Should we ban the Griffin Conservatory and the Hive of Serpents? — General

Registered: 11/15/2008

Posts: 2,497

#1 5/26/2009 4:48 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Dear players, I would like to propose a controversial idea for discussion: completely banning the use of provisions and clues in the rules (please don't throw virtual rotten tomatoes and eggs at me :)). This idea is not accidental or spontaneous; I have been thinking about it for a long time and carefully, and I am increasingly convinced that if it is not necessary, it will definitely make online battles much more interesting. Arguments in favor: the placement of clues and provisions is absolutely chaotic; the problem is not how often they are taken, but whether they are given out or not. People have repeatedly expressed their opposition to the "monster week," but the "monster week" is nothing compared to a couple of maximum clues or well-distributed provisions, because you still need to build and buy +5 monsters, but here it's a complete freebie. A possible ban on clues and provisions could increase the role of native troops in castles and bring a fresh perspective and new interest to online battles. P.S. 1. This is just my personal opinion, although I am confident in it. 2. Moderators, please attach a poll.

Registered: 11/15/2008

Posts: 2,497

#3 5/26/2009 8:27 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Did I express myself clearly? Hidden resources are a completely different matter; you still need to acquire them (and they are usually guarded and not always located nearby), and most importantly, they require troops, which are few in number (compared to a couple or three hives, for example) and cost money. Basically, I would like to hear reasonable counterarguments, other than something like "this isn't chess." Regarding the majority of games, I doubt that...

Registered: 11/27/2007

Posts: 5,092

#4 5/27/2009 3:50 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Recently, based on similar reasoning, I created a script to change the contents of canned goods and hives. Gameplay experience quickly showed that the number of hiding spots on the respawn point and the ability to quickly build a double-build army become very important. That is, if one player gets a good number of hiding spots, the other is left behind and can't catch up. If one player gets a double-build army, they can build up their forces, buy upgrades, and easily defeat the opponent. They don't have to worry about the opponent arriving on turn 2 with a strong army, full of control and stats gained from angels and vipers. So, the idea is not good; we've seen this before.

Registered: 3/9/2008

Posts: 3,038

#5 5/27/2009 4:41 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Recently I played with a foreigner. He has about 10-15 games under his belt. I ask: what are the rules? He replies: I ban everything I've ever lost to. And he listed it all, including Griffin Conservatories and beehives. We played, and I built a secondary Conflux. After the game, he cheerfully suggests: let's play again, now + Conflux is banned. I wonder what he'll have left after 20 games?
We recently discussed Griffin Conservatories and beehives — Pasha suggested it. Discuss it again?
I don't care what rules we play by. But I don't want to introduce such a ban into the Season rules. I'm against it.

In reply to Wicc

Registered: 4/29/2007

Posts: 11,704

#6 5/27/2009 4:43 AM UTC

Auto-translated

The idea isn't new. It's been suggested a million times. Someone even plays by these rules, I think. But IMO, it's not quite right... Without canned resources, they'll start exploiting hidden spots, the starting army, and so on. There will be even more randomness, as I see it.

In reply to Dirty_Player

Registered: 11/15/2008

Posts: 2,497

#7 5/27/2009 6:45 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

The idea isn't new. It's been suggested a million times. Some people even play by these rules. But IMO, it's not the right approach. Without stockpiles, players will start hoarding resources, building up their starting army, etc. There will be even more randomness, I think.

The arguments are completely unserious. What is a "stockpile" of level 6, for example? It's an additional 15-20 units of level 6 at the end of the month (which still need to be bought, and there's rarely an abundance of money). Plus, a couple of maxed-out hives – and that's a quick and easy advantage. As for the starting army, it's ridiculous; I'd like to hear more serious objections. Either I'm stupid, or someone explain to me why banning the "monster of the week" doesn't cause serious objections among anyone, but banning much easier and more numerous troops does? I remember being accused of being conservative, but it seems many here are far more conservative than I am.

Added 2 minutes ago

Wicc

Recently, based in part on such reasoning, I created a script to change the contents of stockpiles and hives.

Game practice quickly showed that the number of stockpiles on the map and the ability to double-build become very important.

That is, if one player gets good stockpiles, the other is left behind and can't catch up in power. If one player gets double-build, they can build up their economy, buy units, and dominate. And they don't worry about the opponent rushing them on turn 2 with a force of control and stat-boosting units obtained through angels and vivs.

So, the idea is bad; we've been there, done that.

I think all these arguments are nonsense. As far as I can see, most games are decided either by a rush or by whoever gets more angels/vivs. It's not serious when someone shows up on turn 2 with 7-9 angels; what kind of double-build can compete with that?

Added 2 minutes ago

Pit for LM

Recently, I played with a foreigner who had only 10-15 games played. I asked him: what rules do you use? He replied: I ban everything that I've ever lost because of. And he listed everything, including stockpiles and hives. We played, and I built a secondary Conflux. After the game, he happily suggested: let's play again, now with Conflux banned. I wonder what he'll have left after 20 games.

Would you like me to explain why most bans in the rules are complete nonsense compared to not banning hives and stockpiles? Or is that obvious? P.S. I will admit that this idea is wrong if I hear truly serious objections, and not childish babble about the role of the starting army.

In reply to Wlk777

Registered: 4/29/2007

Posts: 11,704

#8 5/27/2009 7:02 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Wlk777

The arguments are absolutely not serious. What is an external dwelling of the 6th level, for example?

It seems to me that the arguments are serious.

Taking cans and hives—for me, this is also part of the game and strategy. The ability to take them as early as possible is also a skill.
On which week will Dragon Utopia be taken without cans and hives? Again—it's dragging out the game.
We'll be reading reports like:
"The opponent was given an elf external dwelling" or "on 112 I'm capturing my own secondary, decided not to continue :D "
Such "accidents" will start deciding the game.
Random is random precisely because you play what the computer threw together; that's why we love it! If you want perfect balance—play fixes!

Added after 1 minute
And one more thing. Play about 10 parties with a ban on cans/hives and write down your impressions of the game. I think many will agree (especially those who suggested this before)

In reply to Wlk777

Registered: 11/27/2007

Posts: 5,092

#9 5/27/2009 7:09 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Wlk777

Or am I just stupid?

Not entirely. And you also tend to be rude.

I'll explain again – the number of hidden locations/double builds is a whim of the generator; it either exists or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then it won't (starting from week 3, and even from week 2, double builds don't really matter much). Plus, they are easy to find. And little depends on the player here.

And the "canned food" locations are everywhere on the map, so the number of ducks/angels collected depends, among other things, on the player's skill. Not only in the sense of "finding" them, but also in the sense of "taking" them.

I agree that the presence of "canned food" locations slightly unbalances the game, especially when players are located close to each other. But banning them would ruin the game even more – see the reasons above.

A possible solution could be the following feature: to obtain angels/ducks, you need not only to kill the guards but also to pay some gold (proportional to the value of the reward). Then, taking them would take a little more time, mass looting would be more difficult, and there would be competition with troops from other sources.

In reply to Wicc

Registered: 9/26/2008

Posts: 2,571

#10 5/27/2009 7:17 AM UTC

Auto-translated

And besides, some swamp creature would have to put in a lot of effort to get those supplies from its base, you'd get tired of transporting all those angels. :D

In reply to Dirty_Player

Registered: 11/15/2008

Posts: 2,497

#11 5/27/2009 7:38 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Dirty_Player

I think the arguments are serious.

Taking cans and hives - for me, this is also part of the game and strategy. The ability to take them as early as possible is also a skill.
On which week will the Dragon Utopia be taken without cans and hives? Again - it's dragging out the game.
We'll end up reading reports like:
"The opponent was given an external dwelling of elves" or "on 112 I'm capturing my own secondary, decided not to continue :D "
Such "accidents" will start deciding the game.
Random is random for a reason: you play what the computer threw together, that's why we love it! If you want perfect balance - play fixes!

Added after 1 minute
And one more thing. Play about 10 parties with a ban on cans/hives and write your impressions of the game. I think many will agree (especially those who suggested this before)

My god, why even take those miserable hives on the 2nd week; for most Castles, even the max is easily taken. With cans, there might be trouble on 2-4, but their presence is still more important than the difficulty of taking them. Not continuing with a native secondary? Nonsense. Often it's hard to build up just one Castle and then buy out troops from it, and as for a second one, it's simply unreal without a huge amount of money. It's hard to get through that troops still need to be built and bought. Furthermore, in many parties I've played online, cans\hives were either not distributed or weren't taken in time, and it was quite interesting, at least for me. Therefore, the objections are not serious.

Added after 4 minutes

Wicc

Not without that. And you're also being very rude.

Firstly, you are the one being rude, and people have already told you about it. Secondly, if you're some kind of glamorous St. Petersburg intellectual, then come on, address me using "вы".

Added after 1 minute

Oelm

And in general, some swamp would still have to try and take those cans from their own respawn; you'll get tired of transporting those angels :D

What do you mean "transport them", it's not that hard, although for the swamp it is one of the necessary limitations, I think

In reply to Wlk777

Registered: 8/31/2008

Posts: 2,198

#12 5/27/2009 7:42 AM UTC

Auto-translated

to Wlk777
Remember our last game (with a disclaimer about my skill level, obviously). At my respawn I had 2 cons and a Dragon Utopia, but absolutely no wood, plus a bug: on the way to an adjacent secondary site, I hit a mountain (I don't think I've encountered that before). You only had an external dwelling of elves and a portal in the dungeon.
Meaning all week I spent every turn fighting off skeleton piles for resources for horses in the citadel, then money for redemption, and I could only get a 3-stack of cons around 125 or so... While you stripped a free respawn (though I stole a couple of piles from there) and came to me at 126 with your native power. Which mattered more—my 3 angels with a level 12 Valkyrie or your 20 elves and company with a level 7 Kirr—you saw for yourself.
Let's ban cons, double-build, external dwellings, and let something else matter. Like the wood piles at the sawmill.
For me, the whole beauty of randomness is exactly in the randomness.
Damn, it kills me when you spend 3 weeks calculating things, making some beautiful moves on the last turn, fighting off stuff with your turns, overtaking the opponent in terms of stats, and then they get a tea kettle or a book in the Dragon Utopia and that's it—the excuse is ready: obviously he won, he had a Dragon Utopia with a tea kettle! I'm not talking specifically about myself right now, but in general. Rarely does anyone write: "I lost because I played like sh**" (c). Of course not, the opponent just had too many cons and snails.

In reply to Wlk777

Registered: 4/29/2007

Posts: 11,704

#13 5/27/2009 7:48 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Wlk777

and it was quite interesting, at least for me. The objections are not serious, therefore.

I, for one, find it interesting to play without any rules at all, while some people enjoy playing with fixed rules... The most important thing is that the game should be enjoyable! If you find it more interesting this way, play with someone without restrictions, like Dubrovin (if I'm not mistaken, he suggested banning them), but making this a rule is too radical, and many people are happy with the way things are.

In reply to Kash

Registered: 11/15/2008

Posts: 2,497

#14 5/27/2009 7:48 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Kash

to Wlk777
Remember our last game (with a disclaimer about my skill level, obviously). I had 2 cons and a Dragon Utopia at my respawn, but absolutely no wood, plus a bug: on the way to an adjacent secondary site, I hit a mountain (I don't think I've seen that before). You only had an external dwelling of elves and a portal in the dungeon.
Meaning all week long, using every possible trick, I was fighting for some resources for horses in the citadel, then money for buyouts, and I could only get a tier-3 con around 125 or something... While you stripped a free respawn (though I stole a couple of piles from there) and came to me at 126 with your home power. As for what mattered more — my 3 angels under a level 12 Valkyrie or your 20 elves and company under a level 7 Kyrria — you saw that for yourself.
Let's ban cons, double-builds, external dwellings, and something else will matter instead. Like the piles of wood at the sawmill.
For me, the whole beauty of randomness is exactly in the randomness.
Damn, it kills me when you spend 3 weeks calculating things, doing some fancy moves on the last turn, fighting through stuff with tricks, overtaking your opponent in terms of stats, and then they get a tea kettle or a book in the Dragon Utopia and that's it — excuse ready: obviously he won, he had a Dragon Utopia with a tea kettle! I'm not talking specifically about myself right now, but in general. Rarely does anyone write: "I lost because I played like sh**" (quote). Of course not, the opponent just had too many cons and snails.

Regarding the last game — you had plenty of external dwellings (with horses, marks, and some others I don't remember), but you fixated on those cons and instead of developing normally and breaking through to another secondary site, you relied on them — and here is the result: there was no decent resistance in the finale; if there were a ban, the game might have gone differently

Registered: 11/27/2007

Posts: 5,092

#17 5/27/2009 10:59 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Let me remind you that the discussion in this vein started with your comment: "All these arguments are crap, in my opinion." Yes, before that, there was my phrase: "So the idea is crap; we've been through this before." But the difference between them is that my phrase is 1) true, 2) theoretically justified, and 3) practically justified. Your phrase, on the other hand, is supported only by vague arguments like: "As far as I can see, most games are decided either by a rush or by whoever gets more ducks/angels. It's not serious when, in the 2nd week, someone shows up with 7-9 angels; how can you possibly have a double-build strategy against that?" And they are vague because if there are no ducks and angels, you get almost the same thing, with the difference that the rush will be a little later, but it will be unstoppable (because they got a lot of hidden units/native castles).

Registered: 8/31/2008

Posts: 2,198

#18 5/27/2009 11:01 AM UTC

Auto-translated

but you got stuck on these "canned" units and instead of developing properly and breaking through to another secondary resource, you relied on them – and here's the result – there's no real resistance in the final, if there was a ban, the game might have gone differently.

That's what I'm saying – the presence of these "canned" units in that particular generation didn't really matter, because there were problems with everything else. I don't know how to take 3-4 "canned" units as a starting army and without magic. The early game was also tough, you shouldn't just look at the last save. But if I had played to the maximum and managed to get the "canned" units at levels 121-123 (and it was probably possible), you would have naturally concluded that it didn't generate in your favor. So, in my opinion, it's not the "canned" units that matter, but the ability to use advantages and turn around unfavorable situations.
Arguing isn't my thing. I said what I wanted to say.