Re: Vote
 

Without a balance change, all the changes except gemgens are just bad.
The 30%+ magic sites are ultra-strong, but then those which provide 5 gems are very good too and come in handy earlier.

Re: Vote
 

5 gems? the 30% magic sites essentially provide 20 gems/turn *at the least* if its a conj, const, or blood site, they can be worth 50+ gems/turn. they are on a totally different level than a measly 5 gems. and no amount of planning or pretender design can detrmine who gets them, so they can totally derail and unbalance a game

Re: Vote
 

I find it a bit odd that I've not seen anyone suggest that games be played at a higher site frequency now that hammers have been removed to increase the gem supply... since one of the complaints I've seen a lot is that it's a reduction in the amount of gems available.

Anyway, I voted that everything should be removed. The main reason hammers bother me is that I feel like I need to spend my entire earth income making them, or I'm losing the game. Any other expenditures of earth gems are suboptimal, until I have more hammers than I know what to do with. I also feel as though forging gear is the most important and almost always the best thing that you can do with your gems, since you're getting a discount on everything you make. As opposed to summoning or casting rituals, forging feels too efficient. And then, of course, if you get unlucky with earth site distribution you can be completely screwed over by having to pay more for gear than everyone else. Hammers basically just seem too important a part of everyone's strategy.

And I agree that there are some balance concerns created in 1.7 that need to be addressed before it's really ready for play. The changes made were vast and sweeping, and caused a lot of complex interactions with national power levels. Some of the complaints about it have seemed rather hyperbolic though.

Re: Vote
 

rdonj said exactly what I wanted to say but hadn't found time to put into sensible words.

Re: Vote
 

Soz GB but item modding is too limited to do what your asking.

@ everyone who wants to make suggestions: in future try reading the mod manual that is in your dom3 folder. Doing so makes for much more constructive discussion since those of us who _did_ read it don't have to be shooting down all sorts of impossible solutions. This is in no way an attack on anyone, simply a request.

Re: Vote
 

I voted to keep hammers and sites, I did not vote on the others as they are dependent upon one another. If you keep gem gens, you need to keep SDRs, and vice versa.

I think sites are necessary as they are an important part of the game. The game is inherently unbalanced. When you have as many nations as we do, any two or three nations are going to be unbalanced against one another, but are balanced overall. Where nations are unbalanced, it is up to the players to institute their own balance (Alliances, NAPs, etc.). We've all played games where we spanked one player so quickly, the other players said "we need to get him before he overwhelms us!" Next thing you know, you're out of the game due to a 5 on 1 dogpile. (This is also a reason why I have always been in favor of Machiavellian diplomacy as it allows you to do this, or change relations on a dime)

With regards to hammers, I agree with some of the previous posters, CBM is about giving us more options. I feel hammers do just that. They give us options of different items to produce. Otherwise, we just use the same fire/frost brand with boots of the messenger, etc. Its not like the major earth nations are huge threats in the MP environment (Agartha, Marverni, Ulm are not world beaters by any stretch). Hammers give the earth nations bargaining chips early in the game as well as a leg up that they need.

Regarding gem gens and SDRs, it really depends on game size. On a map with 75 provinces, they are not a huge deal (I would argue if you let someone craft a ton of them in a small game, you're not pressing him enough). However, on a large map, they can be a game breaker. Plus, I like the idea behind the gem gens, investing in your future. They just break things when used on a massive scale.

Re: Vote
 

Gem-gens bad......

Re: Vote
 

TheConway, I understand what you are saying, but I think YOU need to understand there are a LOT of us on here that don't know a thing about modding, know where to look for anything about modding, and actually don't care to mod. Re-read the part where it says "(which does NOT include me)in my post AND where it says "Sounds like a hell of a lot of work to me".

I made a couple of sugestions about hammers just in case someone who wanted to keep them in the game and thought it MIGHT be a good idea. Other than that I have no dog in this fight.

So PLEASE, when there is a discussion on here, unless it is YOUR thread and you have it labled 'Only qualified modders' or perhaps 'Only those that have read the modding book', do NOT feel free to lecture me on when to make a comment amonst my friends.

(sorry guys, must be getting cranky since I blew my knee out Thanksgiving playing football)

Re: Vote
 

+1

However, I'd keep dousing rods, as they level the blood playing field. Without them, nations that have B2 access outside capitol has a great advantage, not needing to spend 30 slaves to empower.

Mictlan is strangely not that much affected, they only have to rush Blood 6 (Tlahuelpuchi with B2 for 25 girls) instead of Const.

Re: Vote
 

While I'm for removing hammers, I'm not for removing it without at least a preliminary fix to the large shift in nation power (as in 1.7) to test. not sure whether I should vote for remove hammer or not given that distinction...