Age 61 potential changes comments.

[Flicksand]

Thanks for tinkering with the buildings. It's been some time since they have been rebalanced. I think homes got a welcome buff, but maybe at some point re-evaluate to add another 2 (and at some point another 2 for a total of 14 people per house). For role playing and for diversification and variety in building sake, it would seem ideal that they are lucrative enough to have people build at least a very small percentage of their buildings here.

And a vocalization that I think most players here would like to see, is more wide variances in elites/specs, and capabilities, to make the races really stand out from each other. It allows players to fall more in love with their chosen team and to play a style they see best suits them. Example: Orc elites 9/1, Faery defense 1/7, etc. Just like the good old days.

[Anatak1989]

The main reason I like the above idea is, it would allow for them to add two more races again (because of allowing for more elite values). I know this idea has been brought up and shot down many times, but who cares if there's a little bit of overlap? A little bit of overlap does not mean exact clone. It's just more interesting to have more choices.

[Andurilas]

WTs combined + nerfed thief loss calc = exploit

[khronosschoty]

Bring back Thieves dens are twice as effective!!!!!

[Bishop]

Double TDs or no runes needed will not be returning.

[Sheister]

T/Ms dont take sot/som they use their stealth for ops.

A reyou retarded? SoT is an intel op. others are sabotage ops. SoT is the easiest/highest success rate op. Everything else has a penalty relative to SoT. Therefore any other op, Nightstrike,, AW, etc will have HIGHER losses than what I posted. The relevance of SoT is to set a baseline. Do you understand anything?

And y there should be loses for rogues otherwise they will have huge income and become OP. If a faery has to tog whole day to replace thieves that lost better not to play faery. Also rogues can return part of their loses with prop. Build good economy with good BE and 10-15% TD and you should be fine. It's a matter of skills ;). FYI homes are getting buffed this age so t/ms should have better BE therefore better TD efficiency.

oh, you are a retard. Or I have no skill................ okay.

If I'm rogue and play against tact I wont op him unless MV is done :). That CS is strong I admit, sapf/gold dragons f*ck up rogue a lot I admit that too, however it doesn't mean you have to buff rogue. They are made to counter rogues.

This is not even worthy of address.

And btw I'm just saying but at 2k acres undead with 10-11 epa has 800-900 elites losses on attack... buff the undead pls... -50% losses not enough(sarcasm). You have big losses on thieves because you are big and have huge number of thieves - just admit that you lose 1-2k thieves which is equal to 0.1-0.2 tpa.

Actually, it was 5% of my thieves gone on the easiest op. If we assume higher rates for other ops, it goes up from there. Is that appropriate? That is the question. You analogy to undead is stupid, I don't get thief credits for successful ops to offset my losses.

[Bishop]

A reyou retarded?

Are you unaware of the forum rules? Posts like this are not acceptable.

[Sheister]

No I am not unaware. You are right. I lost my patience with people just completely missing the point. I apologize to all.

[Bo To]

I don't get thief credits for successful ops to offset my losses.

But the rogues have prop. And it returns some thieves so yes it was good analogy. About your "baseline" yes you are right: without TD, invisibility, 6 raw tpa, sci and honor you will have huge losses and small success rate on sabotage ops but fortunately most rogues have them. Your big logic is that you lose too much on sot(easiest intel op) therefore rogues lose too much on sabotage ops -> buff the thieves losses. And you cant assume how much losses someone with better mod/raw tpa will have on harder sabotage op.

Sapf/gold dragons and CS counter rogues I dont see what is your problem with that.

Lets say rogue does AW wave on elf/mystic: he kills 200 wizz for 300 thieves(example). Who lost more?

[Elldallan]

Bishop there's nothing mentioned about the explore formula, will it remain the same as it currently is or will it be changed to how it was presumably intended to work?
For those who are unaware There were several discussions in bug forum threads early this age and the decision was made not to change it during an already ongoing age.

[Bo To]

Double TDs or no runes needed will not be returning.

In my opinion both are broken buffs. What about runes/acre production? I'm not talking about implementing it for the next age but it might be considered as an option. Right now after 2 days war its too hard to get enough runes for important high cost spells.

[Bishop]

Bishop there's nothing mentioned about the explore formula, will it remain the same as it currently is or will it be changed to how it was presumably intended to work?
For those who are unaware There were several discussions in bug forum threads early this age and the decision was made not to change it during an already ongoing age.

It'll be changed. There are a few bug fixes being rolled out that i'll post about later.

[Fiskinator]

for those that think rogue double TD bonus is overpowered, then give rogues 50% thief losses on ops. That is the only reason people are pushing for it. Think about it? I just did no TD's on me SoT run on a KD in fort. I was sending 10% of my thieves per op which was 2K thieves. I was losing 100 thieves on a fail and I was losing up to 50 or so from repulsion on successes. Figure on average 12 per successful op. I did 38 ops. I failed 7 of those. So that is 700 + 31*12 = 1072 in thief losses just grabbing SoTs (my actual losses, since I retrained them were 1086). I am playing a human sage with 125% crime science and 3.5 tpa raw. So, it costs me 1072*500= 536,000 gold just to get SoT's?

I am sorry, thats freaking retarded. Thief losses need to be blanket reduced (as I suggested in other threads here) or at a minimum, rogues need 50% thief losses.

Agree that thief ops on intel (and possibly intel difficulty itself on anything but SoT) needs to be looked at.

If only there was a mage version of SoT. We could call it............ crystal ball.

Yet to see any explanation for that avian nerf.

[Katsuni]

I like the changes for the most part; as always, I feel they could be a bit more vibrant and more of a toss up, but whatever, that's small beans so no big deal.

My only real issue is the problem with the sage.

As the sage, you now get a -30% reduction to learn attacks, which is a step back in the right direction, but the problem is that the sage simply gets more science than normal, which counteracts the benefit of such.

Why?

Well, here's the problem: if you play a sage, you get -30% costs to science plus free science per acre per tick. This is all nice and all, but it means sage players will intentionally focus on having more science than they otherwise would, plus the additional benefits of being a sage. This sounds great, but all it means is that they have more raw science sitting around, which means that when someone goes looking for a learn attack target... they're going to pick the person who has 3x the science of anyone else. If you have 300% of the science, and -30% of the learn attack, you're still losing 110% more science per learn hit (roughly) than a non-sage, even with the learn protection, meaning you're still going to be the primary target to learn attack, defeating the benefit of being a sage.

Instead, rather than having the sage produce MORE science, it would be simply more beneficial if the science they DID have was more efficient. This would be normally handled through either something like +25% science effectiveness, or having libraries count as double, or some other, similar effect.

By making sciences be more effective per point, a sage would have more similar science levels to a regular non-sage, though still a bit inflated. This would simply mean that the average sage would have maybe 140% of the normal total science, to which a -30% on a learn attack would mean they'd only suffer about 98% of the damage that a normal player would, which is comparable.

In this manner, a sage would get the same overall benefit as they do with the proposed changes, but would only lose about the same amount of science as any other person would via the -30% learn protection. As it currently stands, it's simply still more efficient to learn attack a sage with the proposed changes, than it is to attack a non-sage, thereby defeating the purpose of going sage in the first place.

In short, +20~25% science effectiveness would be comparable in power to the acre gains + reduction in costs for science that sage normally has, but without painting a big fat target on your face. The current proposed changes just leave the sage as being less effective in practice than they should be in theory is all.

[Anatak1989]

One thing I've never really understood about this supposed great downfall of being a sage, is why don't sages just use tons of schools when oow? I don't play sage so it doesn't matter to me, but if you built even just 15% schools, that's a pretty large amount of science protected, along with that 30% sage protection buff. Sure, when converting buildings during hostile stages, you might open a small window for someone to learn attack you then, but I think it's really a small price to pay.