Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

There's been a heckuva lot of discussion over the Last few months on 2 balance issues, being:

1. The Vampire Queen; and
2. Clam Hoarding

I'm interested in knowing whether the devs have formed an opinion (or even a slight leaning) on either of these issues yet, and whether any related changes are planned for the next patch. Johan? Kristoffer?

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm on the fence regarding the clam hoarding, but ... Playing Atlantis I haven't seen anything to do with its water gems but make clams. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

I thought the devs have already made it known that they don't see a problem with the way Clams are right now. Seems like you're beating a dead horse...

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

I second that. These two issues are the only real unbalances in the current state of the game in my opinion, everything else is perfectly balanced, which is IMHO a huge archivement, considering how deep and complex this game is.

Although I would put it in reverse order:

1. Clam hoarding
2. VQ

VQ is certainly annoying but is just one unit after all. Clam hoarding can potentially have much larger impact on long MP games, therefore I think it has higher priority.

So what developers think about it, after all these long discussions regarding these two topics?

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The only thing I've seen is a comment from Kristoffer saying that he was still undecided on the clam issue. Could you provide a reference?

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

The topic has most likely been deleted by now. I remember it had gotten quite long. There were examples of how fast someone could get hundreds of clams available by a certain turn, arguments over how those examples weren't realistic, etc etc blah. I think it started out being a list of things people wanted in the next patch, but ended up being a shouting match about clams. But my opinion's still the same. Some people think clams are unbalanced. Others don't. Bringing this argument back into the forefront is beating a poor, dead horse. You don't hate horses, do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

I know I have come to the conclusion that I will not play anymore Multiplayer games with VQ's in them anymore.I have been playing strategy games for 20+ years and I know when I see an exploit. The VQ is an exploit, no question. Every strategy Online game goes through this. It is human nature to find exploits. I have to give credit to the developers in that the units are very balanced, and boy are there alot of units!
But I think the Gods need to be looked at again.

There will be those that scream we are whinners but those are the same people that wish to use this exploit. There mentality is the same as professional athletes that use steriods. If you do not understand what I am saying watch the Southpark show where Jimmy uses steriods in the special olympics it could be enlightening.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The topic you arte looking for is "The Next Patch", and it should still be there since the Posts from Last november are still around.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't hate horses and I don't want to restart any arguments. All I want to know is what the devs think.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps I can interest you in the mosehansen game Orania_Fast (see thread "Orania Semiblitz"). One VQ is allowed, however, in Black Forest Ulm.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

Well, since this thread is now becoming increasingly clogged with non-developer commentary, without a dev having deigned to comment, I might include these insights from people who I think have managed to blackmail their way into being the beta testers, and as such, can probably be considered more skilled and knowledgeable than the rest of us:

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So it would seem that least those closest to the throne believe that they are not all they're cracked up to be.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sigh.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
No offense intended to beta testers but thier opinions are not the end all of knowing knowledge (I myself have been a beta tester for many games). If this were true then every game that came out would never need patches. The beta testers did a great job on Dominions II balancing, but many exploits surface later after extensive play by customers. This is common in most games on the market.

Norfleet, what I do not understand is that you are a skilled player no doubt, why are you so set in defending the VQ?? Would it not be more interesting and challenging with Gods more balanced???

[ May 04, 2004, 04:16: Message edited by: Pirateiam ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

I thought some people were going on about how the Ermor themes are a tad too strong.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually I think the nations and units are extremely well balanced. It is the Gods that need to be looked at. Every God should be competitive and they simply are not. How many Crones have you seen in Multi? I see at least 2-3 VQ's per Multi.

[ May 04, 2004, 04:36: Message edited by: Pirateiam ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

Have I mentioned that Ermor themes allow for crap like supercharged VQs? You've just gotten a ton of pretender points by sacrificing scales.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've been watching - I don't think either has come Online since the initial post.

This was just a question to them, and not intended to become a discussion. I could have used email, but I thought that the answer would interest everyone.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you think about it, a beta-tester is almost certain to deny an alleged imbalance. If he agreed, then the imbalance would have been eliminated in the beta-testing.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First, by that logic : I never use crones, and I lose all my games. Therefor, crones are overpowered. Second - no slight intended to Zen, but if he's winning 95% of all his MP games, he needs to try swimming in a bigger pond. Especially given diplomacy and alliances, I'd be amazed if anyone was winning 95% in a range of games / players.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper: Vampire Queens have their points, but they're not that good. You just need to play with some different people.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So it would seem that least those closest to the throne believe that they are not all they're cracked up to be. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Again - no insult meant to Jasper, nor Zen, nor anyother beta tester. But Beta Testers tend to think they know how the game is supposed to work, therefor they have foregone conclusions, prejudices, and don't really push the envelope.

And, in your analogy (which I'm not saying is apropos), "those closest to the throne" tend to be sycophants, yes-men, and assassins. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And yep, there are other pretenders almost as good as the VQ - maybe even better. But there's only one AllFather in any game, and only one Carrion Dragon, and 13 VQs.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's nice of you to say, but I think it's you, who needs to swim in a bigger pond. You can lose all your games playing a VQ as well, that takes as much skill as losing with a Crone. You may be surprised but that's fine, it is precisely diplomacy and alliances why you can win 95% of your games.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No insult ment to Newbies, but they often have no idea what they are talking about at any given moment in time and constantly contridict themselves. Beta Testers are there to help provide a service and give perspective to the design of the game, not to whine about personal preference or playstyle.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">So if there are as many as good, maybe even better, why isn't the crusade to nerf them in full effect? Is it because you've been beaten with a VQ more often than the others? Or that it's easier to do for more nations? By your example, noone at all plays Rainbows or Bless Effects, only VQ's and combat pretenders. Which unfortunately is not the case so there must be a flaw in either your argument or your experiences.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That might be for huge budget games or maybe alot of other companies, but even the Developers for IW either state they didn't think of it, or didn't care/have enough time for something that they later find imbalanced. I'm fairly certain that most of the Beta Testers would fully admit if something they feel is genuinely wrong or inbalanced if they didn't happen to catch it. I may be giving too much credit, but considering how Dom2 came about and is progressing I don't think so.

[ May 04, 2004, 05:44: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Obviously, Cainehill exaggerated to make the point, which is that VQs are disproportionally popular. And to my mind, that's the only real point worth making.

If, for whatever reason, people continue to prefer the VQ when they're playing to win, then clearly the game would be improved if something were done to reduce the frequency at which it is selected.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If they are playing VQ's to win and they don't, does that mean that it isn't the design's fault but the player?

I understand completely if something becomes too popular then it needs to be looked at for reasons and back before the rehashing and second rehashing I believe at the very least I said that modifying the VQ's cost to 125 and 50 would be a good change. It wouldn't change the fact that Ermor or a Temperature nation could make high-powered VQ's but it would put them on par with each of the other 'designed for combat' pretenders.

So maybe it has been addressed and there may be a change in the works, but going to extremes over and over is in no way, benefitial to a cause.

Edit: And no I don't think you were Zap, I think you just want to know if anything is being done about them, not whether or not your personal preference is being implemented.

[ May 04, 2004, 05:52: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Certainly. But if the popularity continues over a period of time (which I believe it has) then it means they probably are winning.

And even if it doesn't, the persistent popularity is a problem in itself, regardless of what causes it, because it reduces the diversity of pretenders in the game.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A "good" Beta testers job is also to take ideas, constructive criticism and possible problems that players (customers) have possibly uncovered and put them to tests with an open mind. It is not to degrade ideas and take a better than thou attitude. I have an open mind, run some test games with betas and come back with a fair conclusions. If this is not currently being done for Ilwinter you are not doing your job. Please refrain from throwing the "newbie" slam around also it does not reflect well on you.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

If every game played strictly to win will have 3 or 4 VQs, doesn't that mean that every game, 2-4 VQs will fail to win? That's not a terribly encouraging success ratio, and seems more like people trying to imitate somebody else's strategy without understanding the finer nuances of it, apeing only the most visible element without any of the underlying strategy.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You assume this hasn't been done, as if a month ago when it surfaced it wasn't given a few preliminary tests. Or if it wasn't tested when it was first created in Dom2. I don't have to take ideas to IW, because IW reads these Boards. If a Beta Tester thinks something is a good idea (like say Arralen's Pangaea Mod) then they will try to lean on it to see if the Developers would like it.

If you'd like to assume that Beta Testers only put their own feelings and don't take both sides, there is nothing anyone will say that will convince you otherwise. It's not a them vs you, it's a concentrated effort.

You also have to look at it from IW's point of view. Maybe they don't think there is a problem or there is enough reasonable doubt to not make whatever changes happen to be foaming at the mouth. All KO has to say is "Thematic" and if it's set, it doesn't matter how many arguments you throw at it, it is thematic to him and it's his game and I respect that. If I have a real problem with it, you can Mod it.

[ May 04, 2004, 06:05: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Absolutely. At the end of the day, only the dev's opinion counts for anything. That's why I'm trying to find out what it is.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Certainly. But if the popularity continues over a period of time (which I believe it has) then it means they probably are winning.

And even if it doesn't, the persistent popularity is a problem in itself, regardless of what causes it, because it reduces the diversity of pretenders in the game. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you're saying that the Pretender selection for competitive games is slimmer than the actual selection of Pretenders, both Human and Monster, then I agree with you 100% and have from the beginning. That doesnt mean I think you should nerf all the Pretenders above the standard or middle ground, but make other pretenders more competitive friendly.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, I'm saying more than that, so perhaps we're not in full agreement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I'm saying that the Vampire Queen in particular stands out as the most popular pretender by a wide margin. That's only a subjective view, of course, but it's one shared by many posters to this forum.

In other words, I'm proposing that a nerf to the VQ would be the biggest single balance improvement that could be made, short of reviewing the whole pantheon.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I did not assume it was not tested but since it seems to be a major concern with many players I did assume that there would be an explanation of the results of the test? If the conclusion of the betas and devs is there is nothing wrong then I will except it. Have I missed the conclusion, could you lead me to the Posts?

Since I have Beta tested many times before I do not think it is an us vs them situation. In fact it should be a team work effort - betas - devs and customers.

Again if Ilwinter believes it is thematic, it is thier game and I will except it. Just state this and we can move on.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is where personal opinion differs. My personal belief is the biggest single balance improvement that could be made would be making LI a factor in the game by cost-effectiveness and either battlefield viability or ability. As it represents an entire swath of units in each and every nation/theme.

To each their own and what they feel improvement, I never said you shouldn't have started this thread or your curiosity should not be sated.

[ May 04, 2004, 06:24: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Rome was not built in a day and neither are Developer Decisions. You'll have to wait for them to answer your question. Developers are notorious for making you wait for the patch before learning everything they have adjusted.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then you should also know that a good % of the suggestions both beta and customers are not implemented for any number of reasons and should be able to accept the time frame they are delivered in.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, sure. I should have said the biggest single balance improvement to pretenders, which is what we were talking about.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is fair, I will wait to hear from the devs. Thank you.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

Hmm, it's a bit confusing what Zen was trying to say there (I'll skip that part) but if

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">than why keep arguing? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif AFAICT nobody wants to nerf VQ into oblivion. For example I sugested changing paths cost from 30 to 80, which would be pretty similar additional point-cost as Zen suggested for the standart VQ MP templates. Some people, despite all their experience, (or because of it) like to argue way too much...

[ May 04, 2004, 11:45: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ROFLMAO, this one has to be tagged as an epithome of bad faith ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

Beeing an absolute newbie with a healthy respeckt for veterans and beta testers , (trolls and grudges as well) all my instinkt tells me to keep out of this , but I can't resist. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

strong players says that vampire queen is not "to" strong. Skilled players says that vampire queen can be beaten "with skill".

But less skilled and not that strong players feels forced into take one anyway as they don't know how to really counter her. And as such they don't know if " strong and skilled " players are right

This makes for games where many vampirequeens flock around.

So my question is.
No matter if the vampirequeen is overpovered or not, does MP games loss in quality from being flooded with Vampire Queens ?

If not! what then is the problem?

If MP games loss in quality then something needs to be done! Isn't it that simple?

There is absolute no need for this beatyfull game to loose in quality or btw varity .

And as such I would like to see varity restored. I don't care at all if the VQ is overpowered or not, as long as someone just wins this argument clearly, and the consequense is either education of the newbies or a nerfing of the VQ.

Because I for one does not like to look forward to my first MP game with to many VQ pretenders.

And seen in that light I would eagerly wait for the developers respons.

---
off topic I would love to see a Van Helsing relic (unique artifackt weapon there removes imortality when hitting succesfully and offcause makes the vielder horror marked.)
or maybe a Van Helsing merc

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

For my part, I think both sides are correct. I just don't think they are looking at the same point in time.

The people who believe that the VQs are 'just fine' normally cite any number of spells that simply destroy the VQ (or any SC, for that matter). This is true. The VQ is, perhaps, the most vulnerable SC Pretender chassis in the game against other players. If a Human player cannot deal with an opposing VQ, given time and resources, that is the fault of the Human player.

However.

The major problem with the VQ IMO is that she becomes too powerful _too early_. It seems that everyone agrees that the VQ can be a force to be reckoned with by turn 5, no matter what nation you are playing with. Therefore, the VQ should be seen not so much as a SC but as the ultimate early expansion engine. This _is_ a problem. Something I've noted in Arryn's AAR, and in other Posts by other people, is that the early expansion in MP must be extremely rapid, or you will lose. No one can deny in this type of game that the faster you expand, the better you are situated for the later game. If I produce 30% more gold than my opponent when I reach him, I have a decided advantage over him, and, all else being equal, I should beat him.

The advantage of the VQ is one of increased early expansion, from my viewpoint. IMO, any change to the VQ should be done to counteract this advantage.

Bayushi Tasogare

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

I seem to be jumping in late here...

Personally Im not that impressed by the Vampire Queen. I seem to remember similar conversations concerning Nataraja and Wyrm.

Has something changed recently? Or has a few players discovered her usefulness? Are these "many players" who are concerned actually the same players frequently?

Im in agreement that if anything is so common as to seem like an automatic choice then it should be examined for possible fixes. Likewise anything which seems like an obvious "never pick" (which is the area I tend to pay my attention to).

However, there will always be something on top and something on bottom. The only question is whether its way too much.

I suppose we could do a poll like the clams one.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The White Bull does very well at early expansion. The problem with the VQ is that she can go into battle without equiping any items, take a large chunk out of an elite endgame army and be ready to fight on the next turn even if they manage to kill her.

[ May 04, 2004, 15:27: Message edited by: Catquiet ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

Hmm, that was a lot of Posts in a single day. Suppose it is a matter close to the heart of many a good player.

My current thoughts:
Clam. Overpowered particulary in large games where there are players that are not prepared for it.

Clam hoarding: boring. One shouldn't have to prevent people from doing it.

Vampire Queen. A recent complaint compared to the clam. I have not yet formed my own opinion on it. Bayushi Tasogare made a good point about the early expansion. In the late game I would say that it makes a lousy SC. It might be used as a 'super mage' in the late game, but I'm not sure if this is how it is used. Equipment on an immortal is sort of pointless, but buffing and combat magic can be used to good results.

There are counters, but it might be that they are too few or too obscure for most players. Perhaps someone should make a 'Slay the Queen' article. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

One final note. Stop picking on the betas, pick on us instead. Most betas on this forum are rather new. They have had little to do with the balancing of the game. I'm the real culprit (or JK).

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why doesn't anyone complain about the Phoenix. A 10 Fire 4 Air Phoenix commands vast powers of annihilation. It is also flying and immortal. I believe this is the main problem. No risk of loosing your pretender combined with mobility and destructive powers. But you can only be at one place at a time.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you think about it, a beta-tester is almost certain to deny an alleged imbalance. If he agreed, then the imbalance would have been eliminated in the beta-testing. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not the case at all. Most of my discussion around dominions 2 has been about various inbalances. This continues to be the case, and I don't think dominions is as balanced as many others apparently do.

It just happens that I think that clams and Vampire Queens are not problems.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I disagree. The Vampire Queen is hardly alone in being able to do this, and in fact there are pretenders that can start conquering immediately.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Why doesn't anyone complain about the Phoenix. A 10 Fire 4 Air Phoenix commands vast powers of annihilation. It is also flying and immortal. I believe this is the main problem. No risk of loosing your pretender combined with mobility and destructive powers. But you can only be at one place at a time. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The Phoenix does it's damage with spells and you know those spells are going to be either fire or lightning, new paths are too expensive for anything else. Low HPs and few item slots means there is no way to turn it into a supercombatant. Put a strong fighter in an elemental hauberk and you can take out the phoenix. The phoenix is fine as it is.

The Vampire Queen can have 30 protection, quickness, 18+ attack and defense, damage shields, and immunity to all elemental damage without any equipment at all. Add an armor piercing life drain attack which heals HPs + restores fatigue whenever she damages an enemy and you have an enemy that regains health faster than you can damage her. The VQ is not a game breaker but she does give more power for the points than any other pretender.

Raising the path cost of the VQ to 80 would be the simplest solution.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The phoenix is alot more vulnerable, can't use items, is less flexible, and less potent for the cost. The phoenix is much more of a budget entry into fire and air magic than a supercombatant. IMHO Vampire queens fill a substantially different roll, and are in general more usefull.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">IMHO you exaggerate your case. How are you getting 18+ attack and defense without equipment? How do you manage to cast invulnerability, quickness, several damage shields, and 3 elemental immunities?

Even then, what you describe isn't so incredibly potent (nor even IMHO the best way to field a VQ).
Other pretenders easily surpase this power, in particular due to much higher hitpoints, double her strength, and better attack/defense.

The VQ queen's strength isn't her brutishness, but rather her flexibility. Regeneration, enc 0, cold immunity, poison immunity, immortal, ethereal, flying, and stealthy.

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

I had originally planned to stay out of this, as IMHO the debates over the Clam and VQ hasn't been constructive. However, as my name has been invoked I am now compelled to appear, as though drawn by invisible chains. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

First. Yes, I am a beta tester, although I only become one recently. I like to think this doesn't make me partial, but instead just gives me an early peek at upcoming patches. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now, perhaps I should know better, but I'm going to be frank and blunt in my opinions about Clams and VQs:

1) Clams. IMHO the context in which they can be abused just doesn't exist in Dominions. There is no way you can expect to sit unmolested for the 30-40 turns necessary, and the oppurtunity cost is extreme. I discretely polled around of those whom I believe to be the best players, and they all agree, while those who disagree are unknown to me.

Moreover, I feel the points arguing that clams are overpowered have been countered, and then merely reiterated. Could I be mistaken? You bet! But I am not interested in revisting the topic until new arguments are presented.

2) Vampire Queens. They are good, but IMHO those arguing she is unbalanced ignore her weaknesses. She is not particularily tough in combat, nor extraordinarily usefull in early expansion. I absolutely think there are better pretenders, and that Vampire Queens are simply popular.

On the other hand, given the oppurtunity I would make some changes to her:

-remove immunity to poison. doesn't seem thematic to me.
-add fire vulnerbility. Perhaps I've read to many White Wolf source books, but this seems thematic.
-remove need not eat. A trivial point, but still.
-Increase her magic path cost to 50 or 60.
-Allow her for less factions.

On the third hand... In general I think it's a better idea to improve weaker pretenders than to neuter the better ones.

[ May 04, 2004, 16:58: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

What makes a VQ a poor late game SC ? Please read on before responding !

Now, I can see where she might be a mediocre late game SC, due entirely due to her low(for an SC) hp. Otoh, her immortality goes some way to compensate for this.

I can see that you can more reliably put expensive equipment on a higher HP pretender but the number of built in effects on the VQ again, does something to compensate for this.

Maybe not entirely. I mean late, late game, I would rather have an artifact equipped, high HP chassis, I think.

But if VQ is the best early/mid game SC, how does she compare to other early/mid game chasses ? That is, if she is better than a white bull, say, in the early game and the mid game, instead of comparing her to specific late game pretenders, shouldn't we be comparing her to those early and mid game ones ?

IE, *if* she is better than some pretenders in the early game, the middle game AND the late game (after taking cost of paths and everything else into account, natch), that would classify her as being over-powered, clearly. I am not saying she is or is not better but to say that she is not better than every pretender in every situation in every phase of the game isn't really much of a declaration at all. A lot of the arguments about why she is not over-powered have focused on why she isn't invincible and that's a red herring.

- Kel

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hehe, I am not disagreeing with you on the subject but that's a pretty dismissive thing to say. Rude, even. This 'Old Boys Club' have a public roster somewhere ?

- Kel

Re: Dev Thinking on Balance?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hehe, I am not disagreeing with you on the subject but that's a pretty dismissive thing to say. Rude, even. This 'Old Boys Club' have a public roster somewhere ?

- Kel </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yup. They also meet every third week in an old pub somewhere in Detroit to discuss how to govern the world without newbies noticing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Those Jasper believes to be the best players are probably people he knows from MP games since the days of Dom1. A bit rude perhaps, but there were some remarks on the betas that were a bit rude as well.