Planning for Strategy Update 2019 #2

Quote:

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 01:59

2. DS - -1 capacity does nothing, leave it or reverse it back we don't care. -1 def to choppers is the real needed nerf.

Agreed, but restore the capacity. Without the marine cap it 1. makes it unplayable for players without the marines cap up and 2. limits its expansion

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

5. HW - +1 capacity to air transport. The strategy is already twisted at it is, this will add another interesting factor in its mix.

Why not, might make the strat more playable. Also, please, for the love of God, make HW a 10k SP strat max. It's way, way, way too expensive.

Written by Eagle, 14.01.2019 at 16:48

8. MOS - -10 cost to infantry. MOS has a very week defense, at least this way it can buy more infantries to defend.

MoS isn't as weak as people think, besides, boosting inf doesn't go with the theme of the strat. If you're gonna to anything, boost marine or stealth plane defense. Maybe add a (very weak) stealth defense unit at most. But again, mos is fine.

I agree with everything you said, but particularly wanted to emphasize your points above.

MoS is my top strat, so I understand your point. However, if the consensus is that MoS needs a buff, then I think the more appropriate change would be to provide an in-city defense bonus to Marines. It makes sense for them to be easy to kill if exposed in the open, but entrenched in a city, at least for MoS, I think this would be more reasonable. If you buff Infantry, then you just end up with another Infantry-spamming strat, the difference being attack units other than Tanks and Bombers.

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 03:22

I agree with everything you said, but particularly wanted to emphasize your points above.

MoS is my top strat, so I understand your point. However, if the consensus is that MoS needs a buff, then I think the more appropriate change would be to provide an in-city defense bonus to Marines. It makes sense for them to be easy to kill if exposed in the open, but entrenched in a city, at least for MoS, I think this would be more reasonable. If you buff Infantry, then you just end up with another Infantry-spamming strat, the difference being attack units other than Tanks and Bombers.

Agreed, buffing marine in-city defense is the most realistic proposal for MoS.

Can we please stop with the urban legends about MoS being good?

I only know of 1 competitive niche for MoS and thats low turn time world games where you have no nearby opponents. Please show me these other uses for mos.

Stop with the anecdotes.

1. Demonstrate.
2. Provide evidence.

Is this too much to ask everytime we have a strat change thread?

Also explain to me how mos marines having 4 defence in a city is the most realistic boost for the strat?

Here's the 3 reasons why mos isn't good enough and in no particular order.

1. Cost
2. Weak expansion contesting power.(mainly because unlike all the tank/inf strats and the bomber strat the marines have no gen att bonus.)
3. poor defense.

The latter 2 options are why mos is bad against most strategies in close quarters. You want to boost the strat. You need to hit 1 or more of these areas. Marine defense is not good enough. If your marines have 8 att and 4 def you're not going to be wanting to use them on defense in most situations.

Look at my win/loss record and my strat order on my profile (my 20%+ abandonment rate is from map testing & exploration). MoS is #1 on my list, and has been since my first year of playing. I don't always win, of course, but it has served me well on large maps and small maps. When you're in close quarters, the Infantry back up the Marines the same as you would do with Tanks in GC, RA, HW, PD, Blitz, NC, and None. I don't understand your complaint.

If it doesn't work for you, that doesn't make it universally poor. For example, I do not have much luck with DS, but the community says it's op. So, apparently, it's op. Fine. Nerf it. I won't use it. There's plenty of strats to play with.

Lest you think that upgrades are affecting my experience - until just this past month, I never had the cheap Infantry upgrade, and I still don't have the cheap Stealth upgrade - that will take a while, yet. I got the cheap Marine upgrade less than a year ago, yet I've been using MoS since 2014.

I don't understand your complaint about increasing Marine defense +1 in cities being meaningless... Tanks never have better than 4D (with Blitz, they're only 3D!), SM Bombers are a respectable, but not great, 5D (same with DS Helis). Attack units have relatively poor defense - what's your point?

Yes, the strat is expensive - most of them are! Imp, GW, PD, and maybe HW are the only cost-effective strats. The rest, including None, eat up your cash.

By all means, if the community says it needs a buff, then I certainly won't complain (unless I become unstoppable, in which case, it would be op, and I would support a nerf).

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 11:04

Look at my win/loss record and my strat order on my profile (my 20%+ abandonment rate is from map testing & exploration). MoS is #1 on my list, and has been since my first year of playing. I don't always win, of course, but it has served me well on large maps and small maps. When you're in close quarters, the Infantry back up the Marines the same as you would do with Tanks in GC, RA, HW, PD, Blitz, NC, and None. I don't understand your complaint.

If it doesn't work for you, that doesn't make it universally poor. For example, I do not have much luck with DS, but the community says it's op. So, apparently, it's op. Fine. Nerf it. I won't use it. There's plenty of strats to play with.

Lest you think that upgrades are affecting my experience - until just this past month, I never had the cheap Infantry upgrade, and I still don't have the cheap Stealth upgrade - that will take a while, yet. I got the cheap Marine upgrade less than a year ago, yet I've been using MoS since 2014.

I don't understand your complaint about increasing Marine defense +1 in cities being meaningless... Tanks never have better than 4D (with Blitz, they're only 3D!), SM Bombers are a respectable, but not great, 5D (same with DS Helis). Attack units have relatively poor defense - what's your point?

Sorry we are only interested in winrates on a competitive setting. Either for elo in duels or cws or in a tournament. Anyone can spam mos ad nauseum vs noobs in random maps and notch up a respectable winrate if theyre even semi competent.

Your post is just full of redundant truisms and yet more anecdotes. "If it doesn't work for you, that doesn't make it universally poor." I mean no shit sherlock.

Where's the evidence of you killing good players with mos in competitive settings? Where are the demonstrations of mos' competency? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Where are the comparisons of the stats of mos to the other strats?

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 11:04

I don't understand your complaint about increasing Marine defense +1 in cities being meaningless... Tanks never have better than 4D (with Blitz, they're only 3D!), SM Bombers are a respectable, but not great, 5D (same with DS Helis). Attack units have relatively poor defense - what's your point?

The obvious point is that you want to be attacking with offensive units not defending. How does making your offensive units slightly less weak on defence help a strategy that doesn't ever want to be defending?

I can't wait for the day where we finally get strategy statistics on frequency and winrate. It'll shutdown so much of the nonsense that fills these threads.

Written by Permamuted, 18.01.2019 at 12:01

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 11:04

Look at my win/loss record and my strat order on my profile (my 20%+ abandonment rate is from map testing & exploration). MoS is #1 on my list, and has been since my first year of playing. I don't always win, of course, but it has served me well on large maps and small maps. When you're in close quarters, the Infantry back up the Marines the same as you would do with Tanks in GC, RA, HW, PD, Blitz, NC, and None. I don't understand your complaint.

If it doesn't work for you, that doesn't make it universally poor. For example, I do not have much luck with DS, but the community says it's op. So, apparently, it's op. Fine. Nerf it. I won't use it. There's plenty of strats to play with.

Lest you think that upgrades are affecting my experience - until just this past month, I never had the cheap Infantry upgrade, and I still don't have the cheap Stealth upgrade - that will take a while, yet. I got the cheap Marine upgrade less than a year ago, yet I've been using MoS since 2014.

I don't understand your complaint about increasing Marine defense +1 in cities being meaningless... Tanks never have better than 4D (with Blitz, they're only 3D!), SM Bombers are a respectable, but not great, 5D (same with DS Helis). Attack units have relatively poor defense - what's your point?

Sorry we are only interested in winrates on a competitive setting. Either for elo in duels or cws or in a tournament. Anyone can spam mos ad nauseum vs noobs in random maps and notch up a respectable winrate if theyre even semi competent.

Your post is just full of redundant truisms and yet more anecdotes. "If it doesn't work for you, that doesn't make it universally poor." I mean no shit sherlock.

Where's the evidence of you killing good players with mos in competitive settings? Where are the demonstrations of mos' competency? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Where are the comparisons of the stats of mos to the other strats?

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 11:04

I don't understand your complaint about increasing Marine defense +1 in cities being meaningless... Tanks never have better than 4D (with Blitz, they're only 3D!), SM Bombers are a respectable, but not great, 5D (same with DS Helis). Attack units have relatively poor defense - what's your point?

The obvious point is that you want to be attacking with offensive units not defending. How does making your offensive units slightly less weak on defence help a strategy that doesn't ever want to be defending?

I can't wait for the day where we finally get strategy statistics on frequency and winrate. It'll shutdown so much of the nonsense that fills these threads.

I play casual, where CWs are almost impossible unless we're all in the same timezones - hence, the Turn 0 request. My coalition has had a hell of a time to get the 8 CWs that we've participated in so far. All of the quick games I've played, I've used MoS, and won a majority of them. If that's not good enough, then kiss my ass. Don't listen to me.

Every strat wants to defend. You can't keep what you take if you can't defend. WTF are you smoking?

Written by Permamuted, 18.01.2019 at 09:05

Can we please stop with the urban legends about MoS being good?

I only know of 1 competitive niche for MoS and thats low turn time world games where you have no nearby opponents. Please show me these other uses for mos.

Stop with the anecdotes.

1. Demonstrate.
2. Provide evidence.

Is this too much to ask everytime we have a strat change thread?

Also explain to me how mos marines having 4 defence in a city is the most realistic boost for the strat?

Here's the 3 reasons why mos isn't good enough and in no particular order.

1. Cost
2. Weak expansion contesting power.(mainly because unlike all the tank/inf strats and the bomber strat the marines have no gen att bonus.)
3. poor defense.

The latter 2 options are why mos is bad against most strategies in close quarters. You want to boost the strat. You need to hit 1 or more of these areas. Marine defense is not good enough. If your marines have 8 att and 4 def you're not going to be wanting to use them on defense in most situations.

In any world game in general (to a lesser extent casual because of coordinated sentry and unit dispersion to detect units) stealth is undoubtedly a very big advantage. MoS SK, for example, is one of the best picks in 10k world, along with SM one-of-the-chinas (I don't remember which), and some picks in Europe and North America. Also, even though you'll probably dispute this, MoS Ukr is decent in 1v1. Not the best, but a decent choice if you want to change things up, It's prone to getting rushed under the condition that the opponent is certain you're MoS and you overexpanding. However this is a minority of cases, and it can be countered with a big wall and setting up properly for the coming turns.

The goal isn't to make every strategy the best strategy. The goal is to make every strategy playable and competitive. While MoS lags slightly behind offensive strats like SM and DS, it doesn't need a major change to infantry to make it playable. Slight upgrades are sufficient to get people interested and discover its potential.

Boosting marine defense follows the same logic why people want DS heli defense nerfed in DS. It makes a real difference during games where 1. you're TBd and your offensive units end up defending, you don't want them to die or 2. you're putting literally everything you can in your cap or an important city to defend and you know it's going to be a close call (this is where ds heli defense proved useful. This also helps against rushes against MoS, which is one of its weaknesses in competitive.

Now, how does boosting infantry defense even fit in the strat? we can't make things up to fit the meta without taking into regards fundamental attributes of the strategy. This is a stealth strategy, it is weak defensively and that must be addressed, yes, but there are other ways to do that. I'm not saying marine defense is the best solution, just the best which I can think of. If you have alternative solutions, do tell.

as for the your 3 reasons:

1. yes, it's high cost, so is SM, DS, LB, etc. It can be made efficient depending on the situation. It's a slowroll strat and should be treated as such, like GC. It's not made for EU+ 5k 1v1s, but it's not unplayable in 10k either. Although, I think we should entertain ideas on cost reductions to stealth planes and subs.
2. that's also an idea, add gen marine attack bonus. regardless though, it has a lot of potential expansion strength depending on the situation. Here is a possible MoS Ukr 1v1 expansion:


71 units t2, 1 AT used

(im quite sleepy, so this could 100% be made more efficient, but just to give you an idea that it's not as weak as you think)

3. It's not like defense is nerfed, it's just not boosted. It's a matter of cost management. I'll add a pic of as many as possible inf I can get back to kiev t3.

edit: this is from a more conservative/cost-efficient expansion (rc + 2 cities, rnw, latvia, estonia, poland, slovakia, belarus)


2 ATs, 1 made t1 and 1 t3 - 40+ inf. not bad, but not SM vs PD turk getting 100 back. Still, formidable against a rush-of-the-moment.

I'd still like to hear people's ideas on a stealth defense unit though.

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 12:19

Every strat wants to defend. You can't keep what you take if you can't defend. WTF are you smoking?

And that is why you'd make a bad blitz gw ra and ds player.

Pls a new strat

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 12:58

The goal isn't to make every strategy the best strategy. The goal is to make every strategy playable and competitive.

Agreed with the last 2 sentences. And mos ukraine and mos sk on 10k world are not competitive. Neither is any north america pick. MoS is like none - it is ok but not good enough. Any success with it is down to the skill and creativity of the player, not the strat. There are nearly always better strat choices. And in 5 years of aw and 100s of duels/cws and countless tournies i almost never encounter it in competitive games.

I feel like I or players like witch doctor, 4nic, eagle etc need to take you guys into a variety of game settings and repeatedly rape your MoS with a variety of strats until you understand what we are talking about.

Like I said it's only niche is high income areas low turn time games with no opponents nearby. This is purely because you can spam your expensive power invis units and your opponent hasn't the time to micro all their units effectively to counter it.

I don't know about you but I think that is an awful niche and expect more from strategies.

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 12:58

as for the your 3 reasons:

1. yes, it's high cost, so is SM, DS, LB, etc. It can be made efficient depending on the situation. It's a slowroll strat and should be treated as such, like GC. It's not made for EU+ 5k 1v1s, but it's not unplayable in 10k either. Although, I think we should entertain ideas on cost reductions to stealth planes and subs.

All the strats you listed have other strengths which make up for the costs. The range, mobility and expansion contesting of sm. The -2 to inf and -1 to militia for ds. The offensive power and expansion contesting of LB. Stealth planes are already too cheap and subs do nothing to address the strats core issues that i mentioned. And having invisible units means little in close quarters when you know where most their stealths are before you go and raise that as a strength. It's not enough.

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 12:58

2. that's also an idea, add gen marine attack bonus. regardless though, it has a lot of potential expansion strength depending on the situation. Here is a possible MoS Ukr 1v1 expansion:


71 units t2, 1 AT used

(im quite sleepy, so this could 100% be made more efficient, but just to give you an idea that it's not as weak as you think)

My own mos ukraine expansion is significantly better( i doubt it can be improved upon in efficiency) and I am still here telling you that it is weak if you use it vs a good turk.

But thanks for taking the time to write a constructive post. Sultan take note.

Written by Permamuted, 14.01.2019 at 20:15

Written by Dave, 14.01.2019 at 18:26

So who died and appointed you the god of strategy changes? Just because you didn't get your way this time, don't go around saying I intentionally disregarded you, like your way is the only correct way to do things? If I don't happen to follow your wishes it's not like I sat around saying "gee, what can I do today to intentionally piss off Laochra today?" Get over yourself.

Note to everyone else reading this: the way to persuade me is to make a reasonable argument. I'm open minded and happy to listen, as long as you leave the attitude at the door.

Yea don't try and make this about me. I'm not interested in "getting my way". This isnt a laochra ego issue or anything of that sort at all. Like always what I want is the best for the game but sometimes I don't know why I bother.

Perhaps the accusation that you intentionally disregarded me would be unfair if you had explained why you applied those changes and where exactly they originated from. There was plenty in the way of "reasonable argument" in that thread. I even addressed and dismissed sultans suggestion with "reasonable argument" and no rebuttal. And yet we still ended up with the previously abandoned(for good reason) 2013 metas for ds and lb restored. And now here we have another goddamn thread asking for suggestions on top of the 1 i created as if it never existed. And you wonder why I'm annoyed.

W/e. You don't have to take my word for it at all. I give up.

Maybe it's best if you take a step away from dictating strategy changes for a while, because it does look like you only want get your way, looking at the high amount of posts you make regarding this topic and how you are quick to dismiss other peoples opinions. See in what directions some changes might go. It's not like we are going to implement insane nerfs/boosts that will ruin the game. There are enough players who will step in if something goes the wrong way. This is not meant in an offensive way.

I suggest you to ban strategies.

Written by Permamuted, 18.01.2019 at 14:34

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 12:58

The goal isn't to make every strategy the best strategy. The goal is to make every strategy playable and competitive.

Agreed with the last 2 sentences. And mos ukraine and mos sk on 10k world are not competitive. Neither is any north america pick. MoS is like none - it is ok but not good enough. Any success with it is down to the skill and creativity of the player, not the strat. There are nearly always better strat choices. And in 5 years of aw and 100s of duels/cws and countless tournies i almost never encounter it in competitive games.

I feel like I or players like witch doctor, 4nic, eagle etc need to take you guys into a variety of game settings and repeatedly rape your MoS with a variety of strats until you understand what we are talking about.

Like I said it's only niche is high income areas low turn time games with no opponents nearby. This is purely because you can spam your expensive power invis units and your opponent hasn't the time to micro all their units effectively to counter it.

I don't know about you but I think that is an awful niche and expect more from strategies.

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 12:58

as for the your 3 reasons:

1. yes, it's high cost, so is SM, DS, LB, etc. It can be made efficient depending on the situation. It's a slowroll strat and should be treated as such, like GC. It's not made for EU+ 5k 1v1s, but it's not unplayable in 10k either. Although, I think we should entertain ideas on cost reductions to stealth planes and subs.

All the strats you listed have other strengths which make up for the costs. The range, mobility and expansion contesting of sm. The -2 to inf and -1 to militia for ds. The offensive power and expansion contesting of LB. Stealth planes are already too cheap and subs do nothing to address the strats core issues that i mentioned. And having invisible units means little in close quarters when you know where most their stealths are before you go and raise that as a strength. It's not enough.

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 12:58

2. that's also an idea, add gen marine attack bonus. regardless though, it has a lot of potential expansion strength depending on the situation. Here is a possible MoS Ukr 1v1 expansion:

[img[/img]
71 units t2, 1 AT used

(im quite sleepy, so this could 100% be made more efficient, but just to give you an idea that it's not as weak as you think)

My own mos ukraine expansion is significantly better( i doubt it can be improved upon in efficiency) and I am still here telling you that it is weak if you use it vs a good turk.

But thanks for taking the time to write a constructive post. Sultan take note.

Almost never encountering it doesn't mean it's bad, just unexplored. I'm not saying don't boost it, I'm saying don't boost its infantry. You brought up the possibility of adding a gen marine attack upgrade, I think that's a very good idea alongside a slight boost, and I'd like to see what Dave thinks about that.

again I assert this logic

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 12:58

Boosting marine defense follows the same logic why people want DS heli defense nerfed. It makes a real difference during games where 1. you're TBd and your offensive units end up defending, you don't want them to die or 2. you're putting literally everything you can in your cap or an important city to defend and you know it's going to be a close call (this is where ds heli defense proved useful. This also helps against rushes against MoS, which is one of its weaknesses in competitive.

Now, how does boosting infantry defense even fit in the strat? we can't make things up to fit the meta without taking into regards fundamental attributes of the strategy. This is a stealth strategy, it is weak defensively and that must be addressed, yes, but there are other ways to do that. I'm not saying marine defense is the best solution, just the best which I can think of. If you have alternative solutions, do tell.

I'm curious to know what would everyone think of a cost reduction to subs and stealth by 20 or something, even if it's already reduced (or marines by another 10), and a defense boost to marines. Hell, if you want, even boost marine defense by 1 in city and 1 in general. Alongside the general upgrade, I don't see why anyone would want to boost it further.

I also fail to see how MoS SK isn't one of the best picks in 10k world, but oh well.

Written by Chess, 18.01.2019 at 18:01

Maybe it's best if you take a step away from dictating strategy changes for a while, because it does look like you only want get your way, looking at the high amount of posts you make regarding this topic and how you are quick to dismiss other peoples opinions. See in what directions some changes might go. It's not like we are going to implement insane nerfs/boosts that will ruin the game. There are enough players who will step in if something goes the wrong way. This is not meant in an offensive way.

This is the rough equivalent of saying "you're a dick but i don't mean this in a bad way"!

1. This is my 4th post in this 4 page topic.
2. You can't accuse me of dictating strategy changes when i simply have been gathering the best suggestions. It is not only offensive it's wrong. Also in spite of the fact that i got 22 upvotes in the other thread, a 6 upvote and poorly written post by a bad player got implemented instead. The 6 upvotes came from mostly inactive players. You're going to sit there and tell me you won't ruin the game after LB went from op to redundant in 1 strat change thread? Oh and ds isn't usable until you've the capacity upgrade. So your average player won't use it until r8+
3. I never see anyone else making an effort to cut through all the bad suggestions.
4. If you were truly trying to offer helpful advice you would have done so via mail or pr not publicly. I think your actual issue is that you're 1 of the MoS is strong meme supporters.

I'm sick of this shit. It seems nobody around here applies critical thinking to their posts anymore. Instead they just want to get offended because 1 of my posts was too sharply critical of the nonsense they posted. It's extraordinary to me how opinionated all these players who have 0 competitive game achievements are. When I was a r8 i didnt dare go near these threads nevermind tell a player like myself that I should try playing some more MoS. And I'm the 1 that then gets accused of being arrogant!

I'm just going to dedicate my energies to badgering Dave to create strategy statistics. It's the best tool we can hope for to objectively judge the meta.

MoS is a joke and it being good at world game is a meme.

Shit

We're trying to find a way to balance strategies on a map thats not balanced.
This is never really going to work.

Written by Permamuted, 18.01.2019 at 09:05

Can we please stop with the urban legends about MoS being good?

I only know of 1 competitive niche for MoS and thats low turn time world games where you have no nearby opponents. Please show me these other uses for mos.

Stop with the anecdotes.

1. Demonstrate.
2. Provide evidence.

Is this too much to ask everytime we have a strat change thread?

Also explain to me how mos marines having 4 defence in a city is the most realistic boost for the strat?

Here's the 3 reasons why mos isn't good enough and in no particular order.

1. Cost
2. Weak expansion contesting power.(mainly because unlike all the tank/inf strats and the bomber strat the marines have no gen att bonus.)
3. poor defense.

The latter 2 options are why mos is bad against most strategies in close quarters. You want to boost the strat. You need to hit 1 or more of these areas. Marine defense is not good enough. If your marines have 8 att and 4 def you're not going to be wanting to use them on defense in most situations.

No man, none of them want to give concrete reasons for anything they say. Its all just rambling, and the loudest guy gets what he wants.

Written by Permamuted, 18.01.2019 at 14:34

Agreed with the last 2 sentences. And mos ukraine and mos sk on 10k world are not competitive. Neither is any north america pick. MoS is like none - it is ok but not good enough. Any success with it is down to the skill and creativity of the player, not the strat. There are nearly always better strat choices. And in 5 years of aw and 100s of duels/cws and countless tournies i almost never encounter it in competitive games.

I think this sentence is quite the problem of this whole strategy changing debate. Since when are skills and creativity not as important as the strategies? Sure, if you pick the wrong strategy in a setting, you're pretty much fucked, but it doesn't mean you cant make something of it. You might have a disadvantage but, thats all it is, a disadvantage. Afterall it still depens on the choices and actions a player will make.

I have a feeling most of these strategy changes are based upon the fact that some strategies are not popular enough and should be boosted more because of their unpopularity (check my earlier posts), which is the wrong mindset, if you ask me. We have seen over the years that the broken strategies always had a huge impact on the competitive scene, since you saw people, who barely knew how to play, somehow rising up and becoming one of the ''top'' players because of them abusing the broken strategy time after time. I am pretty sure we've lost many people due to the fact that the strategies were constantly unbalanced due to the boosts/nerfs.

Like tact said, the strategies should be playable, and most of the strategies that are suggested to be (over)boosted, are the ones that are playable, like IF/MoS for instance. They could perhaps use a slight boost, but should not be overboosted, since that has led to so many strategies being untouched and needed to be boosted again, only to being unbalanced again, take the the most recent GW/Blitz/RA/DS/LB strategy changes as example.

Lao nobody is doubting your capability to lead the strategies into the right direction, and I am sure most of us are greatful for you stepping up and trying. But like Tact, Chess and me, among others, have said that if you really want to balance the strategies other people's input must not be ignored, the strategy changes are not only reserved for the Illyrian & co. players but for the whole game. Like Chess said, you are directly dismissing people's opinions if they do not support you in some way, and calling people ''MoS is strong-meme supporters'' just because they are not agreeing on some points, shows the lack of openness to other people's opinions... and for me personally it shows the impact of WD on this strategy changing debate

Written by Permamuted, 19.01.2019 at 02:37

Written by Chess, 18.01.2019 at 18:01

Maybe it's best if you take a step away from dictating strategy changes for a while, because it does look like you only want get your way, looking at the high amount of posts you make regarding this topic and how you are quick to dismiss other peoples opinions. See in what directions some changes might go. It's not like we are going to implement insane nerfs/boosts that will ruin the game. There are enough players who will step in if something goes the wrong way. This is not meant in an offensive way.

This is the rough equivalent of saying "you're a dick but i don't mean this in a bad way"!

1. This is my 4th post in this 4 page topic.
2. You can't accuse me of dictating strategy changes when i simply have been gathering the best suggestions. It is not only offensive it's wrong. Also in spite of the fact that i got 22 upvotes in the other thread, a 6 upvote and poorly written post by a bad player got implemented instead. The 6 upvotes came from mostly inactive players. You're going to sit there and tell me you won't ruin the game after LB went from op to redundant in 1 strat change thread? Oh and ds isn't usable until you've the capacity upgrade. So your average player won't use it until r8+
3. I never see anyone else making an effort to cut through all the bad suggestions.
4. If you were truly trying to offer helpful advice you would have done so via mail or pr not publicly. I think your actual issue is that you're 1 of the MoS is strong meme supporters.

I'm sick of this shit. It seems nobody around here applies critical thinking to their posts anymore. Instead they just want to get offended because 1 of my posts was too sharply critical of the nonsense they posted. It's extraordinary to me how opinionated all these players who have 0 competitive game achievements are. When I was a r8 i didnt dare go near these threads nevermind tell a player like myself that I should try playing some more MoS. And I'm the 1 that then gets accused of being arrogant!

I'm just going to dedicate my energies to badgering Dave to create strategy statistics. It's the best tool we can hope for to objectively judge the meta.

That's your interpretation of it.
Not fact.

Waffel dear i love you but.

Written by Waffel, 19.01.2019 at 08:05

I think this sentence is quite the problem of this whole strategy changing debate. Since when are skills and creativity not as important as the strategies? Sure, if you pick the wrong strategy in a setting, you're pretty much fucked, but it doesn't mean you cant make something of it. You might have a disadvantage but, thats all it is, a disadvantage. Afterall it still depens on the choices and actions a player will make.

This shows that you don't understand metagaming.

Written by Waffel, 19.01.2019 at 08:05

Lao nobody is doubting your capability to lead the strategies into the right direction, and I am sure most of us are greatful for you stepping up and trying. But like Tact, Chess and me, among others, have said that if you really want to balance the strategies other people's input must not be ignored, the strategy changes are not only reserved for the Illyrian & co. players but for the whole game. Like Chess said, you are directly dismissing people's opinions if they do not support you in some way, and calling people ''MoS is strong-meme supporters'' just because they are not agreeing on some points, shows the lack of openness to other people's opinions... and for me personally it shows the impact of WD on this strategy changing debate

And this is where we differ. You value the existence of an opinion over the content of the opinion. I am the opposite. This has always been the case.

Written by Chess, 19.01.2019 at 12:50

That's your interpretation of it.
Not fact.

Chess dear I also love you but...

What a woefully inadequate response to what I just posted. Also a waste of forum space. And don't worry i understand too that this is just MY interpretation.

And yet the MoS boost remains unanswered.

Sub/stealth 20 cost reduction or marine 10 cost reduction + increasing marine defense + gen: marine attack upgrade?

other than that, I really hope changes to IF, RA, GW, HW (pls make it cheaper as well) and DS are made as proposed in Eagle's post. Also trim the LB nerf slightly, as pointed out earlier.

Written by Permamuted, 18.01.2019 at 13:50

Written by RatWar, 18.01.2019 at 12:19

Every strat wants to defend. You can't keep what you take if you can't defend. WTF are you smoking?

And that is why you'd make a bad blitz gw ra and ds player.

Perhaps. I have never tried Blitz because it doesn't make sense to me. RA turned out to be useless to me, and so stopped using it once I unlocked MoS (though I did have some trouble with MoS initially). GW defense and offense are weak, so I've never had any success with it in close quarters. If nobody is nearby to start, then it can work for me, because what you lack in strength you can overwhelm in numbers (it's a very slow strat, and I tend to lose patience with it).

I've tried to make DS work, but I have not had success. I've always been thwarted by the fact that the Infantry were nerfed and the Militia were buffed, particularly since the Militia cannot be transported on the Helis. I have yet to find a way to turn those weaknesses into strengths. I don't understand why the Infantry and Militia are affected at all by the strat. Maybe I don't understand what the point of DS is, other than the fact it's the ONLY one that uses Helis.

By contrast, MoS and NC do make sense to me, which is probably why I use them effectively where some others have failed. What's the point arguing the difference? It comes down to personality as much as it does to experience.

In my opinion, it is unreasonable that every strat will be equally effective in the hands of any given player (with the possible exception of LB and Imp). In fact, I am impressed with the variety of strategies and how effective each can be in the right hands.

It's also worth pointing out that the game was designed with the World Map as the default. For any number of reasons (most of which are not in the control of the creators), players gravitated to variations of the European theater. I'm not sure that all of the strats were meant to be equally effective on small maps as they are on large maps. I could be wrong - but perhaps not, if it is true when you say that most people don't use MoS in EU+. If that is so, that doesn't mean that MoS is broken - it just means that it's not great for close quarters. A vast majority of my games are played on the World Map or other maps larger than EU+.

Written by The Tactician, 19.01.2019 at 02:33

again I assert this logic

Written by The Tactician, 18.01.2019 at 12:58

Boosting marine defense follows the same logic why people want DS heli defense nerfed. It makes a real difference during games where 1. you're TBd and your offensive units end up defending, you don't want them to die or 2. you're putting literally everything you can in your cap or an important city to defend and you know it's going to be a close call (this is where ds heli defense proved useful. This also helps against rushes against MoS, which is one of its weaknesses in competitive.

Now, how does boosting infantry defense even fit in the strat? we can't make things up to fit the meta without taking into regards fundamental attributes of the strategy. This is a stealth strategy, it is weak defensively and that must be addressed, yes, but there are other ways to do that. I'm not saying marine defense is the best solution, just the best which I can think of. If you have alternative solutions, do tell.

I'm curious to know what would everyone think of a cost reduction to subs and stealth by 20 or something, even if it's already reduced (or marines by another 10), and a defense boost to marines. Hell, if you want, even boost marine defense by 1 in city and 1 in general. Alongside the general upgrade, I don't see why anyone would want to boost it further.

I also fail to see how MoS SK isn't one of the best picks in 10k world, but oh well.

Wow - that's really opening up the playbook on making changes!! At face value, most sound extreme to me - as an MoS player, I would love them - but it would make the strat op.

Then again, Laochra has a point insofar as those other expensive strats do have some great strengths - for 130, the DS Helis mow down Infantry & Militia (against everything else, they are 8A, 5D, 11R); SM has great expansion abilities (with 8A, 5D, 7CC, 17R Bombers for only 130), and LB is LB.

By contrast, MoS Marines (the primary ground attack unit) are 8A, 3D, 7CC, 8R for 110 (with upgrades). The primary air attack are the Stealth planes at 9A, 4D, 7CC, 17R for 170 (w/upgrade). The costs do seem somewhat disproportional to their abilities. It is worth pointing out, though, that the units are invisible, which is a significant advantage unless you're in very close quarters (small maps).

Hmmm...maybe stealth abilities are just somewhat nullified in small maps where it's almost impossible to escape detection? With the weak defense of Marines, that would be a decisive disadvantage in EU+.

And yes, a 10k world pick of SK is effective with MoS.

Written by Permamuted, 19.01.2019 at 02:37

I'm sick of this shit. It seems nobody around here applies critical thinking to their posts anymore. Instead they just want to get offended because 1 of my posts was too sharply critical of the nonsense they posted. It's extraordinary to me how opinionated all these players who have 0 competitive game achievements are. When I was a r8 i didnt dare go near these threads nevermind tell a player like myself that I should try playing some more MoS. And I'm the 1 that then gets accused of being arrogant!

I'm just going to dedicate my energies to badgering Dave to create strategy statistics. It's the best tool we can hope for to objectively judge the meta.

All players have are experiences, including you. If you want some experiences to count more than others, or to arbitrarily establish some criteria, then don't get pissed when others find your arbitration insufficient or otherwise unreasonable.

For example, it appears that there are tons of players that create and play elaborate scenarios (including RPs). Quite a few of those scenarios are designed on the premise that certain players need to use certain strats. If we make changes to the strats that screws up their scenarios, are they any more right or wrong than you or me to say what is best for a strat change?

Chill out. It's not up to you, any more than it is to me or any other individual player.

This topic is definition of "opinions are like assholes,everyone has one".

Okay
Blitz - Adding range on it will just make it easier. If you wanna make it stronger, you should add +3 and be done with it.
Lb - Shouldnt be touched anymore. If you wanna play a game thats determined mostly on luck, you might as well roll a dice before every game and determine winner that way. Saves you some time. For people thinking lb nerf was too hard, i can remember at least 5 times when 5 units failed vs 1lb inf. Most of the time it was a wf unit. If you think thats fine, something is wrong with you.
Mos - Could use some minor minor minor buff. I've played couple of games with mos/gc ukr in the last month and their playstyle is similar and they are fun to play. But i'm not 100% sure if the situation is the same as with sm. Bunch of people were bitching how sm is weak, while all you had to do it play it a little bit and learn. Could be the same deal with Mos.

If you really wanna change the game and make other strategies popular, change the map. East is versatile with strats if we dont count turkey which is fake east. West is more casual in strats if we dont count spain which is fake west. If you wanna make other strategies popular any buff will effect an unbalance in map and is going to make specific countries very strong or weak. And i'm not even talking about world map.
Either find a way to balance east vs east or west vs west without affecting other side, or change map.

How many times was a strategy nerfed in a history of atwar because it was considered op? And on what countries were those strategies played the most? Turkey? Germany? Only reason lb was played on west is because it was at minimum IF with normal range.

So stop bitching and focus on finding a new way to change meta, because judging by the history this one is not the right one.

Imagine giving IF militas range, imagine how retarded of an idea that is.

My post got lost in the swarm of others posts, but I'll repeat it here:

RA: +1 attack for main attack (tank) at the very least. -10 cost to main defense (infantry).
LB: roll back on the +10 cost for secondary defense (militia) , keeping just the +10 for main defense (infantry).

MoS: this strat needs to be changed, either a small buff to it's main defense (infantry) or what the player ''PleaseMe'' described above. (or anything else really, as it stands it is just the inferior stealth strategy compared to GW)

On top of this, allow mapmakers to create their own custom strategies for maps. That way the delicate balance of some scenarios wont be affected by strategy changes in the future.

Written by The_Empirezz, 20.01.2019 at 10:14

LB: roll back on the +10 cost for secondary defense (militia) , keeping just the +10 for main defense (infantry).

How about the opposite. normal cost infs and +10 cost milita, it will place its own spot as an expensive clutch strat because of the militas being too expensive to be viable.

Quote:

Written by 4nic, 20.01.2019 at 10:36

How about the opposite. normal cost infs and +10 cost milita, it will place its own spot as an expensive clutch strat because of the militas being too expensive to be viable.

Well, the infantry upkeep increase is the bigger nerf than the militia upkeep increase. It's possible to remove it from infantry although LB is pretty strong as is. I'd agree with removing the +10 cost for inf if LB crit itself was lowered a bit, 2 or 3 crit lower. Otherwise just the nerf on millies should be undone.