Balance opinions

[DrPraetorious]

I have several issues with CB.
1) Too many changes that don't do any good. For example, the increased cost of indie commanders.
The problem this is meant to address is legitimate (you hardly ever use your national commanders), but as QM himself has admitted, boosting the price of indie commanders doesn't actually acheve this, but it *does* penalize you for fielding large armies - it also has an effect on bloodhunting, and attaches a larger economic penalty to a failure to properly micromanage a blood economy. This particular example may not be the best as QM may change it back in the next version.
Now, I've had this argument with QM many times on IRC - QM doesn't see what's "special" about the default values or why I would want to keep changes to an absolute minimum.
I think Jazzepi has already expressed my opinion on why change should be avoided where not absolutely needed; QM may not agree but I'm certainly not the only person who feels this way.

2) Too much nerfing.
I think you get very little objection to making presently non-viable, and fun/cool, strategies more viable.
So if CBM improves units, makes units cheaper, gives more spells and units, this is broadly acceptable, especially with weak/underdeveloped nations people will accept the learning curve for a buffed nation relatively easily.
Playing a game and discovering some option is non-viable is a very different play experience that people won't tolerate. Also, in general, people *know* how to play the stronger nations (there's something to know) - few people know how to play Marverni well. It's more possible than you might think, but....
Also, it can be difficult to nerf a (supposedly overpowered) strategy in such a way that you don't ruin it entirely, which is undesirable.

3) CBM is over-optimized for blitz games.
The game has many 4X strategies so I am generally a defender of the proposition that strength in the early game translates to strength in the late game.
But this has limits, and you really test the extremes of those limits on the blitz maps for which CBM seems to be optimized.

In order for me to use a CBM mod, it would need to fit the following philosophical criteria:
a) Minimal changes. If a change does not clearly and successfully address one of a small number of major issues, leave it out.

b) Extra-minimal nerfing. Even if a change *does* clearly and successfully address a major issue, if it's a nerf, only keep it if the issue it addresses is really critical.
Half-measures that minorly inconvenience a strategy (like raising the death gem cost of a tartarian) are an example of something I just won't use.

c) Nothing that raises micromanagement requirements, *even if it fixes a critical flaw*. Turns take too long already - anything that punsihes a strategy which is easy to script, or which adds overhead to manage an existing strategy, is a non-starter.

I don't want to come across as over-critical, however - I have been unable to make a mod that meets the criterion I've described, so I can hardly fault QM for failing to make a mod that he doesn't even want to specifications which I can't myself achieve (although I have hopes for the new spell modding engine.)

But since you ask, this is why I don't use CBM myself.

[quantum_mechani]

Indy commanders are actually an example, along with boosters and hammers, of nerfs I've been convinced to retract or reduce.

I'm well aware of the great backlash that often generated by nerfing, so believe it or not I have employed it quite sparingly (certainly much less than IW would have had they focused more on balance, virtually all of the balance changes from dom2 to dom3 were nerfs). Further minimization is always open to consideration though.

As for drastically reducing the number of total changes, that is much less likely. The end goal is to bring all options into viability, and in a lot of cases that means incrementally improving them until they hit a usable but not abusable level. So, if there are useless boosts, I could easily be convinced to increased them, but not remove them.

[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.

[Twan]

Ironhawk said:
I'm surprised to find that people feel there is a "learning curve" to the balance mods tho? I mean, you just plug it in and go. Do you seriously memorize every unit from every nation and every spell? It seems a better strategy to me to just abstract your knowledge of dominions - what values make a unit or spell good/bad and then you are ready to play any game with any mod. Just glance at the units and spells that fall into line with your strategy and you are good to go.

Personnally I don't memorize but like to be able to use the excellent manual sent with the game, so I avoid to play with any mod changing many spells or items levels/effects*/cost (but would use a balance mod limited to units, detail of nations, pretenders and other things not making the manual obsolete, if such a version is made).

* eventually altering the effects of some really over/underpowered spells I've nothing against ; as long as levels/paths/schools listed in manual aren't changed

ps : also I'm not an huge fan of dominions 3 magic philosophy ("a nation must remain weak in non national schools forever" ; "magical economy is an option for a little number of gifted nations only") compared to dom2 one ("all nations start with strengths but can developp any magic with some effort", "in end game the norm is to have a magical economy allowing to use the most expensive -and fun- spells/summons often" ), and my impression is balance mods goes even further than vanilla dom3 in the restricted magic tendancy (which forces them to change more things for balance, as some nations won't be competitive in end game against the gem/blood economy powers without big boosts of other paths or nerfing more clams etc... ; then these paths risk to be overpowered before end game, or magical economy nations to be underpowered before too late game ; then other changes have to be made to avoid this ; etc....).

[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.