.com.unity Forums - Clams overpowered?

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)

- - Clams overpowered? (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=18752)

Re: Clams overpowered?

Quote:

Originally posted by Yossar:
Hmm, reading the forums, you'd think clams were the biggest problem in the game. Yet, make a poll and the majority of people think they are fine. Odd.

Nope, not at all Yossar. It is small majority, and many of those who voted "Clams are fine the way they are now" just haven't used the clam hoarding strategy as it can be abused by dedicated clam-hoarders, and/or they haven't meet (yet) such player themselves in MP.

You can not really say that clams are overpowered or not until you really try hoarding them in at least one MP game, and fail or succeed, or until you face opponent who will do it himself and you'll see its effects on your game.

Quite an oposite, I think the fact that 40% of all people who stated that opinion said "Yes, clams are overpowered and need to be fixed" speaks volume about seriosness of the problem.

Re: Clams overpowered?

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Troops also don't provide the resources for unlimited growth of more troops.

Troops also require gold for upkeep. If you want lots of troops, you will need lots of provinces. If you want lots of provinces, you will have to fight the other nations for them.

If you want lots of clams all you need are water gems and time.

Re: Clams overpowered?

Quote:

Quite an oposite, I think the fact that 40% of all people who stated that opinion said "Yes, clams are overpowered and need to be fixed" speaks volume about seriosness of the problem.

Re: Clams overpowered?

Quote:

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Quite an oposite, I think the fact that 40% of all people who stated that opinion said "Yes, clams are overpowered and need to be fixed" speaks volume about seriosness of the problem.

Quite. One problem with the poll, actually, is that it doesn't divide the "Clams are OK" camp into those that wouldn't mind if a little something was done to satisfy the "Clams are broken" camp, and those that firmly oppose any change. <hr /></blockquote>Good point Zapmeister. We could try the "Advanced Clams Poll" later. We may also add an option of "I don't know, I never tried/experienced clam hoarding in MP".

Re: Clams overpowered?

EDIT: ouch,triple post.

[ April 16, 2004, 04:04: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Clams overpowered?

EDIT: ouch,triple post

[ April 16, 2004, 04:05: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Clams overpowered?

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Actually, we were just kicking this around the other night, and the best shot we've found at taking out a VQ conventionally is a Fire-9 bless on Valkyries backed by Dwarves.

That's not a particularly good strategy, since it is totally nullified by 100% fire resistance, which is far too easy to obtain.<hr /></blockquote>The fire resistance is irrelevant. The flaming weapons are magical and penetrate the ethereal defense with only line troops.

Quote:

The autoparalyze duration of petrify is dependent on magic resist, and it no longer Lasts more than about 4 or 5 turns.

Petrify always paralyzes, and after 4 or 5 turns, you'll just cast it again and freeze your opponent again. There's no save against petrify.

Quote:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />VQs aren't really that tough if you can nail them before they raise their shields:

How exactly are you supposed to do that, when it will just run through your script half as fast as normal, and spend every other action attacking? Give her protection over 25, and virtually nothing will get through.<hr /></blockquote>Surprisingly for you, I've actually lost fully-armed and powered up VQs to devils. Yes, devils. Freaking devils get me very time, dogpiling before I can raise shields. A VQ without all the defensive shielding spells is far less impressive, and "running through the script half as fast as normal" is not an inconsiderable effect: When you consider that all of those spells being cast are shields to protect you from enemies, and you are being prevented from raising them as quickly as possible, you are vulnerable! Being struck by a flying dogpile on the defender's opening move before you can get ANY shields up leaves you VERY vulnerable: The VQ is exceptionally weak against this because its base stats are unimpressive.

The enemy pretender, especially if a goodly 400-500 points have been invested into making it godly, SHOULD require a great deal of effort to kill! There's a world of difference between even a low-end VQ, and a 500-point combat-tweaked anything. Is it unreasonable to expect that you should have to put together an actual force designed to kill it, rather than simply expecting to be able to win anything by dogpiling troops at it?

Quote:

If there is no better use for water magic than to convert it into astral magic, then that is a clear imbalance.

Yes, perhaps, but only in the underpoweredness of water magic. This is not really relevant to the clams themselves: it is water magic that is weak.

Quote:

Whiners? Please. If you don't see a problem with clams, then I suggest you play a game some time where you build absolutely none of them, and your opponent builds a hundred.

This is grossly exaggering the case: It is impossible to completely and totally ignore something in its entireity and expect to do well. Gem-producing items are obviously an important component of the game, as is anything that enhances one's income. Zero vs 100 is a gross exaggeration: Of course you're going to lose, if you've completely neglected your revenue stream. On the other hand, fighting, say, 50 against 100, is a perfectly doable thing. If you have nothing, and he has everything, though, it's going to be nearly impossible....but even then, I will fight to win, or die trying.

Quote:

That's a perfectly functional strategy if you've selected the magic paths properly on a vampire queen. No amount of normal troops can defeat her, so it doesn't much matter how many get thrown at her.

Wrong. A lone VQ cannot be everywhere at once. A lone VQ cannot siege worth a damn. You're going to still have to do better than a single VQ alone. In one of our more recent game, in fact, I sank your army with absolutely no VQ involvement whatsoever, at which point you apparently gave up and went AI. The fact of the matter is that troops fill an important function at all points in the game, but that role changes, and so too must your army composition.

Quote:

To get an income of 100 astral pearls from territory, you'd would need to control something around more than half of the world map at 75% magic site frequency.

I entirely fail to see why you hold "territory" as some sacred cow. Territory is only one of many components to an empire, and hardly the most important one. It is not some sacred cow where the only thing that matters is having the most of it: Just as you can win without having the most income generating items, you can win without having the most territory. However, just as you cannot expect to win with NO territory, you cannot expect to win with no side income, for if everything you own is tied to territory, then once you start taking losses in territory, you are doomed as your efforts to resist grow steadily more feeble.

[ April 16, 2004, 04:21: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Clams overpowered?

Quote:

Originally posted by Catquiet:
If you want lots of clams all you need are water gems and time.

If you want water gems, you're likely going to have to find them, if your nation doesn't start with any base income in that area. If you want time, you're going to have to fight off your neighbors who want to take what you have. It's never as easy as it sounds.

Re: Clams overpowered?

Quote:

Originally posted by Norfleet:
The fire resistance is irrelevant. The flaming weapons are magical and penetrate the ethereal defense with only line troops.

So a strength 9 unit with a spear is supposed to kill a unit with more than 20 protection that has soul vortex, breath of winter, and a charcoal shield before they end up dead?

Quote:

Petrify always paralyzes, and after 4 or 5 turns, you'll just cast it again and freeze your opponent again. There's no save against petrify.

So what? Your troops are dead anyways. The triple damage shield makes sure of that.

Quote:

The VQ is exceptionally weak against this because its base stats are unimpressive.

Her hitpoints are unimpressive in neutral dominion. Everything else is top of the line.

Quote:

The enemy pretender, especially if a goodly 400-500 points have been invested into making it godly, SHOULD require a great deal of effort to kill!

It should be no more difficult than the army that those points could have supported.

Quote:

There's a world of difference between even a low-end VQ, and a 500-point combat-tweaked anything. Is it unreasonable to expect that you should have to put together an actual force designed to kill it, rather than simply expecting to be able to win anything by dogpiling troops at it?

Yes, that is unreasonable, since every single nation must be able to deal with it. Where's your solution for Pangaea?

Quote:

Yes, perhaps, but only in the underpoweredness of water magic. This is not really relevant to the clams themselves: it is water magic that is weak.

You are continually trying to dodge the point. You've admitted that they are the best use of water gems, and that's enough to make them unbalanced.

Quote:

This is grossly exaggering the case: It is impossible to completely and totally ignore something in its entireity and expect to do well. Gem-producing items are obviously an important component of the game, as is anything that enhances one's income.

More dodging the point. There are no income enhancing items other than the gem producing ones.

Quote:

Zero vs 100 is a gross exaggeration: Of course you're going to lose, if you've completely neglected your revenue stream.

Thanks for illustrating the imbalance once again. No nation should _ever_ have to build a specific item in order to compete.

Quote:

On the other hand, fighting, say, 50 against 100, is a perfectly doable thing. If you have nothing, and he has everything, though, it's going to be nearly impossible....but even then, I will fight to win, or die trying.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If you are required to build a certain item in massive quantities just to prevent someone else from winning automatically when they have done so then there is a serious balance problem.

Quote:

Wrong. A lone VQ cannot be everywhere at once.

More of your bull**** I see. She doesn't need to be everywhere at once. She only needs cloud trapeze to wipe out an army per turn.

Quote:

A lone VQ cannot siege worth a damn. You're going to still have to do better than a single VQ alone.

Not for defense against normal troops you don't. And most nations mages won't be able to hurt her either, so they are out of the picture as well. Looks like that matches up quite nicely with the build no troops vs building a lot of troops argument.

Quote:

In one of our more recent game, in fact, I sank your army with absolutely no VQ involvement whatsoever, at which point you apparently gave up and went AI.

The Machaka game? I gave up because it's obvious that there was no point in playing against an Ermor that had no opposition in its expansion from the players that were nearby to its start position.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that troops fill an important function at all points in the game, but that role changes, and so too must your army composition.

Troops should _never_ become just cannon fodder for SCs.

Quote:

I entirely fail to see why you hold "territory" as some sacred cow.

Because the game is about controlling the world.

Quote:

Territory is only one of many components to an empire, and hardly the most important one. It is not some sacred cow where the only thing that matters is having the most of it: Just as you can win without having the most income generating items, you can win without having the most territory.

I'm getting really tired of your hypocrisy. WHy don't you actually play a game where you build no clams, and don't use a VQ, instead of just claiming that they aren't necessary to win against someone who does. A person who expands at several times the rate of a clam hoarder, should reasonably expect to win.

Quote:

However, just as you cannot expect to win with NO territory, you cannot expect to win with no side income, for if everything you own is tied to territory, then once you start taking losses in territory, you are doomed as your efforts to resist grow steadily more feeble.

That's kind of the point.

Re: Clams overpowered?

I know nothing about modding, so this may not be feasible but ...

Why don't we just make a mod that downpowers the VQ and alters the cost of clams? I'm sure that games started with such a mod would have no trouble getting players, and Norfleet would be left free to continue over-running people willing to play in his games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif