On landfat...

[bjornredtail]

Ok, so, what do you think? *can't rember if I run this poll before or not*




I personally belive that, on RWL, lower landfat is stronger as fewer people attack hordes with low landfat ratios. Otherwise I would not put too much creadence into landfat numbers as a measure of opponent's streighth or skill.

[Aqualis]

I do not think it is a measure of strength. Low land fat is just a diversion, like a 'possum playin' dead.

[Ruddertail]

I wouldn't say it's a good measure. High ratio of land to NW just means you've just made a good land-grabbing run, low ratio land to nw means you've been sitting for some time, and people have been grabbing land off you during that time.

Total NW is a much better measure of strength, I would think.

(Unless I totally missed the gist of the question...)

[windhound]

it depends on the strat the person is using
a leader user with low land is much stronger than an indy with low land, and to an extent visa versa

[Neobaron]

Certain players (David) just mass land for short term gain, others (PA) are able to hold it and use it effectively. Good leader players (Nohc, Snare) dont need it...

Basically what windy said, but with examples =-)

[Gen. Volkov]

Don't forget Volkov, sitting on top with 4k land in reg. I use land very effectively I do. Gimme 30k and I'll make 50-80 mil NW, depending on circumstances. I may be an utter noob in RB3d, but I am not that here. #2 turbo and #1 in reg thank you very much.

[Holby]

The options confuse me.