Clams overpowered?

[Stormbinder]

Ok with my vote it is 23 vs 23.

Reminds me of the current pre-election situation in USA somehow...

[Karacan]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Ok with my vote it is 23 vs 23.

Reminds me of the current pre-election situation in USA somehow...

Whoa, let's quickly search those churches for lost votes...

[Yossar]

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.

[calmon]

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.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Yossar:
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.

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.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
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.

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?

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.

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.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
If it's not powerful Norfleet, then why do you always use the Vampire Queen

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.

and always build as many clams as possible?

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.

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.

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 ]