Quote:
Saber Cherry said:
Niefel Jarl is worth 500 gold =)
|
I tend to think so, too. He weighs in at 400, then gets a 40g discount from that for being capital-only.
Quote:
TC Consort for 15 gold? When I play TC I pump out consorts like crazy. They're already one of the best units in the game... IMO.
|
They're just spies, right? They could get another 5 or 10 points for having more Stealth than the 'average Spy', but not much more. If they're found, they're dead.
Quote:
Eunuch for 10 gold? ...to good for a leader, even a terrible one. 15 or 20 gold seems like a good absolute minimum.
|
May I ask why? He's, well, crappy, to put it mildly. He not only can but probably WILL die to the first hit he takes from anything (including a stray arrow). There's really no way you can increase that.
Quote:
45 for a black harpy is too much unless you give them leadership.
|
10 Leadership would be 5,for a total of 50.
Quote:
30 gold for a forester? I'm not really sure if anyone uses them now...
|
I can see them as somewhat useful as patrollers...
Quote:
And considering all of Man's (Avalon) mages are capitol only, increasing the price is painful.
|
Um... not really. The Daughter of Avalon is the most under-costed mage in the game. The Mother and Crone are also quite under-costed, as they stand now. Really, I'm not going to cry, at all, about Man's mage costs increasing.
Quote:
70g Lord Wardens are pretty crazy, too... IMO.
|
Perhaps, but Man's benefitting a lot from the capital-only reduction.
Quote:
C'tis: Even at 35 nobody will buy a taskmaster.
|
Quite possibly. THe aim is less to make everything 'more usable' than to see what they all 'should' cost.
Quote:
Bane spider at 70? ... No, I refuse to play against Machaka with that setting  Those are incredibly good assassins that come with 10 death gems worth of magical weaponry.
|
Well, the Bane Spider is one of those 'niggling problems', which is how to quantify those Bane weapons.
Quote:
Empoisoner also shouldn't drop in price considering their potency.
|
Well, if there is to be a reduction for capital-only commanders, it should be applied across the board.
Quote:
Well, those are just a few preliminary thoughts. I'm think that complexifying your formula to a form like (x^2+.5xy+(a+bc)^1.5)*10+(a^1.2+f+2x)*5+15 might be necessary to get a good result, rather than using a purly additive formula like x+2y+a+5b+c+15. I can't imagine making a purely additive formula that "considered" all of Dominions' complexities.
|
It's quite possible that a more complex formula would give better results. As it is, though, I think the remarkable thing is not the odd 'way out there' commander so much as all of the commanders that are either spot-on or quite close to spot-on.
I am confident that, if there is a more complex formula, it is not much more complex than the (very) simple formula I am currently using.
I know others have mentioned 'prioritizing' the various stats, but then you could wrangle forever on which are more important.
I am currently considering applying a 'diminishing returns' idea on the specials... as a note, the reason Caelum and Pangaea's commanders are so expensive is the large amount of specials they have. Perhaps if there is a 'full cost/75% cost/50% cost' diminishing cost on specials, it might assuage the issue.
OTOH... there are some that have many specials (Vanheim, for instance) that come out right on... I'll have to work on it.