Dev Thinking on Balance? [Archive]

Duncanish

May 4th, 2004, 03:22 AM

The topic has most likely been deleted by now. I remember it had gotten quite long. There were examples of how fast someone could get hundreds of clams available by a certain turn, arguments over how those examples weren't realistic, etc etc blah. I think it started out being a list of things people wanted in the next patch, but ended up being a shouting match about clams. But my opinion's still the same. Some people think clams are unbalanced. Others don't. Bringing this argument back into the forefront is beating a poor, dead horse. You don't hate horses, do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 03:27 AM

I know I have come to the conclusion that I will not play anymore Multiplayer games with VQ's in them anymore.I have been playing strategy games for 20+ years and I know when I see an exploit. The VQ is an exploit, no question. Every strategy Online game goes through this. It is human nature to find exploits. I have to give credit to the developers in that the units are very balanced, and boy are there alot of units!
But I think the Gods need to be looked at again.

There will be those that scream we are whinners but those are the same people that wish to use this exploit. There mentality is the same as professional athletes that use steriods. If you do not understand what I am saying watch the Southpark show where Jimmy uses steriods in the special olympics it could be enlightening.

Graeme Dice

May 4th, 2004, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Duncanish:
The topic has most likely been deleted by now.The topic you arte looking for is "The Next Patch", and it should still be there since the Posts from Last november are still around.

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 03:46 AM

Some people think clams are unbalanced. Others don't. Bringing this argument back into the forefront is beating a poor, dead horse. You don't hate horses, do you?I don't hate horses and I don't want to restart any arguments. All I want to know is what the devs think.

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 03:50 AM

I know I have come to the conclusion that I will not play anymore Multiplayer games with VQ's in them anymore.Perhaps I can interest you in the mosehansen game Orania_Fast (see thread "Orania Semiblitz"). One VQ is allowed, however, in Black Forest Ulm.

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 04:44 AM

Well, since this thread is now becoming increasingly clogged with non-developer commentary, without a dev having deigned to comment, I might include these insights from people who I think have managed to blackmail their way into being the beta testers, and as such, can probably be considered more skilled and knowledgeable than the rest of us:

Originally posted by Zen:
VQ is optimal hmm? Well, I'll be damned, I rarely use VQ's at all and I win 95% of all my games. But if dem's the facts, then I guess dem's the facts. Originally posted by Jasper:
Vampire Queens have their points, but they're not that good. You just need to play with some different people.So it would seem that least those closest to the throne believe that they are not all they're cracked up to be.

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 05:12 AM

Well, since this thread is now becoming increasingly clogged with non-developer commentary, without a dev having deigned to comment, I might include these insights from people who I think have managed to blackmail their way into being the beta testers, and as such, can probably be considered more skilled and knowledgeable than the rest of us: Sigh.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
No offense intended to beta testers but thier opinions are not the end all of knowing knowledge (I myself have been a beta tester for many games). If this were true then every game that came out would never need patches. The beta testers did a great job on Dominions II balancing, but many exploits surface later after extensive play by customers. This is common in most games on the market.

Norfleet, what I do not understand is that you are a skilled player no doubt, why are you so set in defending the VQ?? Would it not be more interesting and challenging with Gods more balanced???

[ May 04, 2004, 04:16: Message edited by: Pirateiam ]

HotNifeThruButr

May 4th, 2004, 05:16 AM

I thought some people were going on about how the Ermor themes are a tad too strong.

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by HotNifeThruButr:
I thought some people were going on about how the Ermor themes are a tad too strong. Actually I think the nations and units are extremely well balanced. It is the Gods that need to be looked at. Every God should be competitive and they simply are not. How many Crones have you seen in Multi? I see at least 2-3 VQ's per Multi.

[ May 04, 2004, 04:36: Message edited by: Pirateiam ]

HotNifeThruButr

May 4th, 2004, 05:29 AM

Have I mentioned that Ermor themes allow for crap like supercharged VQs? You've just gotten a ton of pretender points by sacrificing scales.

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 05:33 AM

Well, since this thread is now becoming increasingly clogged with non-developer commentary, without a dev having deigned to commentI've been watching - I don't think either has come Online since the initial post.

This was just a question to them, and not intended to become a discussion. I could have used email, but I thought that the answer would interest everyone.

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 05:45 AM

No offense intended to beta testers but thier opinions are not the end all of knowing knowledgeIf you think about it, a beta-tester is almost certain to deny an alleged imbalance. If he agreed, then the imbalance would have been eliminated in the beta-testing.

Cainehill

May 4th, 2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Well, since this thread is now becoming increasingly clogged with non-developer commentary, without a dev having deigned to comment, I might include these insights from people who I think have managed to blackmail their way into being the beta testers, and as such, can probably be considered more skilled and knowledgeable than the rest of us:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Zen:
VQ is optimal hmm? Well, I'll be damned, I rarely use VQ's at all and I win 95% of all my games. But if dem's the facts, then I guess dem's the facts.First, by that logic : I never use crones, and I lose all my games. Therefor, crones are overpowered. Second - no slight intended to Zen, but if he's winning 95% of all his MP games, he needs to try swimming in a bigger pond. Especially given diplomacy and alliances, I'd be amazed if anyone was winning 95% in a range of games / players.

Originally posted by Jasper:
Vampire Queens have their points, but they're not that good. You just need to play with some different people.So it would seem that least those closest to the throne believe that they are not all they're cracked up to be. <hr /></blockquote>Again - no insult meant to Jasper, nor Zen, nor anyother beta tester. But Beta Testers tend to think they know how the game is supposed to work, therefor they have foregone conclusions, prejudices, and don't really push the envelope.

And, in your analogy (which I'm not saying is apropos), "those closest to the throne" tend to be sycophants, yes-men, and assassins. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And yep, there are other pretenders almost as good as the VQ - maybe even better. But there's only one AllFather in any game, and only one Carrion Dragon, and 13 VQs.

May 4th, 2004, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
First, by that logic : I never use crones, and I lose all my games. Therefor, crones are overpowered. Second - no slight intended to Zen, but if he's winning 95% of all his MP games, he needs to try swimming in a bigger pond. Especially given diplomacy and alliances, I'd be amazed if anyone was winning 95% in a range of games / players.That's nice of you to say, but I think it's you, who needs to swim in a bigger pond. You can lose all your games playing a VQ as well, that takes as much skill as losing with a Crone. You may be surprised but that's fine, it is precisely diplomacy and alliances why you can win 95% of your games.
Again - no insult meant to Jasper, nor Zen, nor anyother beta tester. But Beta Testers tend to think they know how the game is supposed to work, therefor they have foregone conclusions, prejudices, and don't really push the envelope.No insult ment to Newbies, but they often have no idea what they are talking about at any given moment in time and constantly contridict themselves. Beta Testers are there to help provide a service and give perspective to the design of the game, not to whine about personal preference or playstyle.

And yep, there are other pretenders almost as good as the VQ - maybe even better. But there's only one AllFather in any game, and only one Carrion Dragon, and 13 VQs. So if there are as many as good, maybe even better, why isn't the crusade to nerf them in full effect? Is it because you've been beaten with a VQ more often than the others? Or that it's easier to do for more nations? By your example, noone at all plays Rainbows or Bless Effects, only VQ's and combat pretenders. Which unfortunately is not the case so there must be a flaw in either your argument or your experiences.

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
If you think about it, a beta-tester is almost certain to deny an alleged imbalance. If he agreed, then the imbalance would have been eliminated in the beta-testing.That might be for huge budget games or maybe alot of other companies, but even the Developers for IW either state they didn't think of it, or didn't care/have enough time for something that they later find imbalanced. I'm fairly certain that most of the Beta Testers would fully admit if something they feel is genuinely wrong or inbalanced if they didn't happen to catch it. I may be giving too much credit, but considering how Dom2 came about and is progressing I don't think so.

[ May 04, 2004, 05:44: Message edited by: Zen ]

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 06:45 AM

By your example, noone at all plays Rainbows or Bless Effects, only VQ's and combat pretenders. Which unfortunately is not the case so there must be a flaw in either your argument or your experiences.Obviously, Cainehill exaggerated to make the point, which is that VQs are disproportionally popular. And to my mind, that's the only real point worth making.

If, for whatever reason, people continue to prefer the VQ when they're playing to win, then clearly the game would be improved if something were done to reduce the frequency at which it is selected.

May 4th, 2004, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
If, for whatever reason, people continue to prefer the VQ when they're playing to win, then clearly the game would be improved if something were done to reduce the frequency at which it is selected. If they are playing VQ's to win and they don't, does that mean that it isn't the design's fault but the player?

I understand completely if something becomes too popular then it needs to be looked at for reasons and back before the rehashing and second rehashing I believe at the very least I said that modifying the VQ's cost to 125 and 50 would be a good change. It wouldn't change the fact that Ermor or a Temperature nation could make high-powered VQ's but it would put them on par with each of the other 'designed for combat' pretenders.

So maybe it has been addressed and there may be a change in the works, but going to extremes over and over is in no way, benefitial to a cause.

Edit: And no I don't think you were Zap, I think you just want to know if anything is being done about them, not whether or not your personal preference is being implemented.

[ May 04, 2004, 05:52: Message edited by: Zen ]

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 06:55 AM

If they are playing VQ's to win and they don't, does that mean that it isn't the design's fault but the player?Certainly. But if the popularity continues over a period of time (which I believe it has) then it means they probably are winning.

And even if it doesn't, the persistent popularity is a problem in itself, regardless of what causes it, because it reduces the diversity of pretenders in the game.

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 06:58 AM

No insult ment to Newbies, but they often have no idea what they are talking about at any given moment in time and constantly contridict themselves. Beta Testers are there to help provide a service and give perspective to the design of the game, not to whine about personal preference or playstyle.
A "good" Beta testers job is also to take ideas, constructive criticism and possible problems that players (customers) have possibly uncovered and put them to tests with an open mind. It is not to degrade ideas and take a better than thou attitude. I have an open mind, run some test games with betas and come back with a fair conclusions. If this is not currently being done for Ilwinter you are not doing your job. Please refrain from throwing the "newbie" slam around also it does not reflect well on you.

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 06:59 AM

If every game played strictly to win will have 3 or 4 VQs, doesn't that mean that every game, 2-4 VQs will fail to win? That's not a terribly encouraging success ratio, and seems more like people trying to imitate somebody else's strategy without understanding the finer nuances of it, apeing only the most visible element without any of the underlying strategy.

May 4th, 2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
A "good" Beta testers job is also to take ideas, constructive criticism and possible problems that players (customers) have possibly uncovered and put them to tests with an open mind. It is not to degrade ideas and take a better than thou attitude. I have an open mind, run some test games with betas and come back with a fair conclusions. If this is not currently being done for Ilwinter you are not doing your job. Please refrain from throwing the "newbie" slam around also it does not reflect well on you. You assume this hasn't been done, as if a month ago when it surfaced it wasn't given a few preliminary tests. Or if it wasn't tested when it was first created in Dom2. I don't have to take ideas to IW, because IW reads these Boards. If a Beta Tester thinks something is a good idea (like say Arralen's Pangaea Mod) then they will try to lean on it to see if the Developers would like it.

If you'd like to assume that Beta Testers only put their own feelings and don't take both sides, there is nothing anyone will say that will convince you otherwise. It's not a them vs you, it's a concentrated effort.

You also have to look at it from IW's point of view. Maybe they don't think there is a problem or there is enough reasonable doubt to not make whatever changes happen to be foaming at the mouth. All KO has to say is "Thematic" and if it's set, it doesn't matter how many arguments you throw at it, it is thematic to him and it's his game and I respect that. If I have a real problem with it, you can Mod it.

[ May 04, 2004, 06:05: Message edited by: Zen ]

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 07:06 AM

All KO has to say is "Thematic" and if it's set, it doesn't matter how many arguments you throw at it, it is thematic to him and it's his game.Absolutely. At the end of the day, only the dev's opinion counts for anything. That's why I'm trying to find out what it is.

May 4th, 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />If they are playing VQ's to win and they don't, does that mean that it isn't the design's fault but the player?Certainly. But if the popularity continues over a period of time (which I believe it has) then it means they probably are winning.

And even if it doesn't, the persistent popularity is a problem in itself, regardless of what causes it, because it reduces the diversity of pretenders in the game. <hr /></blockquote>If you're saying that the Pretender selection for competitive games is slimmer than the actual selection of Pretenders, both Human and Monster, then I agree with you 100% and have from the beginning. That doesnt mean I think you should nerf all the Pretenders above the standard or middle ground, but make other pretenders more competitive friendly.

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 07:15 AM

If you're saying that the Pretender selection for competitive games is slimmer than the actual selection of Pretenders, both Human and Monster, then I agree with you 100%Well, I'm saying more than that, so perhaps we're not in full agreement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I'm saying that the Vampire Queen in particular stands out as the most popular pretender by a wide margin. That's only a subjective view, of course, but it's one shared by many posters to this forum.

In other words, I'm proposing that a nerf to the VQ would be the biggest single balance improvement that could be made, short of reviewing the whole pantheon.

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 07:18 AM

You assume this hasn't been done, as if a month ago when it surfaced it wasn't given a few preliminary tests. Or if it wasn't tested when it was first created in Dom2. I don't have to take ideas to IW, because IW reads these Boards. If a Beta Tester thinks something is a good idea (like say Arralen's Pangaea Mod) then they will try to lean on it to see if the Developers would like it.

If you'd like to assume that Beta Testers only put their own feelings and don't take both sides, there is nothing anyone will say that will convince you otherwise. It's not a them vs you, it's a concentrated effort.

You also have to look at it from IW's point of view. Maybe they don't think there is a problem or there is enough reasonable doubt to not make whatever changes happen to be foaming at the mouth. All KO has to say is "Thematic" and if it's set, it doesn't matter how many arguments you throw at it, it is thematic to him and it's his game and I respect that. If I have a real problem with it, you can Mod it.
I did not assume it was not tested but since it seems to be a major concern with many players I did assume that there would be an explanation of the results of the test? If the conclusion of the betas and devs is there is nothing wrong then I will except it. Have I missed the conclusion, could you lead me to the Posts?

Since I have Beta tested many times before I do not think it is an us vs them situation. In fact it should be a team work effort - betas - devs and customers.

Again if Ilwinter believes it is thematic, it is thier game and I will except it. Just state this and we can move on.

May 4th, 2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
In other words, I'm proposing that a nerf to the VQ would be the biggest single balance improvement that could be made, short of reviewing the whole pantheon. This is where personal opinion differs. My personal belief is the biggest single balance improvement that could be made would be making LI a factor in the game by cost-effectiveness and either battlefield viability or ability. As it represents an entire swath of units in each and every nation/theme.

To each their own and what they feel improvement, I never said you shouldn't have started this thread or your curiosity should not be sated.

[ May 04, 2004, 06:24: Message edited by: Zen ]

May 4th, 2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
I did not assume it was not tested but since it seems to be a major concern with many players I did assume that there would be an explanation of the results of the test? If the conclusion of the betas and devs is there is nothing wrong then I will except it. Have I missed the conclusion, could you lead me to the Posts?Rome was not built in a day and neither are Developer Decisions. You'll have to wait for them to answer your question. Developers are notorious for making you wait for the patch before learning everything they have adjusted.

Since I have Beta tested many times before I do not think it is an us vs them situation. In fact it should be a team work effort - betas - devs and customers.Then you should also know that a good % of the suggestions both beta and customers are not implemented for any number of reasons and should be able to accept the time frame they are delivered in.

Zapmeister

May 4th, 2004, 07:27 AM

This is where personal opinion differs. My personal belief is the biggest single balance improvement that could be made would be making LI a factor in the game by cost-effectiveness and either battlefield viability or ability. As it represents an entire swath of units in each and every nation/theme.Oh, sure. I should have said the biggest single balance improvement to pretenders, which is what we were talking about.

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 08:01 AM

Rome was not built in a day and neither are Developer Decisions. You'll have to wait for them to answer your question. Developers are notorious for making you wait for the patch before learning everything they have adjusted.
That is fair, I will wait to hear from the devs. Thank you.

Stormbinder

May 4th, 2004, 12:42 PM

Hmm, it's a bit confusing what Zen was trying to say there (I'll skip that part) but if

Originally posted by Zen:

...I believe at the very least I said that modifying the VQ's cost to 125 and 50 would be a good change.
....
than why keep arguing? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif AFAICT nobody wants to nerf VQ into oblivion. For example I sugested changing paths cost from 30 to 80, which would be pretty similar additional point-cost as Zen suggested for the standart VQ MP templates. Some people, despite all their experience, (or because of it) like to argue way too much...

[ May 04, 2004, 11:45: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

PDF

May 4th, 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
If every game played strictly to win will have 3 or 4 VQs, doesn't that mean that every game, 2-4 VQs will fail to win? That's not a terribly encouraging success ratio, (...)ROFLMAO, this one has to be tagged as an epithome of bad faith ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Jondifool

May 4th, 2004, 03:11 PM

Beeing an absolute newbie with a healthy respeckt for veterans and beta testers , (trolls and grudges as well) all my instinkt tells me to keep out of this , but I can't resist. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

strong players says that vampire queen is not "to" strong. Skilled players says that vampire queen can be beaten "with skill".

But less skilled and not that strong players feels forced into take one anyway as they don't know how to really counter her. And as such they don't know if " strong and skilled " players are right

This makes for games where many vampirequeens flock around.

So my question is.
No matter if the vampirequeen is overpovered or not, does MP games loss in quality from being flooded with Vampire Queens ?

If not! what then is the problem?

If MP games loss in quality then something needs to be done! Isn't it that simple?

There is absolute no need for this beatyfull game to loose in quality or btw varity .

And as such I would like to see varity restored. I don't care at all if the VQ is overpowered or not, as long as someone just wins this argument clearly, and the consequense is either education of the newbies or a nerfing of the VQ.

Because I for one does not like to look forward to my first MP game with to many VQ pretenders.

And seen in that light I would eagerly wait for the developers respons.

---
off topic I would love to see a Van Helsing relic (unique artifackt weapon there removes imortality when hitting succesfully and offcause makes the vielder horror marked.)
or maybe a Van Helsing merc

Scott Hebert

May 4th, 2004, 03:42 PM

For my part, I think both sides are correct. I just don't think they are looking at the same point in time.

The people who believe that the VQs are 'just fine' normally cite any number of spells that simply destroy the VQ (or any SC, for that matter). This is true. The VQ is, perhaps, the most vulnerable SC Pretender chassis in the game against other players. If a Human player cannot deal with an opposing VQ, given time and resources, that is the fault of the Human player.

However.

The major problem with the VQ IMO is that she becomes too powerful _too early_. It seems that everyone agrees that the VQ can be a force to be reckoned with by turn 5, no matter what nation you are playing with. Therefore, the VQ should be seen not so much as a SC but as the ultimate early expansion engine. This _is_ a problem. Something I've noted in Arryn's AAR, and in other Posts by other people, is that the early expansion in MP must be extremely rapid, or you will lose. No one can deny in this type of game that the faster you expand, the better you are situated for the later game. If I produce 30% more gold than my opponent when I reach him, I have a decided advantage over him, and, all else being equal, I should beat him.

The advantage of the VQ is one of increased early expansion, from my viewpoint. IMO, any change to the VQ should be done to counteract this advantage.

Bayushi Tasogare

Gandalf Parker

May 4th, 2004, 04:24 PM

I seem to be jumping in late here...

Personally Im not that impressed by the Vampire Queen. I seem to remember similar conversations concerning Nataraja and Wyrm.

Has something changed recently? Or has a few players discovered her usefulness? Are these "many players" who are concerned actually the same players frequently?

Im in agreement that if anything is so common as to seem like an automatic choice then it should be examined for possible fixes. Likewise anything which seems like an obvious "never pick" (which is the area I tend to pay my attention to).

However, there will always be something on top and something on bottom. The only question is whether its way too much.

I suppose we could do a poll like the clams one.

Catquiet

May 4th, 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Bayushi Tasogare:
The major problem with the VQ IMO is that she becomes too powerful _too early_. It seems that everyone agrees that the VQ can be a force to be reckoned with by turn 5, no matter what nation you are playing with. Therefore, the VQ should be seen not so much as a SC but as the ultimate early expansion engine. This _is_ a problem. Something I've noted in Arryn's AAR, and in other Posts by other people, is that the early expansion in MP must be extremely rapid, or you will lose. No one can deny in this type of game that the faster you expand, the better you are situated for the later game. If I produce 30% more gold than my opponent when I reach him, I have a decided advantage over him, and, all else being equal, I should beat him.

The advantage of the VQ is one of increased early expansion, from my viewpoint. IMO, any change to the VQ should be done to counteract this advantage.

Bayushi Tasogare The White Bull does very well at early expansion. The problem with the VQ is that she can go into battle without equiping any items, take a large chunk out of an elite endgame army and be ready to fight on the next turn even if they manage to kill her.

[ May 04, 2004, 15:27: Message edited by: Catquiet ]

Kristoffer O

May 4th, 2004, 04:26 PM

Hmm, that was a lot of Posts in a single day. Suppose it is a matter close to the heart of many a good player.

My current thoughts:
Clam. Overpowered particulary in large games where there are players that are not prepared for it.

Clam hoarding: boring. One shouldn't have to prevent people from doing it.

Vampire Queen. A recent complaint compared to the clam. I have not yet formed my own opinion on it. Bayushi Tasogare made a good point about the early expansion. In the late game I would say that it makes a lousy SC. It might be used as a 'super mage' in the late game, but I'm not sure if this is how it is used. Equipment on an immortal is sort of pointless, but buffing and combat magic can be used to good results.

There are counters, but it might be that they are too few or too obscure for most players. Perhaps someone should make a 'Slay the Queen' article. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

One final note. Stop picking on the betas, pick on us instead. Most betas on this forum are rather new. They have had little to do with the balancing of the game. I'm the real culprit (or JK).

Kristoffer O

May 4th, 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Catquiet:
The White Bull does very well at early expansion. The problem with the VQ is that she can go into battle without equiping any items, take a large chunk out of an elite endgame army and be ready to fight on the next turn even if they manage to kill her. Why doesn't anyone complain about the Phoenix. A 10 Fire 4 Air Phoenix commands vast powers of annihilation. It is also flying and immortal. I believe this is the main problem. No risk of loosing your pretender combined with mobility and destructive powers. But you can only be at one place at a time.

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />No offense intended to beta testers but thier opinions are not the end all of knowing knowledgeIf you think about it, a beta-tester is almost certain to deny an alleged imbalance. If he agreed, then the imbalance would have been eliminated in the beta-testing. <hr /></blockquote>Not the case at all. Most of my discussion around dominions 2 has been about various inbalances. This continues to be the case, and I don't think dominions is as balanced as many others apparently do.

It just happens that I think that clams and Vampire Queens are not problems.

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Bayushi Tasogare:
The advantage of the VQ is one of increased early expansion, from my viewpoint. IMO, any change to the VQ should be done to counteract this advantage.

Bayushi Tasogare I disagree. The Vampire Queen is hardly alone in being able to do this, and in fact there are pretenders that can start conquering immediately.

Catquiet

May 4th, 2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Catquiet:
The White Bull does very well at early expansion. The problem with the VQ is that she can go into battle without equiping any items, take a large chunk out of an elite endgame army and be ready to fight on the next turn even if they manage to kill her. Why doesn't anyone complain about the Phoenix. A 10 Fire 4 Air Phoenix commands vast powers of annihilation. It is also flying and immortal. I believe this is the main problem. No risk of loosing your pretender combined with mobility and destructive powers. But you can only be at one place at a time. <hr /></blockquote>The Phoenix does it's damage with spells and you know those spells are going to be either fire or lightning, new paths are too expensive for anything else. Low HPs and few item slots means there is no way to turn it into a supercombatant. Put a strong fighter in an elemental hauberk and you can take out the phoenix. The phoenix is fine as it is.

The Vampire Queen can have 30 protection, quickness, 18+ attack and defense, damage shields, and immunity to all elemental damage without any equipment at all. Add an armor piercing life drain attack which heals HPs + restores fatigue whenever she damages an enemy and you have an enemy that regains health faster than you can damage her. The VQ is not a game breaker but she does give more power for the points than any other pretender.

Raising the path cost of the VQ to 80 would be the simplest solution.

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Why doesn't anyone complain about the Phoenix. A 10 Fire 4 Air Phoenix commands vast powers of annihilation. It is also flying and immortal. I believe this is the main problem. No risk of loosing your pretender combined with mobility and destructive powers. But you can only be at one place at a time. The phoenix is alot more vulnerable, can't use items, is less flexible, and less potent for the cost. The phoenix is much more of a budget entry into fire and air magic than a supercombatant. IMHO Vampire queens fill a substantially different roll, and are in general more usefull.

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Catquiet:
The Vampire Queen can have 30 protection, quickness, 18+ attack and defense, damage shields, and immunity to all elemental damage without any equipment at all. Add an armor piercing life drain attack which heals HPs + restores fatigue whenever she damages an enemy and you have an enemy that regains health faster than you can damage her. The VQ is not a game breaker but she does give more power for the points than any other pretender.IMHO you exaggerate your case. How are you getting 18+ attack and defense without equipment? How do you manage to cast invulnerability, quickness, several damage shields, and 3 elemental immunities?

Even then, what you describe isn't so incredibly potent (nor even IMHO the best way to field a VQ).
Other pretenders easily surpase this power, in particular due to much higher hitpoints, double her strength, and better attack/defense.

The VQ queen's strength isn't her brutishness, but rather her flexibility. Regeneration, enc 0, cold immunity, poison immunity, immortal, ethereal, flying, and stealthy.

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 05:57 PM

I had originally planned to stay out of this, as IMHO the debates over the Clam and VQ hasn't been constructive. However, as my name has been invoked I am now compelled to appear, as though drawn by invisible chains. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

First. Yes, I am a beta tester, although I only become one recently. I like to think this doesn't make me partial, but instead just gives me an early peek at upcoming patches. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now, perhaps I should know better, but I'm going to be frank and blunt in my opinions about Clams and VQs:

1) Clams. IMHO the context in which they can be abused just doesn't exist in Dominions. There is no way you can expect to sit unmolested for the 30-40 turns necessary, and the oppurtunity cost is extreme. I discretely polled around of those whom I believe to be the best players, and they all agree, while those who disagree are unknown to me.

Moreover, I feel the points arguing that clams are overpowered have been countered, and then merely reiterated. Could I be mistaken? You bet! But I am not interested in revisting the topic until new arguments are presented.

2) Vampire Queens. They are good, but IMHO those arguing she is unbalanced ignore her weaknesses. She is not particularily tough in combat, nor extraordinarily usefull in early expansion. I absolutely think there are better pretenders, and that Vampire Queens are simply popular.

On the other hand, given the oppurtunity I would make some changes to her:

-remove immunity to poison. doesn't seem thematic to me.
-add fire vulnerbility. Perhaps I've read to many White Wolf source books, but this seems thematic.
-remove need not eat. A trivial point, but still.
-Increase her magic path cost to 50 or 60.
-Allow her for less factions.

On the third hand... In general I think it's a better idea to improve weaker pretenders than to neuter the better ones.

[ May 04, 2004, 16:58: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Kel

May 4th, 2004, 06:01 PM

What makes a VQ a poor late game SC ? Please read on before responding !

Now, I can see where she might be a mediocre late game SC, due entirely due to her low(for an SC) hp. Otoh, her immortality goes some way to compensate for this.

I can see that you can more reliably put expensive equipment on a higher HP pretender but the number of built in effects on the VQ again, does something to compensate for this.

Maybe not entirely. I mean late, late game, I would rather have an artifact equipped, high HP chassis, I think.

But if VQ is the best early/mid game SC, how does she compare to other early/mid game chasses ? That is, if she is better than a white bull, say, in the early game and the mid game, instead of comparing her to specific late game pretenders, shouldn't we be comparing her to those early and mid game ones ?

IE, *if* she is better than some pretenders in the early game, the middle game AND the late game (after taking cost of paths and everything else into account, natch), that would classify her as being over-powered, clearly. I am not saying she is or is not better but to say that she is not better than every pretender in every situation in every phase of the game isn't really much of a declaration at all. A lot of the arguments about why she is not over-powered have focused on why she isn't invincible and that's a red herring.

- Kel

Kel

May 4th, 2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
I discretely polled around of those whom I believe to be the best players, and they all agree, while those who disagree are unknown to me.
Hehe, I am not disagreeing with you on the subject but that's a pretty dismissive thing to say. Rude, even. This 'Old Boys Club' have a public roster somewhere ?

- Kel

Kristoffer O

May 4th, 2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jasper:
I discretely polled around of those whom I believe to be the best players, and they all agree, while those who disagree are unknown to me.
Hehe, I am not disagreeing with you on the subject but that's a pretty dismissive thing to say. Rude, even. This 'Old Boys Club' have a public roster somewhere ?

- Kel <hr /></blockquote>Yup. They also meet every third week in an old pub somewhere in Detroit to discuss how to govern the world without newbies noticing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Those Jasper believes to be the best players are probably people he knows from MP games since the days of Dom1. A bit rude perhaps, but there were some remarks on the betas that were a bit rude as well.

Catquiet

May 4th, 2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Catquiet:
The Vampire Queen can have 30 protection, quickness, 18+ attack and defense, damage shields, and immunity to all elemental damage without any equipment at all. Add an armor piercing life drain attack which heals HPs + restores fatigue whenever she damages an enemy and you have an enemy that regains health faster than you can damage her. The VQ is not a game breaker but she does give more power for the points than any other pretender.IMHO you exaggerate your case. How are you getting 18+ attack and defense without equipment? How do you manage to cast invulnerability, quickness, several damage shields, and 3 elemental immunities?
<hr /></blockquote>18 Attack and Defence? The VQ starts at 12, quickness give +3 att/+3 def, and the VQ racks up experience very quickly for the other +3.

Well you can't have several damage shields at once with total elemental immuntity. But she is already immune to cold and poison, so you do have room for one damage shield. (quickness),(invulnerability),(resist fire),(resist lightning), (astral shield or fire shield or soul vortex).

And you will rarely be facing an army with both fire and lightning attacks so you can switch one or both of those resist spells for a damage shield in most cases.

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jasper:
I discretely polled around of those whom I believe to be the best players, and they all agree, while those who disagree are unknown to me.
Hehe, I am not disagreeing with you on the subject but that's a pretty dismissive thing to say. Rude, even. This 'Old Boys Club' have a public roster somewhere ?

- Kel <hr /></blockquote>No, it's not meant to be dismissive. It's simply that there are some people who's skill I know, and many others who's skill I do not know. People who's skill I do not know need to make a compelling argument to convince me, which IMHO has not been done.

My main point is that I don't think a compelling argument for clam's brokeness has been made, and that I feel that the counter points have not been addressed. A secondary point is is that I'm not just relying upon my own opinion, and have considered this seriously.

[ May 04, 2004, 17:59: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
Now, I can see where she might be a mediocre late game SC, due entirely due to her low(for an SC) hp. Otoh, her immortality goes some way to compensate for this.

I entirely agree.

But if VQ is the best early/mid game SC, how does she compare to other early/mid game chasses ?

I don't think she is. She can be good, but there are others at least as good.

[ May 04, 2004, 18:03: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Catquiet:
18 Attack and Defence? The VQ starts at 12, quickness give +3 att/+3 def, and the VQ racks up experience very quickly for the other +3.

Well you can't have several damage shields at once with total elemental immuntity. But she is already immune to cold and poison, so you do have room for one damage shield. (quickness),(invulnerability),(resist fire),(resist lightning), (astral shield or fire shield or soul vortex).Hence my point that you are exaggerating, if only a bit.

I would point out that these things you mention are not extraordinary, but rather commonplace or even a bit weak in a combat pretender -- especially once you take equipment into account.

[ May 04, 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Yup. They also meet every third week in an old pub somewhere in Detroit to discuss how to govern the world without newbies noticing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The club, such as it is, also gladly accepts new members. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Being involved in such debate is the general method of admitance IMHO, especially if you do a good job of pointing out how my views are mistaken and force me to reassess my opinions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Those Jasper believes to be the best players are probably people he knows from MP games since the days of Dom1. A bit rude perhaps, but there were some remarks on the betas that were a bit rude as well.

As well as those that I have debated with, yet never played against, or who's reputations I've heard of from a reliable second hand source.

I truly was meaning to be merely frank and not rude, as I'm behind schedule on my work and don't really have time to beat around the bush. Another reason I was reticent to get into this debate.

[ May 04, 2004, 18:14: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Graeme Dice

May 4th, 2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
I don't think she is. She can be good, but there are others at least as good. There aren't any that are as low risk though, or that can get out the door as fast. With mistform, mirror image, quickness, ironskin, and breath of winter she can conquer any independent province I've seen regardless of strength.

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Catquiet:
18 Attack and Defence? The VQ starts at 12, quickness give +3 att/+3 def, and the VQ racks up experience very quickly for the other +3.

Well you can't have several damage shields at once with total elemental immuntity. But she is already immune to cold and poison, so you do have room for one damage shield. (quickness),(invulnerability),(resist fire),(resist lightning), (astral shield or fire shield or soul vortex).Hence my point that you are exaggerating, if only a bit.

I would point out that these things you mention are not extraordinary, but rather commonplace or even a bit weak in a combat pretender -- especially once you take equipment into account. <hr /></blockquote>Are you kidding????....(beating head against wall) So let me get this straight - by say turn 12 you have a SC that has 40+HP(which is easily replenished from life drain), attack/Def of +18, flys, is poison immune, cold immune, fire or light immune,Is invulnerable, With quickness, luck, has life drain, does not fatigue, and if you actually some how kill the thing (yet to see it happen) it is back the next turn!!!!! (keeps beating head against wall) If you do not think this is possible...I am currently in s MP game fighting CatQuiet's VQ.(I had the unenviable luck of being standard Ulm and his nieghbor) I can verify that what he said is easily attainable! If a player such as CatQuiet who is very skilled with the VQ tells you it needs some balancing I would listen.

Gandalf Parker

May 4th, 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jasper:
I don't think she is. She can be good, but there are others at least as good. There aren't any that are as low risk though, or that can get out the door as fast. With mistform, mirror image, quickness, ironskin, and breath of winter she can conquer any independent province I've seen regardless of strength. <hr /></blockquote>Isnt that true of most gods you add those to?

is everyone going to keep adding up her pluses or are there suggestions what to do about her? Make her more expensive? After all, she is still just one piece. there are alot of single pieces in the game that can kick tail but that wont win anything but a tiny game.

If the VQ is banished by priests does she still return? (maybe have been covered, sorry if I missed it being mentioned)

Isnt she susceptable to the same routing problem as other gods?

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
I am currently in s MP game fighting CatQuiet's VQ.(I had the unenviable luck of being standard Ulm and his nieghbor) I can verify that what he said is easily attainable! If a player such as CatQuiet who is very skilled with the VQ tells you it needs some balancing I would listen. Pff. Catquiet's VQ doesn't scare me. I'm due to shortly counter it soon, and I fully intend on watching it crash and burn. Bring 'em on.

Frankly, I'm not surprised you can't kill it, if the depths of your ability involve hurling more and more troops at it. It's a strategy, and if you can't counter it, it'll eat you for lunch: A strategy that DOESN'T eat you for lunch if not countered is totally worthless! What the hell good is a strategy that doesn't even work on people who aren't prepared for it?

Besides, you're Ulm. He's Ermor. You were more or less screwed from the beginning, as Ulm is known to be weak against SG Ermor. Marignon vs. Abysia is another similar mismatch.

[ May 04, 2004, 19:12: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
Are you kidding????....(beating head against wall) So let me get this straight - by say turn 12 you have a SC that has 40+HP(which is easily replenished from life drain), attack/Def of +18, flys, is poison immune, cold immune, fire or light immune,Is invulnerable, With quickness, luck, has life drain, does not fatigue, and if you actually some how kill the thing (yet to see it happen) it is back the next turn!!!!! (keeps beating head against wall) If you do not think this is possible...No, I am not kidding. I do not think what you have described is extraordinarily strong. Such things are also possible with other pretenders, including ones that will beat a VQ head to head.

The fact that you are losing to this strategy is not by itself enough to convince me.

[ May 04, 2004, 19:24: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pirateiam:
I am currently in s MP game fighting CatQuiet's VQ.(I had the unenviable luck of being standard Ulm and his nieghbor) I can verify that what he said is easily attainable! If a player such as CatQuiet who is very skilled with the VQ tells you it needs some balancing I would listen. Pff. Catquiet's VQ doesn't scare me. I'm due to shortly counter it soon, and I fully intend on watching it crash and burn. Bring 'em on.

Frankly, I'm not surprised you can't kill it, if the depths of your ability involve hurling more and more troops at it. It's a strategy, and if you can't counter it, it'll eat you for lunch: A strategy that DOESN'T eat you for lunch if not countered is totally worthless! What the hell good is a strategy that doesn't even work on people who aren't prepared for it?

Besides, you're Ulm. He's Ermor. You were more or less screwed from the beginning, as Ulm is known to be weak against SG Ermor. Marignon vs. Abysia is another similar mismatch. <hr /></blockquote>Well Norfleet I will not comment on your insult since from all the other Posts I have read I know how disturbed you are and mental illnesses are not something to make fun of. Answer this simple question - What is your pretendar in this game???? Case closed

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 08:24 PM

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pirateiam:
Are you kidding????....(beating head against wall) So let me get this straight - by say turn 12 you have a SC that has 40+HP(which is easily replenished from life drain), attack/Def of +18, flys, is poison immune, cold immune, fire or light immune,Is invulnerable, With quickness, luck, has life drain, does not fatigue, and if you actually some how kill the thing (yet to see it happen) it is back the next turn!!!!! (keeps beating head against wall) If you do not think this is possible...No, I am not kidding. I do not think what you have described is extraordinarily strong. Such things are also possible with other pretenders, including ones that will beat a VQ head to head.

The fact that you are losing to this strategy is not by itself enough to convince me. <hr /></blockquote>Please list them.

Graeme Dice

May 4th, 2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
Isnt that true of most gods you add those to?Sure, but a feudal province can cause afflictions to them, and they get more fatigued as the battle goes on.

If the VQ is banished by priests does she still return?Banishment just does damage if the MR check is failed, so it's no different than any other cause of death.

Isnt she susceptable to the same routing problem as other gods?Immortals never rout in their dominion.

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Catquiet's VQ doesn't scare me. I'm due to shortly counter it soon, and I fully intend on watching it crash and burn. Bring 'em on.

Besides, you're Ulm. He's Ermor. You were more or less screwed from the beginning, as Ulm is known to be weak against SG Ermor. Marignon vs. Abysia is another similar mismatch. Ah, this Vampire Queen is played by Ermor? No wonder it's powerfull. One of Ermor's biggest strengths is it's powerfull pretender; this is more than compensated for by it's other weaknesses. Personally, in the same situation I would be glad that he wasn't playing something else, e.g. that didn't rely upon immortality and so wasn't afraid to enter your dominion.

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
Well Norfleet I will not comment on your insult since from all the other Posts I have read I know how disturbed you are and mental illnesses are not something to make fun of. Answer this simple question - What is your pretendar in this game???? Case closed And why do you think I am keenly aware of exactly how to rip one apart and send it crashing to the ground in a mangled heap? Besides, I have others, like a Vanheim game where I *HAVE* in fact, been facing down a VQ much like the one you describe, and am currently kicking its *** all over the map. I'm an Allfather there.

The problem is that YOU ARE NOT TRYING! It's a very common attitude amongst players these days: When they start losing to something on a regular basis, rather than countering it, they'd rather complain about how it's so awful. Meanwhile, the rest of us have a myriad arsenal of ways to counter, and are unintimidated. This doesn't invalidate that the strategy has great deal of merit to it, but it's not unstoppable....unless you can't be bothered to try.

Frankly, as I've pointed out, a strategy that fails even when not specifically countered is absolutely crap and utterly worthless. Hell, a dozen scouts with herald lances can easily burn out a VQ...and their scripts don't run out because they have NOTHING ELSE THEY CAN CAST.

[ May 04, 2004, 19:31: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
...I know how disturbed you are and mental illnesses are not something to make fun of...Well, that's enough for me. Have fun with your mud slinging guys.

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pirateiam:
Well Norfleet I will not comment on your insult since from all the other Posts I have read I know how disturbed you are and mental illnesses are not something to make fun of. Answer this simple question - What is your pretendar in this game???? Case closed And why do you think I am keenly aware of exactly how to rip one apart and send it crashing to the ground in a mangled heap? Besides, I have others, like a Vanheim game where I *HAVE* in fact, been facing down a VQ much like the one you describe, and am currently kicking its *** all over the map. I'm an Allfather there.

The problem is that YOU ARE NOT TRYING! It's a very common attitude amongst players these days: When they start losing to something on a regular basis, rather than countering it, they'd rather complain about how it's so awful. Meanwhile, the rest of us have a myriad arsenal of ways to counter, and are unintimidated. This doesn't invalidate that the strategy has great deal of merit to it, but it's not unstoppable....unless you can't be bothered to try.

Frankly, as I've pointed out, a strategy that fails even when not specifically countered is absolutely crap and utterly worthless. Hell, a dozen scouts with herald lances can easily burn out a VQ...and their scripts don't run out because they have NOTHING ELSE THEY CAN CAST. <hr /></blockquote>Sigh... I am trying. I spend many hours playing around with trying to come up with counters to the VQ but Alchemist Ulm sure is not on the list. I was meesing around with Ulm GC in this game and was hoping not to run into a SG Ermor. Sorry if I like to try crazy strategies not all of us are playing this to win everytime but just to have some fun....but you will never understand this.

Huzurdaddi

May 4th, 2004, 09:24 PM

Many pretenders can use these spells to conquer independent provinces. Being able to conquer an independent province a turn with your pretender is commonplace.
Really? Please list.

Against indep strength 1? Almost all non humans.
Against indep strenth 3? Quite a few.
Against indep strength 9? 1 ( 2 if you are a water nation ).

No, really. I want to hear about all of these pretenders that can stomp indeps down flat. No, please. Oh and try to do it with something like 100 Research points please. Heck I'll give you 150.

Graeme Dice

May 4th, 2004, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Meanwhile, the rest of us have a myriad arsenal of ways to counter, and are unintimidated. You claim that this "myriad arsenal" exists. I've yet to see anything besides send another SC after it. Most spell based strategies are ruined by the AI after all.

Hell, a dozen scouts with herald lances can easily burn out a VQ...and their scripts don't run out because they have NOTHING ELSE THEY CAN CAST. I wasn't aware that 120 astral pearls was "easy". And no, it's not easy even if you have that many, since they only do 12 armor piercing damage each.

[ May 04, 2004, 20:39: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

Gandalf Parker

May 4th, 2004, 09:54 PM

<h2>be careful</h2>If you wish to continue this conversation you will need to avoid personal slanders.
http://www.techno-mage.com/~gandalf/smile/saiyan.gif

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Huzurdaddi:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Many pretenders can use these spells to conquer independent provinces. Being able to conquer an independent province a turn with your pretender is commonplace.
Really? Please list.
<hr /></blockquote>Okay, so let's assume an average, commonly favored independent setting of 6. I think 6 is a fair benchmark, because it seems to be the prevalent setting of most MP games.

Pretenders that I have found can do the job against common independents, not including Tritons and other rare flier-infested provinces, but including provinces that may contain knights) with nothing higher than L3 research, a sum, under normal research conditions, of 120 RPs, assuming that the designer of the pretender has specifically tweaked his chassis for battle, and is attempting to operate solo, or with only very limited support (no army, at most maybe an attending mage or priest who will may search or build in the province after battle):

Allfather
Carrion Dragon
Colossal Head
Ghost King
Lord of the Wild
Monolith
Mother of Tuathas
Nataraja(Arco)
Vampire Queen

These pretenders are either unlikely to suffer from afflictions, can recover from any afflictions taken, or are not greatly affected by many of the afflictions (limping Monolith).

Other pretenders that can attempt the job, as long as excessive knights are avoided, with slightly higher levels of research or items, or with more accompanying chaff, afflictions are willing to be risked, or occasional failure acceptable:

Green Dragon
Medusa
Prince of Death
Phoenix
Titan(male)
Virtue

So between first-class and second-class choices, you have a fair number of pretenders to choose from. Note that all of these assume that you have tweaked for BATTLE as a primary objective, and filling national magic gaps or attaining a useful blessing as secondary. Air blessings and nature blessings are, however, synergistic with combat prowess.

Catquiet

May 4th, 2004, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

My current thoughts:
Clam. Overpowered particulary in large games where there are players that are not prepared for it.

Clam hoarding: boring. One shouldn't have to prevent people from doing it.

Does this mean you are going to address clam hoarding in a patch or not?

Steroids : an unfair advantage for the althetes who use them

Steroid Use : dangerously unhealthly. One shouldn't have to prevent people from doing it. (but I doubt they are going to stop unless the people in charge do something)

[ May 04, 2004, 22:10: Message edited by: Catquiet ]

May 4th, 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Catquiet:
Does this mean you are going to address clam hoarding in a patch or not?

Steroids : an unfair advantage for the althetes who use them

Steroid Use : dangerous unhealthly. One shouldn't have to prevent people from doing it. (but I doubt they are going to stop unless the people in charge do something) 2x4: A common building material used in many forms of construction for various structures and items.

2x4 Use: Some people use 2x4's to hit people, preferably in the knees or back. The makers of 2x4's should implement something to stop them since they arn't going to stop themselves.

Catquiet

May 4th, 2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Catquiet:
Does this mean you are going to address clam hoarding in a patch or not?

Steroids : an unfair advantage for the althetes who use them

Steroid Use : dangerous unhealthly. One shouldn't have to prevent people from doing it. (but I doubt they are going to stop unless the people in charge do something) 2x4: A common building material used in many forms of construction for various structures and items.

2x4 Use: Some people use 2x4's to hit people, preferably in the knees or back. The makers of 2x4's should implement something to stop them since they arn't going to stop themselves. <hr /></blockquote>Let's have a boxing match, you can use steroids, I'll bring a 2x4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But it won't be an official match, because there are rules against both of those things in boxing. That's why it's considered a sport instead of a felony.

[ May 04, 2004, 22:28: Message edited by: Catquiet ]

May 4th, 2004, 11:34 PM

I didn't know Dominions 2 was boxing. I thought it was more like a street brawl with up to 16 other people. He who lives wins.

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
2x4 Use: Some people use 2x4's to hit people, preferably in the knees or back. The makers of 2x4's should implement something to stop them since they arn't going to stop themselves. MWAHAHAHA! That's a good one, Zen!

*whomps Catquiet in the back of the head with a 2x4*

Zapmeister

May 5th, 2004, 03:26 AM

MWAHAHAHA! That's a good one, Zen!I disagree, since no point has been made.

Steroids have a useful purpose, and no-one is suggesting that we stop making them. 2x4s have a useful purpose, and no-one is suggesting that we stop making them.

Steroids may be abused to cheat at sport, and you'll get punished if you're caught doing it. 2x4s may be abused to assault people, and you'll get punished if you're caught doing it.

So what? We should continue to fight crime by all means possible, including removing the means to commit crime, where possible. Nerfing clams is possible.

May 5th, 2004, 03:31 AM

You asked for their thinking, they gave it to you. Did you want to ask a different question? Or were you just unhappy with their answer?

Zapmeister

May 5th, 2004, 03:32 AM

Perhaps because I live in Australia, most of the traffic here occurs while I'm asleep, and it is with some dismay that on waking I find that the thread has turned into exactly the kind of flamefest that it was not intended to be. Naive of me, perhaps.

However, the original question has been answered (thanks Kristoffer) and for anyone who hasn't seen it buried somewhere on page 3 or 4, it was that the alleged imbalance with clams may be addressed, but the VQ probably won't.

So then, the raison d'etre for this thread is no more, and if Gandalf wants to nuke it for any reason, there'll be no complaint from me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 05, 2004, 02:35: Message edited by: Zapmeister ]

Scott Hebert

May 5th, 2004, 03:59 AM

Wow, it's so heartwarming to see a dev give me a compliment. Thanks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now, as to the other random comments:

Flames, nuff said. Moving on.

Regarding the early expansion advantage of the VQ, I feel that she offers the fastest and best early expansion when compared against the other advantages and disadvantages of other Pretenders and other phases of the game. As pointed out, Pretenders like the White Bull and the Shedu are just as powerful early, but they suffer from a few problems the VQ doesn't. Among them is the debility to gather afflictions (thus possibly crippling them for early-expansion purposes), and a severe lack of slots for later in the game. The VQ suffers neither of these problems. (The Shedu also suffers from enforced Astral magic.)

For me, 13 of 17 players choosing the VQ for MP games shows a clear perception of imbalance (regardless of whether that imbalance exists). If all the education on this forum does not change this fact, then it's time to collect some hard data.

For example, record the percentage of VQs being played in MP games. Then, implement methods to reduce the _perceived_ imbalance of the VQ (such as explaining to people why she's not all that). Then, take another sampling of the percentage of VQs being played, normalized for the entrance rate of players into the game. That is, if in the beginning 75% of MP players play with VQs, and after methods, you still have 75% of MP players playing with VQs, it doesn't necessarily mean that the methods aren't working. The 'VQ is God' way of thinking may simply be a mode that players go through that marks their maturity in the game. That's why you need to make sure that your numbers aren't falling prey to changes in the player base.

Now, if the %age increases even after such normalization, then it seems clear that there is an imbalance issue.

When it all comes down to it, Pretender selection shares a lot of common elements with what is termed 'the metagame' in CCG circles. Dominions II shares quite a few interesting similarities with CCGs, in that the number of options you have before play begins are large enough to create a number of different strategies, all theoretically equally viable. This would suggest that taking a similar approach to solving issues of metagame balance in CCGs might work to solve these issues in Dominions II.

Anyway, just some ideas.

alexti

May 5th, 2004, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
There aren't any that are as low risk though, or that can get out the door as fast. With mistform, mirror image, quickness, ironskin, and breath of winter she can conquer any independent province I've seen regardless of strength. Won't she have problems against those nasty tritons? And I wonder about undead indies as well.

Graeme Dice

May 5th, 2004, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by alexti:
Won't she have problems against those nasty tritons? And I wonder about undead indies as well. Tritons can be a problem, the undead aren't likely to, since they have trouble getting through ironskin.

sergex

May 5th, 2004, 08:26 AM

(norfleet) Besides, I have others, like a Vanheim game where I *HAVE* in fact, been facing down a VQ much like the one you describe, and am currently kicking its *** all over the map. I'm an Allfather there.Well in my defense, since it's my VQ you have killed a few times, there are many factors involved that make this a poor example in your defense of the VQ not being imbalanced. Firstly, your Allfather has at least 3 wishes into him while my VQ has 0. You have wished for power once and magic power at least twice. Secondly, he is decked out in full gear and mine was naked (except one time where she had looted an Ice Devil the turn before). Thirdly, she isn't difficult for you to kill because you control every Arch Devil, Ice Devil, Global Enchantment and probably 100 clams or so. You also have at least 3x the number of provinces I do. You have defeated my armies with your Devil SCs and most of my casters using seeking arrows and other rituals. The amazing thing is that my VQ is still able to kill your SCs with -1 in all its paths while your SCs are fully geared, high exp and in the Hall of Fame.

Using this an example of how the Allfather is as balanced as the VQ is a reeeeeeeeeeeeal stretch.

The first time my VQ met your Allfather he had already had at least 3 wishes cast on him and my VQ was naked and still won. You most likely spent more design points on your Allfather (starting astral6, high Air and other paths)than I did and it still lost to a naked VQ with just mistform, ironskin and quickness on it.

Now to respond to all the naysayers, the reason that I believe the VQ is overpowered for its cost is that it provides an immense reliability. As long as you have dominion in a province there is absolutely no risk in sending in a naked VQ to conquer it or defend it. With every other pretender except the liches and the phoenix who also share immortality, there is a *risk* of them gaining a crippling affliction *and* a risk of them dying and losing magic paths and priest's time calling them back.

I've experimented with other pretenders, but the ones that lack immortality just seem too risky to rely on to get the job done with current balance. Cyclops gets "lost his only eye" in the first turn of combat against indies, what do you do? Losing your pretender to knights early in the game is crippling unless you have a VQ (or phoenix or lich). Are you required to play Arco if you want to use a non-Immortal Pretender in the early game?

The VQ provides a more than decent combatant with VIRTUALLY NO RISK in use. It removes the luck factor that plagues any other Pretender choice. There is a risk, even if it's slight, when you send a non-immortal pretender into any province with enemy units.

What would I do as a dev? I would give all pretenders recuperation, or at least the ones that I consider to be combat pretenders. Give people a chance to keep in the game with an early affliction. Death would still be a risk, and excessive afflictions would still keep a pretender out of commission a few turns. On the other hand, as a dev if I wanted to see less people using SC pretenders, I would remove immortality from all Pretenders or change the way it works.