SCs other than the vq

[Kel]

[quote]Originally posted by Zen:

Now on that 75% chance of not taking out the pretender what are the results if you fail? Your VQ is left with 3-6 affliction, possibly crippling, loss of gems (if you are not running around unequipped, if you are, then I would say the mortal pretener has a 90% chance of success) and time to wait for healing. Now that may be an option to you, to waste your VQ or SC's turn by a minimal chance of success, but I don't think that is a strategy as much as a personal level of risk vs reward scenario with the hope being you win.

Hehe, you added a bunch of elements which i didn't assume to make a point. Now take out all those factors that you stilted in favor of your point and let's get back to the point.

There are many cases where immortality makes something a good choice, where it would be a bad choice without it. Again I say, taking advantage of improved risk vs. reward is the mark fo a good player, not a bad player.

Why break that by suddenly catering to popular desire instead of sound logic?

I think most people think that they are using logic. You might think their logic is flawed but they probably think your logic is flawed as well. Being a good player doesn't make your logic correct and everyone else's 'popular desire' or 'will-nilly' or what not. I realize that I am responding to you but let me broaden the scope...I have seen this a lot lately, from a few different people...who seemed to run out of debate on the issues and turned to debating the people who were making them.

- Kel

Originally posted by Kel:

Hehe, you added a bunch of elements which i didn't assume to make a point. Now take out all those factors that you stilted in favor of your point and let's get back to the point.

I didn't add anything, you left out the fact that if you failed, that is what would happen. It's easy to know what happens if a mortal pretender dies, he dies and all his junk goes with him. But by your example you don't think that is a factor at all? Just because you get to keep them, doesn't mean you always want to throw away a turn of you SC for a low to mediocre chance for success.

There are many cases where immortality makes something a good choice, where it would be a bad choice without it. Again I say, taking advantage of improved risk vs. reward is the mark fo a good player, not a bad player.

The only example then is the one you gave me above then? Because I'm not seeing it.

I think most people think that they are using logic. You might think their logic is flawed but they probably think your logic is flawed as well. Being a good player doesn't make your logic correct and everyone else's 'popular desire' or 'will-nilly' or what not. I realize that I am responding to you but let me broaden the scope...I have seen this a lot lately, from a few different people...who seemed to run out of debate on the issues and turned to debating the people who were making them.- Kel

Most people may be using logic. It's the same logic that they use when saying "Ermor is Overpowered" or "Pangaea is overpowered" or "Water9 Blessing is Overpowered". Being a good player allows someone to overlook some of the obvious pitfalls of still learning the game and go indepth to the various levels that the issues are presented in.

I am not debating at all, in fact, the issue was dead in another thread and long ago. I'm defending the point, which is: Those who are debating for the change have not addressed or countered the points made by those who are not for the 'balance' change. It is in the hands of the accuser to provide the burden of proof and it has not been done. Especially considering that every effect that VQ's can have can be reproduced on one if not more other pretenders spending the same if not less points to do so.

[ May 05, 2004, 03:02: Message edited by: Zen ]

[PvK]

Seems to me that Vampire Lords, while as Zen pointed out, have some important disadvantages compared to VQ pretenders (magic and dominion HP effects), have two advantages: fighting skill and (much more important) cheapness to manufacture (compared to Wish (!!) and Gift of Reason). Anyway, they seem potentially similar in ability to VQ's, and are manufacturable by anyone with blood magic.

Other SC's? Well, Prince of Death may not be immortal, but is considerably tougher than a VQ. Many of the giants have considerably more hit points than a VQ. Many have better fighting skills than a VQ. Moreover, many summonable units have better fighting abilities and thus SC potential than a VQ. They aren't immortal, but being summonable means not only are they replacable, but you can have several at once. Some of them are even quite cheap. Take for example Death summons.

Just looking at Pretender SC's, many of them are tougher than a VQ; they're just not immortal and don't have as many built-in abilities. Add some items and/or spells, though, and VQ may be outmatched.

* Moloch (esp. if they fix the rout issue)
* Prince of Death
* Ghost King
* White or Black Bull
* Manticore (limited but tough and ZERO points)
* Mother of Tuathas
* Titan
* Ancient Kraken (ok, acqutic, but try to kill one with a VQ )
* Dagon
* Lord of the Desert Sun
* Scorpion King
* Nataraja
* Shedu
* Son of Niefel
* Carrion Dragon
* Lord of the Wild
* Allfather
* Asynja
* Dracolich
* Lord of the Night

The Lich (or Saurolich, or Lich Queen) seems about on par with the VQ - immortal, a tad flammable and not flying but with natural protection of 15 (!). Bog Mummy also looks pretty tough. Ya they aren't naturally ethereal, but more things ignore ethereal than ignore natural protection.

Originally posted by rabelais:
... To the best of my knowledge, dominion changes happen *after* all battles, so you can't sucker an immortal into a trap dominion.

Which is IMHO, too bad. Would be nice to cause the immortal munchkins some contingent paranoid anxiety.

This was considered a feature, ...don't know if changing the phaseorder might potentially be rebalancing.
...

Hmm. Ya, it depends on the sequence of events (battle, preach, ressurrect). Zen seemed to think it would work. Anyone have spare time to test it, or know from experience in 2.11?

PvK

[Kel]

[quote]Originally posted by Zen:

Those who are debating for the change have not addressed or countered the points made by those who are not for the 'balance' change.

I actually see the reverse in most cases recently (and this is not specific or directly related to you, personally, btw). I see a lot of "It's not invincible" (whether clams, ermor, pangaea, whatever ) being used in response to "It's over-powered". I also see a lot of "Well, you just don't know how to play" in response to the question of something being over-powered. Finally, there is the "Your point isn't valid because it's just a trend" argument.

I don't really know if clams or ermor or VQs or pangaea, heh...or whatever are overpowered and logic isn't even right 100% of the time...but the logic on why they are has been quite reasonable and persuasive (ok, some of it, not all of it ). Some other people may feel they know better, based on their experiences, and they may or may not be right, but the logic, at least in many cases, hasn't been there to support their anecdotal evidence, imo. At least not to the degree that the other side has presented it.

Of course, people can argue for a lot of reasons and there is the potential to 'band-wagon'. There is also the possibility that some people may be arguing without experimenting much. But really, resistance to change, arrogance and personal agendas on the other side are just as frivolous.

Obviously, changes shouldn't (and won't, I am sure!) be made instantly, without thought, just based on what some have called 'the flavor of the moment' and I have seen some suggestions for the game which were clearly just one person's thoughts on what would be 'cool' to see in a game...but some of these issues, as I understand it, have been around for a while and aren't just an individual trying to make the game 'theirs'.

I respect that a lot of people know more about the game than I do (maybe most people !) but that doesn't make them impartial, it doesn't make them logical, it doesn't mean they don't have personal agendas and it certainly doesn't make them right. Credentials only get you so far.

Like I said, I am not trying to crusade against immortality or VQs or clams...in fact, I don't think we are that far apart from agreement here, anyway...but if something just doesn't sound right, I might just voice my thoughts, noob or not.

- Kel

Originally posted by Kel:
I actually see the reverse in most cases recently (and this is not specific or directly related to you, personally, btw). I see a lot of "It's not invincible" (whether clams, ermor, pangaea, whatever ) being used in response to "It's over-powered". I also see a lot of "Well, you just don't know how to play" in response to the question of something being over-powered. Finally, there is the "Your point isn't valid because it's just a trend" argument.

So what your saying in essence is: If there is a way to beat it, or any number of ways and it has been shown then it can still be overpowered because not every nation/player/skill-level can do it? What other rational are you looking for? If it's overpowered that means to me, that it gives more than it should for it's current cost/use. But the determination for that is how abusable it is and if any thing/style can measure up to it. Then if there are none, it's a singular instance, if there are others, what is the commonality or why are these other not considered the same?

I respect that a lot of people know more about the game than I do (maybe most people !) but that doesn't make them impartial, it doesn't make them logical, it doesn't mean they don't have personal agendas and it certainly doesn't make them right. Credentials only get you so far.

All of those points could be presented to each and every one who presents a point pro or con, so you have to follow the path of what seems more logical to you personally and go from there. There is no way of getting around personal preference of how you play the game and the results you have viewed for yourself.

Like I said, I am not trying to crusade against immortality or VQs or clams...in fact, I don't think we are that far apart from agreement here, anyway...but if something just doesn't sound right, I might just voice my thoughts, noob or not.
- Kel

Which you should do. I don't believe anyone was shushing anyone or saying "Your opinion is worthless" but more along the lines of "maybe things are not so black and white, this is why".

[ May 05, 2004, 04:39: Message edited by: Zen ]

[Zapmeister]

It is in the hands of the accuser to provide the burden of proof and it has not been done.

You have correctly assigned the burden of proof, but I think you unfairly dismiss the (albeit subjective) proof that has been presented. That proof is the persistent and disproportional popularity of the Vampire Queen. Although there may be reasons (other than the VQ being overpowered) for that popularity, the fact remains that the popularity reduces diversity in the game, and that's a problem that could be solved by nerfing the VQ.

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
You have correctly assigned the burden of proof, but I think you unfairly dismiss the (albeit subjective) proof that has been presented. That proof is the persistent and disproportional popularity of the Vampire Queen. Although there may be reasons (other than the VQ being overpowered) for that popularity, the fact remains that the popularity reduces diversity in the game, and that's a problem that could be solved by nerfing the VQ.

Sigh. Again. I may have subjectively dismissed it because I personally don't see it, and haven't seen it in any games I've played/playing in the Last month. So if my PoV is worth less than anyone on the other side of the debate then my subjectivity is the culprit.

Popularity does reduce diversity in the game, but popularity is fickle. I'm not quite ready to give up on human nature to believe that because something is popular but not effective it will remain popular. If it is popular and effective then it needs to be looked into (which I thought you read the other thread where I said it was, but you might have forgotten) to determine if it is popular because it is effective and ways to reimplement the diversity. The easiest but not neccesarily best solution being destroying the popularity of the one, instead of making the others more attractive.

[Cainehill]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
The lack of item slots is not that big a drawback on immortal combat pretenders, if you put a heap of items on an immortal you are 'compromising' its expendability, especially the flying ones which can quickly get back to the front if slain.

Depends. A VQ benefits greatly from Black Steel Plate, as well as other items which are pretty cheap to replace. It almost doesn't matter if you lose your 3rd battle in such a case, as long as you won your first two. And the VQ can be equipped well enough to have a shot against almost anything.

Whereas a Phoenix can _never_ be equipped well enough to deal with certain SCs. Especially if the Phoenix only invested in Fire, its chances against something like an ice devil and slim and none. Almost any other flying SC can kill it in the first turn of combat. Even garden variety knights can.

Phoenix winds up capable of roast and toasting many (but not all) armies. But it's barbecue chicken against many if not most SCs with mediocre equipment. (IE - fire & lightning immunity - easy to get.)

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Whereas a Phoenix can _never_ be equipped well enough to deal with certain SCs. Especially if the Phoenix only invested in Fire, its chances against something like an ice devil and slim and none. Almost any other flying SC can kill it in the first turn of combat. Even garden variety knights can.

That's because a Phoenix is not an SC and is not designed to be used that way: It's very effective in the roles of kamikaze attacks on provinces with either fire or air magic, and is an excellent support caster....but neither its price tag, slottage, nor physical attributes promote its use as an SC.

[ May 05, 2004, 05:20: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

[rabelais]

This is my Last post on the VQ thread, I am simply too frustrated with it.

No one has responded to my Posts in other threads, I though the objections to the SC VQ were well documented by now... if I missed the rebuttal, please direct me to it.

As I have said in other Posts, naked immortal SC's that can destroy entire armies (particularly before turn 30 or 20 or 10!!!)are obviously broken.

The castling/temple-ing strat just makes it a more efficient munchkinism, the fundamental problem is that getting a new flying army every turn for free, with no risk of losing it, in whole or in part (the latter being the fate of most normal armies...) while getting it's full tactical benefit.

The resources which must be devoted to stopping an immortal SC far outweigh the costs on a per use basis for producing one, (especially for ermor, whose recruitment does not suffer from scale poverty)... and are highly fraught with the risk of failure, attrition, and are much less flexible weapons than the flying immortal SC.

If there is a counter for it, other than attacking with overwhelming superiority in three places at once, and losing two of those *nonimmortal* armies while taking down one of the castles... you see my point.

The strat is so effective under the current rule set, it is broken.

Your saying someone, an expert, "almost" beat it, having encountered it several times before, isn't much of a defense.

If I know what my opponent is going to do and I *still* can't stop it in a cost effective way, knowing it's coming ... it is BROKEN.

This is a strategy game, ...optimization is supposed to be difficult and non commutative.

In this case it is neither.

Rabe the Retiring


references for those wanting more detail...


http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...583;p=2#000036

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...583;p=1#000050