What do people look for in a mod?

[MSB]

I was just thinking about what people look for in a mod? Do they look for complete historical accuracy at cost of gameplay and fun or would they much enjoy lots of new units, buildings or an AoR? So I decided to set up a poll to find out. So what do you think?

In a mod I like to have historical perfection with lots of new buildings and new units although I do prefer to have more new buildings that units (I like to focus on the economic side of things more than the military). I also like to have new factions to play and to have slower game play. Also I like (this is something which I should have put on the poll) an interesting and immersing trait system.

Oh and can people not complain about mods or get into arguments of "who's mod is better" That just gets threads closed! Please can I request that everybody respects everybody else's opinion.
Thankyou

[Duke John]

Other: Interesting, original gameplay that captures the characteristics of a historical period, prefereable on a small scale (geographic and timewise) and executed with attention for detail.

[NihilisticCow]

Other: Interesting, varied and balanced multiplayer gameplay. ~:)

[Lusted]

What i look for:

-good gameplay
-new units and skins
-new map

I do like mods which focus on a small area geographically and in history, and work on making a mod that provides a great experience based on that.

[Rex_Pelasgorum]

Historicall accuracy in the first place... it can give you the feeling that you are really fighting in that age.

Strong oponnents, no more "steamrolling" across the map.

Large map, at least 150 provinces.

New buildings, new units, new trait systems.

More scripted events.

[UltraWar]

New Factions and a larger map with more provences!

I mostly prefer a decent campaign setup which will make the game more fun

[Monarch]

Other: Interesting, varied and balanced multiplayer gameplay. ~:)

Ditto.

So basically NTW2 :)

[Byzantine Emperor]

New units, New skins, New factions.

Other: A different playing experience to vanilla.

[Neon twilight]

Mostly original things and a good gameplay.

[wlesmana]

Other: Fun gameplay.
I prefer fun gameplay than historical accuracy since I'm not a history buff.

[Roman_Man#3]

other:like wlesmana, i would rather play a fun game than a historically perfect game. but i would also like it to be more or less historical

[Tzar Vladimir]

While all that vanillas produced by the big firms for the emediate commercial success is poor and uninspiring and are made mostly for wimps, the true mods made by (and for) devoted fans must bring a tones of authors creativity:
- Own unique atmosphere: skins, maps, artwork, music etc.
- Rich (and again unique) unit list that makes army building and warfare much more exciting.
- Own interesting concept and historical background as a result of serious research.

Compare, for example, unfinished EB with semy-fantasy 2,5 unit types on little map vanilla megabestseller.

[satchef1]

Whats an AoR?

Not fussed about historical accuracy, it all changes from turn 1 anyway. In fact, i'd much rather that history adapted itself for the current game by gaining the technology of conquered nations (e.g. Rome's Aqueducts) and adapting the unit roster depending on progress/situation (Byz units becoming stale in M:TW becuase they did in history, even though Byzantium might hold most of Europe / developing a new unit to counter one that an enemy uses)

I go for mods with new settings mostly (new ages, eras, fantasy mods etc), new factions and units arent really enough to get me to download a mod unless its major (like M:TW XL)

[Lusted]

AoR = area of recruitment, it limits the recruitment of troops to ther historical areas.

[Warluster]

New era's!

[econ21]

I mainly look for realism mods like RTR and EB, where slowing down the battles is a key - perhaps the key - aspect. They typically have beautiful skins, new units etc to make you feel good too. But often I end up appreciating the tweaks they make to improve the AI challenge. WesW is a good example of a modder who excels at the latter task. EB has an unexpected focus on this too.

I really like RPG elements in mods too. For example, Marcus Camillus's Roman leadership traits, which allow you to climb the ladder from student to Tribune to Legate to Praetor to Consul. EBs scripting and trait system was also a revelation.

My bugbears with mods are stability and documentation. Nowadays, I just can't put up with a mod that regularly CTDs - life is too short. One CTD is bearable - much more than that and I am looking elsewhere. And I dislike changes that are not explained in game or in an accompanying readme. I've never understood going to the trouble to change the rules of the game if you are not going to inform players so they can play accordingly.

[Ciaran]

Something new, basically. Different look, different gameplay, a new challenge, basically a different game for free ~;) . Or maybe a free expansion.

[Dol Guldur]

I always look at the code and the way the mod has been implemented (installed).

I have sometimes been known to play mods too, though never more than a turn or two (a habit from testing I fear).

But that's just me (I hope!)

:)

[satchef1]

AoR = area of recruitment, it limits the recruitment of troops to ther historical areas.

ah, i see. yeah, thats always a good thing to have in a mod

[Makanyane]

I'd look for improved AI challenge on strat map - which without scripting normally means larger map and / or slower movement between regions. So economy generated by regions held is insufficient for human player to dominate AI in defence and attack.

Also slower movement / kill ratio in battles for more realistic feel.

Not bothered about true historic acuracy - but like mod to be consistent within itself - new skins are nice but after initial 'wow isn't that lovely' phase tend to play everything zoomed out / on low resolution.