Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Allow me to disprove the whole VC nonsense, with recorded games and numbers, since no one will ever take my word for it no matter what I say. Before I start, it is important to premise this post by saying that the numbers and tests assume (mostly) that you have time to complete your boom uninterrupted.
So first, raw numbers:
Player 1: VC First, 19 houses, 88w Each = 1672w
Player 2: 3v First, 19 houses, 135w Each = 2565w
Player 1 Saved 893 resources by sending VC.
However, if you were in include the cost of the extra 3 villagers we can bring that number down to 593 (ignore the fact that wood is more valuable than that 300f for the moment), and we can bring it down even further if we include the extra resources those vills happen to gather from the moment they're shipped until the moment that the VC player equalizes in villagers, which in my test game was ~200 resources.
So overall the VC player saves about 400 resources, but is down 3 villagers, which will continue to gather resources overtime for Player 2 and decrease the resource disparity, until Player 2 has outgathered Player 1.
However, the 3v player could also just build 3 less manors, and be totally equal with the VC player in every single way, except they also happen to be safer than the player who sent VC.
3v First, 16 houses 135w each = 2160w
488w difference, and subtract roughly 500 resources, so the players are roughly equal in terms of resources gathered and spent, etc.
SirCallen and I tested to see which card was better. I did VC and he did 3v. I have attached both games below.
In game 1, Callen and I wanted to see how long it would take for the VC player to overtake the 3v player in raw villager count. We equalized in villager count at ~5:40. In this time, his 3 villagers had netted him about 240 resources over me by this time.
This is important because in a real game you may not always have the luxury to continue booming, you might have to stop and create units and stuff like that. The 3v player could even stop making manors sooner than the VC player, and have units out, be completely safe, and still have an equal number of villagers at the time, but is much more prepared.
In game 2, we wanted to see how long it would take both players to full boom to 20 manors, and the difference in resources.
The difference in resources, excluding the extra 100w I gathered from my 600w crates that he did not get, I had 1069 unspent, he had 484. However, he has an extra 300 food worth of villagers, so let's just add that to his extra resources, as it's an important difference.
So I have 1069, he has 784. So I've netted 285 resources by 6:30 over 3v by sending Virginia Company. Assuming you have the luxury to full boom, of course. However, he now just has 3 more vills than me, which would take approximately another 2 minutes and 50 seconds or so (if left on wood) to close that resource gap and start netting additional resources.
However, if he had only boomed to 180 house pop, instead of 200, he would have the same number of villagers as I did, but would have gathered an extra 120 resources than me, but I would never be able to close that gap. He, however, would be able to enlarge that economic disparity at a later time whenever he chose to finish off those manors.
To conclude, Virginia Company sucks. 3v is simply better, and even if you want to argue that VC has a better timing between 7-8 minutes, the 3v player could simply build 3 less manors and there will be no difference whatsoever between the two builds, except that the 3v player now as the potential to increase his economy, if he so chose.
A couple of things to note as well:
- The 3v player will gather more resources if they happen to get XP from killing guardians or gathering treasures, as they will receive their 3v shipment sooner. This XP is absolutely worthless to the VC player. Completely worthless. Does absolutely nothing for you.
- A TP start, with 3v first followed by VC second, might be optimal. The only downside to this is that you WILL age later than if you had not built a TP. So this may not always be ideal against aggressive civs like Russia or Aztec, etc. I can't really think of any other downside to this particular build order other than your age up time, and skipping out on treasure gathering and scouting because of the time you spend building the TP.
So first, raw numbers:
Player 1: VC First, 19 houses, 88w Each = 1672w
Player 2: 3v First, 19 houses, 135w Each = 2565w
Player 1 Saved 893 resources by sending VC.
However, if you were in include the cost of the extra 3 villagers we can bring that number down to 593 (ignore the fact that wood is more valuable than that 300f for the moment), and we can bring it down even further if we include the extra resources those vills happen to gather from the moment they're shipped until the moment that the VC player equalizes in villagers, which in my test game was ~200 resources.
So overall the VC player saves about 400 resources, but is down 3 villagers, which will continue to gather resources overtime for Player 2 and decrease the resource disparity, until Player 2 has outgathered Player 1.
However, the 3v player could also just build 3 less manors, and be totally equal with the VC player in every single way, except they also happen to be safer than the player who sent VC.
3v First, 16 houses 135w each = 2160w
488w difference, and subtract roughly 500 resources, so the players are roughly equal in terms of resources gathered and spent, etc.
SirCallen and I tested to see which card was better. I did VC and he did 3v. I have attached both games below.
In game 1, Callen and I wanted to see how long it would take for the VC player to overtake the 3v player in raw villager count. We equalized in villager count at ~5:40. In this time, his 3 villagers had netted him about 240 resources over me by this time.
This is important because in a real game you may not always have the luxury to continue booming, you might have to stop and create units and stuff like that. The 3v player could even stop making manors sooner than the VC player, and have units out, be completely safe, and still have an equal number of villagers at the time, but is much more prepared.
In game 2, we wanted to see how long it would take both players to full boom to 20 manors, and the difference in resources.
The difference in resources, excluding the extra 100w I gathered from my 600w crates that he did not get, I had 1069 unspent, he had 484. However, he has an extra 300 food worth of villagers, so let's just add that to his extra resources, as it's an important difference.
So I have 1069, he has 784. So I've netted 285 resources by 6:30 over 3v by sending Virginia Company. Assuming you have the luxury to full boom, of course. However, he now just has 3 more vills than me, which would take approximately another 2 minutes and 50 seconds or so (if left on wood) to close that resource gap and start netting additional resources.
However, if he had only boomed to 180 house pop, instead of 200, he would have the same number of villagers as I did, but would have gathered an extra 120 resources than me, but I would never be able to close that gap. He, however, would be able to enlarge that economic disparity at a later time whenever he chose to finish off those manors.
To conclude, Virginia Company sucks. 3v is simply better, and even if you want to argue that VC has a better timing between 7-8 minutes, the 3v player could simply build 3 less manors and there will be no difference whatsoever between the two builds, except that the 3v player now as the potential to increase his economy, if he so chose.
A couple of things to note as well:
- The 3v player will gather more resources if they happen to get XP from killing guardians or gathering treasures, as they will receive their 3v shipment sooner. This XP is absolutely worthless to the VC player. Completely worthless. Does absolutely nothing for you.
- A TP start, with 3v first followed by VC second, might be optimal. The only downside to this is that you WILL age later than if you had not built a TP. So this may not always be ideal against aggressive civs like Russia or Aztec, etc. I can't really think of any other downside to this particular build order other than your age up time, and skipping out on treasure gathering and scouting because of the time you spend building the TP.
- Attachments
-
- [RE SP] Mitoe[BR] vs KTRAlN[BR] - ESOC Arkansas.age3yrec
- (910.07 KiB) Downloaded 60 times
ESOC ArkansasRules: Supremacy (1v1)Version: Official Patch (Legacy)Length: 7 minutes -
- [RE SP] KTRAlN[BR] vs Mitoe[BR] - ESOC Arkansas.age3yrec
- (915.06 KiB) Downloaded 56 times
ESOC ArkansasRules: Supremacy (1v1)Version: Official Patch (Legacy)Length: 6 minutes
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Don't get popped, don't get stopped!
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
no u
edit:
Some points to make:
1) There is a bit of a snowball effect from vc in that you start building manors faster and thus can have villagers gathering faster
2) In game 1, you build a market and proceed to get a lot of upgrades (hunting dogs+gangsaw). This isn't in the spirit of the GS-style vc, afaik. You are supposed to age ASAP, and I think he ignores the market completely. Reason being, at least, I think, that aging up faster actually lets you transition to wood faster and start converting vc into actual things. VC is supposed to arrive just as you're aging up, in a way such that 3v instead does not make a sizeable difference to your ageup time. Additionally, faster ageup= faster 700w= faster 700w-> manor conversion.
Will edit this post later with more stuff
edit:
Some points to make:
1) There is a bit of a snowball effect from vc in that you start building manors faster and thus can have villagers gathering faster
2) In game 1, you build a market and proceed to get a lot of upgrades (hunting dogs+gangsaw). This isn't in the spirit of the GS-style vc, afaik. You are supposed to age ASAP, and I think he ignores the market completely. Reason being, at least, I think, that aging up faster actually lets you transition to wood faster and start converting vc into actual things. VC is supposed to arrive just as you're aging up, in a way such that 3v instead does not make a sizeable difference to your ageup time. Additionally, faster ageup= faster 700w= faster 700w-> manor conversion.
Will edit this post later with more stuff
oranges.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
For the record, VC is viable if Aiz is the one doing it.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Aizamk wrote:no u
edit:
Some points to make:
1) There is a bit of a snowball effect from vc in that you start building manors faster and thus can have villagers gathering faster
2) In game 1, you build a market and proceed to get a lot of upgrades (hunting dogs+gangsaw). This isn't in the spirit of the GS-style vc, afaik. You are supposed to age ASAP, and I think he ignores the market completely. Reason being, at least, I think, that aging up faster actually lets you transition to wood faster and start converting vc into actual things. VC is supposed to arrive just as you're aging up, in a way such that 3v instead does not make a sizeable difference to your ageup time. Additionally, faster ageup= faster 700w= faster 700w-> manor conversion.
Will edit this post later with more stuff
1) I don't really understand. You could have 3 villagers gathering instead, and earlier. Surely this snowballs in the same way.
As I also stated in the post, the resource difference is negligible, less than 100 resources, if you choose to send 3v and boom to 180 pop instead of VC and 200 pop, but you have the potential to increase your economy later in the game, and your build is more adaptable.
2) I never mentioned age up time because the age time ended up being the same for both of us. The 3v shipment made no impact on this, partially because we didn't get any XP from killing guardians or gathering treasures in this game. There are cases where sending 3v will get you up faster than VC though.
Our game was based on the premise that you're booming to 20 manors as fast as possible, and in this case the market upgrades will generate more than enough resources to matter. IIRC I didn't even have to gather resources to get HD, and I also had no idle time with gang saw researched before I started aging. I could have idled my TC a bit to get the age up in, but I think getting the extra vill + gang saw out was better.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
I guess I might as well just post new replies.
1) Well your calculations took into consideration "In this time, his 3 villagers had netted him about 240 resources over me by this time.", hence why I mentioned point 1. ninja edit for some maths: 3 vills would take 31 seconds to gather the 47 resources saved per manor. (135-88)/1.5
2) The ageup time is a very important point, because both players aging up at 2:30->2:40 vs both aging up at 3 minutes has an effect on how useful vc is compared to 3v, for the aforementioned reasons. Basically if a player doing the GS build has started aging up at 3 minutes then he isn't doing the GS version of VC. Whether the market start is better or not (i.e. idk if market start slows one down; I assume it would), I do not know, but I just thought it would be important to point out you aren't exactly using the source material here.
1) Well your calculations took into consideration "In this time, his 3 villagers had netted him about 240 resources over me by this time.", hence why I mentioned point 1. ninja edit for some maths: 3 vills would take 31 seconds to gather the 47 resources saved per manor. (135-88)/1.5
2) The ageup time is a very important point, because both players aging up at 2:30->2:40 vs both aging up at 3 minutes has an effect on how useful vc is compared to 3v, for the aforementioned reasons. Basically if a player doing the GS build has started aging up at 3 minutes then he isn't doing the GS version of VC. Whether the market start is better or not (i.e. idk if market start slows one down; I assume it would), I do not know, but I just thought it would be important to point out you aren't exactly using the source material here.
oranges.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
My vc boom is simply the best vc boom lol.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
I think the bulk of the argument can be simplified as follows: building cheap houses feels gud. Doing things which make us feel gud makes us happy. VC is viable.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Aizamk wrote:I guess I might as well just post new replies.
1) Well your calculations took into consideration "In this time, his 3 villagers had netted him about 240 resources over me by this time.", hence why I mentioned point 1.
2) The ageup time is a very important point, because both players aging up at 2:30->2:40 vs both aging up at 3 minutes has an effect on how useful vc is compared to 3v, for the aforementioned reasons. Basically if a player doing the GS build has started aging up at 3 minutes then he isn't doing the GS version of VC. Whether the market start is better or not (i.e. idk if market start slows one down; I assume it would), I do not know, but I just thought it would be important to point out you aren't exactly using the source material here.
I see what you're saying.
1) The point was more that if you happen to scout early aggression and need to halt your boom early, 3v will have paid for itself more than VC will have. This will be true regardless of the 20 seconds difference in age time if you have to age at 2:40 or 3:00.
2) Your manor boom completes with your 700w, and you need a total of ~1700w to build 19 manors with VC. So you need to gather about 1000w. Since gang saw is a 10% upgrade, the market will pay for itself as you finish your market boom. The 100f you invested into gang saw will not have paid off quite yet, but since you already have hunting dogs and gang saw researched and don't have to build a market and spend time researching those upgrades, they'll pay for themselves very soon after your manor boom is complete.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Tp opening for 3v vc is actually really solid tho. Better than normal play in greedy games I'm sure. U get a ton of xp and manors make nice wall
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
sircollen the sage :')
Also: Watched game 2, there's still the market start I'm not so sure about, but I'm satisfied with the faster ageup time, it's probably a non-issue in game 2. I of course still prefer my tp vc build mixed with a fast age time, but I feel I have a duty to defend the other VC build.
I will fite u if I must
Also: Watched game 2, there's still the market start I'm not so sure about, but I'm satisfied with the faster ageup time, it's probably a non-issue in game 2. I of course still prefer my tp vc build mixed with a fast age time, but I feel I have a duty to defend the other VC build.
I will fite u if I must
oranges.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
umeu wrote:Tp opening for 3v vc is actually really solid tho. Better than normal play in greedy games I'm sure. U get a ton of xp and manors make nice wall
I agree here. Only downside to TP 3v VC is age time, but as you said in greedy games where your age time is unlikely to be punished this should be optimal.
Aiz, why do you defend what is not yours? Your build is much better than skipping 3v, after all. :)
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
But really guys... tps aren't gud. They just break every build they get incorporated in noooo ooopppp
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 13004
- Joined: Apr 28, 2020
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Mitoe wrote:umeu wrote:Tp opening for 3v vc is actually really solid tho. Better than normal play in greedy games I'm sure. U get a ton of xp and manors make nice wall
I agree here. Only downside to TP 3v VC is age time, but as you said in greedy games where your age time is unlikely to be punished this should be optimal.
Aiz, why do you defend what is not yours? Your build is much better than skipping 3v, after all. :)
Tbh I always preferred the greedier brits with a slightly slower age. As bonding vs Garja showed, u can age at 8 min np.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Tbh this whole discussion might be irrelevant because I suddenly remembered minimart doing TP VC during one of the recent tourney games, and iirc when I asked gs about the "betrayal", he basically admitted tp build was superior.
Anyway, I look forward to the day when people finally catch up to my meta again and start putting improved buildings and/or pioneers in deck.
Anyway, I look forward to the day when people finally catch up to my meta again and start putting improved buildings and/or pioneers in deck.
oranges.
- princeofkabul
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Feb 28, 2015
- ESO: Princeofkabul
- Location: In retirement home with Sam and Vic
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
haha in ur face gudsped : o
Chairman of Washed Up clan
Leader of the Shady Swedes
Team Manager of the Blockhouse Boomers
Leader of the Shady Swedes
Team Manager of the Blockhouse Boomers
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
i ask mitoe if we test 3v vc early tp build
he says "err no"
everyone has an agenda
ofc tp build viable
but need datas
mitoe says no to datas
mitoe man of no science /s
he says "err no"
everyone has an agenda
ofc tp build viable
but need datas
mitoe says no to datas
mitoe man of no science /s
- lemmings121
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2673
- Joined: Mar 15, 2015
- ESO: lemmings121
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
deleted_user wrote:i ask mitoe if we test 3v vc early tp build
he says "err no"
everyone has an agenda
ofc tp build viable
but need datas
mitoe says no to datas
mitoe man of no science /s
A man of faith must be questioned
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
The trade off is between TP and early market or between TP and 2 houses. Aside from that early TP with 3v VC is clearly superior considering that VC takes place of another colonial card like 600w so you end up with quickier boom and better shipment rate.
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Jan 23, 2017
- ESO: ListlessSalmon
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Mitoe wrote:I had 1069 unspent, he had 484. However, he has an extra 300 food worth of villagers, so let's just add that to his extra resources, as it's an important difference.
So I have 1069, he has 784. So I've netted 285 resources by 6:30 over 3v by sending Virginia Company. Assuming you have the luxury to full boom, of course. However, he now just has 3 more vills than me, which would take approximately another 2 minutes and 50 seconds or so (if left on wood) to close that resource gap and start netting additional resources.
However, if he had only boomed to 180 house pop, instead of 200, he would have the same number of villagers as I did, but would have gathered an extra 120 resources than me, but I would never be able to close that gap. He, however, would be able to enlarge that economic disparity at a later time whenever he chose to finish off those manors."
You're double counting here. You're giving the 3v guy an extra 300 res for having 3 more vills, and then subtracting 3 manors (so they dont have 3 more vills) without changing the 300 resources. In reality assuming everything else, if he built 3 less manors, he has 484+405=889 unspent and the VC guy has more.
Put differently, if a vill counts as 100 resources, then each manor not built is saving only 35 resources, not 135.
That being said 3v might still be always better, (I'm a noob and have never played Brits) but you haven't shown 3v is a pareto improvement.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Oh I missed this thread and replied here just now: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=9857&start=100 You can go ahead and ignore that. This thread should be good
First of all, you're all lovely people.
I can't watch the recs right now, will later, but if your conclusion is that 3v is superior or equal when booming to 15+ manors your build must be suboptimal somehow. I base this on math and my many games of experience sending the card. Also in a real game there is always the difference in map spawn and the difference in how well each player microed their vills. That's why I decided to simulate the game and get rid of all those uncertainties. I think a more fruitful approach to this discussion is you telling me why you think my data is wrong:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5404
At this point my simulator program is much more complete so if you want me to generate data using a different build order I can in a heartbeat.
@Aizamk on 300w starts, TP and 3v+VC is indeed superior. Still to me a more interesting comparison was 3v versus VC, because that means I can use the card on every map and don't have to rely on the wood crate.
First of all, you're all lovely people.
I can't watch the recs right now, will later, but if your conclusion is that 3v is superior or equal when booming to 15+ manors your build must be suboptimal somehow. I base this on math and my many games of experience sending the card. Also in a real game there is always the difference in map spawn and the difference in how well each player microed their vills. That's why I decided to simulate the game and get rid of all those uncertainties. I think a more fruitful approach to this discussion is you telling me why you think my data is wrong:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5404
At this point my simulator program is much more complete so if you want me to generate data using a different build order I can in a heartbeat.
@Aizamk on 300w starts, TP and 3v+VC is indeed superior. Still to me a more interesting comparison was 3v versus VC, because that means I can use the card on every map and don't have to rely on the wood crate.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
@Goodspeed in team games (sometimes 1v1 depending on MU) on non TP maps, I do a slight variation where I 3v first and build extra manors with the wood (4-5 total on a 300w start, depending on treasures), for the purpose of netting enough XP to send VC soon after clicking up, or right before clicking up, depending on XP income from other sources (treasures etc). The VC spam in transition will usually net enough XP by itself to allow you to send a 700w shipment after hitting age II, assuming you aged slow enough (probably 3:15 ish).
Might be interesting to simulate, but I think treasures play a much larger role in this variation compared to the others due to how they help in shipment progression.
Might be interesting to simulate, but I think treasures play a much larger role in this variation compared to the others due to how they help in shipment progression.
oranges.
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
I can assume treasures. Up to now I've assumed 30c, the bare minimum, mostly because the simulator assumes perfect vill micro so the lack of treasures should make up for that a bit. I don't like the 3:15 age up, that's 35 seconds slower than usual which means later 700w etc. But seems interesting, I will simulate it when I'm on my desktop.
-
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Goodspeed wrote:First of all, you're all lovely people.
I can't watch the recs right now, will later, but if your conclusion is that 3v is superior or equal when booming to 15+ manors your build must be suboptimal somehow. I base this on math and my many games of experience sending the card. Also in a real game there is always the difference in map spawn and the difference in how well each player microed their vills. That's why I decided to simulate the game and get rid of all those uncertainties. I think a more fruitful approach to this discussion is you telling me why you think my data is wrong:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5404
At this point my simulator program is much more complete so if you want me to generate data using a different build order I can in a heartbeat.
Just had a look and my first question is about how a market would change the results. Atm you're comparing VC 20 manor boom to a non-build. 3 vils and then gathering (>10)#manor x 135wd before doing a market is just not a build making the comparison not very useful. A 3 vil boom includes a market. This could be enough to bump the 3 vils ahead of VC, and even if it doesn't you now not only have a 3vil lead but also 300 res in tech aswell. Also I'm guessing every other crate start benefits market over VC. More treasures from RNG also helps 3 vil (though I don't know what treasures you used in your 187xp.)
Download ESOC Taunt Package : http://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=7250
Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed
Quite true. At the time I hadn't implemented market so I didn't have much of a choice, and figured that while the 3v build would find slightly more use for the market the difference would be almost negligible. I imagine the 3v build would build it earlier but by the time both builds are gathering food (which is late), both should have steel traps or close to at least. Will simulate this.WickedCossack wrote:Just had a look and my first question is about how a market would change the results. Atm you're comparing VC 20 manor boom to a non-build.Goodspeed wrote:First of all, you're all lovely people.
I can't watch the recs right now, will later, but if your conclusion is that 3v is superior or equal when booming to 15+ manors your build must be suboptimal somehow. I base this on math and my many games of experience sending the card. Also in a real game there is always the difference in map spawn and the difference in how well each player microed their vills. That's why I decided to simulate the game and get rid of all those uncertainties. I think a more fruitful approach to this discussion is you telling me why you think my data is wrong:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=5404
At this point my simulator program is much more complete so if you want me to generate data using a different build order I can in a heartbeat.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests