Some ideas: raiding, seiging, spell AI and more..

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
How would removing/nerfing gem generating diminish the effect of magic on the game?

Fewer magical resources means that there will be less magic being used in the world.

Seems to me it would make a broader range of magical strategies feasible because a) you will be more tempted to use your gems on something other than horading and b) the game will not be a wish-rush.

The game isn't a wish-rush as it stands. Repeatedly wishing for anything is probably one of the worst possible uses for astral pearls. Doom horrors, despite the amount of hype that surrounds them, die easily to mages on the battlefield. It's impossible to make them immune to all the elements, so you'll always be able to kill them.

I like larger maps, but I dont like the way they devolve as they do under the current setup, where essentially you must hoard to survive, and failing to hoard is a death sentence.

There is no need to "horde" gem-producing items to survive, unless you happen to be playing a game where everybody is sitting around and staring at each other. They give you significant resources, but also leave a huge time-window during which you are extremely vulnerable to attack. Playing more aggressively is the cure for that.

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
Fewer magical resources means that there will be less magic being used in the world.

Absolutely, however I hardly see how this could possibly result in a situation where "magic doesn't have any significant effects".

Gem producing items are not, in ANY WAY, essential to magic being important in the game.

Graeme Dice said:
The game isn't a wish-rush as it stands. Repeatedly wishing for anything is probably one of the worst possible uses for astral pearls..

And a better use for them would be... what?

Graeme Dice said:
There is no need to "horde" gem-producing items to survive, unless you happen to be playing a game where everybody is sitting around and staring at each other. They give you significant resources, but also leave a huge time-window during which you are extremely vulnerable to attack. Playing more aggressively is the cure for that.

This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter. In fact if I am super aggressive, then I am practically guaranteeing my own defeat since I will have to expend massive resources to maintain that aggression, whereas someone who is quietly turtling (and is aided by my aggression since I am drawing attention to myself) is not only not having to expend much to defend himself but is also growing his gem economy exponentially. Joy oh bliss.

Even on a "Small" crowded map, hording will become a central strategy for those who emerge form the dogfight. The map would have to be very small indeed for hording not to be of central importance in the late game.

Zen said:If you want I'll take 2 seconds make up a banner and upload a Mod that totally takes out all the gem producers so that the large games can, not be dominated by non-site-producing magics. The best of both worlds, yeah?

Well I do not think that it is neccessary to remove them completely. First, I think it is neccessary to make the required investment much more significant, as you have suggested in another thread. Second, the investment should have a limit... for example not being able to put these items on scouts or other cheap, hidden units would be a big step up.

In any case, obviously had these items never been in the game no one would be bemoaning their lack. In fact I suspect had they not been in the game orginally, and added in a later patch, the reactionaries (like Graeme) would be screaming from the other side of the table...

[Boron]

Soapyfrog said:

And a better use for them would be... what?

You can e.g. convert them to death and summon tartarians , bane lords etc. .
Graeme is probably right that clamhoarding + then wishing is not a too good strategy because someone else will attack you before your clamhoarding pays off because while you start clamhoarding you look a bit weak to the ones who haven't clamhoarded .

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
Gem producing items are not, in ANY WAY, essential to magic being important in the game.

No, but to remove them removes an entire class of strategies.

And a better use for them would be... what?

Forge astral based items or alchemize them into other types of gems and use those.

This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter.

Of course there's a counter. That counter is to use diplomacy and convince other people to attack the stronger player. If they are already at the point where they are too strong for the rest of the players combined to defeat, then they would have won anyways. All gem-producing items do is speed up the endgame so that it doesn't drag out for hundreds of turns on larger maps.

In fact if I am super aggressive, then I am practically guaranteeing my own defeat since I will have to expend massive resources to maintain that aggression, whereas someone who is quietly turtling (and is aided by my aggression since I am drawing attention to myself) is not only not having to expend much to defend himself but is also growing his gem economy exponentially.

If you see somebody that is quietly turtling, then attack them. If they are spending resources on gem-producers, then they won't be spending them on their military.

Even on a "Small" crowded map, hording will become a central strategy for those who emerge form the dogfight.

Not really, since the game is likely to be over by turn 30 or so on a typical small map.

In any case, obviously had these items never been in the game no one would be bemoaning their lack. In fact I suspect had they not been in the game orginally, and added in a later patch, the reactionaries (like Graeme) would be screaming from the other side of the table...

I suggest that you go back and read some of the threads that have already done this issue to death over hundreds of Posts. You'll find out that you've made an incorrect assumption. I used to believe that clams were too powerful, but that was months ago.

[Soapyfrog]

You are simply being glib at this point.

So far I every game I have been in has been essentially decided on the issue of hording (clams or soul contracts) save for one, where clamming was not allowed... although even in that one were it to continue, soul contracts and fetishes would become the deciding items.

On medium to large maps which are my preference (as I like a long game with lots of maneuver), when I horde I do well, when I dont I lose. That is as far as it goes.

Maybe you have a different experience. It's possible. More likely you just horde along with everyone else... or, as you say, play on VERY small maps which are over in 30 turns.

[Graeme Dice]

Soapyfrog said:
You are simply being glib at this point.

No, I'm simply reporting game experience.

So far I every game I have been in has been essentially decided on the issue of hording (clams or soul contracts) save for one, where clamming was not allowed...

You've misidentified the cause. The cause was not hording of those items. It was the diplomacy that allowed those players to sit there in absolute peace and grow with no interruptions.

On medium to large maps which are my preference (as I like a long game with lots of maneuver), when I horde I do well, when I dont I lose. That is as far as it goes.

Then, like I said, you must be playing games where everybody sits there and stares at each other for most of the game.

Maybe you have a different experience. It's possible. More likely you just horde along with everyone else...

How would that be relevant, even if it were true?

[Soapyfrog]

Graeme Dice said:
You've misidentified the cause. The cause was not hording of those items. It was the diplomacy that allowed those players to sit there in absolute peace and grow with no interruptions.

You must be in some interesting games.

[Huzurdaddi]

Forge astral based items or alchemize them into other types of gems and use those.

Alchemize HOHOHO. Saying that is a better use of gems is retarded. And honestly it only is since you are going to death gems and death has some curiously cost efficient spells.

Sorry that's a *relly* bad answer.

As I have said before and now if commonly being accepted: the utility of hoarding is entirely dependant upon map size.

On Faerun and maps like it hoarding is essential. On Aran it is less of a facor.

[Kel]

Soapyfrog said:
This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter.

Yes, if 17 players all started hoarding and hoping noone attacked them, then the ones who didn't get attacked would have a head start. Much like they would probably be more powerful if they were just researching or site searching or taking indies or any other part of the game. If you are left alone and noone messes with you, you will probably be stronger than people who engaged in early wars and it has nothing to do with clams.

Seriously, how many times have you been beaten by people who did nothing the whole game but build clams ? I don't mean they had a dozen clams because they didn't have anything to do with their water supply, I mean how many people did nothing but clam thae majority of the game ? How many times ? 10 ? 20 ? 30 ?

- Kel

[alexti]

Kel said:

Yes, if 17 players all started hoarding and hoping noone attacked them, then the ones who didn't get attacked would have a head start. Much like they would probably be more powerful if they were just researching or site searching or taking indies or any other part of the game. If you are left alone and noone messes with you, you will probably be stronger than people who engaged in early wars and it has nothing to do with clams.

That's not always true. Quick and successful conquest is very beneficial in the early game (especially if the graphs are off). And good players often go to war with exactly that purpose if they see they can crush the neighbour quickly. Typically, because they've reached their target research or troop production before the neighbour has counter.

In all games I've played, the winner was somebody who has successfully (and quickly) conquered 1 or more neighbours in the early game.