posted 08-03-06 08:40 AM EDT (US) 22 / 87

Generally though, people who reply to the original post will gradually determine the effectiveness of the strategy. In that regard, it lets a player who is looking around for stuff to be able to choose without initial prejudice strategies that might be pretty good.

If there was, for example, a 5 star British strategy, whilst all the rest were 4 stars or less, then people will naturally click on the 5 stars first, and are more likely to adopt it.

That makes it more common and thus more obvious to counter, which would reduce the effectiveness of the strategy. Then, players will be irked that their 5 star strategy didnt do bugger all against a (for example) 3 star Spanish strategy whose sole purpose was to be a counter to the 5 star British strategy.

etc etc.

I think, also, that patience should be rewarded - even if you have a look at the first could of threads, most players will get a general feel who how well the strategy is being received. If the read the thread entirely, then they will gain as much understanding of the thread that is available, and as such become a better player and be rewarded for their patience.

I reckon, anyway.

Edit: What might be better is to outline and sort strategies that are specific to each patch version, and also strategies that are generic (apply with almost no difference between patches) - that might make a more useful distinction between the strategies. The problem is. that authors will need to keep them up to date more often. :\

The Optimist believes that we live in the best possible world. The Pesimist believes this to be true. The Optimist believes that we live in the best possible world. The Pesimist believes this to be true.