I don't want to be associated with that nerd, so please knock it off.
On another note, tt is clear that I intended to type wts meaning watch towers.
Printable View
I don't want to be associated with that nerd, so please knock it off.
On another note, tt is clear that I intended to type wts meaning watch towers.
In that case, is you wrong again vines
WT's % will stay the same no matter what you do, wt will do the same thing if you have 5 tpa or 0.1tpa
vines
then go back & edit the post & correct tws to wts
easy
Archi you're wrong about that wts with no tpa may or not caught a crime attempt on your province. For sure it will not prevent another attempt. The reason is the one doing the crime will lose no thieves. However if the defending province has a tpa, when the one attempting to do a crime on sed province fails they will lose thieves. Losing thieves lowers the t/ms tpa in affect weakening a t/m and thus increasing the odds of failing again. The higher tpa the defending province has the more thieves the attacking province will lose when the wts catches the enemy's thieves.
vines the problem is you say "less tpa makes WTs less effective" which is an incorrect statement by Utopian terminology. The word 'effective' has specific meaning, which in this case WTs effectiveness has nothing to do with tpa. The way you are trying to explain what you mean is wrong and misleading. That is the problem.
State it something like:
"even with WTs, having low tpa still makes you vulnerable to being oped"
...wtf
Watchtowers:
% * 2 Chance of Catching Enemy Thieves
Decrease Thievery Damage by % * 3
Thiefs:
The best measure of your guild's strength is the number of thieves you maintain per acre, often known as Thieves Per Acre (TPA), modified by your Thieves' Dens, your Crime science and your racial bonuses or penalties. The success rate of your guild depends on both your and your target's TPA. The raw damage, however, is based on raw strength - the more thieves you use in an operation, the more damage they can do. The larger your province, the more difficult it will be to keep your guild well-organized and efficient. As your province grows larger, be prepared to keep training additional thieves to keep your network intact and effective. Like most things in Utopia, thievery operations are easier and more effective against provinces similar to you in size.
So no, WT will do the same job what ever number of thief's you have.
@haran
Ahhh lol
WTs are not less effective with higher tpa. you fail more ops, yes, but not because of WTs. soooooo you should be seeing "thievery against a target with higher tpa and WTs is less successful than a target with low tpa and WTs."
also, they did away with the "no thieves = no thief losses" a while ago to help prevent farming. even if they don't have any thieves, if you fail you'll still lose thieves.
with 0 tpa the protection of loses from thievery is more or less 0. A base minimum lose for each type of crime. This can be seen in the utopia guide. If one has high tpa and wts no one is getting through.
One loses a base minimal amount depending on the crime. That is nothing when compared to the loses when the defending province has a tpa.
Shockwave so you use quote in an attempt to make believe I said something I did not say.
"Archi you're wrong about that wts with no tpa may or not caught a crime attempt on your province. For sure it will not prevent another attempt."
That is a quote by you vines, and it isn't correct. WTs will catch enemy thieves, even with 0 tpa, even if not often, as well as reduce the damage from the op if it does get through the autofail bonus.
Yeah I said that. Taking my words out of context is the same as misquoting me.
DHaran you are not read the whole post. You are trying to find things that are wrong. As soon as you see something that could be wrong you run with it. That's not good. Read the whole post then think about the information with in the post as a whole.
If one has 0 tpa the wts will not reduce much damage, just the way it works.
WTs loss reduction bonus reduce the same amount of damage on every single op. It's a set bonus based on the % land you have allocated to WTs. If you are NS'd each and every NS will be damage-reduced based on the WT bonus, regardless of tpa.
vines you are not right, I'm trying to be nice here, but you are just dead wrong about everything involved in the tpa/WT/TD convo. You really should listen to me on this, maybe you might learn something if you do.
@Vines
Jesus Christ Vines
okey lets say you have 10% wt with 1000 acres with 0tpa.the wt will catch 15,8% thiefs and will reduce 23,7 damange
And the same freaking thing will happen if you have 5tpa. BUT the tpa will of course reduce the damage, but will in no way affect or reduce the damage even more from WT's !
Can I make it more clear ?
Right, naturally having tpa will help reduce successful ops against you, but it in no way affects how well the WTs by themselves function, it is all just another part of the equation.
DHaran it is not set the more thieves the defending province has the more thieves the attack province will lose. As one's tpa grows passed 0tpa the base amount of thieves an enemy will lose on failed attempt will increase. All wts do is modify the base amount. Thus the more tpa one has the more effective wts become. In other words, more tpa allows the wts to better do their job. The same goings from tds.
now I can see we are talking about two completely different things because you cannot explain yourself clearly.
WTs have a bonus that reduce the damage done by enemy provinces, such as less troops killed in a NS against you.
Of course when you sent higher amounts of thieves on an op you will lose more, that is obvious to everyone. I said the damage against you is reduced by your WT bonus, regardless of what your defending tpa is, even if it is 0 tpa.
WTs DO NOT modify how many thieves the enemy loses on an op, it only modifies the chances of him failing.
hahaha.
Vines, stop it.
it is so, so, so wrong, and you should trust me and Dharan when we tell you that you all wrong.
you are proven wrong so stop the endless stupidity please
wt are more effective with more tpa. Because more tpa rises the base losses for enemy thieves and wts modify the base losses for enemy thieves. Like wise higher tpa rises the base protection from enemy thieves, and tws modify that base.
DHaran is is not my fault you didn't understand the information I was putting across. I telling you time and time again that you were confusing the information that was being put forth.
Archi it is clear that other guy--I won't name any names--was confused and didn't understand the concepts I am putting forward until now.
@vines
"wt are more effective with more tpa"
THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID !!! read it again...
and i can say it again....YOU ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, OHH SOOO WRONG
"wt are more effective with more tpa"
Another misuse of the word EFFECTIVE. The building's factor in the thievery equations is constant, the tpa is just another factor used in determining the outcome.
"wts modify the base losses for enemy thieves"
From the Guide:
Watchtowers
While your own thieves can protect your land against enemy thieves, a little extra protection is never a bad thing. People assigned into Watchtowers will screen your borders and can catch thieves attempting to conduct operations in your province.
% * 2 Chance of Catching Enemy Thieves
Decrease Thievery Damage by % * 3
They only modify damage by the enemy, and they increase chances of catching enemy thieves. WTs in NO way modify base losses of enemy thieves, they only increase the chance of a failed op and reduced damage on successes.
You need to take your own advice and read the guide vines, you have no idea what you are talking about. I can prove you wrong on every post you make easily. The only person who doesn't see how wrong you are is you.
Read the information I put up. I did not simple say tws modify the loses one loses. You don't understand the information being put forth, and so, you become confused and it shows in your posts. So I'm just going to say whatever to you.
At least this thread turned to pure entertainment.
I am copying exactly what you say word for word, and it is wrong vines. You are the one who doesn't understand, I am clearly countering every post you make with a detailed explanation of why it is flawed. If you can not understand my explanations, then you need to stop posting until you can learn to communicate better.
This is also inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by vines
Find a province with 0 thieves and run some ops sending all your thieves on him. You will still lose thieves on failed ops and you will still fail ops.
The reason is because ops are now calculated with a built-in auto-fail and a minimum thief loss mark. This has been true for maybe 5+ ages.
Whether you like it or not, WT's, as a building, are NOT better or worse based on the amount of thieves you have. This is like saying that you cannot make money with 0 banks.
wanna place bets as to when vines is going to say that you cannot make money with 0 banks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezzerland
No, I don't want to bet, Because I imagine it's coming :p
/me fluffs bean bag chair, makes popcorn, plops down, and waits for more vines' insight.
vines is so wrong it makes my toes curl. Please don't stop.
Scarily, it took 10 pages, but I understand what he is saying and actually thought it was true at some point. I feel dirty :/
I thought losses in a failed op were lower if the enemy province has no thieves. It appears vines thought the same, but instead of saying "higher # of thieves" he has said higher tpa helps more.
Lets define "Effectiveness" as "The power or capacity to produce a desired result"
Now, the desired result of WT and TPA and TD is all the same. That is, to reduce damage done to your province. This can be done either by reducing losses (WT - Decrease Thievery Damage by % * 3) or by making ops unpalatable due to high losses per failed op (and hence less ops = less damage).
So if having less thieves (or low tpa as vines has described it) does result in less casualties for an enemy failed op, then WT's are more 'effective' with more thieves (or higher tpa) as you will inevitably get less ops done against you over time (if for no other reason than you will cause their tpa to drop faster/op, assuming they are willing to ignore higher losses)
So, I guess the next point is do thief numbers of the opped province in any way effect the losses suffered from a failed op?
guys, vines is pretending to be n00b, you have all bee fooled. he is now more well known in this forum than CW and VT2 put together, that was his plan all along
Was that my plan? I didn't know I had a plan. . . I didn't get the memo.
so going back to the original thread (if anyone remembers it!) If a dwarf runs 30% MORE thief science then a human/orc/d.elf/elf, am i right that his mod tpa will be the same as theirs? (assuming same raw tpa/ building efficency/ wt & td %age)
You're wrong, because the game works on multipliers.
If the dwarf has the same exact bonuses from science and thieves' dens as a human, it will still have 30% less mod TPA.
Here's an example caracal:
Dwarf with 80% thievery sci vs lets say an Elf with 50% thievery sci. Raw tpa 3:
Dwarf 3*.7*1.8 = 3.78 mod tpa
Elf 3*1.5 = 4.5 mod tpa
The -30% is a multiplier, so 30% science will not just offset the penalty.
0.7 x 1.429 = 1
You need 42.9% thievery science to cancel the dwarf race penalty
Math doesn't work that way.
What do you mean VT2? That statement was accurate.
I was talking to the poster above me - not you.
I know, his statement was correct tho. 42.9% science will offset the dwarf penalty.