|
BUMP
Remember to either upvote or comment the change that you'd like to see. Ideally, target one boost/nerf so that we have a more accurate metric on how valuable or supported it is. Broader posts that includes a lot of boosts/nerfs or that aren't conclusive enough are unlikely to be implemented.
In some days we'll decide which changes will make it to the next month!
will new strats be part of the agenda or just boosts and nerfs atm?
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
BUMP
Remember to either upvote or comment the change that you'd like to see. Ideally, target one boost/nerf so that we have a more accurate metric on how valuable or supported it is. Broader posts that includes a lot of boosts/nerfs or that aren't conclusive enough are unlikely to be implemented.
In some days we'll decide which changes will make it to the next month!
will new strats be part of the agenda or just boosts and nerfs atm?
They will. We'll probably split Boosts and Nerfs in two steps seeing that Steve's post have some support.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
BUMP
Remember to either upvote or comment the change that you'd like to see. Ideally, target one boost/nerf so that we have a more accurate metric on how valuable or supported it is. Broader posts that includes a lot of boosts/nerfs or that aren't conclusive enough are unlikely to be implemented.
In some days we'll decide which changes will make it to the next month!
will new strats be part of the agenda or just boosts and nerfs atm?
They will. We'll probably split Boosts and Nerfs in two steps seeing that Steve's post have some support.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Citiraj:
will new strats be part of the agenda or just boosts and nerfs atm?
They will. We'll probably split Boosts and Nerfs in two steps seeing that Steve's post have some support.
No thanks.
Steve's post received only 6 upvotes(including yours) and 3 of which were made by players who do not play anymore. I'm more interested in players who actually play, contribute and who actually give a damn about the game. Also if we were to take this approach it would make sense to do the nerfs first. The ds heli def nerf and lb inf range seem the most likely to be applied.
These will have almost no effect on the current meta and I for one am not keen on waiting another year while you find excuses not to apply the rest of the changes.
----
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
I'll gather the supported changes into a conclusion post tonight when i've time. In the meantime feel free to throw out more hw change suggestions. The only viable change ive found is dons at capacity boost. We can do that but surely people have more ideas.
----
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
I'll gather the supported changes into a conclusion post tonight when i've time. In the meantime feel free to throw out more hw change suggestions. The only viable change ive found is dons at capacity boost. We can do that but surely people have more ideas.
sm +1 inf atk plzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
I'll gather the supported changes into a conclusion post tonight when i've time. In the meantime feel free to throw out more hw change suggestions. The only viable change ive found is dons at capacity boost. We can do that but surely people have more ideas.
how about 20 cost milita?
----
''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies''
~Napoleon
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Prispeval 4nic, 21.11.2018 at 01:39
I'll gather the supported changes into a conclusion post tonight when i've time. In the meantime feel free to throw out more hw change suggestions. The only viable change ive found is dons at capacity boost. We can do that but surely people have more ideas.
how about 20 cost milita?
We could try that. Hw is such a jack of all trades strat master of none. Let the hw players pick. Higher cap ats or cheaper militia.
----
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Ok heres the updates: I'll add them to the op once theyre all agreed on. I added the suggestion by nic and critical to remove gw naval trans nerfs. It would fix that water map weakness gw has and improve it's viability on the low fund settings which imp is currently dominating hard.
I've also added a boost to gc to keep it relevant with the powerful lb and ironfist. Anyone who disagrees it isnt needed i suggest you do some tests of lb and ironfist tanks vs gc infantry. I may post some screenshots of that myself. I think it's debatable whether a marine def bonus is needed for gc too but the tank 1 is definitely needed.
Iron fist(IF):
+1 range to militia.
Lucky Bastard(LB):
-1 range to Infantry
Desert Storm(DS):
-1 def to helis
Master of Stealth:
-10 cost to infantry.
Guerilla Warfare(GW):
remove naval trans cost+range nerfs and restore it to 220.
Blitzkrieg:
+1 range to all units
Hybrid Warfare(HW):
+1 air transport capacity or -10 cost to militia
Sky Menace(HW):
+2 crit to infantry
Relentless Attack:
+1 range to infantry AND +1 att+range to militia
Great Combinator:
+1 def to infantry vs tanks
----
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Ok heres the updates: I'll add them to the op once theyre all agreed on. I added the suggestion by nic and critical to remove gw naval trans nerfs. It would fix that water map weakness gw has and improve it's viability on the low fund settings which imp is currently dominating hard.
I've also added a boost to gc to keep it relevant with the powerful lb and ironfist. Anyone who disagrees it isnt needed i suggest you do some tests of lb and ironfist tanks vs gc infantry. I may post some screenshots of that myself. I think it's debatable whether a marine def bonus is needed for gc too but the tank 1 is definitely needed.
Iron fist(IF):
+1 range to militia.
Lucky Bastard(LB):
-1 range to Infantry
Desert Storm(DS):
-1 def to helis
Master of Stealth:
-10 cost to infantry.
Guerilla Warfare(GW):
remove naval trans cost+range nerfs and restore it to 220.
Blitzkrieg:
+1 range to all units
Hybrid Warfare(HW):
+1 air transport capacity or -10 cost to militia
Sky Menace(HW):
+2 crit to infantry
Relentless Attack:
+1 range to infantry AND +1 att+range to militia
Great Combinator:
+1 def to infantry vs tanks
I disagree with changes to GW, HW, GC, MOS, and SM.
Whatever the case, a single test result is worth a thousand expert opinions. Just go through with the changes and see what happens.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
I like everything besides the GW idea, with this buff it may just be too cost efficient in expanding and since trans range also returns to normal it can expand pretty fast.
Looking forward to buffed RA and GC we can see how they hold up to IF and LB, i think like this all 4 strats would be more or less equal, and none of them will get picked to have a clear edge over the other in their fields.
----
''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies''
~Napoleon
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
I agree with WD. Maybe we can play it with the boosts on the test server before proceeding to step 2
----
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
DON'T NERF LB RANGE NERF ITS CRIT WTF
DONT BUFF RA
+1 AT CAP FOR HW
LOWER INF COST OR +1 ATK INF FOR SM
PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
I have an alternate proposal for GC.
How about instead of +1 def to inf or tanks, you have the following
Destroyers: -3 def +1hp -20 cost
Submarines: -3 att +2 def -20 cost
This way you have to use a combination of naval units too. It'll also make gc a little more interesting to play. Destroyers will be the equivalent of the tanks while submarines will be the equivalent of the infantry.
Submarines will have 9 def vs destroyers and 8 def vs infantry and bombers so it will take the role of defending.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
I have an alternate proposal for GC.
How about instead of +1 def to inf or tanks, you have the following
Destroyers: -3 def +1hp -20 cost
Submarines: -3 att +2 def -20 cost
This way you have to use a combination of naval units too. Destroyers will be the equivalent of the tanks while submarines will be the equivalent of the infantry.
Submarines will have 9 def vs destroyers and 8 def vs infantry and bombers so it will take the role of defending.
sounds too complicated
its not even a +1 def for infs its just +1 against tanks its a minor buff
----
''Everywhere where i am absent, they commit nothing but follies''
~Napoleon
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Prispeval 4nic, 21.11.2018 at 20:36
I have an alternate proposal for GC.
How about instead of +1 def to inf or tanks, you have the following
Destroyers: -3 def +1hp -20 cost
Submarines: -3 att +2 def -20 cost
This way you have to use a combination of naval units too. Destroyers will be the equivalent of the tanks while submarines will be the equivalent of the infantry.
Submarines will have 9 def vs destroyers and 8 def vs infantry and bombers so it will take the role of defending.
sounds too complicated
its not even a +1 def for infs its just +1 against tanks its a minor buff
How is it complicated, it's basically great combinator but with naval units.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Destroyers are just in a bad place, especially with the whole stack bonus being crazy. Costs for destroyers are way too high. I have reduced the cost of destroyers on my map by 20. NC destroyers are 150$ and still NC is not a beast despite all the port cities and water surrounding many countries. I just end up stacking militia and infantry instead of going for Destroyers.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
I think MoS needs a Stealth nerf. The -30 cost upgrade wasn't supported by the community and just leads to spamming stealth instead of marines+submarines in lategame. Reduce the cost reduction upgrade to -10/-20 from -30.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Helicopter once had -1 defence to bomber and stealth bomber
----
Hi
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Prispeval Chess, 21.11.2018 at 21:07
Destroyers are just in a bad place, especially with the whole stack bonus being crazy. Costs for destroyers are way too high. I have reduced the cost of destroyers on my map by 20. NC destroyers are 150$ and still NC is not a beast despite all the port cities and water surrounding many countries. I just end up stacking militia and infantry instead of going for Destroyers.
You've never played NC germany with a Full Scandi vs UK
----
Lest we forget
Moja Bosna Ponosna
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Prispeval Guest, 22.11.2018 at 02:50
Prispeval Chess, 21.11.2018 at 21:07
Destroyers are just in a bad place, especially with the whole stack bonus being crazy. Costs for destroyers are way too high. I have reduced the cost of destroyers on my map by 20. NC destroyers are 150$ and still NC is not a beast despite all the port cities and water surrounding many countries. I just end up stacking militia and infantry instead of going for Destroyers.
You've never played NC germany with a Full Scandi vs UK
nc germany sucks ass
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
nc germany sucks ass
You're just not good enough to play it
----
Lest we forget
Moja Bosna Ponosna
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Please for the love of everything good dont give +1 militia range to IF.. its been stronk without that range for years, why change it to make it OP? I mean IF is already quite overpowering, why make it stronger?
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
Garde Objave: 2842 od: Canada
|
ITT Plebs cannot into metagame dynamics nor understand non-dichotomous balancing smdh
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
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?
You make a good point. Maybe before we screw around with strats again, why not get the Buildings rolled out? There can be new strats and/or new units and/or changes to existing strats that incorporate the Buildings and their effects on the game. That's a much bigger expansion of the meta for generating interest rather than a +1 here and a -1 there, etc.
----
Embrace the void
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Just a general question, do people what these changes just because of how duels are being played nowadays? If so, changing the strats will have consequences on players who play scenarios. Though some of these changes are small, a slight buff or nerf can make senariors extremely unbalanced and force map makers to rework their maps to workaround the balance changes.
Also, seeing the opinions posted about the slight change of strats, for example, adding extra crit to inf when someone goes SM, the point of those strats is to focus a large majority of your army around your strat. People don't go SM because they want a good, infantry ground force. Strats should be solely focused on specific play style and army composition. Going back to SM, your focus is on the sky, not inf. Yes you can start with infantry and you can make them for a basic, powerful defense unit, but you have chosen to opt for a strong air army. What should be done is additional changes to the air army, not to ground units. This approach should be taken with other nerfs and buffs to strategies.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Just a general question, do people what these changes just because of how duels are being played nowadays? If so, changing the strats will have consequences on players who play scenarios. Though some of these changes are small, a slight buff or nerf can make senariors extremely unbalanced and force map makers to rework their maps to workaround the balance changes.
Also, seeing the opinions posted about the slight change of strats, for example, adding extra crit to inf when someone goes SM, the point of those strats is to focus a large majority of your army around your strat. People don't go SM because they want a good, infantry ground force. Strats should be solely focused on specific play style and army composition. Going back to SM, your focus is on the sky, not inf. Yes you can start with infantry and you can make them for a basic, powerful defense unit, but you have chosen to opt for a strong air army. What should be done is additional changes to the air army, not to ground units. This approach should be taken with other nerfs and buffs to strategies.
Sm currently has the worst infantry of any strat that relies on infantry. I can see the reason behind the buff.
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Remove strats so the endless cycle of buff and debuffing strats can finaly end
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Prispeval Htin, 22.11.2018 at 02:39
Helicopter once had -1 defence to bomber and stealth bomber
It currently has a -2D to stealth bomber, but that's it. With DS, the nerf is just -1D and adds +1D against Air: Secondary Attack.
----
Embrace the void
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|
|
Ok heres the updates: I'll add them to the op once theyre all agreed on. I added the suggestion by nic and critical to remove gw naval trans nerfs. It would fix that water map weakness gw has and improve it's viability on the low fund settings which imp is currently dominating hard.
I've also added a boost to gc to keep it relevant with the powerful lb and ironfist. Anyone who disagrees it isnt needed i suggest you do some tests of lb and ironfist tanks vs gc infantry. I may post some screenshots of that myself. I think it's debatable whether a marine def bonus is needed for gc too but the tank 1 is definitely needed.
Iron fist(IF):
+1 range to militia.
Lucky Bastard(LB):
-1 range to Infantry
Desert Storm(DS):
-1 def to helis
Master of Stealth:
-10 cost to infantry.
Guerilla Warfare(GW):
remove naval trans cost+range nerfs and restore it to 220.
Blitzkrieg:
+1 range to all units
Hybrid Warfare(HW):
+1 air transport capacity or -10 cost to militia
Sky Menace(HW):
+2 crit to infantry
Relentless Attack:
+1 range to infantry AND +1 att+range to militia
Great Combinator:
+1 def to infantry vs tanks
Agree: HW (+1 Air Transport capacity), SM, GC
Disagree: IF, LB, DS, MoS (no changes needed)
No opinion (never use them): Blitz, RA
Confusion: GW - what do you mean, just leave Naval Transports alone with a cost of 220? I thought people were complaining that GW is too buff!?! The logistics boost provided by that suggestion (if I'm understanding it correctly), is HUGE!! That is such a massive change... I'd recommend picking the range or the cost, but not both!!
----
Embrace the void
Nalaganje...
Nalaganje...
|