Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because it's noticeable, available, and all the rage right now. If anything, the controversy is fuelling the popularity, to the point where people will pick a VQ even when playing a strategy that is otherwise inappropriate for the VQ. If the furor died out, and it will eventually, it would become a lot less popular...or be supplanted with some new "all the rage" option.

Frankly, the fact that many chassis are unattractive is a far bigger problem than the VQ: If the VQ were eliminated, everyone would simply pick the next closest cousin: the GK, which is in some ways better, especially if you aren't willing to sacrifice as much in the way of national scales. The real problem is that so many other options are overpriced, defective, or otherwise uncompetitive. (See: Moloch's Imps).

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">now you are being intentionally obtuse. Where did I say he only ever used philinnon? Admittedly, I've only seen one game where he used a different pretender, namely a GK.

and, again, that he is a good player does not logically entail that the strat isn't abusive/broken. Both can be, and are, the case. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">see, now I just don't even understand what you are talking about. your first statement is obviously false, as the VQ chassis has more inherent abilities than any other chassis. Let alone exactly how you're granting other pretenders immortality...

so, no, they can't do the exact same thing in the same circumstances. and, yes, the VQ is much easier anyways http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In terms of what they do not in terms of what abilities they have. If you don't die you don't need immortality? Immortality just protects you from bad decisions.

And yes, they can provide the same result in the same circumstances. I'm not saying all of them can, but certainly a few can obviously and a few not-so-obviously. Considering the amount of points and planning put into a VQ and put it into something/anything else. If you do so, then perhaps you'll see how.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

but immortality is the crux of it. As has been noted by everyone, you can kill a VQ, just as you could kill any of these other pretenders w/ a ton of points.

The VQ however, loses nothing from this, except a few baubles.

[ May 04, 2004, 23:07: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

[quote]Originally posted by Norfleet:

Quote:

Frankly, the fact that many chassis are unattractive is a far bigger problem than the VQ

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not sure about bigger but yes, that could also use some attention. Since this board seems to have pretty consistent opposing Groups on balance issues(Old Boys Network vs. everyone else), though, it seems unlikely that they will be able to come to much of an agreement on several pretenders.

Quote:

If the VQ were eliminated, everyone would simply pick the next closest cousin: the GK

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree that there might be a next most popular one(possibly) but I don't think it would be the GK. But even if it was, that isn't a valid argument on why the VQ might not be popular because she is over-powered. You could make the VQ clearly over-powered, say make her cost 0, 500 hp, and kills all units on sight. In this case, if you removed her, everyone would still choose the next most popular option.

[quote]Originally posted by Zen:

Quote:

In terms of what they do not in terms of what abilities they have. If you don't die you don't need immortality? Immortality just protects you from bad decisions.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

I don't think that's true at all. It allows you to make decisions that would be bad for a non-immortal pretender but become good for an immortal pretender. Immortality isn't just a side-note, it's a major factor. And even if you don't die, the recuperative effects are still useful.

- Kel

[ May 04, 2004, 23:36: Message edited by: Kel ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The crux is really her flexibility... of which the immortality is no small part.

Full items slots, a host of natural abilities which lessen the need for scripted spells and/or items, and semi-reasonable path costs.

Though, if you are fully utilizing the item slots, then you shouldn't really be utilizing the immortality... the two sort of oppose each other. That's a lot of gems to waste on a loss... certainly not the equivalent of losing a mortal pretender, but clearly still significant.

The path cost and natural abilities however, mean that she can be quite potent naked... with 5 turns of buffing. An unbuffed and naked VQ is nothing to fear... which would be where flying units come into play.

My admitedly merely moderately experienced self says that raising cost/paths is probably sufficient to bring her back to the pack... though I'd rather see the other pretenders surge forward to catch her... but that's a lot to ask.

EDIT: Oh and Archaeolept, stop posting and upload your pretender up for the game on Moggy's server! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ May 04, 2004, 23:48: Message edited by: AhhhFresh ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">From the Polls, there is a different consensus. Or the Old Boy's Network is huge. Anyone remember the first Clam Poll? Most probably don't see it as an issue because it's only the most vocal of wheels that need things 'answered' and 'right now!'.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, that just means you have your safety blanket for any mistakes you make. It's not a side note, if you are prone to either A.) Mistakes or B.) Being surprised. So if you are more likely to not meet those conditions than likely a non-immortal pretender will work in nearly any situation that an immortal one will. Where Immortality shines is in defense, making people pay a larger attrition per province taken inside your dominion. Since at least a percentage of people prefer the "Defense, defense, defense" mentality this molds well with how they think and how they play.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's my feeling too, after wading through most or all of these discussions. I'm liking the 80-point new path cost suggestion at the moment.

PvK

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

How about these ideas?

* Fighting fire with fires. Vampire Lords (?) seem similar but a bit better than VQ's. They also can summon vampires. This is a blood spell, or national spell for Black Forest Ulm. So... if I am BF Ulm or my pretender or national mages have some blood power, at least by mid game once I can cast summon some Vampire Lords, I am thinking the solitary VQ is going to be in trouble, no?

* Priest army. How ofter does a Holy-2 Banish spell hurt a VQ? Even if never, suppose I have some potential vampire-defeating units of some other type. I put them with an army as bait for the VQ to come try to get me, near the edge of her dominion. The surprise is, my mob of priests is that turn Preaching. If I have them, I have Skeptics, Inquisitors, or dominion-draining items in the army. Result: VQ arrives, gets killed, and oops - her dominion was unexpectedly sucked dry in the same turn. So no ressurrection. Or does the sequence of play not allow this to work?

PvK

[ May 05, 2004, 00:17: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The factors here are that Vampire Lords don't start with magic in the right spheres. I'm pretty sure every "VQ is overpowered OMG!" debater will mention that you need a few key magics to really make the VQ shine. Notably Air/Water at the very least. Second portion is that you are forgetting the Dominion bonus of HP which the Lords do not gain.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This works and is an easy way to bait a VQ player into dropping their SC on you mistakenly and suddenly all those precious points vanish. Though this in and of itself can be a little bit of chore. When combined with the Castle and Temple Strategy with 10 Dominion you are going to have a bit of an issue dumping down the dominion fast enough unless you have a truly mammoth amount of Holy 3 Priests or Cerimonial Faith

[ May 05, 2004, 00:29: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I honestly don't know what you are referring to.
The clam poll (and I thought we were talking about pretenders) shows that the majority think clams are over-powered (I am not counting the ones that said they wouldn't mind a change). To be fair, 2/3rds, at this time also said the poll was biased. Either way, though, I don't see your point about what the polls prove or where you are going with it.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, it doesn't, really. If a decision is bad for a mortal pretender but good for an immortal one, that is an extra option, an extra strategy, not a safety net for careless play.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">or C) Using your pretenders abilities to the fullest.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Immortality shines in many places. Even if making people pay a larger attrition per province were the only one, that's not a safety blanket for the pretender, that is giving an extra strategy to the pretender.

And again, immortality effectively includes recuperation. Are you contending that good play means your pretender never gets hit at all ? While I admit to not being an experienced player, I would think that most SC pretenders who never chances getting hit and never take a chance on dying are not fulfilling their potential.

Most games, strategy and otherwise, are based, somewhere, on risk vs. reward. Immortality lets you take the bigger risks for the bigger rewards...only it removes the risks (within your domain, anyway).

- Kel

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

Maybe we need a Van Helsing?

Actually I thought the VQ was susceptable to priests just as much as the rest of the common Ermor group. How about if certain damages were alittle more permanent. She doesnt need to be made weak, just beatable by a fairly available strategy

Priests should be permanent banishment

routing to a non-friendly province should be non-returnable

a susceptability to something. Astral magic?

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The first clam poll, not the "may or may not be biased" clam poll.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Please use an example that is a good decision for an immortal that is a bad decision for a nonimmortal who is more powerful.


<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> And these would be?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which they pay for by being inherently weaker/more costly. And this is not an "only pretender" thing. So I don't see how this is a VQ only thing, shouldn't you be crusading against all immortality?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm condending good play can minimize the chance of this. To the point where the risk is worth the reward. Some pretenders are given recuperation base and there are various ways to deal with any afflictions gained in the game if you do happen to run across a bad run. And afflictions take even VQ's time to heal.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not never, but not to the point of being rendered ineffective. Just because you use your pretender with and in a situation where it doesn't drop their chance of dying to 100% doesn't mean they arn't fullfilling their potential. It means that you can't take the same mentality you have taken with your VQ SC. Where you can die any number of times and it doesn't matter.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is exactly the point, Immortality removes the risk but at a cost. Some feel this cost more than makes up for that ease of use mentality. It doesn't however make it overpowered.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Let's say I have a shot at taking out an opponents SC pretender, in my domain, but only by risking my own. Let's say VQ has a 25% chance of taking out said pretender but I could have had a specific, non immortal and had a 35% chance (for whatever reason). It might be disadvantageous to risk my mortal pretender when I could, instead send the VQ. Thus, it is an extra, *valid* strategic option.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Absolutely. I am not disagreeing with that. I am just disagreeing with the perception that immortality is only useful to make up for poor play.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not crusading at all. I am only disagreeing with the logic behind specific statements made by other crusaders.

Much as I feel about Ermor (or clams or any other balance issue), the only thing that truly bothers me about the VQ is that she is reducing the variety of my MP games. Even here, it doesn't bother me that much since less than half the nations use her in most of my games. My personal feeling is that she probably is over-powered but not invincible and if she was, say, limited to only one nation, particularly one that was not used every game (like Ulm, for example), I wouldn't particularly care at all.

I am not suggesting this happen, I am just trying to express that it is not precisely something being out of balance that affects the game, it is that something being too far out of balance can cause a loss of variety in MP game play.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Absolutely. Immortality isn't perfect or overwhelming or outrageously broken. I am just contending that it is a quite strong ability and is not limited to covering mistakes but does, in itself, allow strategies that are not worth it, risk vs. reward wise...to now be worth it, because of the immortality.

It doesn't take a bad player, or a mistake, to take advantage of better risk vs. reward.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree. Immortality alone doesn't make a pretender over-powered. If people perceive that I am suggesting that, than I have mis-communicated my intentions. So perhaps I should summarize what I am saying.

Immortality is a strong ability, and a *very* strong ability when combined with an SC chassis. It can, and should, be compensated for with design points or other weaknesses. It is not a side-note, nor a tool for only poor players. It allows one to dramatically reduce risk and this, in itself, opens up additional strategies and risk vs. reward scenarios.

- Kel

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

Zen:

While I generally agree with you, I think you're missing a large part of the point.

You and Norfleet and whomever the other "elite" players are... are in the minority of the Dom II playerbase. Odds would dictate that most of us lose most of our MP games... particularly when we play against the likes of you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif (Though I've not played either of you)

So to truly evaluate a VQ's "balance", you have to consider the lesser players, who obviously outnumber the "elite" ones by a large margin...

The fact that immortality is much more forgiving of mistakes is not at all a small issue... because that's what players like me do... we make mistakes... because we haven't had enough MP experience to know what every nation can throw at us, and hence we might send our SC pretender into a situation that could mean their death.

The fact that a VQ is mostly immune to these "bad decisions" is why she is so popular... and gives a distict advantage over another player of the same "moderate skill level" who is similarly mistake prone... but doesn't have a VQ.

I'm not in favor of nerfing Immortality itself, because that would nerf other units... but something should probably be done... since most poor to moderate players think she's da bomb...

I do imagine that the fervor will die out within a month, as most of the moderately skilled players who picked VQ's as pretenders as the flavor du jour will have lost their MP games at that point... but she still seems unbalanced to some extent.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To the best of my knowledge, dominion changes happen *after* all battles, so you can't sucker an immortal into a trap dominion.

Which is IMHO, too bad. Would be nice to cause the immortal munchkins some contingent paranoid anxiety. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This was considered a feature, ...don't know if changing the phaseorder might potentially be rebalancing.


Rabe the Rules Rodent


Edit: there may be one exception to this, but it isn't helpful.

The ermorian cultist event probably changes dominion when it occurs, but this is unlikely to inconvenience an Ermorian VQ. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ May 05, 2004, 01:48: Message edited by: rabelais ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Now on that 75% chance of not taking out the pretender what are the results if you fail? Your VQ is left with 3-6 affliction, possibly crippling, loss of gems (if you are not running around unequipped, if you are, then I would say the mortal pretener has a 90% chance of success) and time to wait for healing. Now that may be an option to you, to waste your VQ or SC's turn by a minimal chance of success, but I don't think that is a strategy as much as a personal level of risk vs reward scenario with the hope being you win.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I never said that was it's only feature, I said that was it's primary feature.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, it does allow those, at which point those new to the game may feel that it is 'overpowered' because it allows them to make mistakes, while mortal pretenders and nations is not so forgiving. I a not disagreeing with you that it could not use a slight change, but the reasoning behind it. Because if the VQ is changed to 125 Points and 80/path, guess what? It will still be extremely powerful in the right hands. But it will be reduced to a few nations that can afford to use them. Instead of "VQ's are overpowered" it will be "VQ's are overpowered with Ermor, Abysia, Caelum, Jotunheim, C'tis, etc".

My point is that they are not overpowered by anything more than a slight degree, they are just popular which means people try to use them unsuccessfully and counter to their nation/theme/playstyle because at least 1 other person (or more) has used it successfully. That is exactly the wrong reason to balance something, because of popular demand.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">My question to you then, is this. If balance caters to the lowest common denominator (I'm not saying you or anyone else) then it's not really balanced is it? It's unexperienced friendly. You would limit the options of the game for anyone who is not inexperienced who wish to play competitively. Meaning, if you know how to fly a plane but 90% of the people on the forum don't know how to fly a plane because of any number of reasons and suddenly they don't allow civilians to fly because of that, is that what you would considered balanced or fair?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If it's not apparent by what I've done in the past, I'm *all* for giving people who are moderate or new to the game all the things they need in order to learn to play to their desired potential. I have no problem that immortality allows people to make mistakes and play around and try out new and possibly crazy things. A beautiful part of this game is the exploration of all it's nuances and things that impact the play.

Where I draw the line though, is changing the game to any non-conclusive, factual, debated and soundly reasoned changes. This game is very good, but it does have some (if not alot) of issues with balance. If you balance it willy nilly, or based on popular or trendy desires what you are going to have is exactly what this game, this company and this publisher are not.

Mainstream.

I like TBS games, even though they are not mainstream or popular. I like Shrapnel, even though they are not the biggest or everyone knows their name. I like Illwinter and Dominions 2, even though a large % of the gamers I have known and play with may not find it as fun and enjoyable as I have.

Why break that by suddenly catering to popular desire instead of sound logic?

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

You've gotta love the fact that a thread that is entitled "SCs other than the vq" is all about the VQ. Kind of makes you wonder if there actually are any other SCs, or at least any good ones when compared to the yardstick of the VQ.

Anyway, far be it from me to try and drag the thread back on topic. I wanna complain about the VQ too! And since immortality seems to be the theme of the moment, let me chime in that even if it is just a crutch for mistakes (an argument I don't buy), everyone makes mistakes! Probably even Norfleet. Especially considering that the game is not played in a vaccuum. There's no way you can account for everything that you opponents might throw at you. So I think its unfair and misleading to talk about the "surprise insurance" factor of immortality as if it is something only the unskilled newbie might ever find useful.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You have to dig for it, but it's there. There is a list.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I never said it wasn't for everyone. Only that people who plan on making more mistakes than others are helped more by immortality than not.

More experienced players know more of the strategies and actions that might be presented to them, they also tend to use forsight if a particular strategy/design/decision doesn't work out to have a secondary plan of implementation or alternative.

It all boils down to your own risk vs reward mentality. Some people have a high tolerance for bad mistakes and struggling through them other do not. Obviously the more you play the more this tolerance is likely to grow as well as secondary strategy, acceptable loss for gain and other factors for the game.

It is not unlike Go in that respect.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

[quote]Originally posted by Zen:

Quote:

Now on that 75% chance of not taking out the pretender what are the results if you fail? Your VQ is left with 3-6 affliction, possibly crippling, loss of gems (if you are not running around unequipped, if you are, then I would say the mortal pretener has a 90% chance of success) and time to wait for healing. Now that may be an option to you, to waste your VQ or SC's turn by a minimal chance of success, but I don't think that is a strategy as much as a personal level of risk vs reward scenario with the hope being you win.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hehe, you added a bunch of elements which i didn't assume to make a point. Now take out all those factors that you stilted in favor of your point and let's get back to the point.

There are many cases where immortality makes something a good choice, where it would be a bad choice without it. Again I say, taking advantage of improved risk vs. reward is the mark fo a good player, not a bad player.

Quote:

Why break that by suddenly catering to popular desire instead of sound logic?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think most people think that they are using logic. You might think their logic is flawed but they probably think your logic is flawed as well. Being a good player doesn't make your logic correct and everyone else's 'popular desire' or 'will-nilly' or what not. I realize that I am responding to you but let me broaden the scope...I have seen this a lot lately, from a few different people...who seemed to run out of debate on the issues and turned to debating the people who were making them.

- Kel

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I didn't add anything, you left out the fact that if you failed, that is what would happen. It's easy to know what happens if a mortal pretender dies, he dies and all his junk goes with him. But by your example you don't think that is a factor at all? Just because you get to keep them, doesn't mean you always want to throw away a turn of you SC for a low to mediocre chance for success.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The only example then is the one you gave me above then? Because I'm not seeing it.

Quote:

I think most people think that they are using logic. You might think their logic is flawed but they probably think your logic is flawed as well. Being a good player doesn't make your logic correct and everyone else's 'popular desire' or 'will-nilly' or what not. I realize that I am responding to you but let me broaden the scope...I have seen this a lot lately, from a few different people...who seemed to run out of debate on the issues and turned to debating the people who were making them.- Kel

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Most people may be using logic. It's the same logic that they use when saying "Ermor is Overpowered" or "Pangaea is overpowered" or "Water9 Blessing is Overpowered". Being a good player allows someone to overlook some of the obvious pitfalls of still learning the game and go indepth to the various levels that the issues are presented in.

I am not debating at all, in fact, the issue was dead in another thread and long ago. I'm defending the point, which is: Those who are debating for the change have not addressed or countered the points made by those who are not for the 'balance' change. It is in the hands of the accuser to provide the burden of proof and it has not been done. Especially considering that every effect that VQ's can have can be reproduced on one if not more other pretenders spending the same if not less points to do so.

[ May 05, 2004, 03:02: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

Seems to me that Vampire Lords, while as Zen pointed out, have some important disadvantages compared to VQ pretenders (magic and dominion HP effects), have two advantages: fighting skill and (much more important) cheapness to manufacture (compared to Wish (!!) and Gift of Reason). Anyway, they seem potentially similar in ability to VQ's, and are manufacturable by anyone with blood magic.

Other SC's? Well, Prince of Death may not be immortal, but is considerably tougher than a VQ. Many of the giants have considerably more hit points than a VQ. Many have better fighting skills than a VQ. Moreover, many summonable units have better fighting abilities and thus SC potential than a VQ. They aren't immortal, but being summonable means not only are they replacable, but you can have several at once. Some of them are even quite cheap. Take for example Death summons.

Just looking at Pretender SC's, many of them are tougher than a VQ; they're just not immortal and don't have as many built-in abilities. Add some items and/or spells, though, and VQ may be outmatched.

* Moloch (esp. if they fix the rout issue)
* Prince of Death
* Ghost King
* White or Black Bull
* Manticore (limited but tough and ZERO points)
* Mother of Tuathas
* Titan
* Ancient Kraken (ok, acqutic, but try to kill one with a VQ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )
* Dagon
* Lord of the Desert Sun
* Scorpion King
* Nataraja
* Shedu
* Son of Niefel
* Carrion Dragon
* Lord of the Wild
* Allfather
* Asynja
* Dracolich
* Lord of the Night

The Lich (or Saurolich, or Lich Queen) seems about on par with the VQ - immortal, a tad flammable and not flying but with natural protection of 15 (!). Bog Mummy also looks pretty tough. Ya they aren't naturally ethereal, but more things ignore ethereal than ignore natural protection.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm. Ya, it depends on the sequence of events (battle, preach, ressurrect). Zen seemed to think it would work. Anyone have spare time to test it, or know from experience in 2.11?

PvK

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

[quote]Originally posted by Zen:

Quote:

Those who are debating for the change have not addressed or countered the points made by those who are not for the 'balance' change.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I actually see the reverse in most cases recently (and this is not specific or directly related to you, personally, btw). I see a lot of "It's not invincible" (whether clams, ermor, pangaea, whatever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) being used in response to "It's over-powered". I also see a lot of "Well, you just don't know how to play" in response to the question of something being over-powered. Finally, there is the "Your point isn't valid because it's just a trend" argument.

I don't really know if clams or ermor or VQs or pangaea, heh...or whatever are overpowered and logic isn't even right 100% of the time...but the logic on why they are has been quite reasonable and persuasive (ok, some of it, not all of it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). Some other people may feel they know better, based on their experiences, and they may or may not be right, but the logic, at least in many cases, hasn't been there to support their anecdotal evidence, imo. At least not to the degree that the other side has presented it.

Of course, people can argue for a lot of reasons and there is the potential to 'band-wagon'. There is also the possibility that some people may be arguing without experimenting much. But really, resistance to change, arrogance and personal agendas on the other side are just as frivolous.

Obviously, changes shouldn't (and won't, I am sure!) be made instantly, without thought, just based on what some have called 'the flavor of the moment' and I have seen some suggestions for the game which were clearly just one person's thoughts on what would be 'cool' to see in a game...but some of these issues, as I understand it, have been around for a while and aren't just an individual trying to make the game 'theirs'.

I respect that a lot of people know more about the game than I do (maybe most people !) but that doesn't make them impartial, it doesn't make them logical, it doesn't mean they don't have personal agendas and it certainly doesn't make them right. Credentials only get you so far.

Like I said, I am not trying to crusade against immortality or VQs or clams...in fact, I don't think we are that far apart from agreement here, anyway...but if something just doesn't sound right, I might just voice my thoughts, noob or not.

- Kel

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So what your saying in essence is: If there is a way to beat it, or any number of ways and it has been shown then it can still be overpowered because not every nation/player/skill-level can do it? What other rational are you looking for? If it's overpowered that means to me, that it gives more than it should for it's current cost/use. But the determination for that is how abusable it is and if any thing/style can measure up to it. Then if there are none, it's a singular instance, if there are others, what is the commonality or why are these other not considered the same?
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">All of those points could be presented to each and every one who presents a point pro or con, so you have to follow the path of what seems more logical to you personally and go from there. There is no way of getting around personal preference of how you play the game and the results you have viewed for yourself.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which you should do. I don't believe anyone was shushing anyone or saying "Your opinion is worthless" but more along the lines of "maybe things are not so black and white, this is why".

[ May 05, 2004, 04:39: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You have correctly assigned the burden of proof, but I think you unfairly dismiss the (albeit subjective) proof that has been presented. That proof is the persistent and disproportional popularity of the Vampire Queen. Although there may be reasons (other than the VQ being overpowered) for that popularity, the fact remains that the popularity reduces diversity in the game, and that's a problem that could be solved by nerfing the VQ.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sigh. Again. I may have subjectively dismissed it because I personally don't see it, and haven't seen it in any games I've played/playing in the Last month. So if my PoV is worth less than anyone on the other side of the debate then my subjectivity is the culprit.

Popularity does reduce diversity in the game, but popularity is fickle. I'm not quite ready to give up on human nature to believe that because something is popular but not effective it will remain popular. If it is popular and effective then it needs to be looked into (which I thought you read the other thread where I said it was, but you might have forgotten) to determine if it is popular because it is effective and ways to reimplement the diversity. The easiest but not neccesarily best solution being destroying the popularity of the one, instead of making the others more attractive.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Depends. A VQ benefits greatly from Black Steel Plate, as well as other items which are pretty cheap to replace. It almost doesn't matter if you lose your 3rd battle in such a case, as long as you won your first two. And the VQ can be equipped well enough to have a shot against almost anything.

Whereas a Phoenix can _never_ be equipped well enough to deal with certain SCs. Especially if the Phoenix only invested in Fire, its chances against something like an ice devil and slim and none. Almost any other flying SC can kill it in the first turn of combat. Even garden variety knights can.

Phoenix winds up capable of roast and toasting many (but not all) armies. But it's barbecue chicken against many if not most SCs with mediocre equipment. (IE - fire & lightning immunity - easy to get.)

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's because a Phoenix is not an SC and is not designed to be used that way: It's very effective in the roles of kamikaze attacks on provinces with either fire or air magic, and is an excellent support caster....but neither its price tag, slottage, nor physical attributes promote its use as an SC.

[ May 05, 2004, 05:20: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

This is my Last post on the VQ thread, I am simply too frustrated with it.

No one has responded to my Posts in other threads, I though the objections to the SC VQ were well documented by now... if I missed the rebuttal, please direct me to it.

As I have said in other Posts, naked immortal SC's that can destroy entire armies (particularly before turn 30 or 20 or 10!!!)are obviously broken.

The castling/temple-ing strat just makes it a more efficient munchkinism, the fundamental problem is that getting a new flying army every turn for free, with no risk of losing it, in whole or in part (the latter being the fate of most normal armies...) while getting it's full tactical benefit.

The resources which must be devoted to stopping an immortal SC far outweigh the costs on a per use basis for producing one, (especially for ermor, whose recruitment does not suffer from scale poverty)... and are highly fraught with the risk of failure, attrition, and are much less flexible weapons than the flying immortal SC.

If there is a counter for it, other than attacking with overwhelming superiority in three places at once, and losing two of those *nonimmortal* armies while taking down one of the castles... you see my point.

The strat is so effective under the current rule set, it is broken.

Your saying someone, an expert, "almost" beat it, having encountered it several times before, isn't much of a defense.

If I know what my opponent is going to do and I *still* can't stop it in a cost effective way, knowing it's coming ... it is BROKEN.

This is a strategy game, ...optimization is supposed to be difficult and non commutative.

In this case it is neither.

Rabe the Retiring


references for those wanting more detail...


http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...583;p=2#000036

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...583;p=1#000050

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ditto, and for the same reason.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

what rabe said

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

dp

[ May 05, 2004, 08:34: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

I'm still new enough not to assume I can tell one way or another whether any particular issue is unbalanced by myself.

But having heard the arguements I have found the ones from the "VQs need to be nerfed" camp more convincing, so far.

A lot of the arguements supporting the VQ are logically flawed, and while I accept that the people making the arguements no doubt understand this game WAY more deeply that I do I would still like to see a concrete counter-strategy proposed.

For example the recent arguement that it is killable, and having it killed costs the owner resources (gems etc) only holds water if the expense of killing the VQ is much less than the expense the owner incurs from it's death, and I haven't seen this demonstrated.

Comparisons with the "Metagame" of many CCGs have been made:

In a CCG, if one flavour of deck is very popular, very quickly people produce decks which counter it. The popular deck has very little or no chance against a deck that knows it is coming.

I think any veteran Magic player could, if shown a deck, come up with several decks that would beat it easily, and still be competative against other tournament decks (except those designed to counter this deck...but that's what makes the Metagame). If a deck can do its own thing regardless of how you try to counter it then it is unbalanced.

So. Can the veteran Dominions players come up with a strategy, for all nations, that would beat a VQ SC strategy everytime?

The most popular example of the VQs supposed unbalance seems to be the Ermor-VQ-temple-fortress combination that Norfleet seems to have such success with. I've read that this success is largely due to the map settings which favour Ermor, and that it's down to Norfleets expertise, but pro-nerf people seem to quote this example a lot. So could we also have a concrete strategy that utterly destroys this strategy please?

Two strategies - one for the player who spots the VQ SC early in the game and wants to counter it, one for the player who spots the Temple/Fortress/VQ-SC early.

Remember - if a strategy is anticipated early enough it should be countered easily. If you can continue using a strategy despite it being anticipated perfectly by your opponent, and still hope to win against even a mediocre foe, then the strategy is unbalanced.

Two convincing strategies. If the strategy is balanced there should be a lot more than that. Worked examples, no unfair assumptions. The prize - my humble support for the VQ to remain as it is. The bigger prize - the Metagame will adjust to make VQs undesirable, until the Metagame evolves to the point where VQs are the best counter to...whatever strategy happens to be kicking *** this time next year :-)

The price of failiure? You wouldn't want to know. It's FAR too terrible http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

[quote]Originally posted by Zen:

Quote:

So what your saying in essence is: If there is a way to beat it, or any number of ways and it has been shown then it can still be overpowered because not every nation/player/skill-level can do it?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not saying that at all. I am saying that there is an obvious flaw in the logic that because something is not invincible, it is balanced and that that common argument is fallacious. Let's say you think the VQ is balanced as it is. What if you dropped her price to 0 design points ? She would still have the same vulnerabilities, would she still be balanced ? Clearly not. Yet the assumption gets made that people are only complaining about the VQ because they have no clue how to stop her. It's a poor argument but one that I keep seeing people keep fall back on.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Absolutely. It's also why I don't buy the attitude of "Come back and make your arguments when you are as good a player as I am".
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We will have to agree to disagree on that point because I see more of the former, lately.

- Kel

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you don't like Norfleet's playing strategy, why do you keep playing in games he's in?

I'm in several MP games at the moment (slow kind, mostly 1 turn per day), and I've noticed exactly ONE Vampire Queen in there, played by C'tis; AFAIK, she's lost her castle, and since she's now attacking low-defense provinces of mine in my own dominion, my guess is she isn't in the best of shapes. There are plenty of people out there who are not playing Vampire Queens, believe me - surely some of them are of at least moderate skill.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

well if people are dropping the idea that a killer god must be beaten....

Back to the topic of the post, what happened to the wyrm. Was it nerfed? At one time the wyrm was the "automatic choice" for SC and now I hardly see it mentioned.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you don't like Norfleet's playing strategy, why do you keep playing in games he's in?

I'm in several MP games at the moment (slow kind, mostly 1 turn per day), and I've noticed exactly ONE Vampire Queen in there, played by C'tis; AFAIK, she's lost her castle, and since she's now attacking low-defense provinces of mine in my own dominion, my guess is she isn't in the best of shapes. There are plenty of people out there who are not playing Vampire Queens, believe me - surely some of them are of at least moderate skill. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">my god phil, how the heck is "so don't play w/ someone who uses that strat" at all a legitimate response to the question as to whether the strat shows something as broken in the game? your answer is that the game isn't broken because it is possible to bury one's head in the sand. Bravo.

have you played against it? do you know how it works?

Pperhaps it isn't broken - but then, pls, we would like a general strategy to deal w/ the VQ/uber-SC + infinite castling + clam/wishes combo.

and, that VQ's can suck is so clearly obvious, and such a low grade strawman, that I'm continually flabbergasted that people feel the need to bring this up. Yes, VQ's can be weak. The argument is not that all VQ's all the time are unbalanced, but that they can be, especially in combination w/ an all-out defensive castling strat.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

I am also among the people who have not been conmvinced by the arguments by Zen and others that the VQ is more or less OK. As others have commented, these arguments that "it's not impossible to defeat a VQ" are kind of off base. I mean sure, if it was impossible to beat them, that would be unbalanced. But something can be unbalanced but still be defeatable.

To me, the way to determine if the VQ is unbalanced is to look at her peers. If there are lots of other Pretenders that give you similar value for a similar price, then it seems to me that the VQ is balanced. If the other Pretenders that are priced similarly to the VQ are not as good as her, then she is unbalanced.

For now, my opinion is that she is unbalanced, because she seems to offer much more bang for the buck than the other Pretenders. I'm willing to accept the idea that I am missing something here. But so far I've barely even heard this issue addressed. The closest anyone has come are those who have argued that if you remove the VQ, the Ghost King is almost as good. Maybe so. But that's still only "almost." And that's only one other Pretender. Are there any other Pretenders that give you as much value (not necessarily as a SC) as the VQ does?

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not proof. It's an observation by some people about player use of it in some games. It's more evidence of a rumor or of threads on the forum suggesting it as an easy and powerful strategy. The reason lots of people are trying it may be that they have read about it here. Herd behaviour is frequently not caused by keen intelligence.

Nor will it solve herd behaviour to nerf the current trend. Nerfing whatever is most popular would be doing things for the wrong reason.

Herd behaviour is worth noting, but it's not proof, nor is it a reason in itself to make decisions.

Reasons for change are things like too many free synergistic and rare intrinsic abilities with too few disadvantages for too few points compared to other choices. I think there's probably a good case there.

PvK

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, I posted a list of potentially tougher SC pretenders earlier. There are also many potentially tougher SC summons. They can also take a strong dominion, and use priests, temples, and other means to limit the dominion of the VQ so the VQ does not get its immortality.

Some of us would say that rainbow pretenders have more potential than SC pretenders anyway. SC's can be cultivated, summoned, equipped into being, in greater numbers than one, and the more magic your pretender has, the more you can do that, assuming you can find other ways to conquer provinces at a reasonable rate.

Ermor building temples and castles everywhere, when their dominion undermines their gold income, sounds like the equivalent in skill and resources to being able to do many other things. Summoning more VQ's with Wish and GoR also sounds like something that would have many alternative uses for all those resources. So VQ's are tougher than Doom Horrors?

Unliving summons don't stop VQ's.

Note that by mentioning all this, I'm not saying that I think VQ's aren't underpriced ... I tend to think that the combo of their abilities may be. Though the Liches and Bog Mummy look capable of similar effects, no?

PvK

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

Edit: Some no longer necessary comments about a retracted post have been deleted.


I think that all of the players, new or old, have a right to air their opinions. And this forum is the right place to do it. I do hope that people remain civil, since as you correctly point out, the devs will not pay much attention otherwise.

[ May 05, 2004, 22:28: Message edited by: Vynd ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

Just as herd behavior (not to be confused with herb behavior) doesn't make something right, lots of people doing something doesn't make it herd behavior http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

I'm sure Gandalf isn't trying to upset anyone. He's just echoing a message that has needed to be said many times in the past, when (typically, new-to-the-game) players have ranted their opinions in inappropriate tones, and been duly ignored. Sometimes they may even have had a good point, but the result was just an annoyance for everyone. The lesson learned is that staying polite and making clear and logical arguments is generally very effective, particularly with Illwinter.

PvK

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I was mainly just responding to the idea that popularity equals proof of imbalance.

PvK

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Absolutely. I just think there is some confusion about which people need to read the lesson http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I fooled around a bit with an 1150 -point rainbow wyrm. 300 hp and regen is fun. But you run out of fatigue in big fights and when machaka blinded it I had to use GoH... which can't be relied on in multiplay. And you cant put an elemental armor on it. But even a no-magic wyrm can probably beat a VQ early on. I'll test this... ok I tried it.. no magic-wyrm vs rainbow3 VQ. The wyrm's bite is not magical, the vq resists poison, and since lifedrain fatigues the victim the wyrm was soon passed out. The vq did not even get hit.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">archaeolept - dont play in big games on huge maps against good players. That's what I will do when I start playing multiplayer dom again. A while ago I played against norfleet and gave up since the game was just too big for me and I ran out of ideas.. but I was not in a bad position really, if we had switched sides those vqs would most likely be killed every time they popped up.

The vq just needs 80 new path cost imo to lower the impact they have around turn 10-20. And some players will want houserules to not use them.

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

[quote]Originally posted by PvK:

Quote:

Sure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I was mainly just responding to the idea that popularity equals proof of imbalance.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's true, that popular opinion doesn't make it unbalanced. I might disagree, though, that the balance is more important than perceived balance.

If something is somewhat unbalanced in the game, at this point, it isn't going to be a game breaking issue. It's most likely going to be a small advantage that can be overcome with skill or luck.

The problem with perceived advantage is that it reduces variety in game play. That is much harder to deal with and requires you to limit who you play with and what maps, house rules or such you play with.

Now, of course it isn't smart to change a game based on a 'flavor of the month'. On the other hand, if it sticks around for some time, it reeduces variety and that bothers me a lot more.

I think it would be worse to play against similar nations with similar pretenders, most f the time...then to play against the occasional pretender who I knew had a slight advantage over me.

I guess what I am saying is, in the short term, you are right, band-wagonning is a danger. In the long term, though, popularity, right or wrong, does make a difference, at least if you play with that populace.

- Kel

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Are you trying to make people more upset Gandalf? Because that's what I got from this message. Seems to me that you're telling the new players that they are wrong about the VQ ("Even if that were true" = Not true), and that they had better quit their whining because it is pissing off the experienced players. Telling someone that they had "better back down" is how you start a fight, not end it. Nothing makes people complain more than being told they have nothing to complain about.

I think that all of the players, new or old, have a right to air their opinions. And this forum is the right place to do it. I do hope that people remain civil, since as you correctly point out, the devs will not pay much attention otherwise. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually it was in response to the previous post which started out "I cant believe the veterans are still trying to defend the VQ" which generated my response about new players loudly saying its broke. Seems like a balanced statement but pardon me, I have removed those Posts.

And Im not saying people shouldnt have an opinion. If I didnt think the devs should look at this I wouldnt be trying to tone down the remarks to a level that the devs will be able to stand to read it without getting pissed.

Its not the discussion itself. Its the way its getting discussed. It is not productive toward getting the changes people seem to want.

[ May 05, 2004, 18:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: SCs other than the vq
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Lol, yeah that works http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ahh, the memories. now substitue "wyrm" for "all your early game armies"... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif