Quote:
Originally Posted by Shardphoenix
I think, I see a problem in Bbz`s approach: Nations with weak early game will be simply devoured earl on without a chance to defend themselves.
|
No, but even if they don't get devoured(by some miracle) and you manage to persuade your opponents that its not going to be cost effective for him to attack you, if your early game is **** you start to rely on your neighbouring nations to be at war (or some wierd luck)so that you can get to expand enough (rather than just being marginalized to insignificance), with a late game nation you need to use every dirty trick in the book and fight like a lion early on (taking advantage of being the defender most of the time since you wont get the chance to attack someone that often) so that you can survive. So I just thought that that shuld pay off a bit more that it does now. And making early game nations "competitive" late game on a all things equal basis isnt the way to get there.
P.s This is not intended to be a rant, I am trying to show my opinion on what should be considered balanced. Since thing such as perfect balance don't exist. A game can only be balanced for certain settings.(take a 1v1 game against Niefelheim and lets say Patala who is going to win??
)
So I think that the community should come together and either vote for or agree upon certain standardised settings for which the game should be balanced. This should make llamabeast's job a bit easier (But since that is not going to happen) and it might make the game unfun. I just though that It might be resonable to share my views on the matter thats all