Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Agreed. I'm far from being an experienced player and I did'nt play even half the EA nations, not speaking of the other eras. But I've been playing now Dom3 for a year and I tested Yomi 2 times in MP and 2-3 times in SP games. Compared to the other EA nations I tried, I would rate Yomi something like 2 - 1 - ? - 3 - 2 (never played late game here...).

Why is that ? Dai Oni are good thugs and Hannyas are good battle mages.

But Dai oni are really expensive. They have to be equiped. They are capitol only. As thugs, they suffer from encumberance and a not so high MR. To equip them with the goos stuff is not absolutely straightforward, at least for a non expert player like my humble self.

But Hannyas lack 1 level in nature magic (for Haruspex and nature gems gathering at least).

Moreover, the standard troops (bandits & archers) are OK vs. indies but do not match a human player army at all. They sneak but do not hurt so much.

I think playing Yomi is an interesting challenge.
But difficult http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif
But interesting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Agree. Slingers with shields I think better for straightforward expansion. And common slingers are cheap as dirt which eases their massing. But Bakemono archers with stealth have other uses and they are also cheap enough.
Markatas, though... they S*CK. Actually, I think something should be done with monkeys - they have good line-of-battle troops in Bandar, but their stealthy units lack any kind of punch. If you mass Markatas enough, they will lose they stealth advantage. And they die like flies. Atavi archers get no stealth bonus and if you mass them they will be easily caught. And they lack the punch to beat anyone by themselves. Atavi infantry... they just lack either the punch or staying power. So they can't capitalise on any advance their archers could make. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Either I'm missing something, or the player should restrict himself to Bandar. And while it's appropriate from an Indian caste system's point of view, I personally would like to have some way to use monkeys of lower castes other than as arrow/lance fodder. By the way, that's another nation I wouldn't give that much early game score... if not for Elephantes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Flame arrows.

5/1 markatas doing 6+6 ap damage.

9/3 stealth markatas doing 10+6 ap

Bandar infantry, having sticks and stones doing 16+6ap damage.

Everything on the battlefield gets +6 damage for 1 fire gem. Mix in 50 morale undead (which they can summon)- essentially 10 undead for every 100 troops will prevent morale failures (until they get turned).

Take those two easy steps and you've just tripled the effectivness of monkeys.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Units with unbreakable morale are not counted when averaging out the total morale of a squad. Thus, mixing in undead with the monkeys does nothing to help keep them from running away.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

and will make them charge to the front becouse they cant use "fire" as squad order.

Besides that, is quite probable that the glamour units will be knocking your door before you have flaming arrows as Lanka or Kailasa or Bandar log, which dont have fire as national path http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

Even then, it's the flaming arrow, and not the markata what keep the glamour army at bay. Markata is only useful to die in piles as cannon fodder.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Not true at all, I group ele/mammoths with archers all the time. Sometimes it causes small placement issues with the big beasts placed behind the archers in the squad formation, but otherwise it's basically 90% effective.

And if you don't like Markata as missile troops, it must be because you use the archers which should never be purchased. The other Markata have Sticks and Stones which get 2 attacks per round. As long as you have a line in front of them, they can barrage an enemy line - and if you did actually do a Flaming Arrows strat, you should see impressive results for your investment.


I still think there is an overabundance of confusion as to what the ratings system actually means. Or at least, a bit much personal bias from most players.

I will continue to look into what can be done about that, and can only encourage people to continue to provide whatever input they can. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Nonsense. I do it all the time. And the markatas fight to the last monkey.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

That's an inherent drawback of those open/subjective questions. The point is : some nations can be powerful and easy to use once you know how to do it (== once you are experienced) but still be difficult and weak in the hands of most (== standard) players.

Then, how will you rate this : after the guru's results or after the crowd's results ?
Essentially, this is a philosophical question : is a thing defined by its essential perfection or by its most common and impure manifestation ? Are you essentialist or phenomenologist ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Now, your first 3 ratings (early/mid/late game power) can be computed without a poll. If the hosts agreed to deliver some stats on the games they are hosting at defined schedules (let's say turns 25/50/75 or whatever to be tuned by experienced domguys after the initial settings of the game), then you could collect amounts of empirical and objective data.

Also, it could be very interesting if you were able to mix this with additional data about the players themselves (basically, how many MP did they play before the current one as a measure of their experience). Though informations about players themselves may be more difficult to obtain, it should be straightforward to collect the data for or all games running with stats on (provided the hosts collaborate, of course).

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

While I would not want to consider it as absolute "fact",
there is a sticky thread in the MP forum to list winning nations. Has anyone done some numbers on that? Just for curiosity sake?

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Every so often that list comes up in discussions about this nation or that. Last time I checked the only really significant number was that almost half of all the LA games had been won by Ermor or R'lyeh.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

That makes me feel better. Anytime a discussion pops up here where various experts proclaim some nations worth or worthlessness I get concerned. But luckily, it tends to actually average out that no matter how strong the opinions are that fly around, the saving grace is that they dont seem to agree with each other.

I am still amazed at how rare that is. Ive been gaming for decades and on internet for as long as its been internet. I can remember many many games where 1 month to 1 year was just about the whole life of the game because some ultimate strategy was developed and posted. Or great games that I found out about too late because by the time I got there the expert players had their tactics so down perfect that you couldnt last long enough in a game to learn the game.

Call me a fanboi if you want but any game that can keep me trying new things years after its release is well worth it.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

However, the "winning thread" shows an "evidence" (if you can call "proof" to such low number of data to make an statistic). There are "first class" and "second class" nations. There is not a "absolute and clear winner" (Except for the admitedly superior Ermor and Ryleh in LA). But some nations get 4 wins, while some others havent won once. Some nations are stronger (or "easier to play and win with" if you preffer) than some others.

Which is not a bad thing, by the way. I used to play a Table Top game named Empire in Arms, about Napoleonic Wars. It was not its intention to create "balanced" nations: France was MUCH better than Otoman Empire. This is not chess, where everybody has exactly same army (and even in chess, whites win much more than black). However, that should not delude ourselves to say that every nation "is balanced out". Some people has been saying so since 3.0. However, each patch some unit get a cost increase (like jaguar warriors), which is a proof that the developers think it was too powerful, while some others get a price reduction (as Onis) or some "nation love" like MA ulm, which is a proof that developers perceived it as weaker than average.

Probably some of the nations that people claim now that "are balanced" will get a nerf or buff in next, or a future, patch. This will discredit the affirmation that it was balanced.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Well, the problem with relying on a list of games won to determine balance issues is that there are so many other factors - player skill, alliances, location and neighbors, size of game, simple luck, etc - that even blatantly more powerful nations don't always win and our sample size simply isn't large enough to be significant for anything but the most overpowered nations.
If one nation has won twice out of 20 games is it twice as powerful as a nation that has only won once? Or even twice as likely to win?

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Good points. And this is the MultiPlayer notes which only reflects part of what the game is.

Some of my favorite nations probably rate low in wins but I love them because they are more FUN to play (at least in solo games). Or because, in MP games they are excellent as allies so that can be a selling point for me. I tend to do better as an ally than in trying to conquer the world.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

FANBOY!!
FANBOY FANBOY FANBOY!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Joking, you're true. 2 games unplayable for new players were i.e. starcraft and warcraft. lots of game gurus destroying you in a matter of seconds, you just weren't able to understand what to do. Oh well, at least those weren't my kind of games, I have yet to realize how to enjoy a game in which i have to control every single worker, every singl building, every single unit, every single active ability of every single unit... what the hell am I?? That's not being a general, that's being crazy!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif No fun for me there.

Surely an expert player of dom3 can destroy me easily. But the strange thing is that it would not frustrate me. Really. I have yet to try an MP game, but seeing the tactics of experts would just amaze me. That's the main reason for me not complaining about unbalanced nations - I can choose them for flavour and well, if the game went bad, it went this way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Maybe even because while a warcraft is just a matter of numbers (time, damage dealt per second and lots of other things), well in dom3 there are lots of numbers too, you can study them and put on a great strategy, but you can even send them all to hell and just enjoy the theme of your, and your enemies', nations. ^_^

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Aye. That's actually what I meant by my previous post. There are nations without a win yet, but is that significant if there's only ~30 games total played in the era, many of which won't have had all or even nearly all nations in them, regardless of all those other factors? Marverni is widely regarded as one of the weaker nations in MP, and yet they have 2 wins, putting them squarely in the middle. Is this significant? Or pure coincidence? Around the time when everyone was claiming Helheim was overpowered they hadn't recorded a single win yet - which some people thought intresting. Yet a short time later there suddenly were 3 Helheim wins in a short time, putting them near the top. I doubt it was because Helheim suddenly got stronger. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif (In fact it was just after Helheim got significantly weaker, though all 3 those games were started before the nerfs. )

Basically, all what Thejeff says.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Actually I think that would reflect more on the 5th rating, than anything. Multiplayer Usability. But even then, there are so many other factors - most of the people that I've seen eliminated early in MP games stated that either a) they did something really stupid or experimental with their build, or b) they were just minding their own business and (insert nation here) dual blessed troops landed on their capital with no warning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Agree wholeheartedly. Micromanagement can be fun, but in small dosage. And furthermore, games such as you mention often compress time to the point where whole cities are built in minutes, which is crazier still... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
Considering using wins' numbers - there are generally two facts which make these non-relevant: first, that we have too little numbers for meaningful statistics here; second, that we have no controlled environment for such statistics. They can be used, as I said, to weight players' opinions against, but that's all...

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I can sense a disturbance in the Force http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif I feel that one or another or even both of these possibilities will likely happen to me in my first 10/12 MP games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif Destiny or plain intuition?

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Agreed. That's why I suggest to use full stats and not only wins' numbers. I mean : being second, third, last one, eradicated on turn 20 or still alive on turn 75 also means something, doesn't it ? Of course, only numbers of stat files could give a reliable idea and this idea will not be context sensitive (unless proper data collection & processing). But neither are the ratings we are giving to Jim. These numbers, once compiled, will "just" be rough statistical evaluations.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

There are just few games submitted to hall of fame. And many many of them are newbie games, there are also team games, etc etc.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Team games COULD be used to look for survivability, etc. But yes, prime reason this can't be enough is that there are just too few of them...

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

No. But if you find that the 4 nations that win more total 50% of the victories, and happen to be 4 nations with strong sacreds, and that most of the nations that has never won dont have strong sacreds, or sacreds at all, that might be a trend.

2vs1 is not relevant. 4 vs 0 is a bit more (even if not deffinitive)

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Agreed. I think it's clear to all that LA Ermor and R'lyeh are powerhouses.
The other eras are closer.

And it's very hard to draw any conclusions about the low end. Where there are multiple nations that haven't won at all.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

But they're just so thematically KOOOOOOOL!!!!

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Some of the strong nations are as well thematically cool (ermor MA is a good example imho). Some nations that are very low end are not the "coolest" ones thematically as well. So that's not a cause-effect relationship.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

But then, some of the low-end nation are very cool. EA Agartha is awesome...

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

To add an extra evaluations:

MA Shinuyama: 2-5-4-2-2. (weak army for early expansion, lack of sacreds and low morale make them attractive nation to be rushed. Later, they have access to very strong army buffs and one of the best, if not the best, and more cost effective mages in the game which happen to be non-capital. Late game they have strong Death which means strong thugs and Tartarian factory, and easy access to game-winning BE like Army of Gold+Heat from hell)

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Bump?

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

This thread kind of bobs up and down a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I really should edit those first posts to reflect my easing of the restrictions for posting ratings. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif I guess I just overestimated the number of oldtimers who would find this interesting enough to take the time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Hmmmm, maybe this will finally get me to drag myself into IRC and bug some people there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

I think it's just too hard to really quantify the nations.

there are some obviously powerful nations.
but I can think of ways to counter certain of them with what are considered very weak nations in the same age.

I would almost say that
powerful = obvious and easy to use powerful strategy

that said, some nations are overpowered, but by and large, most of them have options available which makes them all scary in the hands of a crafty player.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Well this is absolutely true. But to the more experienced player, "power" is relative to the amount of options, so if one tactic fails or just isn't applicable to a particular foe, you have something to fall back on.

This is why nations such as Ulm and Abysia should tend to rate consistently low, as they are more 1 dimensional than other nations, and are more easily defeated. But by the same token, since Early Game has much to do with expansion against indies, they'd do well there, since they have cheap and heavily armored troops, but then their relative "power" begins to drop off somewhat compared to other races who can more easily change gears to counter an unexpected threat.

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Thought I'd give this a little nudge back to visibility. :p Personally, I'm becoming experienced enough to feel comfortable adding my own ratings - though perhaps not QUITE as extensive as QM's list. :D

Maybe some other people have more content to add? Would be nice to eventually actually be able to tabulate some sort of average. :D

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Are there really not enough ratings to tabulate?

Re: Dominions Nations Evaluations ;)
 

Most people only submitted a small handful, other than QM. I haven't looked back in awhile, but as I watched the posts come in, it seemed like very few nations had 3 or more people rate them. You can average 2 numbers, but it's in no way representative of an actual statistical examination. :p

Granted, it'll be hard to get enough to really give anything excessively accurate - but it shouldn't be hard to get a lot more ratings than we've got so far. :D