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.