point of origin (Legendary Voodoo)

[Most Lee Harmless]

Well, if exceptions are made in every case with these new cards... quite whats the point of keeping the old cards which no longer work as before? lets scrap the lot and just have new cards and then we neednt worry about keeping any kind of rationale or balance at all... I'm done with these conversations because the proposers of the majority of these cards just aint thinking of how they fit in with the current cards, or with overall game balance : 99% of them are narrow responses to a niche problem they are having in the current game, or an easy way to do what can already be done, but, you know, its soooo hard... but, hey, its a new idea.. so it must be good...

* drops mike : leaves the building.

[Maha]

Well, if exceptions are made in every case with these new cards... quite whats the point of keeping the old cards which no longer work as before? lets scrap the lot and just have new cards and then we neednt worry about keeping any kind of rationale or balance at all... I'm done with these conversations because the proposers of the majority of these cards just aint thinking of how they fit in with the current cards, or with overall game balance : 99% of them are narrow responses to a niche problem they are having in the current game, or an easy way to do what can already be done, but, you know, its soooo hard... but, hey, its a new idea.. so it must be good...

* drops mike : leaves the building.

*picks up a dropped mike, pumps the volume so that those who left the building still get the response

the 2 cards which are currently affected by this proposal don't lose their function! when this card comes into play than their is a chance that someone will try to find out who cast BD's and TI's. but otherwise that info stays under the surface.

to widen the scope and generalize it by using phrases 'in every case', 'lets scrap the lot', 'keeping any kind of rationale', 'the proposers of the majority of these cards' and '99% of them'. i call that cheap rhetoric. These kind of arguments are used to play on sentiment more than argument.

as i pointed out before, more port focused voodoo is being proposed. when should be the time to bring some balance to them? this card will function as an potential buffer. yeah those other cards can harm a port in a huge way, but not without chance of retaliation.

this card has future cards in mind, does what cannot be done yet. I welcome criticism, but try to make it relevant.

[Grimrock Litless]

Voodoo is simple no real strategy. Everyone says they want strategy voodoo, but cows follow the trolls, we ain't getting no where, fast.

They also want strategy because deep in their heart they go and think, I am a smart person, strategy will help me show that, but that ends up being horse crap.

[Grimrock Litless]

to widen the scope and generalize it by using phrases 'in every case', 'lets scrap the lot', 'keeping any kind of rationale', 'the proposers of the majority of these cards' and '99% of them'. i call that cheap rhetoric. These kind of arguments are used to play on sentiment more than argument.

.

Ah, so someone does know how it feels to hit shot with unreasonable reasons.

I almost thought I would be the only one, since I made the most voodoo suggestions.

[Most Lee Harmless]

Because each and every card is getting proposed from the narrowest of viewpoints : 'it does this : this is good : nuff said'. That's the argument for each and it is too narrow : no card exists in isolation, they interlock, interact, reflect and counter each other : so they must follow the same basic rules for each function : the BD's and such were not created to be untraceable by chance, or due to an oversight or typing error. It was part of the desired function, part of an overall scheme affecting how port control works and can be affected. They function in the same way as other explicit 'undercover' cards that directly target players, Booty Masters, Public Relations and so on. The 'hidden' caster is part of the reason for the card and how it fits into the overall scheme of things. Remove that element from port control cards and whats then the argument for keeping it for 'player' targeted cards? The same reasoning must apply : 'its better to know who cast it than to not know' thus we should remove undercover casting from all the cards it currently applies to. No card is an island, entire unto itself. As I previously stated, the game must be viewed as an eco-system and any meddling must consider the side-effects for the whole system, not just the narrow intended purpose. Thats before we get into how any card can be used for purposes beyond the initial purpose : I give an example with Pouch of Gold : previous to banks, it was primarily used to check a targets purse prior to a raid : due to the fact demo page would show any large purse and the then difficulty and cost of moving very large sums of coin back and forth it was almost never used to 'top-up' ones own funds. Banks arrived, low turn cost coin movement was made simple and fast : now you could extract 100mil for 3 turns, cast Pouchs and get 1 mil per cast, then put the whole lot back in the bank for 3 turns. This practice is frowned upon by the admins but its a fine example of how a change in one area had a major effect in another.
Too often I see card proposals which are too obviously a response to a given situation or difficulty : it may solve that issue today, but I dont see the wider argument being put as to its wider effects or side-effects on existing cards and practice.
There is too much '180 degree' logic being used : this card argues port owners should be able to find out who cast on the port because it will be better for the game yet other legendary card proposals create new casts they are not going to know about cos that's better for the game... Well, which is it? Where is the argument as to how it will be better for the game, that doesnt show up much : its new, its change, that must be good and to argue against it is to oppose progress, to not want to make the game better, etc, etc... is that not playing on sentiment too? How cheap is that rhetoric?

[Haron]

I agree with Danik. With each suggestions, the entirety of the game should be considered.

How does this affect the game overall? What is the intention behind each suggestion? What effect will this suggestion have on each area of play, if implemented? I liked the phrase "No card is an island". Very true.

[Maha]

Because each and every card is getting proposed from the narrowest of viewpoints : 'it does this : this is good : nuff said'. That's the argument for each and it is too narrow : no card exists in isolation, they interlock, interact, reflect and counter each other : so they must follow the same basic rules for each function : the BD's and such were not created to be untraceable by chance, or due to an oversight or typing error. It was part of the desired function, part of an overall scheme affecting how port control works and can be affected. They function in the same way as other explicit 'undercover' cards that directly target players, Booty Masters, Public Relations and so on. The 'hidden' caster is part of the reason for the card and how it fits into the overall scheme of things. Remove that element from port control cards and whats then the argument for keeping it for 'player' targeted cards? The same reasoning must apply : 'its better to know who cast it than to not know' thus we should remove undercover casting from all the cards it currently applies to. No card is an island, entire unto itself. As I previously stated, the game must be viewed as an eco-system and any meddling must consider the side-effects for the whole system, not just the narrow intended purpose. Thats before we get into how any card can be used for purposes beyond the initial purpose : I give an example with Pouch of Gold : previous to banks, it was primarily used to check a targets purse prior to a raid : due to the fact demo page would show any large purse and the then difficulty and cost of moving very large sums of coin back and forth it was almost never used to 'top-up' ones own funds. Banks arrived, low turn cost coin movement was made simple and fast : now you could extract 100mil for 3 turns, cast Pouchs and get 1 mil per cast, then put the whole lot back in the bank for 3 turns. This practice is frowned upon by the admins but its a fine example of how a change in one area had a major effect in another.
Too often I see card proposals which are too obviously a response to a given situation or difficulty : it may solve that issue today, but I dont see the wider argument being put as to its wider effects or side-effects on existing cards and practice.
There is too much '180 degree' logic being used : this card argues port owners should be able to find out who cast on the port because it will be better for the game yet other legendary card proposals create new casts they are not going to know about cos that's better for the game... Well, which is it? Where is the argument as to how it will be better for the game, that doesnt show up much : its new, its change, that must be good and to argue against it is to oppose progress, to not want to make the game better, etc, etc... is that not playing on sentiment too? How cheap is that rhetoric?

i read one real argument and the rest is 'let's extrapolate this and criticize that outcome' rhetoric. to flip the argument, since some cards are undercover, all cards should be undercover. it has the same logical flaw. like player focused voodoo is individually considered to be undercover or not, the same can and should be done with port and nation voodoo. since i am not aware of nation focused legendary voodoo i did not suggest a similar card for that.

change will happen and it is good to predict how it influences the game. that the whole witch hut is gets opposition is something i understand. a lot of legendary voodoo is designed to do OP things, how will that effect the game, who will have acces to this hut, are the extreme high prices realistically a buffer against flooding the game with these cards? will the game change in a pay to win game. valid questions all. with no clear idea how the witch hut will function we cannot answer them.

that said because admin has said that they want to implement the witch hut, we have to accept the fact that it is coming in whatever form admins thinks is best for the game. change is coming, we have to deal with that. The example of booty master shows that new implementations effect 'what is'. some stuff may become obsolete like 'fertile lands' or barely used like 'treasure hunt' and soon 'salvaging'. some functions may get adjusted like 'fishing'. that is the consequence of change. sometimes we're given grace and forget about it like recently with oLoD and rotten food. Personally i think it is wise to postpone the whole implementation of the witch hut, but that is not up to me. i have to deal with what is and work with the space i'm given.


OP voodoo affecting a port without fear of exposure is not a good idea in my opinion. out of that concern i can do a few things: i can whine and complain, i can keep silent and i can try to soften the impact. it is strange to be accused of not seeing the wider picture when it's just that what triggered this suggestion.
without the possibility of disclosure someone can lit up ports with no fear of getting caught. since every product create her own market will 'lit up the whole port' card being produced and used. like the goldbar, the price will go down. those who choose to make this kind of cards will be hard pressed not to make them. Slowly, with more and more players investing in the witch hut, the game will see too often OP cards being used. i hope, foresee, that most legendary cards won't make the cut because they are too OP. port based voodoo seems to be seen more as fun than of real consequences. which would be true when this would happen once in a blue moon. but legendary cards will be produced and will be used for that reason. no stopping it.

so my reasoning is to add potential backslash from casting voodoo on ports. if we cannot control the source lets try to discourage it's usage.

i hoped to avoid the whole with hut discussion, since it will come anyway. but so be it.

[Most Lee Harmless]

When I want to steal your ships, I would like the process to be simple, cheap, easy, quick and inevitable : when you want to steal my ships, I want the process to be slow, costly, difficult, even impossible. That's the conundrum : that's the difficulty in finding a proper balance in the game : it must be difficult, but it must also be possible : it must have irksome, even arbitrary, constraints or it becomes too simple, a walk-through just joining the dots until victory is won.
I've been on both sides of port control battles, both sides of nation control battles : we must be able to attack and win : we must be able to defend and win : we must also be able to cause mischief amongst our foes to weaken them, distract them, be that in attack or defence. The difference between victory and defeat should be about skilled game-play, mental strength, inspired lunacy even : but not because it becomes an inevitable product of ones voodoo chest. It should be about how we use these cards ; the why, the when and the how, with all their advantages and drawbacks.
I believe undercover casts, no matter how infuriating when we are the target, are a vital part of conflict in this game : when I consider how it hurts me, I also know how much it hurts my opponent when I cast those cards.
When Mexico held ports, it had the highest population of its times : and lost the lot to undercover casts : totally infuriating, yes, but it led to a conflict which caused the virtual destruction of 3 nations and formed the basis for the emergence of a fourth, a fifth, maybe even a sixth, as a world-wide power as ports fell and found new owners, as citizens moved to new nations and found new causes to fight over.
I would prefer to keep that mystery, that uncertainty, that nuisance value, that adds so much to tension, aggravation and ultimately, conflict and the chance to cry 'havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.

[Mugiwara]

your suggestion can only reveal legendary card casts on specific ports(if the yever get implemented) and this way you can still counter them at a high cost. just dont include BDs or conspiracies.

[Maha]

your suggestion can only reveal legendary card casts on specific ports(if the yever get implemented) and this way you can still counter them at a high cost. just dont include BDs or conspiracies.

i have no problem with that. i even have no problem with undercover legendary cards, but i do think that it should not be automatically undercover because it has always been that way.