Strategies 2018
Posts: 197
Visited by: 281 users
It's that time again now that we've finally got admin attention. First things first I think we can safely rule out any changes for imperialist, perfect defence, naval commander and great combinator. All those strategies are in great shape atm. LB and DS need nerfs. RA, HW, MoS and Blitz need boosts. Everything else is up for debate. I'm just going to summarize what ideas have been put out in the past year and the discussions regarding them.
Lucky Bastard(LB):
+10 cost to infantry OR
-1 range to Infantry
These ideas came from the previous lb discussion threads. I was discussing this with witch doctor recently. I favoured the crit nerf at the time but he pointed out that people are mainly playing lb for the added range. A crit nerf of higher than -5 would be required to make any noticeable difference. The range nerf would help but i personally dont think it'll fix the lb problem. I'm favouring the inf cost change now.
There's also an alternative solution but it may be unpopular. We could reinvent the strat and move away from criticals to att/def boosts or maybe +1hp like some sort of halfway expensive ironfist. Personally i think criticals are cancerous from a competitive standpoint and because of the meta this strat has created i would argue against ever significantly boosting a strategie's crits again. I know however that some people may enjoy the higher random aspect. Opinions/ideas?
Desert Storm(DS):
-1 def to helis
The latter idea came from tact. I prefer it as it's the infantry strats that are struggling vs ds. A direct heli def nerf just weakens that strat where it is already weak. At the moment it is a very specific niche which ds is dominating. Everywhere else it ranges from bad-average.
Master of Stealth:
-10 cost to infantry.
Open to ideas here. An mos boost is long overdue. It used to dominate 50k games but that changes with the rise of lb. People often exaggerate its world game power but competent players who know how to ferret out marine maneuvers shut the strat down. I'd like to see it made semi viable on mid range fund tiers like sky menace. I've 800 duels to my name and I've seen others use it maybe 5 times? We need to brainstorm some ideas here. I'm not sold on the inf att/def change anymore but we can try it if people want.
Guerilla Warfare(GW):
Restore naval transport cost to 220
Blitzkrieg:
+1 range to all units
The idea is to improve upon the strats unique playstyle as a counter to defensive players.
Iron fist(IF):
+1 range to militia.
This was suggested 5 years ago but not implemented as it was too controversial. Almost all the strategies have been boosted since then and now iron fist finds itself in competition with lb. This will give the strat the ability to use its militia to wall.
Hybrid Warfare(HW):
+1 air transport capacity.
A suggestion from Don. I'm not a big hw player so I'm unsure where to go with this strat and i didn't find any discussion on boosts. Also i think it's time the sp purchase cost was reduced.
Sky Menace(HW):
+2 crit to infantry
I personally am not sure if this strat needs a boost but many people are asking for 1. It definitely has fallen off in terms of popularity but I am not convinced this is due to strength. Feel free to throw out other suggestions.
Relentless Attack:
+1 range to infantry AND +1 att+range to militia
RA isnt bad in its current form but ds does what it tries to do better. RA however is a cheaper alternative and can be scary in certain situations. The ability to contest expansions t1 is essential in this meta so imo the inf boost is needed. Perhaps something else too. Ideas?
Great Combinator:
+1 def to inf vs tanks
Destroyers: -3 def +1hp -20 cost
Submarines: -3 att +2 def -20 cost
Discuss and i'll update the thread accordingly!
NERFS
Lucky Bastard(LB):
+10 cost to infantry OR
-1 range to Infantry
These ideas came from the previous lb discussion threads. I was discussing this with witch doctor recently. I favoured the crit nerf at the time but he pointed out that people are mainly playing lb for the added range. A crit nerf of higher than -5 would be required to make any noticeable difference. The range nerf would help but i personally dont think it'll fix the lb problem. I'm favouring the inf cost change now.
There's also an alternative solution but it may be unpopular. We could reinvent the strat and move away from criticals to att/def boosts or maybe +1hp like some sort of halfway expensive ironfist. Personally i think criticals are cancerous from a competitive standpoint and because of the meta this strat has created i would argue against ever significantly boosting a strategie's crits again. I know however that some people may enjoy the higher random aspect. Opinions/ideas?
Desert Storm(DS):
-1 def to helis
The latter idea came from tact. I prefer it as it's the infantry strats that are struggling vs ds. A direct heli def nerf just weakens that strat where it is already weak. At the moment it is a very specific niche which ds is dominating. Everywhere else it ranges from bad-average.
BOOSTS
Master of Stealth:
-10 cost to infantry.
Open to ideas here. An mos boost is long overdue. It used to dominate 50k games but that changes with the rise of lb. People often exaggerate its world game power but competent players who know how to ferret out marine maneuvers shut the strat down. I'd like to see it made semi viable on mid range fund tiers like sky menace. I've 800 duels to my name and I've seen others use it maybe 5 times? We need to brainstorm some ideas here. I'm not sold on the inf att/def change anymore but we can try it if people want.
Guerilla Warfare(GW):
Restore naval transport cost to 220
Blitzkrieg:
+1 range to all units
The idea is to improve upon the strats unique playstyle as a counter to defensive players.
Iron fist(IF):
+1 range to militia.
This was suggested 5 years ago but not implemented as it was too controversial. Almost all the strategies have been boosted since then and now iron fist finds itself in competition with lb. This will give the strat the ability to use its militia to wall.
Hybrid Warfare(HW):
+1 air transport capacity.
A suggestion from Don. I'm not a big hw player so I'm unsure where to go with this strat and i didn't find any discussion on boosts. Also i think it's time the sp purchase cost was reduced.
Sky Menace(HW):
+2 crit to infantry
I personally am not sure if this strat needs a boost but many people are asking for 1. It definitely has fallen off in terms of popularity but I am not convinced this is due to strength. Feel free to throw out other suggestions.
Relentless Attack:
+1 range to infantry AND +1 att+range to militia
RA isnt bad in its current form but ds does what it tries to do better. RA however is a cheaper alternative and can be scary in certain situations. The ability to contest expansions t1 is essential in this meta so imo the inf boost is needed. Perhaps something else too. Ideas?
Great Combinator:
+1 def to inf vs tanks
Destroyers: -3 def +1hp -20 cost
Submarines: -3 att +2 def -20 cost
Discuss and i'll update the thread accordingly!
|
I'm starting to think we need to start making strategies more focused on a particular playstyle and therefore accessible rather than balanced off a pure numbers game.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
*ultimate eye roll* You seem to have a lot of ideas. Why dont you go ahead and write an entire list.
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon 
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
Clovis says he wants to follow the majority yet last time majority wanted change and he still vetoed strat changes 
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
Firstly idk if that is even considered as a point.Me and Don have played many duels and i have beat his HW ukr as turk quite a few times so what does that mean? That imp is op? Or that HW needs buff? Secondly by trying changes you finally get to the right path.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
I've played GC, If and NC extensively. Maybe not MoS. The last time I played PD was sometime in 2017.
That is indeed true. However, since this is a thread about strategy changes, I've assumed that there're no new strategies (clovis has issues with adding them or something).
----  
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
no if u do -1 range to lb, u take away some great expansions. i'd prefer -3 crit lb. also i think we should but if. i really don't think the militia range would make a huge difference lol.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
that is such bs bro and u know it
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
We could bring the new strategies that we've been working on to public so that you guys can discuss, I'm unsure if we'll generate enough feedback on these. There are fundamental issues in how these strategies works.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
Why isn't everything on the test server already?
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
no.
----   
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
You always lose when i see you play, especially with MoS ukraine lol. You have 7k games played and only won 1.8k of them, and an abnormal amount of abandoned games. As well as 1200 elo (waaaaaay below the average) That being said, how can we take your word for serious and not bullshit?
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
Its not about making the strategies easier with more range its about finding the perfect balance. I propose the LB change simply because it will balance the strat out and give GC more spotlight. (that it definetly deserves as its a strong strat, but in its current form its just a weaker less useful LB) IF is a really strong strat, and the no range on milita makes it unique among the other starts, as it requires more critical thinking upfront. also not like you cant air trans/naval to move them, its perfectly balanced.
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
|
Damn learster. He created this enduring urban legend since 2012 that MoS is strong on world games when the reality is that it is only alright. I admit I bought into it myself but witchdoctor provided me with a little reality check recently. I'll return to dueling this week and I invite anyone pedaling this myth that mos is good anywhere to demonstrate it to me.
Great idea on ra. Fits the theme and makes ra competitive. Im also going to add this sm change. I'm with steve on sm not requiring any significant buff. It is still a very useful strat.
That is horrendous reasoning for a strat to be altered or not. Why should be self evident.
There was a good reason that was removed and not just for lb(ra too). Militia are a core unit for every strat and are acquired through expansion. A 33% cost increase is devastating. If this is readded you'd make LB virtually redundant once again.
Are we really still making posts like this in 2018? That's how meta rotation works you dummies. Please find me a successful multiplayer strategy game that retains players through stagnation. If we wanted to achieve a total balance we could've done so years ago. The idea is to shake up the meta so it doesn't stagnate giving people new things to try out. Also did clovis not just create a poll where literally every vote sought some form of change?
You IF fear mongerers smh. This idea has been floating around for years with roughly equal support and opposition and I for one think it is time we should try it. There's no need to make a big fuss about it. If it proves overpowered we simply reverse it. Ironfist is a strat with a limited range of use and it is a high skill strat due to the required range skills. It won't be spammed everywhere like LB. Also I for one would prefer an op ironfist than ra, lb or ds. Also in regards LB, I see we've got a mixed bag of support for the 3 proposed changes. I agree with boywind that the range nerf to lb isnt great. Having a powerful tank/inf based strat with standard ranges is what makes it enjoyable. Id prefer the crit or cost nerfs. I also dont think the range nerf will do much to address the issues the strat presents. But frankly I'd take w/e we can get. It is the most obnoxious of the 2 main op+overplayed strats atm. Also I am going to fight hard to prevent strat changes being put through on the basis of upvotes and poor arguments. Clovis go make yourself useful while waiting for amok and make it so that strat usage and winrates for non competitive and competitive games(cws+duels) are recorded. It shouldn't be hard and would provide us with some constructive data on what we need to be looking at. Anyway looking forward to some new plays to try out on all fronts.  Updated the op.
---- 
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
|
We should try the IF militia 1 range. Anyone remember when impi had 0 cost militia? Or was I dreaming
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
Why try something that just doesent sound right, if hasnt been touched in range since its creation right? the only buff i can understand it getting is maybe smth light like -10 cost to tanks or +1 or 2 crit on tanks maybe even a +1 hp but simply said: dont buff its nerf i get why you want lb to have the inf range but with that you just throwing GC under the bus, i like lb but seeing how lbfagging has replaced everything gc does is lame
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
IF originally had 3 hp and the transport ranges were shorter. What exactly is it you fear with this militia range. I'm not seeing the great danger you all are. Also i was going to suggest giving gc inf a tank and marine def bonus similar to pd. I'm not sure people will like that though. But the inf def is meh.
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
yes it always had buffs and nerfs not regarding range i think changing milita will make it a completly different strategy about gc, its not that people wouldnt like it its just so unpopular currently that they wouldnt even care, lb nerf gives gc new light into the meta and it could also be considered more into scenarios when players wouldnt want nerfed lb inf range and pd range
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
|
After some thinking about it, i take back what i said about sm. I gotta admit that my judgment was clouded and i wasnt thinking objectively. That strategy deserves some buff. Its relatively weak strategy and too expensive compared to others. And even tho its main attack unit has 17 range, its not really versatile in eu+ because there is lack of countries to be played as sm. So i'll cut the story because you all know most of the drawbacks of playing sm, i completely support any positive changes on that strategy and i'm looking forward to it.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
for the sake of staying on topic ill just leave it at yes ive left many games cos for a full year i tried to stay r9 and not rank up to r10, not to mention doing the same thing before going to r11 (darn trophies  ), i dont ever duel, and basically only tried in cws cos who tf cares about winning non-cws. 3v3s are to be fun and not serious. Getting back on topic to avoid derailing the entire thread, I would like to re-point out what Waffel said. I'm still not seeing an evidence as to why we shouldn't have consistency in strats. The only logic i've heard is that it will "spice things up" which will yield more activity. Clearly, as we have been tweaking strats for some time now, this just isn't the case. Obviously there are many other factors at play here, but I don't see how continually tweaking strategies will make things better. We'll end up with strats that are too op, others that are rendered eventually obsolete (blitz...) so why can't we just balance things, leave them at a SET standard, so we can stop bothering the admins with petty strat changes so they can actually work on implementing new things into the game, which many people have already asked for numerous times. That way, maybe instead of making old players who come back completely at a loss as to what all is going on with strategies, we can actually have strategies stay the same so that way when players do come back, theres not a massive learning curve. From this, now that admins didnt have to worry about changing strats, they can work on implementing and testing new things for the game, which will add more flavor than small tweaks that no one actually sees. In a game that is obviously dying, the solution isn't mechanical changes, but structural ones; which I think we are completely neglecting at the expense of strategy tweakings. The pendulum will never stop swinging at this rate, and lets be real, no one will ever be truly happy with whatever changes are made. We have already begun to tumble down the slippery slope of allowing strategies to be changed at a frequent rate when players complain enough. Why can't we just stick with something?
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
|
Remove all the strategies and no more problematic discussions about buffs and nerfs. If so, only pure skill will remain and decide the winner. JK, This Serbo is very right:
----   
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
|
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
I think cock.. ehm I mean cokéh
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
hi loachra
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
and now you think so because? how is sm a weak strategy? pls elaborate
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
Oh its not weak, not at all. I just realized that most of people on atwar dont realize sm as a strategy at all, and i hope it gets buffed so i can properly abuse that strategy after years of playing it, spam to couple of people "i told you so" and be happy in my little pathetic world.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
it's below average compared to other ukr strats. the -1 atk is the only reason why i don't play that garbage.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
You do understand that, in your opinion below average, wont exist anymore after ds and lb gets nerfed?
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
i'd still play ra over sm
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
Or you could play hw and mos over sm ukr, just like don. That still doesnt mean sm is not a top tier strategy.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|
i do play hw and imo its better than sm ukr
Loading...
Loading...
|
MoS and HW are already strong, dont buff them more (peep Waffel's post)
