did you mean to reduce the average number
 

of gems per site with the 3.1 patch?

It seems that most of the new magic sites produce one gem each. This has reduced the total number of gems per territory.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

The number of sites went from 565 to 705 in the update from 3.08 to 3.10. A fairly large number of the new sites were various 1 gem sites, whereas the great majority of the old sites produced two or more gems. The relative frequency of the new sites is also a factor, many of the new sites are common and will thus appear frequently, so even if the effect is not specifically intended, it is an automatic consequence that follows from the mechanics.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

A bad move, I think. Most of new sites are boring, too.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Anybody have any information about any new more powerful sites?

I haven't really seen anything yet, just wondering if there are new path bonus sites and stuff. I found one that lets you recruit draconians.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

I made a list, it's buried somewhere in the modding forum.

I wouldn't say that the new sites are boring, but they definitely lower mean gem income per province. Personally, I'd suggest simply raising the site frequency somewhat.

Edi - do you know what the likelihood ratio is for finding an uncommon site vs. finding a common site?

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Is there a way to boost gem frequency higher than 75? I always play with it at 75 and wished it would go higher. Now that the total gems will be even lower, I will feel the pinch even more.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

As far as I remember, common sites are roughly twice as common as uncommon ones. If a rare site comes up, the site determination is rerolled and only if the second roll is also rare will the rare site appear. I don't know the percentages, but I suspect common sites are 50-60% of sites, uncommons at 25-30% and the rest rare.

The only way to hit a greater than 75% frequency for sites is to modify the map files. #features <percentage> is the command you are looking for.

I don't understand playing with site frequencies above 50. For me, 40 and 45 are pushing it. I like magic being scarce and research difficult so that you actually have to make decisions about what you want to do with your gems and where to take the research. 50 and above, magic is common as dirt and you're hard pressed to find a use for it all unless you're massively empowering mages to get extra paths for them.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

This is a bad move because its an indirect buff to nonblood nations. It would be ok if it affected everyone in the same decree, but it doesnt - blood nations will get the same 100-300 slaves per turn, while everyone else will have less gems.
EA and LA mictlans were already easily amongst the three strongest nations - some even say Micltan is THE strongest. Now they are made even stronger.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

????

Blood slave availability has been tied to site frequency ever since version 3.00.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Yeah, but if there are a larger number of sites which give 1 rather than 2 gems, it will have a net effect of decreasing the amount of gems nations get. That might favour blood nations.

It has nothing to do with site frequency, rather the supposed influx of 1 gem producing sites in the site 'pool'.

I don't personally buy it, but it makes some sort of sense.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

I too thought I was getting less gems now, but simply ascribed it to the normal variations of the game. I've only played two new games since the patch so I didn't catch on until this thread.

I like magic. I like gems. I only play SP and I like to forge everything I can get and cast every spell I can. No such thing as too many gems for me. I spend enough energy working with the constraints of the gold and gem budgets.

I have a question. If I add magic sites in a map edit, do they count against the percentage of magic sites in the setup or are they not counted in site allocation and therefore considered extra?

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Random sites are determined at game creation. AFTER the sites are allocated, the game reads the map file and adds province defenders, implements poptype changes and manually added sites. If a province already has 4 sites, any #feature and #knownfeature commands are ignored.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Edi,

You are better at the game than me! I think this has a real influence on gem use. Also, I just don’t play that much, so when I get a chance to cast a new spell or summon a new creature, I do it, just to see what happens. BC (before child) I played more. I also drank more, went out more and had more friends. On the plus side, I now have more dirty diapers…

Edratman,

I am with you, more magic! Especially diaper cleaning magic.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

I always play SP games with 75% magic sites, I love a magical rich world. I still never have enough gems... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Also I do not empower mages usually unless I am desperate. Nature gem shortage is always a particular problem.

Having said that I have'nt really noticed much of difference. I have a tendancy to be lazy in SP and cast Arcashic Record to find my gems.

I can't see it giving too much a advantage to blood, it takes alot of micro to get 100 - 300 blood slaves and ties down alot of mages.

I think its a very minor problem overall.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Hardly. I know more about the game from an encyclopedia perspective, but in a multislayer game I'd be likely to get squashed flat. Since I mostly play SP, I like having bit more of a challenge, which is why I prefer hard research and sites at 30 or 35.

I need to figure out how to have time enough to start an MP game and then the new to intermediate players can get to play "Whack the sage". The veteran crew would have me for breakfast before moving in on each other for lunch.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

As someone who enjoys the aspect of army/troop tactics I welcome the lower gem income.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Maybe so, but 0 site frequency gave me about half the blood slaves that max sites gave me, so the setting has a drastically lower effect on blood income than on gems.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

A solution to the problem that strikes me, is to make special sites automatically searchable for mages with three times the level they'd need to find the site normally-so you've got a fire 3 mage auto-finding fire 1 sites, but able to search for fire 2, 3, etc.

And

Then to make the number of 0 level sites not count towards the total percentage. They should have their own chance of popping up, dependent on a map command that you can set when you choose or create a map, so that you can have random or created maps which are naturally more or less rich in terms of easily discoverable resources.

The appearance of rarer sites would still be determined at the beginning of the game.

The auto-searching I've describe might also motivate slightly the addition of level 5 sites (15/3=5, a potential upper limit), which I think would be interesting, as well as making empowerment slightly more strategically rewarding.

To offset the auto-search ability: perhaps a relatively low-level, ubiquitous magic item could be added which would allow blood mages, *only* when they blood-hunt, to automatically find 1 blood slave for every three levels of blood magic they have, *in addition to* whatever blood-slaves they might randomly find otherwise, in the course of a normal blood-hunt.

A level 3 blood mage using the magic item would automatically find atleast 1 blood-slave per turn, plus however many random ones.

Example: "Blood Diadem" Helmet, prot 2. Requires 5 bloodslaves to create, also Blood path 2/Const 0. Carved from the hip-bones and finger-bones of atleast 5 young virgins, the Blood Diadem allows the experienced blood-mage to harness the power of his own blood and actively call out to suitable blood slaves, who cannot resist his call while any portion of the moon is in the sky. Blood hunting is increased dependent on the power of the mage.

Moon Talisman. Misc. Requires 5 bloodslaves to create, also Blood path 4/Const 2. This strange little charm is created in a ritual which opens a gate between the temporal and astral planes, allowing a small moon-rock to fall through. The rock is polished, bound in delicate silver chains, and then soaked in the blood of virgins until it turns from white to dark red. The moon-rock may be used to summon any suitable blood-slaves in the area, via the well-established thaumaturgical law of "Like calls out to like". (This is to allow blood-fountain Pretenders to take advantage, and increase the utility of the whole practice, since you can choose whether you want to use a helmet slot or a misc slot.)

This would both stabilize the "blood magic economy"-useful especially for "cottage-industry" blood economies that might be based on the Blood Fountain, for instance, while at the same time not enormously increasing the power of blood magic, since you'd still be committing atleast 1 powerful (path 3 or above) magic user to forging an item, using a slot, spending slaves, and then producing slaves.

Ofcourse, the rest of the details of blood-hunting would stay as random as they are now.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

HB, much of what you propose would require an engine rewrite of epic proportions http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Actually, myself, I think lvl 4 sites are too hard to find already. Basically, you only find them with spells, since it is never worth the time of an actual lvl 4 mage (with a bare few exceptions, annointed of rhuax maybe since they're guaranteed an earth) to wander around looking for stuff.

At that reate, a lvl 5 site might as well be lvl 9. Both options are supported under the current mod script, by the way - you can also add a bunch of common sites that make extra gems, if you think the current mix is income poor.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Statistically speaking, if the chance to have a site be a common site is X(say 50% or whatever) then the chance is still X no matter how many possible sites there are to choose from. The same holds true for uncommon/rare site. One can achieve a higher or lower average gem production value (phew, say that 15 times fast.. while not sober..) in this case only if the mean production of the sites has increased or decreased. I.E. if the average common used to make you 1.3 gems and now it makes you 1.5 gems you have a gain.

All I am saying there is that having more sites to choose from doesn't really matter, it's the percentage of occurence that matters most.

Now as to blood production..

If the rate of blood slave capture remains the same while the average rate of return from gem producing sites changes then blood becomes either greater or lesser in a way that should be obvious.

I am not taking site frequency into consideration as supposedly it is tied to blood as well so it is thus a constant.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Hope you enjoy fending off hordes of dual-blessed demons with your national armies. ))

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

HB,

Your proposal would also make the rainbow pretender much more valuable. They would just stroll around identifying sites and would never have to search. They would move twice as fast and thus have many more free turns. We don’t see a lot of complaints about overpowered rainbow mages, so this is not a bad thing.

However, it would also make high bless pretenders more valuable as well, and they do already provide a great deal to the nation. Throw in the combat pretenders who are high in a particular path and we start to see some balance issues. It would shift things from scales to magic paths.

For example, a D9 pretender for LE Ermor. In the early stages, he uses his fear to chase off indys, meaning fast expansion. However, he is simultaneously searching each province, ensuring a fast start to death gems, which Ermor desperately needs. Then later in the game he can case Utterdark or whatever high level global he needs. The total package is a bit too much.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

A unit special ability that automagically searched each province (maybe at half strength?) a unit walked through *would* be interesting, and ought to be able to be stuffed into the existing engine somewhere.

You could give all those rainbow pretenders this power and they'd instantly become about twice as good for their official job in life.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

I like this idea as a new hero category. Should be easy, or at least it was easy for me to type in.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

I like this idea a lot. You do not currently see rainbow pretenders used often.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

As opposed to how much I enjoy them now??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

It's also less likely to find the very powerful magic sites such as "The Ultimate Gateway"(50% Conjuration discount)... which I feel is even more painful.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Rathar, plenty of the old common sites had gem incomes higher than one. From what people are saying, most of the new ones don't. So the gem income from common sites has apparently gone down, even though the total ratio of common sites in a given game might not be any different.

Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
 

Actually, a lot of the new sites have gem income of 2 or more. I would go so far as to say most of them.