Your math is wrong. The main bonus from sheep/boar is that you get food instead of wood that you then need to convert to food via farming.
In the midgame, food is like 80 % more valueable than wood. There comes the advantage from.
That’s why add food boni (like lithuanian/mayan/tatar) are so valueable. And some of them are even more worth than laming a boar.
Did you even read my post dude? I made the exact Math and was the first one accounting the fact that a Farm has a passive Wood cost of round about 1 Wood for every 3 Food collected. Please read my text before you assume wrong assumptions about it.
Yes I read it, and you made several mistakes. The gather rates from sheep/boar aren’t that much higher than farming. Just one example. Your claim of .121 more res/sec is just wrong. Maybe britons or mongols can reach that number.
This argument with the Scouting time is a wrong Argument used a lot but sadly wrong. The argument assumes that the other player safes the time the other one is scouting, but both player will scout each other at some point, one just does it earlier. This means while player A Scouts earlier player B can push dear in the meantime, but then later on when player B is scouting after he pushed some dear player A can push his own dear.
In the end both Players can use the same time scouting and pushing. The only exception would be luring a Boar, because the Scout has to walk slightly slower then normaly to not get out of agro range, but its a very small margin and might not even be equivalent to the time it takes to push 1 Dear, and secondary even this small factor doesnt apply at all to Sheep laming.
Its exactly what stands in the Source on AoE2 wiki and they have taken the Resource collection values from the Game Data. The Values are right. If you think the value of 0.121 is wrong, then please explain how my formula is supposed to be wrong. The Numbers itself in the Formula are right, because the values are taken from the AoE Wiki are out of the source Code. Look the link I used to see the gather values.
I collected my own farming data.
Feudal farming is .08 food/s slower than the raw gather rate of hunters. This doesn’t take the effective idle time of the hunters into account.
And still, the main advantage is that you get FOOD instead of the need to gather wood for farms.
And someone with a little bit of in-game experience knows that.
Boar rate is .41
sheep rate is .33
farm rate is .32 before upgrades
You literally can’t get .121 as a difference in collection rate unless you’re making up numbers, because the gather rate isn’t recorded to the thousandths, just the hundredths.
A boar doesn’t provide 340 food, because of rot.
Further, even if you steal a boar and it didn’t have rot, that doesn’t mean you have anywhere close to a 700 food advantage. You still need to spend the villager seconds gathering the boar. During which time, your opponent will be gathering resources.
The only earned resources from you stealing the boar is in the eventual dropped farms when your opponent runs out of free food sources and you don’t, plus the .08 food per villager per second I’ve already mentioned which is the very tiny speed bonus of gathering from boar. At no point in any game will you be up more than 150~ish resources as the result of a boar steal. Your potential to gain resources is determined by how many villagers you have, not how many boars you have under TC, and your opponent will still have the same number of villagers working as you.
You mean this?
Farmer rate doesn’t count walking, with walking factored it nears 0.32
If you have your own Data then please show us your Formula so we can see how you came up with these.
Atm by knowing the Numbers from the Wiki as well as the SOTL Vieo about gather rates and the fact they are pretty much identical, I have to assume atm you made your Math wrong.
On the other Hand I showed my Math so again please explain me how this is wrong:
Raw Gather rates taken from the wiki for Wood, Farm Sheep and Hunters are as said 0.39, 0.32, 0.33 and 0.41.
As said I have taken the average of Sheep and Boar → 0.33+0.41 / 2 = 0.37.
A Dark Age Farm is 175 Food and costs 60 Wood → ~ 1/3 of the Food it gives it costs in Wood
→ you need ~ 1 Wood for every 3 Food collected.
Wood collects with 0.39 a Second.
→ A Farmer collects 0.32 Food a second, meaning for every work second of a Farmer you need ~0.11 Wood.
–>With Wood collection rate it takes 0.11 / 0.39 = 0.282 Seconds to collect the Wood you need to have a Farm gathering for one Second.
→ on every gather Second of a Farm to gather 0.32 Food you need an additional 0.282 gather Seconds for wood.
→ in other words from a Farm you get effectively 0.32 Food a Second / 1.282 gather Seconds = 0.249 effective resources per Second from a Farm (because you have to account for the gather seconds you have to cut Wood to keep the Farm working)
→ All in all as showen before and showen here again a Dark Age Farm has an actual gather rate of 0.249 if you account for its Wood cost, because you have to also gather the Wood to have the farm gathering.
Now simple subtraction of my average Sheep/ Boar value by the real Farm value (0.37 - 0.249) shows that you effectively gather 0.121 more resource a second from the average value of a Boar/ sheep then from a Dark Age Farm.
I made the Math 2 times now and it seems right to me. Please tell me if this formula is wrong for some reason, otherwise I must assume that either your Math is wrong or you guys simply forget to use the Wood cost of the Farm in your own calculation.
This is what I said about five posts before you started your rant
And this is what your rant spit out
While your rant specifically ignored rot. Which means once you count that in, you spent six paragraphs agreeing with me. I don’t need to read your math, I know the numbers, and up until six posts ago, you didn’t.
None of this accounts for the possibility that you go for a food heavy opening (scouts) that utilizes that food while your opponent doesn’t (because they are capable of changing their strategy because they aren’t automatons) and if they go for archer-heavy play your advantage is less present if they simply make fewer farms than you.
Granted, they’ll make farms eventually but how dependent they are on those farms determines the scope of your advantage. So long as they can prioritize the first and second archer range your advantage is limited to a later phase in transition where 100 resources becomes less and less important. This is what usually happens with a boar steal anyway, the player down a boar makes archers since they don’t need the food for it, and they come forward to pressure since the opponent’s scout is weak and can’t engage as well.
It wasnt about your 200 Resource quote, it was about the 120 quote of another as well as the fact that people sayed that 200 or even 120 wouldnt be a big deal.
At least read the last paragraph. An absolute resource loss of around 200 Res in the most perfect situation (not accounting for potential idle time caused by the Lame) is super impactful.
Ofc 200 doesnt sound like a lot comparing it to the Food of a Boar, but as you said before a Boar doesnt give you 340 Food, it gives you around 100 absolute Food. So there is a difference of real absolute resource lose and surface level resource savings.
In the end losing 1 Boar is like having 8 Farmers together standing idle for 100 Seconds. If you phrase it like this then losing 1 Boar is insanly huge, because to idle 8 Vils for 100 Seconds in between Dark and Feudal Age, when you only have 20 Vils in total is basicly GG against an equal opponent on higher levels.
Well I think you can somehow compare it with vill idle time.
A sheep is worth about 1 minute of (non) idle time. So laming a sheep is about 2 mins.
And a boar is comparable with about 4 mins of (non) idle time.
If you compare it with the time you would need to gather the wood for dark age farms.
But expecially laming boars comes with a lot of practical tradeoffs, like getting tc idle time, getting housed, fail, don’t get enough scouting of your own ressources, don’t get the intel of a possibl drush…
Most lamers that I faced were meso civs and Mongols. The moso civs are even easier than Mongols to do laming because their stupid eagle scouts have a big LOS and because they are slower it will be easier to micro the boar than the scouts. In general laming is not OP and you can back from it, but the thing is, why to make player have the adv by a thing that almost depend on luck and civ bonus for scout/LOS more than skill?
In general keeping it or removing it is not that much difference, but of course removing it will be much better for everyone, but that doesn’t mean laming will be removed completely because there are many civs have an advantages by their vills/bonuses without needing a scout to do this.
This would be an interesting idea for a SOTL video.
In theory, the tradeoff is that you have to gather and spend 120 Wood for two Farms to have 350 Food, whereas the player with the Boar has 340 Food for free. Hunters also gather faster than farmers. However, don’t forget the boar food rot, so you get a lot less than 340 (depending of the number of villagers collecting the food). You als need to get the boar to your TC, though you could solely use your scout for that.
Also, the other player can just push deer in the meantime, and then send his scout to kill off your scout or try to prevent you from taking your own deer, et cetera. So it is complicated, but it is obviously a big advantage.
It has nothing to do with believe. Math is about facts not believes and as i showed that is what the numbers conclude to, no matter if you feel its to much or not.
As explained in the big first post 200 absolute resources has been figured out mathematical and it takes (200 Resources / 0.249 Food per Second =) 803 work seconds of a Dark Age farmer considering the Wood cost of the Farm to gather 200 Food.
~800 divided by 8 means it factually takes 8 Farmes together 100 seconds to produce these 200 resources.
→ As a result losing a Boar/ 3 Sheep and by this effectively 200 absolute resources is the same as if these Farmers would have never worked which means this sort of lame is the same as 8 Farmers being idle for 100 Seconds.
This is no feeling, no thought, its a mathematical conclusion and by this an undebatable fact that its this idle time.
The only debatable factor is of how big this impact is, because the impact cant be made out with a mathematical equation.
Overall the fact that the laming statistic showed that the winrate of a Person laming 3 Sheeps is 38,5% higher is insane. Your claim that it would be 100% winrate with this idle time is ofc just completely unreasonable and impossible claim.
Statistically even an advantage of 10 or 100 times the Idle Time wouldnt result in a 100% winrate, because a result of 100% is basicly impossible in any statistic if you have a certain minimum number of samples.
Since boar is a food source instead of saying a boar is equal to 4 mins of village idle time you need to compare how much food is actually lost. You have 6 vills on a boar on average. You push those six to wood and berries. Slowly add farms as you get wood. Its not as bad as you may think. It does require flexibility and puts you on the unequal ground. Wall up and focus on a few farms. Similar to good trushing you have to move your resources and continue up. Thats half the fun figuring how to win when your plan goes south.
I showed you the Math, I compared the lost resources of the Boar to the collection rate of Farms, because both are food. Its no Thought or believe, the 100 seconds Idle time is a mathematical fact as long as the equation is right, which it seems to be, otherwise you would have given me another seemingly right equation which would point out the misstake of mine.
So please accept the fact that its equal to 800 seconds idle time of 1 Farmer or 100 Seconds idle time for 8 Farmers because its what the facts show and instead of arguing against this Number try to argue why 800 seconds idle time isnt as big of a deal and why Laming is a balanced mechanic in your opinion despite the figured out 800 seconds of idle time (or 100 seconds for 8 Farmers, 50 for 16 etc.).
To attribute an astronomically small sample size to a hard factor because that sample represents your believe on the matter while simultaneously ignoring the much larger sample size of games where a boar was stolen or (N < 3) sheeps were stolen where the winrate is barely affected.
You are well over three times as likely to steal one sheep (in a game where sheep always spawn in pairs) than you are to steal three, so it’s an astronomically rare occurrence even if it was as impactful as you are claiming, which you lack significant data to establish with well under 50 games to pull from.
Considering the comparable, actually substantial game counts for all other instances of laming, you can see no such appreciable evidence of the claim you are making, and you choose to cherrypick for that reason.