[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
I believe that there is a burden to provide evidence if you are proposing changes, and that burden should fall on the "whiners" and not on those who are more or less happy with the game as it is.

That's the whole problem. People often provide evidence which is then dismissed based on these illegitimate tactics. You can't say they didn't provide a 'burden of evidence' if you can't refute it, logically.

- Kel

---

How are these tactics illegitimate, and what is the evidence?

It's hard to refute opinions, and other than reports of "I hate playing against a castlespamming VQ clam-hoarder" I have not seen much evidence put forth that any of these are in any way illegitmate.

I will grant that VQs appear to be underpriced compared to some other Pretenders, or rather, some of the 125 pt. Pretenders are probably overpriced.

But...how can buidling castles be illegitimate? Where does that particular line of thinking stop? Should we limit the number of temples a player can build? Number of labs? Number of uber summons? Number of mages? Number of provinces to take a turn? Why not, and how is it different for the reasons given for outlawing castlespamming?

---

Easy. The best suggestion I've heard so far is to make temples destructable only by the order of commander (the same as with labs). This way you can protect your temples against raiders without having castels in every province, which is the main reason of "mad castling".

I don't think it'll elimiate mad castling alltogether, but it'll go very long way toward making it less promiment, without actually nerfing anything or adding some artificial limits. With such sustem you can still build as many temples as you want and protect them against raiders using your network of castles as strongholds and nodes in your defense system.

[ May 28, 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]