone give a reason why reducing the current abduct gains in the current system wouldn't help and/or would cause some other issue?

[NighT]

Fair points by Persain.

Locking in sciences would be fine by me. Takes away a bit of gameplay / tactics, but could work. As an attacker I'd still be hunting for that TM with high population/tools/production sciences though (or whatever category I feel needs more power).

Why not massively reduce the abduct gains though? An attacker, realistically, shouldnt be able to gather much more than 10-12 scientists per day via abducts. Maybe late age like 20 per day or so. Assuming two uniques that's roughly 6-10 scientists per round. / 4 generals = 1.5 to 2.5 scientists per attack should be cap up until like 200 scientists.
It's very painful to lose scientists as you keep losing your profs and it takes 72 + 96hrs to get them back. Meaning you're never at cap pretty much. Especially if you cant abduct back.

It could also be worth considering to have scientists taken, but not their experience.
Does not solve the fact that TMs get abducted a lot. The -50% troops lost on abducts was fighting the symptom, not the cause.
I do not have the solution, I'm just pointing out a problem though.

Regards,

NighT

[vipbluesky]

Just curious, abduct is based on acres or networth?