Quote Originally Posted by Zantetsuken View Post
Your Cleric argument stopped making sense, so I'm done with that discussion. Cleric is much stronger in the proposed changes than it would be with -50% Losses and no Plague Immunity. If you don't understand why after my explanation, then I'm at a loss.
Cleric is stronger with -50% losses than -40% losses and plague immunity. I understand what you are saying but nesta understands how cleric fits into a kd setup better. The only "good" thing about plague immunity on cleric is hopefully it scares people away from undead and indirectly gives warrior and merchant a massive buff.

Quote Originally Posted by Zantetsuken View Post
As for Sage, until 3 ages ago, Sage has ALWAYS had science bonuses over Mystic/Rogue. So I'm not at all worried about them being on equal ground in the proposed changes. That is still a buff for Mystics compared to what has been the case historically.
Over the past say 15 ages sages rarely had a direct science bonus and when they did it made them stronger than a mystic/rogue at banking and VERY difficult to op. The last time sage was even remotely as strong (i think it was +25% science and 1/4 books/acre) i had my best player run feary sage and by week 8 or 9 he literally could NOT be cast on by a mystic and ran 30% WT+CS to counter rogues. I remember one war the enemy went 1/150 on casting on him, it was just stupid. Compare that to now and +50% ALL science may not directly give a wpa/tpa advantage but it buffs every other part of a prov so massively that you end up with a relatively larger tpa/wpa than we had in the past.