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.