• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why? Such spells help to move the game towards its end- Levitating Temple Units ARE hard to beat if you don't have comparable forces. Even more so if they are Vamped. But why is that a bad thing?

In most games, for a player to have levitation and a temple unit, a fair bit of research must have occurred. Isn't the point of the game to build a powerful force? In MP, human players should be making intelligent research choices- like dispel and counterspell. Frankly, I will be very surprised if Agile Mind gets cast in MP more than rarely. That means that the "big spells," like Flame, Vamp, and Levi will take more than one turn to cast. Krolm worship (with his cheap divine counterspell) and Dauros worship will probably be more common as players react.

In the meantime, players who opt for low-tier zerg style will have viable strategies to try out- isolating the capital means no credible danger. There are tools already in the game to minimize/prevent flying temple units of doom. If a player can pull them off, why shouldn't they win?

tl;dr A flying Vamp Adept of Lunord is like a nuke in Civ- first player to get has a huge advantage. But the other players have only themselves to blame for the player getting that far, outside of truly unusual map positions.

That's not the point. The point of the game is not to make the most powerful unit, but to make you think.

Levitation and water walk make unit type redundant, why would you get a flyer if you can get a temple unit fly by using levitation or why you want a battleship to protect your territory against enemy transport if they will just water walk his unit and kill all your battleships, don't tell me that it can be dispelled, just choose dauros and it is undispelled forever.

By allowing player to change unit role at will, this game gives too much freedom, a game that give too much freedom is a bad game.

Again, the point of the game is not to make the most powerful unit, but to make you think because this is a strategy game. If we want to make the most powerful unit or character, we should play rpg or adventure game. If there are too much freedom, in AI programming, more freedom means heavier burden on the AI, because there are more variable for AI to evaluate before executing its strategies, that's why Warlock AI is a joke.


Short words, Levitation and water walk screw unit role, making some units outcasted or never/rarely used, this means the game is not balanced, it's better if those outcasted unit are removed forever from the game rather than being there just for a show or the developer can rebalance it either through spell balancing or unit balancing (i.e: buff battleships).
 
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I fundamentally don't find "unit role" to be as sacrosanct as you do. A dynamic where unit viability changes throughout the game is fine with me. Statements like "game that give too much freedom is a bad game" are likewise ones I don't find persuasive.

The point of the strategy game to me is to have fun. I enjoy chess (where balance is pretty darn equal), but I also enjoy W:MotA.
 
just choose dauros and it is undispelled forever.
Maybe then that spell is overpowererd and out of place, not water walking/flying?
The big advantage for other units is that they have it by default, no dispelling, no additional upkeep. Maybe there also should be a bought perk-addition "dispell" spell (if there isn't already, just no native abilities)...

Yes, it can be dispelled. As mentioned, with going over water; instant death. That's one easy way to get rid of a very powerful army of the enemy. And of course, that will happen in MP. Why fireball if you can insta-kill as such, allowed because the opponent gave you the opportunity.

Also doubt Agile Mind will be rare. If it means certain key spells become un-counterspellable, surely it's very powerful. Just hard to research it yourself, since enemies obviously want to countercast it too if they notice.

But even then water units do seem to need some tweaking in the cost/profit department.
 
Also doubt Agile Mind will be rare. If it means certain key spells become un-counterspellable, surely it's very powerful. Just hard to research it yourself, since enemies obviously want to countercast it too if they notice.

Right. The fact other competent players will check you spell cast window every turn means that Agile Mind will virtually always be counter spelled. Hence rare. I suppose there could be a prisoners dilemma that emerges- which player will sacrifice their spell turn for the common good? But since it takes between 2 and three turns, other players who let it get up have only themselves to blame.
 
You could still do it before the other player even notices your presence. Or when at "peace".
With updates, there may even be a "confusion" spell added, just for this... turning time: 1... makes it for 5 turns impossible for others to see what you cast. Still wont save unity from being un-casted, but you can still stack up nice surprises like agile mind. Or weaker spells, which others counterspell then, wasting their turn and mana, even when it was just a decoy.
:)
 
You could avoid the danger of a counter spell by avoiding contact with other GM's... but how likely is that? I've yet to get the option to research Agile Mind until late in the spell tree. Again, competent players will scout aggressively to prevent unity death AND uber-unit spell buffing. Especially if a player picks Krolm as a trait so they have a guaranteed cheap counterspell.
 
Has anyone ever tried using global dispell on other great mages? Would be kinda nifty if you could dispell things like agile mind. I'd try it myself, but I've only had the game last long enough for me to get global dispell a grand total of once. Which really makes me mad, seeing as everyone you go to war with likes to throw in mana leech etc.
 
Has anyone ever tried using global dispell on other great mages? Would be kinda nifty if you could dispell things like agile mind. I'd try it myself, but I've only had the game last long enough for me to get global dispell a grand total of once. Which really makes me mad, seeing as everyone you go to war with likes to throw in mana leech etc.

Heh. I've ended a few games where Mana Leech has been on me for 20+ turns. Depending on your spells, it often isn't worth it to dispell it. Probably a different scenario on the small maps, though.
 
Levitation and water walk make unit type redundant, why would you get a flyer if you can get a temple unit fly by using levitation or why you want a battleship to protect your territory against enemy transport if they will just water walk his unit and kill all your battleships, don't tell me that it can be dispelled, just choose dauros and it is undispelled forever.
They are not redundant. One allows travel over water, doesn't allow attacking air units, and cost less. The other one allows free travel over all terrain, attacking of air units, prevents of non-air melee units from attacking, and cost more upkeep. If all you want to do is cross an ocean then yes they seem the same.

Also the problem is not with flying Temple units. The problem is Naval ships SUCK and other Air units SUCK. If they were on par with temple units, which they should be, then there would be a good alternative to using the temple units with levitation/waterwalk to cover all areas of the map.
By allowing player to change unit role at will, this game gives too much freedom, a game that give too much freedom is a bad game.
:blink:
Wow this has to be a first. I've never heard anyone say that too much player freedom creates a bad game. That's probably because it's not true and the vast majority of gamers want MORE freedom not less in their games. Poorly implemented freedom, balance issues between choices, and etc. lead to bad games. Not the fact that there are 10 choices instead of only 3. If in either case 1 of those choices is clearly better then it doesn't matter if you have 3 or 10 as it's not the level of freedom making things bad it's the mechanic balance.

Heh. I've ended a few games where Mana Leech has been on me for 20+ turns. Depending on your spells, it often isn't worth it to dispell it. Probably a different scenario on the small maps, though.
This is the problem with the static amount global spells, they do not properly scale with the game and ultimately become useless spells. They also don't balance well against uneven players. For example if one player is a lot larger then another the odds are a static amount penalty will have a much larger impact on the smaller player then it would on the larger player. Meaning it's not going to be worth the smaller player's time to use it while it would be more useful to the larger player to hinder the already stunted growth of his opponent.

If instead the spells worked on a percentage then it would be more advantageous for the smaller players to use since they are getting a percentage of the much larger player's income. This also works well on balancing as it helps the smaller player catch back up. The amount of resources taken would of course be calculated off the player's total income. This to prevent players from trying to game the system with income = upkeep for 0 net income.
 
It's also bloody annoying when you've got two mana leeches on you at the early part of the game eating about half of your mana income, when the same spells aren't even enough to be noticed thirty turns later.
 
:blink:
Wow this has to be a first. I've never heard anyone say that too much player freedom creates a bad game. That's probably because it's not true and the vast majority of gamers want MORE freedom not less in their games. Poorly implemented freedom, balance issues between choices, and etc. lead to bad games. Not the fact that there are 10 choices instead of only 3. If in either case 1 of those choices is clearly better then it doesn't matter if you have 3 or 10 as it's not the level of freedom making things bad it's the mechanic balance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html

"There is a famous jam study (famous, at least, among those who research choice), that is often used to bolster this point. Sheena Iyengar, a professor of business at Columbia University and the author of “The Art of Choosing,” (Twelve) to be published next month, conducted the study in 1995.

In a California gourmet market, Professor Iyengar and her research assistants set up a booth of samples of Wilkin & Sons jams. Every few hours, they switched from offering a selection of 24 jams to a group of six jams. On average, customers tasted two jams, regardless of the size of the assortment, and each one received a coupon good for $1 off one Wilkin & Sons jam.

Here’s the interesting part. Sixty percent of customers were drawn to the large assortment, while only 40 percent stopped by the small one. But 30 percent of the people who had sampled from the small assortment decided to buy jam, while only 3 percent of those confronted with the two dozen jams purchased a jar.

That study “raised the hypothesis that the presence of choice might be appealing as a theory,” Professor Iyengar said last year, “but in reality, people might find more and more choice to actually be debilitating.” "

Freedom means less sales and less people enjoying the game.

I prefer games where there are clear roles and benefits to each unit and ability. You're not forced to spend a few hours fiddling around to find the best choice. I like my games to be simple, not a chore of mathematics and choice.
 
Great article about how limiting players makes games better - http://jonshaferondesign.com/2012/04/03/make-a-better-game-limit-the-player/

Speaking of flying temple units. I think with AI using dispels and in multiplayer this will be feature of Dauros path only, which grants dispel protection. But on the other side of god wheel bonuses are great too. I.e. Fervus, the direct opposite of Dauros, allows summoning powerful Bears right from the start and Bearmen after some following. Heavy summons sound like a good alternative to heavy enchantments for me.
 
Yes, that article, i forgot about it, but that article is the article that taught me about too much freedom=bad game.

I concur stealthnsk, Dauros is the essence of quality, Fervus is the essence of quantity. I've said above Fervus is one of the best counter to Dauros, along with Krolm (Power buffs), Agrela (Healing), Lunord (time stop with agile mind can be combined to stop enemy from having their turn until you run out of mana, unless agile mind is dispelled first).

You guys ask which dispell that can clear agile mind? Global dispell, i have seen AI use Agile mind just 1x in all my games, and it was after the 1st patch of the game, i forgot which version, the 1st day patch i think. The thing is, i think he doesn't cast agile mind on himself, i played a game, then decide to continue it tomorrow, but there is an update at that day and when i loaded the save, he has agile mind on him, i never know that spell like that exist the AI taught me, then agile mind appeared in my research wheel, then i tried global dispell on him and it's gone, he didn't dispell mine though, but then again AI never dispell anything at least until next update. That was in the first update of the game, i don't know if agile mind can be dispelled now, because AI never cast it.

add:
Also the problem is not with flying Temple units. The problem is Naval ships SUCK and other Air units SUCK. If they were on par with temple units, which they should be, then there would be a good alternative to using the temple units with levitation/waterwalk to cover all areas of the map.

I have said it in previous page, that there are 2 solution, either nerf levitation and water walk or buff naval and air units, i prefer the latter.
 
Last edited:
While "less freedom" does tend to sell better (*cough* Call of Duty *cough* wheter it makes better games is very questionable. After all, how good is Deus Ex? How much freedom does it give the player? There's your counterpoint, no big article needed...
 
While "less freedom" does tend to sell better (*cough* Call of Duty *cough* wheter it makes better games is very questionable. After all, how good is Deus Ex? How much freedom does it give the player? There's your counterpoint, no big article needed...

To be short. The idea is what freedom with too many variants is as bad as no variants. In Deus Ex you could walk here and there, but the actual choice is limited. You could change the order of quests, you could pick different method for each quest (stealth, kill, etc.). Each time, the number of options is really small.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html

"There is a famous jam study (famous, at least, among those who research choice), that is often used to bolster this point. Sheena Iyengar, a professor of business at Columbia University and the author of “The Art of Choosing,” (Twelve) to be published next month, conducted the study in 1995.

In a California gourmet market, Professor Iyengar and her research assistants set up a booth of samples of Wilkin & Sons jams. Every few hours, they switched from offering a selection of 24 jams to a group of six jams. On average, customers tasted two jams, regardless of the size of the assortment, and each one received a coupon good for $1 off one Wilkin & Sons jam.

Here’s the interesting part. Sixty percent of customers were drawn to the large assortment, while only 40 percent stopped by the small one. But 30 percent of the people who had sampled from the small assortment decided to buy jam, while only 3 percent of those confronted with the two dozen jams purchased a jar.

That study “raised the hypothesis that the presence of choice might be appealing as a theory,” Professor Iyengar said last year, “but in reality, people might find more and more choice to actually be debilitating.” "

Freedom means less sales and less people enjoying the game.

I prefer games where there are clear roles and benefits to each unit and ability. You're not forced to spend a few hours fiddling around to find the best choice. I like my games to be simple, not a chore of mathematics and choice.

My counter is another line from that same article.

Mr. Scheibehenne recently co-wrote an analysis, to be published in October in The Journal of Consumer Research, examining dozens of studies about choices. One problem, he said, is separating the concept of choice overload from information overload.

In other words, he said, how much are people affected by the number of choices and “how much from the lack of information or any prior understanding of the options?”

Another words the person in question does not have enough information so they choose not to make a choice. The example before the one you quoted mentioned the ice cream shop and since I've seen a few cases there I'll get that as an example. Very rarely do you see people ask to try more then 2-3 flavors and when you do I've noticed that there is actually a negative reaction by the majority of the other people in the store. The people waiting in line get impatient that the person is taking so long and won't make up their mind. The employees often times get noticeably frustrated as they want to get the other customer checked out so they can go back to hanging out and chatting. I've even seen parents give a snap at their kids, "Just pick one already." when the kid keeps asking to try other flavors.

The whole fast food, convenience store, and on the go mentality pressures people to make snap choices without inconveniencing other people. The pressures often come more from outside sources than the choice itself. Like what will other people think of me if I make this choice over another. The rampant intolerance is the supposedly tolerant society only compound any anxiety a person may of had over the choice in the first place.

Clever jam marketing tactics aside, if someone goes into a Tire shop to replace a flat tire and they are offered 12 different tire models over course they are going to be overload. But the problem isn't one of choice it's that they likely know almost nothing about those 12 different tire models. The time it would take to ask the sales clerk about each one to make an informed choice impacts directly with the social pressures of not to inconvenience other people by wasting their time. Be it the other customers or the sales clerks. So there is some embarrassment and discomfort about trying to get the very information your entitled to when making a proper choice. Where as if the store only has 2 tire models the customer does not feel as uncomfortable asking about them and getting the information they need to make an informed choice. I use tire example because I recently got new tires and the store clerk looked a little pissed when I starting asking questions on the 4th model in the list after having already asked about the first 3 he recommended.

Marketing is always looking for new ways to get people to purchase things they don't need on snap decisions. That's why they put all those snacks and other quick items near the checkouts, to get people to make an impulse buy which often times they later regret. As such I don't really consider studies done on how to encourage people to buy more as a good source of inspiration on game design. Like the skinner box is used in a lot of games, especially MMOs, to get people addicted to their games. This doesn't make them good games. Watch the video below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

Yes, that article, i forgot about it, but that article is the article that taught me about too much freedom=bad game.
I had not read this specific article but the topic and various similar studies were covered in my Design classes back in College. How it pertains to games and game design is that too much freedom is not bad. Pointless freedom/choices are however bad. What I mean by this is say someone decided they have improved Rock, Paper, Scissors with a new game called Rock, Paper, Scissors, Brick, Cloth, Knife. Now in this new game Brick acts exactly like Rock, Cloth is exactly like Paper, and Knife is exactly like Scissors. This doesn't end up changing the game in any way shape or forth since these new choices are the same as the old ones. It only makes things more confusing to the player as they have the illusion of more choices but in reality there is still only 3 options. This is what is referred to as the "Illusion of choice" and is actually very common in games with lots of supposed choices and bad balancing, where one choice ends up being clearly better then all the others.

To many games have pointless choices or provide poor information making it very confusing to the player so they feel overwhelmed since they don't have the knowledge to make a proper choice. Any choice made without the proper information is not really a choice at all. It's a guess/gamble in the hopes that you get the best outcome. There is naturally a lot of anxiety involved in making a gamble and unlike at the casinos you don't know if you "won" right away or potential ever. Because you may have and use the product for months or years there is the nagging sensation you may of guessed wrong. It's like playing a game of roulette where the wheel spins for days, weeks, or in some cases longer and you don't know when it's going to stop spinning.