MP: Noobs and Vets II: Days of Infamy. MA, BI. Game Over. Supplicants Triumph!

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Some do tho none at the moment. Most actually cut up cbm into pieces and play with just the pretender parts or the gengen parts. I guess if I wanted my "opinion on CBM to carry any weight" Id play more of them and join in on the cbm conversation thread. But my only opinion on cbm is that its not worthy of becoming the "de facto standard" of Dom3.

I can't stand playing most nations in vanilla, because the units are so poorly priced. (Heavy cavalry units are especially bad, and generally unplayable outside of CBM with a few rare exceptions).

Fortunately BL doesn't suffer markedly from this problem - the tiger riders are badly priced, but everything else (that you'd bother to use) is fine.

And again, back to this forum, and the king of the hill crowd (by duelist I didnt mean one-on-one as much as the my-strategy-kicks-your-*** challenges gaming). Im not sure how "best MPers" would stand up but I know a number of pretty kickass players that I dont remember seeing in a cbm game. Possibly our views are restricted. I enjoy playing with the devs altho Im not sure how they compare on your scale.

So the feeling is that only those who can win games using cbm are qualified opinions on why cbm is good? And all of the best MPers play cbm only? And their opinions on what "always happens" in non-cbm games are the generally accepted facts?

First of all, it doesn't take much playing of vanilla to figure out what should always happen. There are very few spells of each type that are worth using in vanilla. (Eg, only a small minority of summons will ever see play in vanilla). And rampant clamming means the game necessarily degenerates into armageddon fests by those nations who can take advantage of it. CBM certainly increases the number of useable spells, and makes the endgame less degenerate (or at least, it degenerates less quickly).

Both CBM and Vanilla share the 'tartarians are key to the endgame' problem. Llamabeasts Endgame Diversity Mod is a step in the right direction, but Tartarians are really just too cheap for what they do, which inordinately rewards whomever can hold onto the chalice or keep GoH up. This is the one major spell issue CBM still needs to fix.

Finally, *winning* isn't the key to having a well-reasoned opinion. Playing with good players probably is though.

[Septimius Severus]

There are different mods a player may choose to play with, though many may not be as comprehensive as CBM. But let's not ram any particular mod down peoples throats or intimate that if you choose to play without a particular mod that you are not a "good player".

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Septimius Severus

There are different mods a player may choose to play with, though many may not be as comprehensive as CBM. But let's not ram any particular mod down peoples throats or intimate that if you choose to play without a particular mod that you are not a "good player".

I never said 'if you play with CBM you are a good player', I said 'if you are a good player, you _probably_ play with CBM'. This requires you already know who the good players are. So if you know who the good players are (Example: Micah), then you can check out the games they're playing or have played. I can't think of a non-CBM game Micah has played in recently. Indeed, one could use the HoF top player list and cross-reference their wins to games to see what mods they typically use (keeping in mind the HoF goes back farther than CBM, and CBM becomes more common the closer you get to the recent).

[chrispedersen]

I like CBM, I like vanilla. Most players just coming to the game will probably have SP experience and hence likely no CBM experience.

So vanilla games have use, introducing new players to the complexity of MP without thowing the complexity of cBM in at the same time.

[Septimius Severus]

Right, the longer you play the game, generally the more experienced and the better you will get at it, whether you choose to play with a mod or without a mod, whether your name is in the Hall of Fame or not. It is probably best to play with and without mods so that you can appreciate any differences and judge for yourself. Everyone has their own preferences, play styles, etc. Should be no hostility towards this mod or that mod, SP or MP, vanilla vs. CBM, or the individuals who hold these preferences or opinions. As for myself, though I do have preferences as everyone else does, I'm open to playing many different types of games with anyone else who is willing to play and with players of any experience level, not just a certain group of them.

[Graeme Dice]

[quote=Septimius Severus;747857Everyone has their own preferences, play styles, etc.[/quote]

So? That doesn't mean that all those things are all equally valid.

Should be no hostility towards this mod or that mod, SP or MP, vanilla vs. CBM, or the individuals who hold these preferences or opinions.

The only initial hostitlity here is coming from those people who want to desperately hold onto their gem generators and use them to squash newbies.

[militarist]

GEMGENS and GORGON.

I think some people like some nations and don't like other just because they choose the nation by look and feel, not competitiveness, sometimes through all Dom line,. but still want to be competitive. And some nations, which sometimes were not strongest even with gems, were seriously nerfed and these nations became even weaker. That obviously hits these players.

I see the way out either in compensating these nations this loss (it's a complicated way I don't like), or, what I really would like to see, is to make gemgens spell NATIONAL open for some nations,so these nations would get these items from casting, no forging, open for those nations who were hit the most , and who will not become OP because of it (for example ULMs and Kaliasa/BL/Patala). I don't know it it possible.

When someone say that gemgens or gorgona is a way to be OP, the proper question to ask - the way for whom? Which nations would become OP with it? And which are not? Pangaeas don't become OP, Sauromantia is already there even without Gorgon, but it can skip choosing Gorgon just because it doesn't really need awake SC early game, and nobody care if they have Gorgon imprisoned - in a late game Gorgon is not a problem at all. So here I would prefer to exclude Gorgon from the list of Sauromantia's pretenders rather then nerfing it, with respect to initial ballance. The same with gemgens. Again, I'm not modder, so don't know if forging gemgens can be replaced somehow by something with the same function but another form to make them accessible by the those nations which really need them and dont become OP.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by militarist

GEMGENS and GORGON.

I think some people like some nations and don't like other just because they choose the nation by look and feel, not competitiveness, sometimes through all Dom line,. but still want to be competitive. And some nations, which sometimes were not strongest even with gems, were seriously nerfed and these nations became even weaker. That obviously hits these players.

I see the way out either in compensating these nations this loss (it's a complicated way I don't like), or, what I really would like to see, is to make gemgens spell NATIONAL open for some nations,so these nations would get these items from casting, no forging, open for those nations who were hit the most , and who will not become OP because of it (for example ULMs and Kaliasa/BL/Patala). I don't know it it possible.

When someone say that gemgens or gorgona is a way to be OP, the proper question to ask - the way for whom? Which nations would become OP with it? And which are not? Pangaeas don't become OP, Sauromantia is already there even without Gorgon, but it can skip choosing Gorgon just because it doesn't really need awake SC early game, and nobody care if they have Gorgon imprisoned - in a late game Gorgon is not a problem at all. So here I would prefer to exclude Gorgon from the list of Sauromantia's pretenders rather then nerfing it, with respect to initial ballance. The same with gemgens. Again, I'm not modder, so don't know if forging gemgens can be replaced somehow by something with the same function but another form to make them accessible by the those nations which really need them and dont become OP.

No.

Gorgons are better than every other pretender option. That's the very definition of overpowered. If Pangaea is underpowered, then that should be addressed in a way that makes them balanced, not by giving them OP pretender options. (Now, CBM may have gone a little far at 150pts - imo Gorgon should be 125pts like Moloch/PoD, because its the same type of chassis).

I would argue Pangaea isn't actually underpowered, people just play them wrong. They're a bless nation - the turmoil -> maenads thing is just a distraction that prevents people from figuring out how to actually play them. Play for the white centaurs, not the maenads.

And gem gens aren't fair for anyone. Making them available to only a few nations is even worse than being available for everyone.

(Monkey nations hardly need access to clams. 12-20 pearls/turn is perfectly reasonable mid-game pearl income, which is a rudra every 3-5 turns. Given everyone else also has fewer gems, that seems perfectly sufficient. Actually, that's a general problem with the theory that loss of gem gens hurt some nations more than others - everyone has fewer gems now, so you need fewer summons to be relevant. I think some people just liked turtling too much, which is why they whine about gemgens being gone - get over it, this is a game about conducting warfare, not hiding).

[ano]

Septimius, please add 5h to the timer just for the case zegc-ben doesn't come in time. I really don't want my bid wasted and I need to go to bed now. Thanks.

[militarist]

Squirellord, I answered on invisionfree related forum, it's probably not the right place...