|
|
|
|
 |

June 4th, 2008, 05:56 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Utopia, Oregon
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 83
Thanked 143 Times in 108 Posts
|
|
Re: Early Age Civs
Well, I would probably expand the chart to 5 ratings:
Early Game Strength
Mid Game Strength
Late Game Strength
Ease of Learning (SP)
Overall Ease of Use (MP)
I think the spread of these 5 attributes would give players a good road map for developing their gameplay as much as is possible before entering into MP. I'd also be tempted to list any path that the nation has national mages with higher than 3, and listing what their highest blood mage is.
Anyone else have any thoughts on a 1-10 scale vs a 1-5 scale? I suppose I can see the merits of either, so I will look for a little more input on the matter.
|

June 4th, 2008, 06:07 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,327
Thanks: 4
Thanked 133 Times in 117 Posts
|
|
Re: Early Age Civs
Highest blood mage is less important than cost of cheapest blood mage. If you've got enough hunters, blood's easy to boost. If all you've got is 500gp B3's, you'll never have enough slaves to matter.
|

June 4th, 2008, 07:00 PM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,497
Thanks: 165
Thanked 105 Times in 73 Posts
|
|
Re: Early Age Civs
In my experience 1-5 scales tend to illicit better information than 1-10.
-Max
__________________
Bauchelain - "Qwik Ben iz uzin wallhax! HAX!"
Quick Ben - "lol pwned"
["Memories of Ice", by Steven Erikson. Retranslated into l33t.]
|

June 4th, 2008, 07:41 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Utopia, Oregon
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 83
Thanked 143 Times in 108 Posts
|
|
Re: Early Age Civs
Well I mostly just thought that highest trainable Blood would serve sort of as a benchmark for the relative perceived Blood power of that nation. Obviously a skilled player can start a blood economy out of nothing, but this chart is more intended to serve as a development aid for new players, not a quick reference for the more seasoned (though I am sure some will be curious as to the results).
|

June 4th, 2008, 08:50 PM
|
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
|
|
Re: Early Age Civs
I think a category for 'Content Quantity' or something similar would make sense - add up the total number of national recruitable units, commanders, summons and spells each nation has. Some starting players want to pick a nation with less/more national stuff to play with. Different people have different reactions to seeing Bandar Log's Conjuration and Blood research trees.
|

June 4th, 2008, 09:19 PM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,497
Thanks: 165
Thanked 105 Times in 73 Posts
|
|
Re: Early Age Civs
While you're at it, have the contributors rank themselves on a scale of 1-5 for experience. I'd mark myself 2, "pretty raw."
The forum "rankings" don't correlate well with skill at the game, nor does the amount of trivia you know about unit stats and bugs. Unfortunately.
-Max
__________________
Bauchelain - "Qwik Ben iz uzin wallhax! HAX!"
Quick Ben - "lol pwned"
["Memories of Ice", by Steven Erikson. Retranslated into l33t.]
|

June 5th, 2008, 12:59 AM
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Utopia, Oregon
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 83
Thanked 143 Times in 108 Posts
|
|
Re: Early Age Civs
Well that's why I am avoiding a ranking system that puts one nation above the other, and rather just an evaluation of the nation, and how you feel it plays.
In the same sense as Olympic scoring, it will average out well.
Sombre- On the other hand, it might also show that most people's ratings will show a strong correlation between number of unique units, and their Ease of Play.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|