Can I get some cheese with that...

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Zen:
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.

Inappropriate, yes.....but I'd pay to see that. That's just too funny to be true.

[Vynd]

I'd like to see the Archmage kick some butt too.

I am in total agreement with Zen that no one should be coming on here and demanding that Illwinter do anything. I don't think I said that in my Posts.

I also am opposed to ranting and the use of personal attacks. That sort of thing isn't what I had in mind when I said blowing off steam, but I can see how it could be interepreted as such. Sorry about that.

I'm basically just in favor of as free a flow of ideas as possible, so as to make it easier to identify where the problems are and aren't. I didn't think that Reverened Zombie's categorizing some people's opinons as whining (not a particularly civil word, in my opinion) encouraged this sort of exchange, so I spoke up about it. But I absolutely agree that this exchange of ideas needs to be friendly and respectful. If I gave any other impression be assured it was not my intent.

[Scott Hebert]

Well, for me, things CAN be tested. It all depends on how much work you're willing to do for it.

Take, for example, the Vampire Queen. You think she should cost more? Go right ahead. You don't have to spend all the points you get to make your Pretender. The formulae used to figure out costs for things like Paths are well-established, and so you can tweak the numbers to what you think she SHOULD be. Then you play her.

Come to think of it, aren't Pretenders able to be modded/created now? You could simply create what you think an appropriate VQ would be, and test to see if she is, IYO, more balanced.

Another thing. Clams. What's the appropriate cost for them? This is, actually, something you can verify in-game. If you think that they should cost 10W and 10S, for example, simply remember that you need 10 Astral gems in your lab for each Clam you own. Alternatively, you could take the 10 Astral cost, convert it into ANYTHING else (giving 5 gems), convert those BACK to Pearls (giving 2 Pearls and 1 Gem), and convert those Pearls back into a gem (giving 2 Gems), and converting back to a single Pearl. Poof, you just had 9 Pearls disappear. Also, make sure you only Forge with capable mages.

Is it work? Yes. Before you reflexively ask, "You expect me to do THIS MUCH just to prove something that already exists?", I'll answer you. Yes. I do. Supposition and 'because everyone does it' is not evidence. It won't get anything changed. The more you can do to identify the problem AND work on a viable solution AND show that that solution is better for the game, the better your chances are for getting the change made.

Mostly, I see people working on only the first problem. Gandalf constantly says it; give us solutions, not problems. And don't just give solutions, give us evidence that show the solutions do what they're supposed to. Only then is IW likely to implement the change.

Scott

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:


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.

Thank you Zen. I am just doing what I can since I love this game a lot and would like to do whatever little I can do to help it become even better. I generally agree with what you have said in your post about purpose of the board, rants, etc.

But I would like to point out one thing though - you have to keep in mind that the Mirror Image issue that I've posted about was a bug, pure and simple. Anybody can do (and did) a quick testing to confirm or deny it.


With "mad castling" it's much more complicated since the issue here is not a bug. Proponents of this "strategy" can (correctly) agrue that they are not using any bugs and therefore have every right to do it. The thing is, however, that the large majority of people (even some of those who defend the right of "mad castling" ) agree that cheap castles/temples in every province makes game extremely boring and mindbogling for everybody involved(except mad castler of course). It also give mad castler (if he knows what he is doing and designed and play to the strength of his tactic) large advantage over not-madcastler.


Therefore it forces everybody, if he doesn't want to be in strong disadvantage in competitive MP with madcastler(s) present, to adopt the same tactic, which is in addition to being cheezy and mindbogling for most people, significantly deminish the diversity of this game (and this is one of the worst thing here in my opinion, since this game is all about different tactics and choices. Where to build castles (as well as which castle type to choose) is supposed to be very importent choice in this game, where you are choosing location based upon the local resourses, magic sites, indep troops available in the province, the resourses of neigborhood provinces, current political situation, your nation overall strategy, other neigboring castles that can provide assistance to new one in case of war, et cetera....

With "mad castling" all these choices are completely irrelevent since you are building castles everywhere, and choose only one of 2(sometimes 3) cheap 300gp castles in the begining.


Now returning to the question of proof. I agree that it is always good to have strong and mathematical evidence to back any claims such as this one. But what kind of evidence you could reasonable expect to have to prove that "mad castling" is cheesy, boring and unbalancing?

We have one notorious madcastler who is infamous for his use of this tactic - Norfleet. He uses the same cheesy and abusive tactic (where "mad castling is the main part of his strategy) it in each and every game of his and because of this win most of them.

You may argue that he wins not because of "madcastling" and other exploits but because he is very good player. Fine. But the only way to prove or reject it is for him to play a game against competent opponents and win without using any of his standard exploits. He, however, strongly refuses to do it, claiming that he don't know how to play without mad castling. (such game was offered to him only yesterday by his friend Haterider). Depsite my personal feeling toward Norfleet for his lying and cheating in my Last game, I agreed to play the game against him just to settle this question and clear the issue of "madcastling". Norfleet, however, chickened out. He understand very well that once (if) he would be beaten in his first and only game, where he would _not_ be using his standarts exploits, the truth about his "strategies" would become crystal clear fo everybody. He just can't risk it.


There is another, although less strict way to get mathematical evidence that you are asking for. If I understand it correctly, yours, as well as Gendalf's positions is that any tactic, including Norfleet's "mad castling + VQ + clam hoarding" can be beaten with good counter tactic. Ideally, I would agree with you, that's exactly what I love about this game. In reality however ad in case with "mad castling", I strongly doubt it, and this was never proven. AhhhFresh sugested excactly the same game to Norfleet and yourslef some time ago. Norfleet indicated that he is not really interested in it. But even if he would play it and win, he could still claim that he won because of his skills, not because of his cheesy strategy. And you could always say (i am not saying that *you* will, I am speaking strictly not-personally here) that he had strong element of luck on his side, or weak neigbors who he could gobble quickly before meeting his stronger oppoentns, or dozens of other possible reasons.


Finally you may argue that this is not about 1 player, but about the strategy. Again, normally I would agree, but Norfleet, as we all know, is special case. He hangs on dom2 Boards and channels 24hours per day (literally), and my guess is that he participate in at least 50% of all MP games going around here. He even went as low as to sneak into other people game under an alias. Therefore unfortunately he can not be ingored, and more and more games are created with house rules to prohibit partly or wholy his standard exploits.


So here you have it - you have a situation which deals with arguably valid (meaning it doesn't exploit bugs) strategy. At the same time it is very hard to gather strict mathematical evidence that you are looking for, in line with "Mirror Image" issue that you mentioned, since the infamous godfather of this lame strategy is certanly not cooperating, and in fact doing everything he can that would obscure the public opinion on this matter. For example he claims that his "mad castling" strategy is "beatable", since according to him he won a game or two(using his standard mad castling of course )against people who tried to copycat his strategy from him! What kind of evidence is that?!?


**********************************
People asked here for the solution, not a problem. All right, here is the solution part for you:


Personally I think that an excellent solution to this whole mad castling issue is to make temples burnable just like labs - meaning special "build/destroy" order would need to be issued by enemy commanders, next turn after the province conquered.

Norfleet and his copycats constantly claim that they have no choice but to build castles everywhere, since this is the only thing that can defend their temples against raiders. (and for some reason they assume that you have to build temples in EVERY province in orde to play this game). Than they moan that PD is inadecuate, temples are so expensive, etc...

Fine. With temples requiring an order for the commander to be destroid, it ives you excellent protection against enemy raiders looking to destroy your temples. It's exactly the same the same as with paper castles in this regard - it gives you 1 additinal turn to counterattack.

The best of all is that such solution does not nerf anything, and is in line with already existing mechanism for labs. You want to have crappy castles and build them in every province? Fine, you can do it! You don't want to mad castle but want to use some other strategy? Fine, now you have the opportunity to do it and still protect your teritory against raiders, at least as far as temples concern. IMHO this change would not eliminate mad castling completely, but it would go very long way to resolve this issue.


P.S. BTW historically speaking a lot of medieval monasteries were VERY impressive fortresses, sometimes much better than the surrounding barons castles. So the reqiurement to spend 1 more turn to burn it to the ground for enemy commander makes a good sense from this perspective. Also as a totally separate and optional idea - instead on destroying enemy temple your prist can spend 1 turn "converting" rival's god temple into your own, puryfying it, etc. The price could be the same as building new temple - 200 gp, or a little bit more than that. That little tweak would give priests another little usefull role in the game.

[ May 28, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

There is a simple way to mathmatically define Castling if you so desire.

Take the Total cost of X amount of castles of whatever type.

Take the total time to create X amount of castles.

Take the total time saved by creating a castle.

Take the total gold protected by creating a castle.

Take the total gold gained by creating a castle.

Take those #'s and plug them into an offensive force (alternate ones) and take into account that any castle defeated adds the variables you have just defined to your side.

Now show a clear imbalance between the cost and effect of such. Taking into consideration you can't move a Castle and Castles cannot take provinces.

All your arguments are based on only 1 person playing them. So test them not only against each other but opponents of equal skill and even gem income, capabilities. Also take into consideration the time frame involved.

I personally think 'mad castling' is a load of steaming bull. The effectiveness of a castle is only if you allow it to remain and if the castle can be defended. Unfortunately for the castler, even the cheapest castle with the shortest survival time costs 300 gold. And 300 gold for each castle defensively gives 300 gold to offensive forces.

300 gold goes a long way if you know how to protect the troops made with it and you are on the offensive instead of remaining on the defensive and playing into a take and hold strategy.

Stormbinder, unfortunately none of your arguements are really very applicable. And as I've said, Clams are the same way. If you let them be a problem they can be, but that can be said for any aspect of this game.

The reason I know personally that one, two, or even all three of your favorite topics for discussion are not overpowered is that I used to do them at one stage of my playtime. I even wrote a guide on how to abuse 2 of the 3 (castles and clams). While it was very effective for a while; and has many virtues. It is far from overpowered. If you were to try to use such tactics against a competent player who knows they are coming, understands the weakenesses for the entire game, and can act against that strategy (which can be a problem in large games, which is likely why it is so effective as your "New Player" to "Veteran Player" ratio is obviously high). It is no more viable than the "ID's on turn 14" strategy or any other number of seemingly overpowered playstyles.

Edit: Just because I personally think it's this way does not mean anyone else does (though I know a few that do, and that have tried and failed with it). And you can express your point if you'd like, but I have just rebutted it and an entire portion of those that play this game are represented by that statement. So in order for you to present a fully rational and conclusive illustration of your point you will have to revert to specifics which means mathmatical analysis or even saved games if you prefer.

[ May 28, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Scott Hebert]

Well, here's the thing about castling. As you said, it's a legitimate strategy. Hence, your labeling of it as 'abusive' is purely of your own belief. It's not abusing anything except perhaps the balance of the game. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the game. For me, it's rather the same as being mad at the fact that a Queen can move better than a Rook or a Bishop in Chess.

Luckily, unlike Chess, we can try to see it changed. However, a few things need to happen before any change is implemented.

1) Verification that this is indeed not how the game was meant to be. IOW, if the Designers felt that the desired end-result of a game was to have castles everywhere, they're not going to change it, and you're really just wasting your time.

2) Verification that the strategy is, indeed, 'abusive', as you put it. Is the strategy unfair? Is it inherently superior to any strategy that can be feasibly used against it? Does one person using the strategy force others to use the same strategy, or fail?

If 1) and 2) are verified, then you have identified something as a problem. And, BTW, you need to have more than one person able to reproduce the results of a strategy before it can be termed abusive. The best way is NOT to have that person win without the strategy. If he plays, and wins, you've lost your argument. If he plays, and loses, you can't chalk up the loss to the absence of the strategy. A better way is to have that person explain his strategy in minutest detail to others, so that they understand at the best level how to duplicate it. Then, see if THOSE people can win with the strategy. If they can, and they come to dominate the environment, THEN (and only then) do you have an abusive strategy. If a person with a 'potentially abusive strategy' has explained their strategy to others, and those people have tried to use that strategy against others, and failed, there are a few reasons why that might be.

1) Lack of familiarity with the strategy. They may need more experience.
2) The original player did not explain themselves well enough. This can be accidental or intentional.
3) The original player is winning on skill, rather than an abusive strategy, and therefore his strategy is not abusive.

Now, assuming that you can duplicate this abusive strategy, then you have the task of determining the root cause of the problem. Is the strategy too easy? Is it too hard to disrupt? What element of the strategy is making it abusive? For castling, some possible questions are: Is it the cost of the castles? Is it the way that the turn order is processed? Is it the ease of building SCs?

Once you have identified the core of the problem, you need to propose solutions to the problem that target the core problem, and address its problems. Solutions to the above questions could be: Double the cost of the castles, make sieging happen before Magic (which means you can't Teleport/move a SC in to protect the Castle), or drastically change the way SCs operate.

Finally, you need to test the solution, to make sure that that it does, in fact, deal with the problem. Once you have tested the theory, and found it suitable, then you can present a complete package to IW, from start to finish, and see if they'll implement it. Presuming that 1) was passed, they should.

This is the amount of work that should go into any perceived problem in the game, and the less work you do, the less incentive you give IW to give your arguments credence.

Hope everyone's liked Problem-Solving 101.

Scott

[Stormbinder]

I disagree Zen. This issue is not really possible to clearly and accuratly define in purely mathematical way, as you suggested, unlike clams for example. The problem is that you are indirectly assuming that any complex strategy in this game have a mathematical "value" that can be calculated and than used to compare it with other alternative strategies. Granted, it can be true with some simple "spreadsheet" types of strategic games, but fortunately Dom2 is way too complex for that.


Here is the example from your own "blueprint" for gathering "proof", step by step:

Originally posted by Zen:
There is a simple way to mathmatically define Castling if you so desire.

Take the Total cost of X amount of castles of whatever type.

Take the total time to create X amount of castles.

All right, these are obviously a piece of cake to calculate.

Take the total time saved by creating a castle.

Not sure what exactly do you mean here (time saved on reseach? Time saved on bringing troops to frontlines? And how do you "add" this to gold saved? By inventing some additional arbitrary multyplier between gold/reseach or gold/time? It's the same as adding apples and oranges (unless you intend to keep these in separate colums for the calculating of your "evidence" ).

However it doesn't really matter, since it'll get "better" later on...

Take the total gold protected by creating a castle.

Even this simple fact in the middle of your list is absolutely impossible to calculate. How do you calculate how much gold did you really protect with your castle? The province's income? (plus half/admin value). If so, you are making two wrong assumptions here at the same time:

First you assume that if you would not build the castle, the province would have to be raided by enemy, resulting in money loss. Which does not nessesarly be the case, since not every unprotected province have to be always raided by enemy, for example if it is located far away from your frontlines and you are waging an offensive war on your enemies. Secondary you assume that once you build the castle your investment is totally safe, which is not the case either, since your castle can still be conquered, especially if it is the "paper one" type as with "mad castling" strategy.


And finally even if you didn't protect the province and it was raided by enemy as the result, how do you propose to calculate how much money will you lose? Do you assume that tghe province in question would be raided once during the game? 2 times? 5 times?

Take those #'s and plug them into an offensive force (alternate ones) and take into account that any castle defeated adds the variables you have just defined to your side.

Now show a clear imbalance between the cost and effect of such. Taking into consideration you can't move a Castle and Castles cannot take provinces.

Ha! This is the best part. How do you propose to express in mathematical terms the uber VQ defending "completely castled" dominion, against "the alternative" strategy? You can't even calculate how much money did you realy save with your "madcastling". And even "madcastling" is only a part of your overall strategy, after all you don't have a single VQ with no troops defending your dominion by herself.

And even if me or somebody else did that impossible thing, and even somehow to manage to calculate the "value/benefits" of some totally different alternative strategy, it would still be meaningless to our purpose.

Why? Because it is logically impossible to prove that one tactic more powerfull than others tactic in this matter. In any scince filed you CAN'T prove ANY theory by examples. You can only REJECT the theory is by using any numbers of examples.


Related to our problem, even if me, or Vvyn, or any other people who share our opinion on madcastling would take your advice to heart and try to calculate mathematically that "madcastling" is "better" than some other alternative strategy (which is impossible to do as I have said and explained above), all we would prove is the fact that the "madcastling" strategy is superior to this particular "alternative" strategy. That's all.

*YOU* can (theoretically, but not practicaly) prove that madcastling is not the best strategy by calculating it's "value/benefits" and comparing it the *your* own particular strategy, which you calim to be superiour to madcastling. Your opponents in this argument though, can not prove the opposite by using any number of examples. Do you understand what I mean?


The bottom line is Zen - this game have way too many varibles to calculate in the way that you suggested. Much more that would allow you to build any meaningfull AND accurate mathematical model to generate that kind of evidence that you are looking for in case with madcastling. It is not nearly as simple as you imply with your "blueprint". I agree with you, you can (and should) apply mathematics and models to certain simple aspects of the game, such as clams, Mirror Image, etc. But "madcastling" strategy is certanly not one of them.

[ May 29, 2004, 00:34: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[rabelais]

I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this thread, I've been ill.

But, judging from the very latest Posts... I have a comment.

I think the value analysis of the mad castling phenomenon for living races is very different for living nations than for undead autospawning themes.

The disconnect between gold and "productive" capacity is at issue here.

This ties in with the difficulty, (and differing desirability given nation status above) of replacing population, in a way that is contextually pernicious.

I hope there is an in-game technique refinement that allows ermorian castle spamming to be defeated, even with the nekkid-immortal-SC icing.

I don't know of one, but my ignorance is commodious.


Rabe the Overt Optimist

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Not sure what exactly do you mean here (time saved on reseach? Time saved on bringing troops to frontlines? And how do you "add" this to gold saved? By inventing some additional arbitrary multyplier between gold/reseach or gold/time? It's the same as adding apples and oranges (unless you intend to keep these in separate colums for the calculating of your "evidence" ).

Time saved could be ment to equate to the stopping force of any given castle. Meaning that for say, a Watch Tower, you have 1 additional turn at the very least of stopping power for claiming any amount of gold over 1/2 of the province. This is a key factor if you are trying to say Castling is overpowered, because it's primary issue is the time it provides to you respond to any given attack on a province.

Even this simple fact in the middle of your list is absolutely impossible to calculate. How do you calculate how much gold did you really protect with your castle? The province's income? (plus half/admin value). If so, you are making two wrong assumptions here at the same time:

No, a Castle "Protects" Temples, which equate to 200 Gold. It could also concievably protect a Lab from opponent use, though it is not a 'build as many as you can' asset. Also include the Half income of the Province.

Snip

Raiding only lets you lose a province if you choose not to retake it with any sort of force. That means you are choosing not to retake it and the assumption is that the province taker is something you cannot defeat or will move the next turn.


And finally even if you didn't protect the province and it was raided by enemy as the result, how do you propose to calculate how much money will you lose? Do you assume that tghe province in question would be raided once during the game? 2 times? 5 times?

You can either assume it will always be raided, or raided half the time you play. Halving it's income. You are the one that seems to have an issue with Raiding and it's monumental impact so that you "Must Castle" in order to protect it.

Ha! This is the best part. How do you propose to express in mathematical terms the uber VQ defending "completely castled" dominion, against "the alternative" strategy? You can't even calculate how much money did you realy save with your "madcastling". And even "madcastling" is only a part of your overall strategy, after all you don't have a single VQ with no troops defending your dominion by herself. The issue has nothing to do with "Uber VQ's". It is a seperate issue in and of itself. If you can't seperate it from any of your other issues, you are blinded by the complete issues instead of any single aspect and your logic is flawed, thus being illogical discredited.

And even if me or somebody else did that impossible thing, and even somehow to manage to calculate the "value/benefits" of some totally different alternative strategy, it would still be meaningless to our purpose. No it would prove that Castling is more economical than buying armies thus it is an overpowered strategy because it protects and holds assets that are more applicable than other things built with gold (Mages and/or Armies).

Why? Because it is logically impossible to prove that one tactic more powerfull than others tactic in this matter. In any scince filed you CAN'T prove ANY theory by examples. You can only REJECT the theory is by using any numbers of examples. Then, you have already lost your argument. You cannot prove that Castling is 'abusive' on any level and so it is not.


Related to our problem, even if me, or Vvyn, or any other people who share our opinion on madcastling would take your advice to heart and try to calculate mathematically that "madcastling" is "better" than some other alternative strategy (which is impossible to do as I have said and explained above), all we would prove is the fact that the "madcastling" strategy is superior to this particular "alternative" strategy. That's all. That's all you need to do in order to have a leg to stand on to prove that the strategy is overpowered at all, let alone with enough consistancy and without enough drawbacks in order to warrant a change.

*YOU* can (theoretically, but not practicaly) prove that madcastling is not the best theory by calculating it's "vlue/bnefits" and comparing it the your own particular strategy, which you claim to be superior than madcastling. Your opponents though can not prove the opposite by using any number of examples. Do you understand what I mean? Then you understand that Castling is not overpowered, only one alternative out of many.


The bottom line is Zen - this game have way too many varibles to calculate in the way that you suggested. Much more that would allow you to build any meaningfull AND accurate mathematical model to generate that kind of evidence that you are looking for as in case with madcastling. It is not nearly as simple as you imply with your "blueprint". You can (and should) apply mathematics and models to certain simple aspects of the game, such as clams, Mirror Image, etc. But "madcastling" strategy is certanly not one of them.

Actually you could, but the simple fact that you want to argue even trying means to me that you have no intention of trying and thus it means so little have no intention of making any valid suggestions based on facts and only opinion. Opinion is not grounds for balance changes. Pure and simple.

[ May 29, 2004, 00:30: Message edited by: Zen ]

Originally posted by rabelais:
I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to this thread, I've been ill.

But, judging from the very latest Posts... I have a comment.

I think the value analysis of the mad castling phenomenon for living races is very different for living nations than for undead autospawning themes.

The disconnect between gold and "productive" capacity is at issue here.

This ties in with the difficulty, (and differing desirability given nation status above) of replacing population, in a way that is contextually pernicious.

I hope there is an in-game technique refinement that allows ermorian castle spamming to be defeated, even with the nekkid-immortal-SC icing.

I don't know of one, but my ignorance is commodious.


Rabe the Overt Optimist

Now see, there is yet another aspect that has to be addressed if you modify any castling. Not only this, but Underwater Nations as well.