|
I'm assuming discussing "Strategy Changes" is an attempt to address the stagnating user base you referred to in your "atWar 2019 and beyond" post. Strategy Changes is a very touchy subject for most competitive players and will be very difficult to get consensus on any changes. (except for getting rid of Hold The Line and Scorched Earth strategies as the are completely useless)
IMO, fixing the map editor and removing the rigid controls on the units setting would do more to energize the stagnating used base than strategy changes!
----
You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Dozer, 18.12.2018 at 13:36
I'm assuming discussing "Strategy Changes" is an attempt to address the stagnating user base you referred to in your "atWar 2019 and beyond" post. Strategy Changes is a very touchy subject for most competitive players and will be very difficult to get consensus on any changes. (except for getting rid of Hold The Line and Scorched Earth strategies as the are completely useless)
IMO, fixing the map editor and removing the rigid controls on the units setting would do more to energize the stagnating used base than strategy changes!
its pretty much agreed by the whole community that lb and ds are op.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por boywind2, 18.12.2018 at 14:02
Escrito por Dozer, 18.12.2018 at 13:36
I'm assuming discussing "Strategy Changes" is an attempt to address the stagnating user base you referred to in your "atWar 2019 and beyond" post. Strategy Changes is a very touchy subject for most competitive players and will be very difficult to get consensus on any changes. (except for getting rid of Hold The Line and Scorched Earth strategies as the are completely useless)
IMO, fixing the map editor and removing the rigid controls on the units setting would do more to energize the stagnating used base than strategy changes!
its pretty much agreed by the whole community that lb and ds are op.
Yeah, I would like to see some changes to current strategies as well! Especially removing Hold The Line and Scorched Earth strategies and replacing them with two other strategies that are playable.
IMO, having a workable map editor so players can create new/dynamic maps/scenarios would be great for business!
----
You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Dave, 18.12.2018 at 05:32
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.
Thanks for reviving this thread, Chief! If I may be so bold, based on everything so far, I suggest to just nerf the consensus op strats and see how they settle out in a month or so:
LB (maybe +10 cost to Inf. rather than messing around with Inf range, like LB was a few years ago, but leave Militia at the standard 30 cost)
DS (maybe Helis -1D bonus vs. Infantry, or drop the Militia boosts)
Also, LB was never adjusted when the lucky tank upgrade was introduced (+1critical for Ground Main Attack). LB boosts Infantry, Marines and Militia by 2 crit less than the other units because they each have +2crit upgrades. However, with the +1crit to tanks, LB was not adjusted to boost Tanks by 1 less crit.
What about the Buildings??? Unless there is a really strong need, I see no point in doing a +1 here, and -1 there, on the existing strats. Buildings are a whole new dimension that is fertile for expanding the meta and spicing things up. The Buildings could be included in some strats, or even create new strats that affect buildings in particular ways! That provides another avenue for upgrades, as well! I'm pumped about the possibilities!
There was a lively and useful discussion thread about them right around the time that they were first introduced on the test server.
There was talk about:
~ Factory for enhancing unit production (such as either increased production in that particular city, or reduced the cost of all units when built in that city, operating like the General upgrades Rally the Troops or Cost do);
~ Radar for a very, very large view range (which also proportionally expands the stealth detection radius);
~ Bank for cash flow issues (such as either increase the income of the city in which it is built, or reduce the cost of the units built in that city, and of course the maintenance costs of those units would also be lower when in that city, kind of like the General Cost upgrade. Obviously, if the Factory reduces the costs of the units, then this one should not also do that, but should increase the income of the city);
I recall that the default cost for the buildings was going to be 700, and they of course, would have range = 0 (and to have their range remain 0 when someone is using Blitz).
And there were others, that's just what I vaguely remember. There might have been a defensive one, kind of like a fortress, were the defense or hit points of all units in the city were increased by some amount.
----
Embrace the void
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Just let some player change the strat ofc not lowrank but experienced player this shit wont move till someone got the balls to accept change even if it might make a new op strat
----
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
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.
No I suck. I only got high ELO because I farmed countless members of my coalition and my own alt account.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Lucky Bastard need +5 more critical (same cost), Iron Fist should be returned to +3 Hit Points and -1 range (-2 is too much). I like the idea to add +1 more range for Blitzkrieg.
----
If a game is around long enough, people will find the most efficient way to play it and start playing it like robots
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Lucky Bastard need +5 more critical (same cost), Iron Fist should be returned to +3 Hit Points and -1 range (-2 is too much). I like the idea to add +1 more range for Blitzkrieg.
XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA
----
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Lucky Bastard need +5 more critical (same cost), Iron Fist should be returned to +3 Hit Points and -1 range (-2 is too much). I like the idea to add +1 more range for Blitzkrieg.
This woulld make IF the most ridiculous op strat ever giving IF inf the same range as PD
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Chess, 04.11.2018 at 09:39
MoS is at this point a very mobile and offensive strategy.
Including upgrades, submarines have very high range and a capacity of 4.
Stealths are thanks to the -30 cost upgrade almost as cost efficient as SM Bombers and have identical range. Marines are almost as cost-efficient as GC Tanks.
If you give MoS infantry +1 Def they will have GC-like defence capabilities.
MoS would come out as the #1 choice for world games and only thing that this boost achieves in terms of balance is making it more suitable for Europe+.
I suggest rather balancing around MoS militia, which won't change MoS lategame significantly while still boosting it in a Europe+ setting.
Or give a infantry a slight crit boost, but that will once again do hardly anything for MoS in Europe+.
MoS is a very hard strategy to balance, since it's already a powerful world game strategy.
If you guys really want to stick with the infantry defence boost you have to at least weaken MoS offence capabilities.
Militia +1 Def.
This would punish people from letting MoS users stealthing their cities and also help with dealing MoS early vulnerability. An inf boost would be too much for MoS world game power.
Stealth upgrade cost reduction from 30 to 10. Stealth spamming is too common in lategame. This should deal with that.
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Chess, 20.12.2018 at 09:18
Escrito por Chess, 04.11.2018 at 09:39
MoS is at this point a very mobile and offensive strategy.
Including upgrades, submarines have very high range and a capacity of 4.
Stealths are thanks to the -30 cost upgrade almost as cost efficient as SM Bombers and have identical range. Marines are almost as cost-efficient as GC Tanks.
If you give MoS infantry +1 Def they will have GC-like defence capabilities.
MoS would come out as the #1 choice for world games and only thing that this boost achieves in terms of balance is making it more suitable for Europe+.
I suggest rather balancing around MoS militia, which won't change MoS lategame significantly while still boosting it in a Europe+ setting.
Or give a infantry a slight crit boost, but that will once again do hardly anything for MoS in Europe+.
MoS is a very hard strategy to balance, since it's already a powerful world game strategy.
If you guys really want to stick with the infantry defence boost you have to at least weaken MoS offence capabilities.
Militia +1 Def.
This would punish people from letting MoS users stealthing there cities and also help with dealing MoS early vulnerability. An inf boost would be too much for MoS world game power.
Stealth upgrade cost reduction from 30 to 10. Stealth spamming is too common in lategame. This should deal with that.
but what about boosting none?
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
This woulld make IF the most ridiculous op strat ever giving IF inf the same range as PD
It won't, since Aetius & Pyrrhus maps dominate Afterwind, inf range is 9-11, won't really affect much in most games.
----
If a game is around long enough, people will find the most efficient way to play it and start playing it like robots
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Chess, 20.12.2018 at 09:18
An inf boost would be too much for MoS world game power..
A militia buff to mos is ok but meh and will do little to help it in this currently offensive orientated meta. The inf buff at least frees up more cash. If mos is so strong on world how about we play a casual duel on your map and you go mos.
----
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Chess, 20.12.2018 at 09:18
An inf boost would be too much for MoS world game power..
A militia buff to mos is ok but meh and will do little to help it in this currently offensive orientated meta. The inf buff at least frees up more cash. If mos is so strong on world how about we play a casual duel on your map and you go mos.
If people are concerned about air stealth being spammed in lategame, don't screw over the upgrade - instead, adjust MoS to 230 cost instead of the current 200, just like SM.
I've been playing MoS on medium and large maps for years, and I win more than I lose, and that's even without the cheap infantry upgrade (I'm saving up for it now). That's also before I got most of the stealth upgrades. As much as I like the strat, I really don't see a need to buff it. I finally picked up the cheap Marines, which helps, and once I have the cheap Infantry and cheap Stealth, it'll be even more fun.
Sure, it has its weaknesses, just like any strat should, but that's the beauty of the whole deal about strats (when balanced).
----
Embrace the void
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Escrito por Dave, 18.12.2018 at 05:32
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.
Edited the op 1 last time. If you wish to take the super cautious approach just apply the lb and ds nerfs. If that is the case then please apply the inf cost nerf rather than the range nerf to the lb infantry. The range nerf is only sufficient if the boosts to strats occupying a similar niche to lb such as gc, ra and ironfist are applied. Otherwise we will see barely any shift at all in the current meta.
If you have other significant game updates planned for the coming months then just apply those 2 nerfs. Otherwise give us the other changes to keep us amused while you get your bearings and begin getting the updates rolling. There's nothing radical there anyway despite what the fearmongerers are trying make out. I predict only the ra change will cause trouble and might require a slight nerf when the new meta settles. Hopefully strat changes won't be needed again for a long time with all the other new additions and updates. Also Froyer is correct.
Escrito por Froyer, 19.12.2018 at 02:14
Just let some player change the strat ofc not lowrank but experienced player this shit wont move till someone got the balls to accept change even if it might make a new op strat
Someone just has to take the bull by the horns and go for it. You'll get abuse no matter what changes you apply even if they have a net positive effect. That's the best outcome you can aspire towards. I'm still villainized just for daring to have the audacity to get changes applied. I got almost no thanks in spite of the fact that i took atwar out of that 2013/2014 era where you would open a cw and often find all 6 players playing pd. Some players have even outright blamed me for atwars decline. It's your call.
/thread
Now sultan you can come lock it.
----
Carregando...
Carregando...
|
|
Now sultan you can come lock it.
I have already started discussion reviewing everything talked about throughout the thread. We will let the community know when we have reached a decision
Carregando...
Carregando...
|