His arguments are quite rational you just seem angry over that you cant argue against him and therefor just want this thread locked. Werent you the one that said you would leave this discussion after your last post?Originally Posted by Kayani
His arguments are quite rational you just seem angry over that you cant argue against him and therefor just want this thread locked. Werent you the one that said you would leave this discussion after your last post?
Last edited by Korp; 18-03-2011 at 16:04.
Interesting how instead of responding to any of the questions I asked you, you just decided you can't have a discussion. It's not my fault that you're wrong. If you don't understand why you're wrong, feel free to ask and I'll explain it to you in more detail.
However, the only opinion that's been expressed thus far in the thread contrary to mine, is that it's ok for things to be unbalanced. What amuses me is that the people who actually understand the game that have posted in this thread all agree with me, and yet it's folks like you that act like I don't understand game dynamics.
Saying there can be no rational discussion regarding Zauper's points because you can't rationally counter them is not a valid statement.
S E C R E T S
doesn't really argue rationally, more like says you're wrong and asks a question....
This is another example of someone who's come to argue without bothering to think about what he's saying.
Let's break it down:
Rational - "proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning".
The first post in this thread lays out a very basic structure that explains the topic of the thread. It proceeds in a manner which is based on reasoning. The responses to the thread have all failed to contest that basic structure, or to generate their own logical progression.
Additionally, beyond merely saying that someone is wrong, I either explain why they're wrong, or reference earlier in the thread where it was already explained why they were wrong that they had failed to either a) notice, or b) respond to.
Trollfail.
read some other posts, not a troll.
more times then not, you don't explain but just ask some question
1) what is wrong with an age long commitment? rather than race to see who can get the cap and not worry about it the rest the age? then just focus on military? seems a long term commitment makes a player choose a little bit more wisely how he spends his gc, which to mean would be called strategy
2)i wouldn't say the goal is to spend as much of your time pumping science unless you want it to be. If you don't I wouldn't say its a penalty but rather bad strategy if you wish to compete.
additionally: you comments about buildings being designed for science and personality are flawed as well in the sense that there are more buildings for offense than defense, and even the defensive one is consider offense to some people, so should offense be capped? personality made for science, there's plenty for attacking, one for theif and at least one for mage. why not one for science?if it is seemed OP then tweak it. remove the -50% losses or lessen that to -30% on learns.
side note-this post is just to throw validate im not trolling. i pointed out the obvious, as its been said more than twice your retorts aren't really arguing, mainly saying yer wrong. whats next?
Point to posts.
1) You clearly haven't been paying attention, it isn't an age-long commitment, it's about forcing out month+ long pumps using the highest setting instead of using a moderate setting for the entire age.1) what is wrong with an age long commitment? rather than race to see who can get the cap and not worry about it the rest the age? then just focus on military? seems a long term commitment makes a player choose a little bit more wisely how he spends his gc, which to mean would be called strategy
2) How is that different from the SQO? You pump science, then you train military. The only difference is that the current system forces you to pump for longer, so that you can get an advantage over everyone else.
3) It's not a "strategy" if everyone else has to do it to become competitive; it's a requirement.
So you agree that in order to compete you have to spend the majority of your age pumping science. You think that's a good thing?2)i wouldn't say the goal is to spend as much of your time pumping science unless you want it to be. If you don't I wouldn't say its a penalty but rather bad strategy if you wish to compete.
None of these buildings, racial bonuses, or personality bonuses apply multiplicative bonuses to uncapped bonuses. The potential bonus from sage (and/or libraries) is far higher than the potential bonus from any other combination of bonuses, due to the uncapped nature of science. Because the bonus from science can exceed the equivalent bonuses than can be achieved through other means, the bonus that sage and libraries can provide do the same.additionally: you comments about buildings being designed for science and personality are flawed as well in the sense that there are more buildings for offense than defense,
Offense is capped. It's remarkable how someone who has "read the entire thread" could have missed this fact, which has been repeated several times. I can't train offense past 100% of my population. There is no cap on science.and even the defensive one is consider offense to some people, so should offense be capped?
Or remove the multiplicative science bonus from it.personality made for science, there's plenty for attacking, one for theif and at least one for mage. why not one for science?if it is seemed OP then tweak it. remove the -50% losses or lessen that to -30% on learns.
Clearly you haven't bothered reading the thread since most of your post has been answered before.side note-this post is just to throw validate im not trolling. i pointed out the obvious, as its been said more than twice your retorts aren't really arguing, mainly saying yer wrong. whats next?
I say we vote 'no' to nuclear power.
Catwalk's crusade for legalized cheating was a stunning success, with ghettos and low-tiered teams everywhere losing their wells of knowledge to better kingdoms in the process.
Step one: replace everything that works.
Step two: blame the predictable epic fail on outside forces.
Step three: keep the community informed that no progress has been made since the last update.
Step four: thank you for your patience.
Sorry not everyone is wrong, those of us who play in Warring Kd's and SK's tend to agree with Zauper.
I believe this has been mentioned again and again but i'll say it anyway.
The science system currently doesn't reward people who war because you need to science pump constantly any other activity besides science pumping leaves you at a disadvantage. Look at the recent Sanc Vs Fratzia they lost purely because Fratzia have spent the entire age pumping science.
So your argument would be stop them before they can, well there are a number of kds that are going to push early, as said before we can't catch them all even once we go to the 2nd one we would be at a disadvantage.
The current science system rewards those who explore & dice which is boring. The crown shouldn't go to the lucky kd that managed to dice/explore make some randoms well but it will until the system changes.
The fix
The easiest fix to this now as i see it would be to factor in science gains into TM. When you TM, you gain an equivalent amount of science, so the province not only loses acres but bpa too. That way the warring kd's can keep up with the science explorers and dicers and not see their science drop to the pits after coming out of each war successfully.
It will also reward people who win wars, well sucks be to you if you lose acres and science, war better then!
Last edited by tak3shi; 18-03-2011 at 18:41.
Add the auto-learn back to humans.
Catwalk's crusade for legalized cheating was a stunning success, with ghettos and low-tiered teams everywhere losing their wells of knowledge to better kingdoms in the process.
Step one: replace everything that works.
Step two: blame the predictable epic fail on outside forces.
Step three: keep the community informed that no progress has been made since the last update.
Step four: thank you for your patience.
so to sum up: I didn't read the posts/ thread.
there isn't an age long commitment but yet there is month+ long pumps for the whole age? <---really? think about that
SQO? explain term please
current system every can train science equally. you have a draft rate, set it. I can't help that others neglected it. we all start off at same spot. "draft longer for an advantage" you don't have to draft longer to get the advantage. you need to research more, and that is something on you and yes there is a difference between more and longer.
there's always strategies to being competitive, science is one of them.
yes I agree to compete you need to pump science. I DID NOT SAY WHOLE AGE THOUGH. if that is what OTHERS have to do then so be it. once again strategy. picking when to pump and how much to pump and what to pump.
building/race comments were weak, but still hold point that there should be a personality to benefit science. tweak IT, the persona, if it is op.
the comment about capped offense didn't register when read. i've seen it read and re-read. blimey, i opened a can a worms here saying anything, wasn't going to get flamed without trying to be ready.
remove that bonus, tweak it, do w/e not my call. just saying blaming a persona for a science system being flawed is flawed (hate to sound like you but I don't know what else to defend that with :p)
maybe they have been but that has no bearing on whether I read whole thread or not. can easily say you don't read all the threads you post in because you say I'm trolling when I'm pretty sure my posts give advice in a manner without flaming someone (except for Bish's post about age 50 suggestions mega-thread :p lol)
lastly why do you think science is uncapped? my answer, which I am curious of yours, is that in order to keep your % bonus at a steady level (or higher w/e your fancy) while you increase acres, you need more science.
Oy, my reply got lost.
Why is running 3 bpa/hr for 2 months and 0 science for the rest of the age an "age-long commitment"? I've engineering 2+ month pumps before in ages with capped science.
Status quo.SQO? explain term please
Nope. Everyone can't train equally.current system every can train science equally. you have a draft rate, set it.
Sages.
Econ bonuses.
Running a draft rate (aka not pumping for months)
If I'm on 3 bpa/hr, and you're on 3 bpa/hr, and I pump for a month, while you pump for two, do you have an advantage?I can't help that others neglected it. we all start off at same spot. "draft longer for an advantage" you don't have to draft longer to get the advantage. you need to research more, and that is something on you and yes there is a difference between more and longer.
Name a single strategy that is competitive and counters a science strategy that doesn't improve due to the presence of science.there's always strategies to being competitive, science is one of them.
If your competitor is pumping science, and you don't, then you are giving them a substantial advantage. Giving them a substantial advantage means you lose in any conflict.yes I agree to compete you need to pump science. I DID NOT SAY WHOLE AGE THOUGH. if that is what OTHERS have to do then so be it. once again strategy. picking when to pump and how much to pump and what to pump.
Sage and libraries make the problems with science worse, they are not themselves the problem. The problem is the uncapped nature of science.building/race comments were weak, but still hold point that there should be a personality to benefit science. tweak IT, the persona, if it is op.
k.the comment about capped offense didn't register when read. i've seen it read and re-read. blimey, i opened a can a worms here saying anything, wasn't going to get flamed without trying to be ready.
That doesn't fix the system.remove that bonus, tweak it, do w/e not my call. just saying blaming a persona for a science system being flawed is flawed (hate to sound like you but I don't know what else to defend that with :p)
Science is uncapped because there is no cap on the bonus.lastly why do you think science is uncapped? my answer, which I am curious of yours, is that in order to keep your % bonus at a steady level (or higher w/e your fancy) while you increase acres, you need more science.
Since the bonus can increase indefinitely, it is not capped.
Everything in the game is a function of acres at the end of the day, the fact that the science bonus is a function of acres is irrelevant to the uncapped nature of the bonus.
Perhaps it is left uncapped so that it would increasingly multiply benefits for those being overly chained? An unstated GBP, peraps? Otherwise, if it is capped, what happens to all the science a province has if their acreage pushes them beyond that level? Do they lose it? Does it become ineffective until the province gains enough acreage to level the science out again?
"Let us live so that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry" ~ Mark Twain
It was uncapped to "encourage an age-long commitment to science". It has encouraged age-long pumping, not a commitment to science.
When it was uncapped in the past, there was just a limit to the % bonus, not to the number of points. The extra points just don't provide any additional benefit.Otherwise, if it is capped, what happens to all the science a province has if their acreage pushes them beyond that level? Do they lose it? Does it become ineffective until the province gains enough acreage to level the science out again?
Thanks for clarifying.
"Let us live so that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry" ~ Mark Twain
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote