POSITIONS PERSIAN NOT WORK AS BEFORE UPDATE ALL KNOW.

NOW IS MORE LIKE A LOTTERY, NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE LOSSES AND REWARDS

FOR GETTING BETTER NOT INCREASE YOUR LEVEL POSITIONS OF PERSIAN

AND DO NOT SPEND MONEY WITH PLARIUM

Well, I've been trying both methods :

- Blindlessly hitting positions for the win, rookie style.

Above levels 60+, I got so many good partial payouts it was impossible to pay the bank back (this was actually done after getting my latest big payout, see below)...

Between levels 45-55, partials payouts are more mediocre, but in the end, I did pay the bank back and got a 6 millions payout in Promachoi and Thorakitai.

- Then knowing my bank amount at last (I was a bit lost after the change :p), I built infantry for two weeks and hit the 3 topmost positions i had (level 62 + two  level 61) WITHOUT FINISHING THEM.

Well, actually, that's what I had planned, but the 2nd level 61 was defended by cavalry and my infantry slaughtered them, though I had only sent 80% of the theorical force.

To my surprise, the big payout came immedaitely (I knew the bank was paid back, but everybody knows you never have 100% chance the payout drops at the first trial - there I was lucky).

It was a 12.5 millions payout in Agemas and mounted Peltasts.

Then I finishd the remnaing positions so I levelled up with next level to hit being 63, and got partials, but th were so huge they were superior to what I had invested in them.

These ones I know are random, but the big payout was a pleasant surprise, as I didn't even have time to overbank as planned, so i really got 12.5 M for 6 M invested.

However, my previous payout was modest, so i probably had overbanked previously.

Anyway, it works perfectly as usual.

You have two tactical choices to make :

- Either start positions and build your bank as usual. To achieve this you MUST ABSOLUTELY FINISH NONE OF THEM, or you'll decrease your bank. If it happens, just substract your partial payout value from your current bank and go on.

You must overbank by at least 1 or 2 positions so you can plan on hitting up to 2 or 3 finising positions to get the payout without underbanking, as, as reminded above, you never get 100% chances to get the big payout out of the first trial (and it has ALWAYS been like this, only you didn't get anything, so you couldn't risk to underbank).

- Either playing for tournaments (like right now) and finish positions as they come.

This will give you only partials, unless you've finally reached the sweet spot (it can happen, that's how i got the previous big payout before my last one).

However, positions under level 40 give very few tournament points (they even give only one point up to level 20 or so), so you should really try to reach at least the 50+ levels range fast enough).

Awarded points grow exponentially with the level, so try to reach an area that still allows you to hit enough posiions with what you can produce in one week if you want to play every weekly tournament. Last time, I chosed not to play Persians, and kept on building fodder for two full weeks without hitting any.

Of course, the best strategy is still to grind positions down during the week, then finish hem off during tournaments, as usual.

However, since we don't have to care anymore about grain and every position is only 1 mn away, it doesn't matter anymore if you just keep all your troops until the tournament starts.

So please stop whinning.

Those damn partial payouts have been introduced precisely because thousandths of people were whinning all day long to Plarium support about not getting immediate payout for every position they hit, until the staff got mad and added those stupid partial payouts.

If everybody would stop whinning and learn how to adapt, maybe we would get less silly changes ! have you even thought about that ? :(

Thatbloke - I know what you mean by building up the bank (not winning the PP:s) to hit high levels PP:s when you are at the value since the last big payout. And I also know that it sometimes will not give you the Big one, but its near so its just hitting again.

But, showing us results from a few PP:s doesnt tell us how it works in the long term. I got a lot of big payouts in the new reward system so I know they are still there.....

Old reward system was: A payout = Kill your army at PP:s until you´re at aprox the same level as the payout you got before and that would bring you a new payout.... Easy to understand and with good strategy could bring you even more army in the long term.

New reward system: Wait until you get the Big payout and then make the calcs from that one. You can do this, either by killing your army at PP:s without winning, or win every time and wait until you´re at the same value as the last Big payout (takes longer though).

Question is, anyway of new reward system or not, in the long term you should at least not lose any of your army if ending with a big payout!

So again!

You fight 200 PP:s in a row and wins all the time

You don´t advance in the levels, still holding level 90 as highest PP and only attack/defend levels below that.

You mix fighting both off and def PP:s, even though you want the big reward from one of them.

You always attack/defend with the most suitable troop type

Now, you attack the 200th PP at level 86, which brings you a big reward as you´ve planned. Will that gain you more than you have invested or at least break even?

The question must be very easy for you admins and mods to answer!

What has changed is partial payouts are now systematic.

What's important to understand is they don't modify the reward objective. They only reduce the amount you've paid back already. You must consider them as withdrawals from a mortgage account, that only delay the moment you've paid it back.

The next big payout witll still be based on your previous big payout as usual, with the usual modifiers : what you've managed to overbank before hitting the finishing position, the usual random fluctuation and the  level of the finishing position (that can still reduce the payout if it's too low), plus the fact the big payout has always a chance to drop at any time (it's not 0% chances), leading to a premature big payout from a reduced bank, as it has always been possible.

If your new big payout is low because of one of these reasons, the difference is still kept to be added to a next big payout. The bank is actually never reset, only a new sweet spot is calculated from your last big payout.

I don't think you really earn more than you've invested in the end. It has never been designed like this. You may sometimes get more and sometimes get less, but statistically on a large number of attempts, it should be balanced.

Persians are more a way to swap poor troops for better ones, with a balanced overall value expressed in resources.

It just saves you a very long time if you would have to build them yourself, and offer beginners a way to get troops they can't build themselves yet.

That's the reason why you should never invest only valuable troops. You may of course have to on higher levels, but you should be building light and heavy infantry all the time and always use them on Persians to limit the amount of valuable troops you send there.

My view on PPs.....

We don't gains more than we invested...

But I consider this as a place for converting Low end troops to High end ones...

For the converting job to be done, as like everythings, we have to give some resource value to PPs..

Thats why we sees a loss percentage on overall statics...

With the amount of tournaments both PvP and PP:s now a days, I think the converting strategy fighting PP:s with lights and heavies is useless. Better to use Light and Heavy in PvP tournament to convert to Phalanx:s as tournament reward, and Phalanx and Cavs in PP tournament to get Phalanxes in reward.

But, that is of cource if you dont lose your army in the long term fighting PP:s!

So again... I havnt seen an answer to my question yet! It must be really simple to answer!? That is if you know how the in game mechanics works out. 

Hmmm... Infantry in PVP ? You'd need quite lots of them. i'm only using cavalry and phalanx. Of course, not having to care for grain has changed things, but the time to build a decent army... I can build only about 3 000 light and heavy infantry in a week, with both queues producing... Building millions of them would take too long.

Thelittlephantom - If you take a look in my post earlier, you´ll see how I play them...... Answer that, instead of just dodging the question!

If the in game calcs works as you have been telling us, wouldnt a big payout as last fight give you at least a break even??

Thatbloke - Yes! to just send as cannon fodder to get the max tournament reward! throw your 3000/300 light/heavies and you´ll convert them to Phalanx.   

I know that the old reward system worked! you could do 200 PP:s and at least break even in the long term. You could even plan to get the reward at the last PP:s and by that have a surplus (loan from the bank) until you start fighting PP:S again.

I have just one question, fighting PP:s in the long term!

Example:

You fight 200 PP:s in a row and winning all time

Your quest PP stays at level 90

You mix fighting offensive and defensive PP:s, even though your main goal is fighting one of them.

You always Attack/Defend with the most suitable troop type

So the question is. If I hit the last one (200) at level 86 and it will bring me a (the) big reward. Will that gain me more than I have invested, or at least break even ?

TheElitePhantom said:

KarlXII said:

I have just one question, fighting PP:s in the long term!

Example:

You fight 200 PP:s in a row and winning all time

Your quest PP stays at level 90

You mix fighting offensive and defensive PP:s, even though your main goal is fighting one of them.

You always Attack/Defend with the most suitable troop type

So the question is. If I hit the last one (200) at level 86 and it will bring me a (the) big reward. Will that gain me more than I have invested, or at least break even ?

Again, it depends on when you hit the final position. It might be better to hit it as your 190th, or it might be better as your 210th. Your mileage may vary from profiting to getting a loss.

You must be a Politician .... Im just making a theoretical statement! The example above describes that I GOT THE BIG REWARD AT LEVEL 86 as last PP! Its simple as that. And above every investment caps between PP1 ->PP200 I will be near the big one, either way of strategy!
You tell me, isnt that the way the reward system works?

Actually...

I now have the feeling nothing have changed.

I invite you to invetigate on your side and comparte figures.

Please check here :

http://forum.plarium.com/en/sparta-war-of-empires/game-discussion/topics/persian-positions--yes--again----/

If theory #2 is right, you just get down payment on the real payout when you finish a position bfore having paid the bank back. Else the payout will drop when you have invested the usual amount based on your rpevious big payout, as usual.

That is, if theory #2 is the correct one, of course. But what I invested over 7 positions, my previous payout and the new one are too close to one another for being a coincidence...

Of course, it has to be reproduced several times to be proved.

But if I'm right, then Plarium has been mainly applying small cosmetic changes rather than big upheavals. Think about the troops dismiss feature that was actually affecting only your own troops guarding our own walls and no oher... Or the fortifications bonus that has always been there and was only undisclosed... Actually, most of the so-called recent changes were only information disclosure, for some of them.

The real questionable changes are the undocumented farms production 1/3 boost that came out of nowhere and the 100 points limit for Persian positions tournaments. Even the 30% troops that didn't even fight persians feature has been removed to our common request.

There may be a communication problem, but nothing to justify such riots... :p

Note that it comes from the fact those game mechanisms were kept a secret on purpose to give the game a more intuitive feeling, and it was up to players to guess how they worked. Persians are now played with spreadsheets, which could sound a bit weird for ancient Greece... :D

It comes from the fact people prefer to know where they are going than relying on chance...

However, I did check the "I hit positions and I don't care" method (if it can be called a method ^^) and it works just as well, so either you do the maths or you don't care, it'll work the same in the end.

Actually, some players I know have been going on playing Persians instead of stopping completely and ranting on the forum... And have quietly grown up their army. ;)

I wrote to Plarium and told them that I was un happy with the new system. That I am a customer and what is the #1 thing you have to do when you run a business is to have happy customer, unhappy customer tell potential customers their horror stories and they don't get new customers. They wrote me back and said that I was paid back in RESOURCES the amount in Resources I lost and they showed me all the wins and loses that I had. They were close about 90% here is the problem with the way I was playing the game. 

DO NOT USE LIGHTS. for example if I take a PP with 200 javs that is 24,000 in resources so they pay me back a 1 - Agema Horsman 24,000 in resources, the problem is I used 3800 power points 200Jav x 19power points. The Agema horseman is only worth 1680 powerpoints. So you see that you end up with less as you are calculating your wins and losses with power points not resources. So you end up with 50% power points gone when using lights.

So if you take a PP with high level men  for example  100 Agema  Horseman thats 2,400,000 in resource they will pay you back 2,400,000 in resources as they told me in writing.

JackTheRipper said:

DO NOT USE LIGHTS. for example if I take a PP with 200 javs that is 24,000 in resources so they pay me back a 1 - Agema Horsman 24,000 in resources, the problem is I used 3800 power points 200Jav x 19power points. The Agema horseman is only worth 1680 powerpoints. So you see that you end up with less as you are calculating your wins and losses with power points not resources. So you end up with 50% power points gone when using lights.

Hello Archon,

We really don't care about power points here.

If you mean you need more light infantry to be able to beat a position, then it's actually fine, as it means you're investing more resources, so you'll get your payout sooner, and that's exactly what Persian positions are all about.

The truth is your goal in the game is to get a meaningful army, so you need only cavalry and phalanx.

All the rest is crap, perfect to sacrifice to persians.

Of course, you don't really need to optimize grain consumption anymore, so you could now upkeep millions of light infantry without starving and dismissing, but let's get serious : nbuilding enough hoplites (for instance) to compare to the same power as, say, 10 000 Agemas, would obviously mean you would have to build 280 000 of them.

I can hardly build 2 000 of them in one week, so building 280 000 would take 2 years and 8 months !

So I'm sorry, but your statement is just absurd, and I wouldn't obviously advise anybody to follow it.

Gettng around 6 000 Agemas and 4 000 macedonians only took me roughly 6-8 months, the hardest being to get to a level enabling to gather enough resources through raids to build light and heavy infantry almost all day long, so I can get enough fodder to send to Persians.

Since tournaments only give phalanx, all my cavalry obviously comes from Persians. Time and efforts needed to get them can't compare with the 2 years and 8 months, not even talking about the ridiculous amounts of resources, that would be necessary to get the same power with just hoplites.

The truth is every superior category of units is 3 to 4 times more powerful than its lower category equivalent, yet eating only 1 grain per hour more (without improvement), while its increase in cost and building time is proportional to the power increase.

This means two things :

1) Building 10 000 of them, other than a few complementary ones (to keep your building queues busy anyway), would be as foolish as building 228 000 light infantry units anyway, and

2) If you want them, don't build them : earn then by swapping those useless infantry units to Persians. ;)

You didn't get what I said.

I do care about power in PVP combat.

I don't care about power in Persians positions, as all I want to do is losing as much equivalent resources as possible so I get a huge payout in real troops instead.

That's the reason why Promachoi are better than Sarissophoroi to lose in Persian positions, for  instance : they're worth more resources, so you invest more faster. The other reason is you get huge batches of them out of tournaments, so you can easily have lots of them.

And I never said anything about killing Agemas. I wrote 1 Agema had the same combat power as 28 Hoplites, that's all I said. I actually wrote about Agemas killing others, not being killed ! That's their job ! ;)

Opposing offense infantry to Agemas is ridiculous anyway as it NEVER happens. People defend with mounted Peltasts, Thuerophoroi and Trojan Thorakitai, NEVER with Agemas !!!

Agemas are used to attack only, period.

Now if you want to do stupid comparisons, let's compare 1 (attacking, of course) Agema to the necessary number of (obviously defending) Javelineers to match them.

There it's not 1 for 28 (Hoplites attack power is 60, Agemas attack power is 1680, without upgrades), but 1 for 168...

Plus if you would oppose 1 Agema to 167 Javelineers, the defender would lose 84 units and lose he battle, while the attacker would lose nothing (0.4994 rounded down to 0) and win the battle...

So to match 10 000 Agemas, you would need to defend with 1 680 000 Javelineers...

Just for fun, I calculated the time it would take to build them : 9 years, 7 months and 5 days ! LOL

ThatBloke said:

You didn't get what I said.

*SNIP*

I' m sure you ThatBloke didn't understood what Jacktheripper said; 

He said; when you attack with 1 agema and he would defend with 100 jav's that you as attacker would loose