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!
Id agree with this. The effect of the upgrade was accounted for for sky menace stealth planes but not MoS.
Yes but that was -2 and bad. Ds is already bad vs bomber strats. It's the infantry strats that are having trouble with ds. Restoring that wont solve this issue. If you're in a situation where sm is good the other player would be a fool to ds. Ordinary bombers arent great vs helis and the strats that need the help most(pd and imp) have 5 att bombers.
This has also been discussed ad nauseum for years. I wish you'd bother to do your research on the strat progression before spamming posts with the mod position. But even the pro militia range arguments from ppl like cthulhu from as far back as 2013 are outdated. Lb has pushed IF further down the relevancy list in the current meta. But i would agree that its still a decent strat. Anyway can we stop the dramatics? It is only a minor change and we can reverse it if it's as op as you're trying to make out. I don't understand why people like to lose their heads over small changes in a game that barely sees any changes. Are we all really so stuck in our ways? And this post having 3 upvotes from 3 players who havent played actively in years. Just calm down and left people try walling with their Ironfist militia for a while. It's not the end of the world.
---- 
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
Great idea, i'll add that in addition to the tank inf def change. It fits the theme and adds another dimension to the strat. edit: I'll post some tank vs gc inf tests on the weekend just to make my point about why it is needed. I also forgot to mention ra. Trust me after these boosts it will be a beast again. I actually think it is going to be the new ds. Im wondering if the 4 att militia is too much at once. Perhaps just the range on the inf and mil for now. Idk.
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
In literally every strat change thread ever there's a post like this. Either someone complaining or someone framing the criticism as a joke. Clearly you dont understand the concept of meta rotation and why many far more successful strategy games employ it.
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
Mostly because of duels and cws yes. Scenarios and the like will be fine as long as we avoid mechanic changes to how units work like with the nc destroyers carrying infantry. Thats the only instance historically where mapmakers had to do a rework. And only a few mapmakers at that. On atwar the only scenario i know of that has a meta refined and diverse enough to be affected by strat changes is WW1. And players there have been crying out for something different for years. In regards the sky menace change, that buff is negligible. It was unnecessarily added at the strat's conception and i was merely reversing it after the agreement that the strat needs no major buffs. Tbh it doesnt even matter if amok/ivan do it or not. We can remove it from the list to make it smaller. This might help stop the hardcore atwar conservatives losing their minds at the sight of a long list of strategy changes.
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
This is why i criticized sultan. If he took the time to do his research he would see that there's a thread on the modforum regarding buildings. Last year before I made the 2017 appeal for strat changes I asked Ivan to implement the buildings on the main server. He said he could not because it required time committment and there were bigger fish to fry(like the mapmaker).
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
|
Also finally in response to Steveand his deleted post that I read a week ago. No I don't agree with all the changes but my complaints are minor. For example i think the inf cost nerf is better for LB and the heli def nerf vs inf better as a nerf for ds. But I'm not fussed as long as we get another meta shakeup and as long as the reasoning behind the changes is sound.
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
this is a big joke obviously
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
i dont need to do any research nor be active to know that giving militia +1 range to IF will make it a hell of a lot stronger. its fun/strong now as it is, and has been since ive been around here on atwar. just cos people dont play it doesnt mean it isnt good, people just like the ease of range with the strength of LB. i do think lb deserves a nerf of some sort, ive been sayin that for a long while now, but boosting IF is not the answer. also, before you try to make fun of me for "spamming" your threads, and others for "going crazy over strat changes" and "all the dramatics" just take a look throughout this post and re-read ur responses and look at all ur posts... then compare to others...
----   
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
|
I'm guessing this might be on hold for a bit while our new fearless leader gets settled in?
---- Embrace the void 
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
|
pls lets just talk about how op lb is in rush  SM 12 bombers 3 mils gen at vs LB 9 inf 5 tank gen
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
7 tank 7 inf gen*
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon 
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
6 tank 8 inf gen*  you dont simply lose 6 against 11 sm bombers, not to mention i also had mils and a SM at which has 12 hp and 4 def with gen here are the stats of our units including the gens : (6) 9 atk 5 def lb tanks + (8) 5 atk 7 def infs vs (11) 9 atk 6 def bombers (4) 3 atk 5 def 8 hp mils (1) 1 atk 4 def 12 HP at go ahead and convince me how its not op rolls
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
fcd1 Account deleted |
fcd1 Account deleted
Loading...
Loading...
|
||
|
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
you play atwar on max zoom out? such savage!!!
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
you forgot to mention critical hits into your 400 IQ equation
---- ''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies'' ~Napoleon
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
crits are just a chance. other stats are absolute strength
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
fcd1 Account deleted |
fcd1 Account deleted
Not if u consider that the principle of LB is being lucky. Thus u make bet on luck, and, as i said it many times already,it's a matter of stats. Sometimes u'll get very good rolls and sometimes u won't.
Loading...
Loading...
|
||
actually you get very good rolls and very normal ones.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
Yes, this discussion is on hold for the moment. Seeing as this thread is already getting off topic as well, I've locked it for now. There has been plenty of discussion thus far and a lot of great ideas thrown around so far, thanks to everyone for the feedback  Will re-open when we are ready to re-explore strat changes
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
|
I think now is good time to re-open this discussion... I would like to try some strategy changes sooner rather than later. Just need to decide exactly what changes we're going to try. I'm open to any suggestions/further debate. 
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
I think community gave enough of good and bad suggestions so far in this thread. You should probably just ask active mods to chose strat changes from here that needs/should be done, and then decide if you wanna implement them into the game. Dont underestimate our ability to go into infinity debates, we're very much capable of that D
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
|
If there is one thing we've all learned from strategy changes, is that most of the strategies that get boosted, turn out to be overboosted or are not in ratio with the others strategies. I'd say changing all those strategies at once will either turn into one big chaos or it will be fine.  I am pretty sure it will be a hard time deciding what to do.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
So you think google chrome, sultan, brianwl, sid, alexis, heat, lemonade and sascha should decide on the strat changes? Many great and intelligent guys there but they're either inactive, play only specific areas of the game or have not competitively demonstrated competence. Only acquiesce, eagle and maybe heat are qualified to make such a decision on the current meta. They are active, have achieved mid to high elo peaks in duels and helped their clans win trophies. There are many others outside the modteam who should be listened to. Witch, nic, grom, chess, don, mecoy, jf, eagles8539 and the recently aw deceased mauzer to name a few. Waffel's ability to drag people into infinity debates is irrelevant. <3
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
I said active. And by active i mean.. check your games history. Compare it to mod game history. If you find similarities, those i dont consider active. And those couple of "new" players you consider good and that we should listen to them, i recommend unrusting yourself a little bit and playing against them couple of times, and you'll hopefully see why you should just ignore them. Compared to oldfags they are amateurs. Now old timers, i'm quite fond of both don and mauzer and they first shouldnt have saying in this cuzz again, inactive. Same goes for jf, regardless of their skills. I would definitely listen to them 2 years ago, not now tho. Rest of oldtimers are fine, still here. Unless you can make unbiased group of players who can decide things like this, i'd recommend to hear opinion of all players which is already done on this thread and let active mods decide fate of this game.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
The current meta has existed for 2 years. While I myself have been largely inactive and indeed rusty the past 6 months, I spent another 6 months before that spamming cws and duels and maintained a winrate keeping me in the upper 1600s during that time playing mostly vs the players you're telling me to play. I also helped my clan win several seasons. All the players i named except for mauzer were active during this period and achieved similar or better than what I did. All of what I just said can be verified if anyone wants to take the time. I would also like to remind you that just because you don't like certain players it doesnt diminish their accomplishments. I would also suggest that perhaps it is you who needs to play more and perhaps take off those rose tinted glasses when looking at past players. Anyway i'm not getting into a verbal slugfest. I'll update this thread later when i've time.
----
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
I was definitely not aware that this meta is active for the past two years and i'm quite confident thats not the case, because i'm sure that 1 year ago lb wasnt played on almost every country almost every game. Thats all great, but do you see yourself as an active player again somewhere in the future? Because if not, you shouldtn even have saying in any of this because its not going to affect you at all, regardless of your knowledge. And i would also like to tell you that i dont diminish their accomplishments because i dislike them. I dislike them because in reality they are not even close to their accomplishments and praises they get from other players. You should maybe take of those "new player took duel season i'm horny" glasses of yours and take a good look at them. EDIT: all i'm trying to say is that new admin doesnt posses good enough knowledge of this game because hes here for not that long time. Somewhere in this thread you can find people saying stuff like hw is a stronger strategy than sm, so you have to distinguish good advice from bad advice. If admin cant do it, whos gonna pick a group of players thats gonna decide what strat changes will happen? Or should we just let that decision to be done by active mods. Just looking at things from more logical point.
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
|
And you talk about my ability to drag people into infinite debates... 
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
|
Loading...
Loading...
|
|||
and here I thought lao didnt have a sense of humor D
Loading...
Loading...
|
