Vote

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

Dropping hand slots on werewolves is an interesting idea, though it is unfortunate it would nerf non-giant werewolves which are already a bit borderline for thugging.

Doesn't the Skratti's werewolf form have its own monster number, different from the human size werewolves?

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Valerius

Doesn't the Skratti's werewolf form have its own monster number, different from the human size werewolves?

Certainly, just thinking of consistency.

[quantum_mechani]

I will say one thing for certain about this poll- it has caused me to reconsider the removal of powerful bonus sites. While people seem to regard being unique and being removed as interchangeable for items, I personally find the fact that they are still in the game a significant plus, and likely would not have considered an outright removal of them. The reasoning with sites is that their removal is not really removing on option, but it is admittedly removing content. I think sites do have the potential to 'ruin' games, but probably not consistently, so if the general opinion is they should stay, that seems fair enough.

Hammers are a very different matter, and not just because making them unique is not strictly removing content. Almost all complaints I have heard about the change seems as though they can be fixed with a bit of national balance and/or a slight increase in site frequency in games (this while maintaining the benefits in terms of reduced micromanagement, and the bizarre skewed pretender design hammers caused). There may also be repercussions for specific items in terms of worthwhileness of pricing, but this swings both ways- the available prices for things are no more or less finely grained than before, some items can be priced more appropriately while others must be priced less appropriately.

It has been said the most recent CB actually goes in the direction of reducing possible strategic options, but this seems a difficult interpretation to take. Whatever there is not to like about the hammer change, it is hard to argue that not requiring 3-4 e on a non-e nation's pretender doesn't present more options, or that not needing to beeline right for SDRs with a blood strategy doesn't open up new possibilities. It's the fact that these so called 'options' were indispensable that causes the difficulties, and while it's possible that changing them can cascade into making other options less attractive, these are all presumably independently addressable problems.

[Valerius]

As best I can recall, CBM 1.6 and 1.7 have generated the most discussion of all the D3 CBM releases (can't speak for the D2 CBM releases). But when 1.6 removed gem gens many games already banned them. So while there was some opposition to the change, it was following an already strong trend. 1.7 is different in that it seems most people weren't expecting these changes or requesting them. This doesn't mean they're bad - but it does seem like a significant change from the previous, more conservative, approach.

The other change I've noticed (partly as a consequence of 1.7) is you seem to be taking on balance between nations, not just within them. And I think this has been something there has been more of an interest in CBM tackling. There's always going to be a most powerful nation/path/etc. I'm ok with the current top tier remaining there - I'd just like to see less of a gap between them and the rest of the pack.

It also occured to me in following this discussion that it must be gratifying that people care enough about the mod to provide this feedback - certainly better than early on when CBM was greeted with rejection/indifference.

Anyway, there have been some very good points on both sides of this discussion. For me, 1.7 feels like part of the picture. The changes did have balance implications. As is, I'd be inclined to stick with 1.6 or, more likely, change the parts I didn't like and use a modified version of 1.7. But 1.8, by addressing some of the issues that arise from these changes seems like it may present a more full picture. Though if you keep the nerf to brands in 1.8 I'll change that when I admin a game, self serving though it may be.

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

It has been said the most recent CB actually goes in the direction of reducing possible strategic options, but this seems a difficult interpretation to take.

I don't want to derail the thread, but thinking along the lines of increasing options by removing something do you have any thoughts on the fact that tarts are still the optimal choice for SC/magic diversity? Things are much better than before the EDM but I think people still feel the need to get the Chalice or GoH so they can mass produce tarts. I'm not suggesting removing tarts but perhaps giving them less magic diversity so they are more like the EDM summons - mainly SCs with some magic diversity added in.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

It has been said the most recent CB actually goes in the direction of reducing possible strategic options, but this seems a difficult interpretation to take. Whatever there is not to like about the hammer change, it is hard to argue that not requiring 3-4 e on a non-e nation's pretender doesn't present more options, or that not needing to beeline right for SDRs with a blood strategy doesn't open up new possibilities. It's the fact that these so called 'options' were indispensable that causes the difficulties, and while it's possible that changing them can cascade into making other options less attractive, these are all presumably independently addressable problems.

I disagree with the leap you're making here. Again, I think a lot of this is due to fixating on one type of game. The large games make hammers much more important. In a smaller game, hammers are much less important. The mage time in making more hammers over the first have a decreasing rate of return. I am currently playing a small 55 province map against two opponents, and I am crafting all I can afford to do with two hammers. I have too many more important things for my pretender to do (only one with a lot of earth). I took the earth for the bless, not for the hammer forging.

Now, if we were playing a larger game, I would need more hammers. I would have more time, so any turn spent crafting hammers has a lower opportunity cost and a higher payoff. So I would consider trading for hammers or taking a pretender with earth.

I mean is anyone calling for a nerf of Niefelheim because they win duels against Marverni on a map like Dogfight? No.

The other side of the coin is games where you don't get high earth income? I've played games where I needed something and didn't get it. Are we going to ramp up gems just because I got an unlucky draw? No we accept that. Again, I feel this falls into the same category.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I disagree with the leap you're making here. Again, I think a lot of this is due to fixating on one type of game. The large games make hammers much more important. In a smaller game, hammers are much less important. The mage time in making more hammers over the first have a decreasing rate of return. I am currently playing a small 55 province map against two opponents, and I am crafting all I can afford to do with two hammers. I have too many more important things for my pretender to do (only one with a lot of earth). I took the earth for the bless, not for the hammer forging.

Now, if we were playing a larger game, I would need more hammers. I would have more time, so any turn spent crafting hammers has a lower opportunity cost and a higher payoff. So I would consider trading for hammers or taking a pretender with earth.

I mean is anyone calling for a nerf of Niefelheim because they win duels against Marverni on a map like Dogfight? No.

The other side of the coin is games where you don't get high earth income? I've played games where I needed something and didn't get it. Are we going to ramp up gems just because I got an unlucky draw? No we accept that. Again, I feel this falls into the same category.

It is probably true, the smaller the game less likely it is hammers will play a significant role. But the very same thing is true of gem gens, and in a similar way I don't see that small games are harmed by the larger scale fix.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making with being unlucky finding e gems in some games, it's not pity for people who lose games due to not having the right gems for hammers that is driving the change, though I suppose it could be argued it's an added bonus.

On tartarians: I do agree they are in great need of tweaking. I know lots of people are in favor of direct cost increase, but that has some unwanted side effects in terms of making their use as troops unfeasible and giving those that can heal the feebled tarts (owners of GoH/Chalice) a crazy advantage. At the moment I'm toying with the idea of removing their default magic in favor of 'potential' magic. They would have no magic when you summon them but 50 gems empowerment of the appropriate type would get you direct to level 4 in a path (thematically speaking, it's just a different way of representing the feebled mind, but in a way that anyone could heal them, not just the GoH/Chalice). This way, with the right investment they could well surpass most EDM summons, but they wouldn't have the huge diversity advantages.

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

At the moment I'm toying with the idea of removing their default magic in favor of 'potential' magic. They would have no magic when you summon them but 50 gems empowerment of the appropriate type would get you direct to level 4 in a path (thematically speaking, it's just a different way of representing the feebled mind, but in a way that anyone could heal them, not just the GoH/Chalice). This way, with the right investment they could well surpass most EDM summons, but they wouldn't have the huge diversity advantages.

That's an interesting idea, kind of a "build your own tart." Just to clarify something: when you say anyone could heal them (which I think is the way to go - eliminate the need for Chalice/GoH) do you plan on breaking them into individual summons or repurposing another spell that summons from a group? The problem I ran into is that the Tartarian Gate spell applies the afflictions so the only way I could summon a random, affliction-free, tart is by using one of the other spells that summons from a group. But since CBM has to cover all nations/eras that doesn't seem like an option.

[quantum_mechani]

Yes, I think the only way to remove afflictions would be to swap out the summoning spell, which has side effects I'd rather avoid. I think having plenty feebled would still be OK though- it's true GoH/Chalice is great now but the concern with the direct raising prices was that it would make them better- this would just leave them at about their current power. After all, how many tarts can you really empower? At 10 gems each you should easily have plenty of healthy empowerment candidates. Also, under this tart scheme GoR could probably get cheaper and they could be used with whatever afflictions as thugs (I actually think seeing some still feebled tarts used in battle would be quite cool).