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 ]