|
|
|
 |
|

October 24th, 2007, 05:18 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norcal
Posts: 102
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
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?
|

October 24th, 2007, 06:16 PM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 5,425
Thanks: 174
Thanked 695 Times in 267 Posts
|
|
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.
|

October 24th, 2007, 07:48 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 203
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
A bad move, I think. Most of new sites are boring, too.
|

October 24th, 2007, 08:02 PM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cali
Posts: 325
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
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.
|

October 24th, 2007, 09:29 PM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lake of Hali, Aldebaran, OH
Posts: 2,474
Thanks: 51
Thanked 67 Times in 27 Posts
|
|
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?
__________________
If you read his speech at Rice, all his arguments for going to the moon work equally well as arguments for blowing up the moon, sending cloned dinosaurs into space, or constructing a towering *****-shaped obelisk on Mars. --Randall Munroe
|

October 25th, 2007, 05:37 AM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 901
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
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.
|

October 25th, 2007, 06:27 AM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 5,425
Thanks: 174
Thanked 695 Times in 267 Posts
|
|
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.
|

October 25th, 2007, 07:29 AM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 651
Thanks: 4
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
|
|
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.
|

October 25th, 2007, 07:42 AM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 5,425
Thanks: 174
Thanked 695 Times in 267 Posts
|
|
Re: did you mean to reduce the average number
????
Blood slave availability has been tied to site frequency ever since version 3.00.
|

October 25th, 2007, 08:26 AM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
|
|
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.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|