Re: Vote
 

Well nations like TNN/Van would need two things post 1.7:
A. Adapt to different play style. Thugs are economically good for PD raiding. For anything more than that the player would need to pay much more hence tough decisions. So with thugs getting minor role post 1.7 a nation like TNN would have less reasons to take ubber bless and more reasons to take a more diverse pretender + better scales, I'm not sure it's that bad but it ain't enough so:
B. Some form of compensation would be required for such nations. Maybe buff their recruit-able thugs a bit, maybe more starting gems, maybe better starting equipment on thugs.
Like give TNN thugs a frost brand and make them cost 100g more.

Re: Vote
 

At the moment glamoured thugs can do more than just PD raiding. Properly equipped they can take down SCs. At the same time, they are fragile. A single casting of drain life will waste the investment in them. And fighting a nation like Jotun late game they suffer a horribly high attrition rate between flying, magic attack blood summons and skratti's casting life for a life or claws of kokytos or just killing them in melee (aside from the usual counters like mind hunt).

I'd be pretty sad to have my favorite part of the game resigned to raiding PD due to increase in forging costs and nerf to brands (in particular the non-AP frost brand).

As far adapting to a different play style, one of the big advantages Van has over TNN, and especially Eriu, is that they have other options. Obviously one of those options, blood magic, took a big hit with 1.7. But assuming a dousing bonus is in the works that would still be viable. But I'm not sure what Eriu can adapt to. Sure, they can go for great scales but I don't see that as being a winning proposition against other nations that favor good scales but also have excellent troops, cost effective researchers, good non-cap mages, access to D/S/B, etc. What they've got is their thugs. I think in this case you really need to add some more options to the nation. Reducing the thugging potential of the nation without providing alternatives is painful. Note: Zeldor mentioned things already being in the works so perhaps this is already being addressed.

Also, I think one reason to replace built-in gear with forged gear is so that a casting of destruction/iron bane doesn't ruin your thug's day. Assuming a built-in frost brand was susceptible to those spells (haven't tested it) I wouldn't want to pay 100 more for an already expensive 280 gold unit.

Lastly, rdonj mentioned he expected to see more thugs relative to SCs. It's an interesting question (I'd expect the opposite) but aside from the ratio of thugs to SCs it seems reasonable to assume the absolute number of both will decrease. Given that, I think it's reasonable to increase the cost of mind hunt from 2 to 3 gems (don't have the game in front of me so if that's already the cost in 1.7 then ignore that suggestion).

Re: Vote
 

Funny thing, I had the same idea :) Thus I of course think WraithLords idea is excellent :)

Re: Vote
 

I voted to remove all 4. *shrug* if a strat/nation needs those things to be competitive then the nation itself isn't competitive seeing how all nations potentially have access to the same things...all those things (cept the sites of course) create micro and don't increase my enjoyment of the game.

Re: Vote
 

Vanheim and Helheim can make use of both blood and thugs. By removing access to both, you take out two of their tools to win. I wouldn't call either strong, but they could definitely compete with other nations without the nerf. I don't think they can without. So imo they move from competitive to loser status in CBM 1.7. On the other hand, Agartha or Eriu weren't competitive anyway but that's not a reason to make them worse.

Re: Vote
 

With the removal of hammers and rods they can still thug and blood hunt. The issue is quantity, and it's not just the mid/weak nations that are affected but all.

For me mad skills in this game does not equate to being able to make 100s of clams/hammers/rods for the win. And if anything those items restrict gameplay more than open things up as everyone is racing for the same thing.

Example,
If I have earth mages I make hammers. If my nation doesn't have earth well I'll put earth on my pretender to make hammers. I never choose to go without some way to make hammers and always laugh when someone asks to trade for hammers. Now I ask why do I do this? Why to be competitive! Because if everyone else has hammers and I don't well they've got a leg up on me. Take away hammers and all of a sudden the above situation no longer applies atleast for me.

I view hammers/rods/etc much like tarts and how endgame is dominated by D and S (wish) nations. LB has since made EDM (ty!) and all of a sudden more choices! Yay! Choice is good! :up:

I view these changes by QM as the same. And now there's word that QM will be buffing nations, also good. I can't wait for the next CBM update. :up:

Re: Vote
 

If choice is good how can you approve of crippling Van and Eriu?
I think this of all things limits, or even more eliminates some choices for them.
All are affected, true, but some much more that others. Van on the other hand for example had pretty expensive blood hunters to begin with, add to that they just lose half of their blood income, and got a pretty lousy deal on their thugs. Higher item costs, lower brend damage.
I agree with Valerius on every point, their thugs are incredibly fragile,and the only thing they had going for them is that they were cost effective and could sneak in. Now they can just sneak in and raid provicnes.
The idea of increasing gold cost as to add brends or some other item to them at the start is plain terrible imo. That will only result in overpriced-underpowered mages that you wont even to able to mass in any meaningful number for a real battle rather than just thug them out.

Re: Vote
 

Once again I fail to see how removing hammers breaks Van and Eriu in terms of their ability to thug when every other nation is under the same limitations.

And if anything thugs might actually be seen earlier without hammers since no one would be waiting around to have hammers to kit out their thugs.

To me hammers are not a prereq for thugging.

Re: Vote
 

Under the same limitation? Yes, affected the same by the same limitation? No.
It breaks the effectiveness of their thugs. A hammers 25% forge bonus is not always just a 25% forge bonus. Take fire brend for example, their price went from 6 to 10, that a 40% increase in gems. As did rainbow armor. Frost brend isn't much more expensive but is less valuable given that is isn't even AP and had a reduction in damage and son on...

I fail to see how it doesn't screw them up royally given they pretty much have to rely on thugs since they can't really depend on national mages with great paths or excellent troops.

Re: Vote
 

Because Van and Eriu especially rely on thugs much more heavily. They use them where many other nations use troops and/or battle mages.

They're also non-capital thugs. A nation using capital-only thugs is still going to be limited by thug production more than by gear forging. Van/Eriu are limited only by how much gear they can forge, so they'll be fielding many less, while others won't be handicapped as much.

Re: Vote
 

Taking away a 25% forge bonus does not take away from the effectiveness of their thugs. Their thugs are just as effective. Taking away a 25% forge bonus takes away from their ability mass produce thugs (and this is relative to the pre and post hammer nerf!). The thug effectiveness is just the same.

And there are so many limitations on top of this. The fact that their thugs are what 250-350 gold. So there is monetary constraint. Looking over their starting gem income there is also gem constraint. There is no guarantee that you'll get the optimal gems you need.

Also consider they're aiming at what a min 3 item forge? To get to their 'optimal' thug producing point they need 3 hammers to kit out a thug/turn. That's an investment of 37 E gems. And of course since we're talking about an item that makes forging economical so continually input E gems into the equation as they're making more and more hammers.

I feel as though while making this explanation I coulda made thugs taken my glamour troops and rushed someone by now secured more gems kitted more thugs made more glamoured troops and hit the next.

I could be wrong, but I think the pace of games may just slow down a hair without hammers, so it'll all be compensated through time.

And regardless if QM feels that they're suxor and chooses to buff it is what it is. Although I think if anything the thuggy mages should be reduced in price and/or given better gear and left at the same price. As I said previously if a strat for a nation is broken due to the removal of hammers then the nation itself is the problem not hammers.

Re: Vote
 

I think this post best sums my views. A perfectly balanced game is boring. A nearly balanced game is chess, but how many people talk about the last thrilling game of chess they played? What people want is flavor, with manageable balance.

The issue I have with the path CBM is taking is that a mod that is a commonly accepted standard is starting to go down a path of removing things from the game that a subset of the community wants. Even if we are looking at a 50/50 split between removing something and keeping it, you are far better served leaving it in.

Re: Vote
 

What an interesting thread.

I'm going to create a mod for my Dominions group's next game that addresses some balance problems.

Most significantly forging cost reducing items will be removed. The Forge of the Ancients will lose the discount effect and quite likely be moved to a lvl 9 construction. Price halved to 40 earth gems.

Gem generating items will be modified for other purpose or removed.

***

The reason for the above is that the gem economy is at least as important as the gold economy and control of resources. The forging cost reductions and especially the damnable Forge of the Ancients really messes up that part of the game. I want the cost of a Staff of Elemental Mastery to be the full 50 gems.

***

The other thing that will be fixed is werewolves. The general setting material in Dominions (since the original) has skin shifters dropping their weapons and using claws and fangs in close combat. For some odd reason though, a commander werewolf has access to all equipment slots.

That is just a minor problem, but the case of the Jotun Giant Werewolf is an atrocity. The Skratti that can turn into a werewolf is an utterly unbalanced commander. The wolf form has way too many perks and immunities, and for some insane reason it's stronger than a male titan or Dragon. >.<

Our current game has slightly turned into a farce because of these recruitable fromt the start SC monsters who can cast quicken self from early on, and get luck and etherealness cast on them by the cheap recruit anywhere hags.

Here's an early game example:

http://users.utu.fi/mikrin/Dominions/wolfman.JPG

Re: Vote
 

Most of what you suggest can't be done.
I don't believe you can remove the Forge's discount. I know you can't actually change the gem-generating properties of items. You can remove them, make them unique, or change the paths/cost.

And the Skratti are nice, but vulnerable due to low mr. Even with 2 items that one only has 21, he'll die to a few mages spamming Soul Slay.

Re: Vote
 

Unfortunately this is not possible without removing all FotA effects. Tweaking ritual effects (unless they summon something) isn't supported with modding.

Dropping hand slots on werewolves is an interesting idea, though it is unfortunate it would nerf non-giant werewolves which are already a bit borderline for thugging.

Re: Vote
 

Doesn't the Skratti's werewolf form have its own monster number, different from the human size werewolves?

Re: Vote
 

Well, funny solution to OP werewolves is to have Wolf as 2nd form, not 3rd :)

Re: Vote
 

Certainly, just thinking of consistency.

Re: Vote
 

I will say one thing for certain about this poll- it has caused me to reconsider the removal of powerful bonus sites. While people seem to regard being unique and being removed as interchangeable for items, I personally find the fact that they are still in the game a significant plus, and likely would not have considered an outright removal of them. The reasoning with sites is that their removal is not really removing on option, but it is admittedly removing content. I think sites do have the potential to 'ruin' games, but probably not consistently, so if the general opinion is they should stay, that seems fair enough.

Hammers are a very different matter, and not just because making them unique is not strictly removing content. Almost all complaints I have heard about the change seems as though they can be fixed with a bit of national balance and/or a slight increase in site frequency in games (this while maintaining the benefits in terms of reduced micromanagement, and the bizarre skewed pretender design hammers caused). There may also be repercussions for specific items in terms of worthwhileness of pricing, but this swings both ways- the available prices for things are no more or less finely grained than before, some items can be priced more appropriately while others must be priced less appropriately.

It has been said the most recent CB actually goes in the direction of reducing possible strategic options, but this seems a difficult interpretation to take. Whatever there is not to like about the hammer change, it is hard to argue that not requiring 3-4 e on a non-e nation's pretender doesn't present more options, or that not needing to beeline right for SDRs with a blood strategy doesn't open up new possibilities. It's the fact that these so called 'options' were indispensable that causes the difficulties, and while it's possible that changing them can cascade into making other options less attractive, these are all presumably independently addressable problems.

Re: Vote
 

As best I can recall, CBM 1.6 and 1.7 have generated the most discussion of all the D3 CBM releases (can't speak for the D2 CBM releases). But when 1.6 removed gem gens many games already banned them. So while there was some opposition to the change, it was following an already strong trend. 1.7 is different in that it seems most people weren't expecting these changes or requesting them. This doesn't mean they're bad - but it does seem like a significant change from the previous, more conservative, approach.

The other change I've noticed (partly as a consequence of 1.7) is you seem to be taking on balance between nations, not just within them. And I think this has been something there has been more of an interest in CBM tackling. There's always going to be a most powerful nation/path/etc. I'm ok with the current top tier remaining there - I'd just like to see less of a gap between them and the rest of the pack.

It also occured to me in following this discussion that it must be gratifying that people care enough about the mod to provide this feedback - certainly better than early on when CBM was greeted with rejection/indifference.

Anyway, there have been some very good points on both sides of this discussion. For me, 1.7 feels like part of the picture. The changes did have balance implications. As is, I'd be inclined to stick with 1.6 or, more likely, change the parts I didn't like and use a modified version of 1.7. But 1.8, by addressing some of the issues that arise from these changes seems like it may present a more full picture. Though if you keep the nerf to brands in 1.8 I'll change that when I admin a game, self serving though it may be. ;)

I don't want to derail the thread, but thinking along the lines of increasing options by removing something do you have any thoughts on the fact that tarts are still the optimal choice for SC/magic diversity? Things are much better than before the EDM but I think people still feel the need to get the Chalice or GoH so they can mass produce tarts. I'm not suggesting removing tarts but perhaps giving them less magic diversity so they are more like the EDM summons - mainly SCs with some magic diversity added in.

Re: Vote
 

I disagree with the leap you're making here. Again, I think a lot of this is due to fixating on one type of game. The large games make hammers much more important. In a smaller game, hammers are much less important. The mage time in making more hammers over the first have a decreasing rate of return. I am currently playing a small 55 province map against two opponents, and I am crafting all I can afford to do with two hammers. I have too many more important things for my pretender to do (only one with a lot of earth). I took the earth for the bless, not for the hammer forging.

Now, if we were playing a larger game, I would need more hammers. I would have more time, so any turn spent crafting hammers has a lower opportunity cost and a higher payoff. So I would consider trading for hammers or taking a pretender with earth.

I mean is anyone calling for a nerf of Niefelheim because they win duels against Marverni on a map like Dogfight? No.

The other side of the coin is games where you don't get high earth income? I've played games where I needed something and didn't get it. Are we going to ramp up gems just because I got an unlucky draw? No we accept that. Again, I feel this falls into the same category.

Re: Vote
 

Also, I would like to second the thought that it is due to the excellent work on CBM in the past that has led to the spirited debate here during the last week.

Re: Vote
 

It is probably true, the smaller the game less likely it is hammers will play a significant role. But the very same thing is true of gem gens, and in a similar way I don't see that small games are harmed by the larger scale fix.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making with being unlucky finding e gems in some games, it's not pity for people who lose games due to not having the right gems for hammers that is driving the change, though I suppose it could be argued it's an added bonus.

On tartarians: I do agree they are in great need of tweaking. I know lots of people are in favor of direct cost increase, but that has some unwanted side effects in terms of making their use as troops unfeasible and giving those that can heal the feebled tarts (owners of GoH/Chalice) a crazy advantage. At the moment I'm toying with the idea of removing their default magic in favor of 'potential' magic. They would have no magic when you summon them but 50 gems empowerment of the appropriate type would get you direct to level 4 in a path (thematically speaking, it's just a different way of representing the feebled mind, but in a way that anyone could heal them, not just the GoH/Chalice). This way, with the right investment they could well surpass most EDM summons, but they wouldn't have the huge diversity advantages.

Re: Vote
 

That's an interesting idea, kind of a "build your own tart." Just to clarify something: when you say anyone could heal them (which I think is the way to go - eliminate the need for Chalice/GoH) do you plan on breaking them into individual summons or repurposing another spell that summons from a group? The problem I ran into is that the Tartarian Gate spell applies the afflictions so the only way I could summon a random, affliction-free, tart is by using one of the other spells that summons from a group. But since CBM has to cover all nations/eras that doesn't seem like an option.

Re: Vote
 

Yes, I think the only way to remove afflictions would be to swap out the summoning spell, which has side effects I'd rather avoid. I think having plenty feebled would still be OK though- it's true GoH/Chalice is great now but the concern with the direct raising prices was that it would make them better- this would just leave them at about their current power. After all, how many tarts can you really empower? At 10 gems each you should easily have plenty of healthy empowerment candidates. Also, under this tart scheme GoR could probably get cheaper and they could be used with whatever afflictions as thugs (I actually think seeing some still feebled tarts used in battle would be quite cool).

Re: Vote
 

Ok, I see. I really like this idea, it seems to cover all the bases. Thanks for the info.

Re: Vote
 

I've been thinking about this idea and a potential loophole occurred to me: empower in astral and if you've managed to get either the Dimensional Rod or the Forbidden Light you could Wish for magic power and then the boost would apply to all the paths you just gained.

Re: Vote
 

It's true, but honestly if you have paid 150s, plus other misc expenses, I think you've earned it. It is in some sense the ultimate magic diversifier but I think one tart with 4 in everything is actually far less useful than a half dozen tarts with an assortment of paths.

Re: Vote
 

Hmm, maybe so. I see your point about one very powerful unit being a bottleneck - only able to forge one item, be in one place at a time, etc. And I really like the idea of seeing magicless, possibly afflicted, tarts on the battlefield as troops and thugs. But I'm always wary of loopholes.

Another thing I was wondering about is which paths would be likely to be empowered. The main one that comes to mind is astral, not just because of the possibility of wishing for magic power but also because it would be the only way to get an S4 summon and strong astral is such a useful late game path. Maybe also air, earth and fire and blood (because it's so cheap to do so). Water, nature and death don't seem likely choices since there's other, cheaper, options.

Re: Vote
 

For me the problem with using feebleminded tarts as units/thugs is low MR/high hp combo which makes them the target for all the mr resistable spells which means they don't stay long enough to be useful.

Re: Vote
 

Good point, I had forgotten about the hit to MR. I guess you could equip the thugs with MR boosting gear but the troops would still be on the low side even with antimagic cast.

Re: Vote
 

Well you can get a very good MR with undead, and other fatigueles commanders.
Lead Shield, MR amulet, Rainbow Armor, Astral Cap, that's +12 right? Quite commonly used items.
I used all that once on a siege golem, seemed like a really good idea until I realized he had no arm slots. :) But still, he was able to soak up a nice deal of damage. I think a siege golem would be a pretty good and widely used summon if he had arms.

Re: Vote
 

Yeah, feebleminded tart commanders could be equipped to get respectable MR. It's the ones that you didn't GoR that would be in a more difficult situation. For instance, without magic it's almost certainly not worth GoRing a monstrum - but they are useful troops. A feebleminded monstrum would be at 13 MR, that you could only boost as high as 17 MR with antimagic/iron will/army of gold (excluding magic scales in this of course). At the same time its high HP would make it a target.

But perhaps a way around this would be to give the monstrum in particular a starting MR higher than 18? If it weren't feebleminded and were GoRed this still wouldn't be a problem since it has such limited slots compared to the other tarts. In fact you might have to give it a perk like exceptionally high MR to convince anyone to GoR a monstrum without magic.

Interesting idea about the siege golem, I'd never considered GoRing one. Those attack/defense stats look pretty horrible (just the kind of target I like to send my glamoured thugs after :)) but I guess it's not much worse than a golem and if they had hand slots you could get that looking a little better.

Re: Vote
 

I personally don't care much for the new suggestion re. Tartarians. I agree that they're too common by far so would like to put another suggestion on the table:

How about tartarians become nation specific spell for nations that have a strong thematic connection to death and/or that need such a uber spell to compensate for innate weakness. So for example, make tarts available only to:
- Ermor (yes, LA Ermor don't need tarts but this is the nation that thematically should have them)
- MA Machaka
- Sauromatia
etc.

That way you kill two birds with the same stone - reduce tarts from very common status and grant or not grant the spell as a further tool to address nation balance issues.

Re: Vote
 

QM could you also kindly post the things that are currently on the table for 1.8?- This way we would be able to provide feedback. Even if only a fragment of this feedback would end up being useful it's should still be worth it, right?

Re: Vote
 

The vote options like any vote choice are far too simplistic and shortsighted. I wondered if I should have voted at all.

Hammers - should be removed but only after adjusting everything they affect properly. Forge bonuses to all types of smiths, const sites in the cap for thug nations (yes I know likely unmoddable), gear cost adjustments, etc.

SDR - I see no problem with SDR; they don't take much micro. Unlike gemgens their effect on gameplay is obviously intentional. And if you bellyache about them "generating" gems, THAT'S WHAT ALL BLOOD HUNTERS DO. A B2 mage for 160 gold "generates" half a dozen slaves a turn. This is obviously how a blood econ is intended to work, although the costs might need to be adjusted to find balance. If you want to remove SDRs, ideally what would happen is the formula for blood hunting would start at 90% for B1 with B0 staying as it is. Since this is impossible, I say leave SDRs in.

Gemgens - sure take them out it's certainly a different game without them

Sites - 30% sites aren't the problem. The problem there is ALL alt sites, ALL blood sites, ALL const sites, and 30%+ conj sites. Personally I say remove all discount sites, especially with EDM.


I note Jade Knives aren't on the poll. Why?

Re: Vote
 

Sure, let's remove all discount sites. We don't need any rational to lynch them and why the best solution is removing content from the game ;)

Good point re. Jade knives :)

Re: Vote
 

Valerius, they would be really nice imo, all resistances, high protection, high HP and mindless. Would be able to capture forts alone too of course. But yes they have terrible stats like Golems, however you add a good shield and a brend weapon.
I think they should be allowed hands, it goes along with late stage thug/sc diversification. They'd be like a bigger version of the Mechanical Giant.

Deamon, there are only 10 poll questions that can be used, so the poll can't be anything else than simple. My intent was to get some general ideas and feedback on the given subjects and have this thread generate some possibilities regarding some CBM choices, which seemed to work.

As fare as jade knifes go, well, I did intend to put them originally, however I forgot about them when I made the poll.:rolleyes:

Re: Vote
 

Care to offer some counterpoints about the other tart suggestion?

I don't see how leaving tarts as they are and restricting them to some nations does much good, especially as death nations are by and large the best nations anyway. If won't change the fact that nations with access will use them almost exclusively, it just means those that don't are fighting a massively uphill battle.

I'll look in to posting a possible change list before release.

Re: Vote
 

Sounds good to me. It's certainly not OP and the greater variety of summons on the field, the better. :)


SSJ reminded me of something when he mentioned the Momentum 3 rules in the EDM thread. In that game one of the boosts I gave the elemental royalty was 100% darkvision for those that didn't already have it. What about making the elemental royalty either blind or have darkvision 100? It seems odd to me that, for instance, the Queen of Storms can summon blind air elementals but isn't blind herself. Same goes for the earth kings. Then the fire and water royalty have odd situations such as summoning blind elementals but having darkvision themselves. Seems like it would be thematic and a nice little boost to make this consistent and give all the elemental royalty blindness/darkvision (I don't think anyone would argue they're OP and they are in any case unique).

Agree completely; I'd rather stick with the current situation than go this route.

Re: Vote
 

Yes please.
You said:
"
At the moment I'm toying with the idea of removing their default magic in favor of 'potential' magic. They would have no magic when you summon them but 50 gems empowerment of the appropriate type would get you direct to level 4 in a path (thematically speaking, it's just a different way of representing the feebled mind, but in a way that anyone could heal them, not just the GoH/Chalice). This way, with the right investment they could well surpass most EDM summons, but they wouldn't have the huge diversity advantages.
+
Yes, I think the only way to remove afflictions would be to swap out the summoning spell, which has side effects I'd rather avoid. I think having plenty feebled would still be OK though- it's true GoH/Chalice is great now but the concern with the direct raising prices was that it would make them better- this would just leave them at about their current power. After all, how many tarts can you really empower? At 10 gems each you should easily have plenty of healthy empowerment candidates. Also, under this tart scheme GoR could probably get cheaper and they could be used with whatever afflictions as thugs (I actually think seeing some still feebled tarts used in battle would be quite cool).
"

let me see if I get you right, your suggestion consists of:
1. Tarts won't have magic.
2. 50 gems worth of empower would give them lvl 4 of ???
3. Tarts would still have afflictions
4. Tarts summon price would be 10D

So basically to get a 4X tart I'll need to spend 10D *(avg # of times to get non feeble mind tart) + 50D. My gripe with the suggestion is that: a- it keeps the current unthematic "all nations take death to get to tarts" tendency. Yeah, it really makes sense to see MA Mari + Pyth deploy tarts and go hvy on death...
and b- The price raise and losing diversity seem to take all the fun out of tarts - or in other words are too extreme.

Except LA Ermor the other nations could use both diversity and row power. Think what it would do to MA Machaka status to have near exclusive access to tarts. So perhaps don't give Tarts to LA Ermor but do give to other underpowered death nations.

Tarts are fun the way they are but not everyone should have them. To prevent ppl from taking them you'll need to make them suck and then nobody will summon them :(

Re: Vote
 

I agree that removing the magic and making them cheap to empower removes much of the interest that comes from the diversity.
Being able to get the magic you want on the chassis you want, as long as you have the gems takes away alot of the flavor. Trying to figure out something useful to do with the weird path combinations (or getting that random 7S titan) is all part of the fun.

And I'm not sure about the mechanics of this. What happens if you stick a RoW on one of these?

Re: Vote
 

That seems a defeatist attitude towards balance- either they are so good people use them exclusively or they suck and no one uses them.

That more or less sums it up, yes. Though given for 10d they are quite good troops anyway, the cost for an empowered tart chassis is more like 50 of whatever gems you can spare + GoR cost. I do sympathize with your objection to unthematic nations getting tarts, but honestly I don't see any option to stop that without very unwanted repercussions. To me, having Mackaka get Tarts but not LA Ermor seems even more unthematic than everyone getting them. And allowing high powered death nations privileged access is just asking for trouble. In any case, restricting tarts by nations is more of an and/or suggestion than directly in opposition to changing their magic.

As for the point about removing fun, I admit I get as much fun from rolling randoms as the next person, but there are plenty of places to do that in dominions. You could even look at the empowerment as simply a more round about way of rolling randoms, based on what kind of gems you get extra of from sites. And as much as rolling randoms is fun, so are strategic choices and this seems to actually increase those.

EDIT: Boosters would work as normal, i.e. they would not boost anything unless you already had that path.

Re: Vote
 

My worry about the empowerment thing is that it might actually increase the tendency of Tartarians to give you diversity. Generally it's possible to scrape together 50 gems of any colour by late game, so if you get to Tartarians you might just empower one of each path you don't have strong access to, and then have strong access to all paths.

Re: Vote
 

I'm not sure it could really be worse than the current set up in that respect... it's true you can't guarantee any particular path right now but I think you can generally acquire diversity at a much lower price. 50 gems of a type you don't have good access to is not easy, and having one x4 mage of the type is not really that great of overall access- compared with usually having a largish pile of tarts with usually several of each path.

Re: Vote
 

Fair enough, you've convinced me! I'd tend to think if getting an X4 mage (in path X that I don't have access to) as a win for getting access to that path, but if its so late game that I'm getting Tartarians I suppose a single mage for all that effort and all those gems is no longer so impressive.

Re: Vote
 

I think it shows kinda the problem that the suggest price for diversifying at level 4 is 50 gems, when thats the same price diversification is 'intended' to be with empowerment to level 1.

Not that I've ever summoned a Tartarian ^_^

Re: Vote
 

Yes, I'm basically saying that I'm concerned your suggestion would lead to the latter. Why should anyone pay so much the get a one path lvl4 tart?- If you need level 4 summons there's plenty to go around now that are way cheaper and easier to get. It was the diversity and unexpected nature of what you'd get that made for the "fun" factor.

ok, how about the following: go even further with the randomness effect - add a certain chance that the summon would backfire. Either not work, or summon horror or some such.

Re: Vote
 

I don't see why people wouldn't summon them. They simply wouldn't be as incredibly good as they currently are. With QM's proposed mechanic they would perhaps be used to break into a new path, since they could immediately summon other commanders in that path to help your diversity, for more economical use of gems. It would also make it more of a strategic choice for the player. Instead of simply "summon more till I get lucky" its "do I want this guy to help me diversify into w or do I empower him in e for another SC?"
Another thing is, with this change it would be possible to make GoR even cheaper opening up more interesting options.
I also agree with qm in that I see no reason that tarts can't be balanced to be viable and not simply the number 1 choice.

Re: Vote
 

inline
"
I don't see why people wouldn't summon them.
I think I won't summon them under the new scheme. It won't be cost efficient. Perhaps many players would feel the same. If so, they'll go from being super common to being rare.


They simply wouldn't be as incredibly good as they currently are. With QM's proposed mechanic they would perhaps be used to break into a new path, since they could immediately summon other commanders in that path to help your diversity, for more economical use of gems. It would also make it more of a strategic choice for the player. Instead of simply "summon more till I get lucky" its "do I want this guy to help me diversify into w or do I empower him in e for another SC?"
Another thing is, with this change it would be possible to make GoR even cheaper opening up more interesting options.
I also agree with qm in that I see no reason that tarts can't be balanced to be viable and not simply the number 1 choice.
I assume they can, I just don't think the proposed change is good. I would have preferred better competition from EDM, a different solution or the current status rather than the new change
"