Science is fundamentally unbalanced and unbalancing.

[Zauper]

You realize that diplomacy is a part of this game right? If a kd can get cf's with every threat and subsequently sci pump, seems to me they must be really good at diplomacy.

1) You don't need to have a CF with everyone in order to pump. (read my prior posts, they explain this in detail. You didn't bother refuting them. You also didn't acknowledge my other points).
2) Case in point: The age after the change was implemented, ezzerland ran a human/sage dicing kingdom that managed to pump science for the first 8 weeks of the age without CFs, using the methodology that I described. Low NWPA + over 100 DPA = not hittable for gains.

You remove sci or cripple it significantly and you're just taking one more piece of variety out of the game and forcing more kd's to choose the same cookie cutter setup.

How is capping science (or making it buyable) either removing science or crippling it significantly?

At least with the system as is, a kd has to use diplomacy and make an extended investment to get good sci, as opposed to how it used to be where kd's would just fw for a week and pump so much sci they never needed to think about it again.

This is false:
1) Your diplomacy argument is disproved and has no real substance to it.
2) What you call "extended investment" really just amounts to "extended pump", which only goes to show that the system has failed to achieve its stated goal.
3) KDs could not in the past have FWd for one week and pumped enough science to never have to bother with it again. Perhaps twice for two weeks each.

I'd rather have more choices than less

What do you propose to make any strategy viable against a high-science strategy? For that matter, would you like to propose a similar system that would make a "long-term investment" in anything else (buildings, military) equivalent in power?

By making long-term pumping of science a requirement, everyone has to do it in order to compete if any one kingdom does it.

Thus it removes choices, instead of increasing them.

[ostrichfarmer]

By making long-term pumping of science a requirement, everyone has to do it in order to compete if any one kingdom does it.

I think that is unnecessarily true. If we choose to pump more, we war less. If we war more, we have less science. When warring a high science kd, start with some learn attacks. When bored during breaks between war, find someone to learn from. When playing orc, risk getting learned if science is high. Build library/school and lose other buildings, build other buildings and lose library/schools, or build all in useless quantity. Pump on pop to increase shepherd bonus, or pump on thievery to increase thieves efficiency when chained down.

Well, there's plenty of choices to make with science.

[Drixx]

Zauper, you realize it takes more to "invalidate" an argument then saying "I don't agree" right?

[DHaran]

These ridiculous replies are exactly why the ultra-experienced oldie players don't post here anymore.

[Drixx]

These ridiculous replies are exactly why the ultra-experienced oldie players don't post here anymore.

Because advocating the removal or reversion to a system already proven not to work ... isn't ridiculous?

[Palem]

The old system worked.

It was removed because it worked too well.

[DHaran]

He also suggested caps.... But the point is the new system didn't solve anything, just changed how it's done.

Use learn attacks is not a valid argument when discussing the science system, that's the kind of crap I'm talking about.

[Drixx]

He also suggested caps.... But the point is the new system didn't solve anything, just changed how it's done.

Use learn attacks is not a valid argument when discussing the science system, that's the kind of crap I'm talking about.

Any kind of a cap and you basically penalize a kd who is able to play well. I mean, if a kd stays really small and gets mad sci, it's not really that big a deal, because if they grow up into the top of the charts, the growth dilutes the sci. The only real "problem" here is when a kd at the top of the charts also gets left alone all age and gets some insane amount of sci. My point is ... don't let a top kd have most of the age to pump sci with.

The old system worked.

It was removed because it worked too well.

Which is why I said going back to a system that was proven not to work (as in, proven to be broken) is foolish.

[DHaran]

My point is ... don't let a top kd have most of the age to pump sci with.

lol, wow I wonder why nobody thought of that before? You sir are a genius! Zauper, clearly you need to just STOP the top kingdoms from pumping science! So nub not to think of that already.

[Swagger]

My kd has had 7 wars this age and everyone in the kd has at least 1300 BPA.

You can still in essence purchase books by making a plunder then raising science to a point that it consumes excess GC.

Sure some NW whore kds can get away with a lot of science, but who really cares what they do?

[Itch]

Make science purchaseable again and cap the bonus affects.

yup definitely...supported this last age as well...but heh...im afraid it will stay the same this age also...

[hermy]

+1

The real discussion should be about how/low high the 'cap' is, not some crazy dudes saying the system is fine because you can learn people.

[Zauper]

I think that is unnecessarily true. If we choose to pump more, we war less. If we war more, we have less science. When warring a high science kd, start with some learn attacks. When bored during breaks between war, find someone to learn from. When playing orc, risk getting learned if science is high. Build library/school and lose other buildings, build other buildings and lose library/schools, or build all in useless quantity. Pump on pop to increase shepherd bonus, or pump on thievery to increase thieves efficiency when chained down.

Well, there's plenty of choices to make with science.

In short, your post agrees with me: gaining science trades off with other activities, such as war. This indicating that in order to be competitive with kingdoms that do pump science, you have to do the same.
As for the rest of your post, this is like saying "there are choices to be made with military: how many elites to train, how many defspecs to train". It's true, but also irrelevant because it's a false choice; if I have 1000 BPA and you have 0, unless I've been a complete idiot, I have a ridiculous advantage over you.

Zauper, you realize it takes more to "invalidate" an argument then saying "I don't agree" right?

You realize that not only was your argument wrong, but also my examples clearly demonstrate why your argument is invalid?

Do you also realize that not even bothering to respond to my arguments is further proof that you have no arguments to make?

Thought so.

Because advocating the removal or reversion to a system already proven not to work ... isn't ridiculous?

This is false. The capped science system worked perfectly. The issues began once the cap was removed.

Now, the cap was removed in order to encourage an age-long commitment to science instead of pumping science. I've already shown why it's encouraged an age-long commitment to pumping, rather than a commitment to science alongside other things.

Any kind of a cap and you basically penalize a kd who is able to play well.

Really? So does that mean that all of us are penalized because there is a cap on military? How about income? Population?

I mean, if a kd stays really small and gets mad sci, it's not really that big a deal, because if they grow up into the top of the charts, the growth dilutes the sci. Go ahead, tell me how you're going to uncap every other resource to make each resource competitive with science.

This is actually false; if they have the science to sustain a full 3 bpa purchase while growing, they can grow rapidly and still sustain an effective amount of science.

The only real "problem" here is when a kd at the top of the charts also gets left alone all age and gets some insane amount of sci. My point is ... don't let a top kd have most of the age to pump sci with.

You realize how ridiculous a statement this is, right? Let's assume for a moment that my kingdom can war with 0 downtime. Let's assume there are say, 7 kingdoms trying to pump science. It would take me 21 days to declare, immediately war, mintime war, and then post-war CF them all. In that time, they would all be substantially more pumped than me when I get back around to warring them again... making it all worthless.

You also have addressed the fact that they could just run all def, suppressing their nw and making it impossible for me to get gains because i would need to be substantially larger in order to break their 120+ DPA strategies.

You also realize that this has been done with the kingdom not dropping out of the top 10, without CFs... right? So what is your argument exactly?

Beyond which, a top kd could just go to FW after getting waved, and then wait for me to wave someone else and go back to it, losing minimal land.

Which is why I said going back to a system that was proven not to work (as in, proven to be broken) is foolish.

How was the old system broken?

I love how you make statements like this, or that it would 'cripple or remove science' and then refuse to defend them.

My kd has had 7 wars this age and everyone in the kd has at least 1300 BPA.

Please post full SOT and SOS's on your kingdom here so that we can verify before we begin this discussion.

p.s. DHaran is right -- learn attacks aren't really a valid check to science growth.

[Itch]

""My kd has had 7 wars this age and everyone in the kd has at least 1300 BPA.""

Please post full SOT and SOS's on your kingdom here so that we can verify before we begin this discussion.

I would really like to see that too...

[silent_killer]

He also suggested caps.... But the point is the new system didn't solve anything, just changed how it's done.

Use learn attacks is not a valid argument when discussing the science system, that's the kind of crap I'm talking about.

well dharan i see your point but could you care to elaborate cuz i don't get it