Can I get some cheese with that...

[Vynd]

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
Although people may have made good points pro and con the various changes advocated, I don't think we have seen much hard evidence on any of them.

What kind of evidence, you might ask? The kind of stuff Zen talked about:

quote:

---

Long ago I did a breakdown of Clam's and later Peter (may he rest in peace with many women and large tracts of land) gave another breakdown. With the #'s presented it was shown that you can abuse it, but only in specific circumstances with a specific gameset and only really viable for a very slim selection of circumstance.

If you advocate a change without taking the time to gather evidence like that, you are basing your arguments on preferences and opinions, whose relationship to reality is questionable.

Advocating change without the type of evidence above is what's been called whining.

---

I think you're being unreasonable. I saw Peter's clam evidence, and while I'm sure it took some time to put together it was still relatively straightforward to develop. As I recall, it was essentially a mathematical formula that calculated how many astral gems you would get if you started making clams from water gems, and then more clams from alchemized astral gems, etc., etc. Forgive me if I've oversimplified it a little. But the point is, it required absolutely no in-game testing. It was just a matter of determining what the proper formulas were and then crunching some numbers.

There's no way I can see to do this sort of abstract number crunching for the issues of castling, or VQ, or raiding, or other things that people have "whined" about lately. There are no numbers to crunch here. No forumla to extrapolate from. The only way to gauge the impact of these various strategies and issues is to see them in action, in a game setting. Which takes a heck of a lot longer than running a few formulas.

Even if you could somehow run a big set of games in which to test your argument about, say, castling, there's no way to control for the variable you are interested in. The endless possible choices that each player can take means that you'll never know if a particular person won because they built lots of castles. Maybe they won because their opponents were just generally incompetent. Maybe they won because they found some nice indie provinces early. Maybe they won because they hoarded clams. Most likely they won, or lost, based on an interaction of a lot of factors, many of them not readily apparent.

So it is impossible to provide the sort of rigorous evidence you are looking for. And I don't think it is at all fair to tell people that their arguments carry no weight because they can't meet an impossible standard. Besides, it won't work. People will keep making their arguments, based on whatever logic and annecdoatal evidence they can muster. (And I say more power to them!) I suggest that you learn to live with this fact, rather than, um... whining about it.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
IF castle spamming is a problem then a simple linear increase depending upon how many currently exist sounds like a decent solution.

But I don't know how much of a problem they are. I do know that I like building them though! They are great!

That's the thing: Castle spamming isn't the problem, castle spamming is the solution: Raiding is the problem: Without castles, anyone can simply raid your provinces at whim: PD is utterly impotent and cannot stop anything raiding force more serious than a single cast of Call of the Winds or Wild. Thus, a response to contain the damage caused by raiding had to be devised, and, as in real life, that answer has turned out to be castles. Lots of castles.

Now, of course, people are upset that they can't simply raid at whim, and that their attacks run into these stumbling blocks placed in their paths....ironically for exactly that reason.

Boo frickety hoo. Since when was the defender supposed to be accomodating of the attacker's wishes?

[Cainehill]

[quote]Originally posted by PvK:

(...)
"Everything in Dom2 boils down to those temples, after all..."

It does? Temples do several things, but I don't think any of my games have "boiled down" to temples. Then, I haven't used many immortals, nor relied on blessed national units.
(...)

I don't use a lot of immortals either, and still find temples extremely appealing. (This may be influenced by my having played a lot of CW Pan, admittedly.) Having enemy dominion creep into my provinces is no good, naturally.

And more importantly when using a CP (Combatant Pretender / Prophet), the temples help raise your dominion, which means that your CP has better health, strength, etc.

Immortals (both pretenders and commanders (albeit how many nations, other than T'ien C'hi and Ermor get non-pretender immortals?)) just make lots of temples even more compelling.

Originally posted by Vynd:
I think you're being unreasonable. I saw Peter's clam evidence, and while I'm sure it took some time to put together it was still relatively straightforward to develop. As I recall, it was essentially a mathematical formula that calculated how many astral gems you would get if you started making clams from water gems, and then more clams from alchemized astral gems, etc., etc. Forgive me if I've oversimplified it a little. But the point is, it required absolutely no in-game testing. It was just a matter of determining what the proper formulas were and then crunching some numbers.

There's no way I can see to do this sort of abstract number crunching for the issues of castling, or VQ, or raiding, or other things that people have "whined" about lately. There are no numbers to crunch here. No forumla to extrapolate from. The only way to gauge the impact of these various strategies and issues is to see them in action, in a game setting. Which takes a heck of a lot longer than running a few formulas.

Even if you could somehow run a big set of games in which to test your argument about, say, castling, there's no way to control for the variable you are interested in. The endless possible choices that each player can take means that you'll never know if a particular person won because they built lots of castles. Maybe they won because their opponents were just generally incompetent. Maybe they won because they found some nice indie provinces early. Maybe they won because they hoarded clams. Most likely they won, or lost, based on an interaction of a lot of factors, many of them not readily apparent.

So it is impossible to provide the sort of rigorous evidence you are looking for. And I don't think it is at all fair to tell people that their arguments carry no weight because they can't meet an impossible standard. Besides, it won't work. People will keep making their arguments, based on whatever logic and annecdoatal evidence they can muster. (And I say more power to them!) I suggest that you learn to live with this fact, rather than, um... whining about it.

Well your opinion certainly supports your style of logic and reasoning. I certainly hope that IW will disregard any and every suggestion that is made with as much effort and thought in it as you have so lazily defended.

Saber Cherry is no longer here to do analysis for you, so in order to express points counter to the status quo you'll actually have to put some effort into your arguements but by all means, don't. Because uninformed decisions on balance is a good way to go.

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Vynd:
The only way to gauge the impact of these various strategies and issues is to see them in action, in a game setting. Which takes a heck of a lot longer than running a few formulas.

Even if you could somehow run a big set of games in which to test your argument about, say, castling, there's no way to control for the variable you are interested in.

So how can we ever know it is a problem, rather than just something certain players don't like playing against?

[Vynd]

Illwinter is of course free to decide for themselves what is, or isn't, a good idea. I totally agree with Zen (and everyone else I would hope) there. Which is why I disagree with the way Reverened Zombie and others are blowing off people's arguments and opinions as "whining" unless it is backed up unreasonable amounts of "evidence." Because, as I have said, I don't see how it is possible to provide evidence of the sort that some people seem to be demanding. And demanding people do the impossible before voicing their thoughts amounts to telling them to shut up and go away. That's not right, and it's not going to work anyway, so why do it?

Besides, if the arguments that people are making are so baseless and wrong, then surely Illwinter will see that and not act upon them. I mean, that's more or less what you were saying, right Zen? So why try to surpress them? Better, I think, to let people argue about these issues, blow off steam, and maybe figure out some in-game solutions that way. Or maybe, just maybe, point out some things that Illwinter actually decides could use improvement.

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Vynd:
Which is why I disagree with the way Reverened Zombie and others are blowing off people's arguments and opinions as "whining" unless it is backed up unreasonable amounts of "evidence."

By "unreasonable amounts of," you mean "any," correct?

And I would not say I am "blowing off" people's arguments as "whining", but "characterizing" them as "whining." There's a difference.

[ May 28, 2004, 16:45: Message edited by: Reverend Zombie ]

Originally posted by Vynd:
Illwinter is of course free to decide for themselves what is, or isn't, a good idea. I totally agree with Zen (and everyone else I would hope) there. Which is why I disagree with the way Reverened Zombie and others are blowing off people's arguments and opinions as "whining" unless it is backed up unreasonable amounts of "evidence." Because, as I have said, I don't see how it is possible to provide evidence of the sort that some people seem to be demanding. And demanding people do the impossible before voicing their thoughts amounts to telling them to shut up and go away. That's not right, and it's not going to work anyway, so why do it?

Besides, if the arguments that people are making are so baseless and wrong, then surely Illwinter will see that and not act upon them. I mean, that's more or less what you were saying, right Zen? So why try to surpress them? Better, I think, to let people argue about these issues, blow off steam, and maybe figure out some in-game solutions that way. Or maybe, just maybe, point out some things that Illwinter actually decides could use improvement.

Maybe you have a different understanding of what this board is for. In my mind it's not a place to "blow off steam", or "demand IW change something". Just because you have the rare instance of actually having developers who care enough to take consideration to suggestions on this board does not mean it's the breeding ground for "What I feel is right" Posts.

And under no circumstance is this a field to argue and go to the lowest depths of personal attacks for people defending pro or con any debate/playstyle/feature/bug etc.

However, that is exactly what people recently have done. For whatever reasoning, be it human nature or merely the trend of games/gamers in general. Suddenly people feel it's their god given right to have developers change something based on their input (which is by and large inadequate) and if others disagree with that input or the thoughts around it, suddenly they are attacked for 'not knowing' what they intimately know.

Counter to public opinion this is not a Rant forum about Dom2. This is a forum that serves as both feedback (in an appropriate manner) and aid for new players as well as old.

So my suggestion is, if you happen to feel something needs to be changed. Bring your game face and some effort and thought into it. If you are just bandwagoning or have the inescapable need to jump onto a side for whatever reasoning. Don't be suprised when the status quo is asking for reasonable proof or evidence of something suddenly needing changing.

A good example of this is: Stormbinder's Mirror Image issue. He brought a bit of information that he felt was wrong, enough to spark interest for others to see if it was or was not working as he said it. It doesn't have to be huge mathmatical analysis but it has to be reasoned and tested against more than one or even a few circumstance/stimulus.

Take it what it's worth. But if you think this is a board for 'blowing off steam' you'll find your Posts and threads with that intention will not be tolerated.

[Reverend Zombie]

Originally posted by Zen:
Maybe you have a different understanding of what this board is for. In my mind it's not a place to "blow off steam", or "demand IW change something".

Counter to public opinion this is not a Rant forum about Dom2. This is a forum that serves as both feedback (in an appropriate manner) and aid for new players as well as old.

There's the general Shrapnel forum faq, but I have not found a "rules of THIS forum" faq like I have seen on other sites.

Does it exist?

Not as far as I know. It has never needed them to my understanding. In the past most posters at Shrapnel's Boards have understood that general politeness and rules that are standard on other Boards are applicable here.

Also I feel the caliber of people who play Dom2, in general, do not fall prey to the very base of things that most if not all forums prohibit.

Perhaps when Gandalf upgrades the Forum Software it will have an easy to read FAQ about what is and is not appropriate here as well as allowing you to choose your sort method.

Edit: Just for clarification. This is not a Rant forum in the fact that it's for people to come and ***** and moan about things in an inappropriate manner. Obviously everyone has the right to be angry at any number of things, but within reason. Such as if you are angry that Utgard was broken in a new patch and there was no support or answer for that particular instance, you are totally justified. However, if you got beat by someone using a Archmage with Staff of Elemental Mastery and posted that it was "total bull**** and the Archmage is unbalanced" and then flaming the player of the Archmage, would be innappropriate.

[ May 28, 2004, 19:07: Message edited by: Zen ]