Quote:
Ighalli said:
I strongly agree with Agrajag about multiplicitive values. The problem with that is weighing the various stats (not to mention abilities) and then normalizing them (to go from the product to the price). The additive math is definately easier, but it should be obvious that a mage assassin is worth more than an assassin and a mage.
|
I disagree, and for a number of reasons. First, on the 'mage assassin' > 'mage' plus 'assassin'... why is that true? Yes, a mage assassin has more options than either a mage or an assassin (and thus should cost more), but if I have a mage and an assassin, and you have a mage assassin, you can only assassinate OR research/forge/ritualize/do magey stuff. I can do both (if not as well as the assassin mage).
For me, the 'opportunity cost' of having multiple commanders has to be worth something. (It's sort of an application of the chess idea of the 'overused piece'.)
Now, should they be equal? IOW, would the mage+assassin's cost equal the assassin mage's cost? Probably not. Even if the mage and the assassin mage had the same magic skills, and the assassin and the assassin mage had the same combat skills, the assassin mage most likely would not cost as much as the assassin and the mage combined, due to some overlap in other abilities. For example:
Assassin: 30g
Mage: 60g
Assassin/Mage: 80g
(These are 'off the top of my head', but the Void Child of R'lyeh, compared with a regular assassin or a 1-path mage, seems to bear this out.)
And yes, it's true that I can only buy one commander a turn, but look at the difference in upkeep should I buy one assassin and one mage, vs. two assassin/mages.
There are all kinds of permutations, but I don't see where a multiplicative system, as opposed to an additive system, is any more appropriate. Perhaps you can give examples of certain abilities that are better on 'better' commanders?