Conceptual Balance Mod 1.41

[Wrana]

I'd say that the first one of them to be buffed should be Gift of Nature's Bounty itself! Then, probably, Riches from Beneath...

[rdonj]

Riches from beneath is not that weak. Plus it costs almost nothing in CBM. It's perfectly usable in its current form IMO. Actually I think CBM makes it a bit too good.

[JimMorrison]

Well my take on the Blood summons, is a bit more complicated.

For example, many nations already have trouble getting the large summons cast. They push for it, because although it takes significant effort and expense, the cost/benefit ratio of each cast makes up for the trouble.

With individual casts being dropped so drastically in price (I can see them being -slightly- more efficient than the large spell's base effect), it gives some nations a massive benefit, compared to others. For example Helheim/Vanheim can ultimately make good use of Storm Demons at 2 slaves apiece. Perhaps LA Ulm wants to use Storm Demons, they are relegated to their pretender, and for every 25 Demons that Vanheim is putting out, they are getting 7-8 for the same 50 slaves.

So to reiterate, I'm not saying it's not a good idea to slightly reduce the cost (7 slaves is insane for early game, I agree), but to slash costs by 60-70% on them is rather heavy handed, I think.


Also I was going to mention Leprosy. I don't know what gave the impression that it wasn't useful enough, but I always found it terrifying at 10 Death gems per cast. Hitting large armies with it (they're on the move, so no dome) can do more damage in a short time than almost any other attack. Now at 5 gems, in one game I am getting hit by ~3 per turn, and even units/mages with up to 18 MR are simply no match for it.


(Sorry if I seem overly critical about these things, though I admit, I am extremely bothered by the Leprosy change.)

[Jazzepi]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Well my take on the Blood summons, is a bit more complicated.

For example, many nations already have trouble getting the large summons cast. They push for it, because although it takes significant effort and expense, the cost/benefit ratio of each cast makes up for the trouble.

With individual casts being dropped so drastically in price (I can see them being -slightly- more efficient than the large spell's base effect), it gives some nations a massive benefit, compared to others. For example Helheim/Vanheim can ultimately make good use of Storm Demons at 2 slaves apiece. Perhaps LA Ulm wants to use Storm Demons, they are relegated to their pretender, and for every 25 Demons that Vanheim is putting out, they are getting 7-8 for the same 50 slaves.

So to reiterate, I'm not saying it's not a good idea to slightly reduce the cost (7 slaves is insane for early game, I agree), but to slash costs by 60-70% on them is rather heavy handed, I think.


Also I was going to mention Leprosy. I don't know what gave the impression that it wasn't useful enough, but I always found it terrifying at 10 Death gems per cast. Hitting large armies with it (they're on the move, so no dome) can do more damage in a short time than almost any other attack. Now at 5 gems, in one game I am getting hit by ~3 per turn, and even units/mages with up to 18 MR are simply no match for it.


(Sorry if I seem overly critical about these things, though I admit, I am extremely bothered by the Leprosy change.)

I'm actually surprised that spell would be made so cheap. I always thought 10 gems was a fine trade, especially with penetration gear. If you hit commanders it makes it much harder to micro, and they can get afflictions which make them drop gear that's buffing spell paths, or makes them so retarded that they can't cast their scripts (mute/feeblemind), or makes them lose an eye so that they have trouble aiming.

Jazzepi

[Wrana]

Agree in both cases.

[Reay]

I agree about Leprosy being too cheap in CBM. I always like using it with penetration items. It seems to cause more damage than the other rituals over the long term.

[Trumanator]

Well, I would say that the only really concrete reason for reversing a change would be if it becomes a problem in-game. AFAIK there haven't been any killer strategies using the LotG... That said, go ahead and see if you can put one together.

[Wrana]

By the way, do you see any possible use for Lord of War? Soldiers generation has little real effect on his performance...

[Trumanator]

Okay, I went into SP to see what the Lord of the Gates was capable of. He is definitely a capable expander when given dom9, and likely would be even with ~dom 7. The shades do a lot to reduce hits to him, and are actually excellent units against indies. The main issue is that only Ermor and C'tis get him, and his paths aren't really anything they need. If I want more death with them I would probably go with a lich/ML. However, I might give him a shot as C'tis, since they have slightly more problems with expansion than Ermor. Past indy clearing, he does drop off in usefulness. Though he is still fully equipable, he just doesn't measure up to an E9 cyclops, or one of the multi-armed pretenders. Perhaps adding 1E? That seems thematic, and would make me seriously consider him for a low level E-D bless for my mages. Though even as is, you can get E4 D4, dom9, and decent scales without too much trouble.

After all the above meandering, I suppose I would conclude that his lack of use has more to do with his narrow availability than anything else, and I can easily see him as simply a pretender who just needs someone to take a second look at him.

[VedalkenBear]

I love the Lord of the Gates. I (personally) like the auto-summoners, except those that produce troops that require upkeep.

Here's a theoretical question. For the Lord of War (or the Celestial General), what is the tipping point for a summon that you have to actually command? E.g., would a Lord of War that auto-summoned nothing, but could use Summon Allies to summon 25 infantry and 5 cavalry be balanced? What about 15 and 3? I would much prefer a design that used 'Summon Allies' over auto-summon, because of the control it allows.