Poll: Is Clam Hording Too Good?

[Frostmourne27]

As I said I would in the thread on wish-kidnapping, here is a poll on clam balance. Specifically, I am refering to massed clams. I can't really define where clam horde begins and 'a few' ends, but it's somewhere around the transition from site income to clam income, IMHO. If you think that's a lousy definition, use your own, unless its something like, 'a horde is more clams than commanders,' or some such stupidity. Please do not consider other gem producing items.

N.B. The first option is not a vote about astral magic, just that the astral pearls from clams are too useful for their price.

[jutetrea]

While not possible, I would like to see some additional limiting factor dependent on the current number of either clams in play or clams in the possession of the forgers nation.

Cost increase, path increase, reduction of income (1/2turns), whatever. I think anything over 50 is excessive, but they did have to spend the mage time and resources to get to that point.

If nexus is the problem, fix nexus. If wish is the problem, fix wish.

[Velusion]

The only people that will really notice the problem are nations that get into the late game of long games. Otherwise I'm sure they think clams are fine.

It really is one of those things you have to experience.

[Micah]

They're important and probably a vital strategy in a large game, but they're not unbalanced. Diversifying is important to the late game, and that means that everyone will have access to clams and/or blood stones at some point, and once they do the income disparity won't continue to grow between natural clam nations and ones that have to find indies or empower to pull it off.

So it can be an important, maybe even vital, strat for long games, but it's not unbalanced any more than researching is, which is also a pretty important strategy for the late-game.

[Velusion]

Micah said:
They're important and probably a vital strategy in a large game, but they're not unbalanced. Diversifying is important to the late game, and that means that everyone will have access to clams and/or blood stones at some point, and once they do the income disparity won't continue to grow between natural clam nations and ones that have to find indies or empower to pull it off.

So it can be an important, maybe even vital, strat for long games, but it's not unbalanced any more than researching is, which is also a pretty important strategy for the late-game.



Micah is correct, however it does come much easier to some nations than others.If you get unlucky with your indy mages it can be significantly difficult to catch up.

In longer games you do not want to be the one nation without a gem item factory setup in the late game. 60-100 astrals per turn is huge.

It's the fact that clam whordeing is almost a required strategy in a long game that is unappealing to many people.

[llamabeast]

Yeah, if people agree that clam hoarding is a necessary strategy for long games, I think that's really not good. No strategy should be effectively necessary, especially one that doesn't require skill and isn't really fun in itself.

[Hadrian_II]

llamabeast said:
Yeah, if people agree that clam hoarding is a necessary strategy for long games, I think that's really not good. No strategy should be effectively necessary, especially one that doesn't require skill and isn't really fun in itself.



I think that rising your income is as important and that it does not need more skill as research does not make it a bad strategy. I think the problem is that some nations do have access to it and some nations not. In perpetuality, most nations have a gem income around 80 at turn 66 and if a nation is seriously clamming, then her gem income is the double of it. Now the nations that cant clam (or build earth stones) are a little (little is subjective http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif) bit on the disatvantage.

[Xietor]

KO has said that he never wants game play dictated to a narrow set of choices. On large maps, Clam hording-which is not fun-is clearly necessary if you want compete.

Compounding the problem, it requires zero skill, and combined with wish, can allow a "dolt" to win a large game against a superior player who refuses to use such a lame tactic. And it is a lame tactic.

[Jazzepi]

I don't think clam hording is a lame tactic. Honestly I don't even believe in calling a tactic lame. That sort of language is what bad players use in the arcade when they repeatedly get tripped in Mortal Kombat. If you can't beat a tactic, don't call it lame, adapt to it.

That said, I do think it is *boring* when there is only one choice. It should be made clear that almost every nation begins to become one terrifying amalgamation where late magic diversity means that everyone has access to all spells, so it's not surprising that the game slides into a single tactic state after a certain point.

I really liked Baalz's suggestion that there be a spell that destroyed all items of one type. I think this would make clam hording a much risker investment then it is now, where you're basically guaranteed income from the gems the turn after their conception. Obviously you could tweak the spell, maybe it only cuts the number of them in half, or some-such. There's only about a billion ways you could make it different but still use it to discourage massive amounts of clam hording.

Jazzepi

[Micah]

Researching pretty much fits all of the criteria people are complaining about, but I don't hear anyone wanting to take that out.

It is non-optional in any sort of long game.
It is harder for some nations to research than others.
It is not fun.
It requires about as much MM to set a turn's worth of mages to research as it does to forge and assign a clam.

The only thing it really has going for it is that it takes some skill to prioritize the path order.

Also, the UW nations (possibly excepting LA Rlyeh due to freespawn) have a hell of a time being relevant on land in most games even with clamming, something would need to be given to them to compensate if they were removed or nerfed.

[Jazzepi]

Research isn't comparable to clamming at all. The complaint, valid or not, behind clamming (or any other gem production item) is that investing in it absolutely vital to stay competitive in the late game.

Research, however, has so many different varied paths that equating it to clam hording is just silly, prioritizing research, and even researching in response to/anticipation of a particular threat is very important. It separates the good players from the bad. I also think researching is quite fun. It creates an interesting tension between access to fewer spells of higher level, or more spells of a lower level.

Jazzepi

[Evilhomer]

As velusion said clams are very potent in the long games no doubt about it - especially after wish is reached. Removing them (or having some ridicilous spell being able to destroy them) is not a good choice however since you will basically cripple high astral dependent nations like R'lyeh.

At the current cost they will take 15+ turns to pay off basically, which is a risky investment.

I think a good solution is to mod them for whatever game you are expecting to play. In a short-mid game keep the original cost. In long games on large maps that is expected to go 100+ turns increase their cost slightly (by 5 water or nature gems). Of course in such games blood stones should have their cost increased as well.

[Olive]

I think clamhoarding is OK the way it actually works. Anyway, a less "artificial" way to counter - but not too much - clamhoarding would be to add a slight chance oh being horror marked for the bearer of the clam. Something similar to lightless lanterns for example. Similar to blood contracts would be too much imho.

[Warhammer]

The thing is there are so many ways to increase gem income that I think it is silly to isolate one tactic of increasing gem income and say that it is unbalanced. I think the problem that people have with it is the flexibility of astral pearls. But, consider this, if you have 20 clams a turn, and you are alchemizing them, you will only have 10 gems after you do so. Is 10 gems significant? If it was adding to a gem income of 5, sure that's significant, but if it is adding to a gem income of 25, its not as big of a deal.

[Evilhomer]

You don't alchemise as a rule. A better option is to use wish and turn your astral gems into x2 other gems. A reasonable good position can turn out 75 clams by the turn of say 60-75. If you use those gems to cast wish(gems) each turn you have basically increased your gem income with 150 gems. That will probably double your ordinary gem income - not to shabby!

[Meglobob]

I voted claming is fine exactly the way it is and I am non-clammer, I have only seriously clammed once and that was as EA Oceania. It did me no good whatsoever, as EA Caelum won the game.

If clamming gets nerfed, then the, 'nerfs', abit like smurfs will just jump on another part of the game and try to nerf that as well.

I would suggest that if you are a nation who can't gem spam then you should seek to attack gem spammers, especially if you are playing in a long game.

Like I think I have said before, its much, much more easy to blood hunt then gem spam. By the time the gem spammer is getting 100gems/turn, the blood hunt spammer can be getting 400 - 600 blood slaves per turn.

Its part of the late game, the entire idea of the late game is too unbalance the game. In your favour, so you can win!

Loads of things unbalance the late game such as:-

Limited uniques to summon.
Unique artifacts.
Gem spamming.
Blood hunting.
Globals such as Arcane Nexus, Forge of Ancients, Utterdark etc...

Usually they end up spread around several players which creates a balance which is resolved by war, sooner or later.

So where's the problem?

[Ewierl]

I'm coming down alongside those who think clams are too good. (As are most of the other gem-producers, actually, clams are just simpler to talk about.)

I don't think the price per se is the problem, just the unlimited nature of them. 18-25 turns to get a return on your investment is ok, but there's no other real way in the game to make "investments" like that... and as anyone with a bank account knows, interest can rack up exponentially over time. While admittedly a kludge, the fix I like best is simply a cap to the number each nation can produce.

Plus, I find the "in-game story" argument also compelling. Why is the world not flooded with such things by day 1 of the Middle Age, if mages can produce items that replicate the natural burgeoning forces of the world? Why haven't all nations converged on Astral, Fire, and Earth magic, with secondary Water, Nature, Blood? The tactic is too good to make much sense in the setting.

[Hadrian_II]

Maybe the simplest solution would be to give the gem producing items a small (like 2%) chance to wear out, so that you cant have too much of them. If there would be a 2% chance, a clam would exist approximate 50 turns, so you pay 20 gems and get 50 back.

[Reverend Zombie]

Ewierl said:
Plus, I find the "in-game story" argument also compelling. Why is the world not flooded with such things by day 1 of the Middle Age, if mages can produce items that replicate the natural burgeoning forces of the world? Why haven't all nations converged on Astral, Fire, and Earth magic, with secondary Water, Nature, Blood? The tactic is too good to make much sense in the setting.



The weight of these "in-game story" arguments are always in the eye of the beholder, and therefore unpersuasive. One can just as easily come up with an in-game story why the world is not flooded with these by the Middle Age (forgotten secrets of construction rediscovered with awakening gods!).

There's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense in D3, depending on what your "in-game story" is. But these stories don't make good arguments for changing the game mechanics.

[Maraxus]

If someone get's to strong through clams, his opponets were not aggressive enough. Getting an overpowered clam-hort running is a big investment (now, mainly for the 15 water gems). You should not be able to affort this while in a full scale war with someone else.

So, the two options to do clamforging (in my opinion) are:
-You are the only water nation left and don't (strongly) battle the land.
-You were good in the diplomatics.

The first point has it's own drawbacks, so I have no problem with this one getting strong through Astral pearls.
The second - well, if you succed on that plan, you deserve it. Your opponent should not have let it come to that point.

[Baalz]

Well, I do think clams are in a different class than blood stones and fever fetishes as they're much easier to mass and astral gems are much more useful late game than earth or fire. It's also wrong to think that it takes 15 turns for them to pay off - there are several ways to reduce this ROI time not to mention that astral pearls are often more valuable than water or nature. To be honest, I can't think of much more scary than R'yleh suitably turtled underwater keeping the Forge of the Ancients up for very long (or closely allying with someone who does).

The thing about clamhoarding is there is *no* counter and I think it's a mischaractarization to even really think of it as much of a risky delayed gratification in a lot of circumstances. For the cost of two clams (at whatever discount you can wrangle) I've now got one "free" mind hunt per turn as well as building long term exponential growth. Win-win in a lot of circumstances where water gems don't have a high value use.

My main problem with it is most everybody agrees it's so overwhelmingly powerful that everyone must do it if they want to be competitive, and it adds micro which most everyone hates. I look at it this way, would the game be more or less fun without clam hoarding? If its not really a tactical choice because everybody must do it in long games then removing it doesn't reduce your tactical choices it just reduces micro. Better than removing it though is to nerf it cleverly enough that it is more of a risky choice and therefore not a no-brainer.

[Reverend Zombie]

Baalz said:
My main problem with it is most everybody agrees it's so overwhelmingly powerful that everyone must do it if they want to be competitive,



Not everybody, at least among poll-responders.

It would be interesting to know how many of the nations listed as winners in the Hall of Honor clamnmed.

[Xietor]

I do not think looking at the hall of fame has any value.

1. You would have to know the size of the map. Clams are not going to be a factor in small-medium games.

2. How many water provinces and races were in the game. It is much easier to clam if you are a water race and are not worried about being attacked early in the game.

3. What is the skill level of your opponents both in the game and the ones neighboring you.

4. Diplomacy. It is hard to say race "x" is better than race "y" because if "x" is feared then he may be ganged up on early out of mutual fear by weaker races "a" "b" and "c," allowing race "y" to win the game even though it is not as strong as "x."

So I think input from players the community respects as knowledgeable players is of more value.

[Tichy]

Why not attach a negative to clams, like horror mark, insanity, curse or disease? It creates a drawback, and also has the effect of taking some of them out of play over time. The problem now seems to be that there's no downside to the strategy (except for monotony, and people getting annoyed at you.)

[Baalz]

Ew, I wouldn't suggest anything that encourages more micro while leaving the same utility if you do it right. I'm in a game right now with my first and last fever fetish farm - I finally said screw it and am forging 30-odd rings of regen because it's too much of a headache. Not the most competitive thing to do but I was getting to dread my turns - "which of these ever increasing number of diseased guys have less than 3 hps left?"

[CUnknown]

Clams are nerfed strongly in dom3 relative to dom2.. I feel like this nerf makes them just right, except in long games. Perhaps a mod making clams more expensive to be used in long games would solve the problem?

[Reverend Zombie]

CUnknown said:
Clams are nerfed strongly in dom3 relative to dom2.. I feel like this nerf makes them just right, except in long games. Perhaps a mod making clams more expensive to be used in long games would solve the problem?



I think there is just such a mod for those "all nations" games.

[Meglobob]

CUnknown said:
Clams are nerfed pretty strongly in dom3 relative to dom2.. I feel like this nerf makes them just right, except in long games. Perhaps a mod making clams more expensive to be used in long games would solve the problem?



I think the 62 player megagame has influenced alot of people on clams and clamming.

Velusions already said he will include a mod to make them more expensive if he starts another such game.

Rather then changing them in the vanilla game and effecting everybody, its probably best that a mod be applied in long MP's. The host/modder can then change them as he sees fit and people can choose for themselves wether they wish to play or not.

[Reverend Zombie]

Xietor said:
I do not think looking at the hall of fame has any value.

1. You would have to know the size of the map. Clams are not going to be a factor in small-medium games.

2. How many water provinces and races were in the game. It is much easier to clam if you are a water race and are not worried about being attacked early in the game.

3. What is the skill level of your opponents both in the game and the ones neighboring you.

4. Diplomacy. It is hard to say race "x" is better than race "y" because if "x" is feared then he may be ganged up on early out of mutual fear by weaker races "a" "b" and "c," allowing race "y" to win the game even though it is not as strong as "x."

So I think input from players the community respects as knowledgeable players is of more value.



I disagree. If most MP games are not being won by clam-hoarders, we can say that under normal conditions it's not an issue.

If clamming is only an issue on a. large maps b. with clamming water nations c. with player of equal (preumably high) skill d. who nevertheless do not use diplomacy to gang up on the clammer who is "stronger" and would otherwise win, then you are talking about a limited set of circumstances.

The response to a turtling clammer should be to rush (crush?) them, not change the game to eliminate their strategy.

[Velusion]

I do have a big-game mod for use in larger games where gem producing items are increased in cost which I *hope* helps somewhat with large games (Sophistry and Nuance are using them so we'll see).

While you can mod a "fix" for anything the thread is addressing vanilla games.

The real fix would be to somehow scale these to work with larger games and a number of suggestions have been offered (many probably unfeasible). I don't think Dom3 actually scales that great in a number of other areas either (i.e. Arcane Nexus).

That said, I seriously doubt these scaling problems will ever be addressed. For now we just have to use mods to adjust things, which is a perfectly fine secondary option.

[thejeff]

If all of those are needed, sure it isn't a problem.

On the other hand I think the large/small game distinction is important. If, for example, every game on a 200+ province map or every game that lasted past 75 turn was won by a clammer, I think you could safely say it's a problem.

So looking at the HoF could be useful. It should be pretty easy to get size of map, from the game thread if nowhere else. You'd have to ask the winner about clams, though.

[Velusion]

Reverend Zombie said:
The response to a turtling clammer should be to rush (crush?) them, not change the game to eliminate their strategy.



This is an option if it is a land nation. In practice I don't see very many land nations attacking fortified turtled sea nations unless they have no other targets.

Also, since the graphs don't adjust for gem generating items, sometimes it's hard to tell who is really spam clamming.

[Reverend Zombie]

Velusion said:

This is an option if it is a land nation. In practice I don't see very many land nations attacking fortified turtled sea nations unless they have no other targets.





I do see an impressive number of EA wins by R'lyeh in the Victorious Nations thread, and I thought they were perceived as a generally weak position. Clamming could explain that, perhaps, but then any clam nerf would seem to disproportionately hit EA R'lyeh, if that's their main strength.

I don't see disproportionate wins by the other aquatic races listed in that thread.

[Nikolai]

In early age, R'lyeh is unbeatable underwater. They clean other water nations, and no one wants to touch them. They clam, they get astral vortex up, game over. Seen it happen earlier, seeing it in Scorned Land right now.

[Warhammer]

But if that is the case, why are people not ganging up on R'lyeh early?

[Shovah32]

Probably because of their ability to beat(apparently) other water nations - Oceania and atlantis both bordering R'lyeh isn't extremely likely, partially due to the fact that many maps aren't made to support 3 water nations.
Even with a teeam of several people, its hard to dislodge a water-focused nation from its home early on using only indy troops.

[Velusion]

Warhammer said:
But if that is the case, why are people not ganging up on R'lyeh early?



A land nation has to expend many more resources to attack an underwater nation than the underwater nation has to spend to defend itself. As a land nation that means your return on investment in fighting a water nation is much lower than if you picked a fight with a land nation.

This means you really need some sort of alliance to make it worthwhile to go into the sea early and such an alliance is sometimes very difficult to form when there are so many other tempting (and easier) land targets.

The widely accepted MP method for dealing with medium/large underwater nations is to leave them until the very end when the resources you can bring to bear are overwhelming and you crush them with raw force.

[Meglobob]

Whats this EA R'lyeh is unbeatable in the water?

AFAIK, in the early part of the game EA Oceania is the most dangerous water nation.

If all 3 water nations EA Oceania, EA R'yleh and EA Atlantis share the same ocean, then EA Oceania will come out on top if it rushes the other 2 early. Knights of the Deep with bless wastes everything in the path, in the water, for the first 30 turns or so.

If you mean LA R'yleh, then yea they are a severe problem. The can clam to there hearts content, generally speaking.

[Velusion]

Reverend Zombie said:

Velusion said:

This is an option if it is a land nation. In practice I don't see very many land nations attacking fortified turtled sea nations unless they have no other targets.





I do see an impressive number of EA wins by R'lyeh in the Victorious Nations thread, and I thought they were perceived as a generally weak position. Clamming could explain that, perhaps, but then any clam nerf would seem to disproportionately hit EA R'lyeh, if that's their main strength.

I don't see disproportionate wins by the other aquatic races listed in that thread.



In addition to clams in long games my theory for the R'lyeh dominance is that R'lyeh has such good astral casters - and astral in the late game is usually stronger. Plus R'lyeh is popular and there are some people who are very knowledgeable about about playing them. EA R'lyeh usually has a problem getting out of the water however - whereas it's my understanding that MA/LA have less problems.

I've also heard EA Oceania wins quite a few - though other than the fact I know they can clam with their national mages I don't know much about them.

[Evilhomer]

EA Oceania dominates EA Rlyeh and EA atlantis in a head to head conflict - just amazingly strong (water only) blessables.

[Frostmourne27]

Can we keep the discussion to clams please. The balance of EA Rlyeh, although somewhat related to clams, is not the issue at hand. If EA Rlyeh is boosted overmuch by clams, and a clam nerf makes them useless, we can buff them in other areas.

[Valandil]

I have voted that clams are fine as is, although I lean towards caution in the areas of Very Late Game, Alteration Bonus, and Nexus, having too little experiance in large-scale no-holds-barred multiplayer. I play Patala, and can say that they have enough weaknesses (S1 on a 400something gold mage? AAH!) in any case. Given the difficulty of forging them, I believe that Clams are NOT overpowered.

[Warhammer]

I think it is telling that there are only 4 people who have responded that say that clams are always overpowered.

[Valandil]

I don't, really. Clams are a late game strat, and if they are overpowered, its only going to be apparent late game. Also, some o the no-votes are from maily SPers like myself. I have thus far forged two clams in MP games.

[jutetrea]

Limited experience caveat, few late game appearances:

In a mid-sized game (9-12? opponents, 15 prov/per) playing EA TC I had about 60-70 clams by turn 80. They weren't a main part of my strategy (considering I didn't have one), but every turn I'd forge 1 or 2 gems/hammers permitting. By about the same point I had about 15 fetishes and 30-40 stones as well.

EA TC has pretty easy access, the occasional natural forger and usually an easy +1W buff (robe, ring) to get to 3W1N.

Due to the inexperience, I threw up nexus at one point, made tons of astral gear, and had a wish going about every other turn. Somehow my pretender got insanity, so the wishes were a bit erratic. I usually wished for more gems, and occasionally slaves which fueled my other summons pretty handily.

In general I don't think the producers were the reason for my good position, but they didn't hurt either. I pooled the gems every few turns and used them instead of bulking them up for monster casts.

Like someone mentioned earlier, there are very few "investment" opportunities, and by late game they really start to tell.

I'm in favor of large game specific modification of gem producers. I like the disease/insanity/horror mark ideas if applicable.

[Evilhomer]

I like the disease/insanity/horror mark ideas if applicable



This will just mean that you have to move your clams around, i.e just more micromanagement involved. I prefer a cost-nerf instead of one that increases the dullness of handling these items.

[jutetrea]

disease possibly, but I'm not so sure on the other 2. Happy with a cost change as well, although I really wish it was dependent on game/individual totals. Sucks that someone who will be building 10 just to offset income gets hit as bad as the guy who builds 100.

For fetishes I usually just pick up a random indy commander or high HP low importance commander and remove right before they die. Bit of a pain to check hp, but not terrible.

Insanity would just make the unit temporarily unuseable, while the gems still accumulate. I usually put them on my researchers so it would force me to put them on other commanders, lesser researchers or purchase indys - which i don't think is a bad penalty.

Horrormarking, I never move my lightless around and have only been hit by horrors like 4 times in 8 months I've been playing. Not sure how they're measured, but would probably say a bit more severe then lightless - tart chains maybe? Not sure how the items are really ranked.

[Huzurdaddi]

I think that the changes in Dom3 have made rampant clamming (ie: turning over your inventory in clams every turn ) a thing of the past. But they still have some effect on games.

However, there is one thing about clams that I dislike, and perhaps this is what irks other people: clams are not reported on the gem income graph and it can be a big surprise when some nation who has been a mid tier nation suddenly busts out with the highest level magics.

The solution to this problem seems pretty simple: include generated gems in the gem income graph.

[Cor2]

heres a stupid but relevant question. Why is no one *****ing about sea king spamming?

Sea kings cost 35 more but provide a commander/water mage and troops. and only costs 3 water to summon, so its easier to get. It takes 55 turns for them to pay for themselves, but that is not taking into account the commander and units.

In my limited experince Sea king spamming does not happen. I think its the cost. So i say raise the cost to about 35 or 40 and be done with it.

[Jazzepi]

The reason people spam clams is because you can reduce the cost with hammers and a forge. Everyone who is talking about how clams pay for themselves in 15 turns clearly hasn't ever clam horded.

If you have a hammer, and a forge up, a clam costs 1 nature and 5 water, I believe. It's something ridiculously cheap.

Jazzepi

[Evilhomer]

You really cannot expect to have the forge up when clamming. With a hammer the price is 11 water 3 nature (and takes one turn to equip since it appears in the lab) - i.e 15 turns for payoff (provided you value gems equally, but thats another discussion)..

[Jazzepi]

I'm not saying you're always going to have the forge up. But a discount of the hammer is quite good.

Actually for some reason I thought the normal cost of the clams was 15 gems total, so when people were making comments on it I thought they were not including the hammer reduction.

I blame the anestetics.

Jazzepi

[Cor2]

My point is that if the cost was raised a bit more i think the problem would be solved. No one hoards sea kings, even when they can get a reduction from a magic site.

[Jazzepi]

I think you're still missing the point Cor. You can't summon sea kings without summoning a huge mess of trolls who are all very expensive in their gold upkeep. I think they're *great* units as shock troops with lots of hitpoints, armor on some and good regen, but you simply can't sustain the same amount of production there as you can with clams.

Also anyone who wants to horde a gem producing item, and not just clams, can reduce the cost with hammers which are easily accessible. Maigical sites that reduce the summoning cost, are not. I think most of them range in the 20% range.

Though, in all fairness, one summoning site can be used by as many mages.

Jazzepi

[Cheezeninja]

I think clams are fine as they are, but I wouldn't mind seeing some anti-clam/gem producer spells just to add another layer of tactical complexity.

Maybe a global that stops all clam (maybe fetish and stones too) production while it's up. Or paradoxically makes them only function outside of a water province. A global that destroys 5% of them every turn it's up would be nice too, without, I think, being overpowering since any clam producer worth his salt has tons of astral gems for dispel.

Or maybe a province targeting spell that would shatter a certain % of items in a specific province, with lower cost items being more vulnerable and items over a certain gem cost being immune. A spell like this would not only add a clam-counter, but would be tactically useful elsewhere and limited by your ability to scout.

I also think clam income should be added to the graph.

[Cor2]

Sombody mentioned destroy all clams wish. that would be fun.

As for the problem of the sea troll upkeeps. Yeah it sucks to have to pay all those troops as you use them to destroy your opponents. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Baalz]

Well, seems to me that if the consensus is that the real problem with clamming is related to scaling then the solution should also be scalable - otherwise you're just adjusting the window of efficiency (if you adjust the cost for example). Something like each clam being more expensive than the one before it would work, but would probably be difficult with the game engine since nothing else is done that way. An expensive anti clam spell would work to, combined with the gems showing in the score graph (though having it dispellable seems a poor way to make it a counter to overwhelming clams). It might be interesting (if not terribly thematic) if clams had a chance to horror mark each person in the province - spread out too much and they become more vulnerable like blood hunters, concentrate them too much and your rate of return gets shot to hell as horrors keep eating them.

[Chris_Byler]

I like Cheezeninja's idea of a shatter spell targeted at a province. Items could be affected based on their construction level or something (very low/no chance of destroying an artifact, but cons-2 clams would be quite vulnerable). The spell wouldn't be that destructive if there were only a few items in the province (although if you nail a few of a SC's items right before he goes into battle it could still hurt), but if there were a lot, it could destroy items that add up to many times its own cost.

If you don't want only one path to have this type of countermeasure, there could be several anti-item spells: one that shatters items, one that causes them to burst into flame possibly killing their wielders, one that summons a swarm of thieving magpies that steal magic items (most items stolen are kept by the magpies, but a few may be brought back to the caster), one that horror marks anyone in the province with an item and *greatly* increases the chance of horror attacks on item-holders in that province that turn, etc. Those spells in turn could be blocked by domes, but that adds to the cost (and domes have their own weaknesses depending on the type of dome being used; retaliation domes couldn't prevent the destruction of 50 clams, just kill the mage who did it.)

How effective are ordinary army blasters (Flames from the Sky, Murdering Winter, etc.) against a province full of clamholders? Magical assassinations (Earth Attack etc.)? Hiding under the sea will protect you from some of those spells (maybe a few too many), but not all.

[thejeff]

Province targeted item destruction spell is way too abusable. SCs and Thugs would get trashed. Worst use: target air/water breathing items.

Clams would be the least of it's effects.

[Meglobob]

Well I am against nerfing of clams, I do like the idea of the introduction of anti-clamming spells. So you have a counter strategy to clams.

A global that destroys 10%/per turn of all gem producing items in the world, would stop gem spamming abuse.

You could balance the introduction of such a global by reducing the cost of the gem producing magic items back to what they where in Dom2.

So the gem producing items where useful early on but not a effective long term strategy because there was a counter in the form of a global.

The global would after be relatively cheap, 40-60 gems so could be recast over and over to avoid it being just dispelled too easily.

The clams, blood stones and fever fetishes would still be useful as a mirco-management saving tool. Instead of giving a scout a pile of gems to refill your mages when they use there gems in battle. Just give him a clam or bloodstone or fever fetish to produce them on the way.

[Tichy]

Can we call this thread "On the Nerfing of Clams"?
Please?

[SelfishGene]

Clams should only work underwater. Problem solved!

[Lord_Bob]

I don't think clam hoarding can actually get out of hand unless it is very late game, or the power starts as a nation that gets water gems from it's national site, but here are a few ideas:

Mental Drain!
Each clam "creates" it's pearl from the mental and magical energy of it's holder. While this has little effect on the battlefield, the daily drain slows research considerably.
-1 or -2 rp per turn
(thus clams DO COST RESEARCH to have on those research mages)

This change can be added by simply adding a negative Sage bonus to the clams item description.

The Care And Feeding Of Clams:
Clams cost gold upkeep

Hungry, Hungry Clams!
Each clam "consumes" one water gem and produces 1-2 astral gems per turn
clam cost adjusted appropriately

Power Drain:
Clams have a negative effect on holders... lower MR for example. Making them more vunerable to spells and assasins.

Bloodstones:
Horror marking at a real level of power
or
The research penalty.

[Chris_Byler]

thejeff said:
Province targeted item destruction spell is way too abusable. SCs and Thugs would get trashed. Worst use: target air/water breathing items.

Clams would be the least of it's effects.


SCs and Thugs have been getting weakened since Dom I and they *still* dominate. I'd say try this out before concluding that it will be abusive.

Breathing items would indeed be a very nasty use of anti-item spells. But one of the themes of the Dominions series is that anyone can die, except Immortals in friendly dominion. As long as the chance of destroying any particular item isn't too high, I don't think it'd be that bad; the spell(s) would have their costs set to be only truly effective against large clusters of items.

[Kuritza]

Item-destroying global spell is the worst idea I've heard for a long time. Item-destroying combat spell is the second worst idea I've heard.

[sum1lost]

Item-destroying global spell is the best idea I've heard for a long time. Item-destroying combat spell is the second best idea I've heard.

Both of them promise to significantly change up the game if implemented. Ask anyone- what school of magic is most vital. One of the top picks, if not the top pick, is construction. You can't thug/SC without it. Destroying items changes the dynamic of the game significantly, improving the power of battlefield troops and mages.

[Micah]

An army with proper magical support can take down most SCs with little problem. I don't see why anyone would really want to make the 100 gem investment most SCs represent any weaker than they already are. They're great for raiding and killing PD since their strength is in their mobility, but they fold up and die to a significant enemy magic presence as it is. (Earth buffs on the troops, the other elements if they lack resists, mass horror marks or soul slays, disintegrate/drain life, and charm (not optimal due to MR and short range, but a scary prospect for the SC's owner)

[Chris_Byler]

It takes thousands of gold worth of mages to implement any of those (except maybe the earth buffs, which takes thousands of gold *and* resources worth of army + a few hundred gold mage).

Anyway, if item-destroying spells (I wasn't suggesting a combat spell, but a province-targeting ritual attack; a combat item destroyer would be interesting against SoS and a few other item-based strategies, but wouldn't solve the clam problem) had a low chance of affecting any particular item, then one guy with 5 items probably wouldn't be hit at all, or lose at most one of his items. They'd be designed for the province where 20 (or 50!) guys are hanging out with a clam and a lantern each.

I think they would shake the game up in a good way.

[Sir_Dr_D]

Except that the clams would likely be behind a dome, and would be hard to target.

[Nikolai]

The problem with clams/fetishes/stones is they end giving more gems that all magic sites... If gems generated are capped by map size, it will not be a problem, will it?

Killing clam holders is very hard. In a castle, behind many domes, guarded by army, maybe even hidden... good luck!

[thejeff]

Right, domes. So your clams will be shielded by a dome and this item destroying spell will only be useful against thugs and for armies out of their element.

As a thematic suggestion: What about having gem-producers only work if equipped on a mage with that path? More limiting for some than for others. How much affect that would have I don't really know.

[Evil Dave]

</lurk>


thejeff said:
As a thematic suggestion: What about having gem-producers only work if equipped on a mage with that path?



I thought their "intended" purpose was to provide armies w/ a continuous source of gems. When I do that, I usually stick them on scouts moving with my troops.

Your proposal might not be a bad idea if there was some way of distinguishing moving armies from mages safely researching in friendly territory.

<lurk>

[Lord_Bob]

This can be easily done by giving clams a -research penalty. Right where the Lightless Laterns get a + they get a -. Reflecting time spent caring for and feeding the clam.... or energy drain from the claim.

This gives clams an ongoing expense in term of RP points lost.

Of course, at The End Of Time with L-9's in all schools this cost means nothing... but at The End Of Time balance is a truly strange thing anyway.

[Micah]

indy commanders are really cheap and don't really do much researching, so any research penalty tied to clams is just going to result in a near-negligible nerf (in the form of a 40 gold commander cost and a less-than-3g upkeep, less if you have scouts instead of commanders) and a lot more micro.

And Chris, I believe a 2000 gold combat group can take down an SC in most cases. That's not all that much gold. Or use a 55-gem Troll King's Court + earth boots to kill most 100-gem SCs. Astral and Blood both utterly destroy SCs.

People like SCs because they're easy and mobile. No multi-mage scripting or having to shuttle troops in from different forts to assemble a decent-sized army, no supply issues (including gems for mages, always a pain). They're good investments, and can certainly tear through *unsupported* armies of chaff, but they have plenty of weaknesses to a properly prepared opponent.

[Ewierl]

Micah said:
indy commanders are really cheap and don't really do much researching, so any research penalty tied to clams is just going to result in a near-negligible nerf (in the form of a 40 gold commander cost and a less-than-3g upkeep, less if you have scouts instead of commanders) and a lot more micro



Would it be possible, I wonder, to have Clams only function on mages? With that rule, the research penalty would be a reasonable little fix.

I'm playing with Patala right now in SP, and the clamming is utterly ridiculous. A tiny bit of luck in getting water gems, and by a dozen turns in you can pound out a clam every turn.

[Xietor]

How come I can only vote once? It is a Louisiana tradition to vote as many times as you want until the desired poll result is achieved! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Salamander8]

EA R'Lyeh has been mentioned as a clam hoarder nation. But this is not available to stock mages without the right set-up. Aboleths and Mind Lords get no chance at nature magic (although Aboleths have a chance for W3 and Mind lords have W3 minimum). Slave Mages do have a shot at 1N but it's one chance of 4 possibilities from their random pick. If they do get 1N from their random pick, they will still need a +1 water item or empowerment to be able to make clams in the stock game. If the Slave Mages get to 3W by random pick, they have to not only be empowered to N1, they have to stay under water or get a booster if on land, to make the clams. The Aboleths and Mind Lords lack hands to use the hammers to reduce the forging cost is another consideration.

You pretender can (and I usually do so) be built to make clams, but at least 4 of the available chases to EA R'Lyeh don't have hands to take advantage of hammers either. Since you also want at least A1 on your pretender as EA R'Lyeh, this should be taken into consideration as well.

The more investment you have to pay to make the clams, the longer it takes them to pay dividends. I do find them quite handy, but tend to use them in moderation.

[Aezeal]

Just make clams unique and give em 25 different names.. or 50.. or whatever.. then you could steal them from eachother with wish etc and there would be a limit to them too.

[quantum_mechani]

Salamander8 said:
Slave Mages do have a shot at 1N but it's one chance of 4 possibilities from their random pick. If they do get 1N from their random pick, they will still need a +1 water item or empowerment to be able to make clams in the stock game.

This is a rather negligible difficulty, barring extreme misfortune in randoms.

[Salamander8]

quantum_mechani said:

Salamander8 said:
Slave Mages do have a shot at 1N but it's one chance of 4 possibilities from their random pick. If they do get 1N from their random pick, they will still need a +1 water item or empowerment to be able to make clams in the stock game.

This is a rather negligible difficulty, barring extreme misfortune in randoms.


While not exactly difficult it's not negligible either. It's 1 in 4 of a random pick and then you still need to also get +1W on top of that 1N as they only have 2W. And I've had it up to 10 slave mages in a game with zero N before.

And I wanted to place more stress on the fact that you have to pay even more gems upfront to get clammers rather than any actual difficulty.

[LoloMo]

Here is a suggestion, replace the Clam item with a "Summonable Clam" unit which produces one astral per turn.

It can be placed in the construction tree with the same W3N1 requirements.

This way, you can add another variable to it, its upkeep cost. It would also make the the "Clam" unit vulnerable to assassination spells. It can be made immobile, feebleminded, vulnerable to fire, cold, lightning, poison, etc. Maybe even add the cause misfortune attribute if there is one.

The big thing would be the upkeep cost. If the upkeep cost is say 40 gold per turn, that would certainly restrict the magnitude of clam hoarding.

[jutetrea]

Ideas not bad, but I think 40g (600 base) is too high per, possibly 10 (150) - 15ish(225).

It would reduce the effectiveness of, or at least add to the idea of carrying gem producers with an army. Scouts etc with gems would still work though.

If going that route, could also give it a moderate chunk of HP (20ish), keep it mobile and very vanilla but give it disease, 2 move, terrible stats and possibly afflictions.

heck, just increase the naiad cost a bit and give it the enchantress' gem producers ability. Make it cost a good bundle (40-45ish) but give a useful unit added utility. Take longer to pay back the investment, but in the meantime you get 3W3N that you might need anyway. If someone wants to make 100 of em, go nuts. Not really a great idea, as I still think the first 10-15 clam-type effects shouldn't incur a real penalty.

[Micah]

Empowering a shaman to clam once you hit construction 6 is only 85W, plus another 35 for a Naiad after that (for 2/turn), or 10 clams worth of water gems. After that everyone's able to forge them. While a 10 pearl/turn advantage is really nice it's hardly game-breaking. That's also a worst-case scenario as far as finding indy mages or access to Naiads goes, especially since enchantresses are fairly common. The clamming nations also get a slight bump in early-game production, but non-clam nations can make that up by casting a gem global with their stocked gems once the research is available to do so. Again, an advantage for the clammers, but not one that's broken compared to other game options, especially considering how lousy water magic is. If your nationals have W they're giving up some other path that's more useful in other areas.

[Xietor]

The issue is they are unbalancing when being made at 2-3 a turn and start to number well over a hundred, amounting to a free wish every turn.

[Micah]

Yes, my point was that by the time that happens any nation can have 90 clams, compared to the 100 that a naturally-clamming nation can have. Not a big deal.

[Xietor]

Not everyone wants to clam though. Personally I find it boring. And i do not like to see any one strategy as necessary to win a game.

And not every race can use the astral gems. It takes s9 to wish.

[Micah]

Xietor - When you're talking about popping wishes every turn the cost to empower a wisher is pretty trivial. Assuming you can find an S1 mage to start with it's only 210 pearls to get to S5, which is about the highest nationals go...2 wishes, or 2 turns of income at that point of the game. I can't see how this could POSSIBLY be a realistic argument given your proposed gem income.

Likewise, you not liking a tactic is not a valid reason for it to be removed. Some people don't like SCs, some people don't like blood magic (which, incidentally, is a much bigger MM issue than clams, especially if you want to blood sacrifice), some people don't like blesses. I'm sure people don't like a lot of other stuff in the game as well, but each of these things adds more variety and complexity to the game. If clamming was *broken* then there would be an issue with it, but it's not unbalanced, it's just something you don't like.

Also, given the moddability of Dominions it's a very easy fix to get rid of the clams with a simple mod for the games you play in, so I'm not sure what the big crusade to get rid of them entirely is about, since they're not really unbalanced (incidentally I think the aquatic nations need the help given their very limited expansion options during the midgame.)

[Xietor]

Micah,

your points are all valid. I am just stating my opinions, but obviously every player has different opinions on issues-and they are all valid. How to make a game "better" is all subjective.

I have made my last post on this thread.

[Velusion]

Micah said:

Likewise, you not liking a tactic is not a valid reason for it to be removed.



This isn't directly related to clams (since I agree that mods fix the problem I have with larger games and think they are fine in smaller games) but...

Not liking a tactic *is* a valid reason for you to advocate for change. Everything is subjective. If a tactic is easy/boring/etc... I don't see why someone shouldn't champion change if they feel it improves the game.

Again I'm not saying I completely agree with Xietor in this case...