In the rating system thread (http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10467
) we've been discussing a scale for each planet proposed by the MAN2 development team.
As I think about it more, it may be helpful to break down the skills required for each map in order to provide a more objective measure (as suggested by some including Pitor in the other thread).
Here are some of the things we can use to build the formula that rates the planets:
Secret Ally control - How much thought is required in revealing allies (much more important on larger maps than smaller maps). Could be just a formula based on how many SAs each side has.
Resource control - More important on bigger denser maps. Could be just a formula based on how many resources are available to this map.
Land engagements - A measure of the scale of land-based action you'll see in this map.
Naval engagements - A measure of the scale of naval action you'll see in this map (Navy on Navy). More important on maps with large bodies of water in central location.
Naval invasion - The scale of how much naval invasions play into this map (as opposed to naval-assisted land invasions). More important on maps with more islands.
Mobility - Importance of maintaining maximum mobility of your forces (maps where you find yourself buying tanks much more than LAVs).
Tilt - Covering cases where something unique about the map adds unique strategies to the mix (such as the Large country in the middle of Crateus).
Just my initial thoughts, this list could be refined and extended if this approach interests people. Even if it doesn't help directly rating the maps, it might be an interesting list to have access to.