
April 2nd, 2004, 10:44 AM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CA
Posts: 744
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: The next patch
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasper:
IMHO you have not been at all convincing that Clams are broken.
You argument is essentially flawed, in that it assumes that the alternative to massive investment in clams is to do nothing with your water gems and forging mages, and that researching something other than Construction 4 early on has no value.
The true alternative is to use your income aggresively, and seize income and gem sources from your opponents. This gains you income immediately, and deprives them of it as well.
Needing 10 turns to recoup just your initial investment is pretty steep, and if you count oppurtunity cost IMHO it takes more like 15 turns before you begin to see returns. In games I've played half the players are typically out of the running by turn 30... I'd rather use my gems to try to stay in the surviving half, rather than invest them and pray I survive to the end game.
|
If you have read my Posts carefully you must have noticed that I was refering to medium/long games- I've said it several times. Obviously clams are not an issue if the game is finished or almost fininshed by turn 30 or so.
That also means that you have no high-level spells, no high level summons in your games, et cetera. There is nothing wrong with such games if it fits your playstyle, it's just entirely different type of game from the ones than me and Graeme, Sergex, Zapmaeser and others were refering to.
What I don't understand is this - why some people are so opposed to it? If clam hoarding is not an issue according to them, than it shouldn't matter to them much if requirements for the clams would raise a little? One of the person (no names here, but he haven't posted on this thread yet ) who is a great player and whom I highly respect as a Dom2 opponent was strongly opposed increasing cost or reqs for Clams - and that despite the fact that he is notorious clam hoarder. (actually more likely not "despite" but "because" )
Now I am not suggesting that everybody who is against Clam-changes is the secret addicted clam hoarder. That would be way too much and I am not a conspiracy freak. But I know from experience that at least some of the most vocal ones are in fact using massive clam-haarding strategy again and again to great success, and they are objecting to any changes to Clams so strongly excactly because it would kill their favorite "I-Won" tactic.
[ April 02, 2004, 08:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]
|