Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

Research isn't comparable to clamming at all. The complaint, valid or not, behind clamming (or any other gem production item) is that investing in it absolutely vital to stay competitive in the late game.

Research, however, has so many different varied paths that equating it to clam hording is just silly, prioritizing research, and even researching in response to/anticipation of a particular threat is very important. It separates the good players from the bad. I also think researching is quite fun. It creates an interesting tension between access to fewer spells of higher level, or more spells of a lower level.

Jazzepi

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

As velusion said clams are very potent in the long games no doubt about it - especially after wish is reached. Removing them (or having some ridicilous spell being able to destroy them) is not a good choice however since you will basically cripple high astral dependent nations like R'lyeh.

At the current cost they will take 15+ turns to pay off basically, which is a risky investment.

I think a good solution is to mod them for whatever game you are expecting to play. In a short-mid game keep the original cost. In long games on large maps that is expected to go 100+ turns increase their cost slightly (by 5 water or nature gems). Of course in such games blood stones should have their cost increased as well.

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

I think clamhoarding is OK the way it actually works. Anyway, a less "artificial" way to counter - but not too much - clamhoarding would be to add a slight chance oh being horror marked for the bearer of the clam. Something similar to lightless lanterns for example. Similar to blood contracts would be too much imho.

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

The thing is there are so many ways to increase gem income that I think it is silly to isolate one tactic of increasing gem income and say that it is unbalanced. I think the problem that people have with it is the flexibility of astral pearls. But, consider this, if you have 20 clams a turn, and you are alchemizing them, you will only have 10 gems after you do so. Is 10 gems significant? If it was adding to a gem income of 5, sure that's significant, but if it is adding to a gem income of 25, its not as big of a deal.

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

You don't alchemise as a rule. A better option is to use wish and turn your astral gems into x2 other gems. A reasonable good position can turn out 75 clams by the turn of say 60-75. If you use those gems to cast wish(gems) each turn you have basically increased your gem income with 150 gems. That will probably double your ordinary gem income - not to shabby!

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

I voted claming is fine exactly the way it is and I am non-clammer, I have only seriously clammed once and that was as EA Oceania. It did me no good whatsoever, as EA Caelum won the game.

If clamming gets nerfed, then the, 'nerfs', abit like smurfs will just jump on another part of the game and try to nerf that as well.

I would suggest that if you are a nation who can't gem spam then you should seek to attack gem spammers, especially if you are playing in a long game.

Like I think I have said before, its much, much more easy to blood hunt then gem spam. By the time the gem spammer is getting 100gems/turn, the blood hunt spammer can be getting 400 - 600 blood slaves per turn.

Its part of the late game, the entire idea of the late game is too unbalance the game. In your favour, so you can win!

Loads of things unbalance the late game such as:-

Limited uniques to summon.
Unique artifacts.
Gem spamming.
Blood hunting.
Globals such as Arcane Nexus, Forge of Ancients, Utterdark etc...

Usually they end up spread around several players which creates a balance which is resolved by war, sooner or later.

So where's the problem?

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

I'm coming down alongside those who think clams are too good. (As are most of the other gem-producers, actually, clams are just simpler to talk about.)

I don't think the price per se is the problem, just the unlimited nature of them. 18-25 turns to get a return on your investment is ok, but there's no other real way in the game to make "investments" like that... and as anyone with a bank account knows, interest can rack up exponentially over time. While admittedly a kludge, the fix I like best is simply a cap to the number each nation can produce.

Plus, I find the "in-game story" argument also compelling. Why is the world not flooded with such things by day 1 of the Middle Age, if mages can produce items that replicate the natural burgeoning forces of the world? Why haven't all nations converged on Astral, Fire, and Earth magic, with secondary Water, Nature, Blood? The tactic is too good to make much sense in the setting.

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

Maybe the simplest solution would be to give the gem producing items a small (like 2%) chance to wear out, so that you cant have too much of them. If there would be a 2% chance, a clam would exist approximate 50 turns, so you pay 20 gems and get 50 back.

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

The weight of these "in-game story" arguments are always in the eye of the beholder, and therefore unpersuasive. One can just as easily come up with an in-game story why the world is not flooded with these by the Middle Age (forgotten secrets of construction rediscovered with awakening gods!).

There's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense in D3, depending on what your "in-game story" is. But these stories don't make good arguments for changing the game mechanics.

Re: Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?
 

If someone get's to strong through clams, his opponets were not aggressive enough. Getting an overpowered clam-hort running is a big investment (now, mainly for the 15 water gems). You should not be able to affort this while in a full scale war with someone else.

So, the two options to do clamforging (in my opinion) are:
-You are the only water nation left and don't (strongly) battle the land.
-You were good in the diplomatics.

The first point has it's own drawbacks, so I have no problem with this one getting strong through Astral pearls.
The second - well, if you succed on that plan, you deserve it. Your opponent should not have let it come to that point.