Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Human Sage Strategy Discussion

  1. #31
    Needs to get out more
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Oh
    Posts
    8,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Madchess View Post
    Well sounds more convincing than the argument Popsie said so on discord, still I'll maintain that to much nw from science is bad and even at flat rate +30% with everyone potentially reaching max it is not going to give you an edge against people who is dedicated to one role if you are not dedicating yourself to one role but trying to play as everything.

    If you are confident in running sage that is for you, I know I am going to aim for something else to match my playing style, and that it probably will be more fun for me than going sage. I might even skip on human if it gets to be to mainstream since I'm a big fan of orc and avian, but still in the process of deciding my approach, I'll probably know when I see the kingdom I land in.
    I've never let the coolest build be mine, if only for competitive reasons. It's nice to see human appreciation again.
    Not sure if I'm playing because the province I made to see the charts in 76, I'd forgotten about 4 hours later..

    Maybe Pillz is right and I should build a bench warmers kingdom. If I can ramp up my motivation I'll start later in the age. If i can't ramp up my motivation I'll just whine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishop View Post
    Correct me then, instead of being a dick about it.
    love that thick mahogany back with no belly carve or anything...pure thick wood ! The thing ROCK is made of !
    ________
    Weed bowls

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...+say&FORM=VDRE

  2. #32
    Post Demon Avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    1,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganga View Post
    Get out of the strategy forum avenger.go play in the tavern or something.
    You tarnish the memory of Vines.
    Discord: Hex | IRC: Hextor / Avenger

  3. #33
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by Avenger View Post
    Manipulating your nw via sci will be a thing, but only a few kds need worry about that methinks :P I feel people are falling in the sage mindset too easy (see that hu/sage crowd in survey of the world).
    I agree that most see this panacea and jump in with both feet with little regard for impact on their actual game play or kingdom strategy.
    Still playing with the idea of Human Sage, but no elites and science dancing the cats for grins to keep nw low makes an intriguing play.
    Monsters

    Fighting the world back Proudly since Age 35

    #MONSTERS


    "If you have a problem with a post then use the report button.

    24 hour ban for arguing with me. This isn't a democracy." - Bishop

  4. #34
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,102
    Mod Hat on:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganga View Post
    Get out of the strategy forum avenger.go play in the tavern or something.
    @ganga hes making a valid point...either say why hes wrong or at least say its a bad idea to adjust science to get the thread talking about something pertinent to topic at hand...humans/sage/science. This post isnt helpfull even just offtopic to be friendly/funny. See avengers
    Quote Originally Posted by Avenger View Post
    You tarnish the memory of Vines.
    for an offtopic post that is at least implying a criticism your comment

    @ avenger try not to take the bait if he goes off again
    Last edited by Persain; 16-07-2018 at 06:32.

  5. #35
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,102
    Now for my real post; dont like double posting :(

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganga View Post
    Bishop once mater of factly told me that magic/thief effectiveness is not equal to TPA/WPA and is actually worse, i know all the intel sites like to use it like they are equal but in my experience what bishop said runs true.
    whatever you herd you must have misunderstood or he misunderstood what u were asking. -wpa effectiveness for human is effectivelya flat mod to mWPA. The way spells and ops are work is of the form (substituent a T for thieve stuff)

    {(defender mWPA) /(Attacker mWPA)} * random factor = X.

    if (X< spell difficulty cast spell*racial mods ) then cast spell
    else fail.

    in the above 2 i added in the italicized part based on what davidc said on discord. the only practical difference is that the mods effect self spell success rate in addition to offensive/defensive success rates


    obviously mystic aura, cs get factored in but they dont alter the general way things are done or anything i posted besides arguing if the relative mods are/arent enough for casting. If your going to argue effectivess and the form of how success rates are calculated your opinion to the strategy forum is only damaging to those reading it. Theres nothing magical about the formula or any hidden knowledge to be gained information to be gained that u cant just figure out using a small random factor and intell gathered from your own prov and the enemies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madchess View Post
    Well sounds more convincing than the argument Popsie said so on discord, still I'll maintain that to much nw from science is bad and even at flat rate +30% with everyone potentially reaching max it is not going to give you an edge against people who is dedicated to one role if you are not dedicating yourself to one role but trying to play as everything.

    If you are confident in running sage that is for you, I know I am going to aim for something else to match my playing style, and that it probably will be more fun for me than going sage. I might even skip on human if it gets to be to mainstream since I'm a big fan of orc and avian, but still in the process of deciding my approach, I'll probably know when I see the kingdom I land in.
    I actually agree with to much nw being bad, its hard to define the exact number though because how much is 20% extra BE worth to in nw. no one as far as i know has gone in done a real calculation of the effective nw of every science bonus to a prov since there are so many other variables at hand. BUT if u build two proves full out aiming for the same military mwpa and mtpa something tells me the sage is only while both provs are sill under science caps. Afterword i suspect simply being bigger is better than having science (as long as u arent acre caped like top kd fights)
    Last edited by Persain; 21-07-2018 at 21:04. Reason: David C looked at the code.

  6. #36
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    208
    Idk, bishop was saying thats just not how its coded, they are not coded as the same thing. he was insistent and he said he knew how the code was coded. Are you positive they are coded as the exact same? 1 wpa and 100% magic effectiveness is the EXACT same as 2 wpa no science?

  7. #37
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,503
    So science NW calcs are really weird these days because you have to pick a size, since they are flat NW. (I think?) And all the values are changed too.

    I can speak to the old science though, when pop was .67% per bpa^.5 and each bpa was just a bit over .01 NW. In that case, I know pop sci for a prov could top out as high as 10,000 bpa, and BE and the like hit a few thousand as well. Even the worst sci, food, wanted over 100 bpa, and attackers wanted a few hundred bpa in magic/thievery.

    What's notable about that is on genesis I think I once got my military (gains) sci up to 500 bpa. After a whole age, I got 1/20th the total target. The actual cap for sci was so stupidly, stupendously, high that it was functionally infinite.

    With the whole system totally changed, this doesn't tell us too much about the current game. But it leads me to bet that the "cap" on sci due to NW considerations is still probably a whole lot higher than expected, because it is just so strong. ME sci in particular is "NW free" military, other than the sci NW itself - which is a crushingly better ratio than any other source of offense.


    I've can't understand the fascination with human however. I play a lot of spec offense races - if I'm playing one again I'm going for dwarf for BE and free build, much better bonuses than human brings. (Or if faery had some better spells still, faery attacker is great fun - I play that a lot, hence the spec offense.) I love science always... but the whole race to just get +25% better sci (and much less once at caps) just isn't a sale I can make. Sage itself is significantly stronger than the human advantage, and it isn't even a race.
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

  8. #38
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1

    Questions

    Sorry I'm a big newb, some of your discussions are confusing to me and I would like to understand:-
    1) Why do some people suggest no elites? I though elites make you strong, does that mean running just off and def spec?
    2) Science switching to reduce networth - how often do you need to switch around? Do you switch all or just a percentage? How do you maintain the bonuses from science if we keep resetting?
    3) What is a typical build for human sage? In war/out of war? Do you keep labs?

    Sorry if my questions are stupid, I am a newbie and just want to learn more

  9. #39
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    114
    I think alot of people confused +25% science SPAWN rate with +25% science effectiveness(humans DO NOT HAVE THIS), see it alot in theses forums. And this thread.



    Edit and all that means, and i could be wrong which i am sure someone will correct me and i will learn something new, is that a humans base % on scientist generation starts at 25% instead of 0%, still a slight chance that you will have to wait til it gets to 100% to get a scientist.
    Last edited by Guardian Wolf; 17-07-2018 at 02:11.
    Just my final two cents. =) "Stay inside the box too long and one becomes blind to the lines that confine them" - Some uknown(to me) wise(and prolly poor) Man once said(and that's typed.)

  10. #40
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Guardian Wolf View Post
    I think alot of people confused +25% science SPAWN rate with +25% science effectiveness(humans DO NOT HAVE THIS), see it alot in theses forums. And this thread.



    Edit and all that means, and i could be wrong which i am sure someone will correct me and i will learn something new, is that a humans base % on scientist generation starts at 25% instead of 0%, still a slight chance that you will have to wait til it gets to 100% to get a scientist.
    I think the scientist spawn rate works a bit like this. Every tick you gain % scientist. When it hits 100% you gain a new scientist and everything above 100% is put into the next. This % per tick rate is a flat rate with the base I think is somewhere around 9-10% per tick. Humans simply have this flat rate * 1.25.

  11. #41
    Needs to get out more
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Oh
    Posts
    8,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Ballsdip View Post
    Sorry I'm a big newb, some of your discussions are confusing to me and I would like to understand:-
    1) Why do some people suggest no elites? I though elites make you strong, does that mean running just off and def spec?
    2) Science switching to reduce networth - how often do you need to switch around? Do you switch all or just a percentage? How do you maintain the bonuses from science if we keep resetting?
    3) What is a typical build for human sage? In war/out of war? Do you keep labs?

    Sorry if my questions are stupid, I am a newbie and just want to learn more
    I'll answer one, and don't take everything here too seriously.

    No elites is one of those nw mechanics to reach lower nw targets. Whenever you see mechanics like this, keep in mind those players generally occupy more organized kingdoms with specific demands.

    Consider the impact kingdom nw has on gains.

    When I played in a micro-kingdom(kingdom with very few provinces) my gains were higher vs whoring kingdoms because the nw difference was very pronounced. The basis of whoring kingdoms is crowning in the land chart. As kingdoms gain in relative nw their gains suffer from nw mechanics. Therefor you can imagine any nw devaluing tactics are in the interest of gains out of war. Elites are higher nw than specs.

    Now we can all use whoring mechanics, but there are build, diplomacy and organizational differences in the warring tier that make spec armies prohibitively dangerous for non-t/ms.
    Last edited by StratOcastle; 17-07-2018 at 10:34.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bishop View Post
    Correct me then, instead of being a dick about it.
    love that thick mahogany back with no belly carve or anything...pure thick wood ! The thing ROCK is made of !
    ________
    Weed bowls

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...+say&FORM=VDRE

  12. #42
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Ballsdip View Post
    Sorry I'm a big newb, some of your discussions are confusing to me and I would like to understand:-
    1) Why do some people suggest no elites? I though elites make you strong, does that mean running just off and def spec?
    2) Science switching to reduce networth - how often do you need to switch around? Do you switch all or just a percentage? How do you maintain the bonuses from science if we keep resetting?
    3) What is a typical build for human sage? In war/out of war? Do you keep labs?

    Sorry if my questions are stupid, I am a newbie and just want to learn more
    Here is the thing about the weakness of human/sage. A professor is 406 nw. That is a flat rate. Other scientist levels are less networth. Human/sage can be at softcap in maybe two weeks if they really put their minds to it and push way beyond. However it is up for debate if pushing for very high scientist levels is a good thing. The return in science effect diminishes per scientist over the softcap while the networth remains the same. High amounts of scientists = high networth for a prov. Nice gains are based on networth an equall sized (acres) non human/sage will have less networth. So gains against that prov will be suboptimal.

    Because of the networth based gains mechanics people here are suggesting ways to reduce the networth of a human/sage (no elites, switching scientists so that they reset and have lower nw). The problematic part of high scientists comes when youur prov is not that big in acres. Scientists will be making up a high% of your networth and networth per acre. Due to that high NW your kingdom will end up fighting kingdoms who are bigger in land and might have more troops, wizards and thiefs going around to the point that the additional science effects cannot compensate. Especially when you're resetting scientists (reduced effects).

    Also resetting scientists brings in additional coordination concerns on a kingdom wide level. The goal is to have as low networth as possible by the time you get to war and have your scientist level up as early during war as possible so that you can still reap max benefits on most catagories. Basicly you should switch scientists kingdom wide when doing a war agreement. Look weak, but plan the start near level up time. Max effectiveness is desired during war and pwcf for prep.

    Personally I am not a fan of swithing scientists or running no elites. My solution to the problem = not being/human sage ;)

  13. #43
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by milkman View Post
    here is the thing about the weakness of human/sage. A professor is 406 nw. That is a flat rate. Other scientist levels are less networth. Human/sage can be at softcap in maybe two weeks if they really put their minds to it and push way beyond. However it is up for debate if pushing for very high scientist levels is a good thing. The return in science effect diminishes per scientist over the softcap while the networth remains the same. High amounts of scientists = high networth for a prov. Nice gains are based on networth an equall sized (acres) non human/sage will have less networth. So gains against that prov will be suboptimal.

    Because of the networth based gains mechanics people here are suggesting ways to reduce the networth of a human/sage (no elites, switching scientists so that they reset and have lower nw). The problematic part of high scientists comes when youur prov is not that big in acres. Scientists will be making up a high% of your networth and networth per acre. Due to that high nw your kingdom will end up fighting kingdoms who are bigger in land and might have more troops, wizards and thiefs going around to the point that the additional science effects cannot compensate. Especially when you're resetting scientists (reduced effects).

    Also resetting scientists brings in additional coordination concerns on a kingdom wide level. The goal is to have as low networth as possible by the time you get to war and have your scientist level up as early during war as possible so that you can still reap max benefits on most catagories. Basicly you should switch scientists kingdom wide when doing a war agreement. Look weak, but plan the start near level up time. Max effectiveness is desired during war and pwcf for prep.

    Personally i am not a fan of swithing scientists or running no elites. My solution to the problem = not being/human sage ;)

    qft
    Monsters

    Fighting the world back Proudly since Age 35

    #MONSTERS


    "If you have a problem with a post then use the report button.

    24 hour ban for arguing with me. This isn't a democracy." - Bishop

  14. #44
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,503
    While normally StratO is very valuable to listen to, I need to disagree with the idea that NW concerns are for the top (even including war their in that): I claim everyone should be concerned about NW.

    The reason is found in the meaning of “size”. Because gains are “pure” NW (which still includes land in two ways!), I’ve advocated for a long time that NW is the best simple measurement of size. When you find a target, you look in NW ranges, your gains % is based on that NW, and when kingdoms fight they are normally similar NW.

    Land factors in twice still - land has a good chunk of nw itself (especially built land), and the resulting gains % is a % of the targets land. This is why many elites were better even though their strength as a unit alone wasn’t as good per NW as the specs; the land savings made them worth it. But some elites this age have such high NW that even the land savings can’t make up for it, and your whole prov military would be smaller on same nw if you use elites (but lower land, so lower gains for an enemy - it isn’t all bad). Human elites are one of those that are way too heavy on HW, and so you can make a better province by mostly not using them.
    it's vs. its is ambiguous - from now on I'm attempting to use the proper possessive it's, and the contraction 'tis. (Its will just be the plural.)

    Think Different

  15. #45
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by Persain View Post

    As for effectiveness going over the cap...As u said the first science above the cap is the most beneficial, and each one beyond that has a curve to be less effective. However that doesnt mean ANY science is actually good for you. Each professor has 411 NW next age. If the benefit given by that professor gives is less than their impact on your nw you would say that they losses effectiveness.

    i.e. lets say 1 prof gives u a 10% ME bonus but carries a 100k nw with it. If im 100 acres i could grow to 110 acres and run the same mod tpa/wpa and peasent count i had at 100 acres along with 10% additional military for a lot less than 100k nw.

    Some people have run numbers and they estimate that the above happens at about 45 science per category (i dont really agree with those calcs from my own experience but thats the claim.)
    Ah thanks for clarifying what the 45 figure was referring to. I hadn't understood Tiggis' point as referring to the point at which the sci nw is not providing any net benefit, I thought the point was that the benefit provided by a prof doesn't drop until 45 profs per cat, which I was disagreeing with. I agree that you could go some way beyond the soft cap and still recieve net benefit per scientist, albeit that is less net benefit for each extra scientist after 1 above the cap.

    I would be surprised if the figure of no net benefit is 45 (or any specific number) for each category because the benefits of each cat are different (I'm also not really sure how you would compare, say, alchemy, is net nw benefit terms).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ballsdip View Post
    Sorry I'm a big newb, some of your discussions are confusing to me and I would like to understand:-
    1) Why do some people suggest no elites? I though elites make you strong, does that mean running just off and def spec?
    2) Science switching to reduce networth - how often do you need to switch around? Do you switch all or just a percentage? How do you maintain the bonuses from science if we keep resetting?
    3) What is a typical build for human sage? In war/out of war? Do you keep labs?

    Sorry if my questions are stupid, I am a newbie and just want to learn more
    None of your questions are stupid. The first 2 are actually fairly advanced and experienced players will disagree on the answers (they would also disagee on the 3rd question but that's just because people run different builds).

    The short answer to 1 and 2 is it is about nw. Gains are based on nw now (although land is relevant in the sense that the x% of enemy land you gain (x determined by nw, and other gains factors but not land) then acts upon enemy land to determine how many acres you actually gain, so nw is relevant to some extent when comparing races or set ups within races.

    So far so good and all should agree on this much. Where people begin to disagree is whether, ultimately, you should compare the def/off of a race or setup per acre or per nw. Partly this will depend what you are trying to achieve - ie are you warring (and therefore comparing with that in mind) or trying to grow by hitting outside of war. Assuming you are warring, it gets complicated because you have to make assumptions about which kingdoms you will war - ie will it be one of roughly the same acreage as you or the same nw. In practice I would suggest that it is usually a bit of both for most of the server (excluding kingdoms art the very top of land).

    Part of the difficulty is that whilst in theory nw comparisons make sense, in praxctice it is also relevant whether in real terms you have more off or def than someone or not. ie if you want to attack me, you need more off than my def. It doesn't help you if you have more off per nw than meif you still can't actually break my real defence (although the other side of this is to say that if your nw was less than mine, you wouldnt actually attack me but would instead attack someone with lower nw than me where you could break their real defence).

    Another part is just tradition - formatters for years have given us opa/dpa values, so we are used to it. off/nw also results in more "difficult" numbers (ie decimals below 1 which I think are harder to deal with conceptually - but maybe that's just me).

    I'm not sure I have explained this well - don't worry to much if this still doesn't make sense. A low % of the player base actually understand land/nw efficiency in detail.

    Re-setting science - there isn't a perfect answer to this. It depends what science it is and what you are trying to achieve with it. Ultimately the question is whether the nw that the science is adding is worth it for the benefit. Another factor is that some people advocate resetting frequently to move sci around rather than purely to reduce nw. Again, that depends what you want to achieve, where your sci is allocated already and what your KD's plans are.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •