Is the REAL problem with VQs...Norfleet? [Archive]

archaeolept

May 6th, 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rabelais:
I think he deserves a cookie for finding a way to break the game,... (keeps the balance faithful humble http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't repair the defect (and its derivable cousins), now that we know it exists. Why do you do that? Is it reverse psychology? Do you maybe really NOT want it fixed? <hr /></blockquote>what?

rabe's post seemed pretty straight-forward http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

of course, many people have never encountered an adequate rendition of this strategy...

Anyways, the problem is certainly not Norfleet; which is not to say that Norfleet doesn't have problems... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

he did invent the pure strat as far as i can tell, and he is also very experienced w/ it, which does make it seem stronger than it otherwise might be. However, stronger than way too strong...

for instance, reading the supposed "counters" in the counter thread mostly make me laugh as, for the most part, they would be pretty useless, or require vast amounts of resources compared to the reward, when used against someone who has mastered this strat - for instance, Norfleet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 06, 2004, 18:05: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

Tuidjy

May 6th, 2004, 07:21 PM

As far as I am concerned, Norfleet is the problem.
It is not impossible to beat a vampire queen, but
it is a pretty tall order to beat someone who is
significantly better than you.

I am a new player. I have played less than five
games outside of my circle of friends. In my
second game, Cohen obliterated my best army with
a single vampire queen. In my next game, I
raided his temples, my stealth preachers rolled
over his domain, and my pretender was a match
for his. He conceeded the game after losing
two castles.

Is the vampire queen one of the best pretenders?
Absolutely.

Is the vampire queen too much bang for the buck?
Possibly, I am not yet qualified to judge.

But if a total newbie like me can take on a
vampire queen in his third game and win, she is
no magic bullet. Yes, she wiped out the one
raiding party she caught. Yes, she is queen of
her own domain. Yes, she is very good at helping
early expension, yes, she allows you some peace
of mind with her immortality.

But guess what, we are playing a game about beings
that aspire to Godhood. It is normal that they
will be able to devastate armies of mere mortals,
especially in a province where the population's
belief empowers them. I love the way this all
fits with the theme of the game.

But something else that fits is that a God is only
as strong as his believers. A raided, pillaged,
besieged nation will fall.

I have since won another game in which the vampire
queen was used as a silver bullet. I got lucky,
and a unscripted petrify or paralize or something
nailed her. My opponent got frustrated and
quit...

But this is not how Norfleet and I assume every
skilled player will use her. No they will fortify
while expanding, they will hoard gems and mass
produce clams, they will raid and blood hunt even
when not a blood nation, and they use a stream
of annying summons to keep you of balance.

And you know what? They could do the same with
Odin, Shiva, a Carrior Dragon... you know what?
Maybe with a lucky Drott who rolled water
as his random pick and toughness as his heroic
ability.

Now do you honestly believe that when a much
better player beats you he only won by using
an unbalanced strategy? Now how many of you can
honestly say: "If I play Soul Gate Ermor with a
Vampire Queen, I will obliterate Vanheim led by
Odin... played by anyone"? Or Arcoscephale
led by Shiva?

The select few who can say this will probably
beat the rest of us anyway.

Now the Vampire Queen is good, and not that
expensive. And she combines a lot of nice things,
and maybe she needs rebalancing... But who will
be next in line for nerfing? I'll tell you.

Whoever the best players pick. If I were one, I
would pick a suboptimal pretender just to screw
with people. But the best players do not make
suboptimal choices...

... And probably do not write long rants. So see
you around.

Norfleet

May 6th, 2004, 07:33 PM

Well, I've run into several would-be imitators of the strategy, but ultimately, even without my own VQ, defeating it is rather like taking candy from a baby. In truth, the VQ isn't as powerful as its made out to be: Like any SC, it's very adept at destroying conventional armies, which a wide range of SCs of varying costs and availability do very well for comparable risk, and falls flat against certain other things.

The key to successfully using the strategy, like any other strategy, involves keeping your opponent off balance, never being sure entirely what to expect and where to expect it, and forcing him to respond to you on your terms.

Originally posted by archaeolept:
for instance, reading the supposed "counters" in the counter thread mostly make me laugh as, for the most part, they would be pretty useless, or require vast amounts of resources compared to the reward, when used against someone who has mastered this strat - for instance, Norfleet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Actually, I find many of those counters to be highly effective, given their cost. Obviously, how you assess cost vs. reward can vary widely. If you think about it, a VQ is, at least explicitly, "free". You don't have to pay gems for one. You have it from the start of the game. It's a freebie. So viewed from that perspective, ANY counter other than simply duelling it down with your own pretender costs SOMETHING, as opposed to the enemy pretender's nothing.

The question is: Do these proposed solutions represent a significant departure from tactics that you would otherwise be using ANYWAY?

In this respect, I'd have to say the answer is "no". Most of the proposed solutions are modular enough to be adaptable to any other related SC. Many of these solutions hold merit on their own as valid strategies with or without an SC. Sure, some of them are very contrived, but others are perfectly reasonable to employ as general strategies, particularly against SCs, many of whom utilize lifesteal, just as the VQ does.

Originally posted by rabelais:
Norfleet to my knowledge just pioneered the SC naked VQ castling and templing strat, he isn't *morally* responsible for it in some sinister way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif I'm sorry, but I can't claim credit for the naked VQ castling and templing strat. In truth, I employ the castling strategy independently of the VQ, and I don't really field the naked VQ as a strategy. Generally, I eschew the crutch of the immortality and field fully-equipped, armed-to-the-teeth VQs ASAP. That has only gone more slowly where YOU'VE encountered it because of Very Retarded Research combined with the fact that Ermor is really not a strong research nation. As such, the level of carnage I've managed to cause is somewhat limited.

Besides, you can barely even hit me!

So I'm not really "pioneering" the VQ/castle/temple strategy. I castle and temple out of an entirely seperate agenda. Arch will testify to the fact that I've fielded GKs based on similar builds with equally devastating effects. Frankly, this strategy works very well for ME because it fits perfectly with my personal idiom. I have yet to see anyone perform a truly successful imitation.

Gandalf Parker

May 6th, 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rabelais:
I think he deserves a cookie for finding a way to break the game,... (keeps the balance faithful humble http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't repair the defect (and its derivable cousins), now that we know it exists. Why do you do that? Is it reverse psychology? Do you maybe really NOT want it fixed? <hr /></blockquote>what?

rabe's post seemed pretty straight-forward http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>It is straight forward, I will grant it that. But seeing it posted in every thread using words like broken and defect and fix doesnt strike me as a way of getting the devs to agree. If it were me I would think it would have an oppossite effect. But I guess life, like this game, supports many strategys. I was just trying to figure this one out.

archaeolept

May 6th, 2004, 08:30 PM

yah, the mad castling/templing is really the core of Norfleet's strategic activities. Any uber-SC will work w/ it; its just that the VQ has more innate (and, in the case of immortality, unavailable to lesser pretenders) abilities.

I've only seen him use the GK once, actually. It was devastating but, OTOH, it was using R'lyeh before the paralysis bug was fixed, which rather compensated for the lack of a VQ.

I think my Last battle w/ his GK that game, turn 44 or so, his GK had a 40 defense before buffs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

re. the counters thread: its more that most of what is discussed there presupposes catching the uber-VQ in open terrain in the mid to late game, which is not something I sea often. The VQ is hidden in the sea of castles for the most part, and if it does move out i'm not sure if an attack on her would occur before an "instant castle" spell like 7 red seconds takes place.

Kel

May 6th, 2004, 08:36 PM

I don't really have a huge problem with the VQ herself but to answer the question of the post...the answer is 'no'.

I say that because Norfleet hasn't been in a single one of the larger games I have played (and VQs are/were).

Also because VQ's are all over the place, irregardless of the nation and secondary strategy used. I don't think I have actually seen many people use a castling strategy. She is just used, generally, as a generic flying immortal SC http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Lastly, a lot of people build her completely differently than he does (he, himself, comments on how he wouldn't build one the way someone else did).

- Kel

Gandalf Parker

May 6th, 2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
re. the counters thread: its more that most of what is discussed there presupposes catching the uber-VQ in open terrain in the mid to late game, which is not something I sea often. The VQ is hidden in the sea of castles for the most part, and if it does move out i'm not sure if an attack on her would occur before an "instant castle" spell like 7 red seconds takes place. There are other game strategys which involve trying to time the next attack your enemy will make and attack that same province at the same time. Its not an uncommon skill to try and develop. That would handle 7 red seconds

And if a tactic keeps her from leaving her castle then it would be a good thing. Most of her benefits are handled then. Late game has alot of spells that could help if you can keep her from winning the game too quick.

[ May 06, 2004, 19:39: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

rabelais

May 6th, 2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by archaeolept:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rabelais:
I think he deserves a cookie for finding a way to break the game,... (keeps the balance faithful humble http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't repair the defect (and its derivable cousins), now that we know it exists. Why do you do that? Is it reverse psychology? Do you maybe really NOT want it fixed? <hr /></blockquote>what?

rabe's post seemed pretty straight-forward http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>It is straight forward, I will grant it that. But seeing it posted in every thread using words like broken and defect and fix doesnt strike me as a way of getting the devs to agree. If it were me I would think it would have an oppossite effect. But I guess life, like this game, supports many strategys. I was just trying to figure this one out. <hr /></blockquote>Gandalf, I'm working under the presumptive principle that the devs are thoughtful, mature adults, who, understanding complex sytems as they must to have created this marvelous game, realize that not every contingency can be anticipated, which is why such systems are interesting.

IMHO the strat in its most extreme form reduces the functional and strategic diversity of the game. A game we all treasure and with which we are positively obsessed !

I suspect from KO's reaction to hearing the strat described, that this degree of monotonic leverage was not forseen by the authors and is clearly counterparadigmatic.

I may be wrong. The devs may not agree, and I suppose there is a possibility that seeing me refer to the strat as "broken" (which is a technical CCG term, but perhaps should be explained more thoroughly with each use) will cause them to toss reason to the wind and obsteperously pile on immortal SC buffs until doomsday. (Which would indeed be arriving early http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

It seems unlikely to me, but if that's true then I misunderstand the devs, the game and the community.

I haven't insulted anyone, I LOVE this game.

To suggest that I am endangering balance by attempting to defend it is bizarre.

It seems vastly more disrepectful of the devs to suggest they are reactively perverse and fragile in response to constructive feedback than any contexual criticism I could make.

These are brilliant men, not cranks or emotionally stunted children.

How does taking their work seriously enough to be impassioned against its abuse count as counterproductive behavior?

Rabe the Mildly Offended

(and off to catch a plane...)

Reverend Zombie

May 6th, 2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
I don't really have a huge problem with the VQ herself but to answer the question of the post...the answer is 'no'.

I say that because Norfleet hasn't been in a single one of the larger games I have played (and VQs are/were).

Also because VQ's are all over the place...

Lastly, a lot of people build her completely differently than he does (he, himself, comments on how he wouldn't build one the way someone else did).

- Kel Are these folks winning with their VQs? Or is there only one way of playing VQs that is really "broken?"

Wikd Thots

May 6th, 2004, 08:58 PM

Dont back off now Rabi. Gandalf is just an old guy and wishes he can make us use our GOOD manners. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You go ahead and pick anything in the game you want and dont use wimpy words like balanse or opinion or please look at. TELL them that there game is all broke and defektiv messed up (not the word I wanted but I changed it 3 times till I got one I thot might stay). Those 2 guys in the garage after work should change what PLAYERS say is broke and stop doing just what they want to do

[ May 09, 2004, 04:15: Message edited by: Wikd Thots ]

Kel

May 6th, 2004, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
Are these folks winning with their VQs? Or is there only one way of playing VQs that is really "broken?" Well, the original qustion was whether most of the people in the debate were in it because of Norfleet. I don't think most of the people in the debate think she is broken, they just think she is over-powered.

I don't want to spread that thread across multiple threads so I will stick to strictly answering the question of whether they are using her because of Norfleet. And to me, all evidence is that this is not the case, for the reasons I mentioned. I can't account for everyone of course but I don't think a lot of these people have necessarily even played against Norfleet.

- Kel

Vynd

May 6th, 2004, 09:36 PM

Gandalf Parker

May 6th, 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Kel:
Well, the original qustion was whether most of the people in the debate were in it because of Norfleet. I don't think most of the people in the debate think she is broken, they just think she is over-powered.I think its not even that simple. The fact that she one of the most powerful choices, maybe even THE most powerful, is easy to admit to. Especially for certain nations and certain playing styles. But whether thats over-powered is different. If the lowest is always nerfed upwards, and the highest always nerfed downwards, then we will end up playing chess.

To be truthful Ive only found VQ to be fun to play with a couple of nations. I know fun-to-play isnt the deciding factor in some peoples games, especially multiplayer, but it means that for me the game isnt broke by her. Im still looking at it though.

Stormbinder

May 6th, 2004, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kel:
Well, the original qustion was whether most of the people in the debate were in it because of Norfleet. I don't think most of the people in the debate think she is broken, they just think she is over-powered.I think its not even that simple. The fact that she one of the most powerful choices, maybe even THE most powerful, is easy to admit to. Especially for certain nations and certain playing styles. But whether thats over-powered is different. If the lowest is always nerfed upwards, and the highest always nerfed downwards, then we will end up playing chess.

To be truthful Ive only found VQ to be fun to play with a couple of nations. I know fun-to-play isnt the deciding factor in some peoples games, especially multiplayer, but it means that for me the game isnt broke by her. Im still looking at it though. <hr /></blockquote>Nah, of course stength of VQs has nothing to do with Norfleet. I've only played against him few times, and I've played against dozens of VQ in other games, many of them were using simialar design. However obviously because it is so strong and fits his standard strategy Norfleet does use it most of the time, based upon what other players tell me.

johan osterman

May 6th, 2004, 10:07 PM

calmon

May 6th, 2004, 10:14 PM

To be truthful Ive only found VQ to be fun to play with a couple of nations. I know fun-to-play isnt the deciding factor in some peoples games, especially multiplayer, but it means that for me the game isnt broke by her. Im still looking at it though. Even if i only see the fun factor in a mp game (fun its great for me too) i'm bored to see so much VQs. I want some diversity! This can only be reached by balance. Rabelais is like lot of here a very good analyst and sees the advantages in the multifunctional VP-chassis. He shoudn't be blamed for that.

Gandalf Parker

May 6th, 2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Vynd:
why Rabe shouldn't say he thinks the VQ is "broken" and needs to be "fixed." That's hardly what I consider offensive language. I have trouble believing that the devs are as overly sensitive to criticism as you're portraying them to be.His isnt so bad. Not as bad as some.

Its more the total impression Im feeling. But you are probably right. It shouldnt matter how things are worded. Im sure any programmer would be willing to go back and look at something no matter how its referred to them. I dont think I would and I havent put nearly as much work in the stuff I program. But Im probably just a cranky "old guy" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ May 06, 2004, 21:18: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Reverend Zombie

May 6th, 2004, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by calmon:
Even if i only see the fun factor in a mp game (fun its great for me too) i'm bored to see so much VQs. I want some diversity! There's a difference between being bored because everyone is using something they think is uber, and that thing actually being uber.

Gandalf Parker

May 6th, 2004, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by calmon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> To be truthful Ive only found VQ to be fun to play with a couple of nations. I know fun-to-play isnt the deciding factor in some peoples games, especially multiplayer, but it means that for me the game isnt broke by her. Im still looking at it though. Even if i only see the fun factor in a mp game (fun its great for me too) i'm bored to see so much VQs. I want some diversity! This can only be reached by balance. Rabelais is like lot of here a very good analyst and sees the advantages in the multifunctional VP-chassis. He shoudn't be blamed for that. <hr /></blockquote>Your right, he shouldnt. We need testers who can find such things. And we should ask the devs to look into it. And even make some suggestions on how it might be balanced abit. Im all for it.

Norfleet

May 6th, 2004, 10:34 PM

Well, the ultimate question about VQs is this:

Do VQs, independently of their players, win games? Does choosing the VQ mean you are far more likely to win against anyone who does NOT choose one, independently of how good you are, or how good he is? If so, then VQs would definitely be unbalanced.

I don't think this is actually the case, however. The opinions of noted beta testers like Zen and Jasper support this.

Now, we consider diversity: Why are there so many VQs in the game....and why does it continue even though ultimately, these aspiring VQs are inevitably laid to burnination by somebody else?

The answer seems fairly simple: As the VQ is generally used as an SC chassis, it tends to be the most visible symbol of asskicking. When a VQ destroys your army, you think "Wow. Those things are mean." They're also available to many nations(vampires being a legend in many different cultures). As such, it is very easy to reach for the thing which Last handed your *** to you.

As a result, the vast majority of VQs are not, in fact, being operated because the player in question has evaluated its individual merits and drawbacks in relation to the strategy he wants to play, but because he saw it/heard about it, and thought it was cool.

Unfortunately, this is an entirely illusory, and unavoidable, effect. People are inherently drawn to stories of success and wish to emulate it: Witness the evolution of cookie-cutter character building in RPGs: Regardless of whether it's the character that's right for the player's strategy, people want these cookie-cutter formulas, perhaps because they are new and know no better.

I've heard of this myself: People, who have no idea what they really want, will take this high-priced chassis, and proceed to do something completely useless with it, like turning it into an artillery caster. Why did they even *PICK* a VQ for that? You certainly can't get a terribly good blessing with one, so it's not a good choice if you wanted to play a 9-bless.

I chalk this up entirely to imitation, particularly of something people have heard of or observed first hand. If somebody's playing a water blessing, or a fire blessing, a player isn't likely going to see this in action directly, because the pretender is not an in-your-face item. If your army gets wiped out by a VQ, though....you're going to see it unfold. You're going to think, "Wow." (or something less complimentary). If you're a newbie and don't know any better, you're going to think, "I want one of those."

Nevermind that it may not be suitable for your strategy. If anything, I expect that VQ usage will actually taper off as newbies mature into veterans and find their own niche. However, newbies will newbies.

[ May 06, 2004, 21:36: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

calmon

May 6th, 2004, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
There's a difference between being bored because everyone is using something they think is uber, and that thing actually being uber. "Everyone" is using her because she is (far) the best SC in game in moment. Immortal, flying (fast) and stealthy.

She is good at the start of a game, because she can fight armies alone without fearing dead. She stops invading armies more or less easily in own dominion. If she fear an attack she just use 'hide' to prevent any (even teleport) battles. In lategame power and magic power - wish boost counts double and more for an immortal character (this can be a wished VQ too). Its better to invest in immortals then in others. Some more points are her ethereality, good resistants, regeneration, free vampires and her complete armable body. She is the chasis with most combinations of good attributes.

[ May 06, 2004, 23:41: Message edited by: calmon ]

Stormbinder

May 6th, 2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
Well, the ultimate question about VQs is this:

Do VQs, independently of their players, win games? Does choosing the VQ mean you are far more likely to win against anyone who does NOT choose one, independently of how good you are, or how good he is? If so, then VQs would definitely be unbalanced.
....
<skiped>

Nah, these all are totally irrelivent questions. The only question that need to be asked, is if VQ significantly more powerfull SC than other pretenders in MP games? If yes, than perhaps it should be toned down a little (but IMHO not too much, the concept of VQ is cool http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). If not, than it should be left alone. The considerations "If VQ enough to win the game by itself, blah-blah-blah" are obviously irrelivent to the issue of balance.

Slygar

May 6th, 2004, 11:37 PM

Just gotta say it: This whole arguement seems so ridiculous. I mean, why would we need to submit success data to determine if the VQ is actually overpowered? I mean, just look at it, and compare it to any other same-priced pretender. Even ones that cost more dont compare (father of serpents, for example.) And you can't forget the free vampires, which is one of my favorite things about the VQ when I play it (I find them very useful as a rearstrike force, once there are 20+ of them.. especially against AI. Ethereal + Immortal = fun)

I saw it right away, my first game of Dom ii was Abysia with a VQ. I can't imagine that there are people that actually think it is balanced, although fun to play, I admit.

Jondifool

May 6th, 2004, 11:46 PM

Now that was a good reply Norfolk. ( must say I don't like the title of this topic)

if I understands you correct
The Vampire Queens "power" lays in the easyness she is turned into a cockie cutter pretender!

you could be right ( i am not experienced enough to say). But I still see a problem with her then.

She is to much of a challange for a newbie to counter! (though some answers finally does shows up).

this Cockie cutter might be unavoidble, but certainly not fortunate! The Vampire Queen is a newbie basher. And as a newbie I am ready to take my beatings and learn this game, but I don't look forward to get beaten by a cookie cutter!

Gandalf Parker

May 7th, 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Slygar:
Just gotta say it: This whole arguement seems so ridiculous. I mean, why would we need to submit success data to determine if the VQ is actually overpowered? I mean, just look at it, and compare it to any other same-priced pretender. Even ones that cost more dont compare (father of serpents, for example.) And you can't forget the free vampires, which is one of my favorite things about the VQ when I play it (I find them very useful as a rearstrike force, once there are 20+ of them.. especially against AI. Ethereal + Immortal = fun)

I saw it right away, my first game of Dom ii was Abysia with a VQ. I can't imagine that there are people that actually think it is balanced, although fun to play, I admit. But why does a Super Combat god have to be nerfed? This isnt Immortal Kombat. Does that mean that the super rainbow is next? or the best god for harassment? support? defense?

No one is doubting that she is high in the combat god Category but will lowering her help? And we seem to still be seeing more agreement on her faults then suggestions on what to do. What changes wont put the Ghost King next on the list? As a combat god you cant make her equal to Wyrm or Nataraja

Kel

May 7th, 2004, 12:02 AM

The sad part is the players don't even agree on what 'over-powered' means.

Some people think over-powered means she is above the power average.

Some people think that if she isn't invincible, she isn't over-powered.

No-one wants to use each others language so everyone goes in circles, repeating themselves. Perhaps people need to agree on definitions before they do anything.

- Kel

Norfleet

May 7th, 2004, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Jondifool:
if I understands you correct
The Vampire Queens "power" lays in the easyness she is turned into a cockie cutter pretender!Not merely a "cookie cutter pretender", but the ease with which she can be built into a number of SCs. Is this a BAD thing, though? After all, the VQ is useful really, for just that one thing. Her innate magics are not conducive towards any kind of a bless effect that is of much use: neither the death nor blood blessings are of much use in general, and focussing on either death or blood will more or less gut her ability as an SC. Trying to turn her into a truly potent SC is so expensive in points, that even playing strong dominion with scales is really not a sound plan with her. If you it half-assed, the VQ isn't really an impressive fighter at all.

So you can turn the VQ into one really useful thing only: A squasher of regular armies (and newbies). Of course, the ability to squash newbies is a meaningless trick: Newbies, are, by definition, bad at the game, and trying to balance the game for people who are BAD at it, rather than concentrating on what SKILLED play looks like, is a recipe for a boring game with no depth.

So in the end, at great cost in nation points, the VQ can be turned into a single, highly potent SC, that is not, by any means, even close to unstoppable, as a wide variety of easily available countermeasures exist. Is that really such a problem?

Gandalf Parker

May 7th, 2004, 01:08 AM

I played a game with some new players and I used the Lord of the Hunt with Carrion Woods Pangaea. I used the LH to walk all over their territorys dropping maenads. It wrecked havok with their plans for quite awhile until they sunk enough into defense in every province to stop the maenad attacks. By then I had Black Heart and turned him into a godly assassin so they had to crank the defense to over 20 in every province to try and catch me sneaking. By then the carrion army ruled the world.

I dont want to see Lord of the Hunt be the next target.

Norfleet

May 7th, 2004, 01:11 AM

Hey, that's pretty funny. I like that. Neat trick. Of course, the advantage the Lord of the Wild has is that he's Pangaea-only, so people can't try to port the strategy to other nations: As a result, you won't see a deluge of Lord of the Wilds from wannabes.

rabelais

May 7th, 2004, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Wikd Thots:
Dont back off now Rabi. Gandalf is just an old guy and wishes he can make us use our GOOD manners. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You go ahead and pick anything in the game you want and dont use wimpy words like balanse or opinion or please look at. TELL them that there game is all broke and defektiv messed up (not the word I wanted but I changed it 3 times till I got one I thot might stay). Those 2 guys in the garage after work should change what PLAYERS say is broke and stop doing just what they want to do I missed my plane http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Um, did you *read* my post? I haven't seen your name before.

My manners are fine, thank you.

I haven't demanded anything of anyone.

I've expressed an opinion, and then, having been chastised, I expressed an opinion about others opinion about the opinion... etc (pant, pant, pant... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

I have he greatest respect for Gandalf, the mods generally, and certainly the devs. If there's somewhere that isn't readily apparent in my scribbling, ... please show me where I misrepresented the care and affection I have for this forum.

If anyone is getting attacked here, (which I doubt) it's arguably me. Is it just the grotesque effrontery of having thought about the game, tried to express those thoughts clearly on a point of ongoing controversy, and expecting people to respond constructively in an open forum about said game?

To quote the Funniest White Man in America (Circa 1978)

Well Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse Me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Rabe the Non-Airborne.

[ May 07, 2004, 02:51: Message edited by: rabelais ]

May 7th, 2004, 04:19 AM

It appeared that Johan O thought the same thing that the 'unknown' presented Rabe, or did you casually ignore that. What may not be offensive or said in a way which is an affront to you, because you are the one making the claims, may sound very much like it to at least one other person. A not-uncommon communication problem, though whether it was intended or not is probably your main concern.

Cainehill

May 7th, 2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by calmon:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Originally posted by Reverend Zombie:
There's a difference between being bored because everyone is using something they think is uber, and that thing actually being uber. "Everyone" is using her because she is (far) the best SC in game in moment. Immortal, flying (fast) and stealthy.

She is good at the start of a game, because she can fight armies alone without fearing dead. She stops invading armies more or less easily in own dominion. If she fear an attack she just use 'hide' to prevent any (even teleport) battles. In lategame power and magic power - wish boost counts double and more for an immortal character (this can be a wished VQ too). Its better to invest in immortals then in others. Some more points are her ethereality, good resistants, regeneration, free vampires and her complete armable body. She is the chasis with most combinations of good attributes. <hr /></blockquote>Yep, it's the immortality, imo. In a recent game (still in the early stages, actually), on turn 3 I lost my Pretender - one of the 2 I think is possibly superior to the VQ. Not the Allfather - the Carrion Dragon. A beefy, Carrion Woods Carrion Dragon, which I have ... some moderate experience with. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It wasn't a screwup; it wasn't stupidity, it wasn't even a catastrophic random event. Nope - I attacked a province with militia and light infantry, not even an obscence quantity thereof.

By fluke chance - a Water-2 mage was in command. Frozen Carrion Dragons aren't much fun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

With a VQ (who could, and probably would, also have been sent to conquer a militia / LI province), no big deal. She's back in the capitol next door.

My Carrion Dragon? Well, turn 3, Carrion Woods doesn't have many priests. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif So it took a while to call him back, during which time there's no asskicking and conquering going on, because all the carrion lords / ladies / centaurs / squirrels I can conjure are used for calling him back; ditto black dryads.

And when he comes back, 5 or 6 turns later, of course he's lost a level of ability in 5 different magic paths. 101 Damnations! If only I'd had a VQ instead, I wouldn't have wasted 5 magic paths, 5 turns of no conquest and bad recruiting.

The VQ allows quick early conquest, if set up right. It allows good mid-game conquest. And it kicks arse in the late game, with proper equipment. Equipment which can be replaced far more cheaply and quickly than doing 4 or 5 empowerments.

It's not Norfleet - he wins because he's a good player. But the VQ has _NO_ weaknesses, not even fire (which it should), and immortality that also heals wounds, which it shouldn't (except for the Phoenix probably, only at rebirth.)

Mind you - I still think the CD is better overall than the VQ, certainly when it gets pumped up via Carrion Woods vice base / NE. But you'll never see 16 Carrion Dragons in one game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cainehill

May 7th, 2004, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Vynd:
why Rabe shouldn't say he thinks the VQ is "broken" and needs to be "fixed." That's hardly what I consider offensive language. I have trouble believing that the devs are as overly sensitive to criticism as you're portraying them to be.His isnt so bad. Not as bad as some.

Its more the total impression Im feeling. But you are probably right. It shouldnt matter how things are worded. Im sure any programmer would be willing to go back and look at something no matter how its referred to them. I dont think I would and I havent put nearly as much work in the stuff I program. But Im probably just a cranky "old guy" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>I've been a programmer for a really long time. And sorry, but imo being told something is "broken" is pretty polite, cordial, and reasonable. Being told that something is "****ed" isn't uncommon, in my experience, and even there, I personally didn't take offense. It was ****ed - but, for instance, in one instance the fault lay in Sun's libraries, but try convincing a user of that when their program crashes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

What phrasing do you think people should use? "Excuse me, I don't think the VQ is as wonderful and perfect and cuddly as it could be?" (Or, "The only way this program could be any more supercalifragilistic would be if it didn't crash and lose half an hour or an hours work when I mouse clicked a seeminly stuck menu 10 times in 5 seconds."?)

[ May 07, 2004, 05:58: Message edited by: Zen ]

Blitz

May 7th, 2004, 07:11 AM

What changes wont put the Ghost King next on the list? As a combat god you cant make her equal to Wyrm or Nataraja Why not? From the flavor text, it sure sounds like the VQ is supposed to be a caster, not a combat god anyway. The VQ is pretty much the only SC with immortality. I suppose you could supercharge a bog mummy, but again, only with one race.

If the VQ was an Ulm-specific god we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the Allfather (or carrion dragon) were universal, I'm sure there would be raging discussions on thier strengths as well... but seeing as how neither is immortal I still doubt this to be the case.

All VQ defenders: please submit a list of reasons why the Cyclops, Titan, Shedu, Lord of the Desert Sun, Lord of the Gates, Son of the Sea, Lord of the Wild, or Lord of the Night are superior to the Vampire Queen. Please stop with the "She's not overpowered" arguments and explain why all these 125-150 point chassis are superior. When you are done explaining this, perhaps I will concede ground. All these chassis are not broken. She is broken.

In case you are keeping score, none of the above are immortal. Only two fly. None are erthreal. None of them have two seperate resistances. Neither of those with resistances also fly. None of them have more item slots than the VQ. Quite a few have less.

Do you grasp the concept that she's a 110 point pretender and thus should not be superior? Why is this so difficult to understand? Do you not think the VQ is one of the top 5 chassis in the game? Why then does she not cost as much as the top 5? Why is she only 110 points?

You VQ defenders have conveniently avoided this issue. Please, for the Last time. Answer this question or concede defeat. She is clearly overpowered. Your inability to either recognize this or admit as such is beyond belief.

Yossar

May 7th, 2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
I played a game with some new players and I used the Lord of the Hunt with Carrion Woods Pangaea. I used the LH to walk all over their territorys dropping maenads. It wrecked havok with their plans for quite awhile until they sunk enough into defense in every province to stop the maenad attacks. By then I had Black Heart and turned him into a godly assassin so they had to crank the defense to over 20 in every province to try and catch me sneaking. By then the carrion army ruled the world.

I dont want to see Lord of the Hunt be the next target. I don't get it. Wouldn't 1 PD be sufficient since the maenads would autorout?

Norfleet

May 7th, 2004, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Blitz:
All VQ defenders: please submit a list of reasons why the Cyclops, Titan, Shedu, Lord of the Desert Sun, Lord of the Gates, Son of the Sea, Lord of the Wild, or Lord of the Night are superior to the Vampire Queen.The Lord of the Desert Sun and Lord of the Gates are horribly broken right now, due to their counterproductive autosummons that will quickly die and cause a rout. They're not really a good measure of performance and should probably be greatly reduced in cost, or this annoyance fixed, as this renders them nearly worthless as SCs. However, the LotDS *DOES* have a Fire-2 and Nature-1 base, which can make him a good choice for building towards a fire and nature bless. The fact that the lions are groundpounders also means his morale isn't QUITE as shabby as the Moloch's. If this silliness were fixed, the LotDS would make a respectable warrior.

The Shedu is, admittedly, somewhat of a dullard. He is very strong, and he tramples, which can be viewed as both a strength and weakness. However, the weakness of the Shedu, in my opinion, is irrelevant to the matter: Plenty of chassis options are unattractive. The problem lies with their being overpriced, not with everything else.

The Lord of the Gates is also a 50 point chassis. By your admittedly flawed comparison criteria, it should be inferior on those grounds alone. You'd be better off comparing the Lord of the Gates to the Prince of Death, who is definitely superior for the same cost....does this mean that it's the Prince of Death who is broken, since he outclasses a chassis that is intended to fill the same niche, or the Lord of the Gates that is broken, because he sucks for the above reasons, plus his useless shades give him the indomitable battle morale of the Moloch?

The Titan and Cyclops both possess superior physical stats, which Illwinter seems to price at a premium in a pretender chassis. Both are very physically strong, and the Cyclops has an excellent 20 base protection(23 with his basic E3). The Titan also has a base dominion of 3, as opposed to the VQ's 2...and as a VQ would definitely be better under high dominion, you're going to have to shell out extra for this privilege.

Both also possess level 3 magics, which give them a leg-up on a useful blessing effect, Air and Earth respectively. Both of these are potentially very useful blessings. In addition to their ability to provide an affordable and useful L9 blessing, which the VQ lacks, they're also capable of fighting....but this is not their primary function! The fact that they can provide a bless effect, IN ADDITION to their raw physical might, is why they're priced so. Remember: Buying your VQ magic paths for battle only makes her more potent. It won't do an especially good job filling national magics. It won't give the rest of your nation any useful benefits. It is not an appropriate strategy for all nations.

The Lord of the Night is physically powerful as the above, AND he flies, AND he is an assassin. Full slots, too. He's accompanied in battle by fiends of darkness, and while this opens up that annoying rout weakness, fiends of darkness are formidable....especially in assassinations!

Do you grasp the concept that she's a 110 point pretender and thus should not be superior? Why is this so difficult to understand? Do you not think the VQ is one of the top 5 chassis in the game? Why then does she not cost as much as the top 5? Why is she only 110 points?Because a VQ, chassis alone, is crap. Try it. just take an empty VQ chassis and pit it in mortal combat against a basic Titan chassis. Script them to the best of your ability.

Guess what? The Titan will hand the VQ her ***. Why? Because the Titan is physically stronger, his magic is more useful, and he can crush the VQ in one hit. It's only when the VQ has been loaded down with some *300-500* points in magic paths specifically for the purpose of battle that she becomes useful. This is a far larger investment than a basic Titan and cannot be considered a fair comparison.

You cannot assess the quality of a pretender based purely on its chassis cost. It is simply untrue that a pretender with a 125 point chassis must be superior in every way to a pretender with a 50 point chassis. The chassis is not everything. You also have to consider the magic, the scales, and the dominion, and how that affects the functionality of the nation.

You VQ defenders have conveniently avoided this issue. Please, for the Last time. Answer this question or concede defeat. She is clearly overpowered. Your inability to either recognize this or admit as such is beyond belief. I believe I have just addressed your points now.

Yes, the VQ can be tweaked into a generally more effective SC, particularly against normal troops. However, she has other weaknesses that the other pretenders may lack, and pure ability as an SC is not the only barometer of performance. If it weren't for the VQ's ability to fight, she would be rather useless, since she does not offer anything else to play off of: Any chassis can play scales, and you'd be better off with a low-cost purely physical chassis, like a no-magic Wyrm, which gains immortality through expendability. A bless, on the other hand, requires a good toe-hold start into that magic path, or it will grow hideously expensive. A fire-9 Vampire Queen impresses nobody, as the ruinous cost of trying to shoehorn a blessing onto something which has no leverage in that department, combined with the fact that you have essentially pissed away the strengths of the chassis by trying to make it do something it is bad at, will not give you a winning strategy.

The Vampire Queen is not in all ways superior to the Titan, or the Cyclops, or any other decent chassis: These chassis can give you things that the VQ cannot: Scales, blessings, or cheaper access to missing magics. The VQ, on the other hand, offers the potential to tweak into a monstrous SC....but only if you are willing to pay the price, which is *NOT* 110 points: You need magic paths suitable for casting your buffs, none of which comes natively on the VQ.....so you sacrifice a scale just to start it. You need strong dominion, for immortality is worthless if you can't even keep your dominion. All these costs add up to far more than just the 110 point chassis, something you are blissfully ignoring. And finally, the VQ needs research to HAVE spells to cast. A physically mighty chassis like the Bull, or the Wyrm, or, best of all, the Carrion Dragon, can start kicking *** from turn 1 or 2.

Bottom line: Yes, the VQ has the potential to be a better SC, but is not, by default: accessories sold seperately, batteries not included. Yes, the VQ is better for some strategies. No, the VQ is not better for ALL strategies. No, the strategies which utilize the VQ are not inherently superior to the alternatives. No, the VQ is not suitable for all nations.

If the VQ were the end all, be all, Marignon, R'lyeh, and Atlantis, which cannot choose the VQ, would be considered the worst nations in the game. Yet it's Tien Chi, despite the fact that it has a VQ, which is popularly considered to be first against the wall when the Revolution comes.

Sure, the VQ is currently a popular item....but how many people, really, are making it WORK for them...and how many people are just being ingloriously smitten in spite of their VQ? If you believe the VQ is a magic bullet, you're welcome to take one, and dance with some experienced players. See how well she actually does. Don't just whomp newbies, then complain how powerful it was....against players who don't know how to play.

[ May 07, 2004, 07:00: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

May 7th, 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Blitz:
All VQ defenders: please submit a list of reasons why the Cyclops, Titan, Shedu, Lord of the Desert Sun, Lord of the Gates, Son of the Sea, Lord of the Wild, or Lord of the Night are superior to the Vampire Queen. Please stop with the "She's not overpowered" arguments and explain why all these 125-150 point chassis are superior. When you are done explaining this, perhaps I will concede ground. All these chassis are not broken. She is broken.So are you going to ignore the Natarajah, Carrion Dragon, All-Father, Ghost King, Prince of Death, Neried, Dagon, Saurolich, Son of Niefel, Void Lord?

All of these Chassis can be designed and equipped that will kill a VQ and have plenty of room to spare. Not to mention the ones you already mentioned.

How? Take 380 of your points, and put them into them where you'd like, research what you'd like and equip them both. Then have them fight.

Not to mention that each one can expand just as easily as a VQ. Hell, even a 9F Dragon can expand from Turn2 on. You just have to know what you are doing.

calmon

May 7th, 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
You just have to know what you are doing. Sure. But if you know what you doing and want to play a battlecharacter the VQ is in most cases simple the best choice.

She just needs some modification like higher cost for additional magic path and maybe losing 1 of her skills and she is ballanced.

[ May 07, 2004, 08:16: Message edited by: calmon ]

May 7th, 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by calmon:
Sure. But if you know what you doing VQ is in most cases the best choice. Whats so difficult to understand? Because the game isn't won just by having a pretender who can kill in 1 place at 1 time. I know what I'm doing and in most cases the VQ is not the best choice. Why? Because she is only one unit that slowly can breed lesser units. Very decent; yes, but hardly a game winner. The game is won on many different levels, not the least of which is initial expansion, correct use of SC's, multiple strategies, suprise, preemptive strikes, diplomacy, backstabbing, overcompensation, luck, initial postition and many other factors, player morale (this is where the futility of fighting a VQ is won, for those who can't get past it). It's not just building one badass unit, your initial Design points dictate how you are going to play your game and if you sink them all into one slivered aspect, you can be beaten on 4 others.

If someone could just build a VQ and win the game, then they would do so and noone would win who didn't have a VQ. Unfortunately, you can build a VQ and lose the game far more often than you can win it.

[ May 07, 2004, 08:20: Message edited by: Zen ]

calmon

May 7th, 2004, 09:20 AM

If someone could just build a VQ and win the game, then they would do so. Unfortunately, you can build a VQ and lose the game far more often than you can win it. Thats not the point! The world isn't black and white. VQ makes your chances just a little better then other pretenders.

Be sure. I'm not a player who doesn't know how to handle VQ in combat. I only want a little (each little count) more ballanced game.

[ May 07, 2004, 08:21: Message edited by: calmon ]

May 7th, 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by calmon:
Thats not the point! The world isn't black and white. VQ makes your chances just a little better then other pretenders.So anyone who wins with a Blessing Strategy wins because they made one with a VQ? Anyone who won a game based without a VQ did it on a 'longshot'?

archaeolept

May 7th, 2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by calmon:
Thats not the point! The world isn't black and white. VQ makes your chances just a little better then other pretenders.So anyone who wins with a Blessing Strategy wins because they made one with a VQ? Anyone who won a game based without a VQ did it on a 'longshot'? <hr /></blockquote>lol. that doesn't follow in the least. you don't happen to be working for Wolfowitz and Feith are you?

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

seriously, what sort of defintion of balance are you working from?

[ May 07, 2004, 08:33: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

May 7th, 2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
lol. that doesn't follow in the least. you don't happen to be working for Wolfowitz and Feith do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif It follows exactly. How about we take a direct; from Combat Pretender, to Combat Pretender stance.

Anyone who has played a Combat Oriented Earth 3 Natarajah who has miraculously (I know it's a stretch) won when playing in a game with a VQ, is a longshot? That VQ should have given that player the edge to win under any circumstances? Or at the very least against a less point intensive design on a comprable chassis?

Tris

May 7th, 2004, 09:35 AM

Norfleet has just made what I reckon to be the first sound and convincing arguement against the VQ being overpowered.

Given that I had become slightly irritated with constant defenses of "It's not overpowered you are all Newbies" and "It's not overpowered, there are counters" this is no mean feat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The arguement: That an SC VQ is not just 110 points. It is closer to 400 or 500 points.

This doesn't mean the VQ is not overpowered, but it is a good answer to the "but she only costs 110 points" arguements.

Norfleet: If you were playing against an evil twin, who would destroy the world and everything you hold dear if he beat you, and you KNEW he would play the temple/castling strategy, how would you play to beat him?

(of course, you don't have to answer, as presumably doing so would mean many people reading this could counter your favourite strategy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

(finally as an aside "Illwinter places a high value on X" is entirely irrelevant if we are talking about balance. If Illwinter decided immortal chassis should be free, to represent the fact they have less far to go to become true gods that would not mean free immortal chassis would be balanced)

May 7th, 2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
seriously, what sort of defintion of balance are you working from? The one that doesn't invoke Popularity as it's primary reasoning.

But here's a definition for you:

bal�ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blns)
n.

1. A weighing device, especially one consisting of a rigid beam horizontally suspended by a low-friction support at its center, with identical weighing pans hung at either end, one of which holds an unknown weight while the effective weight in the other is increased by known amounts until the beam is level and motionless.
2. A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.
3. The power or means to decide.
4.
1. A state of bodily equilibrium: thrown off balance by a gust of wind.
2. The ability to maintain bodily equilibrium: Gymnasts must have good balance.
5. A stable mental or psychological state; emotional stability.
6. A harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements, as in a design. See Synonyms at proportion.
7. An influence or force tending to produce equilibrium; counterpoise.
8. The difference in magnitude between opposing forces or influences.
9. Accounting.
1. Equality of totals in the debit and credit sides of an account.
2. The difference between such totals, either on the credit or the debit side.
10. Something that is left over; a remainder.
11. Chemistry. Equality of mass and net electric charge of reacting species on each side of an equation.
12. Mathematics. Equality with respect to the net number of reduced symbolic quantities on each side of an equation.
13. A balance wheel.

[Middle English balaunce, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *bilancia, having two scale pans, from Latin bilnx : bi-, two; see dwo- in Indo-European Roots + lnx, scale.]
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Here is also Proportional for you, if you haven't taken a gander:

pro�por�tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-p�rshn, -pr-)
n.

1. A part considered in relation to the whole.
2. A relationship between things or parts of things with respect to comparative magnitude, quantity, or degree: the proper proportion between oil and vinegar in the dressing.
3. A relationship between quantities such that if one varies then another varies in a manner dependent on the first: �We do not always find visible happiness in proportion to visible virtue� (Samuel Johnson).
4. Agreeable or harmonious relation of parts within a whole; balance or symmetry.
5. Dimensions; size. Often used in the plural.
6. Mathematics. A statement of equality between two ratios. Four quantities, a, b, c, d, are said to be in proportion if a/b = c/d.

tr.v. pro�por�tioned, pro�por�tion�ing, pro�por�tions

1. To adjust so that proper relations between parts are attained.
2. To form the parts of with balance or symmetry.

[Middle English proporcion, from Old French proportion, from Latin prporti, prportin-, from pr portine, according to (each) part : pr, according to; see pro-1 + portine, ablative of porti, part; see per-2 in Indo-European Roots.]

calmon

May 7th, 2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
So anyone who wins with a Blessing Strategy wins because they made one with a VQ? Anyone who won a game based without a VQ did it on a 'longshot'? I don't give the VQ a importance like that.

Please understand. I like just a little modifications to her.

...and i'm bored to see Hall of Fames like that:

Name.........Nation........Kills........Exp
Lysindia.....Caelum..........233.........65
Evelyn.......Mictlan.........199.........45
Francisca....Abysia..........178.........46
Lady Dark....Emor............150.........42
Buffy........Man.............102.........40

I do more like the game when people chose different characters and they are more or less balanced (not euqal!)

[ May 07, 2004, 08:41: Message edited by: calmon ]

archaeolept

May 7th, 2004, 09:36 AM

I really can barely think of how to respond. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

how does winning against a vampire queen imply balance? Vampire queens could be unbalanced (though the real interest/concern to me has to do w/ the full combo strat, not the VQ especially) and yet still be posssible to beat.

unless you take unbalanced as synonymous w/ "impossible to defeat"??? which would be a severe error in semantics.

edit: ++lol http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

thanks for the dictionary defintion and all, but
are you saying that the VQ is balanced because you can use her as a weight? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

seriously, i think most people here are capable of looking up a word in a dictionary, but in the context of this game, what do you take "balance" as meaning?

[ May 07, 2004, 08:40: Message edited by: archaeolept ]

May 7th, 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
I really can barely think of how to respond. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

how does winning against a vampire queen imply balance? Vampire queens could be unbalanced (though the real interest/concern to me has to do w/ the full combo strat, not the VQ especially) and yet still be posssible to beat. Maybe you are confusing "Possible" with "As easily done as fighting any other Pretender of comparable point usage and use".

Meaning; as possible to defeat a VQ consistantly (and repeatedly, because of her immortality as well as a few other pretenders out there, which you get to) with the same amount of effort that it would take to defeat any other For Combat pretender with the same points used to create, items used to equip, research researched to script.

The fact that you have to beat it repeatedly is only a minor factor if the rate of attrition of defeating it is greater than the cost.

Edit: Added "For Combat", so the "What about a Great Sage, huh, Mr. Smartguy?" rebuttle doesn't surface.

[ May 07, 2004, 08:49: Message edited by: Zen ]

archaeolept

May 7th, 2004, 09:45 AM

Maybe you are confusing "Possible" with "As easily done as fighting any other Pretender of comparable point usage and use". how so?

May 7th, 2004, 09:47 AM

There is a whole other thread detailing it. If you wern't able to pick up any of those specific strategies, options, both listed and from your own personal experience, there is no way I'm going to be able to pummel it into your comprehension.

archaeolept

May 7th, 2004, 09:52 AM

again, lol. i wasn't looking for a rehash of possible anti-VQ strategies. I don't really care about that anyways. the "how so" was directly in relation to the quote above it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

ie. how do you get that I may be

"confusing "Possible" with "As easily done as fighting any other Pretender of comparable point usage and use""?

where does that come from in what i said? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Norfleet

May 7th, 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Tris:
Norfleet: If you were playing against an evil twin, who would destroy the world and everything you hold dear if he beat you, and you KNEW he would play the temple/castling strategy, how would you play to beat him?I'd probably take the Vanheim Allfather, then. In single combat, assuming both are battle-tweaked, he's a superior fighter: His paths are cheaper, he shares many of the benefits, he is NOT as susceptible to the rush assault due to his starting mirror images, which in conjunction with his higher air ranks, provide him with a good stalling tactic, and because he is glamoured, he always operates under cover of strategic unaccountability if he goes for more than one turn without being sighted in battle.

Furthermore, Vanheim, as a nation able to perform blood sacrifices, can push dominion with enough force to roll back enemy dominion, has stealthy preachers, and as an air nation, is well equipped to counter SG Ermor's ethereal hordes, as Wrathful Sky is your friend here.

However, in practice, since I am also evil, my evil twin would see that I am a kindred spirit, and we would kill everyone else first.

Then I would let him win. I've always wanted to see the entire world destroyed. It's been a childhood dream of mine since I was a young boy. If it was within his power to grant me this wish, I would do everything within my power to make it happen.

Norfleet

May 7th, 2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by calmon:
Please understand. I like just a little modifications to her.

...and i'm bored to see Hall of Fames like that:

Name.........Nation........Kills........Exp
Lysindia.....Caelum..........233.........65
Evelyn.......Mictlan.........199.........45
Francisca....Abysia..........178.........46
Lady Dark....Emor............150.........42
Buffy........Man.............102.........40
Wait, Caelum's in the game? And Ermor?

You have the Hall of Fame all wrong, then.

It SHOULD look more like this:
Name.........Nation........Kills........Exp
Hooshang.....Caelum..........781.........65
Kavay....... Caelum..........699.........45
Frenay.......Caelum..........678.........46
Kavata.......Caelum..........521.........42
Lady Dark....Ermor...........150.........89
Buffy........Man.............102.........40

You obviously have not seen how quickly High Seraphs casting Wrathful Skies rack up the wanton and indiscriminate carnage that quicky eclipse even the VQs, most of which earn their kills during early expansion....and the sheer level of indiscriminate carnage that results when such spells are cast against Ermor is simply enormous. I've ended games with the entire HoF taken up by living and dead Seraphim with thousands of kills apiece.

The fact of the matter is that the hall of Fame is NOT always taken up by VQs: VQs, for all of their abilities, are actually poor killers: Their attack rarely kills their opponent in a single hit, they don't have many of them, and they tend to terrorize the indies off the field.

In fact, that's what most of their kills are, miserable indies. The only time they get human kills is when a human player is unlucky, stupid, or intentionally baiting, and throws an army into the path of a VQ.

The rest of the time, far more carnage is dished out, nearly all of it against actual opponents, by mages casting mass destruction spells.

[ May 07, 2004, 09:07: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

May 7th, 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by archaeolept:
again, lol. i wasn't looking for a rehash of possible anti-VQ strategies. I don't really care about that anyways. the "how so" was directly in relation to the quote above it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

ie. how do you get that I may be

"confusing "Possible" with "As easily done as fighting any other Pretender of comparable point usage and use""?

where does that come from in what i said? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Because if you are not confusing them, then why would the VQ be 'unbalanced'?

If you can make a Pretender that costs the same amount of points do what the VQ can do (though it may do it differently based on it and the VQ's inherent abilities) then either A.) That Pretender design is unbalanced (too) or B.) The VQ is not unbalanced because this other is not unbalanced.

If there are 2-4 other Pretenders, with the same possibility as that one Pretender then either all of those other Pretenders are unbalanced and need adjusted, or the VQ is in the upper tier of the balance triangle.

So, what I'm not seeing is: Either you do know that there are Pretenders that you can build that do exactly that, though perhaps in a different way. Or you do not know this. If you do know this (assuming) then the reason you feel the VQ is unbalanced is not because of it's inherent abilities or cost/use ratio, but because of it's popularity and ease of use. The fact that it's the same unit that can be mimiced across a swath of nations.

And if that is the case it is not a balanced decision, but one that is goaded by popularity and misinformation.

Blitz

May 7th, 2004, 10:36 AM

So are you going to ignore the Natarajah, Carrion Dragon, All-Father, Ghost King, Prince of Death, Neried, Dagon, Saurolich, Son of Niefel, Void Lord?

All of these Chassis can be designed and equipped that will kill a VQ and have plenty of room to spare. Not to mention the ones you already mentioned.I don't care about designed and equipped. stop thinking about game situations and just look at the facts people.

Vampire Queen

Flying, Erthreal, Stealth, Lifedrain, Immortality, Ally Summoning, Cold Resistance, Poison Resistance and Regeneration. 2 paths, one at level two. 110 points for the chassis.

Is the Nataraja a better chassis than the VQ? It's got four arms. This is better than immortality and the rest of the VQ's toys? Of course not. That's why it costs LESS than the VQ. Look at the ones that cost more. Is the Cyclops more or less attractive to you than a VQ?

Please stop with the amount you have to spend to get it to be a SC. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the unit BEFORE modifications is superior to the rest. This is why different pretenders cost different prices. This is why the Allfather is 125 points and not zero.

So please, again. Give me ten pretender chassis that are better than the VQ. Explain the logic that dictates that a Titan or Shedu should cost more than a VQ. You cannot because it does not exist. Either a dozen or more pretenders are overpriced, or a few are underpriced. However you wish to define the situation, it exists and should be fixed.

Regardless of how you fix the problem, it's there. If you wish to solve it by reducing the prices of 25 pretenders or raising the price of one is irrelevant.

Perhaps you are all correct, and it's simply 90% of the field that is priced incorrectly. While you are correct that the ZERO point Nataraja is also good VALUE, and the 50 point Carrion Dragon is also good VALUE, you ignore that there are dozens of other chassis that are nearly worthless when a few are clearly more attractive to use.

Tris

May 7th, 2004, 11:23 AM

> What is relevant is that the unit BEFORE modifications is superior to the rest.<

I disagree.

There can be a chassis that is worthless raw, which costs 100 points. If the intended way to use that chassis is to place another 100 points into it, shouldn't you compare the "cooked" Version of the chassis to other cooked Versions?

"Enchantress costs quite a few points, and is rubbish - she doesn't even have any magic paths, is weak small and human. A 0 point Manticore beats her every time" is a comparison of raw chassis, and is patently stupid.

Blitz

May 7th, 2004, 12:17 PM

"Enchantress costs quite a few points, and is rubbish - she doesn't even have any magic paths, is weak small and human. A 0 point Manticore beats her every time" is a comparison of raw chassis, and is patently stupid. This thread deals with SC's. Failing to understand that is patently stupid.

mivayan

May 7th, 2004, 12:21 PM

A 'cheap' variant is an unequipped water2 earth2 death2 VQ. I did some test where I scripted her to quickness-resist fire-iron skin- breath of winter-earth might-attack rear. research needed: ench1, alt3

fire9 + astral9 flaggelants: they win without the resist fire but with it the vq clean house.

50 crossbows set to attack flyers with flaming arrows: instant death without fire resist. with fire resist they still hurt since the flaming arrows bypass etherealness. need to return a few times to kill all, or bring fodder.

50 crossbows withough flaming arrows: vq cleans them out

50 guardians - clean house
26 air9 blessed black templars - dead horses

air9 titan on aim-Thunderstrike-Thunderstrike-lightning bolt-lightning bolt. VQ is unconcious after the second big boom.

air9 titan on attack closest- dead titan.

So.. for 230 points (less than a fire9bless)
You can kill any conventional army in your dominion at no risk.
Later on your enemies will have counters like lots of flyers, air magic (can be countered with a resist ring) or massive xbows + flaming arrows (shortbows probably dont work), but untill then you are invulnerable.

The combination of
1) kills almost any conventional army.
2) immortal
is bad.. but path cost of 80 would probably hinder the player's scales enough to balance it.

I think an allfather, wyrm or carrion dragon would have a decent risk of getting a few afflictions or deaths during these tests.

Ermorian 1000-point Versions, or late-game wished vqs are not really relevant to the issue of balancing it with other pretenders.

Blitz

May 7th, 2004, 02:14 PM

How about if bless had a more regular death type effect on her? Instead of returning her to her castle, it kills her to where she has to be prayed back While immortality unto itself may be broken, an even less costly solution might just to have the VQ cost 150 points like the rest of the supposed super chassis. Combine that with a path cost adjustment to say... 50 and I'm perfectly happy with the way the VQ functions. Immortality IMHO is a seperate issue. The combination of traits she has is simply worth a lot more than 110 points.

Tris

May 7th, 2004, 02:17 PM

This thread deals with SC's. Failing to understand that is patently stupid. I agree. As the raw VQ chassis is not an SC my point about having to compare cooked chassis rather than raw ones is strengthened by this.

Tris

May 7th, 2004, 02:25 PM

Mivayan - Good testing. Kudos.

For 230 points you get a fairly scary army killer after 1 + 3 levels of research. How does she perform right at the start of the game?

I suspect that better early-expansion can be bought for 230 points, and you can probably buy better late-game power for the price.

I could be wrong. But if she is only great mid-game then I don't see it as a problem.

Cainehill

May 7th, 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by mivayan:
The combination of
1) kills almost any conventional army.
2) immortal
is bad.. but path cost of 80 would probably hinder the player's scales enough to balance it.

I think an allfather, wyrm or carrion dragon would have a decent risk of getting a few afflictions or deaths during these tests.
Also, add to #1 and #2 that the vampire is ridiculously easy to give invulnerability to all elements. Big bonus in the late game.

And one note: Carrion dragon doesn't get afflictions easily. More importantly, it doesn't care very much if it does - a temporary inconvenience, but even with, say, feebleminding, it can switch forms and sneak about until the hangover goes away. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Great set of tests though.

AhhhFresh

May 7th, 2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Tris:
Mivayan - Good testing. Kudos.

For 230 points you get a fairly scary army killer after 1 + 3 levels of research. How does she perform right at the start of the game?

I suspect that better early-expansion can be bought for 230 points, and you can probably buy better late-game power for the price.

I could be wrong. But if she is only great mid-game then I don't see it as a problem. What you list there is pretty standard for any magic powered SC... ie researching Alteration 3 and Enchantment 1. And that can be achieved in 5-7 turns depending on whether your SC needs anything forged, so I wouldn't call it "mid game".

230 points is not very much to invest in an SC.

Norfleet

May 7th, 2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by mivayan:
fire9 + astral9 flaggelants: they win without the resist fire but with it the vq clean house.Yes, and flagellants are cheap. Losing an army here and there isn't even a crippling loss, if you can strike him in more than one place at a time...trivial for a flagellant swarm strategy. Plus you stand a very good chance of killing your target anyway! No VQ would DARE try this outside of her dominion, so you're not at real risk here. And you really don't explain why this wouldn't be the problem when you're using crappy, disposable troops against any kind of tweaked SC.

50 crossbows set to attack flyers with flaming arrows: instant death without fire resist. with fire resist they still hurt since the flaming arrows bypass etherealness. need to return a few times to kill all, or bring fodder.I think this sounds like fairly decisive ownage here: You have the right tool for the right job, and it shows. Having to "return a few times" is not of very much use if you're not in your dominion, and if you can't drive them off in one pass, you've just lost a castle. Returning won't help you, as you'll find the crossbowmen camping out in your castle, and dismantling your dominion.

50 crossbows withough flaming arrows: vq cleans them outSurprise. Missile weapons are not terribly useful against normal targets. Crossbowmans are cheap anyway.

50 guardians - clean house
26 air9 blessed black templars - dead horses
Okay, you're throwing ordinary units at an SC with no attempt to negate its strengths. Big surprise. You'd lose the same army to any standard SC as well: Bane Lords, Ice Devils, all of them would hand you your *** there. An Air-9 blessing is a useful defense against an SC, it's a field-support blessing that allows you to combine sacred tankers with crossbows (such as FLAMING crossbows) with impunity.

air9 titan on aim-Thunderstrike-Thunderstrike-lightning bolt-lightning bolt. VQ is unconcious after the second big boom.See? That's using your strengths against their weaknesses. Plus he's not even a battle chassis: He's a blesser. And he still wins! The primary function of an A9 Titan is to dole out an air bless....not to go whailing on people. Admittedly, he does this rather well as a secondary function, but this is still SECONDARY.

air9 titan on attack closest- dead titan.Well, yeah, if the Titan fights *STUPID* and uses none of the things you paid for, what did you expect?

The combination of
1) kills almost any conventional army.
2) immortalYou yourself have demonstrated that it fails to kill many "conventional" armies. Flaming crossbows, F9/S9 blessed flagellants, all are fairly conventional armies. Fire-9 valkyries would work very well, too, but you didn't mention these. Fire-9 ANYTHINGs, really, work fairly well. How about fire-9 temple guards? Can't even freeze them out with BoW, they're cold immune. Fire-9 woodsmen? Ouchie. Hell, a VQ can't even take down Nature-9 woodsmen reliably, because she just can't kill fast enough to wipe them out by the time the battle expires.

I think an allfather, wyrm or carrion dragon would have a decent risk of getting a few afflictions or deaths during these tests.Sure, maybe. But the ability to throw yourself at a stupid risk and merely be annoyed by getting killed is still a loss. And the Wyrm isn't even a true battle chassis. If he's a no-magic Wyrm, he loses nothing by dying. It's not really fair to compare a no-magic expendable chassis with a tweaked SC of any class.

The Allfather is not as inherently susceptible to flying dogpiles due to his instant mirror image distraction. You also won't be facing any flaming valkyries anytime soon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Carrion Dragon? I've had to actually face this before: The Carrion Dragon ate all the flagellants for lunch without even blinking. They couldn't even touch him. He was, admittedly, finally brought down by point-blank crossbowing, but only because the crossbowmen had been clever enough to actually walk up point-blank to it....and this would have been entirely negated by a simple air shield and/or mirror images. Carrion Dragons are nasty, nasty cookies. And a tweaked CD will eat a VQ for lunch. Your arguments here have not exactly demonstrated the compelling omnipotence of a VQ against conventional armies. You haven't even really demonstrated how this is doing something other SCs can't do.

NTJedi

May 7th, 2004, 09:08 PM

The VQ is just a tool used...
Ermor is obviously a huge reason as well being in the top_3 strongest... if not the strongest. Ermor is so strong none of the fellow gamers I play with use Ermor. The second reason being it's one of the few opponents the AI can play during a multiplayer game for providing a great challenge.

Also the other players should make better alliances during multiplayer games against Norfleet . Diplomacy is huge during multiplayer games and can easily tip the scales between even the most expert player.

In my multiplayer games if one person begins taking the lead other players join together to bring him down.

Gandalf Parker

May 8th, 2004, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by mivayan:
A 'cheap' variant is an unequipped water2 earth2 death2 VQ. I did some test where I scripted her to quickness-resist fire-iron skin- breath of winter-earth might-attack rear. research needed: ench1, alt3Nice testing. Thank you. Thats very much what was needed.

The combination of
1) kills almost any conventional army.
2) immortal
is bad.. but path cost of 80 would probably hinder the player's scales enough to balance it.
And a real suggestion too. Excellent. But keep in mind that as SC's go she also comes with some "balancing" flaws. Low hitpoints, attack, and defense are hefty penalties. Im not sure if a path cost would answer all of the complaints about her. Plus its effect would be felt most by the nations she should thematically be available to.

I think an allfather, wyrm or carrion dragon would have a decent risk of getting a few afflictions or deaths during these tests.True. But they come with their own advantages which would make them prime choices for anything other than an Immortal Kombat game. Wyrm can give a water advantage, AllFather an early "checkerboard" advantage with his ocean-going army, and Carrion Dragon can give a speed boost by being able to summon Carrion Lords early in the game. Other than Wyrm I dont think Ive chosen the others for their combat abilitys.

Just being the number one if all the gods were doing an arena shouldnt be enough to earn a nerf. And nerfing to match gods who have other areas of effectivness makes a person wonder what the next target of nerfing would be.

How about if bless had a more regular death type effect on her? Instead of returning her to her castle, it kills her to where she has to be prayed back.

[ May 07, 2004, 12:46: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Slygar

May 8th, 2004, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
It SHOULD look more like this:
Name.........Nation........Kills........Exp
Hooshang.....Caelum..........781.........65
Kavay....... Caelum..........699.........45
Frenay.......Caelum..........678.........46
Kavata.......Caelum..........521.........42
Lady Dark....Ermor...........150.........89
Buffy........Man.............102.........40
This is off topic, but has anyone ever tried Vengeance of the Dead on people that have kill Ratings like that? I try to spam it on any pretenders I see in the hall of fame, and its gotten me a few VQs as well.. MR might block it, though, since it doesnt always work, but I'm not sure if it just says "they managed to resist it" if MR stopped it, or if they won the battle - which is obviously not likely after 700 or so http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This is one reason I would love to see Hall of Fame heroes appear in scout reports like pretenders do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ May 08, 2004, 05:53: Message edited by: Slygar ]

AhhhFresh

May 8th, 2004, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Slygar:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Norfleet:
It SHOULD look more like this:
Name.........Nation........Kills........Exp
Hooshang.....Caelum..........781.........65
Kavay....... Caelum..........699.........45
Frenay.......Caelum..........678.........46
Kavata.......Caelum..........521.........42
Lady Dark....Ermor...........150.........89
Buffy........Man.............102.........40
This is off topic, but has anyone ever tried Vengeance of the Dead on people that have kill Ratings like that? I try to spam it on any pretenders I see in the hall of fame, and its gotten me a few VQs as well.. MR might block it, though, since it doesnt always work, but I'm not sure if it just says "they managed to resist it" if MR stopped it, or if they won the battle - which is obviously not likely after 700 or so http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

This is one reason I would love to see Hall of Fame heroes appear in scout reports like pretenders do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>IIRC Vengeance of the Dead does not work on undead beings.

Norfleet

May 8th, 2004, 07:00 AM

Vengeance of the Dead doesn't work on undead beings, and tends to bounce off of anything that qualifies as an SC pretender chassis, due to the combination of god-class MR and magic-resistance items.

This is probably why the potentially game-crashing nature of Vengeance of the Dead isn't mentioned much: According to my measurements, the game battlefield isn't really physically capable of holding more than about 3000 units, as the dimensions of the battlefield, if jampacked, wouldn't support more than that for any given side....

Tris

May 10th, 2004, 09:33 AM

What you list there is pretty standard for any magic powered SC... ie researching Alteration 3 and Enchantment 1. And that can be achieved in 5-7 turns depending on whether your SC needs anything forged, so I wouldn't call it "mid game". My reasoning was that if the alternative starts winning provinces on turn 1, and you wait till turn 5 (your earliest estimate) your alternative would have 5 more provinces than you by then, and
1+2+3+4+5 = 15 turns more province income ASSUMING that he doesn't reinvest that income to capture more provinces. So if there is such an alternative, the VQ suggested can hardly be considered a good "early expansion" pretender.

Chris Byler

May 10th, 2004, 03:19 PM

One of the problems with VQs, and equipped SCs in general, is that it's too easy to become invulnerable to all elements (counting poison as an "element" because it's a form of attack that you can easily become immune to). All but the most powerful items (artifacts and maybe the dragon scale armors) should give no more than 50-75% reduction, and anything that gives multiple resistances should give no more than 25%, or 50% if that's ALL it does.

It's ok to make it possible for someone to become immune to *one* element. But becoming immune to *all* elements makes you immune to the vast majority of attack spells, all at once, and that's what leads to the unkillable monsters we have now.

Of course, the fact that a lot of SCs are undead and thus naturally immune to cold and poison and fatigue doesn't help. Lesser undead counterbalance this by being vulnerable to banishment, but it's pretty trivial to make an SC essentially immune to banishment. A Greater Banishment with high precision, AOE 1 square, and a high magic penetration bonus (or no MR save) would help here.

IMO, most corporeal undead should have no more than 50% cold and 75% poison resistance inherently. Maybe 100% poison for things with no flesh at all (longdeads). But hardly anything with a body should be completely immune to cold. Although it may not affect them as much as it would a living being, it still can damage them.

I think this would help Water Magic, too - currently it's hampered partly by the fact that a lot of things are immune to most of its battlefield spells, in addition to its other weaknesses.

proteus

May 10th, 2004, 03:35 PM

SCs are a huge problem imho. They are killing machines. Killing whole armies with 1 SC makes no sense imho.

Oh and I totally agree with Chris Byler.

Norfleet

May 10th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
IMO, most corporeal undead should have no more than 50% cold and 75% poison resistance inherently. Maybe 100% poison for things with no flesh at all (longdeads). But hardly anything with a body should be completely immune to cold. Although it may not affect them as much as it would a living being, it still can damage them.Undead are immune to cold because they don't suffer from the effects associated with it, such as frostbite and hypothermia. If you were to say they shouldn't be immune to cold, then neither should Jotuns, or Caelumians. Since cold attacks in the game tend to be around the level of "normal" cold, as opposed to liquid nitrogen cold, it's reasonable to expect them to be unaffected.

They're immune to poison because they have no metabolism and thus are not affected by poisoning of any kind. If you were to say they shouldn't be immune to poison, then nothing ELSE would be immune to poison either.

A Greater Banishment with high precision, AOE 1 square, and a high magic penetration bonus (or no MR save) would help here.It's called "Solar Rays", Chief. Dust to Dust is a little less precise, but also has the same effect: Both deal unresistable damage to undeads. Wither Bones does this over an area.

[ May 10, 2004, 15:48: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Chris Byler

May 13th, 2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Byler:
IMO, most corporeal undead should have no more than 50% cold and 75% poison resistance inherently. Maybe 100% poison for things with no flesh at all (longdeads). But hardly anything with a body should be completely immune to cold. Although it may not affect them as much as it would a living being, it still can damage them.Undead are immune to cold because they don't suffer from the effects associated with it, such as frostbite and hypothermia. If you were to say they shouldn't be immune to cold, then neither should Jotuns, or Caelumians. Since cold attacks in the game tend to be around the level of "normal" cold, as opposed to liquid nitrogen cold, it's reasonable to expect them to be unaffected.

They're immune to poison because they have no metabolism and thus are not affected by poisoning of any kind. If you were to say they shouldn't be immune to poison, then nothing ELSE would be immune to poison either.<hr /></blockquote>Undead aren't all the same. It's one thing to say that longdead, or even soulless/corpse men, have no metabolism; but vampires clearly must have some sort of metabolism or they couldn't drink blood and derive benefit from doing so. And the spell that creates ghouls is called Arouse Hunger - a pretty strong implication that ghouls have a metabolism, even if it is an unnatural one.

I also don't think it's unreasonable for Jotun or Caelum cold resistance to be reduced to 50%. From a balance perspective, both of those nations are very strong already, and frankly, water magic is weak even against things that aren't immune to it. And from a realism perspective - no corporeal, non-magic being should be 100% immune to cold to begin with. <blockquote>quote:<hr />A Greater Banishment with high precision, AOE 1 square, and a high magic penetration bonus (or no MR save) would help here.It's called "Solar Rays", Chief. Dust to Dust is a little less precise, but also has the same effect: Both deal unresistable damage to undeads. Wither Bones does this over an area. <hr /></blockquote>All the spells you mention (and a few you didn't, such as Holy Pyre) are *magic* spells: they require research and specific paths of magic. I propose a *priest* spell that is useful against small numbers of high MR "elite" undeads - or, if enough priests are casting it, against undead supercombatants not supported by an army.

Norfleet

May 13th, 2004, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
All the spells you mention (and a few you didn't, such as Holy Pyre) are *magic* spells: they require research and specific paths of magic. I propose a *priest* spell that is useful against small numbers of high MR "elite" undeads - or, if enough priests are casting it, against undead supercombatants not supported by an army. I believe the spells you are looking for are "Smite Demon", and "Smite". Smite Demon is a P3 spell which is supposed to be more effective against single targets. Smite is a P5 spell that causes even more damage, but is not really specific to undead. Both of these spells suffer from the MR-negates problem, however, so without either massed fire and/or penetration aids, they will tend to bounce off of pretender-grade MR.

Of course, most of the nations with powerful priests have priests that are also mages: Theurgs, Inquisitors, Witch Hunters, etc. Other nations have mages that are perfectly adept at doing the job without a priest spell anyway: Sauromancers, Deep Seers, etc.

Chris Byler

May 16th, 2004, 04:18 PM

Send me a .trn file containing a battle replay where an equipped VQ - even without wishes - is taken down by any of those spells - or even all of them at once - and I'll shut up.

Otherwise, I'll continue to maintain that those are inadequate counters to high-MR 0-fatigue SCs (particularly, but not necessarily limited to, pretenders) - either too low precision or dependent on MR penetration.

We aren't even bothering to list the elemental attack spells, because they're even less effective. If your SC gets taken down by *those* you didn't equip it properly. Although they *could* work - if the game was modified so that you couldn't gain more than 100% resistance from items and spells combined, thus creatures that are inherently weak to an element would still take SOME damage from it no matter how much magical protection they tried to amass. Make that change and the VQ fire weakness 50% (if she isn't already), and Incinerate would be able to deal with her, if you had enough mages casting it to overcome her regeneration and life drain. (An undead or lifeless screen would negate the life drain for as long as it Lasted.)

Gandalf Parker

May 16th, 2004, 04:26 PM

How about a modification where you cant get 100% in all of them at the same time?

Norfleet

May 16th, 2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Send me a .trn file containing a battle replay where an equipped VQ - even without wishes - is taken down by any of those spells - or even all of them at once - and I'll shut up.I've crashed VQs on Solar Rays before. Of course, now I avoid the damn thing like the plague, so this doesn't happen much anymore. Plus I password all my files.

Gandalf Parker

May 16th, 2004, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Send me a .trn file containing a battle replay where an equipped VQ - even without wishes - is taken down by any of those spells - or even all of them at once - and I'll shut up.
I suppose I could make a .map file that equips a VQ and grants those spells as starters to some nation but then you could also.

PvK

May 17th, 2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Chris Byler:
...
Undead aren't all the same. It's one thing to say that longdead, or even soulless/corpse men, have no metabolism; but vampires clearly must have some sort of metabolism or they couldn't drink blood and derive benefit from doing so. And the spell that creates ghouls is called Arouse Hunger - a pretty strong implication that ghouls have a metabolism, even if it is an unnatural one.
Good point. I think it might be a good idea to give vampires at least a minimal (1?) fatigue rating. One of the main things letting them wipe out whole armies single-handedly is that fighting doesn't wear them out at all.

PvK

Zapmeister

May 17th, 2004, 03:32 AM

I really cool thematic thing would be not to restore HPs to a vampire at the end of battle (a la Disease). Then vampires would have to drink blood in battle to restore their life.

EDIT: Come to think of it, the exact Disease effect, including the loss of 1 HP per turn, would be even more thematic. Vampires are then compelled to feed occasionally, or they will die.

[ May 17, 2004, 03:00: Message edited by: Zapmeister ]

Gateway103

May 17th, 2004, 10:20 PM

But the Disease affliction also has more effects than just the not healing and lose 1-hp part. That is, diseased units will continue to accumulate other afflications. So very soon, your army of vamps will be crippled, blind, and useless regardless of its etheral, low-encumberance, and flying abilities.

-Gateway103

Graeme Dice

May 17th, 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
EDIT: Come to think of it, the exact Disease effect, including the loss of 1 HP per turn, would be even more thematic. Vampires are then compelled to feed occasionally, or they will die. This would not work, as regeneration causes you to heal at the end of a turn regardless of your disease status.

Norfleet

May 17th, 2004, 10:30 PM

I don't think Vampires actually die from not having enough blood to drink, they just become increasingly lazy and go to sleep for hundreds of years until somebody disturbs them and becomes a snack.

PvK

May 18th, 2004, 12:55 AM

So disease and recuperation and life drain, but not regeneration, and encumbrance = 1, would do the trick?

What happens when someone with immortality dies of disease in their own dominion?

PvK

Kel

May 18th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Disease doesn't affect any undead, though, as it stands now. That is, it shows up but they don't lose hp from it. If you changed that general rule, it would have other effects (like restricting C'tis Miasma's choice of viable pretenders).

- Kel

Stormbinder

May 18th, 2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I don't think Vampires actually die from not having enough blood to drink, they just become increasingly lazy and go to sleep for hundreds of years until somebody disturbs them and becomes a snack. Most of vampire literature stays that Vampire must drink blood regularly to maintain their semi-life or they grow increasengly weak and eventually die while suffering terribly from hunger.

Reverend Zombie

May 18th, 2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
So disease and recuperation and life drain, but not regeneration, and encumbrance = 1, would do the trick?
Recuperation instead of regeneration makes a lot of sense to me, thematically. Keeping life drain and substituting recuperation for regeneration models how I think of the way vamps are supposed to work, but other's mileage may vary.

Chris Byler

May 19th, 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Byler:
Send me a .trn file containing a battle replay where an equipped VQ - even without wishes - is taken down by any of those spells - or even all of them at once - and I'll shut up.
I suppose I could make a .map file that equips a VQ and grants those spells as starters to some nation but then you could also. <hr /></blockquote>I could - but the VQ would win, which is my point. I want to see a replay of the VQ *losing* to these spells, not walking through them to slaughter 2000 gold of mages singlehandedly. If there is no such replay - then these spells DON'T WORK ON VQs, and Norfleet shouldn't bring them up in this discussion.

Although I agree that vampires in general should be nerfed, I don't think adding Disease to vampires would work - disease has other side effects. Also, I don't think the gradual loss of HP is appropriate - each turn is a month, I think it's reasonable that they find someone to eat even if they don't participate in any battles.

But changing them to base fatigue 1 (not 0), recuperation (instead of regeneration) and possibly adding Does Not Heal would make them more appropriate to most vampire literature *and* more balanced. It's not like Does Not Heal is *that* big a handicap to an immortal life draining unit - unless it is frequently forced to fight lifeless units, especially outside friendly dominion. Which *should* be tough for vampires. Base fatigue 1 isn't going to have much if any effect if they are actually feeding, but it will make them no longer immune to mind bLasts, stun effects and a few other things, and long battles against hundreds of soulless *will* eventually tire them. The VQ (and Vampire Lord, and Sanguine Count) would also be affected by armor encumbrance, which discourages vampires from fighting in heavy armor (really inappropriate to *any* vampire literature or movies I've ever seen).