Vanilla Summon Costs

[Agema]

Just because something is inefficient doesn't mean it needs to be corrected. As was initially noted, desperation can make these spells useful, so they are still achieving a function.

Balance also goes to a much wider scope than a few individual spells. If you made lots of these vanilla summons much cheaper, you could potentially alter the balance of the game considerably.

[Jazzepi]

Agema said:
Just because something is inefficient doesn't mean it needs to be corrected. As was initially noted, desperation can make these spells useful, so they are still achieving a function.

Balance also goes to a much wider scope than a few individual spells. If you made lots of these vanilla summons much cheaper, you could potentially alter the balance of the game considerably.

Yeah, people might actually /use them/.

Jazzepi

[B0rsuk]

Part of the problem with nature summons is that many of them work only against living enemies. Spirits of the woods and their awe. Lots of venomous creatures can't harm undead, constructs, and (if I remember correctly) many demons. Nature summons are good mostly against other nature summons (or at least living creatures).

I've just cast Creeping Doom. Pathetic ! 2 gems to stall 30 barbarians. They didn't even manage to deal 1 (1!) damage to barbarians. They are supposed to have weak poison. Creeping Doom looks like a very situational spell. It might be better than Swarm against certain enemies, but it's hard to come up with an example. It's much higher in the research tree and requires NNN to cast.

[Cor2]

I use Ice and Fire Drakes with Hot and Cold nations. Abysia and Jotunheim benifit the most because they lack archers.

I cant say I have done it in MP game, however. Maybe soon though. I would be in favor of a cost decrease to around 5 gems.

[Kristoffer O]

> For me the problem is, if many big changes are made, be it in CBM or vanilla game, the manual become obsolete and I like to use it a lot.

That's one of our main reason to keep it as it is. Now, as the game has been out for some time I feel a bit less reluctant to change stuff that makes the manual wrong. I'm not entirely against altering casting costs. Spell lvl's and path lvl's are more of a problem as they have greater impact on your strategy and might confuse new players in particular.

[Morkilus]

I'm a big fan of the way Summon Animals works in CBM. Bears, moose, wolves, all the cool stuff, and lots of it.

[Xietor]

I did not read the whole thread, but id like to see the e summon trolls get pr like the water trolls, and id like to see a summon added for the higher protection earth summon trolls at 2 e gems apiece.

[Jazzepi]

Kristoffer O said:
> For me the problem is, if many big changes are made, be it in CBM or vanilla game, the manual become obsolete and I like to use it a lot.

That's one of our main reason to keep it as it is. Now, as the game has been out for some time I feel a bit less reluctant to change stuff that makes the manual wrong. I'm not entirely against altering casting costs. Spell lvl's and path lvl's are more of a problem as they have greater impact on your strategy and might confuse new players in particular.

A lot of the stuff in the manual, and/or game, isn't completely reliable. Why keep a useless spell the same for the sake of consistency when for 99% of competitive MP games, and even most single player games, when it is never going to be cast?

I mean, you buffed seeking arrow by making it armor negating instead of piercing, and nerfed blade wind. Not to argue the changes one way or the other, but both those spells see infinitely more play, especially blade wind, then some of the worse summons.

I mean really, lets look at "Summon Animals". 20 gems for 20 pieces of fodder? You might as well just remove the spell from the spell book so it's easier to scroll down and find Faerie Court.

I would say you should feel much more at ease buffing in game summons. There is an explicit statement in the in game spell for most of them, indicated by the "# of effects" so there shouldn't be any confusion over what they actually do.

Jazzepi

[Xietor]

I do not think loyalty to the manual should be relevant either. It is in need of an update anyway.

I for one would pay for a new manual after the major patches are done. A working basis is already there, so correcting the manual and republishing it likely would not entail the same degree of work as the original.

[Sombre]

The manual is already pretty hopeless. It's been wrong on almost everything I've actually needed/wanted to look up.