Mod: CBM 1.7 released

[Corinthian]

Originally Posted by TheConway

I have no idea what you mean about a general archer nerf. Explain?

Archers have been nerfed in several waves in the previous versions.
First they nerfed the general melee capabilities of archers.(att/def) This was somewhat justified in that it made flanking cavalry more effective and archers arent suposed to beat cavalry in melee. (Looking at the latest change log I cant actually find this so they might have reverted it again?)

Second they nerfed ranged units by making all common ranged weapons except slings and short bows more expensive in resources.

Third they made several units either more expensive or weaker. (Rangers of Ulm, Jomon longbows, bakemono archers (though they also got smaller so it evens out), more?)

[TheConway]

Originally Posted by Corinthian

Archers have been nerfed in several waves in the previous versions.
First they nerfed the general melee capabilities of archers.(att/def) This was somewhat justified in that it made flanking cavalry more effective and archers arent suposed to beat cavalry in melee. (Looking at the latest change log I cant actually find this so they might have reverted it again?)

Second they nerfed ranged units by making all common ranged weapons except slings and short bows more expensive in resources.

Third they made several units either more expensive or weaker. (Rangers of Ulm, Jomon longbows, bakemono archers (though they also got smaller so it evens out), more?)

looking at the first post changelogs for both 1.6 and 1.5 i am unable to see any sort of archer nerf besides the well deserved Androphag Archer cost increase. If you found this in the code yourself then okay.

[Redeyes]

Originally Posted by Corinthian

The bloodstone was overpowered but also extremely hard to get. In fact, I can't think of a single nation that can build them without empowering or designing your pretender to build them.

There's a fair amount of nations that can do it with recruitable mages, or using nothing but path boosters.
A full list would be: Marignon, Hinnom, Gath, Abysia, Vanheim and and Pangaea. For all these nations mass-constructing blood stones was a dominant strategy.

Anyway, if you want gemgenerators brought back in it is very easy to mod it back and it (like all changes in the mod) are the houserules visualized by a few players, it's a given that it isn't going to be a perfect fit for all games. My opinion is that the gemgenerators always become problematic in longer games (PBEMs almost by definition!)

Your comments on MA Ulm is fair, Ulms troops might be superior in some ways but it isn't actually a strength when their units cost so much (Royal Guard to Black Knights?)

Although, I think there's plenty of other nations that perhaps should be buffed before (or at the same time) Ulm.

[Redeyes]

I'm glad that the dominant magical sites were removed (e.g Ultimate Gateway) but from the last discussion we had about them I thought it would be more controversial.

[TheDemon]

Originally Posted by Redeyes

I'm glad that the dominant magical sites were removed (e.g Ultimate Gateway) but from the last discussion we had about them I thought it would be more controversial.

If he wanted to remove dominant magic sites he should have removed them all. Now that EDM is included, a 20% discount in ANY area can be gamebreaking. 20% const now that hammers are gone is too good. Not to mention the most broken site (20% alt) is still in. Really the only non-dominant discount sites are the evo sites and I say if you want to remove discount sites for balance you should go all the way.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally Posted by Redeyes

I'm glad that the dominant magical sites were removed (e.g Ultimate Gateway) but from the last discussion we had about them I thought it would be more controversial.

I hate that change.

I like the existence of unique magical sites that, if discovered, can radically change the game for the one discovering them. Sites that are so powerful that they can become specific targets for serious warfare if knowledge of their presence in a game spreads.

But then, I hate most of the changes made in CBM until now that do not either attempt to address bugs or attempt to balance nations or pretenders by changing nation and pretender specific information.

The sweeping changes in CBM to more general gameplay aspects available to most or all nations tend to reduce the game's strategic diversity in favour of balance through reduced randomness and a general homogenization process of power levels.

Which may be great for the large scale games CBM seems principally designed for with players who don't like for anybody to gain a benefit that they haven't worked hard for, but does reduce the fun quotient somewhat for the smaller scale MP games I participate in. SDR and Hammers as uniques are another example of things where the changes don't make much sense when the scale (both in map size, number of players, and expected length of game) is smaller.

OTOH, since I'm not the one making the mod, I really have little room for *****ing. If this sort of thing is what those who play games on the Shrapnel boards want, great! I'll just do my best to try not to use it in the games I play. (I may well fail - we are using CBM 1.6 now despite my wish to stick with 1.5 )

-------------

I do wonder about the earth booster, though. Given that CBM has already killed off gem generators except as uniques, why was a perfectly good and fun artefact, the Boots of Antaeus, replaced in favour of a Ring of the Earth booster rather than stripping the blood stone of its gem generating ability and newfound uniqueness (the simplest solution) or, if such was impossible (if the gem generation was in the game code and couldn't be modded), why not choose to replace some low-priority magic item that is almost never used such as Boots of Long Strides or the Main Gauche of Parrying?

[Happyfungi]

I have not checked the thread in the other board, but has anyone noticed that zmey tail weapon and roc beak weapon both share #915.

[Finalgenesis]

Submitting forging suggestion for discussion:

Weightless Scale Mail : A2 -> A1

Moon blade : 2 handed -> 1 handed; S1 -> S2 or lower stats? (I mean, even sandhyabala has 1-handed moon blades...)

Ring of the warrior : B1 -> B2

Flesh eater axe : B1 -> B2

Bane blade (2H) : remove for slots? Would people actually craft this reasonably often over the 1H version with the new changes? Hmmm...

Bone Armor : D5 -> D4

Wraith Crown : D5 -> D4

Robe of Invulnerability : E5 -> E4

Frost brand : W1 -> W2, AoE dam restoration arguable

Lantern shield: D2F1 -> D1F1

Where I'm on the fence for in varying degrees, and where 1 lvl price drop seem excessive:

Amulet of Missile Protection

Rod of the Phoenix - Already used in games, but with hammer changes I think I may never see them again, even as a specific counter. FR and a leadership boost maybe?

Stymphalian Wings

Axe of Hate -(The fatigue damage is not AoE it seems, has to hit) - and honestly, I see kryss used as SC slayer over axe of hate 100% of the time.

Sword of Swiftness

The above with some exception (frost brand, blood items...etc) are items I've never or very rarely seen used in the MP games I played in (admittedly not very many... ), it's always the same ol' couple of items. The worst are weapons and shields, whereas armor and helm and to lesser degree boots are more varied. I wished more items are made more viable whereas there are some clear optimal winners now that everyone uses, in the footstep of herald lance change from S2 -> S1 in CBM 1.6 which was excellent. Given hammer changes, the never-seen items will probably get even more never-seen.

For frost brand, it just has amazing utility for an amazingly cheap price, AoE, decent weapon stats and CR 50 in a 1-handed package for 5 measly water gems? Objectively speaking its far and away better then most weapons out there overall without any doubt. Firebrand is likewise amazing and even heaps AP, but I can convince myself its a cross-path item bonus and already cost 10 gems.

As for blood items, maybe the blood hunt nerf is enough, but I still think 5 blood slaves for decent usable items are way too cheap.

[Stavis_L]

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

Weightless Scale Mail : A2 -> A1

You do realize this would obsolete Lightweight Scale Mail? Not that that's necessarily bad...

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

Moon blade : 2 handed -> 1 handed; S1 -> S2 or lower stats? (I mean, even sandhyabala has 1-handed moon blades...)

Moving to 1-hand would definitely open up to potential situational use...

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

Ring of the warrior : B1 -> B2
Flesh eater axe : B1 -> B2

Do people make rings of the warrior? RE: the axe - how would it then compare vs. the heart finder?

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

Bane blade (2H) : remove for slots? Would people actually craft this reasonably often over the 1H version with the new changes? Hmmm...

It would be worth it to keep the AI from forging them.

I think that 1H bane blade + shield is pretty much always better than the 2hand version, which leaves its utility down to units you were going to give a magic weapon to that don't already have shields and you don't want to invest another 5 gems into...

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

Bone Armor : D5 -> D4

Wraith Crown : D5 -> D4

Robe of Invulnerability : E5 -> E4

Frost brand : W1 -> W2, AoE dam restoration arguable

All of these seem reasonable, in light of hammer removal. However, consider the impact of forging the hammer of the forge lord or hammer (potentially + forge lord pretender and/or early FoTA from Ulm) to churn out the above items.

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

Lantern shield: D2F1 -> D1F1

At that price, people might be include to do it just to get the corpse candles at the edge of the field.

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

Where I'm on the fence for in varying degrees, and where 1 lvl price drop seem excessive:

Amulet of Missile Protection

Note that at 2A it's the same price as the air-based shields.

Originally Posted by Finalgenesis

Rod of the Phoenix - Already used in games, but with hammer changes I think I may never see them again, even as a specific counter. FR and a leadership boost maybe?

Stymphalian Wings

Axe of Hate -(The fatigue damage is not AoE it seems, has to hit) - and honestly, I see kryss used as SC slayer over axe of hate 100% of the time.

Sword of Swiftness

For the Sword of Swiftness, perhaps adding +1 or more attacks would be a better re-balance vs. a price drop?

[Finalgenesis]

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

You do realize this would obsolete Lightweight Scale Mail? Not that that's necessarily bad...

Sounds good, toss out lightweight and make weightless cheaper.

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

[

Moving to 1-hand would definitely open up to potential situational use...

I'd say my suggestion falls short by a lot, for reference I always compare to the value weapons, in this case I'll pull out Kryss since it's same const level:
+ 2x attack
+ AP attack
+ Death poison
+ PR
- Const 6
- Cost 10 N

Moonblade:
+ 2x vs magic (I'd take just AP over this, less powerful, works on everything. same with 2x attack if less power vs magic but more versatility)
o Cost 5 S
- 2 hander
- Const 6

Really, I would make moonblade 1 hand AND give it either a) +MR b) slay magic or c) x3 vs magic creature, all of which are thematic and gives it an actual purpose. Up price to 10S with the above modification, and it would be a weapon that might actually be considered.

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

Do people make rings of the warrior? RE: the axe - how would it then compare vs. the heart finder?

I know I forge rings and axe often when I have blood access (they do well together even) as they cost practically nothing and are very usable for super economic thugs and general thug deterrent. Axe gives unresistable chest wound! where heart finder gives MR kill, both have their uses (SC deterrent vs animal/low MR slayer). I know from experience how daunting it is in terms of using thugs/SCs to find enemy flesheaters + warrior rings liberally sprinkled all over the place (for a pittance).

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

I think that 1H bane blade + shield is pretty much always better than the 2hand version, which leaves its utility down to units you were going to give a magic weapon to that don't already have shields and you don't want to invest another 5 gems into...

Right, about the only time you might forge 2H is if you don't plan on a shield, but then you'd still go for 1H because of the option and versatility of adding shield. Considering the situation you would use baneblade for (not heavy duty anti-thug/SC surely), the damage boost from 2H doesn't seem that good most of the time to justify giving up shield possibility, maybe if you keep 2H bane in const 0 and 1H bane in Const 2 or 4, or a large boost to 2H bane like AP or 1 AoE horror +0 effect.

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

All of these seem reasonable, in light of hammer removal. However, consider the impact of forging the hammer of the forge lord or hammer (potentially + forge lord pretender and/or early FoTA from Ulm) to churn out the above items.

Indeed, but that is true for all items, FoTA is nuts before, it's still gonna be nuts either way. hammer forge lord, forge lord and hammer are all going to skew things before and maybe a little more with the changes, they are powerful for sure but each with their price (rushing const, taking forge lord and burning pts on him, declaring war on the world), and all things considered, I don't think that's a bad thing in general until proven beyond a doubt that it's broken as hell and most games are won relying on them.

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

At that price, people might be include to do it just to get the corpse candles at the edge of the field.

Agree, it just might, and I'd be happy to see it instead of the usual vine, eye, gleaming gold and charcoal. changes to other never-seen shields might be in order too, so they can actually compete for player consideration.

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

Note that at 2A it's the same price as the air-based shields.

a 5 gem cut seems excessive I admit, but then most things that can use missile prot amulet would rather tend to use various shields. I will agree there are rare cases where for slot consideration you may use this instead, but really, for 10 gems, you can get a very solid shield that both block most arrow and do a hell of a lot more. So... I'm on the fence for this one, maybe a mini boost? (50% LR? tiny def boost?)

Originally Posted by Stavis_L

[

For the Sword of Swiftness, perhaps adding +1 or more attacks would be a better re-balance vs. a price drop?

Agree, 3 attacks would give swiftness actual use as anti-high def, or otherwise give it something or lower price, again compare it to Kryss:
same # of attack, no AP, no death poison, no PR, same gem cost (though using W rather then N), the only advantage is Const 4...

Same with axe of hate, you get a fatigue damage on hit which has its use, but would you trade it for kryss' list of utility for the same price? Though it does comes much earlier at Const 2, so I could actually see it stay as it is now when you need to kill something BIG before const 6 rolls around.

Edit: Zeldor's list looks pretty reasonable too, though I have little experience with artifacts (never gotten Const 8 early enough).