Federation Commander

The initial multipliers were intially selected based on both popularity and performance. It is intentional that poor performers that are very popular are costly.

In the 2nd FC Online Tournament we almost had five Fed players even with the 1.05 multiplier.

Even with their relatively poor average performance in the 2nd Tournament, we have already had two players select them for the 3rd FC Online Tournament despite their multiplier remaining at 1.05.

Also, a very good player can win tournaments with them as demonstrated at the Origins 2009 Tournament. Finally, Archer demonstrated in the 2nd FC Online tournament that the Feds are still quite competitive with a 1.05 multiplier.

I will also add that, in my opinion, one of the factors driving average Fed performance in tournaments is their popularity with relatively inexperienced players.

JimDauphinais wrote: Also, a very good player can win tournaments with them as demonstrated at the Origins 2009 Tournament. Finally, Archer demonstrated in the 2nd FC Online tournament that the Feds are still quite competitive with a 1.05 multiplier.

I will also add that in my opinion, one of the factors driving average Fed performance in tournaments is their popularity with relatively inexperienced players.

Absolutely, that is what I was trying to say in maybe not the best way. Larger numbers means more tendency to some 'average'. Whilst the average can be low there can still be top players who will consistently win with them.


My slight concern is whether popularity adjustments may push away a few people who don't see the point of playing because their favourite empire has been handicapped for reasons unrelated to performance. Given a choice between fewer players and more players who just happen to want to play XXX I'd go for the latter.