| |
| Author |
Message |
| menace64 |
![]() Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:51 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 836
Location: Wichita, Kansas
|
I think it would be fun to rank the current cultures by strength in the standard environment.
But I want all of your input on how this comparison and ranking should take place. What categories do we need to set up, should we rate shadow-against-shadow, fp-against-fp, or is it feasible to rank shadow-against-fp?
It would also be possible (even probable) to do this by subculture, rather than entire cultures.
I’m looking for categories such as Cohesion, Speed (how quickly a deck can set up), and pretty much anything else we can collectively agree on.
Get crackin’! Let’s hear some ideas! |
Riddle 9
When I came to Abraham I let him live just a moment longer. When I came to Moses I saved his life more than once. But the salmon... I regret to say I had a hand in its death.
Who am I? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Cobra |
![]() Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:16 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 1202
Location: Austin, TX, USA
|
I’d say the comparison that really matters is Free Peoples vs. Shadow, and it’s best to distinguish between decktypes even within a culture (like Evil Men archery, Evil Men overwhelm, Evil Men swarm).
Some Magic: The Gathering players get into this sort of analysis hardcore (try skimming this article: Data-Mining Extended Tournaments for Statistics), so I’d suggest swiping a page from their playbook.  Make a list of all the Fellowships and Shadows you want to consider, match them up, then find a consensus about which side wins, and how often or how easily it wins.
A simple example:
Fellowship A wins 70% of the time against Shadow X, and 60% of the time against Shadow Y.
Fellowship B wins 80% of the time against Shadow X, but only 20% of the time against Shadow Y.
Y is clearly the better Shadow, while A is the better Fellowship. However, if your meta has a lot of Shadow X and very little of Y, you might want to play Fellowship B instead.
That’s sort of abstract, but I hope it makes sense... 
If I wanted to do a really serious analysis of relative decktype strengths, that’s probably how I’d go about it. This system does have some flaws when used for LOTR TCG, though. For example, imagine that Fellowship A always survives against Shadow X, but only by stopping at every site. What sort of percentage rating does that matchup get?
I’m not sure how useful this system would be, but it’s one idea.
Edit:
A variation would be to describe each matchup’s "average" result like this:
The fellowship finishes the race in 5 turns.
The fellowship finishes the race in 8 turns.
The Ring-bearer is killed at site 6.
etc. etc. etc.
This sort of data would be more relevant to LOTR TCG, and could probably still be put together into some sort of informative "big picture." |
| http://cobracards.com -- Web's best deals on Trading Card Games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are UTC - 4
|
|
Forum index » Lord of the Rings TCG » Open Lord of the Rings Discussion