Clams overpowered?
 

Forgive me if this has been done before, I'm curious what the current thinking is among those who might take the time to vote in a poll, to add to the opinions of those who have weighed in on the debate in one of the various thread discussions.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

OMG 100% FOR BROKEN!!!111... jk (only 1 vote, and from me)

Having a clam is like having a single pearl magic site. Having two is like having a single magic site of anything. And the more clams you have, the more you can make.

Edit: so much for only 1 voter

[ April 14, 2004, 16:56: Message edited by: HotNifeThruButr ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

I thought it was 2 water...

I'm not voting because I haven't been playing with Clams in Dom1, and as I don't have full 2 yet going with Clam-strategy would give out almost nothing.
I think it should be possible to use clams to reduce micromanagement by giving them to mages who can use the pearls (in battle) without need of ferriers. I also think it shouldn't be possible to make endless amounts of clams to gather the 'free-flowing magic power' all around the world... atleast not without any consequences!

The good solutions I have seen are Horror Marking the Clammer, having maximum clams any nation can have (what about Charmed commanders with clams?) and a maximum pearls clams can produce on one turn(if there are more than 30 clams anywhere in the world only 30 or so of them will produce pearls).

Maybe clams should only produce pearls on watert and/or astral mages. The problem with that is that it limits the usefulness of Clams to very few nations.

An idea that just wouldn't work out would be making clams underwater-only: that would not remove the problem but limit the choice to two races, or races with cheap sacred commanders if Atlantis/R'lyeh are not in game.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

Ok with my vote it is 23 vs 23. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Reminds me of the current pre-election situation in USA somehow... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Whoa, let's quickly search those churches for lost votes... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

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.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

I play/played 3 big mp games and in all of the endgames the most import thing was to hord the most clams.

Good armies and strong heroes are not as important then just cast wish for gems, Doom Horror and Armageddon all the time.

So i think clams are overpowered. Increasing the cost to 20 water would give the game more color and creativity especially in the endgame.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, that shouldn't be a surprise. You don't to whine about it if you think there's nothing that's really wrong, it's only the people who want to scream for nerfs that have to cry loudly. This ultimately is what ruins games: The loudest whiners are the ones who get listened to. Just look at the ongoing pattern of nerfings in Blizzard games: It's all because of the developers listening to people who whine too much.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I find that it's the people who are deathly afraid of their favourite overpowered strategies being removed that complain the loudest. After all, you manage to show up in every clam and VQ debate and make vague statements about how it's not really that poweful. If it's not powerful Norfleet, then why do you always use the Vampire Queen, and always build as many clams as possible?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wasn't aware that Blizzard games were ruined in any way shape or form by the rebalancing that happens. In fact, they are made better.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Simple: It's the chassis that best suits the strategy I prefer to play. If you want something that you can tweak into one of the best SCs possible, there's really only a few options: Vampire Queen, Allfather, Ghost King, anything with enough innate abilities to build on top of. I haven't ALWAYS used the VQ, only when the nation can spare the points for it. If I wanted to play a bless strategy, the VQ would definitely not be my first choice. It's entirely a stylistic preference: Change it, and I'll still pick the best basic chassis for tweaking into an SC and run with it: I think we can all agree that SOMETHING has to be the best at something, and for tweaking for an SC, few other options can match the VQ.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What else do you do with water gems? Summon Sea Trolls? Don't make me laugh. The underlying problem is that there are very few worthwhile water rituals, and of those there are, most are useful only under very specific conditions which occur infrequently. The fact of the matter is that there is very little you can do with water gems, and clams are a very attractive investment for a long-run thinker like myself: I plan strategies for the long term. Other people prefer to ignore the future and focus on the present. Both are valid approaches.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's your opinion. I, for one, do not think that change just for the sake of change is a good thing. Often times I see Blizzard go about nerfing things that weren't in any way unbalanced or even popularly USED because they were weak....and yet they were nerfed anyway. It's clear that they like to mess with things sometimes just because it's amusing to screw with people's heads.

[ April 16, 2004, 02:09: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which is to create a pretender that is immune to all elemental damage, all but invulnerable to magic resist spells, totally safe since she can never be forced out of her dominion, and capable of destroying any army that doesn't have an enormous number of death mages with it.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which is obviously the best choice.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Vanheim only, still has to worry about afflictions, and isn't immortal.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Also gets afflictions and isn't immortal.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm still waiting for your bless effect based army that can beat your tweaked out VQ.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which is obviously the problem, since she's immortal and thereby essentially immune to afflictions and death.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You've just stated that the imbalance exists, so I hardly see why you are arguing that it doesn't.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which is also just your opinion. Opinions are like *******s, everybody has one.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually I think it's more likely that, like many others, you've decided that it's the chassis that best suits winning the game, and you prefer to win.

Discussions about balance issues are not "whining" - they are undertaken in an attempt to improve the game. If (and I concede this is an overstatement) strategy in Dom2 amounts to little more than choosing the VQ and hoarding clams, then clearly it will become a more complex and interesting game if those imbalances are corrected.

The impression I get is that Illwinter concedes that Dom2 is not as well balanced as it could be, and encourages these discussions. From time to time, they act on our advice and very few people dispute that the game is better for that.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Clams are fine in a reasonably short game, but as a game drags on clams will represent a larger and larger percentage of total gem income.

If a nation tries to grow more powerful by aquiring provinces for gold and gem income, they have to compete with all the other nations for a finite resource.

If a nation tries to grow more powerful by making clams, all they have to do is invest their gems and wait. The gem income from clams has no upper limit and is a lot less vulnerable than income from provinces.

Growing steadily more powerful without having to fight for it doesn't seem to fit in with the spirit of the game.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In other words, something that will drive off the casual invader who hasn't thought his moves out. What the hell are you doing in my dominion anyway? When you fight a tweaked SC on its home turf, it's SUPPOSED to be uphill.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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. Fire-9 on flying units will give you the punch needed to take down an VQ, preferrably before it can raise shields, and Petrify will autoparalyze anything it hits to give you that extra time you need. VQs aren't really that tough if you can nail them before they raise their shields: If a VQ has to start towing around chaff, it'll give up much of the benefits it gained. Plenty of other options exist for targetting an SC's weaknesses.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which is obviously the problem, since she's immortal and thereby essentially immune to afflictions and death.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You see this as a problem, I see this as a fact of life that SOMETHING will ultimately climb to the top of the heap as the most potent chassis to build on. It's not as if planning around affliction removal is some sort of onerous chore, either. If affliction removal is such an immense problem for you, you haven't planned out an SC core strategy in sufficient depth. If an SC is merely an adjunct to another strategy, then yes, afflictions will eventually cripple you. If your strategy *IS* that SC, afflictions are a nonissue: You will target yourself at their removal. Considering how often I'm the first to GoH anyway, you can clearly see that I've planned this in advance.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't see how this is an imbalance against clams, more that water magic could use some better spell options. Clams are a long-run investment that don't truly pay off until the late game. I see no reason why people should be forbidden from aiming at a late-game strategy. I have no objections to seeing clams increased in cost to something like 20W or 10W/5N, but I also do not see them as a serious problem.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And they all stink. Let me point out that I wasn't the first to air mine out, though. I do, however, feel that it's worth making a counterpoint, lest the only people with something to say be exclusively the whiners.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

IMHO, clams are not the problem. The main problem is wish. Other things that could be part of the problems are ghost riders, vampire queens, and people playing on big maps with fewer people than the game is balanced for.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, more like something that will drive off virtually every other nation in the entire game, no matter how well together they put their army. How do you expect Marignon, for example, to be able to deal with it when their mages can't touch it?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why should a lone SC be able to wipe out an entire mage backed army? You can't require that every offensive battle be fought on friendly dominion, or the game would never end.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not a particularly good strategy, since it is totally nullified by 100% fire resistance, which is far too easy to obtain. The autoparalyze duration of petrify is dependent on magic resist, and it no longer Lasts more than about 4 or 5 turns. That strategy also applies only to Vanheim. If only 1 of the 17 nations can counter a VQ, then there's a problem.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Such as? Elemental magic is useless thanks to the overpowered elemental armor. Instant kill spells are useless thanks to MR boosting items. Curse is useless as it can't cause Lasting damage.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's ignoring the affliction issue entirely.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The VQ requires no such strategy to remove her afflictions, and there are very few other pretenders that have the recuperation ability and any combat potential of note. The Lord of the Wild, for example, costs 150 points, 50 points for new paths, and is Pangaea only. Any other affliction removal strategy requires large amounts of nature gems, playing Arco, or late game magic.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you weren't abusing clams then you wouldn't be able to guarantee that GOH stayed up for more than a few turns.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If there is no better use for water magic than to convert it into astral magic, then that is a clear imbalance.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No late-game strategy should allow you to totally wipe out every other player simply because they didn't build exactly the same items as you. If you have another late game strategy of equal power, to a wish per turn, then why don't you spell it out, instead of claiming that clams aren't overpowered.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's because I doubt that you've ever played a game where you didn't plan to build hundreds of them yourself.

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

[ April 16, 2004, 03:06: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

Wow so much anger over the poor little clams!
Me...I like my clams with butter and beer!!!

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If everyone hoarded clams, wouldn't that take care of the problem, as well?

The real problem I see with the game is...troops. If you do not think having more troops than your opponents is unbalancing, I suggest you play a game some time where you build absolutely no troops, and your opponent builds hundreds.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I find that it's the people who are deathly afraid of their favourite overpowered strategies being removed that complain the loudest. After all, you manage to show up in every clam and VQ debate and make vague statements about how it's not really that poweful. If it's not powerful Norfleet, then why do you always use the Vampire Queen, and always build as many clams as possible? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Very true. I find it amusing that somebody, who is using/abusing the same primitive clam-hoarding strategy that requires no strategic skills whatsoever in almost every game that he plays, calls the ones who points to this problem "whiners". It sounds very hypocratic to me. I was avoiding geting personal in the past, but you are crossing the line with your statements Norfleet, where you are trying to paint your opponents as "whinners" and "nerf-criers". Coming from you it just adds weight to anti-clams arguments.

[ April 16, 2004, 03:56: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It might, if every nation had identical access to water magic and the same gem producing site in their capital, but that would destroy the variety in the nations.

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

Troops also don't provide the resources for unlimited growth of more troops. 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.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

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

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

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

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not a particularly good strategy, since it is totally nullified by 100% fire resistance, which is far too easy to obtain.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The fire resistance is irrelevant. The flaming weapons are magical and penetrate the ethereal defense with only line troops.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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?

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

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

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

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

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So what? Your troops are dead anyways. The triple damage shield makes sure of that.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Her hitpoints are unimpressive in neutral dominion. Everything else is top of the line.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It should be no more difficult than the army that those points could have supported.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, that is unreasonable, since every single nation must be able to deal with it. Where's your solution for Pangaea?

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">More dodging the point. There are no income enhancing items other than the gem producing ones.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks for illustrating the imbalance once again. No nation should _ever_ have to build a specific item in order to compete.

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

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

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

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Troops should _never_ become just cannon fodder for SCs.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Because the game is about controlling the world.

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

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

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The theory goes that if you were to hit hard enough BEFORE it could raise shields and put up soul vortex + breath of winter, you would be able to kill it: Zeikko already demonstrated that this works with Devils.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So what? Your troops are dead anyways. The triple damage shield makes sure of that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Once again, the idea is to hit hard and fast, not wait around to trot over on foot. The devils did this nicely. Elemental Armor, the fact that a VQ has some 35+ def....none of that held up in the face of a giant dogpile of devils. They're not unstoppable, and having to tow around fodder sort of ended the reign of VQ supremacy there.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Special attributes are definitely top of the line. Base physical attributes, not so impressive. Att 12, Def 12, Str 13....not that impressive. You can definitely get better on other chassis.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It should be no more difficult than the army that those points could have supported.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Troops can be produced and summoned, as income permits. Pretenders cannot. Troops can be in many places at once. Pretenders cannot. Troops can siege. Pretenders cannot. Once again, troops have their roles to play, but you can't expect them to just brute-force their way through everything. There were situations in other games where the VQ simply was an inappropriate option for the fight, and so I used other troops. And they worked. Different strokes, different folks.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Pangaea, eh? I'm in a Pangaea game right now, pitted against an Ermorian VQ. I'll let you know how it goes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I see the problem as being a deficiency in water magic. What would you *DO* with water magic? Summon Sea Trolls? Those are only useful if you're a land nation trying to get a toehold on the sea. Otherwise they're subpar.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">More dodging the point. There are no income enhancing items other than the gem producing ones.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Gems *ARE* income.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fine. Try not building any mages, see how well you compete. There are simply things you have to do if you expect to stay afloat and competitive: There's multiple ways you can attack the problem, but ultimately, you DO have to do SOMETHING.

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

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Trapeze/teleport can only land you in a few places: Inside of your own castles, or in front of an enemy castle. If you CT to your own castles, you simply sit in the castle uselessly, unless the enemy storms your castle. If you try to break the siege, he can be gone before you can kill him. If you CT into an ENEMY castle, you're now staring at a wall. VQs can't siege. If you CT to an enemy empty province, you kill some PD. Anyone can do that.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Bullcrap. I've used plenty of troops on both defense and offensive. I tend to favor summoned troops over produced troops, but nonetheless, they're troops, not SCs.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Bullcrap. I'm pitted against a giant Ermor that rules half the world in another game(See above). I think I can lick this.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Troops should _never_ become just cannon fodder for SCs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wishful thinking. SCs can be equipped, troops can never be upgraded. At some point they'll fall due to obsolesence. Still, there ARE options, and you can use them: Mass Flight would put your ordinary troops in the same competitive situation as the aforementioned flying devils.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What a coincidence. I was just beginning to get so tired of your constant snivelling that I was just looking for you on the channel earlier to do something which was entirely not a VQ. Maybe play scales or bless for a change. I was so hoping to squash you and end your constant whining for good.

Alas, you weren't there, and I'm not sure we have enough people for a game now.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Alternatively, you can diversify your assets so that you can extract income from multiple sources, so you can actually survive a setback, rather than simply die.

Ultimately, I hold a dim view of people screaming "nerf, nerf, nerf".

[ April 16, 2004, 06:38: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

Isn't it the Ermorian dominion that's allowing for supercombatanthood the broken thing and not the Vampire Queen herself?

About clams making up for the rest of the water path, compare it to this scenario plucked from Warcraft 3.

"Undead has crappy melee units. The Abomination and Ghoul simply cannot stand up against heavier hitters like Tauren or Huntresses, heck, they get slaughtered by Riflemen, which they're supposed to counter! Because of this, the only viable strategy is mass Crypt Fiends with Obsidian Statue support and it makes up for Ghoul and Abomination crappiness by being uncounterable, whereas the other strategy is countered by EVERYTHING. So Undead, as a race, is balanced"

Of course, this just means that everyone will pick Undead to use Statues and Crypt Fiends and completely neglect all the other units, so they have a force that can beat every enemy without any element of crappiness.

Now, for you who aren't experienced with Warcraft, replace "Undead" with "Water", "Crypt Fiends and Statues" with "Clams" and "Ghouls and Abominations" with "the rest of the water path"

On a side note, only you can prevent forest fires.

Edit: And on another side note, Gargoyles are apparently the new cheese now.

Edit 2: I must look like a rambling moron to anyone who can't figure out what I mean... which is probably around 87% of you. *shrug*

[ April 16, 2004, 07:15: Message edited by: HotNifeThruButr ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's a pretty silly opinion. It seems you have played too many MMORPGs.

If in a strategy game something is overbalanced ( as evidencied by most people doing it ) then it should be nerfed.

That being said I think that the VQ is overbalanced. Actually it's lifedrain that is overbalanced. It really allows for wacky stuf when it is on the SC chassis. By wacky I mean early expansion.

I don't know how much I would nerf her though. She costs a lot right now. She has a moderate cost for new magic paths. But something should be done, really. Few pretenders are as good as her our of the gate. Certianly she slows down some as the game progresses, but at the start she is fearsome.

Oh and Clams are pretty messed up. Something should be done, really. Don't know what. Perhaps just take the damn things out. Astral pearls are just very powerful.

[quote]
About clams making up for the rest of the water path, compare it to this scenario plucked from Warcraft 3.
[quote]

Ahh sweet warcraft. The best RTS ever made. TA was the best engine ( and with extensive moding the best RTS ever ) but WC3 has the whole package right out of the box. And killer match making.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I salute you sir. You comprehend how balance works within games that are played on the internet! Well done!

BTW, you got to love CF + Statues. Decent firepower, great durability. If they had slow they would rule ( cripple is no substitute ). The low micromanagement allows you to take full advantage of the powers of your heros.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think the problem is the armor type. What counters unarmored ( every night elf player responds in unison )? Siege. What can siege not hit? Air. Hmmm.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

Piercing beats unarmored much harder than siege does *150% I think, whereas siege does 125% for certain, or as many would put it, "fo' sho'"*

The real problem was that while Riflemen, Archers, and Head Hunters make rock-strewn meat out of gargoes, Death Coil makes meat out of them, so does stone-form-when-they-focus-fire.

They should rename Spell Breakers to Crack Addicts... well, Magic Addicts.

But we're going off topic now.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">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. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For a clam hoarder to win against a non-hoarder, he only needs to fight his opponent to a stalemate while making clams in the background.

For a non-hoarder to win against a clam hoarder, he needs to conquer his opponent's provinces and he needs to do it quickly before the hoarder's gem income becomes overwhelming. Fighting your opponent to a standstill actually means you are losing ground.

-------
"Well, in our country," said Alice, still panting a little, "you'd generally get to somewhere else -- if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing."

"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

[ April 16, 2004, 07:57: Message edited by: Catquiet ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Good lord. Given the choice between contracting the bubonic plague and playing MMORPGs, I'll take the plague. Thanks anyway, though.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think it's a bit of a stretch to say "most people" are doing with regards to the entire VQ matter. Most people, on the other hand, build or summon units. Clearly, units are overpowered, right? Let's nerf units.

If VQs and Clams were the most powerful things ever, I'd be seeing EVERYONE with a VQ pouring out clams. Clearly, this isn't the case. Plenty of games are won by non-VQs without a sizeable clam hoard. For every game won by a clam hoarder with VQ , many other would-be clam hoarders and VQ drivers are gruesomely beaten to death by rushers before their clamming can give them anything useful.

To prove this point, I aim to find a game to pit myself against a would-be VQ clam hoarder and kill him without having the starting VQ or the clam hoard. Grah!

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't really buy that story. While it's certainly true that there are pretender chassis that are very much subpar and generally considered to be dullards and never taken, and the VQ is certainly one of the best combat chassis options, it's not QUITE that powerful out of the gate, and doesn't really take off until some research, or items, can be slapped on. Oddly, none of these spells cast are native paths of the VQ, which further inflates the VQ's actual cost because you have to pay the moderate price for all these extra paths. To really go overboard with it, with the way *I* run one, costs 500 nation points: I've effectively expended the entire national allocation on chassis + magic...just to get a combat monster. I more or less forgo a useful bless effect or scales worth crap for this privilege.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't believe that clams are "pretty messed up", although I wouldn't mind seeing them bumped up in construction level, or raised in cost, as I've mentioned. However, I don't really care for whines or somebody else's funny little mods on the matter: If the developers feel it's real issue, they can do something about it in a patch. Then it'll be OFFICIAL. The role of clams ultimately doesn't change: The sacrifice of short-term use of income for a long-term investment, as opposed to a great deal of other stuff, which is "live for the minute" thinking. I tend to frown on this sort of thinking as a personal matter: Given a short-term solution, and a long-term solution with a better payoff, I'll go with the long-term solution any day. Patience is easy: a penny saved is a penny earned, but resources squandered today are squandered forever.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I never claimed clams "make up" for the rest of the water path. I merely said that water gems, except in special cases, are rarely useful: Once you have them, you have to do SOMETHING with them. Why not invest them so that someday, you'll actually get mileage out of them?

[ April 16, 2004, 08:03: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">For a non-hoarder to win against a hoarder, he merely needs to halt the hoarding: If mages who make clams keep getting eaten by horrors, the hoarding will stop shortly.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

Raising cost sounds really nice, that way, you don't have hordes of clams spawning more and more clams like demon-rabbit-aphrodisiac-cracked up-clams

Demon clams, come unto me!

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It'd be nice. It would seperate out the mere wannabes from the true investors. But it's still easier to counter clams by making sure anyone who makes one gets eaten by a horror. The more clams you make, the more hammers you lose when your clammers are eaten by horrors. There are few normal mages, with any kind of bodyguards, that can withstand horror attacks.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

Seems that in order to get lots of clams and have them be useful (that is, not get them first at turn 90), you need to
- produces water mages
- use those water mages to go and find water gems
- use those water mages to forge clams/turn
- use those water gems to forge clams

That is what you spend. This has a nice payback, of course.
People who do not horde clams can, surely, do other worthwhile things with those resources instead of produce mages, have them find water gems, have them forge clams?
This is not to say that Clams might be harder to research, or require 10-water 5-astral pearls to make (my personal choice), but they certainly do not break the game in my opinion.
I find the comparison to Warcraft III extremely poor, no offense intended. WIII is an excellent game for what it is, but lacks the diversity found in Dom2. I really dont think there is any "cheese" in Dom2, which is not to say that everything is perfectly balanced (I feel some nations are stronger than others on the whole, but that is just me), just that there is no real comparison to WIII ("when you get to 2 minutes 40 seconds you will have your Beastmaster do XXX while your opponent still needs 20 seconds to get that Grunt out...").
Any nation with good magic gem income capabilities just needs to fight those other nations to a standstill. Yes. But I just think that is easier said than done.
Just my opinion, however, and I am a certified newbie.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

i like fire gem hoarding http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I know thats just a joke.

Fever fetish or blood stones are both at a normal cost/benefit rate. There are 3 major advantages for the clams:

1. It cost only (2) water. Its easier to find mages with water magic path then the 2 different pathes of the fetish/stone. With robe/bracelet water 2 is easy.

2. clam is without disadvantage. Fever fetish diseases and blood stones costs are to high for hording.

3. clams produce astral pearls and this are the universal gems in the game. They can be exchanged in each other gem for a 2:1 rate. Later the pearls are used direct for wish/disentchant/arcane nexus. Last one is really hard when cast with 1500-2000 pearls. Non-horders have no chance to dispell and the horder can easily disentchant each other non-horder global entchantment and take the slot for his own spells. With an 200-300 astral income (clams+arcane nexus) there are enough pearls to wish for doom horrors, armageddon or just more gems.

The problem with the clams occurs mainly in the longer medium/big map games. In smaller maps the clam tactic may be to slow. Anyway with a cost of only 10 and without any disadvantages the clams are overpowered and clam hording is a "performance of duty" for every MP player in an endgame. Its really boring because its always the same mechanism...

[ April 16, 2004, 11:27: Message edited by: calmon ]

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So, now Mictlan and Abysia can do something about it if the clam hoarder hasn't been smart enough to put domes on his provinces.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You don't actually need to find any alternative sources of water gems. As described in "The Next Patch" thread, even with only 5 astral pearls per turn from your capitol it takes only 69 turns to reach 100 clams.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm... let me see, blood stones 20+5, but they are also pump earth magic skill. Thinking that you can easily amass huge numbers of blood slaves, i don't see where is the main difference with clams.
So BS are broken!!!</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To get to 200 earth stones, which is the equivalent in magical income to 100 clams, will cost you 4000 blood slaves if you don't have hammers on your forgers, or 3000 slaves if you do. The stones do produce earth gems to pay for that part, but you can't alchemize gems into blood slaves.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's making the assumption that everybody plays to win, instead of to enjoy the game. That's not a valid assumption.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

After looking at the VQ (I never played her) I think the developers just forgot one thing that would balance her. It follows all the themes in the game and makes logical sense (just watch any vampire movie) She should simply be very susceptible to fire. I know whenever I meet a vampire on the street I have an overwhelming need to set them on fire!

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But if you play and enjoy losing, why do you care about what you see as uber-overpowered strategies?

Enjoy the loss!

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well piercing does work pretty well against but it does not work as well as siege. Rememeber siege units do wackloads of damage with an area effect and at very long range. When you see decent amount of siege and you have unarmored troops you know you are doomed ( you are also somewhat doomed by piercing as well ). Remember wrt. piercing, most flying units are light armored and they take a real whooping from piercing.

Sorry to digress but it's a great game ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well not everyone, but everyone who was clued in AND wanted an easy win. Quite often people want to chalange themselves, especially when they are playing against opponents who are sub-par ( compared with themselves ) they try sub-optimal stratigies.

Look clams are much like metal makers + fusion in TA. Actually, it's basically identical. In 1v1 games metal makers are not "overpowered" as you can win without using metal makers (by rushing hard). However in FFA games they are dramatically overpowered since they are the only path to victory ( again against competent opponents ). This game is much like an FFA game ( since we generally play with multiple opponents ). Further, clams are worse than metal makers + fusion since they require a resource which is not as critical to one's war machine as the metal + energy which goes into the fusion+metal makers ( clearly water is important but not as important ).

As to the VQ. She's just amazing at the start of the game. Maybe she is balanced considering that she's not great at the end. Maybe she is balanced since she costs quite a few points ( mostly for the magic ). Maybe. I don't think so, personally. If I was playing against someone near my level ( which I do not think is that high ) I would take a VQ for sure.

Re: Clams overpowered?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's making the assumption that everybody plays to win, instead of to enjoy the game. That's not a valid assumption. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps, Graeme, you would want to rephrase that. To the casual eye it doesn't hold much water and in the context of the above it comes across as argumentative more than anything else and it is a tone that runs througout just about every post you put up on this board in response to something Norfleet Posts lately. Most of your replies to Posts are helpful and informative in the extreme. Your contributions to this board and on the summoned creature reference are noted and appreciated. The Posts you give in response to Norfleet, however, come across as being more argumentative and vindictive than constructive and critical. You seem to have something personal against him. That's fine but it would be nice if you could limit the sniping at him off the public Boards. I have noticed his responses to yours don't contain the same amount of bile you seem to spew at him. I wasn't really going to write this and I will not post on this thread again. I just got tired of witnessing this stuff and felt like saying something. Good day.