Will Vanheim Ever Become Spayed?

[NTJedi]

DrPraetorious said:
MtG tried to rebalance the cards by nerfing everything. The result is a very flat game with no cool and powerful stuff in it, because if anything was any good it might be unbalancing.

This is what I'm trying to avoid, where these nations are nerfed without considering how it affects SP games or MP games with AI opponents.

[DrPraetorious]

The problem is that we are not in agreement that glamour nations are overpowered. You have asserted that they are, and I have disagreed, I will summarize:

a) It is fair for some nations to be stronger early on, and some nations stronger later.

b) It is fair for some tactics to be easier to use. This, I think, is where the "newbies play vanheim" argument has merit. I don't think glamour rushers are actually more likely to win, even in highly experienced hands, but the double bless strategy is accessible, so it allows new players to at least participate in big MP games, and have some measure of success. You may not like being axed by my little sister on turn 9 with her pretty magic horsies - but somebody is going to get eliminated early and you can at least take it like a man.

c) It is fair for people to be eliminated on turn 8, especially if they adopt a long term strategy. Taking a dormant pretender with good scales and strong diversifying magic should be a calculated risk, with significant risk of death before your god even reappears - vs. for example taking a great sage with a lot of early research or a supercombatant, either of which goes a long way towards repulsing a rusher.

d) It is fair to expect the other players to devote 100% of their effort to repulsing an attack from you, provided you devote 100% of your effort to attacking them. It is fair if strategies exist that will successfully kill your first neighbor 75% of the time, even under such a state of total war, provided that the rusher expects to suffer sufficient losses to allow other players to take advantage of their weakness, most of the time.

e) The game is meant to be balanced on medium sized maps. On postage stamp maps rushers have to be better, because otherwise they'd be weaker on larger maps.

f) It is fair that the game has a significant element of chance. Being next to a rusher position stinks - the only way to make it not-stink is to make all rush strategies worthless, because even when you repulse a rush, you probably suffer losses such that winning is a lot less likely.

There is a problem that I am willing to admit may exist: some nations may be unable to resist the glamour rush at all. It's all well and good to say "rock, paper, scissors" but no pairing of nations should be so unbalanced that you might as well give up - unless you pursued a long term strategy in which case you took your chances and it didn't work, sucks to be you.

If that is the case, those specific nations should be given new tools so that they have means of repulsing glamour rush - NOT a majority of the time (since then glamour rushing would become an unviable strategy) but a significant fraction of the time.

I think that the main game should be altered, if it is altered at all, with the same philosophy. Since it is possible for you to make a mod that nerfs glamour rushers - if this is what you want to do, do it. You can make a much more convincing argument for incorporating such a nerf into the main game if you're willing to take the ten minutes to script it yourself, and then post what you consider to be more balanced results, than if you just, to be blunt, whine about what vague changes someone else should be making. If you can make a "nerf" that leaves glamour rushing as a viable but not, to your mind, overwhelming strategy, great. If I agree with you that it doesn't unacceptably weaken glamour rushes in my games, I'll support including it in the main fork. If it doesn't get it, you'll have your mod and you can try and find opponents who agree with you and play against them.

[calmon]

I don't understand this discussion here. If something is overpowered it should be nerfed.

A nation in which i need just 1 sacred unit (in my test example a helheim helirding) and a priest commander (Vanherse) and can conquer Level 7 independence provinces without bigger problems is somehow in such a catagory.

- the sacred troops have no undead/demon weaknesses of being banishable.
- instead they are the best stealth units from all national troops.
- they need a F9/W9 blessing for this true but this didn't means very bad scales just some researching disadvantages and some unluck. Order 3 is still possible.

With most of the other nations i've to stack some troops even the blessed one to attack more then 2-3 provinces in a row but here very few troops and a leader are enough to conquere province after province. Casualties are very rare.

Thats to strong in my eyes apart from any player vs player strategies.

[Twan]

Actually the only thing that can be made by a modder to balance glamour is suppressing it (+ giving simple stealth or another thing to these units) only a modification in the code may allow to balance glamour in an interesting way allowing this ability to keep an use in battles (ie I would like to see glamour working against melee attacks ***OR*** missiles, an illusion hasn't to work at all ranges).

PS : DrPraetorius I had the same opinion but I've tested since then, my opinion now is : glamour is overpowered on all maps against all nations minus one or two. Glamour is particularily powerful on big maps because only players can find some (hazardous) counters. Glamour + bless often allow to take big indie provinces without a loss with only 10 or so units, and keeping your sacred troops alive is a valid long term "strategy". Vanheim has an advantage from turn 1 to turn 40 or so and has very small chances to be weak after considering the empire they could have made.

[curtadams]

DrPraetorious said:
MtG tried to rebalance the cards by nerfing everything. The result is a very flat game with no cool and powerful stuff in it, because if anything was any good it might be unbalancing.

Shadowfist, on the other hand, starts with more robust underlying mechanics, and then rebalances cards by making them *better*, not worse. As a result, shadowfist is a very well balanced game with lots of cards that do awesomely powerful stuff.

But which game is played in every school cafeteria in the nation and which game do I find almost impossible to find? This isn't making your point.

The proper response to a game imbalance too big to live with is to fix it by whatever requires the fewest fixes. Fixes are a lot of work and often introduce their own problems. If *one* nation is a basket case you should buff it rather than nerf 25. But, if *one* nation is too tough, you should nerf it rather than introduce 25 major buffs - mostly because you can be virtually guaranteed that one of the buffs will overdo it and you'll just have a different supernation.

So far there have been several counters proposed - almost all of which hinge on AOE effects, which is basically what us nerf proponents have always said. AOE isn't available for a quite a while. (Nobody's yet considered countermeasures, either) If the majority of the nations get early AOE, Dom becomes a VERY different game. I really don't want most nations to be able to handle armored def 24 units early in the game. I LIKE the fact that human-level units have some use as opposed to becoming soap-bubble screens from turn one.

Incidentally, although I think it's high priority to fix the Heims I don't think it's the prime "official" priority. The Conceptual Balance mod became almost standard, so balance issues can be fixed without designer action. I think it's a better approach for the players to work on balance mods and the designers to work on bugs and modability. An example where things can go awry would be the VQ nerfs due largely to Norfleet's rampages, which turned out to be cheating.

[mivayan]

Gandalf Parker said:Dominions does not balance nation to nation. It balances by rock-paper-scissors.

It's more like... we have a game of scissors-paper-rock-dog-cat-mouse-pony. Scissors beat paper, which beats rock, which beats dog, which beats cat, which beats mouse, which beats pony, which beats everything but mouse.

White centaurs with dual bless are very strong, but vans/helhirdings are twice as hard to kill (for 5 gold / 4 res more), and can be combined with better battle magic. A big step over the next-best.

NTJedi said:I remember all the threads about the dreaded Ermor in dominions_2. In my opinion this adds nice variety into the game as players are challenged to improve strategies. During blitz games Vanheim/Helheim is too much, yet these nations can be modded or removed using the #allowedplayer command.

I dont remember much ermor whining from experienced players, I do remember a lot of ermor-with Vampire Queen whining, and a lot of VQ whining in general. Some of it fueled by a cheater, some of it was warranted... changes were made to the VQ. I dont think the changes by dom2 patches were too much, the loss of ethereal in dom3 might have been but had that anything to do with the whining?

[curtadams]

AE Ermor is certainly a bigger problem in SP than the Heims, even now (partly, of course, because the AI doesn't exploit double-bless). However, in multiplayer, it's more controllable. Ermor takes a while to crank up - it starts a bit weak, actually. Player politics can usually control it. The Heims are gross right out of the box and they can cause a lot of trouble before multiplayer interactions kick in.

I much prefer games that are relatively balanced on their own. Multiplayer dynamics are fun and it's sad that they have to be directed toward rebalancing the game. And, of course, they're not available in SP.

[BigJMoney]

Guys, can I please weigh back in for a moment? I left this post behind me and it exploded, leaving shrapnel (no pun intended) all over my back.

Okay, I have to agree with all of Graeme's points for once, even if I don't agree with him breaking forum protocol so regularly. (Grame, trust me, I have a feeling you are going to get into some trouble if you can't be more polite). I agree that Vanheim and Ermor's overall power are completely overlooked by the developers, even though Doms 3 is a great game. NT Jedi, I'm sorry but you've had each one of your points about strategy game balance shredded to pieces, yet you still maintain your position. I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that balance is a positive thing. Balance does not have to mean a lack of diversity, options or strategy.

Which brings me to my response to all this. DrPraetorious, I don't know which version of Magic: The Gathering you are talkng about, but I have played many, many, many tabletop and card strategy game and I always come back to Magic because it is one of the most robust and well crafted complex strategy games in the world. There are plenty of cool and powerful cards (ridiculously powerful) in MtG, but each of them requires some kind of sacrifice in order to field that kind of power. There are cards that can make you win the game instantly, but even the most powerul ones all have their requirements.

DrPraetorious, you seem to have the strongest defense in favor of leaving Vanheim alone, so let me challenge you. You made a lot of very valuable points in your last post, but the problem is that they don't apply to this situation. Let me exlain what I'm thinking.

a) It is fair for some nations to be stronger early on, and some nations stronger later.

Yes, this creates a diversity of strategy in the game.

b) It is fair for some tactics to be easier to use. ... I don't think glamour rushers are actually more likely to win [over all], even in highly experienced hands, but the double bless strategy is accessible, so it allows new players to at least participate in big MP games, and have some measure of success.

I'll remark on this potentially being a good point, except that for Vanheim it doesn't work the way you seem to imagine it. Let us do something here, Doctor. Let us pretend that every nation has something called a "Power Strategy" (PStrat). Some nations' PStrats are easier to field, while others require the experience and skill of the veteran to make work. Assuming that all PStrats are at least somewhat balanced, this would be quite a yummy aspect of the game. Many games are balanced in this way -- PC and live games. As you say, it gives new players the ability to at least be competitive, yet not necessarily guaranteeing them the win. For this to work, however, you have to be careful to make sure that the easy to use PStrats can not be further empowered by the more skilled players, turning them into something we shall call (for the sake of discussion) an "OverPowered Strategy" (OStrat). PStrats are good; OStrats are bad. The point people seem to be making in this thread, and I tend to agree, is that Vanheim (and in other news, Ermor...) utilize OStrats, not merely easy to discover PStrats.

c) It is fair for people to be eliminated on turn 8, especially if they adopt a long term strategy.

d) [...]

e) [...]

f) [...]

Yes, rushing is quite legitimate, even if newbies can do it. I hope nobody argues with you here, because the topic of this thead is not called "Should Rushing Be Allowed?". It's about whether Vanheim should nerfed. If Vanheim's rush happens to be an OStrat, then Vanheim should be nerfed, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to field a PStrat rush strategy.

There is a problem that I am willing to admit may exist: some nations may be unable to resist the glamour rush at all. It's all well and good to say "rock, paper, scissors" but no pairing of nations should be so unbalanced that you might as well give up[...]

Precise and congent.

I think that the main game should be altered, if it is altered at all, with the same philosophy.

Exactly. I like NT Jedi just fine, and I have nothing but positive things to say about his forum contributions, but I do think it's counter-prodctive to reply to peoples' concerns with "If you don't like it, MOD it." Not only is that an ideal that ends opinions and discussion; not only is it an ideal that promotes the notion the game is perfect as it is; but it also goes without saying. Of course, if we, the community, think the game needs fixing, we will mod it. That's what the Conceptual Balance series is all about. But because of DrPraetorious' points above, we shouldn't have to do too much to allow ourselves a fun MP experience.

Finally, let me throw a bone of discussion back into the pit

I've seen blade wind and archers mentioned as a counter to Vanheim. When I originally asked the question that embodies this thread, it was if Vaheim needs nerfing, in general. You see, I don't pick F9W9; nor do I rush. I choose Air magic for Vanheim. Not only does an A10 bless give high air shield to my Vans, but it also gives me the spell that turns the entire world stormy for the mid/late game. This further reduces the effect of missiles against me. So, as you can see, my sacred troops are never afraid of missile counters. That is easily prevented by Vanheim.

=$=

Play nice, children!!

[NTJedi]

BigJMoney said:
NT Jedi, I'm sorry but you've had each one of your points about strategy game balance shredded to pieces, yet you still maintain your position. I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit that balance is a positive thing.

The game has balance and since there's over FIFTY nations within the game this means there's plenty of room for a few to be very powerful since each game does not need to have Vanheim/Helheim. My points have been responded with statements which basically say, "We want Vanheim Nerfed for our MP games and others which don't like the changes can go use mods". Basically they don't want to mod their multiplayer games.

Two nations out of fifty nations can be powerful... since the host of every game has the option to remove them. (ex=#allowedplayer)

DrPraetorious said:
The problem is that we are not in agreement that glamour nations are overpowered. You have asserted that they are, and I have disagreed, I will summarize:

a) It is fair for some nations to be stronger early on, and some nations stronger later.

If you rephrase this as "It is for a nation to be either stronger than average early on or stronger later on" i'd sign it. This is one of the big problems with Van/Helheim though. They don't actually sacrificy late/midgame power for their rush power.

b) It is fair for some tactics to be easier to use. This, I think, is where the "newbies play vanheim" argument has merit. I don't think glamour rushers are actually more likely to win, even in highly experienced hands, but the double bless strategy is accessible, so it allows new players to at least participate in big MP games, and have some measure of success. You may not like being axed by my little sister on turn 9 with her pretty magic horsies - but somebody is going to get eliminated early and you can at least take it like a man.

As BigJmoney pointed out aptly, it is important that easy to use strategies don't get more powerful in the hands of a skilled user than hard to use strategies. Or to put it another way, ease of use and power of a strategy have to be proportional. Or else the skill of the players is far less important than dumb luck.

c) It is fair for people to be eliminated on turn 8, especially if they adopt a long term strategy. Taking a dormant pretender with good scales and strong diversifying magic should be a calculated risk, with significant risk of death before your god even reappears - vs. for example taking a great sage with a lot of early research or a supercombatant, either of which goes a long way towards repulsing a rusher.

Yes. As in all good games there is an element of risk vs. reward coupled with return on investment to modify the mere basics: stone/paper/scissors. With regard to rushs, the player taking a long-term strategy sacrifices early on survivability for an advantage later in the game. I.e. he risks being taken out very early for the reward of having a better pretender design for mid/late game. Again, it is very important for balancing that the reverse is also true. A good rush built must only be possible if you have to sacrifice lategame advantages for it.

d) It is fair to expect the other players to devote 100% of their effort to repulsing an attack from you, provided you devote 100% of your effort to attacking them.

No.

It is fair if strategies exist that will successfully kill your first neighbor 75% of the time, even under such a state of total war, provided that the rusher expects to suffer sufficient losses to allow other players to take advantage of their weakness, most of the time.

No.
In both cases, a player putting all resources into defense needs to have the advantage over a player putting all into offense.(note: defense. That is not the same as production buildup) This is very basic game balancing. Resources invested in defense are only useful in one special case: you being attacked. In dominions that means that for every viable offensive army/SC design there should exist and anti-built that can win against it for less cost. See for example priest spam and Ermor AE. Priest win consistently against undead, especially on a cost per cost basis, but are pretty useless against most everything else. There is no real counter to dual blessed sacred troops of some nations.

e) The game is meant to be balanced on medium sized maps. On postage stamp maps rushers have to be better, because otherwise they'd be weaker on larger maps.

Agreed.

f) It is fair that the game has a significant element of chance. Being next to a rusher position stinks - the only way to make it not-stink is to make all rush strategies worthless, because even when you repulse a rush, you probably suffer losses such that winning is a lot less likely.

Only where chance and skill are seperate. I.e. positioning is random. Landing next to Helheim with a longterm strategy even on a large map is bad luck. Having your temple earthquaked in turn 3 is bad luck. However there are other things were player skill is important, i.e. which strategy to choose, rush/buildup/balanced, and in those areas luck should not be more important than skill. It should never happen that one nation always looses against another, no matter what the player does.

There is a problem that I am willing to admit may exist: some nations may be unable to resist the glamour rush at all. It's all well and good to say "rock, paper, scissors" but no pairing of nations should be so unbalanced that you might as well give up - unless you pursued a long term strategy in which case you took your chances and it didn't work, sucks to be you.

Yes, this is a problem, but not the major one. The problem is that some nations are in effect Rockscissors.

If that is the case, those specific nations should be given new tools so that they have means of repulsing glamour rush - NOT a majority of the time (since then glamour rushing would become an unviable strategy) but a significant fraction of the time.

Incorrect. If you use an offensive strategy, and the guy you attacked knew about it / made a good guess and employs a strategy specifically designed at countering yours he should nearly always win. Having one strategy that can beat all other strategies the majority of the time, as you want glamour rush to be, is plainly imbalanced. It is the very definition if imbalanced. The point of rock/paper/scissors not that rock is a "means of repulsing glamour rush - NOT a majority of the time" but that rock ALWAYS beats scissors. Period.