Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

1) Yes, I think clams are currently overpowered and should be toned down.
36% (25)
2) Hmm, I don't really have strong opinion about it, but I wouldn't mind having them toned down to satisfy all these people who complain about them.
26% (18)
3) Frankly I have no idea, I haven't tried or experienced clam-hoarding tactic in MP game.
13% (9)
4) No, clams are just fine, leave them as it is.
25% (17)

I thought this was going to end up a problem. As I said, I can see where some people might view 1 & 2 as being in agreement with each other. I can also see where 2 & 4 could be in agreement. Question 2 seems to allow for those who dont really want to declare their own opinion to be right for everyone.

Its all in the viewpoint. You dont have to agree with that view in oder to agree that some people might have viewed it that way when they voted. So I think I would be slow in declaring a winner based on this poll.

I took classes in propoganda in the military (in community college they call it advertising, and in university the PolSci folks call it biased wording). Im fully aware that a fair poll is a VERY difficult thing to write.

Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I wouldn't quite say a vote for "wouldn't mind" is the same as a vote for yes. Personally, I am indifferent to any OFFICIAL change, but strongly opposed to the general climate of snivelling. I don't see it as a problem as it stands now: If the developers feel a tweak is in order, I am not bothered by this. I am, however, strongly opposed to any outlandish, off-the-wall solutions like the ones you've come up with.

Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">*sigh* Everybody is a critic...


All right, if it would give additional encouragment to developers to consider the nerf it has archieved something already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

After all, even 37% are significantly more than 25%, althout personally I think it is clear that those who voted for option 2 are more inclined to the change, than against the change.


Ok Johan - how would you modify the poll to make it less "slanted" in your opinion? I would rather keep the existing options (I think option 2 was an very important one, it is what it said: "I not care too much, but wouldn't mind having it nerfed to satisfy those who care". But you you are aginst it it could be taken out).


So what options would you add to the poll (or changed exiting ones) ? We could put up "The Ultimate Developer-approved Clam Poll To End All Clam Polls ). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ May 05, 2004, 07:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">True. I could cover all possible options, but it would take significantly more than 4 options. I was trying to keep number of options rather low. Although perhaps there should be another "neutral option", something along the lines "I dobn't care, period!" now that I think about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

I have a potentially stupid question.

Does anyone have an actual *experience* when clam "hoarding" broke an MP game?

Did this breakage occur before or after someone got to casting Wish? (Which is by definition, long tradition, and intuitively blatantly *intended* to break the game.

(Which is why it is fun?)

This is a design issue, again sepearte from clam hoarding as such.

The rate of return on clams is (geometrically) not very good, you would have to be in a remarkably passive game to have it be an optimal use of resources.

(Except insofar as there isn't that much to do with water gems as such... a known issue, but different from the hoarding one.)

I proposed in a thread some time ago that pearls be purchasable for 50g, and I'm not even sure *that* would break the game. (Wish excluded!)

Does anyone have any non-wish horror stories about clam MP disintergrations?

I think the problem may lie with wish and water gems, not clams. Clams just give uncreative people ways to use resources that are underutilized by the game.

Killing two phoenixes with one hand grenade, I think what we might do is let water gems have a low/med level pop renewal effect. This would create a different kind of problem (pop farming?) but I'm confident our thanatonic devs would keep it from being *unseemily* profitable http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

People who like clams very likely hate the very (non-geometric) idea of nonrenewable resources.

Might be fun, (and ultimately balancing!) to make them choose.

Might lessen the pressure for the builder types to hoard and it's easy to kill pop, it's very hard by comparision to take clams away from an opponent.

The actual numbers (gems---> pop) would depend on the tax rate (is it currently 1goldper 50 people>20000?) but it would, particularly if we fixed the instaovertaxing=free pillage and wish problems, make for a more interesting set of options.

Just a thought,


Rabe for Reasonable Renewal

[ May 04, 2004, 21:31: Message edited by: rabelais ]

Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If there was a water gem-consuming ritual or global that had a greatly enhancing effect on population growth, particularly in synergy with growth scale, I would DEFINITELY be seriously considering this as an alternative to clamming or a living nation. As it stands, however, even if you do not backfeed(transmute astral back to water for more clams), you will want to produce clams using just your natural water gem income simply because water gems are more or less otherwise useless except for forging some items, but these are desirable only in limited quantity.

And if you just produce clams using natural water income, and have decent water income, you WILL be able to compete with somebody playing a clamhoard strategy: Astral Pearls are utilized very inefficiently. Ever notice how most Astral spells cost way more than their actual effective value? Ether Gate is 90 astral gems. Angelic Hosts are 50. Neither of these pack the killing power, say, an Ice Devil, which carries a price tag of about 50 blood slaves (blood slaves can be viewed as having an exchange rate no worse than 2.5:1 slaves:astral), which means an Ice Devil, pre-equipment, carries a price tag comparable to 20S, possibly less. Even equipping expenses won't make their cost equal to that of an Ether Gate, which is not as impressive. Astral gems can only be utilized inefficiently. It is the complete worthlessness of water gems that promotes their use in such a manner. I don't even always "clamhoard", in the sense of transmuting astrals back to waters: In many games, I've just produced them with available water income, transmuting only to make an even production run(no more than one clam is paid for by more than 50% transmutated gems per turn). I mean, what ELSE do you do with water gems? I don't need THAT many boots of quickness.

Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

I think the three main issues are:

1) the aesthetic of clam-hoarding - some people just think it's a boring way to play the game.

2) the mechanism of clam-hoarding - does it promote success so well that it becomes a primary strategy (i.e. one that is seen as superior to most)? if so, is this actual (testable) or virtual (matter of perception only)?

3) the item itself - is it too cheap or too expensive, and if so, to what extent?

So I would poll along these three axes, with a space for further comment on each of the three. But I'm not going to, because it seems to take up more space than it's worth... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm curious about this as well. If Wish were taken out would clam hoarding still be overpowered? Most of the really useful things to do with astral gems (teleport, astral window, gateway, dome of arcane warding, vengeance of the dead, battle spells, forging, etc) are cheap and as Norfleet mentions, the high end spells are generally overpriced. So most of the time you should be able to get by on normal astral income. You can, of course convert pearls to other gems, but that's a bit inefficient. So once again, my question:

Do the people who think that clams are overpowered think they still would be if Wish weren't available?

[ May 06, 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: Yossar ]

Re: New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.
 

Well, yes. Isn't the purpose of clam hording to be able to cast Wish(s) each turn? In long games it seems it only comes down to wishing the **** out of each other. I wouldn't spend a single thought about clam hording in a "no wish" game.

Calmon recently showed me a game in which he faces a VQ that was buffed with 8 wishes for magic power. Let that sink in...

Also I think the high end astral spells are only overpriced if you don't have clams at all.