SCs other than the vq

[AhhhFresh]

Zen:

While I generally agree with you, I think you're missing a large part of the point.

You and Norfleet and whomever the other "elite" players are... are in the minority of the Dom II playerbase. Odds would dictate that most of us lose most of our MP games... particularly when we play against the likes of you. (Though I've not played either of you)

So to truly evaluate a VQ's "balance", you have to consider the lesser players, who obviously outnumber the "elite" ones by a large margin...

The fact that immortality is much more forgiving of mistakes is not at all a small issue... because that's what players like me do... we make mistakes... because we haven't had enough MP experience to know what every nation can throw at us, and hence we might send our SC pretender into a situation that could mean their death.

The fact that a VQ is mostly immune to these "bad decisions" is why she is so popular... and gives a distict advantage over another player of the same "moderate skill level" who is similarly mistake prone... but doesn't have a VQ.

I'm not in favor of nerfing Immortality itself, because that would nerf other units... but something should probably be done... since most poor to moderate players think she's da bomb...

I do imagine that the fervor will die out within a month, as most of the moderately skilled players who picked VQ's as pretenders as the flavor du jour will have lost their MP games at that point... but she still seems unbalanced to some extent.

[rabelais]

Originally posted by PvK:
How about these ideas?


* Priest army. How ofter does a Holy-2 Banish spell hurt a VQ? Even if never, suppose I have some potential vampire-defeating units of some other type. I put them with an army as bait for the VQ to come try to get me, near the edge of her dominion. The surprise is, my mob of priests is that turn Preaching. If I have them, I have Skeptics, Inquisitors, or dominion-draining items in the army. Result: VQ arrives, gets killed, and oops - her dominion was unexpectedly sucked dry in the same turn. So no ressurrection. Or does the sequence of play not allow this to work?

PvK

To the best of my knowledge, dominion changes happen *after* all battles, so you can't sucker an immortal into a trap dominion.

Which is IMHO, too bad. Would be nice to cause the immortal munchkins some contingent paranoid anxiety.

This was considered a feature, ...don't know if changing the phaseorder might potentially be rebalancing.


Rabe the Rules Rodent


Edit: there may be one exception to this, but it isn't helpful.

The ermorian cultist event probably changes dominion when it occurs, but this is unlikely to inconvenience an Ermorian VQ.

[ May 05, 2004, 01:48: Message edited by: rabelais ]

Originally posted by Kel:
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.

Now on that 75% chance of not taking out the pretender what are the results if you fail? Your VQ is left with 3-6 affliction, possibly crippling, loss of gems (if you are not running around unequipped, if you are, then I would say the mortal pretener has a 90% chance of success) and time to wait for healing. Now that may be an option to you, to waste your VQ or SC's turn by a minimal chance of success, but I don't think that is a strategy as much as a personal level of risk vs reward scenario with the hope being you win.

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.

I never said that was it's only feature, I said that was it's primary feature.

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.

Yes, it does allow those, at which point those new to the game may feel that it is 'overpowered' because it allows them to make mistakes, while mortal pretenders and nations is not so forgiving. I a not disagreeing with you that it could not use a slight change, but the reasoning behind it. Because if the VQ is changed to 125 Points and 80/path, guess what? It will still be extremely powerful in the right hands. But it will be reduced to a few nations that can afford to use them. Instead of "VQ's are overpowered" it will be "VQ's are overpowered with Ermor, Abysia, Caelum, Jotunheim, C'tis, etc".

My point is that they are not overpowered by anything more than a slight degree, they are just popular which means people try to use them unsuccessfully and counter to their nation/theme/playstyle because at least 1 other person (or more) has used it successfully. That is exactly the wrong reason to balance something, because of popular demand.

Originally posted by AhhhFresh:
So to truly evaluate a VQ's "balance", you have to consider the lesser players, who obviously outnumber the "elite" ones by a large margin...

My question to you then, is this. If balance caters to the lowest common denominator (I'm not saying you or anyone else) then it's not really balanced is it? It's unexperienced friendly. You would limit the options of the game for anyone who is not inexperienced who wish to play competitively. Meaning, if you know how to fly a plane but 90% of the people on the forum don't know how to fly a plane because of any number of reasons and suddenly they don't allow civilians to fly because of that, is that what you would considered balanced or fair?

The fact that immortality is much more forgiving of mistakes is not at all a small issue... because that's what players like me do... we make mistakes... because we haven't had enough MP experience to know what every nation can throw at us, and hence we might send our SC pretender into a situation that could mean their death.

The fact that a VQ is mostly immune to these "bad decisions" is why she is so popular... and gives a distict advantage over another player of the same "moderate skill level" who is similarly mistake prone... but doesn't have a VQ.

I'm not in favor of nerfing Immortality itself, because that would nerf other units... but something should probably be done... since most poor to moderate players think she's da bomb...

I do imagine that the fervor will die out within a month, as most of the moderately skilled players who picked VQ's as pretenders as the flavor du jour will have lost their MP games at that point... but she still seems unbalanced to some extent.

If it's not apparent by what I've done in the past, I'm *all* for giving people who are moderate or new to the game all the things they need in order to learn to play to their desired potential. I have no problem that immortality allows people to make mistakes and play around and try out new and possibly crazy things. A beautiful part of this game is the exploration of all it's nuances and things that impact the play.

Where I draw the line though, is changing the game to any non-conclusive, factual, debated and soundly reasoned changes. This game is very good, but it does have some (if not alot) of issues with balance. If you balance it willy nilly, or based on popular or trendy desires what you are going to have is exactly what this game, this company and this publisher are not.

Mainstream.

I like TBS games, even though they are not mainstream or popular. I like Shrapnel, even though they are not the biggest or everyone knows their name. I like Illwinter and Dominions 2, even though a large % of the gamers I have known and play with may not find it as fun and enjoyable as I have.

Why break that by suddenly catering to popular desire instead of sound logic?

[Vynd]

You've gotta love the fact that a thread that is entitled "SCs other than the vq" is all about the VQ. Kind of makes you wonder if there actually are any other SCs, or at least any good ones when compared to the yardstick of the VQ.

Anyway, far be it from me to try and drag the thread back on topic. I wanna complain about the VQ too! And since immortality seems to be the theme of the moment, let me chime in that even if it is just a crutch for mistakes (an argument I don't buy), everyone makes mistakes! Probably even Norfleet. Especially considering that the game is not played in a vaccuum. There's no way you can account for everything that you opponents might throw at you. So I think its unfair and misleading to talk about the "surprise insurance" factor of immortality as if it is something only the unskilled newbie might ever find useful.

Originally posted by Vynd:
You've gotta love the fact that a thread that is entitled "SCs other than the vq" is all about the VQ. Kind of makes you wonder if there actually are any other SCs, or at least any good ones when compared to the yardstick of the VQ.

You have to dig for it, but it's there. There is a list.

Anyway, far be it from me to try and drag the thread back on topic. I wanna complain about the VQ too! And since immortality seems to be the theme of the moment, let me chime in that even if it is just a crutch for mistakes (an argument I don't buy), everyone makes mistakes! Probably even Norfleet. Especially considering that the game is not played in a vaccuum. There's no way you can account for everything that you opponents might throw at you. So I think its unfair and misleading to talk about the "surprise insurance" factor of immortality as if it is something only the unskilled newbie might ever find useful.

I never said it wasn't for everyone. Only that people who plan on making more mistakes than others are helped more by immortality than not.

More experienced players know more of the strategies and actions that might be presented to them, they also tend to use forsight if a particular strategy/design/decision doesn't work out to have a secondary plan of implementation or alternative.

It all boils down to your own risk vs reward mentality. Some people have a high tolerance for bad mistakes and struggling through them other do not. Obviously the more you play the more this tolerance is likely to grow as well as secondary strategy, acceptable loss for gain and other factors for the game.

It is not unlike Go in that respect.

[Kel]

[quote]Originally posted by Zen:

Now on that 75% chance of not taking out the pretender what are the results if you fail? Your VQ is left with 3-6 affliction, possibly crippling, loss of gems (if you are not running around unequipped, if you are, then I would say the mortal pretener has a 90% chance of success) and time to wait for healing. Now that may be an option to you, to waste your VQ or SC's turn by a minimal chance of success, but I don't think that is a strategy as much as a personal level of risk vs reward scenario with the hope being you win.

Hehe, you added a bunch of elements which i didn't assume to make a point. Now take out all those factors that you stilted in favor of your point and let's get back to the point.

There are many cases where immortality makes something a good choice, where it would be a bad choice without it. Again I say, taking advantage of improved risk vs. reward is the mark fo a good player, not a bad player.

Why break that by suddenly catering to popular desire instead of sound logic?

I think most people think that they are using logic. You might think their logic is flawed but they probably think your logic is flawed as well. Being a good player doesn't make your logic correct and everyone else's 'popular desire' or 'will-nilly' or what not. I realize that I am responding to you but let me broaden the scope...I have seen this a lot lately, from a few different people...who seemed to run out of debate on the issues and turned to debating the people who were making them.

- Kel