Magic Items under CBM

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

The good shields are all 10n... what the hell is your list?

If you only use 10n shields then you've locked yourself into quite the little hell of a predictable box. Good is relative depending on what you're up against and what you have available.

Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak.

Do you always resort to strawmen? Even on your 1st response to new posters in a thread??? I would be curious why you find all death forges weak, but if your strawmen are any indication of your level of civil discussion then nevermind and goodbye. In short, I never said that.

In particular, there are other good uses for death gems than forgings. You have to think about this from the perspective of a player with death gems. Is he going to use them on some crappy item or to summon tarts? Any use of death gems must be competitive with existing uses of death gems or it will not see play. As such, there being plenty of good uses for death gems already is a strong argument for death forgings to be *stronger*, not weaker. Sure, you can consider it an advantage for nations that have death gems (but that's going to be everyone, since you need death for the endgame), or you can consider every 12d (CBM) spent on death forgings to be one less tart that player is summoning. Or 2.5 fewer liches. Etc...

Hey lets make Stygian Paths work like Astral Travel, because that means 1 less Tartartian too! I'm not convinced by your argument that death is very strong so lets make it even stronger via diversity. In fact by less nature gems spent on shields you can GoR more Tartarians (since now you have your "just as competitive" 2-handed sword). And conveniently, you apparently see the advantage of gaining 1 mage turn (no shield forge needed) as insignificant since you ignored that point.

Thanks for your opinion Squirrelloid, but your ideal CBM with death being awesome at everything just because it is awesome at many things doesn't sound appealing to me.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by PyroStock

If you only use 10n shields then you've locked yourself into quite the little hell of a predictable box. Good is relative depending on what you're up against and what you have available.

Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?

The next best shield is arguably Eye Shield.

Do you always resort to strawmen? Even on your 1st response to new posters in a thread??? I would be curious why you find all death forges weak, but if your strawmen are any indication of your level of civil discussion then nevermind and goodbye. In short, I never said that.

Where's the strawman? Strawmen reach a faulty conclusion because they depend on a mis-characterization. I made a factual claim: death gems being already useful is no reason for another use to be worse. And the logical conclusion: worse uses won't see play. Look, death gems have a value. That value is set by their best uses. Any use whose value is less than that is not going to get played. This isn't a strawman, its basic economics.

(Now, value can vary depending on situation a little bit, but something that has very situational uses and thus is unlikely to be used more than once in that fashion still has a pretty low utility. Wraithsword currently has *no* situation in which its worthwhile).

I didn't say all death forges were weak, I said no death forge should be weak because it won't see play. So if any death forging is weak it needs to be improved or it might as well be removed from the game.

Now, whether you interpret that as a direct rebuttal of your urge for caution remark is up to you. It doesn't change the factual nature of my statements.

Hey lets make Stygian Paths work like Astral Travel, because that means 1 less Tartartian too! I'm not convinced by your argument that death is very strong so lets make it even stronger via diversity. In fact by less nature gems spent on shields you can GoR more Tartarians (since now you have your "just as competitive" 2-handed sword).

Now who's using strawman arguments?

Stygian paths may need a little buffing, but hardly needs its functionality changed. Possibly needs to be made a little cheaper. It certainly sees occasional use at present (unlike wraithsword), and has niche uses (its one of the few ways to move a Sphinx, for example), so there are times where its situational value is high enough to warrant spending d gems on it.

I would still take a single-handed weapon + vine shield over the proposed wraithsword.

And conveniently, you apparently don't see the advantage of gaining 1 mage turn (no shield forge needed) as insignificant since you ignored that point.

It is insignificant. When you have 50 or 100 mages, what's one more mage turn?

Early game its an issue, but very few nations are equipping piles of thugs/SCs in the early game (and those nations generally really want shields - ie, vanheim, eriu, etc...).

Thanks for your opinion Squirrelloid, but your ideal CBM with death being awesome at everything just because it is awesome at many things doesn't sound appealing to me.

Well, ideally i'd prefer if the value of all gems was equally high, but CBM is not going to make sufficient changes to the game to make water gems as valuable as death gems. The game, even as balanced by CBM, does have implicit values for every gem type, and barring significant rebalancing to change those values, there is no point in assuming anything but the existing values. Basically, when making small modifications to the game, you're a price taker in terms of the value of gold, gems, and resources. If you deviate from the value already dictated by the game, either your changes are overpowered or will never see play, depending on which direction you deviated.

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Vine Shield >> charcoal shield, lantern shield, gold shield, etc... This isn't even really a point of discussion. There is also no counter for vine shield, so who cares if you're predictable?

Fine be predictable and I'm sure your opponents won't mind either. Micah covered many other points well enough.

Where's the strawman?

You said, "Also, death being strong is not an argument for death forgings to be weak" in response to my post. No one ever made "an argument for death forgings to be weak," so there was no reason to mention that. Regardless, I accept your revision of, "no death forge should be weak" because it won't see play as that doesn't imply anyone is making "an argument for death forgings to be weak."

Look, death gems have a value. That value is set by their best uses.

Wrong. Even when CBM first started the vanilla 10D Tartarian was one of the best use for death gems (especially since it didn't even have shattered soul yet). CBM didn't change everything and base it off the overpowered vanilla 10D Tartarian (that's ridiculous)... instead it nerfed the Tartarian.

Any use whose value is less than that is not going to get played.
(Now, value can vary depending on situation a little bit, but something that has very situational uses and thus is unlikely to be used more than once in that fashion still has a pretty low utility. Wraithsword currently has *no* situation in which its worthwhile).

I'm not objecting to a change for the wraithsword, however, another problem with applying your "best uses" theory to all items/spells is you're further widening the power gap (well chasm) between the weaker/stronger gems and making death heavy nations even stronger. Additionally, your deliberate neglect of the research tree by comparing Conj9 Tartarians to a Cons6 item makes them not a valid comparison and makes your "value" to the death gem wildly inappropriate for balance.

I didn't say all death forges were weak, I said no death forge should be weak because it won't see play. So if any death forging is weak it needs to be improved or it might as well be removed from the game. Now, whether you interpret that as a direct rebuttal of your urge for caution remark is up to you.

I can agree more with the above because there's a big difference between "it needs to be improved because it sees no play" and some of your other outrageous statements.

Now who's using strawman arguments?

You don't like the taste of your own medicine? Good.

Stygian paths may need a little buffing, but hardly needs its functionality changed.

I was being sarcastic.

I would still take a single-handed weapon + vine shield over the proposed wraithsword.

It always keeps coming back to the 10n shields. If every 2-handed weapon (and eventually shield) gets compared to the 10n shields then perhaps it's your precious 10n shields that are too cheap/overpowered.

It is insignificant. When you have 50 or 100 mages, what's one more mage turn?

It's 1 mage turn if you only make 1 shield every game regardless of the nation and game settings. Even IF one's imagination for the mages is limited to research then the cumulative effect adds up and could mean hitting a research level sooner to turn the tide of battles or get a unique first. It's easy to ignore since it's not easy to witness.

Well, ideally i'd prefer if the value of all gems was equally high, but CBM is not going to make sufficient changes to the game to make water gems as valuable as death gems. The game, even as balanced by CBM, does have implicit values for every gem type, and barring significant rebalancing to change those values, there is no point in assuming anything but the existing values. Basically, when making small modifications to the game, you're a price taker in terms of the value of gold, gems, and resources. If you deviate from the value already dictated by the game, either your changes are overpowered or will never see play, depending on which direction you deviated.

And everyone sees those values differently, which you demonstrated quite well for me. As you yourself said spell/forge value can vary depending on the situation (the individual, the nation, game settings, game rules, etc). That further suggests it's better to be cautious so things remain more constant and fewer things become overpowered under different situations. The item can always be revisited again later. I would rather have CBM err on the side of "these 11 were changed, but still don't see play according to many players so perhaps we need to look at some again" rather than "well the last CBM version made the following 3 items/spells overpowered... while we try to correct those lets also make these other 11 more powerful to make sure they get some use now."