Can I get some cheese with that...

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

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.

Not so. I am only arguing against the particular *simple method* that you propose, since I don't think it is possible to do it , that's all. (and I explained in detailes why I think so)


If you think you can do it and if it is as simple as you said it is - go ahead, I would be very interested to see how you will try to do it. Remember, *you* are the one who claim that he knows the strategy that is superior to "mad caslting" You can't really expect me to calculate the strategy that I am not aware about, using the "blueprint" that I think is impossible to follow, do you?

As for my suggestions - I've said it several times, but you seem to ignore it. It is making temples "burnable" in the same line with labs - meaning to burn it your commander need to issue an order.


The best thing is it is not a "nerf" by any means - you can still do "mad castling" as much as you want. But it would make other strategies a chance to really compete with "mad castling" strategy, increasing the diversity of the game.

I see it as clear win-win situation. And it should be very simple to implement, since exactly the same mechanism is already in place for labs.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:15: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Not true. I am only arguing against the particular *simple method* that you propose, since I don't think it is possible to do it , that's all. (and I explained in detailes why I think so)

That's fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

If you think you can do it and if it is as simple as you said it is - go ahead, I would be very interested to see how you will try to do it. Remember, *you* are the one who claim that he knows the strategy that is superior to "mad caslting" You can't really expect me to calculate the strategy that I am not aware about, using the "blueprint" that I think is impossible to follow, do you?

So you are saying you can't beat anyone who castles then? Hrm. You are less competent than I gave you credit for. There are about a hundred different strategies that can. But go ahead and set the parameters of a game and I will detail it as much as I can how you can beat it, you could even, if you so desired, make it so late in the game that you ignore almost any other aspect except for the point you are trying to prove.

As for my suggestions - I've said it several times, but you seem to ignore it. It is making temples "burnable" in the same line with labs - meaning to burn it your commander need to issue an order.

I don't need to ignore it, because unless you can show that mad castling there is no need to change it. If you want to say that Raiding is the problem and not Castling, and that is the answer to it. Then prove that point (that Temples should not be burned when taken over by enemies) or any point really would be nice.

The best thing is it is not a "nerf" by any means - you can still do "mad castling" as much as you want. But it would make other strategies a chance to really compete with "mad castling" strategy, increasing the diversity of the game.

Explain why and how. What other 'strategies' are you saying. The ... build alot of temples without losing them when an enemy takes over ... strategy? Which one is that?

I see it as clear win-win situation. And it should be very simple to implement, since exactly the same mechanism is already in place for labs.

I don't see it as win-win. I see it as changing Temples because you want to, not for any valid reasoning EVEN if was only: it would make the game more fun and why (you choose not to explain why) if that is your only reason.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:


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.

Not so. I am only arguing against the particular *simple method* that you propose, since I don't think it is possible to do it , that's all. (and I explained in detailes why I think so)


If you think you can do it and if it is as simple as you said it is - go ahead, I would be very interested to see how you will try to do it. Remember, *you* are the one who claim that he knows the strategy that is superior to "mad caslting" You can't really expect me to calculate the strategy that I am not aware about, using the "blueprint" that I think is impossible to follow, do you?


As for my suggestions - I've said it several times, but you seem to ignore it. It is making temples "burnable" in the same line with labs - meaning to burn it your commander need to issue an order. You can read my previous Posts for more details fo you like.


The best thing is it is not a "nerf" by any means - you can still do "mad castling" as much as you want. But it would make other strategies a chance to really compete with "mad castling" strategy, increasing the diversity of the game.

I see it as clear win-win situation. And it should be very simple to implement, since exactly the same mechanism is already in place for labs.

[ May 29, 2004, 01:29: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Also for reference as of Right now this is the "Poll" of Castling. You don't quite have the support of 'everyone'. But if you want to argue the validity of the poll or the timing you can. It is after all just a point in favor of Popular Opinion, which is not a reason to Balance anything.

Cut and Paste

Is there anything wrong with castling?
Choose 1
No, castles are fine the way they are. 83% (38)

Yes, the 'mad castling' strategy is a problem that needs to be dealt with. 17% (8)

What should our next step, as a community, be?
Choose 1
Insist that the developers change the game to address the problem. 11% (5)

Use house rules that limit the strategy. 17% (8)

Learn to deal with the strategy in game. 41% (19)

Enjoy a perfectly appropriate part of the game. 30% (14)

Select all statements that you agree with.
Choose 10
Mad castling is an abusive strategy that cannot be deal with. 2% (1)

Mad castling is not impossible to deal with, but it certainly reduces my enjoyment of the game. 35% (16)

Mad castling is a strategy like any other, and one needs to learn to defeat it. 61% (28)

Mad castling is a strategy I cannot implement well myself, so I want to prevent other people from using it. 0% (0)

Mad castling is the only strategy that stops me from raiding to my heart content, and I want it gone. 0% (0)

Mad castling is the only strategy that stops raids effectively, and should remain until raiding is balanced. 28% (13)

Mad castling is a strategy that works to my advantage when an oponent is using it poorly. 28% (13)

Mad castling has advantages and disadvantages, but the balance between them needs work. 17% (8)

Mad castling is a strategy that is only abusive when combined with some other unbalanced features, like Ermor, uber-VQ, etc... 24% (11)

Mad castling is a combination of words that I do not want to hear ever again.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:
Also for reference as of Right now this is the "Poll" of Castling. You don't quite have the support of 'everyone'. But if you want to argue the validity of the poll or the timing you can.

Sure, but I've never claimed that that I have support of "everyone". Otherwise what would be the point of this discussion?

And yes, I could certanly question the timing or the validity of this poll if I wanted to, but I don't. Perhaps I will just do another poll with few simple not-biased questions later on, when the "soap opera" feeling will subdue furthur.


And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.


And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw, but I think it's simple and elegant solution) regarding burnable temples?

[ May 29, 2004, 01:52: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.

If you won't put the effort into answering my questions there is no reason for me to answer yours. It's common courtesy and the burden of proof is yours. If you want to admit that you in no way can prove that Castling is more economical/strategically feasible than a # of other strategies using the same resources and that Castling is not overpowered you just want to change it because it's no fun to have to storm 800 castles in order to beat certain unnamed people. I will answer your question.

And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw) about burnable temples?

This is a bad change in my mind. Thematically it doesn't fit in my mind. If you find a temple of the heathen god who claims to be the one True God and I was vying for his place, I would burn anything created for him to the ground, then dance around on the ashes then feed the ashes to a blood slave and sacrifice her for no reason other than to kill it again.

Balance wise, it will too suddenly switch the effect of Dominion and Dominion would be more mutable than I feel should. Dominion is represented in my mind by devotion to a god, this takes time and effort. Even though a good % of the popluation is very fickle in their beliefs, healthy % is not so fickle. Also I don't particularly want to devalue Temples importance.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
[qb] And you still didn't reply to my suggestions about you, using your own "simple method" to prove that your strategy is better than Norfleet's one, as you have claimed it is.

If you won't put the effort into answering my questions there is no reason for me to answer yours.

---

I did.

It's common courtesy and the burden of proof is yours. If you want to admit that you in no way can prove that Castling is more economical/strategically feasible than a # of other strategies using the same resources and that Castling is not overpowered

That's not what I've said. As for the burden of proof - I've explained below that you can not PROVE any theory such as this one by *examples* in the way you suggested. It is just logically impossible, as I hope you can see yourself. You can only PROVE that the theory is WRONG by showing the example where it is untrue. And since you are the one who offered this "simple method" and said that it MUST be applied, AND you are the one who claim that his strategy is better than Norfleet's "madcastling" strategy, the burden of proof here is clearly on *you*, if you are willing to do it. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't ask other people to do it, since it just wouldn't make sense.

you just want to change it because it's no fun to have to storm 800 castles in order to beat certain unnamed people.

I freely and readly admit that it is certanly not fun to have to storm 800 castles. However it is not the main or the only reason for my position.

quote:

---

And what about the idea (I am not the author of it btw) about burnable temples?

This is a bad change in my mind. Thematically it doesn't fit in my mind. If you find a temple of the heathen god who claims to be the one True God and I was vying for his place, I would burn anything created for him to the ground, then dance around on the ashes then feed the ashes to a blood slave and sacrifice her for no reason other than to kill it again.

Balance wise, it will too suddenly switch the effect of Dominion and Dominion would be more mutable than I feel should. Dominion is represented in my mind by devotion to a god, this takes time and effort. Even though a good % of the popluation is very fickle in their beliefs, healthy % is not so fickle. Also I don't particularly want to devalue Temples importance.

---

I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.

[ May 29, 2004, 02:42: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I did.

No you said it couldn't be done, so you didn't answer it. You dodged it, which is a frequent habit of yours.

That's not what I've said. As for the burden of proof - I've explained below that you can not PROVE any theory such as this one by *examples* in the way you suggested. It is just logically impossible, as I hope you can see yourself. You can only PROVE that the theory is WRONG by showing the example where it is untrue. And since you are the one who offered this "simple method" and said that it MUST be applied, AND you are the one who claim that his strategy is better than Norfleet's "madcastling" strategy, the burden of proof here is clearly on *you*, if you are willing to do it. If you don't, that's fine, but you can't ask other people to do it, since it just wouldn't make sense.

So you are saying you can't accrue the costs and apply it to the same cost to an Army and have the Castle's clearly be a more valuable choice? That is impossible then? I'm saying you can. You didn't even really understand any of the points that I tried to use to gauge Castle's strategic and economic usefulness so it is no surprise you wouldn't understand something as basic as "Castles cost X, you can make X Army with the X amount of Cost and X Army Advantage will reliably conquor X amount of castles"

I freely and readly admit that it is certanly not fun to have to storm 800 castles. However it is not the main or the only reason for my position.

Yet that is the only reason you can prove.

I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.

It devalues them because noone would burn down a temple they would have a reasonable chance to reaqquire. Thus any temple built would stay built baring extraneous circumstances (akin to how Labs are only built down if you plan on losing a province and want to limit the use of an opponent resupplying gems/summons etc). So Temples would mean less because instead of requiring you to defend them, you could just go back and retake it when you felt the need/inclination to.

If you understand how Dominion works you might want to look at that. Temples provide instant Dominion pushing force. So when taking a province that has a temple in it, suddenly you are doing a dramatic shift in the Dominion struggle in that province, and you are allowing instant use of Blood Sacrifice.

No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.

Not to mention the thematic reasons.

[ May 29, 2004, 03:01: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Zen:
No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.

I don't think that's quite what he meant: One of the proposed suggestions is simply that the temple remains an enemy temple, and either is nonfunctional and does nothing, or continues to spread enemy dominion, until you specifically delegate a scout or something to specifically burn it down.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

So you are saying you can't accrue the costs and apply it to the same cost to an Army and have the Castle's clearly be a more valuable choice?

>sigh< I don't think it would make sense to continue this line of discussion further - we are clearly arguing in circles here.

I have to say you have completely lost me here Zen. How can you possibly devalue Temples importance by making them harder to be burned down??? Same with dominion switch effect - if would make dominion *less* mutable, not more. Have you really read my Posts before replying to them? Your arguments here are clearly contradict your own position.

It devalues them because noone would burn down a temple they would have a reasonable chance to reaqquire. Thus any temple built would stay built baring extraneous circumstances (akin to how Labs are only built down if you plan on losing a province and want to limit the use of an opponent resupplying gems/summons etc). So Temples would mean less because instead of requiring you to defend them, you could just go back and retake it when you felt the need/inclination to.

This is bad logic. Unlike with labs, which indeed stay in place forever unless you are planing to lose province for good and decide burn it, you can bet your *** that the enemy will try to burn your temple down if he can, with scouts/raiders/whatever, as soon as it captures your province. Therefore you have to recapture it immideatly, not "sit back and recapture when you have need/inclination". And doing this may not be as simple as before, since now the enemy have strong motive to hold for your province for at least one more turn, to finish his "scorthed earth" tactic. And since unlike yourlelf he can bring the reinforcements from all neighborhood provinces by using "friendly province movement", and he can do it first (unless you try to counter it with remote summons/teleports), he may very well pull any number of nasty surprises on you - since now he have a motive to do it.

If you understand how Dominion works you might want to look at that. Temples provide instant Dominion pushing force. So when taking a province that has a temple in it, suddenly you are doing a dramatic shift in the Dominion struggle in that province,

Wrong. You are still not getting it - NOTHING changes dominion-wise, until the *next* turn, when you have opportunity to burn the enemy temple to the ground. So there is no "dramatic shift" or *any* shift in dominion when you take enemy province with the temple, it can only happen in a turn after that, when/if you'll succeed of burning it to the ground.

Thematically speaking, think of medieval priests and monks hiding behind strong walls of their monasteries while war would be raging all around them. Happened all the time historicaly during dark ages, that's why so many medieval monasteries and temples looks like fortresses. These were a brutal times of constant warfare, similar to the Ascension wars.

and you are allowing
instant use of Blood Sacrifice.

No longer do you have to actively push your dominion by using resources, you simply have to defeat provinces with Temples to push it and go your merry way.

Not to mention the thematic reasons.

You are asuming here that you are allowed to perform blood sucriface in enemy temples. But who said you should be allowed to do it? Thematically speaking , you should first convert the temple to your god (or burn it down and build new one) before you are allowed to have any benefits from it, be it "dominion push" or "blood sacriface".

If it is implemented this way that this argument of yours is also not valid.

[ May 29, 2004, 03:54: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]