A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Make it so that the Talisman is only available to bases, weapon platforms, and satellites (i.e. for defensive purposes only).

[ July 16, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Spoo ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Did I miss something? It sounds like you are replying to a post about the Talisman.

What you have suggested can be done easily but why? It give such an unfair advantage to us religious freaks who use it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

My favorite fix is to make it a mount (even one with +100% to hit). That way (at least in SE4), you have to decide between big damage and total accuracy.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As it stands you can already put talismans on bases and weapon platforms (not sure about sats). What I'm proposing is to remove them from ships.

It would also discourage people from dropping aggressiveness all the way when they take the Religious trait.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

I think he was asking why you would want to take away their advantage. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Because it is an unfair, unbalancing, illogical, unrealistic advantage.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's not a fix. Anyone in their right mind would take 100% hit chance over big damage (unless in a situation where the big damage guns hit quite a bit, which as a talsiman player fighting only at maximum weapon range is not bloody likely). Althought I suppose it does weaken the talisman somewhat.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

What it does is take away the biggest advantage of large ships--the ability to far out-damage small ships. A BB can equal the damage of two LCs with less tonnage and lower cost. The big numbers also help 1) chew through emissive/crystalline armor effects, and 2) wear down enemy ships faster. Add the talisman, and it's even more uneven. This way, the BB would be more equivalent to the two LCs--it would probably even be 1 combat MP slower. It's almost like having a "big little" ship.

[edit]And if the weapons are the standard APB/PPB (which attenuate with range), a choice between 100% hit at max range/minimal damage and 60-70% hit at closer range/max damage/multiplied damage isn't so clear. It takes a lot of unmounted APB hits to destroy a BB.

[ July 12, 2003, 06:45: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Why not just increase the size of the talisman to 100, 200kT or whatever you feel "balanced"? Why not increse the cost of the racial trait religious? IMHO there will never be a general concensus over balance especially if it comes to racial technologies. So I believe we should use the simple solutions to balance the game as we individually like it. But we already had this discussion for the allegiance subverter.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

"Because it is an unfair, unbalancing, illogical, unrealistic advantage"

Everything except unrealistic you can argue for. But when we're running around in ships that don't eat, and run the engines off the same stuff they SHOOT, I thing realism is already getting stretched a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

I (and everyone else) can certainly argue about the realism.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

i am not real....

p.s. as a mount is a good idea....

As then it comes down to choices... Do I go for range and damage or do i go for the auto hit...

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Of course you aren't Tesco. You are just a bot made by that British supermarket chain.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

I like the idea of making the Talisman make ships easier to hit. Or make the thing terribly expensive, as that will inflict cost during construction but also cost during usage.

Hell, you could make the thing make every ship in the fleet easier to hit, every ship in the system if you wanted to. It is possible to penalize the Talisman, but will that ever balance it?

And I don't think realism is worth much, other than an interesting issue to argue about.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that would make it more or less useless, since defensive structures play a fairly small role in the game by the time you would have the Talisman...

I'd balance it by increasing size (100k+ ???), and cost (2000,2000,2000???).

As it is, though, against experienced players, taking the Religious trait is more of a liability, since it gives the other players a reason to band against you. Lowering your Aggressiveness is just a nail in your coffin.

Sort of funny how that works. In most games, the Talisman will give you Uncontestable Power. But in others, it will bring about your Certain Downfall.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Is it possible to make the talisman only usable once or twice a combat turn?

And I don't think the talisman is a huge boogyman just a medium sized one. I have found in this game there are counters to everything.

And BTW one satillite armed with one talisman allows all the other Sat's stacked with it to use the 'Effect'. Talisman is a tough trait to fight but not impossible.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, that is not correct. Because the other players can still gang up on you and overwhelm you even if you play the theoretical "perfect game" for using the talisman. You can do everything right but your opponents still have to not do everything right for you to win.

Geoschmo

EDIT: Not to mention the randomness of the start could have a significant impact on your ability to do everything "correctly". Even in a one on one game the tailsman player can do everything right and lose if he get's a sucky start or his opponent is skilled and fast enough to knock him out.

[ July 14, 2003, 21:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

If you allow them to rush you early on or you allow the other players to all gang up on you, then obviously you have not been playing very well at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IF, sometimes I am totally amazed at the logic you use to justify your position. It doesn't matter what you say, you CAN do everything perfectly and still lose with the Talisman. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

What does the things you do have to do with whether the other players are going to gang up on you or not? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

You cannot control your opponents. You can play a perfect game with the talisman and still lose.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have a feeling that his statments aren't based on logic this time. Perhaps this is one of those times he's playing the devil's advocate. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
Geoschmo

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Well, you can try to buy time with diplomacy as I've done myself a few times, but I would argue that that only works with inexperienced players or with players who aren't really in it for the win. I guess it's also easier to do on a map with lower player density. If I'm playing in a game where I want to compete I will do everything I can possibly can to bring down a religious player before he gets the Talisman, and have generally found it easy to assemble/encourage coalitions and knock those zealots off early.

[ July 14, 2003, 21:27: Message edited by: gravey101 ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never once said that having the Talisman guarantees victory. But, playing well (with fast expansion and such) combined with the Talisman does guarantee victory in most game situations (except when you get the other players to ally against you, which is nowhere near playing well at all, as diplomacy is a big part of a MP game). Playing well requires expanding faster than your neighbors and then being able to overwhelm them. Otherwise, it is not playing well, but at best playing adequately. Even expanding as fast as them means you will still most likely be able to win with the Talisman because all else being equal, the Talisman ships will win in combat. You just have to form your own alliance and not get them to gang up on you. If you expand slower than them, you are certainly not playing well.

There is a certain point of no return that once you reach, victory is pretty much guaranteed. The Talisman makes reaching this point a lot easier, as your ships are extremely overpowered in combat.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can talk to them and use diplomacy to get some of them on your side. This prevents you from getting ganged up on by a bunch of enemies, as they will have to fight your allies too. So, if you make no effort to gather allies, you aren't playing the game very well, as no matter what, you will fall, talisman or no. Don't let them ally against you. Don't be an overly aggressive evil overlord, and you greatly increase your chances of not being seen as a huge threat. Now, if they still irrationally gang up on you and you never do anything in the game to threaten them, it is probably not a group of players you should play with again, as they are not interested in fair play, only winning at any cost.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

Now, if they still irrationally gang up on you and you never do anything in the game to threaten them, it is probably not a group of players you should play with again, as they are not interested in fair play, only winning at any cost.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If the talisman more or less guarantees a win for the talisman player unless his is ganged up on, it is not irrational to gang up on him. Nor is it "unfair" to do so - in fact, it should be expected.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Correct, and noone here said you said it did. Why bring in unrelated comments like that at all? They just clutter up the discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well now, this is a few orders of magnitude less of an absulute statement then "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat." It is difficult to have a debate if you change your position in the middle with no warning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are still going to have to explain to me how you can control the speed your opponent expands, excepting contested systems of course. You can play the best game you have ever played in your life, in fact you can play the second best game in the history of SE4 and still be behind you opponnent. And this somehow you define as not playing well? that makes no sense at all. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again correct, and again no one made this claim. But getting into fights against a tailsman player where all else is equal is suicide. The same could be said of anything in the game.
All else being equal, the player with dreadnaughts will defeat the player with frigates every time.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As Gravey said, you can try. But you can't guarantee this. It depends on the experience of your opponents. If they are aware of teh effectivness of the Tailsman you will have an alliance of one, and that ain't gonna get you too far.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">See above.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can't disagree with this, but I don't think anyone here was trying too. And it's again a far cry from your earlier unconditional declaration.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again you are talking about things totally out of your control and saying that you aren't playing well. That makes no sense. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And what's irrational about ganging up on the Tailsman player? If you intend to even try to win it's irrational not to gang up on them and get them out early because as you said yourself allowing them to Last till the point of no return is a pretty sure way to guarantee you will lose. Allying with the tailsman player is a sure way to guarantee second place at best. And who want's to be second? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 14, 2003, 22:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Again, diplomacy is a very big part of the game. Have you ever heard of the team victory? The talisman player does not have to destroy everyone. His allies can very well win too. Your statements about the players all wanting to defeat the talisman so they do not lose is incorrect because if they ally with the talisman player, they will be quite capable of winning the game (assuming their alliance emerges victorious). They do not have to fight their allies later on.

It has nothing to do with controlling the other players, it has to do with using diplomacy to get some of them on your side. Failing on the diplomatic front means you are not playing well, as diplomacy is a big part of playing the game.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, that is exactly the same as what I said before because it is illustrating correct usage.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No I am not, as I never said nor implied that you could.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is not what I said at all. I never said nor implied that you can not lose if you are playing well. Since you are missing my point and instead focusing on the term "playing well" instead of the actual content of the argument, let us replace it with "playing better" in this instance.

If the best game of your life leaves you far behind the competition, you need more practice.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a rather contrived example, as the difference in magnitude is far greater than that between talisman vs. non-talisman.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only if you fail to convince anyone to ally with you. Awareness of the effectiveness of the Talisman will also allow them to be able to see that the talisman player would be a strong ally, as long as you tell them this. And, I never said you could guarantee getting allies.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, what you say to other players is entirely within your control. It is entirely possible to gather allies in any game, if you are persuasive enough and if they have not already agreed to band together before you start trying to convince some of them to ally with you. If that happens, then either you have not met them yet and there is no chance of convincing them after they have already formed an alliance, or you are not doing very well with diplomacy, which relates back to not playing the game very well.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The other rational possibility is to ally with the talisman player. You will only lose if you are their enemy. Being their ally will allow you to win (assuming the alliance wins). SE4 is not a one on one slugfest, you know (unless a game is specifically set up that way, which is well beyond the scope of this discussion).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Those that do not have such a huge ego that they only consider being in 1st place as worth their time for winning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 14, 2003, 22:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are you sure about that? Especially considering: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Considering that if you aren't using your stuff correctly, you aren't playing well, that sure sounds like you are implying you can not lose if you are playing well with the Talisman - you are almost saying it outright.

I suspect I'm not the only one who reads the excerpt from Fyron's post at 21:00 that way - would someone confirm this suspicion?

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Obviously you are confused about my statements. Nothing I have said implies that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm willing to entertain the notion that I am confused; why don't you explain how the 21:00 quote I dug up doesn't imply that it is impossible to lose if playing well with the talisman, rather than just outright contradicting my observation?

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, but how useless is a planet full of large weapon platforms that never miss? Of course, it would work better in a mod that increases storage space on plants. In Proportions or AIC, for example, defensive structures play a big role throughout the game (especially for homeworlds).

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously my comments were directed towards a game in which only one person is the ultimate winner. I said as much when I said that allying with a tailsman player is a good way to guarantee second place at best. In a game with a team victory it would not be nearly as difficult for the tailsman player to find allies, and in fact he may find that he has his choice of who to ally with as everyone will want to have him on their team.

But your initial statment that I am objecting to made no such qualification. You did not say "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat in a team game." To add that qualification now after the fact changes the whole dynamic of the discussion.

Fyron, I am not arguing that Tailsman isn't powerful, or even in need of balancing. I am simply trying to get you to admit your oringinal comment was a gross overstatment.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But diplomacy is just as important in a Last man standing game and in such a game you will find it tough going finding allies among experienced players, no matter how well you play that part of the game. You said it's about using dimplomacy to get them on your side. That is in effect controlling them. You are getting them to do what you want are you not? If you can somehow manipulate a player to do something that is counter to his interests in the game he has made a critical error. You cannot force him to make such an error. Not being able to do so is by no means an indication of poor play or a failure on your part. You can try and manipulate him to do so, but in the end it depends on how well how plays his game. And please do not respond to this by saying in a team game it's not against his interests to ally with the tailsman player. We have already covered that point and I think we agree on it.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No it is not. Not to any reasonable logical thinking person. It is the difference between a flat, unequvocal statment and one with conditions and qualifications. My objection is to the unequvocal nature of your post, and so on that basis the two statments are worlds apart. If you hadn't way over stated your case originally and weren't too proud to admit it now you would would say you agree with me. If you don't you are not making an honest statement, because I know you are to smart to think that.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course you didn't. But by saying you can beat the opponent by playing well without making any reference to your opponents level of play makes an assumption that you are playing better then your opponent. Since you cannot control how well your opponent plays how can you be sure you are going to play better then them?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Are you actually going to sit here now and say what you really meant was that if you play better than the other guys and have the Tailsman you will win? Fyron, if you play better then your opponent you will win without the tailsman. What exactly is the point of that stetment? Another post-comment qualification to misdirect attention away from your obviously exagerated intital statement.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't have to be far behind the competition. You can simply be facing several opponents allied against you all of which individually are no better then you. That is exactly my point.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is it now? By what basis do you make this statment? I think you need to recheck your facts. The Tailsman costs 825,000 research points. The Dreadnaught costs 1,015,000 research points. Not a contrived example at all, and not even that much difference. But if you wish, make it escorts vs battleships. Battleships cost less in research (695,000) then tailsman and will have similer levels of success against escorts as tailsman vs non-tailsman, all else being equal. So my example was only slightly exagerated and is quite a bit more accurate then your original comment.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, you did not. What you said was, "Used correctly, the Talisman is an impossible trait to defeat." a statment which fails to even mention allies which means according to your statement allies are irrelevant.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Once again Fyron, you can sweet talk them all you want, but if they want to win they won't ally with you. Not unless you limited your comment to allied victory games, but you made no such qualification until after the fact. Their chances will be much better by eliminating you first and then fighting it out with the non-tailsman players in a Last man standing game.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
It is not out of the scope of this discussion at all to talk about a Last man standing game. You know that. In fact your comment isn't even correct for a team game, because you still may be unable to get them to ally with you for whatever reason. That's my point. You can't make the other players do anything. Even in a team game where it may make perfect sense for them to ally with the tailsman player they may not want to for some reason.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a Last man standing game it's not an ego thing to want to be the Last man standing. It's the name of the game. Why play if you don't want to win? And if you aren't trying to win, why take the tailsman?

[ July 15, 2003, 02:40: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

only ways of winning against a religious raceagainst an equal or better player, as it seems to me is:
*luck with start
*luck with planets
*better racial setup (SO rare, given they get 50% aggressiveness)
*a mistake from their side

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Is there a point in arguing if the talisman can't be defeated at all "if used correctly", or if the talisman only can be defeated if a lot of luck is involved?
Either way, taking religious seems to be the only option if you want to win, barring some exotic setups. That reduces the options and variety of the game in an unfavorable way and therefore should be changed somehow.

Discussing diplomatic options and possibilities is irrelevant, as too many players are content with a sure 2nd place instead of having an uncertain shot at being the winner.

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

[...] it is probably not a group of players you should play with again, as they are not interested in fair play, only winning at any cost.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the player taking religious is NOT someone only interested in winning at any cost? Strange argumentation here...
Or is being interested in winning generally unfair - as long as is someone ELSE who wants to win? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 15, 2003, 03:09: Message edited by: Roanon ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

all i know is that due to the time invested in playing a pbw game the talisman is either bull or bear....

I think it ruins a game in stock... but in mods where there is adjustments then i have no problem...

But it can be countered you just need 20 % and greater forces to do it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I personally do not like the talisman in stock. I perfer it as a mount with no damage or range bonuses. Or if its size and hit points are increased by 100 or 150 and its cost is tripled http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But there are the counters to it... the Temporal Space Yard. The Replicant centre. They are unbalancing in their own ways but not as popular in the dicussions of unbalancing racial techs... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

P.S. I do not hunt down and kill taliman lovers every game.... Only if I know that I think I have a chance in the mid game to get clobbered if i do not. Then i decide if it is worth the investment in the game.....
I have never played religous in a pbw game in my life... I have in solo games.... I always found the facilites to great to build right away ( their good but cost too much at the beginning of a game... so it kills my production as i just go click happy on them )

If there is ever a rth2 i will try one... as it makes sence in that game

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

I still think that the religious tech tree is an awesome economical tech tree on its own, even without the talisman in it. Wouldnt it be better off with replacing the talisman with something less combat-related?

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is not how the vast majority of PBW games are, so you are specifically narrowing down the realm of possibility. Any non-team game can end if only the members of a particular alliance are left, and they agree to end it. They are all the winners in that event.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is the goal of diplomacy, yes. It does not require any direct controlling of them though.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Forming alliances is not an error.

Basically, you need to stop limiting the game to the specific free for all format where there is no possibility for allied victory, as that is the only context in which most of your arguments on the diplomacy issue make any sense at all. In the more general sense, forming alliances is a standard part of the game. Noone has to stand alone unless they want to or get really really unlucky. I have formed tons of alliances in all sorts of games, and there has never been anything forced about them. I never had to control them into allying with me. It was simply "want to ally?" and "Sure!" (usually more verbose than that, but that is the basic idea).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My initial statement was not a flat, unequivocable statement. It very clearly has a conditional qualifier on it, "used correctly". Those two words make all the difference. It may not be the qualifier you want to hear, but it is indeed there.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

I am not narrowing the realm, your initial comment contained no such qualification. It made no comment to the fact of allies or not. Therefore the allies must be irrelevant for your statement to be correct.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please, really. You need to get a grip on your own arguments Fyron. Are you really expecting us to believe that by "used correctly" you meant to include a choice to only use it in games in which team victory is an option? What you meant was clear and well understood by everyone that read it. "used correctly" infers skill, and preformance in the game itself. It says nothing to anyone about a selective decision in game settings prior to the game start.

And by what basis do you claim the vast majority of games are not Last man standing? Have you been in the vast majority of PBW games? I think I might have somehting of an educated opinion on this subject, seeing as how the PBW server just happens to be sitting in my garage at the moment. I have been in scads of games and the large majority of them have had one of two endings. Either one person prevailed alone, or the game pretty much petered out and everybody lost interest in it. Of course their have been a lot that have had "team victories", wether offically or unofficially. I will grant that my personal experience may be slightly affected by my own personal predillection away form team games. But I am involved in many more games as owner and as PBW admin then I actually play in, so I think I can claim to know what I am talking about here. The claim that the vast majority of games are not Last man standing is a particularly ignorant one to make.

Geoschmo

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

I am no fan of the Tailsman myself. I used to think it was no great deal because of the research cost involved to get it, but too many people have learned more efficent colonization and research techniques now for that to still be true.

The biggest problem is not that it is undefeatable, because it is not undefeatable. But it takes a lot of effort to defeat. Personnaly I like to play the diplomacy game. I don't like big coaliitions early in the game. I like to have different alliances with different people over the course of the game and try to play one against the other. And I like to pick my allies and enemies on a geographical basis which I think is mroe natural for a strategy game. But having a tailsman player in a game takes that element out because you are forced to make alliances with everyone else and go all out to get them.

What has ended up happening to me in several games is we are able to knock off the tailsman player, but their presence has forced me to cooperate with a player that in a more natural game would have been my enemy. And allowing them to expand while I concentrate on the tailsman player ends up biting me anyway.

It doesn't bother me at all when the players in my games vote to ban the religious tech. I think the game is better without it.

Geoschmo

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

But diplomacy (for the purpose of creating allies for you, the religious-tech player) will only work if you can find another player who is willing to ally with you -and- win the game with you as their ally (in other words, they are willing to share the victory with you). If all the players in the game want to be the sole victor, they may gang up on you to destroy you, then fight each other. Or they may ally with you against others, but then prove themselves backstabbers and attack you once your allied victory is assured.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

In that case you might be screwed. But, I never said that you are guaranteed to be able to make allies.

Just so you know, Geo and I took the discussion to MSN a while ago (and he had to leave before we could finish it)...

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

so the only real way of effectively exterminating the talisman player is ganging up on him? doesnt sound too good to me.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

We've suggested several fixes for the Talisman in the Beta forum. MM is busy with Starfury right now, and might just go on to SE V when he's done with it. But if he's willing to make one more patch for SE IV we could still get him to make it only work with certain weapons or only at intervals (every X turns instead of every turn) so as to limit its power.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

What about making the tailsman only work for one weapon each combat turn?

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

baron if that is a hard code it is a horrible idea....

why not just leave it to the modders...

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

Why not make it simple and just set it so it adds 50% chance to hit (or whatever percentage you think makes it a component to be reckoned with but not 100% chance to hit)?

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sounds like then you'd huge/super/spinal/whatever mount the biggest, meanest single weapon in the game, fill the rest of the space with shields/armor/enignes/ECM/etc, and crank them out like pennies.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think what he needs to do is essentially make the "official" talisman (in data/components) like one of the modded tal's. Effectively mod his own thing and make it the new official base configuration.

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

One hard code change I would like to see is the ability to turn off the tailsman at game setup without turning off the entire religous technology branch. That way you wouldn't need a mod to remove it from the game and still let people build the facilities.

Geoschmo

[ July 16, 2003, 17:54: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: A thought on the Talisman / Live on Pay-Per-View: Geo vs. Fyron
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't need a hard code change or an entire mod. Just set the tech level requirement for the talisman to 10 and leave everything else as it is. Then you won't be able to get it.