SCs other than the vq

mivayan · #1 May 5th, 2004, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Back to the topic of the post, what happened to the wyrm. Was it nerfed? At one time the wyrm was the "automatic choice" for SC and now I hardly see it mentioned.

I fooled around a bit with an 1150 -point rainbow wyrm. 300 hp and regen is fun. But you run out of fatigue in big fights and when machaka blinded it I had to use GoH... which can't be relied on in multiplay. And you cant put an elemental armor on it. But even a no-magic wyrm can probably beat a VQ early on. I'll test this... ok I tried it.. no magic-wyrm vs rainbow3 VQ. The wyrm's bite is not magical, the vq resists poison, and since lifedrain fatigues the victim the wyrm was soon passed out. The vq did not even get hit.

Quote:

Pperhaps it isn't broken - but then, pls, we would like a general strategy to deal w/ the VQ/uber-SC + infinite castling + clam/wishes combo.

archaeolept - dont play in big games on huge maps against good players. That's what I will do when I start playing multiplayer dom again. A while ago I played against norfleet and gave up since the game was just too big for me and I ran out of ideas.. but I was not in a bad position really, if we had switched sides those vqs would most likely be killed every time they popped up.

The vq just needs 80 new path cost imo to lower the impact they have around turn 10-20. And some players will want houserules to not use them.

Kel · #2 May 5th, 2004, 06:53 PM

[quote]Originally posted by PvK:

Quote:

Sure. I was mainly just responding to the idea that popularity equals proof of imbalance.

That's true, that popular opinion doesn't make it unbalanced. I might disagree, though, that the balance is more important than perceived balance.

If something is somewhat unbalanced in the game, at this point, it isn't going to be a game breaking issue. It's most likely going to be a small advantage that can be overcome with skill or luck.

The problem with perceived advantage is that it reduces variety in game play. That is much harder to deal with and requires you to limit who you play with and what maps, house rules or such you play with.

Now, of course it isn't smart to change a game based on a 'flavor of the month'. On the other hand, if it sticks around for some time, it reeduces variety and that bothers me a lot more.

I think it would be worse to play against similar nations with similar pretenders, most f the time...then to play against the occasional pretender who I knew had a slight advantage over me.

I guess what I am saying is, in the short term, you are right, band-wagonning is a danger. In the long term, though, popularity, right or wrong, does make a difference, at least if you play with that populace.

- Kel

Gandalf Parker · #3 May 5th, 2004, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vynd:

quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
This is beginning to tick me off. I cant believe that the new players are still trying to say this is some major breakage which absolutely has to be fixed. Even if that were true, you had better back down if you really do want it looked at by the devs cause thats not the way to get it done.

Are you trying to make people more upset Gandalf? Because that's what I got from this message. Seems to me that you're telling the new players that they are wrong about the VQ ("Even if that were true" = Not true), and that they had better quit their whining because it is pissing off the experienced players. Telling someone that they had "better back down" is how you start a fight, not end it. Nothing makes people complain more than being told they have nothing to complain about.

I think that all of the players, new or old, have a right to air their opinions. And this forum is the right place to do it. I do hope that people remain civil, since as you correctly point out, the devs will not pay much attention otherwise.

Actually it was in response to the previous post which started out "I cant believe the veterans are still trying to defend the VQ" which generated my response about new players loudly saying its broke. Seems like a balanced statement but pardon me, I have removed those Posts.

And Im not saying people shouldnt have an opinion. If I didnt think the devs should look at this I wouldnt be trying to tone down the remarks to a level that the devs will be able to stand to read it without getting pissed.

Its not the discussion itself. Its the way its getting discussed. It is not productive toward getting the changes people seem to want.

[ May 05, 2004, 18:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

archaeolept · #4 May 5th, 2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

archaeolept - dont play in big games on huge maps against good players.

Lol, yeah that works

Quote:

ok I tried it.. no magic-wyrm vs rainbow3 VQ. The wyrm's bite is not magical, the vq resists poison, and since lifedrain fatigues the victim the wyrm was soon passed out. The vq did not even get hit.

ahh, the memories. now substitue "wyrm" for "all your early game armies"...

archaeolept · #5 May 5th, 2004, 07:09 PM

Quote:

I have removed those Posts

omg, all sorts of Posts in this thread are missing, How are people to make sense of a complex multi-leveled argument if the historical record is wiped clean? I've seen this happen before in forums; never w/ good results.

Now, death threats, racial or sexual insults, and such, should be deleted, or, better, "bleeped". but to cleanse the historical record during a debate is, well, I don't even know how to express the depths of my aVersion.

[ May 06, 2004, 08:04: Message edited by: Zen ]

Gandalf Parker · #6 May 5th, 2004, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mivayan:

quote:
Back to the topic of the post, what happened to the wyrm. Was it nerfed? At one time the wyrm was the "automatic choice" for SC and now I hardly see it mentioned.

I fooled around a bit with an 1150 -point rainbow wyrm. 300 hp and regen is fun. But you run out of fatigue in big fights and when machaka blinded it I had to use GoH... which can't be relied on in multiplay. And you cant put an elemental armor on it. But even a no-magic wyrm can probably beat a VQ early on. I'll test this... ok I tried it.. no magic-wyrm vs rainbow3 VQ. The wyrm's bite is not magical, the vq resists poison, and since lifedrain fatigues the victim the wyrm was soon passed out. The vq did not even get hit.

Well the topic of other SCs made me bring him up. The wyrm can allow a quick entry into the water early in the game. And it can hold off knights while your shooters do some damage. For early expansion it can be a big boost. And if its a non-magical god then praying him back from the dead doesnt hurt him much. And he is an easy god for new players to use in their first few games.

Personally I like to build off the Manticore.

Gandalf Parker · #7 May 5th, 2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archaeolept:

quote:
I have removed those Posts

omg, all sorts of Posts in this thread are missing, includer Jasper's original "troll". How are people to make sense of a complex multi-leveled argument if the historical record is wiped clean? I've seen this happen before in forums; never w/ good results.

Surgical is sloppy but better than losing a whole topic that has good information in it.
Everything has its pros and cons.