So, while supposed "experienced" neutrals attempt to declare for game balance
reasons, the same players pick the supposed "easier" side when playing allegiance?
I'm new here, just doesn't make sense to me though..........
···
On Sun, 04 March 2001, pinsonneault.1@osu.edu wrote:
as a result of these discussions I think that the
attraction of the dark positions to players who are stronger than
average is probably the imbalancer if the final stats follow the above
trend.
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
--- In mepbmlist@y..., LBear <ditletang@c...> wrote:
> as a result of these discussions I think that the
> attraction of the dark positions to players who are stronger than
> average is probably the imbalancer if the final stats follow the
above
> trend.
So, while supposed "experienced" neutrals attempt to declare for
game balance
reasons, the same players pick the supposed "easier" side when
playing allegiance?
I'm new here, just doesn't make sense to me though..........
No; the dark positions are more interesting and fun. Issue
assassination orders rather than receiving them; play with strong and
varied characters; interesting and useful special nation abilities;
and so on. A few of the free positions have similar assets, but a lot
of them don't. This is a point made by Jeremy Richman, Gian, and
others.
cheers,
Marc
···
On Sun, 04 March 2001, pinsonneault.1@o... wrote:
From the GSI message boards, add game 89 to the dark win column.
15-5 dark, one tie.
82, 86, 90, 91, 98, 104, 106, 107, 111, 112 unaccounted for from game
81 onwards. I assume 111/112 are still running, as are 105 and 113.
Marc
