Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by WickedCossack »

I think the difference would be bigger than you expect. Also market at the start of the game (early HD before gangsaw) as opposed to transition (and ofc later for VC) is another distinction that needs to be made. Even just finding a early free coin treasure (pretty common) just buffs the build that gets the market earlier (just like extra xp from treasures) which I get are things you can't simulate easily but make a difference in a real game.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Goodspeed »

Both builds would market off a coin start so that wouldn't make any difference.
I don't see how including the market could be more than a 50 res difference, even if VC build doesn't play optimally and simply builds it whenever the 3v build would. Market upgrades pay off over time and we are talking about rather small time frames here. The fact remains VC is saving 600 wood which means its boom is done after 700w while the 3v build is still working to max manors for 30 seconds after. That's really what the difference comes down to.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by WickedCossack »

Goodspeed wrote:Both builds would market off a coin start so that wouldn't make any difference.


Nah, everything snowballs. Even making the decision to gather 100fd with 3 less vils for gangsaw creates a difference for example (in case of market coin start, let alone HD working on 3 vils longer). I think you're too quick to call everything negligible.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Goodspeed »

I mean both builds would make a market off a coin start. They would be identical builds until the first shipment. Where is the difference?
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by WickedCossack »

Goodspeed wrote:I mean both builds would make a market off a coin start. They would be identical builds. Where is the difference?


Well two examples, at the point 3 vils/VC arrives the affect HD has on both builds changes with a bigger benefit to 3vil. The 3 vil build also gathers for gangsaw quicker -> means you can start gathering wood quicker.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Goodspeed »

WickedCossack wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:I mean both builds would make a market off a coin start. They would be identical builds. Where is the difference?


Well two examples, at the point 3 vils/VC arrives the affect HD has on both builds changes with a bigger benefit to 3vil.
You are seconds from aging at this point, which means you won't be gathering food for a long time. Assuming you're about 10 seconds from aging: 10 * 3 * 1.1 = 33 which means you are winning 3 vill seconds which is 2 food. Two.

The 3 vil build also gathers for gangsaw quicker -> means you can start gathering wood quicker.
14 vills vs 17. 17 vills take 6.3 seconds to gather 100f, 14 vills take 7.7.

So in total you won 1.5 seconds and 2 food. You can argue that I tend to call things negligible quickly and while these are valid points, they really are negligible in the context of 2 real test games who are supposedly proving a point about VC being bad. The differences in map spawn and vill micro would be much more impactful.

Anyway the good news is that because my program is a simulation, it takes all of these things into account automatically. I can generate data for coin starts np.
Great Britain WickedCossack
Retired Contributor
Posts: 1904
Joined: Feb 11, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by WickedCossack »

Well those were just two examples. Sure by themselves they may seem negligible. Other examples that have bigger effects are the difference of the starting wood gathering is bigger (gangsaw on +3vils, so 3.3 vils) when they are gathering for manors. XP also landing your vil shipment earlier (I'm sure my vils never arrive 10secs before I age in a real game?, I'm sure its way earlier.) Not only would they be gathering extra resources by themselves but it would also change the two calculations in your previous post and we're not looking at just 2 food anymore. Everything snowballs into each other, it's really not negligible.
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Jaeger »

Mitoe wrote:Allow me to disprove the whole VC nonsense


I don't think you should include the 3v being 300 resources. What happens is you spend 16x135w to have X villagers, while the other guy spends 19x88w, to have X villagers; that's all there is to it. There's no reason here to add 300f to the first guy. At this point, since you both have the same number of vills, you will constantly be a huge (16x135w) - (19x88w) = 488w down, until you build the rest of your manors and slowly catch up. In the best case scenario that you build all 19 houses at once and are 3 vills vills ahead right away, it still takes almost 10 minutes for the 3 vills to make up for the (then) 900w discrepancy.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1446
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
Location: Boston

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Darwin_ »

TP+VC is extremely good on 300w starts, and you can still age with 17 villagers at the almost same time as a 2 manor age-up. This start allows you to boom quite hard, but still be quite flexible. However, VC first is just bad, especially in brit mirrors.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
User avatar
Singapore milku3459
Howdah
Posts: 1216
Joined: Nov 8, 2016
ESO: milku3459
Location: in your base, killing your dudes

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by milku3459 »

Was the rouga's post deleted because it was a smurf acc or because the recs were deeply offensive?
If a) can listlesssalmon repost them?
Great Britain ListlessSalmon
Skirmisher
Posts: 112
Joined: Jan 23, 2017
ESO: ListlessSalmon

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

  • Quote

Post by ListlessSalmon »

Two test games Diarouga did:

Both games are with a wood start and no treasures. Went "standard semi ff" in both games ie, 20 manors, then built a rax, trained 10 pikes, and sent 700w/5v/700g.

Results:
-With VC: 5 pikes at 6:00 (the perfect timing to deal with cav raids), and start aging to the 3rd age at 7:20 with 44vills.
-With 3v: 5 pikes at 7:00 (which means that you can't do that in a real game, else you can't gather and lose vills because of raids), and start aging at 7:50 with 48vills.

His Conclusion: VC is better because your semi ff will be 50 sec faster (because the 3v player will have to build the rax earlier and thus be slower. The best way would be to cut the vill prod and be 40 sec slower but then that's only a 2.5v vill lead).

He also says that treasures help the VC player more, because they have less economy early and need less resources to boom. Also a food start or a gold start would be the same if not better for the VC player, because he would build 19 manors with VC instead of 18 (as in the tests) and with a wood start the TP build is better than 3v and no VC.
Attachments
VC.age3Yrec
(1002.5 KiB) Downloaded 16 times
3v.age3Yrec
(1.01 MiB) Downloaded 19 times
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by SoldieR »

Wait people send VC without a trade post?
User avatar
Germany IamSherlocked
Crossbow
Posts: 49
Joined: Sep 24, 2016

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by IamSherlocked »

ListlessSalmon wrote:Two test games Diarouga did:


Speaking of whom, wouldn't it be appropriate to finally unban him?
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by deleted_user0 »

Lol
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by gibson »

Lol diarouga makes an actually helpful post and within minutes it's gone
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Jaeger »

gibson wrote:Lol diarouga makes an actually helpful post and within minutes it's gone

Can't blame them tho if they wanna be consistent with the ban. It would be a shitstorm if they only selectively deleted his posts.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
User avatar
United States of America SoldieR
Pro Player
Posts: 2270
Joined: Feb 22, 2015
ESO: SoldieR
Location: Chi City

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by SoldieR »

Uh..Ya..consistent..
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Jaeger »

IAmSoldieR wrote:Uh..Ya..consistent..

Hey you gotta start somewhere.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by gibson »

ovi12 wrote:
gibson wrote:Lol diarouga makes an actually helpful post and within minutes it's gone

Can't blame them tho if they wanna be consistent with the ban. It would be a shitstorm if they only selectively deleted his posts.
they can ban without deleting his post lol
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by kami_ryu »

I don't know much about the story behind dia's ban but maybe it could go from permanent to 6 months-12 months or something. Permanent is a very long time! I've talked to dia, he seems like an OK guy. Maybe he made mistakes. Again, I don't know the story. Me, I'm just saying, maybe if dia can turn over new leaf, maybe he can come back to community, instead of a permanent exile. Of course, moderation is none of my business and I don't want to be embroiled in drama. So that's it for me. ^^

This discussion is really interesting. On paper, I think VC is a thing you send after 3v (can't not go 3v) if you have the ability to squeeze in an extra shipment: aka with a TP. I think TP-Brits is a thing, though I'm a newbie so take what I say with a grain of salt!
User avatar
No Flag Jaeger
Jaeger
Posts: 4492
Joined: Feb 28, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Jaeger »

gibson wrote:
ovi12 wrote:
gibson wrote:Lol diarouga makes an actually helpful post and within minutes it's gone

Can't blame them tho if they wanna be consistent with the ban. It would be a shitstorm if they only selectively deleted his posts.
they can ban without deleting his post lol

Well arguably you ban somebody because you don't want them to post anymore, doesn't matter on which account. Like I said, if you decide to just ban and delete only selected posts, things get too complicated.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by deleted_user »

kami_ryu wrote:I don't know much about the story behind dia's ban but maybe it could go from permanent to 6 months-12 months or something. Permanent is a very long time! I've talked to dia, he seems like an OK guy. Maybe he made mistakes. Again, I don't know the story. Me, I'm just saying, maybe if dia can turn over new leaf, maybe he can come back to community, instead of a permanent exile. Of course, moderation is none of my business and I don't want to be embroiled in drama. So that's it for me. ^^

This discussion is really interesting. On paper, I think VC is a thing you send after 3v (can't not go 3v) if you have the ability to squeeze in an extra shipment: aka with a TP. I think TP-Brits is a thing, though I'm a newbie so take what I say with a grain of salt!


Dia's past actions would have gotten him perma ip banned on any other forum.

But aoe is ded gaem we often can't afford to do that and also a lot of the staff believes in second, third, and even fourth chances for members so maybe the third time will be a charm with him.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Mitoe »

ovi12 wrote:
Mitoe wrote:Allow me to disprove the whole VC nonsense


I don't think you should include the 3v being 300 resources. What happens is you spend 16x135w to have X villagers, while the other guy spends 19x88w, to have X villagers; that's all there is to it. There's no reason here to add 300f to the first guy. At this point, since you both have the same number of vills, you will constantly be a huge (16x135w) - (19x88w) = 488w down, until you build the rest of your manors and slowly catch up. In the best case scenario that you build all 19 houses at once and are 3 vills vills ahead right away, it still takes almost 10 minutes for the 3 vills to make up for the (then) 900w discrepancy.

In my defense I gave up on math after high school.

You're right, actually. Partially, at least. In the first scenario you mention (16 manors @ 135w each vs 19 manors at 88w each), you're right that it was wrong of me to count the 3 vills as 300f. Your explanation makes perfect sense here.

However, in the second scenario (19 manors vs 19 manors), I see no reason I wouldn't include it. That's the raw value of the shipment that the VC player will not have.

Okay, so I guess I have to admit I was wrong. Maybe VC is better in these cases, although 3v first is still potentially greedier, if you're willing to give the vills time to pay off (which should only actually take ~5-6 minutes by the way, assuming you have gang saw, and factoring in the 300f, not 10 minutes), but most games will end before this is the case.

I still think 3v is the better shipment in 90% of games, mostly because it is simply more versatile. VC is only better if you can complete your manor boom undisturbed—early raids or rushes before you have units to defend will cause you to idle villagers, possibly even lose villagers, in which cause it would have been better to not send VC. In games where you don't boom to say at least 170 or 180 pop with VC, 3v should still be better as the difference in resources won't make enough of a difference.

There are some other factors as well. Sending 3v first may allow you to spread your vills around the map more in transition, constructing manors away from your base and thereby reducing the idle time you would have by walking large groups of settlers from your base to these resources, instead only wasting the time of 1 settler. The earlier units will help protect these groups of villagers more effectively, although I will admit that this may be possible with VC as well, possibly even better, but I'm not willing to test it or calculate it at the moment. But the majority of the time if you send VC all of your manors will be in your base, or very close by, and you'll burn through your natural resources very quickly and then waste lots of villager seconds walking to new resources.

3v first may also better allow you to safely establish map control, something which isn't really possible when doing VC because you won't have the units. Map control alone may be enough to justify 3v over VC in many matchups.

Early xp from guardians and treasures also makes 3v a better early option. I think that this also may often be the difference between aging at 2:40 and aging at 3:00, unless you choose to idle for 100f or so to get up around 2:50 with VC, but I'm not convinced that's worth it.

Anyway to conclude, you have convinced me that I'm wrong. VC is better if you have the time to full boom. In most other scenarios it seems worse, though.

Sigh.

I hate VC though, now I never want to play Brit. :( Guess I'll hold off on writing that thread about 3 Warrior Priests I had been planning on too.
United States of America godzillaking
Skirmisher
Donator 03
Posts: 135
Joined: Jun 6, 2015

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by godzillaking »

I am a major and I think this would be a very interesting subject to throw into some simulations. It would be pretty easy to program if I can get some averages somehow. Is the final product for determining which is better based on total resources gathered? I gotta feel that at some point late game VC will payoff.
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: Disproving Virginia Company @GoodSpeed

Post by Mitoe »

GoodSpeed already has a simulator for such things, which assumes perfect play and 0 idle time or walking time (I believe?). It's not perfect but it's okay I guess. You can probably ask him for it.

Also don't assume VC is a lategame card, it's definitely an early-mid game card. As I already said, 3v will pay off lategame simply because you end up with more total settlers, but in certain situations VC may prove better in the mid game, say between 7-12 minutes into the game.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV