Balance opinions

[Agrajag]

I wouldn't call myself a veteran, I wouldn't call myself an above average Dominions player. But I've played with CBM on Dom2, and I play Dom3 with CBM on.

And just a couple of points I'd like to make:
1) What I like about CBM is that it improves weak strategies. The nerfs to successful strategies are a bit less welcome.
I like it this way because I often find myself thinking "I'd really like to do X, that sounds like fun and seems really cool, but I can't because it just won't work.".
I suspect that the desire for nerfs comes more from a way of thinking that is foreign to me - "I'd really like to do X, that sounds like fun and seems really cool, but Y is better so I won't."
2) Changes to items - bleh. Changing boosters is a sin. Changing hammers is bad too. In general changing the costs of items sounds like a bad idea to me, because they are geared so certain mages can use them.
I'm not saying that changing the costs of items is always bad, but that generally the changes should only be in lowering costs of weak items.
3) My opinion on changes to magic paths is identical to those on changing items (and, well, to point 1 as well) - boost the weak, don't nerf the strong.

And of course - thank you and keep up the good work

[Edi]

DrPraetorious, I have a really hard time understanding your position on nerfing. You seem to rule it out as an option almost entirely, but if such an approach is taken, it results in an out of control, neverending boosting cycle for everything where a single nerf would fix the issue. I've seen compelling arguments for this and no valid arguments at all for NOT nerfing.

That said, and on the basis of the Dom2 CB mod where I was fairly involved (I haven't tried the Dom3 one, no time), most changes were actually boosting really crappy units such as drakes enough to make them viable and tweaking too expensive or otehrwise suboptimal stuff so that it became viable. Nerfs were few and far between and I expect things to remain so by and large.

CBM may or may no be more optimized for blitz games, but I do not expect its balance changes to be detrimental on large maps. I intend to take a good look at it at some point and when I do, it will likely become a permanent addition to my games though I am likely to change some things to get a version more to my own liking. I've also grown attached to the BI mod, which isn't too compatible with the CBM because of the design premises.

[Sombre]

I'm a huge fan of CBM, as people probably already know. If I could I'd play every single game with CBM turned on, but for the sake of people who play my mods, I have to test stuff in vanilla as well. That isn't to say that I don't like vanilla and it's a chore to play,.. that isn't the case at all. It's just that I agree so wholeheartedly with the /spirit/ of CBM; increasing the number of viable gameplay paths through stat tweaks.

When you have a spell or unit this is so weak no-one is using it and when it is used it's basically like throwing gems away, well that annoys me, because there's so much stuff in the game that is like that, but in terms of artwork, concept,.. flavour, whatever,.. well it kicks ***. The spirit of CBM is to allow you to use Bog Beasts and Shades and cavalry and light infantry and slime in situations where it makes sense, instead of just ignoring it because it's too weak or overpriced to actually be effective at the task it was designed for. Without these tweaks it's too easy to just throw away 90% of the stuff in the game.

Now initially CBM just seemed too huge for me to get into. I didn't understand what the broad goals and changes of the mod were - but after a little research I got right into it. In that respect, it's like Dom3 itself. You take a little leap of faith and you start to notice all the cool stuff.

My only problem with CBM is that sometimes it doesn't take things far enough, such as with summoning spells. There are so many summons in basegame that just aren't worth the gems most of the time, while a handful of summons are simply amazing. It's annoying because in MP you're effectively punished for straying from the beaten path, while in SP the AI is getting the ****ty end of th stick because it will insist on casting stuff more or less at random, thereby often picking overpriced options - another handicap it doesn't need. So instead of just making a general complaint, I've posted up a big list of suggested changes to summons. I don't expect QM to follow them or anything (unless he agrees on all of them), but hopefully it will help highlight some tweaks that can be made to improve balance.

[Burnsaber]

I agree wholeheartedly with Sombre. Dominions 3 has insane amounts of cool stuff that no one in their right mind would actually use.

[Meglobob]

Edi said:
DrPraetorious, I have a really hard time understanding your position on nerfing. You seem to rule it out as an option almost entirely, but if such an approach is taken, it results in an out of control, neverending boosting cycle for everything where a single nerf would fix the issue. I've seen compelling arguments for this and no valid arguments at all for NOT nerfing.

DrPraetorious position on nerfing is EXACTLY my position on nerfing as well.

Well I don't rule out nerfing entirely, its far too easy a route that all game developers go down. Problem? Remove it or lower the stats. Its also done over and over again, so you don't end up with just one or a couple of nerfs to the game you end up with dozens over a period of time. Seemly in response to when someone who has only played the game for a short time, says isn't such an such overpowered.

Sombre said:My only problem with CBM is that sometimes it doesn't take things far enough, such as with summoning spells. There are so many summons in basegame that just aren't worth the gems most of the time, while a handful of summons are simply amazing. It's annoying because in MP you're effectively punished for straying from the beaten path, while in SP the AI is getting the ****ty end of th stick because it will insist on casting stuff more or less at random, thereby often picking overpriced options - another handicap it doesn't need. So instead of just making a general complaint, I've posted up a big list of suggested changes to summons. I don't expect QM to follow them or anything (unless he agrees on all of them), but hopefully it will help highlight some tweaks that can be made to improve balance.

Sombres suggestions to changing alot of the summon spells are excellent. It would be great to see them implemented. In MP alot of the lower level summon spells never get cast because its better to research and save gems/slaves for higher level, more cost effective summons. The key change is numbers you get of the summon, any summon spell that gives you 1 summon (excluding a thug, SC) is essentially a waste of a mages time unless that creature is exceptionally powerful.

[Beorne]

I fully agree with Sombre.

[Edi]

Meglobob said:
DrPraetorious position on nerfing is EXACTLY my position on nerfing as well.

Well I don't rule out nerfing entirely, its far too easy a route that all game developers go down. Problem? Remove it or lower the stats. Its also done over and over again, so you don't end up with just one or a couple of nerfs to the game you end up with dozens over a period of time. Seemly in response to when someone who has only played the game for a short time, says isn't such an such overpowered.

That sort of a problem manifests only if game developers are too spineless to say no the most vocal (and generally also most *****y and whiny) users. The "No nerfs ever" principle is really going to screw things up if implemented, because if something being underpowered is fixed by boosting, then becomes a problem and there's an ironclad no-nerfs-ever rule, everything else must be boosted. At which point there's further imbalance and it goes downward (upward actually, but the end result doesn't) from there until you have nothing but a broken piece of crap on your hands. This actually happened to one MMO game, Shadowlands or something like that, because the developers of that game were complete morons.

In my opinion, the way to fix things is do whatever requires the least amount of tinkering, that runs the least risk of breaking something else on the way. Thus if something is overpowered, maybe take it down a notch or a half, or maybe make it more expensive or something that slightly reduces the gap between it and everything else. If the change was not good, you can always reverse it and then tweak it further.

It is for these reasons that nerfing is actually the most common and usually the correct way to fix things, but in doing so, judgment must always be used.

[sector24]

I think there's a world of difference between increasing the cost of something and increasing the path. A path increase to an item or mage changes the fundamental nature of what they can do. A mage with an additional path could open up the use of 10 additional spells, that synergize with the existing 20. Changing the requirement on an item can ruin your whole game if you didn't know about that requirement ahead of time. It makes you re-memorize what a potential enemy can and cannot do to you.

Changing the cost is different. For instance, increasing the cost of Tartarians seems to me like a reasonable change to consider because they are ridiculously powerful and cheap. When you try to compare the cost of something like a Tarrasque to a Tartarian, you can see just how good a Tartarian is. It's also a pretty safe bet that the player trying to summon the Tartarian isn't down to his last 10 gems.

On the other hand, early in the game sometimes you really are strapped for gems. Changing the cost of a Dwarven Hammer could totally wreck your well laid plans. I've had plenty of games where I've only found a single earth site by the time I wanted a hammer, so even an increase of 5 gems would equate to an unexpected 5 turn delay in my plans.

I can see both sides of it. There are situations where you definitely want to make some nerfs because it's easier and more prudent than boosting everything else in the game up to that level. Generally though, nerfs should be reserved for situations that occur later in the game, where they have a smaller effect on the fundamental identity of a nation.

[DrPraetorious]

If something is drastically broken, it is better to nerf it than to upgrade absolutely everything else.

But the example I keep coming back to is Shadowfist (which is an excellet game, by the by.) They hardly ever nerfed anything - any underpowered card would get minor flavor advantages until it was competitive.

In dominions, there are a huge number of relatively minor advantages you can give that would actually enhance the flavor of units, and you can balance them to the most robust, useful members of their type, rather than taking that unit and nerfing it. I think this is preferable even if it introduces more changes, especially if it only introduces changes in stuff people seldom use.

For example - pretenders. The Prince of Death, the Wyrm, the Dragons, the Cyclops and a a bunch of bless chassis (esp the Oracle), there is a general consensus, are better than the other base pretenders.

It is easier on the learning curve to boost all the other pretenders than it is to nerf those dozen which people with carefully refined strategies actually use, even though this is more changes. That way, I don't even have to look at the mod, I can show up with my unmodified prince of death strategy and keep using it without even learning the new and improved abilities of the Titan (who can hurl lightning at 5% of enemy units at the start of combat, or something.)

You can do the same thing with nations - give them national spells (or, if absolutely needed, boost their troops) until they are competitive.

Personally, I don't think that units within a nation need to be particularly balanced against eachother. If a unit is actually useless, this is a problem, but I think it's actually *important* that some units (likewise spells, but obviously not whole nations) be niche, useful only in specific circumstances, while other nations and spells are more robust and broadly useful.

All of this is also a lot more work, of course.