EA- Power Ratings and Head to Head Competitions

[chrispedersen]

Soo there has been a lot of discussion on the best races and why. So I thought I'd try my twist on it.

EA Power Ratings. Rte the power of all the early age nations where two nations when combined should be roughly equal to the higher rated nation.

So for example:


Hinnom 110
Vanheim 70
Sauromatia 60
Mictlan 60
Niefelheim 59
Formoria 59
Tien Chi 58
Hellheim 57
Ctis 56
Arco - 55
Pangae 53
Malverni - 52
Tir 50
Caelum 49

Abysia 48
Ermor-45
Ulm-40
Yomi-35

....

Well I was going to then propose head to head competitions. Each time a nation, played by players deemed of roughly equal skill won - it would rise in the rankings. Each time it lost - it would sink.

But.. I got bored. Short Attnetion span theatre = ).

[secretperson]

You left out Lanka

[Jazzepi]

You'd really be better off with a much smaller scale. What's the difference between a nation rated at 45, and 46? Or a nation rated at 45 and 50? Or 53 and 55?

Jazzepi

[Omnirizon]

Dominions Nations Evaluations

actually one of my fave threads

if it aint already, i'd almost suggest adding to the strat index, because it is a nice representation of opinion on the nations.

[JimMorrison]

<3

I think it definitely needs more posts..... There is some really good info in it, but unless I get more ratings to get a meaningful average, it kind of forces people to read the whole thing.



As for THIS thread. I kind of like the idea of a sort of league, but would it need arbitrary rankings to work out? I mean if you started everyone at 0, and just treated it like a sort of ladder for the nations, rather than the players..... could be a lot of fun. 8 ) Could maybe work in the results of larger games as well.

[Ming]

JimMorrison,

I agree. Since players are free to choose what nation they play, A league as you described would over time be a good proxy for a ranking of the nations (but does not necessary give any numerical indication of the difference in strength).

If there is a mod to allow handicaps in terms of additional design points, that would make it really interesting.

[thejeff]

Except that head to head competitions (2 player games) really only show the nations ability in early rush situations.

Nations that aren't so strong at the start, but have very powerful endgames will be slaughtered by rush nations that don't have to worry about having a weak endgame.

[Ming]

thejeff,

Fair point. However, could your concern be overcome by a reasonably large map - 2x the number of provinces per player compared to a "normal" MP map?

[thejeff]

It's still not really helpful, though it changes the dynamic a bit.

Even with 30 provinces/player that's only a 60 province map. Capitals are likely less than 7 provinces apart. You're going to have a border within the first year and likely be fighting at once. Long thin maps with starting locations at either end would help, but even if only 5 provinces wide there are ~ 10 provinces between capitals - and you know which way to go.

I'm unsure of the effects of making it really huge. Say several hundred provinces for 2 players. That might give a boost to late game strategies, or might allow the rapid expanders to just devour so much territory they'd be unstoppable.

You might be able to set up maps/mods reflecting the various stages of the game? Early is easy, default. For later stages, start with provinces owned and some research done?

[Aezeal]

you could also make it 3 vs 3 with a mod to make all sides the same nation then play on a bit larger map with pre set strt locations then there would be more options too loose a war here, win one there and get further in the game before it's gone, play with faster research too