|
|
|
View Poll Results: Would you object to CBM adding spells/summons?
|
No
|
|
40 |
67.80% |
Yes
|
|
13 |
22.03% |
I don't use CBM
|
|
6 |
10.17% |
|
|
September 4th, 2009, 09:56 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2,968
Thanks: 24
Thanked 221 Times in 46 Posts
|
|
New spells/summons
At the moment it's a theoretical question, but I'm interested to hear the community's opinions of adding new spells and summons in the CB mod. Since it has become somewhat standard in MP games, obviously great care would need to be taken with such additions, but there are significant balance advantages that could be achieved that way. For example, it is often lamented how late game devolves to almost purely tartarians with a smattering of unique summons, that could in theory be diversified with new options.
Would such changes be outside the scope of CB, or the next logical step to achieve more variety?
|
September 4th, 2009, 10:06 PM
|
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 401
Thanks: 15
Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
Oi, I accidentally voted no when I meant to vote yes.
That being said, I think adding some spells to the mix certainly would help make the late game interesting.
That, and maybe more tartarian nerfs, of course.
|
September 4th, 2009, 10:06 PM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tacoma WA, USA
Posts: 1,314
Thanks: 103
Thanked 72 Times in 50 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
Personally, I feel that unless a mod(s) became as widely accepted as the CBM mod itself, I would feel that they/it would be beyond the scope of CBM. There are already lots of n00bs who are confused about it, and adding entirely new spells/units/etc. would simply add to the problem. I have no problem with adding new things, but not as part and parcel with the CBM mod.
|
September 4th, 2009, 10:08 PM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 868
Thanks: 56
Thanked 42 Times in 33 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
I actually have to agree with Trumanator.
lots of people want that, but not everyone. i think it would be a good change, but outside the scope of CB
|
September 4th, 2009, 10:12 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2,968
Thanks: 24
Thanked 221 Times in 46 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tolkien
Oi, I accidentally voted no when I meant to vote yes.
|
You mean yes when you meant no?
|
September 4th, 2009, 10:19 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irving, TX
Posts: 3,207
Thanks: 54
Thanked 60 Times in 35 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
To quantify my no vote, I would say that I am not opposed to a new SC chassis being added by CBM, to diversify the late game a bit. I would be opposed to new spells though... I think that could just get confusing, esp. for new players learning the game.
__________________
Be forewarned, anything I post is probably either 1) Sophomoric humor, 2) Satire, 3) A gross exaggeration of the power I currently possess, 4) An outright lie, or 5) Drunken ramblings.
I occasionally post something useful.
|
September 4th, 2009, 10:20 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 3,691
Thanks: 269
Thanked 397 Times in 200 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
But but but ... CBM already adds new units, some of which are new heroes, some of which are dom-summons.
I don't see anything wrong with adding additional spells and summons, on principle. Or sites, for that matter. I'm sure there will be a thorough discussion of the details of any additions.
Any if anything overpowered does slip through, it can get fixed in the next iteration of CBM.
@lingchih: How are we going to get a new SC chassis without a new spell to summon it?
__________________
Whether he submitted the post, or whether he did not, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed— would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper— the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever.
http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?
|
September 4th, 2009, 10:22 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 2,968
Thanks: 24
Thanked 221 Times in 46 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lingchih
To quantify my no vote, I would say that I am not opposed to a new SC chassis being added by CBM, to diversify the late game a bit. I would be opposed to new spells though...
|
You realize the new summons would need spells to summon them?
|
September 4th, 2009, 10:26 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irving, TX
Posts: 3,207
Thanks: 54
Thanked 60 Times in 35 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
Quote:
Originally Posted by quantum_mechani
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lingchih
To quantify my no vote, I would say that I am not opposed to a new SC chassis being added by CBM, to diversify the late game a bit. I would be opposed to new spells though...
|
You realize the new summons would need spells to summon them?
|
Don't be nitpicky QM. I was speaking of other spells besides the new summoning spell.
__________________
Be forewarned, anything I post is probably either 1) Sophomoric humor, 2) Satire, 3) A gross exaggeration of the power I currently possess, 4) An outright lie, or 5) Drunken ramblings.
I occasionally post something useful.
|
September 4th, 2009, 11:56 PM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 1,538
Thanks: 289
Thanked 194 Times in 94 Posts
|
|
Re: New spells/summons
Why not simply create an optional CBM "companion" spell mod? Might be hard to balance everything with an external option, but maybe worth a thought.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|