Is the REAL problem with VQs...Norfleet?

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]

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 ]

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]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

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'?

---

lol. that doesn't follow in the least. you don't happen to be working for Wolfowitz and Feith are you?



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

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

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?

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]

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

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 )

(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)

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-pôrshn, -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.]