Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?

Ewierl · #1 September 11th, 2007, 11:15 AM

I'm coming down alongside those who think clams are too good. (As are most of the other gem-producers, actually, clams are just simpler to talk about.)

I don't think the price per se is the problem, just the unlimited nature of them. 18-25 turns to get a return on your investment is ok, but there's no other real way in the game to make "investments" like that... and as anyone with a bank account knows, interest can rack up exponentially over time. While admittedly a kludge, the fix I like best is simply a cap to the number each nation can produce.

Plus, I find the "in-game story" argument also compelling. Why is the world not flooded with such things by day 1 of the Middle Age, if mages can produce items that replicate the natural burgeoning forces of the world? Why haven't all nations converged on Astral, Fire, and Earth magic, with secondary Water, Nature, Blood? The tactic is too good to make much sense in the setting.

Hadrian_II · #2 September 11th, 2007, 11:37 AM

Maybe the simplest solution would be to give the gem producing items a small (like 2%) chance to wear out, so that you cant have too much of them. If there would be a 2% chance, a clam would exist approximate 50 turns, so you pay 20 gems and get 50 back.

Baalz · #3 September 11th, 2007, 12:35 PM

Well, I do think clams are in a different class than blood stones and fever fetishes as they're much easier to mass and astral gems are much more useful late game than earth or fire. It's also wrong to think that it takes 15 turns for them to pay off - there are several ways to reduce this ROI time not to mention that astral pearls are often more valuable than water or nature. To be honest, I can't think of much more scary than R'yleh suitably turtled underwater keeping the Forge of the Ancients up for very long (or closely allying with someone who does).

The thing about clamhoarding is there is *no* counter and I think it's a mischaractarization to even really think of it as much of a risky delayed gratification in a lot of circumstances. For the cost of two clams (at whatever discount you can wrangle) I've now got one "free" mind hunt per turn as well as building long term exponential growth. Win-win in a lot of circumstances where water gems don't have a high value use.

My main problem with it is most everybody agrees it's so overwhelmingly powerful that everyone must do it if they want to be competitive, and it adds micro which most everyone hates. I look at it this way, would the game be more or less fun without clam hoarding? If its not really a tactical choice because everybody must do it in long games then removing it doesn't reduce your tactical choices it just reduces micro. Better than removing it though is to nerf it cleverly enough that it is more of a risky choice and therefore not a no-brainer.

Reverend Zombie · #4 September 11th, 2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Baalz said:
My main problem with it is most everybody agrees it's so overwhelmingly powerful that everyone must do it if they want to be competitive,

Not everybody, at least among poll-responders.

It would be interesting to know how many of the nations listed as winners in the Hall of Honor clamnmed.

Xietor · #5 September 11th, 2007, 01:16 PM

I do not think looking at the hall of fame has any value.

1. You would have to know the size of the map. Clams are not going to be a factor in small-medium games.

2. How many water provinces and races were in the game. It is much easier to clam if you are a water race and are not worried about being attacked early in the game.

3. What is the skill level of your opponents both in the game and the ones neighboring you.

4. Diplomacy. It is hard to say race "x" is better than race "y" because if "x" is feared then he may be ganged up on early out of mutual fear by weaker races "a" "b" and "c," allowing race "y" to win the game even though it is not as strong as "x."

So I think input from players the community respects as knowledgeable players is of more value.

Reverend Zombie · #6 September 11th, 2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Xietor said:
I do not think looking at the hall of fame has any value.

1. You would have to know the size of the map. Clams are not going to be a factor in small-medium games.

2. How many water provinces and races were in the game. It is much easier to clam if you are a water race and are not worried about being attacked early in the game.

3. What is the skill level of your opponents both in the game and the ones neighboring you.

4. Diplomacy. It is hard to say race "x" is better than race "y" because if "x" is feared then he may be ganged up on early out of mutual fear by weaker races "a" "b" and "c," allowing race "y" to win the game even though it is not as strong as "x."

So I think input from players the community respects as knowledgeable players is of more value.

I disagree. If most MP games are not being won by clam-hoarders, we can say that under normal conditions it's not an issue.

If clamming is only an issue on a. large maps b. with clamming water nations c. with player of equal (preumably high) skill d. who nevertheless do not use diplomacy to gang up on the clammer who is "stronger" and would otherwise win, then you are talking about a limited set of circumstances.

The response to a turtling clammer should be to rush (crush?) them, not change the game to eliminate their strategy.

Velusion · #7 September 11th, 2007, 03:22 PM

I do have a big-game mod for use in larger games where gem producing items are increased in cost which I *hope* helps somewhat with large games (Sophistry and Nuance are using them so we'll see).

While you can mod a "fix" for anything the thread is addressing vanilla games.

The real fix would be to somehow scale these to work with larger games and a number of suggestions have been offered (many probably unfeasible). I don't think Dom3 actually scales that great in a number of other areas either (i.e. Arcane Nexus).

That said, I seriously doubt these scaling problems will ever be addressed. For now we just have to use mods to adjust things, which is a perfectly fine secondary option.

thejeff · #8 September 11th, 2007, 03:23 PM

If all of those are needed, sure it isn't a problem.

On the other hand I think the large/small game distinction is important. If, for example, every game on a 200+ province map or every game that lasted past 75 turn was won by a clammer, I think you could safely say it's a problem.

So looking at the HoF could be useful. It should be pretty easy to get size of map, from the game thread if nowhere else. You'd have to ask the winner about clams, though.

Velusion · #9 September 11th, 2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Reverend Zombie said:
The response to a turtling clammer should be to rush (crush?) them, not change the game to eliminate their strategy.

This is an option if it is a land nation. In practice I don't see very many land nations attacking fortified turtled sea nations unless they have no other targets.

Also, since the graphs don't adjust for gem generating items, sometimes it's hard to tell who is really spam clamming.

Reverend Zombie · #10 September 11th, 2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Ewierl said:
Plus, I find the "in-game story" argument also compelling. Why is the world not flooded with such things by day 1 of the Middle Age, if mages can produce items that replicate the natural burgeoning forces of the world? Why haven't all nations converged on Astral, Fire, and Earth magic, with secondary Water, Nature, Blood? The tactic is too good to make much sense in the setting.

The weight of these "in-game story" arguments are always in the eye of the beholder, and therefore unpersuasive. One can just as easily come up with an in-game story why the world is not flooded with these by the Middle Age (forgotten secrets of construction rediscovered with awakening gods!).

There's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense in D3, depending on what your "in-game story" is. But these stories don't make good arguments for changing the game mechanics.