Some hint about early nations to ban to skilled players? - Page 4

Kristoffer O · #1 December 8th, 2008, 06:55 PM

thejeff: yep

Psycho · #2 December 8th, 2008, 06:58 PM

Things should work the way they work, because it they weren't, that would be really odd

Trumanator · #3 December 8th, 2008, 07:06 PM

The "Cold War" suggestion is actually great for role-play too, which might make it more fun for the newbs.

Tifone · #4 December 8th, 2008, 07:06 PM

Damn the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers for using poison arrows!!!

KissBlade · #5 December 9th, 2008, 03:36 AM

Just make it so they can't pick blesses or SC Pretenders. Problem solved.

vfb · #6 December 9th, 2008, 05:36 AM

That's not enough. They should have no bless, no awake pretender, no non-human pretender, and no positive scales.

MaxWilson · #7 December 9th, 2008, 06:06 AM

It's also probably best if they're not allowed to spend gold on anything but monkey PD.

-Max

P.S. In seriousness, I think giving bonuses to the weaker players is more likely to lead to a good game than forcing the stronger players to play crippled. Otherwise you're just annoying the stronger player and asking for them to game the system (no bless and no SC? Fine--play Hinnom with a scales strategy, or play Caelum and abuse mammoths). I did like the suggestion of banning alliances between the strong players but whether it would work in practice depends on your players.

Tyrant · #8 December 9th, 2008, 07:51 PM

I think the easier way to go about this would be to restrict the experienced players to a short list of crappy nations- Arco, Ermor, Ulm, the monkeys, or water nations perhaps. I believe that there is a little more agreement about which EA nations are weak than about which are strong, especially since "strong" begs the question of strong in the early , mid, or late game.

Also, it's worth noting that the way to improve your play is to get beaten by a better player.

Finally, a roomier map and/or a mandatory 20 turn peace might make it better for the newbs.

KissBlade · #9 December 13th, 2008, 04:02 PM

I think I disagree with EA Ermor being crappy. =) (unless they got a nerf somewhere along the line when I wasn't looking)

Gandalf Parker · #10 December 13th, 2008, 04:54 PM

Ive said before, I dont think there are crappy or powerful nations. There are players who have found the nation which matches their playing style, and those who havent. Match yourself to a nation and any of them do pretty well IMHO.

Some people play all nations the same way and make their judgements based on that. Most people who have decided that a nation sucks, when they are questioned, it seems that they dont make use of any of that nations theme-based pros and cons.