This topic is closed

Persian positions AFTER big payout

26 Replies
Kakos
10 June, 2016, 12:07 AM UTC

Rix,

My original 228k was wrong, the actual total is:

4 Macks @ 19000 res per = 76 000 + 24 M. Pelts @ 7 500 res per = 180 000 + 17 205 res = grand total of 273 205.


My question was not a leading one at all.. you said: " If you can remove the mindset of basing Persians on troop strength and replace you entire thought process on Persian positions with strictly resources than you will get the big picture."

I have challenged that -as I have done in the past- because no one has EVER produced ANY proof or even a compelling argument that the bank is based solely on resources! Lots of theorycrafting and speculations but no actual figures to back up any of it.

So I have used the numbers you supplied to try and demonstrate that maybe the bank is not just about resources.

.. and btw.. you DID say "Criticism is always welcome :)"..


Rob May,

you said "resource method is widely accepted among players for years, across all plarium games not only Sparta."


But that is the point I am trying to make here.. because something is "widely accepted" doesn't mean we should not at least TRY and see how it actually works, if we are interested about it!

Regarding " IF its stats based then non upgraded units would yield smaller payouts and losses, and 50% boost and maxed out troops would be yielding high profits, maybe doubling army every 2-3days? "

I cant really see why you say that.. my numbers show just a modest + ~20% interest on BHP used, nothing really spectacular and I haven't said anything about using non upgraded units.

As a matter of fact, IF the idea with PPs is that you pay the bank with just resources and the faster the better, then one should use ONLY non upgraded units.. a ridiculous proposition IMHO.

Finally, I also welcome constructive criticism!

Vae victis
UTC +9:00
mad
10 June, 2016, 12:22 AM UTC

so the bank ranges in positionss are from?  what level to what levels..?  i think 101-110, 111-120, 121-130, 131-140 


lastly... our real problem as players who interact w one another is that we give our opinion on, how to beat positions. And some of you are right on..

but then guess what?  plaruim changes it on you. why? Cause you spilled and told everybody...lol


mad
UTC +0:00
RIX
10 June, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

Kakos said:


Rix,

My original 228k was wrong, the actual total is:







4 Macks @ 19000 res per = 76 000 + 24 M. Pelts @ 7 500 res per = 180 000 + 17 205 res = grand total of 273 205.








My question was not a leading one at all.. you said: " If you can remove the mindset of basing Persians on troop strength and replace you entire thought process on Persian positions with strictly resources than you will get the big picture."

I have challenged that -as I have done in the past- because no one has EVER produced ANY proof or even a compelling argument that the bank is based solely on resources! Lots of theorycrafting and speculations but no actual figures to back up any of it.

So I have used the numbers you supplied to try and demonstrate that maybe the bank is not just about resources.

.. and btw.. you DID say "Criticism is always welcome :)"..


Rob May,

you said "resource method is widely accepted among players for years, across all plarium games not only Sparta."


But that is the point I am trying to make here.. because something is "widely accepted" doesn't mean we should not at least TRY and see how it actually works, if we are interested about it!

Regarding " IF its stats based then non upgraded units would yield smaller payouts and losses, and 50% boost and maxed out troops would be yielding high profits, maybe doubling army every 2-3days? "

I cant really see why you say that.. my numbers show just a modest + ~20% interest on BHP used, nothing really spectacular and I haven't said anything about using non upgraded units.

As a matter of fact, IF the idea with PPs is that you pay the bank with just resources and the faster the better, then one should use ONLY non upgraded units.. a ridiculous proposition IMHO.

Finally, I also welcome constructive criticism!

1) The Persian calculators I use offered on an online website are off then.  Care to share a link in private of a good one?

2)  Basing off of a resource payout for me is MUCH easier for me personally but PM me your formula and I will try it.

3) Of course criticism is welcome! I have not problems with our exchange, I just felt your initial question was leading rather than just letting me know that you object to the resource method you asked me for a reason to shoot it down.  (that's how I felt and of course may be wrong) Just be upfront.

4) Absolutely positively use Pikeman, Golden shield and Cart ponies (macs are good too)  Level 1.  Uswe up more resources to get the payout in fewer postions


I am always seeking truth so PM me any info you may have for me to try, especially your troop calculator since mine seems to be erroneous lol

Thank you for your insight and time, it is much appreciated



















A T H E N A
UTC -5:00
RIX
10 June, 2016, 1:47 AM UTC
mad said:

so the bank ranges in positionss are from?  what level to what levels..?  i think 101-110, 111-120, 121-130, 131-140 


lastly... our real problem as players who interact w one another is that we give our opinion on, how to beat positions. And some of you are right on..

but then guess what?  plaruim changes it on you. why? Cause you spilled and told everybody...lol


For me I am finding 1-10/11-20 cannot pin it down in the 30's-40's.  Others have also said 50-75 and 76-105 have their own banks too.  I don't care if plarium knows,  It's not cheating the system, it's building troops efficiently :)
A T H E N A
UTC -5:00
KarlXII
10 June, 2016, 7:23 AM UTC

RIX said:


mad said:


so the bank ranges in positionss are from?  what level to what levels..?  i think 101-110, 111-120, 121-130, 131-140 


lastly... our real problem as players who interact w one another is that we give our opinion on, how to beat positions. And some of you are right on..

but then guess what?  plaruim changes it on you. why? Cause you spilled and told everybody...lol


For me I am finding 1-10/11-20 cannot pin it down in the 30's-40's.  Others have also said 50-75 and 76-105 have their own banks too.  I don't care if plarium knows,  It's not cheating the system, it's building troops efficiently :)

What??? Don't you all get it! You have been screwed in your b u t t s! Of course Plarium MUST tell us about changes, and what they've done.

Different banks in Def/Off and in certain levels, will make you investment a lot if you don't know about it. --> Oh s h I t, my 139 level offensive PP didn't get me the big payout and Im out of high level Off PP. Well I take the big payout in def instead and build up investments in def, just to change to off next day when its time for the big one --> Taking down a level 139 defensive PP.... Guess what, theres no big payout there too...

How can you accept this??

Its all about the money!

UTC +0:00
RIX
10 June, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC
Just figured it out on the troop calculator I use online, it is not factoring in grain.  Doh!!  Can anyone PM me a better calculator?
A T H E N A
UTC -5:00
Rob May
10 June, 2016, 8:13 PM UTC

www.facebook.com/groups/spartatroopcalculator/


I believe is not updated in ages, im updating it myself and changing as I see fit.


I just repeat facts why I believe positions are not based on power but on resources:


1. its tested and agreed by many players that it is the case, they work with resources as people who record their resources can confirm it simply works, myself included.


2. if it was power based, how would plarium optimize that? if boosts were accepted then people would simply got too much profit every payout, which we know is not the case, nobody got rich by playing Persians :)  or on other side you would lose ton if your troops were not upgraded, which we know is also not true. The only possibility for plarium would be to set some static figure of power for each troop if they didn't use resource method


3. then what about grain expensive units?(SP,NA,GSW,CH) they are few times as much expansive as other units. So if it was power for power, then you would get payout of equivalent of their invested power, which also is tested and proven wrong. payout power is quite higher than invested power of these expensive units, but more less same in form of resource cost invested vs paid out.

UTC +0:00
1720032 users registered; 42223 topics; 270400 posts; our newest member:Unknown_Ranger