Quote:
|
Empirically disproven. Machaka beat the crap out of Vanheim in Land RAND, which is CBM 1.6.
|
Lol. Player always means much more than nation. And a seasoned vet like Wraithlord will in the most cases beat a newbie playing the uber-nation, be it Ashdod, Niefelheim, Mictlan or anything. But in a duel with a player of equal skill this means nothing. Also, one game can no way count as an empirical proof. As Wrana mentioned above, you arguments are a bit strange, not to say the least
Quote:
Empirically disproven, MA C'tis was 4th (admittedly a distant 4th) in Land RAND, and beat Pythium (a power nation in MA by any metric).
I think you're the only person I've ever seen claim MA C'tis is bad.
|
Same here
. C'tis was played by Meglobob who has tons of experience and is a really good player
I know I should think the results of Land Rand are the ultimate truth but I'll probably won't do it. Also, there has been much discussion about MA C'tis (a couple of years ago) at the forums and there have very different opinions. Probably you missed that thread.
Quote:
|
(A great nation benefits disproportionately more from unbalanced options than a poor nation does).
|
Very well. So, let's nerf all nations to the points where they become really poor and thus equal?
Once again, I don't say CBM is bad, it is very good. But in many, many aspects nation balance is even worse that in vanilla. That's what I think. If (or when) nation balance is improved, I'll hail QM but until it is I don't think that the word "balanced" is appropriate. And also, the 50-point gorgon that you started this discussion with is only a part of nation balance because it is available to 4 nations total.