When discussing nerfing strategies?

When it is discussed to nerf or buff strategies, does the consideration regard the Europe map only, or how effective a particular strategy is on the world map?

They used to pretend it was for the world map but they balanced around 3v3. Now that loachra is gone I doubt youll see any coherancy to strategy changes. But that's just my opinion. Once clovis lifts unit restrictions on the editor strategies wont necessarily impact game play anymore anyways.

Depends if the strategy has a niche for the world map or not, you certainly not gonna play DS or HW on world map

We use elitists opinion to change strategies without any clear purpose but because we think it'd be better that way

Написано Permamuted, 14.04.2017 at 14:51

I've explained this before. But i am just going to write out a complete description so i can copy/paste it at the future morons who say i nerf strats only based off eu+ or the turk ukraine meta. I don't think i have ever provided a full breakdown. But have objective facts and evidence on my side. It is why I like tophats was able to convince the admins to alter the strategies when all the dissenters failed. It is also why these people are reduced to spamming me with insults and silly troll posts.

The strategies were created and originally balanced around the default units and specifically the world map. Custom maps don't come into the equation unless some change drastically affects a large number of them. Clovis for example complained about the nc change however the mapmakers themselves(the handful that were affected) did not and simply made some alterations themselves to counteract it. It didnt seem to be as big of a deal as he made out so it wasnt reversed.

You've 3 tiers of strategies. The is a pretty basic breakdown since theres quite a bit of crossover with some of the strategies into the other tiers. Perfect defense for example can compete in all 3 tiers which is why it often tops popular strategies lists as we see in this thread. However it shines in the mid range tier so i am placing it there. The militia defence change arguably makes gw more of a midrange strat. But i am leaving it in the economical tier due to its' costs.

Power Strats(high cost):

Sky Menace
Master of Stealth.
Lucky Bastard

Mid-range strats:

Desert Storm
Perfect defence
Great combinator.
Lucky Bastard
Relentless attack
Hybrid Warfare
Blitzkrieg

Economic strats:

Imperialist
Guerilla warfare

When balancing strats there is so much to consider. You've to test them across the board on a range of maps of different settings and incomes. Their versatility also comes into play which is why there has been many "nerf pd" threads over the years. For example Europe+ is indeed a great indicator of balance due to it's diversity of city densities and incomes. However it does not provide a complete picture of the effectiveness and capabilities of the power strats or the economic strats and indeed some of the midrange strats. For those you need to look at 15k+ settings and maps like africa, latin america or big maps where players are spread out.

There needs to be a comparison across the board on unit costs, att/defence power, range, expansion capabilities, hp and versatility. To address the much complained about ra example. Amok accidentally overboosted it giving it 5 defence 9 attack at 90 cost. The math of this in comparison with other strats pretty much speaks for itself. Ra became a nightmare on both the low to midrange starting income settings. Poor imp players on 3k were getting crushed before the game even started. Stating this was only an ra ukraine problem is spectacularly ignorant. There was also the skill argument regarding boosting the games beginners strat which only requires you to build 1 unit and spam attack with it to win but we wont go there.

Then there was blitz. After tophats boost it gained significant defensive abilities. He literally removed half the original nerf of the strategy from -2 defence to - 1. And this was still a very popular strategy even then. On attack it is strong and able to bring more units to the battle front than most strats due to its range. But its' defence sucks. A significant weakness given the overall nature of the game and often why players complain about it. However this fails to acknowlege the strength of blitz's unmatched range and expansion capabilities and the importance of these strengths. I can point to the Pve tournament as just one example. Anyone who duels will often encounter blitz across many settings.

The overall idea of altering the strategies is to give all the strats a niche where they are strong. If you make 1 or 2 strats overpowered then you alienate the players of the others.

All Heil Lao.

Написано Permamuted, 22.08.2018 at 07:39

Написано Permamuted, 14.04.2017 at 14:51

I've explained this before. But i am just going to write out a complete description so i can copy/paste it at the future morons who say i nerf strats only based off eu+ or the turk ukraine meta. I don't think i have ever provided a full breakdown.

Thanks very much Laochra.
preciate your detailed reply.

Написано Helly, 22.08.2018 at 05:16

strategies wont necessarily impact game play anymore anyways.

they forever will

Furthermore, I consider that NWE must be destroyed

Написано j-e-s-u-s, 27.08.2018 at 06:17

Написано Helly, 22.08.2018 at 05:16

strategies wont necessarily impact game play anymore anyways.

they forever will

if you can give a tank 11 attack 10 defence 20 crit 10 hp 11 movement speed and make it a main attack units, then turn off strategies no they wont.

Nerf gw

Написано Helly, 27.08.2018 at 06:54

Написано j-e-s-u-s, 27.08.2018 at 06:17

Написано Helly, 22.08.2018 at 05:16

strategies wont necessarily impact game play anymore anyways.

they forever will

if you can give a tank 11 attack 10 defence 20 crit 10 hp 11 movement speed and make it a main attack units, then turn off strategies no they wont.

you forgot cost
and yes they will, lb/imp for life
infact, you will lost just 1 attack for having 10/10/20/10 and id say such units as you described cost 250, so around ~12% less cost for ~9% attack (and tbh such is op either with 11 or 10 attack)
same for lb, will be more 50% crit for more 4% cost
you cant take away strategies, unless it hardly disbalance your map and players wont like it, imo players will just dont play maps made with no stratregies (look ror4, promoted for 2 or 3 years and almost never get played)

Furthermore, I consider that NWE must be destroyed