[Kel]

Originally posted by Zen:
Please use an example that is a good decision for an immortal that is a bad decision for a nonimmortal who is more powerful.

Let's say I have a shot at taking out an opponents SC pretender, in my domain, but only by risking my own. Let's say VQ has a 25% chance of taking out said pretender but I could have had a specific, non immortal and had a 35% chance (for whatever reason). It might be disadvantageous to risk my mortal pretender when I could, instead send the VQ. Thus, it is an extra, *valid* strategic option.

Which they pay for by being inherently weaker/more costly.

Absolutely. I am not disagreeing with that. I am just disagreeing with the perception that immortality is only useful to make up for poor play.

And this is not an "only pretender" thing. So I don't see how this is a VQ only thing, shouldn't you be crusading against all immortality?

I am not crusading at all. I am only disagreeing with the logic behind specific statements made by other crusaders.

Much as I feel about Ermor (or clams or any other balance issue), the only thing that truly bothers me about the VQ is that she is reducing the variety of my MP games. Even here, it doesn't bother me that much since less than half the nations use her in most of my games. My personal feeling is that she probably is over-powered but not invincible and if she was, say, limited to only one nation, particularly one that was not used every game (like Ulm, for example), I wouldn't particularly care at all.

I am not suggesting this happen, I am just trying to express that it is not precisely something being out of balance that affects the game, it is that something being too far out of balance can cause a loss of variety in MP game play.

I'm condending good play can minimize the chance of this. To the point where the risk is worth the reward. Some pretenders are given recuperation base and there are various ways to deal with any afflictions gained in the game if you do happen to run across a bad run. And afflictions take even VQ's time to heal.

Absolutely. Immortality isn't perfect or overwhelming or outrageously broken. I am just contending that it is a quite strong ability and is not limited to covering mistakes but does, in itself, allow strategies that are not worth it, risk vs. reward wise...to now be worth it, because of the immortality.

It doesn't take a bad player, or a mistake, to take advantage of better risk vs. reward.

That is exactly the point, Immortality removes the risk but at a cost. Some feel this cost more than makes up for that ease of use mentality. It doesn't however make it overpowered.

I agree. Immortality alone doesn't make a pretender over-powered. If people perceive that I am suggesting that, than I have mis-communicated my intentions. So perhaps I should summarize what I am saying.

Immortality is a strong ability, and a *very* strong ability when combined with an SC chassis. It can, and should, be compensated for with design points or other weaknesses. It is not a side-note, nor a tool for only poor players. It allows one to dramatically reduce risk and this, in itself, opens up additional strategies and risk vs. reward scenarios.

- Kel