Writing Strategy and CBM

[K]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

I've been pleased to see a considerable move towards using CBM in multiplayer recently. I hope that trend continues, because a lot of work has gone into CBM and I think it improves the game.

I'd be interested to see if it was a preference or a tolerance that is being expressed, or if people are simply being driven away from pick-up games.

[Epaminondas]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

I've been pleased to see a considerable move towards using CBM in multiplayer recently. I hope that trend continues, because a lot of work has gone into CBM and I think it improves the game.

Agreed. I've incorporated many of its changes into my own EA SP mod.

[DonCorazon]

Not that I have done it, but it seems fairly simple to set up a game on LLamaserver so unless QM is bribing people to start CB games, it seems that the trend to CB is clearly player driven. I definitely enjoy how CB makes pretender selection much more interesting given the expanded viability of builds that otherwise would rarely see the light of day. And since I never memorized the stats or costs of units from plain vanilla, it doesn't impact me too much. Switching from CB to PV can be mildly confusing, but eventually you pick up on the differences. Usually you end up wishing you were in CB so you could do something fun that is too expensive in plain vanilla.

Going back to the OP, I probably muddled a few CB and plain vanilla items in the TC guide I wrote, but for the most part I tried to point out relevant differences.

[K]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

Not that I have done it, but it seems fairly simple to set up a game on LLamaserver so unless QM is bribing people to start CB games, it seems that the trend to CB is clearly player driven.

I wouldn't say "clearly." Moderating games takes a lot more effort than simply playing, so if the people willing to moderate games make CBM required for a game, then others might just tolerate it as the price of not moderating. Or they might just set up other games with friends and shun the community in general.

Sure, llamaserver makes things easier, but I personally would have preferred to have not moderated the last few games I played in and simply been able to play.

[DonCorazon]

Well are moderators not players? I assume most are and since they are players and they chose CB then the trend is player driven....

I am moderating a game and the effort is hardly noticeable. If I didn't like CB, I'd just set up a game the way I wanted to play it. Same thing that happens a lot when people want to play a specific nation - they set up a game and they are guaranteed to get their nation, or their research level or whatever. So when you see someone moderating a game, its usually because they are expressing their preference as a player.

[JimMorrison]

That is just a ridiculous assertion.

You make it sound as if the desire to organize games, and an affinity for CBM are mutually inclusive, and that somehow the people not organizing the games would rather not have CBM.

1) When I first got here, I noticed the "picky" people being quite outspoken about the use or non-use of CBM, so I hardly imagine that they all decided to shut up when they always got their way (in my observation) when they demanded to play without CBM enabled.

2) CBM does very little tweaking of the "overpowered", rather it just makes new options more interesting.

3) If a player REALLY wants to learn Dom3 well, they will do what I did. To start, I specifically avoided CBM, after making myself aware of the differences. I learned the Vanilla game by playing only in games that had no mods other than Worthy Heroes. Now I am joining a lot of CBM games, and I love them, if for no other reason than that I have more viable pretender choices.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Crust

Oh really. Having looked into the mod since I joined a game using it, literally hundreds of changes whose only purpose seems to be to confuse players seems fallacious in the extreme. Whether or not you agree with a specific change the intention can hardly be questioned.

CBM is actually a great mod who'se intent is quite the opposite of nefarious - spells that are either often abused, or never useful are adjusted in cost. Dittos pretenders etc.

While you may not agree with the balancing - how can a different way to play the game be nefarious?

[Tifone]

Wow, what a raisin of shields in favour of CBM I heartily agree with it too.
I don't like playing with mods in games the most of the times(I prefer to play them "the way the devs thought it" except some notable exceptions) but CBM does great in making some often overlooked things viable and interesting, and often in a thematic way too
Also it seems strange to complain the "confusion" it is supposed to create among players. The changes are all documented and explained - I am a n00b and I have really no problem in understanding all of them

[Dedas]

I'm not playing any CBM games at the moment. The reason? I want to learn vanilla first so I don't miss out on any "hidden" tactics the devs put in the current balance.

After that I will perhaps move to CBM to abuse those units now "balanced".

[llamabeast]

A raisin of shields eh?

I think using CBM makes more sense than it might make to use mods in other games, simply because Kristoffer has expressly said that he doesn't have too much interest in balance. So the standard assumption that the base game must be well balanced doesn't entirely hold. Not that it's too bad either. I really like both vanilla and CBM games, but I must say the fact that many more summons and other options are viable in CBM is attractive.