MP: Yang: Newbie game EA CoD defaults - Running

[qio]

If you want gems make a rainbow pretender that can site search, or research site search spells. If you make an overtly heavy scale build and super SC, enjoy the barren desert without your gem mines. If we're gonna start toying with the setting, I vote for 200% to income.

Don't open the can.

[statttis]

Originally Posted by qio

If you want gems make a rainbow pretender that can site search, or research site search spells. If you make an overtly heavy scale build and super SC, enjoy the barren desert without your gem mines. If we're gonna start toying with the setting, I vote for 200% to income.

Don't open the can.

The default EA magic site setting is 45. Increasing it to 50 or 55 is hardly the same as doubling income.

Players who take a rainbow pretender and do a lot of site searching will still have the same gem advantage over players who don't. What changes is the base level of gems that players tend to have. In my opinion, the game is more fun when there's more magic being used. But if it's a big deal to you I don't mind playing default settings.

[Redeyes]

It's a matter of distribution for me.
With a low ratio a few people are likely to have many sites,
With a high ratio a few people are likely to have a few sites.

Having no sites screws you over quite a bit, which is why I would like a higher ratio

[qio]

Originally Posted by statttis

The default EA magic site setting is 45. Increasing it to 50 or 55 is hardly the same as doubling income.

I never claimed such, nor made any such comparison. Simply stated my preference for modifying the settings. My suggestion is not less valid. If you want I can even pitch quite a few arguments for why my idea is spectacular.

Originally Posted by statttis

Players who take a rainbow pretender and do a lot of site searching will still have the same gem advantage over players who don't. What changes is the base level of gems that players tend to have. In my opinion, the game is more fun when there's more magic being used. But if it's a big deal to you I don't mind playing default settings.

I would prefer the default settings, but the game host or a majority decision will no doubt settle the issue.

If you increase the base level of gems, you do undermine other people that play specific nations or have a specific pretender design. It's not directly a question of comparing the amount of gems that players A and B have, but rather whether player A has enough for his needs. Yes, luck does play a factor in this. Equally, you could argue random events should be disabled.

[statttis]

Originally Posted by qio

If you increase the base level of gems, you do undermine other people that play specific nations or have a specific pretender design. It's not directly a question of comparing the amount of gems that players A and B have, but rather whether player A has enough for his needs. Yes, luck does play a factor in this. Equally, you could argue random events should be disabled.

I don't understand why one players strategy would be undermined by more gems. If player A needs X gems for something to work, X+10% means it works even better. More gems opens up more strategies, not less. I'm not that concerned about the luck factor, I just think that more gems gives the game more variety, in a way that is lacking with normal settings.

[qio]

Originally Posted by statttis

I don't understand why one players strategy would be undermined by more gems. If player A needs X gems for something to work, X+10% means it works even better. More gems opens up more strategies, not less. I'm not that concerned about the luck factor, I just think that more gems gives the game more variety, in a way that is lacking with normal settings.

If you do not incorporate "site searching" into your design; a larger abundance of gems means that with a bit of luck you can find enough lvl 0 sites by just rapid expansion. The percentages are tilted in that direction. That means you can forge those few items you need to make your SC or thugs viable in the mid and late game. The benefit of good path diversity is less.

[pyg]

Originally Posted by qio

If you do not incorporate "site searching" into your design; a larger abundance of gems means that with a bit of luck you can find enough lvl 0 sites by just rapid expansion. The percentages are tilted in that direction. That means you can forge those few items you need to make your SC or thugs viable in the mid and late game. The benefit of good path diversity is less.

qio speaks my mind here. I happen to like (and am used to) rainbow pretenders and I think cranking the magic sites setting nullifies some of their advantages.

My thinking in playing with game defaults is that it is the lowest common denominator and something everyone has probably played with.

[Redeyes]

Originally Posted by pyg

I happen to like (and am used to) rainbow pretenders and I think cranking the magic sites setting nullifies some of their advantages.

From other earlier discussions people have expressed that diversity is better with more sites as then there is simply more sites to find.

Luck is still always the most significant factor. At a higher ratio you'll see more players who got "lucky" with a good gem economy. I like when there's many contenders for the throne, a higher ratio helps ensure that.

What about random events? Yeah, I think they are a bit problematic too but only in the impact they can have on the early game. They aren't nearly as big a deal as not having found any of the (permanent unlike most minor one-time events) sites that support your nation's magic and they are a great part of the scale economy...

Perhaps we should simply vote?
We are a couple who have expressed a preference for higher site ratio and Just Qio who is strongly against it (on principal reasons?)