Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?

[Micah]

Researching pretty much fits all of the criteria people are complaining about, but I don't hear anyone wanting to take that out.

It is non-optional in any sort of long game.
It is harder for some nations to research than others.
It is not fun.
It requires about as much MM to set a turn's worth of mages to research as it does to forge and assign a clam.

The only thing it really has going for it is that it takes some skill to prioritize the path order.

Also, the UW nations (possibly excepting LA Rlyeh due to freespawn) have a hell of a time being relevant on land in most games even with clamming, something would need to be given to them to compensate if they were removed or nerfed.

[Jazzepi]

Research isn't comparable to clamming at all. The complaint, valid or not, behind clamming (or any other gem production item) is that investing in it absolutely vital to stay competitive in the late game.

Research, however, has so many different varied paths that equating it to clam hording is just silly, prioritizing research, and even researching in response to/anticipation of a particular threat is very important. It separates the good players from the bad. I also think researching is quite fun. It creates an interesting tension between access to fewer spells of higher level, or more spells of a lower level.

Jazzepi

[Evilhomer]

As velusion said clams are very potent in the long games no doubt about it - especially after wish is reached. Removing them (or having some ridicilous spell being able to destroy them) is not a good choice however since you will basically cripple high astral dependent nations like R'lyeh.

At the current cost they will take 15+ turns to pay off basically, which is a risky investment.

I think a good solution is to mod them for whatever game you are expecting to play. In a short-mid game keep the original cost. In long games on large maps that is expected to go 100+ turns increase their cost slightly (by 5 water or nature gems). Of course in such games blood stones should have their cost increased as well.

[Olive]

I think clamhoarding is OK the way it actually works. Anyway, a less "artificial" way to counter - but not too much - clamhoarding would be to add a slight chance oh being horror marked for the bearer of the clam. Something similar to lightless lanterns for example. Similar to blood contracts would be too much imho.

[Warhammer]

The thing is there are so many ways to increase gem income that I think it is silly to isolate one tactic of increasing gem income and say that it is unbalanced. I think the problem that people have with it is the flexibility of astral pearls. But, consider this, if you have 20 clams a turn, and you are alchemizing them, you will only have 10 gems after you do so. Is 10 gems significant? If it was adding to a gem income of 5, sure that's significant, but if it is adding to a gem income of 25, its not as big of a deal.

[Evilhomer]

You don't alchemise as a rule. A better option is to use wish and turn your astral gems into x2 other gems. A reasonable good position can turn out 75 clams by the turn of say 60-75. If you use those gems to cast wish(gems) each turn you have basically increased your gem income with 150 gems. That will probably double your ordinary gem income - not to shabby!

[Maraxus]

If someone get's to strong through clams, his opponets were not aggressive enough. Getting an overpowered clam-hort running is a big investment (now, mainly for the 15 water gems). You should not be able to affort this while in a full scale war with someone else.

So, the two options to do clamforging (in my opinion) are:
-You are the only water nation left and don't (strongly) battle the land.
-You were good in the diplomatics.

The first point has it's own drawbacks, so I have no problem with this one getting strong through Astral pearls.
The second - well, if you succed on that plan, you deserve it. Your opponent should not have let it come to that point.

[Tichy]

Why not attach a negative to clams, like horror mark, insanity, curse or disease? It creates a drawback, and also has the effect of taking some of them out of play over time. The problem now seems to be that there's no downside to the strategy (except for monotony, and people getting annoyed at you.)

[Baalz]

Ew, I wouldn't suggest anything that encourages more micro while leaving the same utility if you do it right. I'm in a game right now with my first and last fever fetish farm - I finally said screw it and am forging 30-odd rings of regen because it's too much of a headache. Not the most competitive thing to do but I was getting to dread my turns - "which of these ever increasing number of diseased guys have less than 3 hps left?"

[Meglobob]

I voted claming is fine exactly the way it is and I am non-clammer, I have only seriously clammed once and that was as EA Oceania. It did me no good whatsoever, as EA Caelum won the game.

If clamming gets nerfed, then the, 'nerfs', abit like smurfs will just jump on another part of the game and try to nerf that as well.

I would suggest that if you are a nation who can't gem spam then you should seek to attack gem spammers, especially if you are playing in a long game.

Like I think I have said before, its much, much more easy to blood hunt then gem spam. By the time the gem spammer is getting 100gems/turn, the blood hunt spammer can be getting 400 - 600 blood slaves per turn.

Its part of the late game, the entire idea of the late game is too unbalance the game. In your favour, so you can win!

Loads of things unbalance the late game such as:-

Limited uniques to summon.
Unique artifacts.
Gem spamming.
Blood hunting.
Globals such as Arcane Nexus, Forge of Ancients, Utterdark etc...

Usually they end up spread around several players which creates a balance which is resolved by war, sooner or later.

So where's the problem?