SCs other than the vq [Archive]

Cainehill

May 4th, 2004, 04:56 PM

Carrion Dragon is simply amazing. Its dragon form has 200 hit points, great attacks, Fear 10+, and heals its wounds. Only significant problem in attacking indies is running into the wrong spell casters, or not being set to melee attack and exhausting itself casting weak attack spells.

But wait, it gets better! It also has a Carrion Lord form - 57 HPs, and a full assortment of equipment slots! Still immune to poison, still 0 endurance for melee attacks, regardless of what armor you put on it! And, this week only, buy the Carrion Dragon chassis for just 50 points, that's right, 50 points, and we'll throw in a dose of Stealth for the Carrion Lord form, and Sleep Vines too!

Teraswaerto

May 4th, 2004, 05:07 PM

Lots of pretenders make good SCs or Thugs, but of them only the VQ is immortal. It is a huge advantage compared to any other pretender.

Kristoffer O

May 4th, 2004, 05:14 PM

Phoenix. Lich with winged boots.

Pocus

May 4th, 2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Phoenix. Lich with winged boots. Phoenix cant be used reliably as SC, the base hit points is too low.

edit: I think IW is not putting enough emphasize on how exploit-prone are some of the tougher pretenders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 04, 2004, 16:24: Message edited by: Pocus ]

Kristoffer O

May 4th, 2004, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
Phoenix cant be used reliably as SC, the base hit points is too low.

edit: I think IW is not putting enough emphasize on how exploit-prone are some of the tougher pretenders http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif On the other hand you are doing a good job of emphasizing all sorts of things http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Phoenix is splendid. 1 evoc (fire darts) is all you need. Reliability comes from immortality rather than HP.

Apart from VQ, which pretenders can be exploited?

Nagot Gick Fel

May 4th, 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
Phoenix cant be used reliably as SC, the base hit points is too low.He's great to soften the opposition a bit (or a lot) though. Cloud Trapeze in with the Phoenix, do as much havoc as you can, move an army in the same turn to collect the spoils while the Phoenix is back home, rinse & repeat.

Teraswaerto

May 4th, 2004, 05:53 PM

The Phoenix has many problems. Poor slots, narrow or expensive paths. Fire Darts does not a SC make. I'm not saying it isn't good, only not anywhere near the VQ.

A Lich costs the same as a VQ, but lacks most of her abilities.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 06:05 PM

yah, none of these other immortals stack up to the VQ, who is so extremely exploitable its a joke,and, along w/ the combo strategy of clamming and castling, actually a broken element in the game.

There are lots of fun SCs, but they're normal run of the mill. The GK is perhaps a bit strong due to it's cheap paths, and the Allfather is a monster.

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
He's great to soften the opposition a bit (or a lot) though. Cloud Trapeze in with the Phoenix, do as much havoc as you can, move an army in the same turn to collect the spoils while the Phoenix is back home, rinse & repeat. You can cloud trapeze into the target province on the same turn you have an army scheduled to move in: Cast something fun, like Wrathful Sky. Observe carnage. Move in to mop-up with regular troops when the Bird Boy bites it.

The Phoenix's advantage is that he can affordably purchase either a Fire or Air-9 bless, both of which are useful blessings as well as potent paths for battle magic (unless you're trying to use fire against Abysia), and his immortality allows him to be used as a kamikaze fighter. The VQ's immortality is a safety net: The Phoenix's immortality is a modus operandi: If you're not dying a lot, you're probably missing the point. Wrathful Sky the crap out of things, then blow up on them with Phoenix Pyre.

johan osterman

May 4th, 2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Teraswaerto:
The Phoenix has many problems. Poor slots, narrow or expensive paths. Fire Darts does not a SC make. I'm not saying it isn't good, only not anywhere near the VQ.

A Lich costs the same as a VQ, but lacks most of her abilities. The lack of item slots is not that big a drawback on immortal combat pretenders, if you put a heap of items on an immortal you are 'compromising' its expendability, especially the flying ones which can quickly get back to the front if slain.

johan osterman

May 4th, 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
yah, none of these other immortals stack up to the VQ, who is so extremely exploitable its a joke,and, along w/ the combo strategy of clamming and castling, actually a broken element in the game.
...
?

Graeme Dice

May 4th, 2004, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:
yah, none of these other immortals stack up to the VQ, who is so extremely exploitable its a joke,and, along w/ the combo strategy of clamming and castling, actually a broken element in the game.
...
? <hr /></blockquote>Select a vampire queen and put hundreds of points into her for use as a defensive force. Say death 3, air 4, fire 2, earth 2/3, water 2. Make sure to give her a full set of equipment so that she can only be killed by other SC's, and is immune to almost all magic. If your opponents start to use spells that can actually affect her such as stellar cascades, solar rays, dust to dust, and wither bones, then put 20-30 cannon fodder troops in front of her. Once your opponent's scripts wear out without targeting her they will switch to paralyze and raise skeletons, neither of which are going to kill her. Wait for your opponent's forces to rout since you won't.

Build a 300 gold castle and temple in every single province. Use the VQ to keep people from being able to invade. Push your dominion with temples while building clams from the income of previous clams. That about sums it up.

Kristoffer O

May 4th, 2004, 08:00 PM

??? For real ???

That's bizzare!

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by johan osterman:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:
yah, none of these other immortals stack up to the VQ, who is so extremely exploitable its a joke,and, along w/ the combo strategy of clamming and castling, actually a broken element in the game.
...
? <hr /></blockquote>Select a vampire queen and put hundreds of points into her for use as a defensive force. Say death 3, air 4, fire 2, earth 2/3, water 2. Make sure to give her a full set of equipment so that she can only be killed by other SC's, and is immune to almost all magic. If your opponents start to use spells that can actually affect her such as stellar cascades, solar rays, dust to dust, and wither bones, then put 20-30 cannon fodder troops in front of her. Once your opponent's scripts wear out without targeting her they will switch to paralyze and raise skeletons, neither of which are going to kill her. Wait for your opponent's forces to rout since you won't.

Build a 300 gold castle and temple in every single province. Use the VQ to keep people from being able to invade. Push your dominion with temples while building clams from the income of previous clams. That about sums it up. <hr /></blockquote>He hit the nail on the head! I am in the middle of a game right now with this exact strategy being played by CatQuiet against me. I can stop his armies with my priests but invasion is impossible and in time I will be defeated...no doubt. Would you like the file?

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
He hit the nail on the head! I am in the middle of a game right now with this exact strategy being played by CatQuiet against me. I can stop his armies with my priests but invasion is impossible and in time I will be defeated...no doubt. Would you like the file? Pah. Of course you're losing. You're Ulm playing against SG Ermor, and you apparently aren't interested in diversifying beyond your basic priests and armies. Go figure: Ulm is naturally weak against Ermor, and rather than trying to solve the problem, you'd rather complain about it on the forums. This is not a terribly productive attitude.

His VQ can be in ONE place at a time. If you hit him in more places than he can repel you from with his VQ, he'll lose castle after castle. If you insist on hamhandedly trudging with a single army and waving in front of his face until he kills it, no wonder you lose. Even if he respawns instantly back in his capitol because you were too lazy to roll back his dominion, he has STILL lost the engagement. All YOU have to do is keep your own losses under control and consolidate your own holdings in the same way.

Alternatively, just jack his capitol. Or do I have to do *EVERYTHING* for you?

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pirateiam:
He hit the nail on the head! I am in the middle of a game right now with this exact strategy being played by CatQuiet against me. I can stop his armies with my priests but invasion is impossible and in time I will be defeated...no doubt. Would you like the file? Pah. Of course you're losing. You're Ulm playing against SG Ermor, and you apparently aren't interested in diversifying beyond your basic priests and armies. Go figure: Ulm is naturally weak against Ermor, and rather than trying to solve the problem, you'd rather complain about it on the forums. This is not a terribly productive attitude.

His VQ can be in ONE place at a time. If you hit him in more places than he can repel you from with his VQ, he'll lose castle after castle. If you insist on hamhandedly trudging with a single army and waving in front of his face until he kills it, no wonder you lose. Even if he respawns instantly back in his capitol because you were too lazy to roll back his dominion, he has STILL lost the engagement. All YOU have to do is keep your own losses under control and consolidate your own holdings in the same way.

Alternatively, just jack his capitol. Or do I have to do *EVERYTHING* for you? <hr /></blockquote>Norfleet - I will not defend my strategy. I will be the first to admit I played poorly and was not ready for Ermor SG but since you are not paying attention Abysia is also attacking me so the only thing I can really do is defend to my best abiiliy. If only I could be as great as the great Norfleet ....sigh

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 08:46 PM

Bold text originally posted by Graeme Dice:
If your opponents start to use spells that can actually affect her such as stellar cascades, solar rays, dust to dust, and wither bones, then put 20-30 cannon fodder troops in front of her. Once your opponent's scripts wear out without targeting her they will switch to paralyze and raise skeletons, neither of which are going to kill her.

I didn't think Stellar Cascades worked on those with 0 enc?

In any event, IMHO you underestimate the power of Dust to Dust and Wither Bones. Wither Bones in particular will make short work of 20-30 undead fodder.

Moreover, you are counting on opponents not casting effective spells after their scripts run out, which IMHO is not reliable.

On top of this it's fairly easy to turn something like a Gifted Crusher or Gargoyle (let alone another Pretender) into something that can slay a VQ.

Build a 300 gold castle and temple in every single province. Use the VQ to keep people from being able to invade. Push your dominion with temples while building clams from the income of previous clams. That about sums it up.

IMHO this is not sufficient to magically keep people from invading.

[ May 04, 2004, 19:46: Message edited by: Jasper ]

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
...I will not defend my strategy. I will be the first to admit I played poorly and was not ready for Ermor SG... Actually, you've been complaining that it's due to the overpowered Vampire Queen, not your poor play.

If -- as you claim -- you played poorly, perhaps this is the cause of your defeat, instead of the dread power of the Vampire Queen?

Jasper

May 4th, 2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pocus:
Phoenix cant be used reliably as SC, the base hit points is too low.Phoenix is splendid. 1 evoc (fire darts) is all you need. Reliability comes from immortality rather than HP.<hr /></blockquote>Is this truly so effective? The odds of failling to take provinces seems too high to me, even if you don't die. Moreover, the investment necessary for the effect is great.

There are some nice tricks that actually take advantage of immortality later in the game, e.g. Cloud Trapezing hurting your foes then dying so you can immediately Cloud Trapeze again, or Phoenix Pyre. But these aren't much help during expansion, and in any event the inability to use items IMHO becomes a larger and larger liability as the game goes on.

Pirateiam

May 4th, 2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pirateiam:
...I will not defend my strategy. I will be the first to admit I played poorly and was not ready for Ermor SG... Actually, you've been complaining that it's due to the overpowered Vampire Queen, not your poor play.

If -- as you claim -- you played poorly, perhaps this is the cause of your defeat, instead of the dread power of the Vampire Queen? <hr /></blockquote>While I have not been defeated yet, I will admit that my possible defeat is my fault alone. How does that prove the VQ is unbalanced?????? Wow I give up!!! Just some final advice to an old beta tester to another beta tester. As a beta tester instead of jumping on one side you need to open your mind up and test out possible balance problems. If you have done this already and it is the conclusion of the betas and devs there is no problem then I will except it. We only wish to bring this possible unbalancing to your attention. I am tired of this and I never get into flame wars like this so I apoligize for anything I have said and I will no longer discuss this.

Kristoffer O

May 4th, 2004, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
Is this truly so effective? The odds of failling to take provinces seems too high to me, even if you don't die. Moreover, the investment necessary for the effect is great.

There are some nice tricks that actually take advantage of immortality later in the game, e.g. Cloud Trapezing hurting your foes then dying so you can immediately Cloud Trapeze again, or Phoenix Pyre. But these aren't much help during expansion, and in any event the inability to use items IMHO becomes a larger and larger liability as the game goes on. Probably more fun than effective. Horrible scales, but that doesn't matter much. I have one positive scale (luck +1). Most provinces are waste anyway. Dom 10 combined with restless worshippers and abysian blood sacrifice makes the dominion spread across enemy lands for my Phoenix to conquer. I have never tried this before, but it is much fun. Unfortunately it's the world map and everyone has two starting locations. It is difficult to dom-slay pretenders half across the world without help.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 10:25 PM

I'm quite amazed by how clueless the beta-testers seem to be about all this. I guess this is just an endemic problem w/ any small closed community - certain activities will become standard, and new variants just won't occur to those living inside the gates. As well, I would think that certain unbalanced strats would be negated but only by the fact that beta-testers are consistently and coherently able to pursue advanced strategies and tactics. The game might still be unbalanced for the vast majority of players even if a group of skilled beta-testers is able to get around an inbalance.

However, as far as the VQ is concerned, and much like the previous discussions on clams (and one would expect the same w/ a discussion on castling), too many people seem to think they know what they are talking about when they obviously do not. The problem is not clams as they occurred in that game you played w/ your brother yesterday, or the VQ you designed w/ 8 blood playing vanheim; the problem is in the extreme variants that can be created.

The canonical VQ uber-pretender is Norfleet's philinnon. She has the same name every game since Norfleet has no need to ever redesign her. She starts off w/ 400 pts in paths, above the 110 pt cost for the chassis. This is easy to afford w/ Ermor, though actually he hasn't had much difficulty using her w/ Caelum or Mictlan either.

The use of castles makes his territory almost invulnerable in the early/mid game. Frankly, I'm not sure i've ever seen him lose a castle as Ermor: the problem being, that once one has a sufficiently strong force to perhaps deal w/ his VQ (in your dreams, at least), he will have gateway and the like, so not only does your besieging army have to be prepared to take out an uber VQ, it must also be equally prepared to take out a huge magically tricked-out conventional force, and/or a large body of summons. As he sees fit, since you have to wait around for the turn to break down the walls.

By this time, clamming has probably led to chain casting of wishes. Chain casting them by turn 40 would seem to be quite possible. "magic power"X4 or 5, + "power" i believe. then start summoning more vampire queens. rinse, repeat.

As well, you are having to deal w/ serious dominion push, since all his territories have the castle/temple combo. good luck w/ that. In one game, as r'lyeh, he had at least 23+ castles by turn 21 or so. that's not unusual.

catquiet may be copying these undoubtably effective tactics, i'm not sure, since the only game i've played w/ him he had a phoenix.

Weeks ago when I was feeling frustrated by this combo tactic the only response I got from veterans (Zen) was that I must be a total noob. No doubt I was (and am), but that he was unable to give concrete counters was pretty telling.

Now, at least a number of people have had real experience of this tactic. Graeme knows it intimately, and Rabelais is experiencing his first joyous encounter.

How does one conquer ermorian castles defended by an uber VQ? other than by creating a vast world-wide alliance w/ a dozen committed armies.

(and even then...)

Originally Posted by Jasper
IMHO this is not sufficient to magically keep people from invading.
sorry? how? can you be a bit less than completely vague? how are you conquering his castles? by "magic"? lol

[ May 04, 2004, 21:36: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
How does one conquer ermorian castles defended by an uber VQ? other than by creating a vast world-wide alliance w/ a dozen committed armies...The VQ is not the ultimate warrior for SC vs. SC combat: The VQ excels primarily in the destruction of enemy troops, preferrably living: Against non-living, particularly cold immune troops, the VQ's ability to kill is hampered by her generally mediocre strength and attack values: Combat will expire before she can even kill two dozen Jot woodsmen with N9 bless, or about a hundred ghouls.

Ermorian castles are tougher nuts to crack, but the great expense of Ermorian castles does slightly impede consolidation speed due to their longer construction times and greater cost, combined with Ermor's lack of income, even after accounting for not having to pay upkeep or buy troops any kind. This is one reason why Rabe has a larger empire than I do.

However, all you have to do is strike at an Ermorian castle with sufficient force to begin damaging the gates. Cast Crumble, and you'll have an instant breach, if you felt your regular army was not enough to breach. Do this in more than one place, and the defender will be forced to choose which province receives the aid of his pretender.

Now second-guess him: Which one do you think he'll choose to defend, based on his present location, dominion, and strategic overview.

Don't storm that castle, or withdraw completely. If the VQ teleports in, it's now stuck in that castle, and must decide whether to immediately teleport to the next hotspot, or attempt to sally and wipe out the attackers alone: Since friendly movement occurs first, if you withdraw, his VQ will encounter no resistance and have fruitlessly wasted two turns.

What can you do in two turns? Siege and storm a castle elsewhere. Congratulations. You've just cost him a castle while losing next to nothing. Wasn't that so nice of him to build you a castle to protect your new temple with?

Sooner or later, you'll be able to force your way to the capitol. He *WILL* defend that. Be sure you have a plan to kill his pretender there. Now that you have the capitol occupied....bye-bye immortality.

Originally posted by archaeolept:
I'm quite amazed by how clueless the beta-testers seem to be about all this. I guess this is just an endemic problem w/ any small closed community - certain activities will become standard, and new variants just won't occur to those living inside the gates. Are you sure this isn't what's happening to YOU? I seem to notice that you've played many of your games against, well, me. In fact, you cite my own VQ as the canonical example. Are you sure it is not YOU who needs to get out more?

Originally posted by archaeolept:
She has the same name every game since Norfleet has no need to ever redesign her.Actually, I've done several redesigns, but I've kept the name. Why? Because I'm terrible at names. Have you seen how I name my mages? So once I like the name, I keep it.

[ May 04, 2004, 21:41: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Graeme Dice

May 4th, 2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Jasper:
In any event, IMHO you underestimate the power of Dust to Dust and Wither Bones. Wither Bones in particular will make short work of 20-30 undead fodder.Yes, it will, but then your mages won't cast it on her because your own skeletons are also in the area of effect. The same thing happens with dust to dust I've found.

Moreover, you are counting on opponents not casting effective spells after their scripts run out, which IMHO is not reliable.I've had 10 astral 2 mages cast paralyze for a dozen turns in a row instead of casting solar rays.

IMHO this is not sufficient to magically keep people from invading. It usually is till around turn 30, and if you can keep people out till turn 40 or 50, your level 9 spells start to show up.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 10:50 PM

of course there are many ways to deal w/ a VQ. however, none of them really do anything, since she pops up again immediately. yah, dust to dust can work, especially en masse. Another SC can work, as long as you've been pursuing a clam/wish strategy as well such that you can stand up to her "magic power" X5 and "power". oh, and also when your pretender is killed, as will happen some good percentage of the time, you gotta pay the price. Not the VQ though. Are you sure this isn't what's happening to YOU? I seem to notice that you've played many of your games against, well, me. In fact, you cite my own VQ as the canonical example. Are you sure it is not YOU who needs to get out more? given the large number of public games around here that you play in, it would be rather difficult to avoid you.

[ May 04, 2004, 21:51: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I've had 10 astral 2 mages cast paralyze for a dozen turns in a row instead of casting solar rays.This is clearly the fault of the stupid spellcasting AI (which fails to consider odds of success when picking a spell, and does not sufficiently prioritize killing things), and the damnable 5-spell script limit, which in combination with the above, basically assures that most mages will not do anything intelligent past either the 3rd, or 5th, turn of combat.

I think we are all in agreement on the above issues.

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
given the large number of public games around here that you play in, it would be rather difficult to avoid you. So you acknowledge that I play often, generally with the same strategy, and thus have had the opportunity to hone it specifically, and that my effectiveness may be due more to my practice and experience, compared to your relative lack thereof, rather than the fact that VQs and clams are completely and utterly broken, as demonstrated by the regular failures of my imitators to triumph by this means even when I do not play the VQ?

May 4th, 2004, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
of course there are many ways to deal w/ a VQ. however, none of them really do anything, since she pops up again immediately. yah, dust to dust can work, especially en masse. Another SC can work, as long as you've been pursuing a clam/wish strategy as well such that you can stand up to her "magic power" X5 and "power". oh, and also when your pretender is killed, as will happen some good percentage of the time, you gotta pay the price. Not the VQ though.I wish you people would try to stick to your argument. When someone details a strategy that works to kill them that is easily implemented by 75% of the nations, suddenly the argument is changed "Well what do you do if they have alot of Dominion and build castles, huh? I obviously can't stop that either", then if that is answered it's "Well what do you do if they pour 600 astrals by wishing in to them, eh? I obviously can't stop that either".

You have failed repeatedly to make your arguments that it is overpowered by any estimate. The very first of which is to define overpowered. It is Powerful and it does fill a niche and it is being effectively used by at least 1, if not more people. But since when is that overpowered? The same can be said for any number of different features in the game.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:02 PM

No.

The strat is abusive and broken. That you are so wedded to it indicates merely something concerning your psychology.

That people can use VQ's ineffectively is trivially true, and quite irrelevant.

Frankly, the game would be much better if VQs and clams were simply disposed of, like trash.

Gandalf Parker

May 4th, 2004, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
I'm quite amazed by how clueless the beta-testers seem to be about all this. I guess this is just an endemic problem w/ any small closed community - certain activities will become standard, and new variants just won't occur to those living inside the gates. As well, I would think that certain unbalanced strats would be negated but only by the fact that beta-testers are consistently and coherently able to pursue advanced strategies and tactics. The game might still be unbalanced for the vast majority of players even if a group of skilled beta-testers is able to get around an inbalance.Do you consider what you just said to be opinionated? obnoxious? offensive? I just thought Id ask in case things went further in that direction. I wouldnt want you to be unaware of the point where things went wrong.

The best-testing group has a wide variety of testers. Mass swarmers, formula fiends, nitpickys (for spelling and little stat errors), game-killer testers, and wasted-stuff boosters. Besides the point of 3 different language Groups, and 5 operating systems.

Besides all that, the devs are quite active and willing to listen to this group here (some have already answered in this thread in case you werent aware).

Please, if you fail to convince the majority how correct you are, then rant against them softly.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:
of course there are many ways to deal w/ a VQ. however, none of them really do anything, since she pops up again immediately. yah, dust to dust can work, especially en masse. Another SC can work, as long as you've been pursuing a clam/wish strategy as well such that you can stand up to her "magic power" X5 and "power". oh, and also when your pretender is killed, as will happen some good percentage of the time, you gotta pay the price. Not the VQ though.I wish you people would try to stick to your argument. When someone details a strategy that works to kill them that is easily implemented by 75% of the nations, suddenly the argument is changed "Well what do you do if they have alot of Dominion and build castles, huh? I obviously can't stop that either", then if that is answered it's "Well what do you do if they pour 600 astrals by wishing in to them, eh? I obviously can't stop that either".

You have failed repeatedly to make your arguments that it is overpowered by any estimate. The very first of which is to define overpowered. It is Powerful and it does fill a niche and it is being effectively used by at least 1, if not more people. But since when is that overpowered? The same can be said for any number of different features in the game. <hr /></blockquote>I wasn't aware that I was a card-carrying member of "you people". The strat being discussed, and discussed implicitly for weeks, is precisely the combo of VQ (best w/ ermor), clams, and castling. I know what strat i'm talking about.

What counter strat have you layed out for dealing w/ the Norfleet combo? that's all I care about, since that's pretty well all I've been playing against for the past few weeks. How did you take out his ermorian castles? I mean, I'm sure you must have some experience w/ it...

you have failed repeatedly to make your arguments that it is overpowered by any estimateI'm sorry? I believe the only time I have made an argument is in my prior post in this thread. how is that repeatedly? the only "repetition" is in your ducking the problem and being unable to lay out a reasonable and viable counter-strat to the (usually ermorian) uber-VQ/endless castles/wish clamming strat. And, hell, even if a counter strat can be detailed, this does not logically entail that there is a balance.

Again, how was it that you personally dealt w/ norfleet's strat? specifically.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:
I'm quite amazed by how clueless the beta-testers seem to be about all this. I guess this is just an endemic problem w/ any small closed community - certain activities will become standard, and new variants just won't occur to those living inside the gates. As well, I would think that certain unbalanced strats would be negated but only by the fact that beta-testers are consistently and coherently able to pursue advanced strategies and tactics. The game might still be unbalanced for the vast majority of players even if a group of skilled beta-testers is able to get around an inbalance.Do you consider what you just said to be opinionated? obnoxious? offensive? I just thought Id ask in case things went further in that direction. I wouldnt want you to be unaware of the point where things went wrong.

The best-testing group has a wide variety of testers. Mass swarmers, formula fiends, nitpickys (for spelling and little stat errors), game-killer testers, and wasted-stuff boosters. Besides the point of 3 different language Groups, and 5 operating systems.

Besides all that, the devs are quite active and willing to listen to this group here (some have already answered in this thread in case you werent aware).

Please, if you fail to convince the majority how correct you are, then rant against them softly. <hr /></blockquote>I'm only referring to those beta-testers who have responded to this issue in these Boards. i have no way of judging any of the others, other than by the fact that this strat, which has been around for, what, a couple months, seems to be news to Kristoffer O. How could this be if the beta-testers had been testing this as well?

Again, as any given random nation, how was it that I'm supposed to invade these ermorian castles? oh, yes, by using many VQ invulnerable armies and then guessing which is the best castle to invade...

(since, if your armies aren't immune to the VQ... hahaha)

Graeme Dice

May 4th, 2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I think we are all in agreement on the above issues. As always, I think the problem is not really with the VQ so much as it is with the elemental armour. Get rid of the immunity it provides, and suddenly most mages would at least be able to damage her.

The castle and temple strategy can definetly be dealt with as well, it just takes careful planning. I almost managed it in a game as Vanheim, but the AI for my pretender killed himself with a shockwave rather than casting a useful spell.

May 4th, 2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
Again, how was it that you personally dealt w/ norfleet's strat? specifically. If I forced myself to play against the same strategy/nation I would find the weaknesses in it. Would you like me to detail them, because Norfleet did fairly well. If you don't factor into the mix his attempts to counter what you will try to do, try these:

Dominion options: Preaching, Stealth Preaching, Marignon FoF, Cerimonial Faith, Restless Worshippers, Skeptics Starting with a Strong Punishing Dominion and placement of Temples.

Castle options: Multi-pronged attacks, Scouts+Gate Cleavers, Crumble, Ghouls/reanimators/Flyers, Stealth Armies attacking Castle.

VQ options: Really too many to list, you've said yourself that you know how to kill them, it's only the factor of them coming back for more the next turn, yes? If you need more ideas, I can list a few if you give me the nation you use.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:23 PM

well, the dominion doesn't tend to be a problem for me, since I spend a lot of effort preparing for his dominion swamp.

however, none of your castle dealing strats seem especially useful, or presuppose that I have a much greater number of armies than he does. especially since none of the forces you mention seem capable of dealing w/ a real VQ, or even some hastily gatewayed in national troops

and killing a VQ isn't so much a problem, as that all of your armies need the capability if they try to invade. and, at best, you do nothing to her.

Norfleet has played probably dozens of games around here. I'm sure you must have encountered him. What specifically did you do to conquer his castles?

[ May 04, 2004, 22:26: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

May 4th, 2004, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
I'm only referring to those beta-testers who have responded to this issue in these Boards. i have no way of judging any of the others, other than by the fact that this strat, which has been around for, what, a couple months, seems to be news to Kristoffer O. How could this be if the beta-testers had been testing this as well?

Again, as any given random nation, how was it that I'm supposed to invade these ermorian castles? oh, yes, by using many VQ invulnerable armies and then guessing which is the best castle to invade...

(since, if your armies aren't immune to the VQ... hahaha) Well the strategy has been around and Norfleet has been doing well with it, but how many games win by doing that exact same thing in the exact same fashion? Most games Last at least a month, so if it's been around a month and it's 'so unbalanced I must pitch a fit' this it the point and time where it might be tested or not. The simple fact that KO didn't know about it could mean any variety of things, not the least of which is his desire to play with hammeringly bad scales and roleplayed pretenders.

May 4th, 2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
however, none of your castle dealing strats seem especially useful, or presuppose that I have a much greater number of armies than he does. especially since none of the forces you mention seem capable of dealing w/ a real VQ, or even some hastily gatewayed in national troopsMaybe you should try them before you talk. Castling every province has been around before Norfleet beat you with it. But maybe casual rejection of ideas is why you don't think them useful.

rabelais

May 4th, 2004, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:
How does one conquer ermorian castles defended by an uber VQ? other than by creating a vast world-wide alliance w/ a dozen committed armies...However, all you have to do is strike at an Ermorian castle with sufficient force to begin damaging the gates. Cast Crumble, and you'll have an instant breach, if you felt your regular army was not enough to breach.

<hr /></blockquote>I was under this distinct impression that the castle destroying/rebuilding spells were not working properly,... is this old data, or am I more generally confused?

I'm not sure, btw, that an naked immortal (i.e.risk free) pretender design that requires multiple simultaneous successful castle assaults to counter is ... quite balanced. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Shall I repost the note I left in the other thread detailing the absurdity of your defense of the VQ castling strat, ...

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=74;t=002583;p=1#000 050

or can we just concede the extremity of the situation is broken and needs to be looked at... with care that immortality isn't abusable in a different chassis.

Rabe

May 4th, 2004, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:

Norfleet has played probably dozens of games around here. I'm sure you must have encountered him. What specifically did you do to conquer his castles? I've only played with him once and I never needed to conquer his castles. When I was around to play with him the few times I had time he was still clutching to his 'only World Map' preference.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:33 PM

my only point about K.O. not knowing about it, is that this issue could not have been too pressing for the beta-testers, if they were even testing this strat.

Really, Norfleet is the best one to demonstrate its power. I suggest that concerned parties inquire of Graeme about how it works, and how "easy" it is to counter. I know Truper was unable to. I can do fight it, but only because all my nation designs are made w/ that in mind. I think I've only heard of Norf losing one game, and he wasn't playing Ermor in that.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:
however, none of your castle dealing strats seem especially useful, or presuppose that I have a much greater number of armies than he does. especially since none of the forces you mention seem capable of dealing w/ a real VQ, or even some hastily gatewayed in national troopsMaybe you should try them before you talk. Castling every province has been around before Norfleet beat you with it. But maybe casual rejection of ideas is why you don't think them useful. <hr /></blockquote>lol more insults. I guess that stands in for actual experience. When I was a complete noob I was up against norfleet. All you gave me then were insults as well.

now, of course, a group of skilled players could implicitly begin a game w/ an anti-norfleet alliance, and should be able to easily bring him down. That's not really indicative of balance.

[ May 04, 2004, 22:38: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

May 4th, 2004, 11:36 PM

How about this. Ban VQ's for another month and have Norfleet play Ermor with just a different pretender. You don't change any of your strategies or try anything new, and if he suddenly loses a disproportionate amount of his games, then you can say with every validity that it's the VQ that is the determining factor.

May 4th, 2004, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
lol more insults. I guess that stands in for actual experience.Maybe if you could site another player who has done it every time and won every time, I would have a better time seeing your point of view. But since it is the same person every time and I haven't heard "I play exactly like Norfleet and I win every game I play" I think there is something missing as far as your experience.

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:40 PM

the combined strat is broken. r'lyeh works very well even though it doesn't have access to the VQ (the GK instead) because it is so nicely defensible and capable of getting the clam strat up and running.

however, that was before the paralysis bug was fixed, so I'm not sure norfleet would want to play them now.

And norfleet certainly can win w/ other pretenders. he knows a lot of tricks and a lot about the game - ie. he would be very good even if he did not use these abuses.

As such, that he would still win doesn't logically imply that the VQ isn't broken... Maybe if you could site another player who has done it every time and won every time, I would have a better time seeing your point of view. But since it is the same person every time and I haven't heard "I play exactly like Norfleet and I win every game I play" I think there is something missing as far as your experience.
please. name me a good player who has managed to deal w/ his strat and does not think it is broken. just one.

[ May 04, 2004, 22:44: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
the combined strat is broken. r'lyeh works very well even though it doesn't have access to the VQ (the GK instead) because it is so nicely defensible and capable of getting the clam strat up and running.

however, that was before the paralysis bug was fixed, so I'm not sure norfleet would want to play them now.Are you challenging me? I'll still play them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Originally posted by archaeolept:
And norfleet certainly can win w/ other pretenders. he knows a lot of tricks and a lot about the game - ie. he would be very good even if he did not use these abuses.Ignoring the loaded term of "abuses", which cannot be proven, I've won games where I have not had the option of, or deliberately chose not to use, a VQ.

Admittedly, I *DO* have a certain stylistic preference that the VQ fits well into, but it is because of the fit that I choose it, not the other way around, and it is not the only shoe that fits: My preferences were that way well before Dom2 existed. However, if shoe fits, wear it.

[ May 04, 2004, 22:48: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:46 PM

Are you challenging me? I'll still play them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
lol

like I said, you'ld still do well, and be a ***** to beat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

However, if we Banned clams and only allowed you castles in half your territories...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

May 4th, 2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:

And norfleet certainly can win w/ other pretenders. he knows a lot of tricks and a lot about the game - ie. he would be very good even if he did not use these abuses.Oh, so he is a good player and has won with other pretenders? I thought he only used the same thing every time, that was your point I believe.

As such, that he would still win doesn't logically imply that the VQ isn't broken... Nice CYA there. No it does not mean they are not broken, but it puts the bias on the skill of the player and not the use of the VQ. All it says is that a good player can win consistantly without using only one design. If he were to do so, I think you'd see alot less of an uproar about it and it wouldn't be so pronounced for those who play him time and time again facing the exact same strategy/pretender.

I believe it's been said before and I'll say it again, as if people suddenly forget. The VQ might need to be adjusted in cost/nations, if only to limit the popularity not the potency of the VQ. Anything a VQ can do, any other pretender with the exception of the physically weak ones, can as well. So if they can do the exact same thing under the same circumstances, why is the VQ singled out? Because it's easier?

please. name me a good player who has managed to deal w/ his strat and does not think it is broken. just one.Graeme. He may personally feel that it should be adjusted, but broken? He'll have to answer that for himself. Earlier in this thread he mentioned he almost won with Vanheim except for the bad luck of his AF casting Shockwave. If he was previously unable to handle it and is now progressing to the point he could, it means to me he is strategizing his way to beat Norfleet's finely honed strategy.

[ May 04, 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Zen ]

Norfleet

May 4th, 2004, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
So if they can do the exact same thing under the same circumstances, why is the VQ singled out? Because it's easier? Because it's noticeable, available, and all the rage right now. If anything, the controversy is fuelling the popularity, to the point where people will pick a VQ even when playing a strategy that is otherwise inappropriate for the VQ. If the furor died out, and it will eventually, it would become a lot less popular...or be supplanted with some new "all the rage" option.

Frankly, the fact that many chassis are unattractive is a far bigger problem than the VQ: If the VQ were eliminated, everyone would simply pick the next closest cousin: the GK, which is in some ways better, especially if you aren't willing to sacrifice as much in the way of national scales. The real problem is that so many other options are overpriced, defective, or otherwise uncompetitive. (See: Moloch's Imps).

archaeolept

May 4th, 2004, 11:53 PM

Oh, so he is a good player and has won with other pretenders? I thought he only used the same thing every time, that was your point I believe. now you are being intentionally obtuse. Where did I say he only ever used philinnon? Admittedly, I've only seen one game where he used a different pretender, namely a GK.

and, again, that he is a good player does not logically entail that the strat isn't abusive/broken. Both can be, and are, the case. Anything a VQ can do, any other pretender with the exception of the physically weak ones, can as well. So if they can do the exact same thing under the same circumstances, why is the VQ singled out? Because it's easier?
see, now I just don't even understand what you are talking about. your first statement is obviously false, as the VQ chassis has more inherent abilities than any other chassis. Let alone exactly how you're granting other pretenders immortality...

so, no, they can't do the exact same thing in the same circumstances. and, yes, the VQ is much easier anyways http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

May 5th, 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
see, now I just don't even understand what you are talking about. your first statement is obviously false, as the VQ chassis has more inherent abilities than any other chassis. Let alone exactly how you're granting other pretenders immortality...

so, no, they can't do the exact same thing in the same circumstances. and, yes, the VQ is much easier anyways http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif In terms of what they do not in terms of what abilities they have. If you don't die you don't need immortality? Immortality just protects you from bad decisions.

And yes, they can provide the same result in the same circumstances. I'm not saying all of them can, but certainly a few can obviously and a few not-so-obviously. Considering the amount of points and planning put into a VQ and put it into something/anything else. If you do so, then perhaps you'll see how.

archaeolept

May 5th, 2004, 12:06 AM

but immortality is the crux of it. As has been noted by everyone, you can kill a VQ, just as you could kill any of these other pretenders w/ a ton of points.

The VQ however, loses nothing from this, except a few baubles.

[ May 04, 2004, 23:07: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
[QUOTE]
Frankly, the fact that many chassis are unattractive is a far bigger problem than the VQNot sure about bigger but yes, that could also use some attention. Since this board seems to have pretty consistent opposing Groups on balance issues(Old Boys Network vs. everyone else), though, it seems unlikely that they will be able to come to much of an agreement on several pretenders.

If the VQ were eliminated, everyone would simply pick the next closest cousin: the GKI agree that there might be a next most popular one(possibly) but I don't think it would be the GK. But even if it was, that isn't a valid argument on why the VQ might not be popular because she is over-powered. You could make the VQ clearly over-powered, say make her cost 0, 500 hp, and kills all units on sight. In this case, if you removed her, everyone would still choose the next most popular option.

Originally posted by Zen:
[QUOTE]
In terms of what they do not in terms of what abilities they have. If you don't die you don't need immortality? Immortality just protects you from bad decisions.


I don't think that's true at all. It allows you to make decisions that would be bad for a non-immortal pretender but become good for an immortal pretender. Immortality isn't just a side-note, it's a major factor. And even if you don't die, the recuperative effects are still useful.

- Kel

[ May 04, 2004, 23:36: Message edited by: Kel ]

AhhhFresh

May 5th, 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
but immortality is the crux of it. As has been noted by everyone, you can kill a VQ, just as you could kill any of these other pretenders w/ a ton of points.

The VQ however, loses nothing from this, except a few baubles. The crux is really her flexibility... of which the immortality is no small part.

Full items slots, a host of natural abilities which lessen the need for scripted spells and/or items, and semi-reasonable path costs.

Though, if you are fully utilizing the item slots, then you shouldn't really be utilizing the immortality... the two sort of oppose each other. That's a lot of gems to waste on a loss... certainly not the equivalent of losing a mortal pretender, but clearly still significant.

The path cost and natural abilities however, mean that she can be quite potent naked... with 5 turns of buffing. An unbuffed and naked VQ is nothing to fear... which would be where flying units come into play.

My admitedly merely moderately experienced self says that raising cost/paths is probably sufficient to bring her back to the pack... though I'd rather see the other pretenders surge forward to catch her... but that's a lot to ask.

EDIT: Oh and Archaeolept, stop posting and upload your pretender up for the game on Moggy's server! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ May 04, 2004, 23:48: Message edited by: AhhhFresh ]

May 5th, 2004, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Kel:
Not sure about bigger but yes, that could also use some attention. Since this board seems to have pretty consistent opposing Groups on balance issues(Old Boys Network vs. everyone else), though, it seems unlikely that they will be able to come to much of an agreement on several pretenders.From the Polls, there is a different consensus. Or the Old Boy's Network is huge. Anyone remember the first Clam Poll? Most probably don't see it as an issue because it's only the most vocal of wheels that need things 'answered' and 'right now!'.
Originally posted by Zen:
I don't think that's true at all. It allows you to make decisions that would be bad for a non-immortal pretender but become good for an immortal pretender. Immortality isn't just a side-note, it's a major factor. And even if you don't die, the recuperative effects are still useful.Yes, that just means you have your safety blanket for any mistakes you make. It's not a side note, if you are prone to either A.) Mistakes or B.) Being surprised. So if you are more likely to not meet those conditions than likely a non-immortal pretender will work in nearly any situation that an immortal one will. Where Immortality shines is in defense, making people pay a larger attrition per province taken inside your dominion. Since at least a percentage of people prefer the "Defense, defense, defense" mentality this molds well with how they think and how they play.

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by AhhhFresh:
... My admitedly merely moderately experienced self says that raising cost/paths is probably sufficient to bring her back to the pack...
... That's my feeling too, after wading through most or all of these discussions. I'm liking the 80-point new path cost suggestion at the moment.

PvK

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 01:16 AM

How about these ideas?

* Fighting fire with fires. Vampire Lords (?) seem similar but a bit better than VQ's. They also can summon vampires. This is a blood spell, or national spell for Black Forest Ulm. So... if I am BF Ulm or my pretender or national mages have some blood power, at least by mid game once I can cast summon some Vampire Lords, I am thinking the solitary VQ is going to be in trouble, no?

* Priest army. How ofter does a Holy-2 Banish spell hurt a VQ? Even if never, suppose I have some potential vampire-defeating units of some other type. I put them with an army as bait for the VQ to come try to get me, near the edge of her dominion. The surprise is, my mob of priests is that turn Preaching. If I have them, I have Skeptics, Inquisitors, or dominion-draining items in the army. Result: VQ arrives, gets killed, and oops - her dominion was unexpectedly sucked dry in the same turn. So no ressurrection. Or does the sequence of play not allow this to work?

PvK

[ May 05, 2004, 00:17: Message edited by: PvK ]

May 5th, 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
How about these ideas?

* Fighting fire with fires. Vampire Lords (?) seem similar but a bit better than VQ's. They also can summon vampires. This is a blood spell, or national spell for Black Forest Ulm. So... if I am BF Ulm or my pretender or national mages have some blood power, at least by mid game once I can cast summon some Vampire Lords, I am thinking the solitary VQ is going to be in trouble, no?The factors here are that Vampire Lords don't start with magic in the right spheres. I'm pretty sure every "VQ is overpowered OMG!" debater will mention that you need a few key magics to really make the VQ shine. Notably Air/Water at the very least. Second portion is that you are forgetting the Dominion bonus of HP which the Lords do not gain.

* Priest army. How ofter does a Holy-2 Banish spell hurt a VQ? Even if never, suppose I have some potential vampire-defeating units of some other type. I put them with an army as bait for the VQ to come try to get me, near the edge of her dominion. The surprise is, my mob of priests is that turn Preaching. If I have them, I have Skeptics, Inquisitors, or dominion-draining items in the army. Result: VQ arrives, gets killed, and oops - her dominion was unexpectedly sucked dry in the same turn. So no ressurrection. Or does the sequence of play not allow this to work?

PvK This works and is an easy way to bait a VQ player into dropping their SC on you mistakenly and suddenly all those precious points vanish. Though this in and of itself can be a little bit of chore. When combined with the Castle and Temple Strategy with 10 Dominion you are going to have a bit of an issue dumping down the dominion fast enough unless you have a truly mammoth amount of Holy 3 Priests or Cerimonial Faith

[ May 05, 2004, 00:29: Message edited by: Zen ]

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
From the Polls, there is a different consensus. Or the Old Boy's Network is huge.I honestly don't know what you are referring to.
The clam poll (and I thought we were talking about pretenders) shows that the majority think clams are over-powered (I am not counting the ones that said they wouldn't mind a change). To be fair, 2/3rds, at this time also said the poll was biased. Either way, though, I don't see your point about what the polls prove or where you are going with it.
Originally posted by Zen:
Yes, that just means you have your safety blanket for any mistakes you make.No, it doesn't, really. If a decision is bad for a mortal pretender but good for an immortal one, that is an extra option, an extra strategy, not a safety net for careless play.

Originally posted by Zen:
It's not a side note, if you are prone to either A.) Mistakes or B.) Being surprised.or C) Using your pretenders abilities to the fullest.

Originally posted by Zen:
Where Immortality shines is in defense, making people pay a larger attrition per province taken inside your dominion. Since at least a percentage of people prefer the "Defense, defense, defense" mentality this molds well with how they think and how they play. Immortality shines in many places. Even if making people pay a larger attrition per province were the only one, that's not a safety blanket for the pretender, that is giving an extra strategy to the pretender.

And again, immortality effectively includes recuperation. Are you contending that good play means your pretender never gets hit at all ? While I admit to not being an experienced player, I would think that most SC pretenders who never chances getting hit and never take a chance on dying are not fulfilling their potential.

Most games, strategy and otherwise, are based, somewhere, on risk vs. reward. Immortality lets you take the bigger risks for the bigger rewards...only it removes the risks (within your domain, anyway).

- Kel

Gandalf Parker

May 5th, 2004, 01:39 AM

Maybe we need a Van Helsing?

Actually I thought the VQ was susceptable to priests just as much as the rest of the common Ermor group. How about if certain damages were alittle more permanent. She doesnt need to be made weak, just beatable by a fairly available strategy

Priests should be permanent banishment

routing to a non-friendly province should be non-returnable

a susceptability to something. Astral magic?

May 5th, 2004, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Kel:

The clam poll (and I thought we were talking about pretenders) shows that the majority think clams are over-powered (I am not counting the ones that said they wouldn't mind a change). To be fair, 2/3rds, at this time also said the poll was biased. Either way, though, I don't see your point about what the polls prove or where you are going with it.The first clam poll, not the "may or may not be biased" clam poll.
No, it doesn't, really. If a decision is bad for a mortal pretender but good for an immortal one, that is an extra option, an extra strategy, not a safety net for careless play.Please use an example that is a good decision for an immortal that is a bad decision for a nonimmortal who is more powerful.

C) Using your pretenders abilities to the fullest. And these would be?

Immortality shines in many places. Even if making people pay a larger attrition per province were the only one, that's not a safety blanket for the pretender, that is giving an extra strategy to the pretender.Which they pay for by being inherently weaker/more costly. And this is not an "only pretender" thing. So I don't see how this is a VQ only thing, shouldn't you be crusading against all immortality?

And again, immortality effectively includes recuperation. Are you contending that good play means your pretender never gets hit at all ? While I admit to not being an experienced player,I'm condending good play can minimize the chance of this. To the point where the risk is worth the reward. Some pretenders are given recuperation base and there are various ways to deal with any afflictions gained in the game if you do happen to run across a bad run. And afflictions take even VQ's time to heal.
I would think that most SC pretenders who never chances getting hit and never take a chance on dying are not fulfilling their potential.Not never, but not to the point of being rendered ineffective. Just because you use your pretender with and in a situation where it doesn't drop their chance of dying to 100% doesn't mean they arn't fullfilling their potential. It means that you can't take the same mentality you have taken with your VQ SC. Where you can die any number of times and it doesn't matter.

Most games, strategy and otherwise, are based, somewhere, on risk vs. reward.That is exactly the point, Immortality removes the risk but at a cost. Some feel this cost more than makes up for that ease of use mentality. It doesn't however make it overpowered.

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
Please use an example that is a good decision for an immortal that is a bad decision for a nonimmortal who is more powerful.Let's say I have a shot at taking out an opponents SC pretender, in my domain, but only by risking my own. Let's say VQ has a 25% chance of taking out said pretender but I could have had a specific, non immortal and had a 35% chance (for whatever reason). It might be disadvantageous to risk my mortal pretender when I could, instead send the VQ. Thus, it is an extra, *valid* strategic option.

Which they pay for by being inherently weaker/more costly.Absolutely. I am not disagreeing with that. I am just disagreeing with the perception that immortality is only useful to make up for poor play.

And this is not an "only pretender" thing. So I don't see how this is a VQ only thing, shouldn't you be crusading against all immortality?I am not crusading at all. I am only disagreeing with the logic behind specific statements made by other crusaders.

Much as I feel about Ermor (or clams or any other balance issue), the only thing that truly bothers me about the VQ is that she is reducing the variety of my MP games. Even here, it doesn't bother me that much since less than half the nations use her in most of my games. My personal feeling is that she probably is over-powered but not invincible and if she was, say, limited to only one nation, particularly one that was not used every game (like Ulm, for example), I wouldn't particularly care at all.

I am not suggesting this happen, I am just trying to express that it is not precisely something being out of balance that affects the game, it is that something being too far out of balance can cause a loss of variety in MP game play.

I'm condending good play can minimize the chance of this. To the point where the risk is worth the reward. Some pretenders are given recuperation base and there are various ways to deal with any afflictions gained in the game if you do happen to run across a bad run. And afflictions take even VQ's time to heal.Absolutely. Immortality isn't perfect or overwhelming or outrageously broken. I am just contending that it is a quite strong ability and is not limited to covering mistakes but does, in itself, allow strategies that are not worth it, risk vs. reward wise...to now be worth it, because of the immortality.

It doesn't take a bad player, or a mistake, to take advantage of better risk vs. reward.

That is exactly the point, Immortality removes the risk but at a cost. Some feel this cost more than makes up for that ease of use mentality. It doesn't however make it overpowered. I agree. Immortality alone doesn't make a pretender over-powered. If people perceive that I am suggesting that, than I have mis-communicated my intentions. So perhaps I should summarize what I am saying.

Immortality is a strong ability, and a *very* strong ability when combined with an SC chassis. It can, and should, be compensated for with design points or other weaknesses. It is not a side-note, nor a tool for only poor players. It allows one to dramatically reduce risk and this, in itself, opens up additional strategies and risk vs. reward scenarios.

- Kel

AhhhFresh

May 5th, 2004, 02:41 AM

Zen:

While I generally agree with you, I think you're missing a large part of the point.

You and Norfleet and whomever the other "elite" players are... are in the minority of the Dom II playerbase. Odds would dictate that most of us lose most of our MP games... particularly when we play against the likes of you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif (Though I've not played either of you)

So to truly evaluate a VQ's "balance", you have to consider the lesser players, who obviously outnumber the "elite" ones by a large margin...

The fact that immortality is much more forgiving of mistakes is not at all a small issue... because that's what players like me do... we make mistakes... because we haven't had enough MP experience to know what every nation can throw at us, and hence we might send our SC pretender into a situation that could mean their death.

The fact that a VQ is mostly immune to these "bad decisions" is why she is so popular... and gives a distict advantage over another player of the same "moderate skill level" who is similarly mistake prone... but doesn't have a VQ.

I'm not in favor of nerfing Immortality itself, because that would nerf other units... but something should probably be done... since most poor to moderate players think she's da bomb...

I do imagine that the fervor will die out within a month, as most of the moderately skilled players who picked VQ's as pretenders as the flavor du jour will have lost their MP games at that point... but she still seems unbalanced to some extent.

rabelais

May 5th, 2004, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
How about these ideas?

* Priest army. How ofter does a Holy-2 Banish spell hurt a VQ? Even if never, suppose I have some potential vampire-defeating units of some other type. I put them with an army as bait for the VQ to come try to get me, near the edge of her dominion. The surprise is, my mob of priests is that turn Preaching. If I have them, I have Skeptics, Inquisitors, or dominion-draining items in the army. Result: VQ arrives, gets killed, and oops - her dominion was unexpectedly sucked dry in the same turn. So no ressurrection. Or does the sequence of play not allow this to work?

PvK To the best of my knowledge, dominion changes happen *after* all battles, so you can't sucker an immortal into a trap dominion.

Which is IMHO, too bad. Would be nice to cause the immortal munchkins some contingent paranoid anxiety. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This was considered a feature, ...don't know if changing the phaseorder might potentially be rebalancing.

Rabe the Rules Rodent

Edit: there may be one exception to this, but it isn't helpful.

The ermorian cultist event probably changes dominion when it occurs, but this is unlikely to inconvenience an Ermorian VQ. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ May 05, 2004, 01:48: Message edited by: rabelais ]

May 5th, 2004, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Kel:
Let's say I have a shot at taking out an opponents SC pretender, in my domain, but only by risking my own. Let's say VQ has a 25% chance of taking out said pretender but I could have had a specific, non immortal and had a 35% chance (for whatever reason). It might be disadvantageous to risk my mortal pretender when I could, instead send the VQ. Thus, it is an extra, *valid* strategic option.Now on that 75% chance of not taking out the pretender what are the results if you fail? Your VQ is left with 3-6 affliction, possibly crippling, loss of gems (if you are not running around unequipped, if you are, then I would say the mortal pretener has a 90% chance of success) and time to wait for healing. Now that may be an option to you, to waste your VQ or SC's turn by a minimal chance of success, but I don't think that is a strategy as much as a personal level of risk vs reward scenario with the hope being you win.

Absolutely. I am not disagreeing with that. I am just disagreeing with the perception that immortality is only useful to make up for poor play.I never said that was it's only feature, I said that was it's primary feature.
Immortality is a strong ability, and a *very* strong ability when combined with an SC chassis. It can, and should, be compensated for with design points or other weaknesses. It is not a side-note, nor a tool for only poor players. It allows one to dramatically reduce risk and this, in itself, opens up additional strategies and risk vs. reward scenarios.Yes, it does allow those, at which point those new to the game may feel that it is 'overpowered' because it allows them to make mistakes, while mortal pretenders and nations is not so forgiving. I a not disagreeing with you that it could not use a slight change, but the reasoning behind it. Because if the VQ is changed to 125 Points and 80/path, guess what? It will still be extremely powerful in the right hands. But it will be reduced to a few nations that can afford to use them. Instead of "VQ's are overpowered" it will be "VQ's are overpowered with Ermor, Abysia, Caelum, Jotunheim, C'tis, etc".

My point is that they are not overpowered by anything more than a slight degree, they are just popular which means people try to use them unsuccessfully and counter to their nation/theme/playstyle because at least 1 other person (or more) has used it successfully. That is exactly the wrong reason to balance something, because of popular demand.

May 5th, 2004, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by AhhhFresh:
So to truly evaluate a VQ's "balance", you have to consider the lesser players, who obviously outnumber the "elite" ones by a large margin...My question to you then, is this. If balance caters to the lowest common denominator (I'm not saying you or anyone else) then it's not really balanced is it? It's unexperienced friendly. You would limit the options of the game for anyone who is not inexperienced who wish to play competitively. Meaning, if you know how to fly a plane but 90% of the people on the forum don't know how to fly a plane because of any number of reasons and suddenly they don't allow civilians to fly because of that, is that what you would considered balanced or fair?

The fact that immortality is much more forgiving of mistakes is not at all a small issue... because that's what players like me do... we make mistakes... because we haven't had enough MP experience to know what every nation can throw at us, and hence we might send our SC pretender into a situation that could mean their death.

The fact that a VQ is mostly immune to these "bad decisions" is why she is so popular... and gives a distict advantage over another player of the same "moderate skill level" who is similarly mistake prone... but doesn't have a VQ.

I'm not in favor of nerfing Immortality itself, because that would nerf other units... but something should probably be done... since most poor to moderate players think she's da bomb...

I do imagine that the fervor will die out within a month, as most of the moderately skilled players who picked VQ's as pretenders as the flavor du jour will have lost their MP games at that point... but she still seems unbalanced to some extent. If it's not apparent by what I've done in the past, I'm *all* for giving people who are moderate or new to the game all the things they need in order to learn to play to their desired potential. I have no problem that immortality allows people to make mistakes and play around and try out new and possibly crazy things. A beautiful part of this game is the exploration of all it's nuances and things that impact the play.

Where I draw the line though, is changing the game to any non-conclusive, factual, debated and soundly reasoned changes. This game is very good, but it does have some (if not alot) of issues with balance. If you balance it willy nilly, or based on popular or trendy desires what you are going to have is exactly what this game, this company and this publisher are not.

Mainstream.

I like TBS games, even though they are not mainstream or popular. I like Shrapnel, even though they are not the biggest or everyone knows their name. I like Illwinter and Dominions 2, even though a large % of the gamers I have known and play with may not find it as fun and enjoyable as I have.

Why break that by suddenly catering to popular desire instead of sound logic?

Vynd

May 5th, 2004, 03:35 AM

You've gotta love the fact that a thread that is entitled "SCs other than the vq" is all about the VQ. Kind of makes you wonder if there actually are any other SCs, or at least any good ones when compared to the yardstick of the VQ.

Anyway, far be it from me to try and drag the thread back on topic. I wanna complain about the VQ too! And since immortality seems to be the theme of the moment, let me chime in that even if it is just a crutch for mistakes (an argument I don't buy), everyone makes mistakes! Probably even Norfleet. Especially considering that the game is not played in a vaccuum. There's no way you can account for everything that you opponents might throw at you. So I think its unfair and misleading to talk about the "surprise insurance" factor of immortality as if it is something only the unskilled newbie might ever find useful.

May 5th, 2004, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Vynd:
You've gotta love the fact that a thread that is entitled "SCs other than the vq" is all about the VQ. Kind of makes you wonder if there actually are any other SCs, or at least any good ones when compared to the yardstick of the VQ.You have to dig for it, but it's there. There is a list.

Anyway, far be it from me to try and drag the thread back on topic. I wanna complain about the VQ too! And since immortality seems to be the theme of the moment, let me chime in that even if it is just a crutch for mistakes (an argument I don't buy), everyone makes mistakes! Probably even Norfleet. Especially considering that the game is not played in a vaccuum. There's no way you can account for everything that you opponents might throw at you. So I think its unfair and misleading to talk about the "surprise insurance" factor of immortality as if it is something only the unskilled newbie might ever find useful. I never said it wasn't for everyone. Only that people who plan on making more mistakes than others are helped more by immortality than not.

More experienced players know more of the strategies and actions that might be presented to them, they also tend to use forsight if a particular strategy/design/decision doesn't work out to have a secondary plan of implementation or alternative.

It all boils down to your own risk vs reward mentality. Some people have a high tolerance for bad mistakes and struggling through them other do not. Obviously the more you play the more this tolerance is likely to grow as well as secondary strategy, acceptable loss for gain and other factors for the game.

It is not unlike Go in that respect.

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
[QUOTE]Now on that 75% chance of not taking out the pretender what are the results if you fail? Your VQ is left with 3-6 affliction, possibly crippling, loss of gems (if you are not running around unequipped, if you are, then I would say the mortal pretener has a 90% chance of success) and time to wait for healing. Now that may be an option to you, to waste your VQ or SC's turn by a minimal chance of success, but I don't think that is a strategy as much as a personal level of risk vs reward scenario with the hope being you win.Hehe, you added a bunch of elements which i didn't assume to make a point. Now take out all those factors that you stilted in favor of your point and let's get back to the point.

There are many cases where immortality makes something a good choice, where it would be a bad choice without it. Again I say, taking advantage of improved risk vs. reward is the mark fo a good player, not a bad player.

Why break that by suddenly catering to popular desire instead of sound logic?I think most people think that they are using logic. You might think their logic is flawed but they probably think your logic is flawed as well. Being a good player doesn't make your logic correct and everyone else's 'popular desire' or 'will-nilly' or what not. I realize that I am responding to you but let me broaden the scope...I have seen this a lot lately, from a few different people...who seemed to run out of debate on the issues and turned to debating the people who were making them.

- Kel

May 5th, 2004, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Kel:

Hehe, you added a bunch of elements which i didn't assume to make a point. Now take out all those factors that you stilted in favor of your point and let's get back to the point.I didn't add anything, you left out the fact that if you failed, that is what would happen. It's easy to know what happens if a mortal pretender dies, he dies and all his junk goes with him. But by your example you don't think that is a factor at all? Just because you get to keep them, doesn't mean you always want to throw away a turn of you SC for a low to mediocre chance for success.

There are many cases where immortality makes something a good choice, where it would be a bad choice without it. Again I say, taking advantage of improved risk vs. reward is the mark fo a good player, not a bad player.The only example then is the one you gave me above then? Because I'm not seeing it.

I think most people think that they are using logic. You might think their logic is flawed but they probably think your logic is flawed as well. Being a good player doesn't make your logic correct and everyone else's 'popular desire' or 'will-nilly' or what not. I realize that I am responding to you but let me broaden the scope...I have seen this a lot lately, from a few different people...who seemed to run out of debate on the issues and turned to debating the people who were making them.- Kel Most people may be using logic. It's the same logic that they use when saying "Ermor is Overpowered" or "Pangaea is overpowered" or "Water9 Blessing is Overpowered". Being a good player allows someone to overlook some of the obvious pitfalls of still learning the game and go indepth to the various levels that the issues are presented in.

I am not debating at all, in fact, the issue was dead in another thread and long ago. I'm defending the point, which is: Those who are debating for the change have not addressed or countered the points made by those who are not for the 'balance' change. It is in the hands of the accuser to provide the burden of proof and it has not been done. Especially considering that every effect that VQ's can have can be reproduced on one if not more other pretenders spending the same if not less points to do so.

[ May 05, 2004, 03:02: Message edited by: Zen ]

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 04:46 AM

Seems to me that Vampire Lords, while as Zen pointed out, have some important disadvantages compared to VQ pretenders (magic and dominion HP effects), have two advantages: fighting skill and (much more important) cheapness to manufacture (compared to Wish (!!) and Gift of Reason). Anyway, they seem potentially similar in ability to VQ's, and are manufacturable by anyone with blood magic.

Other SC's? Well, Prince of Death may not be immortal, but is considerably tougher than a VQ. Many of the giants have considerably more hit points than a VQ. Many have better fighting skills than a VQ. Moreover, many summonable units have better fighting abilities and thus SC potential than a VQ. They aren't immortal, but being summonable means not only are they replacable, but you can have several at once. Some of them are even quite cheap. Take for example Death summons.

Just looking at Pretender SC's, many of them are tougher than a VQ; they're just not immortal and don't have as many built-in abilities. Add some items and/or spells, though, and VQ may be outmatched.

* Moloch (esp. if they fix the rout issue)
* Prince of Death
* Ghost King
* White or Black Bull
* Manticore (limited but tough and ZERO points)
* Mother of Tuathas
* Titan
* Ancient Kraken (ok, acqutic, but try to kill one with a VQ http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )
* Dagon
* Lord of the Desert Sun
* Scorpion King
* Nataraja
* Shedu
* Son of Niefel
* Carrion Dragon
* Lord of the Wild
* Allfather
* Asynja
* Dracolich
* Lord of the Night

The Lich (or Saurolich, or Lich Queen) seems about on par with the VQ - immortal, a tad flammable and not flying but with natural protection of 15 (!). Bog Mummy also looks pretty tough. Ya they aren't naturally ethereal, but more things ignore ethereal than ignore natural protection.

Originally posted by rabelais:
... To the best of my knowledge, dominion changes happen *after* all battles, so you can't sucker an immortal into a trap dominion.

Which is IMHO, too bad. Would be nice to cause the immortal munchkins some contingent paranoid anxiety. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

This was considered a feature, ...don't know if changing the phaseorder might potentially be rebalancing.
... Hmm. Ya, it depends on the sequence of events (battle, preach, ressurrect). Zen seemed to think it would work. Anyone have spare time to test it, or know from experience in 2.11?

PvK

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
[QUOTE]Those who are debating for the change have not addressed or countered the points made by those who are not for the 'balance' change.I actually see the reverse in most cases recently (and this is not specific or directly related to you, personally, btw). I see a lot of "It's not invincible" (whether clams, ermor, pangaea, whatever http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) being used in response to "It's over-powered". I also see a lot of "Well, you just don't know how to play" in response to the question of something being over-powered. Finally, there is the "Your point isn't valid because it's just a trend" argument.

I don't really know if clams or ermor or VQs or pangaea, heh...or whatever are overpowered and logic isn't even right 100% of the time...but the logic on why they are has been quite reasonable and persuasive (ok, some of it, not all of it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). Some other people may feel they know better, based on their experiences, and they may or may not be right, but the logic, at least in many cases, hasn't been there to support their anecdotal evidence, imo. At least not to the degree that the other side has presented it.

Of course, people can argue for a lot of reasons and there is the potential to 'band-wagon'. There is also the possibility that some people may be arguing without experimenting much. But really, resistance to change, arrogance and personal agendas on the other side are just as frivolous.

Obviously, changes shouldn't (and won't, I am sure!) be made instantly, without thought, just based on what some have called 'the flavor of the moment' and I have seen some suggestions for the game which were clearly just one person's thoughts on what would be 'cool' to see in a game...but some of these issues, as I understand it, have been around for a while and aren't just an individual trying to make the game 'theirs'.

I respect that a lot of people know more about the game than I do (maybe most people !) but that doesn't make them impartial, it doesn't make them logical, it doesn't mean they don't have personal agendas and it certainly doesn't make them right. Credentials only get you so far.

Like I said, I am not trying to crusade against immortality or VQs or clams...in fact, I don't think we are that far apart from agreement here, anyway...but if something just doesn't sound right, I might just voice my thoughts, noob or not.

- Kel

May 5th, 2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Kel:
I actually see the reverse in most cases recently (and this is not specific or directly related to you, personally, btw). I see a lot of "It's not invincible" (whether clams, ermor, pangaea, whatever ) being used in response to "It's over-powered". I also see a lot of "Well, you just don't know how to play" in response to the question of something being over-powered. Finally, there is the "Your point isn't valid because it's just a trend" argument.So what your saying in essence is: If there is a way to beat it, or any number of ways and it has been shown then it can still be overpowered because not every nation/player/skill-level can do it? What other rational are you looking for? If it's overpowered that means to me, that it gives more than it should for it's current cost/use. But the determination for that is how abusable it is and if any thing/style can measure up to it. Then if there are none, it's a singular instance, if there are others, what is the commonality or why are these other not considered the same?
I respect that a lot of people know more about the game than I do (maybe most people !) but that doesn't make them impartial, it doesn't make them logical, it doesn't mean they don't have personal agendas and it certainly doesn't make them right. Credentials only get you so far.All of those points could be presented to each and every one who presents a point pro or con, so you have to follow the path of what seems more logical to you personally and go from there. There is no way of getting around personal preference of how you play the game and the results you have viewed for yourself.

Like I said, I am not trying to crusade against immortality or VQs or clams...in fact, I don't think we are that far apart from agreement here, anyway...but if something just doesn't sound right, I might just voice my thoughts, noob or not.
- Kel Which you should do. I don't believe anyone was shushing anyone or saying "Your opinion is worthless" but more along the lines of "maybe things are not so black and white, this is why".

[ May 05, 2004, 04:39: Message edited by: Zen ]

Zapmeister

May 5th, 2004, 05:50 AM

It is in the hands of the accuser to provide the burden of proof and it has not been done.You have correctly assigned the burden of proof, but I think you unfairly dismiss the (albeit subjective) proof that has been presented. That proof is the persistent and disproportional popularity of the Vampire Queen. Although there may be reasons (other than the VQ being overpowered) for that popularity, the fact remains that the popularity reduces diversity in the game, and that's a problem that could be solved by nerfing the VQ.

May 5th, 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
You have correctly assigned the burden of proof, but I think you unfairly dismiss the (albeit subjective) proof that has been presented. That proof is the persistent and disproportional popularity of the Vampire Queen. Although there may be reasons (other than the VQ being overpowered) for that popularity, the fact remains that the popularity reduces diversity in the game, and that's a problem that could be solved by nerfing the VQ. Sigh. Again. I may have subjectively dismissed it because I personally don't see it, and haven't seen it in any games I've played/playing in the Last month. So if my PoV is worth less than anyone on the other side of the debate then my subjectivity is the culprit.

Popularity does reduce diversity in the game, but popularity is fickle. I'm not quite ready to give up on human nature to believe that because something is popular but not effective it will remain popular. If it is popular and effective then it needs to be looked into (which I thought you read the other thread where I said it was, but you might have forgotten) to determine if it is popular because it is effective and ways to reimplement the diversity. The easiest but not neccesarily best solution being destroying the popularity of the one, instead of making the others more attractive.

Cainehill

May 5th, 2004, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
The lack of item slots is not that big a drawback on immortal combat pretenders, if you put a heap of items on an immortal you are 'compromising' its expendability, especially the flying ones which can quickly get back to the front if slain. Depends. A VQ benefits greatly from Black Steel Plate, as well as other items which are pretty cheap to replace. It almost doesn't matter if you lose your 3rd battle in such a case, as long as you won your first two. And the VQ can be equipped well enough to have a shot against almost anything.

Whereas a Phoenix can _never_ be equipped well enough to deal with certain SCs. Especially if the Phoenix only invested in Fire, its chances against something like an ice devil and slim and none. Almost any other flying SC can kill it in the first turn of combat. Even garden variety knights can.

Phoenix winds up capable of roast and toasting many (but not all) armies. But it's barbecue chicken against many if not most SCs with mediocre equipment. (IE - fire & lightning immunity - easy to get.)

Norfleet

May 5th, 2004, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Whereas a Phoenix can _never_ be equipped well enough to deal with certain SCs. Especially if the Phoenix only invested in Fire, its chances against something like an ice devil and slim and none. Almost any other flying SC can kill it in the first turn of combat. Even garden variety knights can.That's because a Phoenix is not an SC and is not designed to be used that way: It's very effective in the roles of kamikaze attacks on provinces with either fire or air magic, and is an excellent support caster....but neither its price tag, slottage, nor physical attributes promote its use as an SC.

[ May 05, 2004, 05:20: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

rabelais

May 5th, 2004, 06:30 AM

This is my Last post on the VQ thread, I am simply too frustrated with it.

No one has responded to my Posts in other threads, I though the objections to the SC VQ were well documented by now... if I missed the rebuttal, please direct me to it.

As I have said in other Posts, naked immortal SC's that can destroy entire armies (particularly before turn 30 or 20 or 10!!!)are obviously broken.

The castling/temple-ing strat just makes it a more efficient munchkinism, the fundamental problem is that getting a new flying army every turn for free, with no risk of losing it, in whole or in part (the latter being the fate of most normal armies...) while getting it's full tactical benefit.

The resources which must be devoted to stopping an immortal SC far outweigh the costs on a per use basis for producing one, (especially for ermor, whose recruitment does not suffer from scale poverty)... and are highly fraught with the risk of failure, attrition, and are much less flexible weapons than the flying immortal SC.

If there is a counter for it, other than attacking with overwhelming superiority in three places at once, and losing two of those *nonimmortal* armies while taking down one of the castles... you see my point.

The strat is so effective under the current rule set, it is broken.

Your saying someone, an expert, "almost" beat it, having encountered it several times before, isn't much of a defense.

If I know what my opponent is going to do and I *still* can't stop it in a cost effective way, knowing it's coming ... it is BROKEN.

This is a strategy game, ...optimization is supposed to be difficult and non commutative.

In this case it is neither.

Rabe the Retiring

references for those wanting more detail...

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=74;t=002583;p=2#000 036

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=74;t=002583;p=1#000 050

Zapmeister

May 5th, 2004, 07:46 AM

This is my Last post on the VQ thread, I am simply too frustrated with it.Ditto, and for the same reason.

archaeolept

May 5th, 2004, 09:32 AM

what rabe said

archaeolept

May 5th, 2004, 09:33 AM

dp

[ May 05, 2004, 08:34: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Tris

May 5th, 2004, 11:06 AM

I'm still new enough not to assume I can tell one way or another whether any particular issue is unbalanced by myself.

But having heard the arguements I have found the ones from the "VQs need to be nerfed" camp more convincing, so far.

A lot of the arguements supporting the VQ are logically flawed, and while I accept that the people making the arguements no doubt understand this game WAY more deeply that I do I would still like to see a concrete counter-strategy proposed.

For example the recent arguement that it is killable, and having it killed costs the owner resources (gems etc) only holds water if the expense of killing the VQ is much less than the expense the owner incurs from it's death, and I haven't seen this demonstrated.

Comparisons with the "Metagame" of many CCGs have been made:

In a CCG, if one flavour of deck is very popular, very quickly people produce decks which counter it. The popular deck has very little or no chance against a deck that knows it is coming.

I think any veteran Magic player could, if shown a deck, come up with several decks that would beat it easily, and still be competative against other tournament decks (except those designed to counter this deck...but that's what makes the Metagame). If a deck can do its own thing regardless of how you try to counter it then it is unbalanced.

So. Can the veteran Dominions players come up with a strategy, for all nations, that would beat a VQ SC strategy everytime?

The most popular example of the VQs supposed unbalance seems to be the Ermor-VQ-temple-fortress combination that Norfleet seems to have such success with. I've read that this success is largely due to the map settings which favour Ermor, and that it's down to Norfleets expertise, but pro-nerf people seem to quote this example a lot. So could we also have a concrete strategy that utterly destroys this strategy please?

Two strategies - one for the player who spots the VQ SC early in the game and wants to counter it, one for the player who spots the Temple/Fortress/VQ-SC early.

Remember - if a strategy is anticipated early enough it should be countered easily. If you can continue using a strategy despite it being anticipated perfectly by your opponent, and still hope to win against even a mediocre foe, then the strategy is unbalanced.

Two convincing strategies. If the strategy is balanced there should be a lot more than that. Worked examples, no unfair assumptions. The prize - my humble support for the VQ to remain as it is. The bigger prize - the Metagame will adjust to make VQs undesirable, until the Metagame evolves to the point where VQs are the best counter to...whatever strategy happens to be kicking *** this time next year :-)

The price of failiure? You wouldn't want to know. It's FAR too terrible http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Zen:
[QUOTE]So what your saying in essence is: If there is a way to beat it, or any number of ways and it has been shown then it can still be overpowered because not every nation/player/skill-level can do it?I am not saying that at all. I am saying that there is an obvious flaw in the logic that because something is not invincible, it is balanced and that that common argument is fallacious. Let's say you think the VQ is balanced as it is. What if you dropped her price to 0 design points ? She would still have the same vulnerabilities, would she still be balanced ? Clearly not. Yet the assumption gets made that people are only complaining about the VQ because they have no clue how to stop her. It's a poor argument but one that I keep seeing people keep fall back on.

All of those points could be presented to each and every one who presents a point pro or conAbsolutely. It's also why I don't buy the attitude of "Come back and make your arguments when you are as good a player as I am".

Which you should do. I don't believe anyone was shushing anyone or saying "Your opinion is worthless" but more along the lines of "maybe things are not so black and white, this is why". We will have to agree to disagree on that point because I see more of the former, lately.

- Kel

PhilD

May 5th, 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:

What counter strat have you layed out for dealing w/ the Norfleet combo? that's all I care about, since that's pretty well all I've been playing against for the past few weeks.If you don't like Norfleet's playing strategy, why do you keep playing in games he's in?

I'm in several MP games at the moment (slow kind, mostly 1 turn per day), and I've noticed exactly ONE Vampire Queen in there, played by C'tis; AFAIK, she's lost her castle, and since she's now attacking low-defense provinces of mine in my own dominion, my guess is she isn't in the best of shapes. There are plenty of people out there who are not playing Vampire Queens, believe me - surely some of them are of at least moderate skill.

Gandalf Parker

May 5th, 2004, 04:45 PM

well if people are dropping the idea that a killer god must be beaten....

Back to the topic of the post, what happened to the wyrm. Was it nerfed? At one time the wyrm was the "automatic choice" for SC and now I hardly see it mentioned.

archaeolept

May 5th, 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by PhilD:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:

What counter strat have you layed out for dealing w/ the Norfleet combo? that's all I care about, since that's pretty well all I've been playing against for the past few weeks.If you don't like Norfleet's playing strategy, why do you keep playing in games he's in?

I'm in several MP games at the moment (slow kind, mostly 1 turn per day), and I've noticed exactly ONE Vampire Queen in there, played by C'tis; AFAIK, she's lost her castle, and since she's now attacking low-defense provinces of mine in my own dominion, my guess is she isn't in the best of shapes. There are plenty of people out there who are not playing Vampire Queens, believe me - surely some of them are of at least moderate skill. <hr /></blockquote>my god phil, how the heck is "so don't play w/ someone who uses that strat" at all a legitimate response to the question as to whether the strat shows something as broken in the game? your answer is that the game isn't broken because it is possible to bury one's head in the sand. Bravo.

have you played against it? do you know how it works?

Pperhaps it isn't broken - but then, pls, we would like a general strategy to deal w/ the VQ/uber-SC + infinite castling + clam/wishes combo.

and, that VQ's can suck is so clearly obvious, and such a low grade strawman, that I'm continually flabbergasted that people feel the need to bring this up. Yes, VQ's can be weak. The argument is not that all VQ's all the time are unbalanced, but that they can be, especially in combination w/ an all-out defensive castling strat.

Vynd

May 5th, 2004, 05:51 PM

I am also among the people who have not been conmvinced by the arguments by Zen and others that the VQ is more or less OK. As others have commented, these arguments that "it's not impossible to defeat a VQ" are kind of off base. I mean sure, if it was impossible to beat them, that would be unbalanced. But something can be unbalanced but still be defeatable.

To me, the way to determine if the VQ is unbalanced is to look at her peers. If there are lots of other Pretenders that give you similar value for a similar price, then it seems to me that the VQ is balanced. If the other Pretenders that are priced similarly to the VQ are not as good as her, then she is unbalanced.

For now, my opinion is that she is unbalanced, because she seems to offer much more bang for the buck than the other Pretenders. I'm willing to accept the idea that I am missing something here. But so far I've barely even heard this issue addressed. The closest anyone has come are those who have argued that if you remove the VQ, the Ghost King is almost as good. Maybe so. But that's still only "almost." And that's only one other Pretender. Are there any other Pretenders that give you as much value (not necessarily as a SC) as the VQ does?

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
... That proof is the persistent and disproportional popularity of the Vampire Queen. Although there may be reasons (other than the VQ being overpowered) for that popularity, the fact remains that the popularity reduces diversity in the game, and that's a problem that could be solved by nerfing the VQ. That's not proof. It's an observation by some people about player use of it in some games. It's more evidence of a rumor or of threads on the forum suggesting it as an easy and powerful strategy. The reason lots of people are trying it may be that they have read about it here. Herd behaviour is frequently not caused by keen intelligence.

Nor will it solve herd behaviour to nerf the current trend. Nerfing whatever is most popular would be doing things for the wrong reason.

Herd behaviour is worth noting, but it's not proof, nor is it a reason in itself to make decisions.

Reasons for change are things like too many free synergistic and rare intrinsic abilities with too few disadvantages for too few points compared to other choices. I think there's probably a good case there.

PvK

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Vynd:
... And that's only one other Pretender. Are there any other Pretenders that give you as much value (not necessarily as a SC) as the VQ does? Well, I posted a list of potentially tougher SC pretenders earlier. There are also many potentially tougher SC summons. They can also take a strong dominion, and use priests, temples, and other means to limit the dominion of the VQ so the VQ does not get its immortality.

Some of us would say that rainbow pretenders have more potential than SC pretenders anyway. SC's can be cultivated, summoned, equipped into being, in greater numbers than one, and the more magic your pretender has, the more you can do that, assuming you can find other ways to conquer provinces at a reasonable rate.

Ermor building temples and castles everywhere, when their dominion undermines their gold income, sounds like the equivalent in skill and resources to being able to do many other things. Summoning more VQ's with Wish and GoR also sounds like something that would have many alternative uses for all those resources. So VQ's are tougher than Doom Horrors?

Unliving summons don't stop VQ's.

Note that by mentioning all this, I'm not saying that I think VQ's aren't underpriced ... I tend to think that the combo of their abilities may be. Though the Liches and Bog Mummy look capable of similar effects, no?

PvK

Vynd

May 5th, 2004, 06:27 PM

Edit: Some no longer necessary comments about a retracted post have been deleted.

I think that all of the players, new or old, have a right to air their opinions. And this forum is the right place to do it. I do hope that people remain civil, since as you correctly point out, the devs will not pay much attention otherwise.

[ May 05, 2004, 22:28: Message edited by: Vynd ]

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 06:32 PM

Just as herd behavior (not to be confused with herb behavior) doesn't make something right, lots of people doing something doesn't make it herd behavior http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 06:36 PM

I'm sure Gandalf isn't trying to upset anyone. He's just echoing a message that has needed to be said many times in the past, when (typically, new-to-the-game) players have ranted their opinions in inappropriate tones, and been duly ignored. Sometimes they may even have had a good point, but the result was just an annoyance for everyone. The lesson learned is that staying polite and making clear and logical arguments is generally very effective, particularly with Illwinter.

PvK

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
Just as herd behavior (not to be confused with herb behavior) doesn't make something right, lots of people doing something doesn't make it herd behavior http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel Sure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I was mainly just responding to the idea that popularity equals proof of imbalance.

PvK

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
The lesson learned is that staying polite and making clear and logical arguments is generally very effectiveAbsolutely. I just think there is some confusion about which people need to read the lesson http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

- Kel

mivayan

May 5th, 2004, 06:48 PM

Back to the topic of the post, what happened to the wyrm. Was it nerfed? At one time the wyrm was the "automatic choice" for SC and now I hardly see it mentioned. I fooled around a bit with an 1150 -point rainbow wyrm. 300 hp and regen is fun. But you run out of fatigue in big fights and when machaka blinded it I had to use GoH... which can't be relied on in multiplay. And you cant put an elemental armor on it. But even a no-magic wyrm can probably beat a VQ early on. I'll test this... ok I tried it.. no magic-wyrm vs rainbow3 VQ. The wyrm's bite is not magical, the vq resists poison, and since lifedrain fatigues the victim the wyrm was soon passed out. The vq did not even get hit.

Pperhaps it isn't broken - but then, pls, we would like a general strategy to deal w/ the VQ/uber-SC + infinite castling + clam/wishes combo. archaeolept - dont play in big games on huge maps against good players. That's what I will do when I start playing multiplayer dom again. A while ago I played against norfleet and gave up since the game was just too big for me and I ran out of ideas.. but I was not in a bad position really, if we had switched sides those vqs would most likely be killed every time they popped up.

The vq just needs 80 new path cost imo to lower the impact they have around turn 10-20. And some players will want houserules to not use them.

Kel

May 5th, 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
[QUOTE]Sure. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I was mainly just responding to the idea that popularity equals proof of imbalance.
That's true, that popular opinion doesn't make it unbalanced. I might disagree, though, that the balance is more important than perceived balance.

If something is somewhat unbalanced in the game, at this point, it isn't going to be a game breaking issue. It's most likely going to be a small advantage that can be overcome with skill or luck.

The problem with perceived advantage is that it reduces variety in game play. That is much harder to deal with and requires you to limit who you play with and what maps, house rules or such you play with.

Now, of course it isn't smart to change a game based on a 'flavor of the month'. On the other hand, if it sticks around for some time, it reeduces variety and that bothers me a lot more.

I think it would be worse to play against similar nations with similar pretenders, most f the time...then to play against the occasional pretender who I knew had a slight advantage over me.

I guess what I am saying is, in the short term, you are right, band-wagonning is a danger. In the long term, though, popularity, right or wrong, does make a difference, at least if you play with that populace.

- Kel

Gandalf Parker

May 5th, 2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Vynd:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
This is beginning to tick me off. I cant believe that the new players are still trying to say this is some major breakage which absolutely has to be fixed. Even if that were true, you had better back down if you really do want it looked at by the devs cause thats not the way to get it done.Are you trying to make people more upset Gandalf? Because that's what I got from this message. Seems to me that you're telling the new players that they are wrong about the VQ ("Even if that were true" = Not true), and that they had better quit their whining because it is pissing off the experienced players. Telling someone that they had "better back down" is how you start a fight, not end it. Nothing makes people complain more than being told they have nothing to complain about.

I think that all of the players, new or old, have a right to air their opinions. And this forum is the right place to do it. I do hope that people remain civil, since as you correctly point out, the devs will not pay much attention otherwise. <hr /></blockquote>Actually it was in response to the previous post which started out "I cant believe the veterans are still trying to defend the VQ" which generated my response about new players loudly saying its broke. Seems like a balanced statement but pardon me, I have removed those Posts.

And Im not saying people shouldnt have an opinion. If I didnt think the devs should look at this I wouldnt be trying to tone down the remarks to a level that the devs will be able to stand to read it without getting pissed.

Its not the discussion itself. Its the way its getting discussed. It is not productive toward getting the changes people seem to want.

[ May 05, 2004, 18:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

archaeolept

May 5th, 2004, 07:04 PM

archaeolept - dont play in big games on huge maps against good players. Lol, yeah that works http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
ok I tried it.. no magic-wyrm vs rainbow3 VQ. The wyrm's bite is not magical, the vq resists poison, and since lifedrain fatigues the victim the wyrm was soon passed out. The vq did not even get hit.
ahh, the memories. now substitue "wyrm" for "all your early game armies"... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

archaeolept

May 5th, 2004, 07:09 PM

I have removed those Posts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

omg, all sorts of Posts in this thread are missing, How are people to make sense of a complex multi-leveled argument if the historical record is wiped clean? I've seen this happen before in forums; never w/ good results.

Now, death threats, racial or sexual insults, and such, should be deleted, or, better, "bleeped". but to cleanse the historical record during a debate is, well, I don't even know how to express the depths of my aVersion.

[ May 06, 2004, 08:04: Message edited by: Zen ]

Gandalf Parker

May 5th, 2004, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by mivayan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Back to the topic of the post, what happened to the wyrm. Was it nerfed? At one time the wyrm was the "automatic choice" for SC and now I hardly see it mentioned. I fooled around a bit with an 1150 -point rainbow wyrm. 300 hp and regen is fun. But you run out of fatigue in big fights and when machaka blinded it I had to use GoH... which can't be relied on in multiplay. And you cant put an elemental armor on it. But even a no-magic wyrm can probably beat a VQ early on. I'll test this... ok I tried it.. no magic-wyrm vs rainbow3 VQ. The wyrm's bite is not magical, the vq resists poison, and since lifedrain fatigues the victim the wyrm was soon passed out. The vq did not even get hit.<hr /></blockquote>Well the topic of other SCs made me bring him up. The wyrm can allow a quick entry into the water early in the game. And it can hold off knights while your shooters do some damage. For early expansion it can be a big boost. And if its a non-magical god then praying him back from the dead doesnt hurt him much. And he is an easy god for new players to use in their first few games.

Personally I like to build off the Manticore.

Gandalf Parker

May 5th, 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I have removed those Posts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

omg, all sorts of Posts in this thread are missing, includer Jasper's original "troll". How are people to make sense of a complex multi-leveled argument if the historical record is wiped clean? I've seen this happen before in forums; never w/ good results.<hr /></blockquote>Surgical is sloppy but better than losing a whole topic that has good information in it.
Everything has its pros and cons.

archaeolept

May 5th, 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I have removed those Posts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

omg, all sorts of Posts in this thread are missing, includer Jasper's original "troll". How are people to make sense of a complex multi-leveled argument if the historical record is wiped clean? I've seen this happen before in forums; never w/ good results.<hr /></blockquote>Surgical is sloppy but better than losing a whole topic that has good information in it.
Everything has its pros and cons. <hr /></blockquote>

[ May 06, 2004, 08:04: Message edited by: Zen ]

Endoperez

May 5th, 2004, 07:40 PM

Wyrm could, in fact, have magical weapons, but as Astral Weapon is anastral spell it would be quite a risk... A new low.level spell giving mage and/or block of units magical weapons would be nice.

Blitz

May 5th, 2004, 08:31 PM

Giving immortality to SC-capable pretender probably wasn't such a hot idea. Giving it to the one with earthrealness, two resistances, inherant lifedrain, and flying is something that should probably be looked at. Sort of like when the developers made an immortal unit for Vanheim, they chose the boar and not the Van. Immortal Vans are not impossible to overcome, however, this does not make them a strong balance decision.

[ May 06, 2004, 05:07: Message edited by: Blitz ]

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 10:39 PM

Deleting other people's Posts? I didn't even think that was possible.

Certainly seems like a bad move to me. There have been far more rude and offensive Posts in other threads. This Last one may have been inaccurate, but if it was really deleted, then ya, I agree it would stink big-time to have Posts deleted if they weren't totally out of place (as in, threats, curses, very hurtful words, illegal stuff).

PvK

Phoenix-D

May 5th, 2004, 10:43 PM

-You- can't delete other people's Posts. Moderators can.

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 10:49 PM

Did Gandalf really delete other people's Posts in this case? I'd be pretty shocked if he did, since I don't recall anything being really out of line.

Deleting and editing ones' own Posts though is pretty common on this forum, although in some cases it can make it tough to figure out what happened.

PvK

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 10:50 PM

That is, it's often much better to add an apology and/or disclaimer to a regrettable post, than to remove the text.

PvK

Gandalf Parker

May 5th, 2004, 11:00 PM

Its not that unusual for Posts to be deleted if they take the mood too far in the wrong direction. Actually what I did was delete my post which probably was basly worded. Also the post before it which started the off discussion, and the one following it which was nothing but flames.

Alot of things could be done. Editing, removing a post, removing a thread. But the thread has alot of good info in it if it can stay friendly.

PvK

May 5th, 2004, 11:34 PM

Seems to me terribly heavy-handed for something that I would not have said warranted any such attention. I'd also hope that when a moderator is involved in a discussion that he/she thinks warrants editing other people's Posts, that he should have another, uninvolved moderator look at it and decide whether to do it.

Removing other people's Posts without obviously good and impartial reason can have a lot more negative effect than someone ranting, or even some people flaming each other.

People get quite upset about it. Even if they weren't the ones whose Posts were deleted. Also, it makes it impossible for later readers (or even previous participants looking back to see where a misunderstanding or overreaction came from) to fairly judge what happened. (e.g. People may have later written something which wasn't deleted, but the tone may have had something to do with something that was deleted.)

So what if someone mistakenly Posts about some sort of "old boy network", or there's some misunderstanding going on? It's been a lot worse on other threads.

When Posts start vanishing though, well, I'm with the group who just feels like leaving the forum alone at that point, or finding one with less moderator deletion going on.

Generally, until this one, I've had extreme respect for every post and contribution you've made, Gandalf. So, I hope you see where I'm coming from on this.

PvK

Vynd

May 5th, 2004, 11:34 PM

I appreciate Gandalf's efforts to keep things civil. And I'm chagrined that I let my bias on the topic at hand drive me to criticize his post, while ignoring the post that prompted it. My apologies.

LintMan

May 6th, 2004, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by PvK:
Seems to me terribly heavy-handed for something that I would not have said warranted any such attention. I'd also hope that when a moderator is involved in a discussion that he/she thinks warrants editing other people's Posts, that he should have another, uninvolved moderator look at it and decide whether to do it.

Removing other people's Posts without obviously good and impartial reason can have a lot more negative effect than someone ranting, or even some people flaming each other.

People get quite upset about it. Even if they weren't the ones whose Posts were deleted. Also, it makes it impossible for later readers (or even previous participants looking back to see where a misunderstanding or overreaction came from) to fairly judge what happened. (e.g. People may have later written something which wasn't deleted, but the tone may have had something to do with something that was deleted.)

So what if someone mistakenly Posts about some sort of "old boy network", or there's some misunderstanding going on? It's been a lot worse on other threads.

When Posts start vanishing though, well, I'm with the group who just feels like leaving the forum alone at that point, or finding one with less moderator deletion going on.

Generally, until this one, I've had extreme respect for every post and contribution you've made, Gandalf. So, I hope you see where I'm coming from on this.
I haven't been active in this thread (and don't have a strong an opinion on the topic), but I agree with PvK that deleting Posts to preserve a thread's "tone" is a very very bad precedent, even if done with the best intentions.

As I see it, it is a very slippery slope from there to deleting Posts that maybe "damage the useful tone of the forum" because, say, they "argumentatively/offensively portray the game in a bad/unfair light". It's Shrapnel's forum, so they can do that if they want, but I don't think people really trust a forum like that or feel they can speak freely.

Dom2 is a great game, and this is a pretty good community, so I think we can collectively withstand an occasional misunderstanding, troll, or even flame war.

I also think that if someone's post does need to be moderated, a much more preferable way would be for the moderator to edit down the offending part of the post, and insert an explanation of exactly why the post was moderated. In that way, at least some indication of the history of what people are reacting to is preserved.

Let me add, though, that I don't have any problems with Moderators deleting Posts that contain crud like hate speech, spam, gross obsenities, or wildly off-topic rants (ie: political cause stuff). These forums are free of that stuff, and I'm certainly glad of that and prefer to keep it that way.

Just my 2 cents.

Pirateiam

May 6th, 2004, 06:52 AM

What astonishes me is that there are not more flame wars and arguments since we are just a bunch of Megalomaniac God Pretendars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Tris

May 6th, 2004, 09:11 AM

(conveniantly ignoring the post-deletion debate)

Everyone seems to have conveniantly ignored http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif my "give us counter strategies" post. The summary of what I said:

A balanced strategy should, if anticipated have accessable and effective counters. I should not be able to tell you "I'm going to choose paper" and have a chance of winning (presumably you will choose scissors).

So can the more experienced players provide worked examples of viable counters to a) The typical VQ SC and to b) the castle/temple/VQ strategy, given that you guess someone is using that strategy from (say) turn 2.

You know exactly what is coming. You should be able to destroy your opponent for being so predictable....

May 6th, 2004, 09:16 AM

Do you know how much time it would take to detail each and every strategy for each? There is one big, VQ counter thread for all the nuances of killing a VQ in and out of their domain, look there. Though you might want to discriminate the "Normal VQ" the "Equipped VQ" the "EQ with 6 Wishes pumped into it". Dominion fighting should be fairly simplistic with the suggestions that were presented. And for the castling, that is depending on the nation/use you use. If you have access to stealth troops or heavy high moving troops you don't have to worry about it as much, if you are playing Ulm on the other hand, you will have to worry about it.

Also you have to factor in "How many people playing the game" and "What map" and "If they have sea provinces" and "If they react in any given way."

Tris

May 6th, 2004, 11:18 AM

This was meant to be "If you anticipated their use of this tactic from turn 2". So presumably when you spot it they are using a VQ, if you delay it will be an EQ, and further down the line an EQ with wishes.

I've read that thread and it seemed to mainly suggest ways to beat a VQ in battle, at least some of which seemed to me to be more expensive than the cost to your opponent of his VQ being beaten in battle.

I was after the "This strategy is balanced:if you anticipate it early you can do X" answer.

Thanks for the reply anyway, and I'll go read over that thread again, in case I've missed a valid answer to my query.

Cheers.

Norfleet

May 6th, 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Tris:
I've read that thread and it seemed to mainly suggest ways to beat a VQ in battle, at least some of which seemed to me to be more expensive than the cost to your opponent of his VQ being beaten in battle.As a general rule, it'll always be slightly more expensive on a purely explicit level to guarantee success in an offensive operation against a defending force: However, if you're using resources that are reusable, this doesn't matter: You only have to replace the resources consumed. Also, the value of taking ground and holding ground, I.E., actually making progress against your opponent, cannot be quite so easily defined. Since driving off the opposing VQ defender and actually taking a castle represents progress that is not so easily undone, particularly since your opponent will now have to use a new tactic, given that you have decisively countered his old one.

How difficult this will be depends on how well prepared he was to switch gears. Obviously, if he has a secondary strategy that he can switch to, you'll have to counter that, too: However, this will no longer be the VQ....unless he's very stupid, and will keep hamhandedly trying the same, now ineffective, strategy.

[ May 06, 2004, 14:10: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

archaeolept

May 6th, 2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
Its not that unusual for Posts to be deleted if they take the mood too far in the wrong direction. Actually what I did was delete my post which probably was basly worded. Also the post before it which started the off discussion, and the one following it which was nothing but flames.
Alot of things could be done. Editing, removing a post, removing a thread. But the thread has alot of good info in it if it can stay friendly. [italics added]

hmm, I was going to stay away from this thread, but given that I was subsequently attacked...

No, it wasn't nothing but flames. Likely you found the tone disagreeable, perhaps in much the same manner as I had found your tone previously disagreeable.

but to delete the evidence and then, after the fact, slander my post w/out anyone having the ability to judge for themselves...

ehh, ok, now I'm definitely out of this thread, which is now just a heap of burning wreckage anyways.

[ May 06, 2004, 18:12: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Gandalf Parker

May 6th, 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
[qb] Its not that unusual for Posts to be deleted if they take the mood too far in the wrong direction. Actually what I did was delete my post which probably was basly worded. Also the post before it which started the off discussion, and the one following it which was nothing but flames.
Alot of things could be done. Editing, removing a post, removing a thread. But the thread has alot of good info in it if it can stay friendly. italics added]

hmm, I was going to stay away from this thread, but given that I was subsequently attacked...

No, it wasn't nothing but flames. Likely you found the tone disagreeable, perhaps in much the same manner as I had found your tone previously disagreeable. You mean like this post? Full of information and worthy discussion on the topic of the thread and the board?

but to delete the evidence and then, after the fact, slander my post w/out anyone having the ability to judge for themselves...
Youre right.

ehh, ok, now I'm definitely out of this thread, which is now just a heap of burning wreckage anyways. Back on topic? Discussing "SCs other than the vq"? Sorry about that.

[ May 06, 2004, 18:57: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Wikd Thots

May 6th, 2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Pirateiam:
What astonishes me is that there are not more flame wars and arguments since we are just a bunch of Megalomaniac God Pretendars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif There are... well there was.. go back and see.. oh wait you cant, theyre not there. Well you can see some of the people who used to spend alot of time here flaming newbies who asked questions, or telling shrapnel that there games.. telling the devs that there game was all.. Nope, come to think of it those people arent around now.

They can always get another ISP account and come back with a different IP but that doesnt do much good unless they play much nicer. Or stay mostly real quiet until someone makes a post like why arent there more flamewars

[ May 06, 2004, 19:29: Message edited by: Wikd Thots ]