Changing the game units and strategies

Hey guys, I'm curious to see what everybody else thinks about the strategy changes. I'm myself not a fan, and the admins are also skeptical about this. There have been quite popular threads in the past (and quite a lot of complains when the changes actually happens).

I'm willing to make the changes that are less controversial and commonly agreed by a good part of the players, if that helps to alleviate some of the concerns about the staled competitive scene.

Good call. updating meta might be frustating to some fans of specific strategies but it has two crucial beniifits

1. Bringing back tired players - I believe after years with minor changes people got sick of dealing with the same anxious things over and over. new meta will provide fresh start for them and bring interest back to the game.

2. Making meta less offensive/start based - will not only have players feel comfrotable trying to adapt to competetive scene but have teamwork and planning aspects matter more than the start you picked or rush/combo you performed. So eventually it help Atwar prosper and hopefully heal the devide between competetive and scenarios scenes.

And going off topic if we are already talking about reforms to heal the devide I suggest again to take more steps to encourage non upgrades games and possibly add optional strategies changes just for CWs and duels so we don't have to consider how it will change two of completely diffrent map types.

I am more curious as to what the argument for no changes looks like rather than the results of a democracy. What game do we know of that retains players through stagnancy? Examples?
Also where was this poll 10 months ago when I gathered 30 upvotes for a series of changes?

If it helps, I'll compile a true tier ranking for strategies. I'll just need help doing it, if anyone's interested.

Wow does that mean if i get 30 upvotes on somthing its enough for me to make changes :O

~runs to get the alts

Would be pretty cool to see some random constant rotation tho every x amount of times between the strats to get ppl off the constant repetition

Написано от Guest, 31.10.2018 at 18:52

If it helps, I'll compile a true tier ranking for strategies. I'll just need help doing it, if anyone's interested.

Power Strats(high cost):

Sky Menace
Master of Stealth.
Lucky Bastard

Mid-range strats:

Desert Storm
Perfect defence
Great combinator.
Iron fist
Relentless attack
Hybrid Warfare
Blitzkrieg

Economic strats:

Imperialist
Guerilla warfare

Написано от Permamuted, 30.08.2018 at 08:50

The following is an updated breakdown:

Strategies

Competitive Use Strategies:

Perfect Defence(PD): A popular strategy in competitive play due to its' versatility. Powerful in the low/mid starting fund range in medium/high income areas.

Guerilla warfare(GW): Powerful in the low/mid starting fund range in areas with mid/high city densities. It expands faster than any other strategy if cities are in range due to the 4 attack militia it gains from every city it caps. However it is weak in areas with lots of water due to the expensive short range trans and is the worst strategy at contesting for expansion. This is due to your starting infantry having -2 defence. It is also a poor strat defensively in general.

Sky Menace(SM): The most versatile strategy ever. You can attack with huge power wherever you want, and can travel/expand fast. It is most suited to mid to high starting fund games in high income areas. It is the most expensive strat in the game. Beware it is particularly vulnerable to turnblocks since you have to move bomber and transport stacks separately.

Naval Commander(NC): Dominates areas with lots of water and ports. It's transports have huge range so it can be useful for catching opponents offguard with suprise long range expansions. NC destroyers are the most powerful default unit in the game and can carry units.

Blitzkrieg: Primarily used for surprise expansions to catch defensive players offguard. Also useful in areas where cities are spaced out(low city density) and mobility is essential.

Lucky Bastard(LB): The current strategy of the day. The critical boost gives units a rough equivalent of +1 hp to all units. However it is a bit more erratic in nature than that due to crits. It can feel as strong as ironfist or indistinguishable from none strat. Dominates high income areas and is the 2nd strongest strat for expansion contesting in the game.

Iron Fist(IF): Shortranged but powerful and tanky. Useful in high income and high city density areas. Boasts the most powerful attack and defence in the game but with no militia movement it is harder to wall. Great in situations where you are surrounded by enemies as it is the most powerful strat at competing for expansion with all that extra hp.

Great Combinator(GC): Powerful strategy in low-mid starting fund games. It is the 3rd most powerful strategy at contesting for expansions. Also expands very well due to the 8 hp tanks, something you might not expect due to your starting infantry having so little attack. The stacking effect is your friend.

Imperialist(IMP): Powerful in low income areas with lots of spawn. It is the spam/quantity strat. Also useful if you seek to fund allies who are wielding expensive power strats like ds sm or mos.

Desert Storm(DS): Powerful when you have lots of starting cash in high income areas, particularly dangerous to infantry based strategies. Expands as well as gw due to the defence bonuses against militia and inf - better if cities are spaced out.

Decent strategies:

Master of Stealth(MOS): Powerful on big maps with lots of income in the mid to higher starting fund range similar to sm. However it is a hard strat to make work in close quarters due to it's poor defence. Best played far away from opponents.

Hybrid Warfare(HW): It's latest improvements have made hw a dangerous strat. It is very versatile and can be played on almost any setting. It boasts cheap militia and marines and powerful and expensive infantry and tanks. Also can expand very well due to the 4 attack militia in spite of starting infantry having low attack. But it tries to do too much and doesnt really dominate any of these settings as well as the other strats.

Relentless Attack(RA): Good for countries where youve lots of starting cash. Expands rapidly and can be used to quickly overwhelm an opponent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The distinction between "competitive strats" and "decent strats" in my list is that the latter have no niche. People are wrong however calling these strats garbage. Im happy to 1v1 anyone who thinks ra is trash. I bet i can surprise them. The problem with ra is that ds does what ra tries to do better. So it is rare to find a situation where ra is the better option.

It seems to be widely agreed upon that LB and DS are currently overpowered. Hw and ra need improvements. And in general we need a meta change. Amok and Ivan are reluctant and not responding to mails in any case. So the only hope is clovis. Strat changes are something they can easily give us while we await the map editor. A 28 upvote thread(linked below) failed to motivate them. If you guys want changes you need to nag/pester/harass them. I suspect any attempts from me no matter how well-intentioned will be disregarded.

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=36144

Or we could focus on the entire game as a whole and not just this one select corner

Написано от Guest, 31.10.2018 at 19:43

Or we could focus on the entire game as a whole and not just this one select corner

What a revelation of an idea. Yes lets do that!

Oh wait our admins are using all their limited time on the mapmaker and this is one of the few low time requirement changes they can apply that can make a difference.

Any alternative suggestions trystane?

Написано от Permamuted, 31.10.2018 at 20:09

Any alternative suggestions trystane?

Yeah we can Fuck each other in the ass. Get over yourself, we get it you tried to suggest many changes and no one took you seriously. There's no point in making slight changes to the strategies when inreality they need an entire overhaul.

Написано от Permamuted, 31.10.2018 at 18:34

Also where was this poll 10 months ago when I gathered 30 upvotes for a series of changes?

He waited untill you left the mod team it was all planned you blady fool

Написано от Permamuted, 31.10.2018 at 19:32

Написано от Guest, 31.10.2018 at 18:52

If it helps, I'll compile a true tier ranking for strategies. I'll just need help doing it, if anyone's interested.

Power Strats(high cost):

Sky Menace
Master of Stealth.
Lucky Bastard

Mid-range strats:

Desert Storm
Perfect defence
Great combinator.
Iron fist
Relentless attack
Hybrid Warfare
Blitzkrieg

Economic strats:

Imperialist
Guerilla warfare

No, I meant a definitive meta ranking. IE, what is Tier 0, 1, 2, etc. GW sure may be an economic strat, but it is by far not meta since the nerf. If we can successfully survey, diagnose, and solve the current meta like any other game, we can get a good balance schedule going. We will also need to start producing more, unique strats as well, as well as retooling older ones as power creep inevitably rolls in as it already has. I believe the power creep that would come from Hold the Line for example may even kill the game, hence why more effort needs to be put into this department of thought. But nonetheless; We can't do shit until we can start editing and testing strategies in the test server. It would be really damn nice if we could edit strategies on maps/the live server on the test night so we can simulate and document our findings to make a valid case for buffs/nerfs to these strategies in a confined environment.

Can there be an option where its like add and change strats for the poll

Написано от Guest, 31.10.2018 at 21:31

Написано от Permamuted, 31.10.2018 at 19:32

Написано от Guest, 31.10.2018 at 18:52

If it helps, I'll compile a true tier ranking for strategies. I'll just need help doing it, if anyone's interested.

Power Strats(high cost):

Sky Menace
Master of Stealth.
Lucky Bastard

Mid-range strats:

Desert Storm
Perfect defence
Great combinator.
Iron fist
Relentless attack
Hybrid Warfare
Blitzkrieg

Economic strats:

Imperialist
Guerilla warfare

No, I meant a definitive meta ranking. IE, what is Tier 0, 1, 2, etc. GW sure may be an economic strat, but it is by far not meta since the nerf. If we can successfully survey, diagnose, and solve the current meta like any other game, we can get a good balance schedule going. We will also need to start producing more, unique strats as well, as well as retooling older ones as power creep inevitably rolls in as it already has. I believe the power creep that would come from Hold the Line for example may even kill the game, hence why more effort needs to be put into this department of thought. But nonetheless; We can't do shit until we can start editing and testing strategies in the test server. It would be really damn nice if we could edit strategies on maps/the live server on the test night so we can simulate and document our findings to make a valid case for buffs/nerfs to these strategies in a confined environment.

strats are tiered differently depending on the country in eu+

Написано от Guest, 31.10.2018 at 21:31

No, I meant a definitive meta ranking. IE, what is Tier 0, 1, 2, etc. GW sure may be an economic strat, but it is by far not meta since the nerf. If we can successfully survey, diagnose, and solve the current meta like any other game, we can get a good balance schedule going. We will also need to start producing more, unique strats as well, as well as retooling older ones as power creep inevitably rolls in as it already has. I believe the power creep that would come from Hold the Line for example may even kill the game, hence why more effort needs to be put into this department of thought. But nonetheless; We can't do shit until we can start editing and testing strategies in the test server. It would be really damn nice if we could edit strategies on maps/the live server on the test night so we can simulate and document our findings to make a valid case for buffs/nerfs to these strategies in a confined environment.

The 2nd part of that post tiers them. I believe it to be pretty accurate. If i were to tier them as youre suggesting all the competitive strats would be tier 1, mos and blitz tier 2, ra and hw tier 3.

I think we've hit a wall with new strats in regards the default units. Maybe someone can still come up with something innovative but i havent seen it in recent years. I think a new unit or dimension is needed for new strats. The buildings addition would be interesting but that requires coding according to ivan. I don't think hold the line would function with how the game works. I agree it could be gamebreaking. Scorched earth can never be competitive. Myself and a few other mods have it unlocked. It literally wastes neutrals of their income and spawn as you expand. It just doesnt work. Fun to troll with though.

I think we should be looking into new strategies. I would prefer continuity with the current set of strategies because when you go away from the game for a bit, you come back and the meta is completely different due to minor changes. Why not find a balance for them, then move on? Now wait a minute.. before you say "balance isn't possible!" I believe it is if we get down to the statistics of things. I couldnt find it but ik people have made posts in the past comparing strategy statistics. Why not compare all strategies following a stats model, and find out how to balance them all? Then from there, when we brainstorm new strat ideas we can fit them into that model

I think, we should make strategies weaker/ stronger depending on how much they have been used.
If anyone knows Clash royale, use the same metric system, make popular strats weaker/ unpopular strat stronger in comparison.

This way there will be a variety in playing strats and people wont play only one strat.
I myself play only LB or even sometimes IF because all other strats are too weak.

Remove the strategy system, add perk cards. You pick three each game, each card buffs a unit and nerfs another.

Quick example +1attack for main attack units, +10 cost for main defence units.

Написано от Helly, 01.11.2018 at 14:38

Remove the strategy system, add perk cards. You pick three each game, each card buffs a unit and nerfs another.

Quick example +1attack for main attack units, +10 cost for main defence units.

as awesome as this would be, i feel like this is too dramatic of a change lol

Написано от Sultan of Swing, 01.11.2018 at 13:33

I think we should be looking into new strategies. I would prefer continuity with the current set of strategies because when you go away from the game for a bit, you come back and the meta is completely different due to minor changes. Why not find a balance for them, then move on? Now wait a minute.. before you say "balance isn't possible!" I believe it is if we get down to the statistics of things. I couldnt find it but ik people have made posts in the past comparing strategy statistics. Why not compare all strategies following a stats model, and find out how to balance them all? Then from there, when we brainstorm new strat ideas we can fit them into that model

i agree , constantly buffing and nerfing the same strats just seems to get us into a endless circlejerking cycle...

Can there be a "God " strategy, please?

Написано от Sultan of Swing, 01.11.2018 at 15:02

Написано от Helly, 01.11.2018 at 14:38

Remove the strategy system, add perk cards. You pick three each game, each card buffs a unit and nerfs another.

Quick example +1attack for main attack units, +10 cost for main defence units.

as awesome as this would be, i feel like this is too dramatic of a change lol

Fortune favours the bold

Yeah because its really efficient to come up with new strategies and units out of no where, considering the time it takes for the devs in this game to fix or tweak any unbalanced aspect or any sort of bug.

Its unrealistic and verry naive to think any of this will succeed in any sort of way.

Написано от ITSGG1122, 01.11.2018 at 13:45

I think, we should make strategies weaker/ stronger depending on how much they have been used.
If anyone knows Clash royale, use the same metric system, make popular strats weaker/ unpopular strat stronger in comparison.

This way there will be a variety in playing strats and people wont play only one strat.
I myself play only LB or even sometimes IF because all other strats are too weak.

Написано от ITSGG1122, 01.11.2018 at 13:45

I think, we should make strategies weaker/ stronger depending on how much they have been used.
If anyone knows Clash royale, use the same metric system, make popular strats weaker/ unpopular strat stronger in comparison.

This way there will be a variety in playing strats and people wont play only one strat.
I myself play only LB or even sometimes IF because all other strats are too weak.

Agree imo the only strats that shouldnt be touched in this patch should be imp, nc, gc and pd. lb and ds need nerfs. mos and ra def need boosts. Rest are debateable.

Написано от Waffel, 01.11.2018 at 16:42

Yeah because its really efficient to come up with new strategies and units out of no where, considering the time it takes for the devs in this game to fix or tweak any unbalanced aspect or any sort of bug.

Its unrealistic and verry naive to think any of this will succeed in any sort of way.

strats and units arent from nowhere, they come from our brains

to ur point tho, it would take time for sure, but i think the only issue keeping us from adding in new strats/units is simply a seemed lack of interest by devs. There is plenty of ideas flowing in the mod forum, but theres just not an easy method to testing things at the moment. I think it can succeed, but thts gonna require coders who care and a methodology to testing (see above post of mine). sadly this is a big hurdle, but we can work on our vertical!!

Написано от Black Vortex, 01.11.2018 at 15:30

Can there be a "God " strategy, please?

There is, it's called Sky Menace

Написано от NegTheEskimo, 02.11.2018 at 00:22

For real tho, we need more boobs.
League of legends = Big boob characters
Roblox = pixel boobies
Fortnite = obvious boob characters
Chess = pawns are basically boobs.
Atwar = no boobs

you're really on to something buddy

Написано от boywind2, 02.11.2018 at 00:47

Написано от NegTheEskimo, 02.11.2018 at 00:22

For real tho, we need more boobs.
League of legends = Big boob characters
Roblox = pixel boobies
Fortnite = obvious boob characters
Chess = pawns are basically boobs.
Atwar = no boobs

you're really on to something buddy

omg omg

Написано от Permamuted, 01.11.2018 at 04:41

Написано от Guest, 31.10.2018 at 21:31

No, I meant a definitive meta ranking. IE, what is Tier 0, 1, 2, etc. GW sure may be an economic strat, but it is by far not meta since the nerf. If we can successfully survey, diagnose, and solve the current meta like any other game, we can get a good balance schedule going. We will also need to start producing more, unique strats as well, as well as retooling older ones as power creep inevitably rolls in as it already has. I believe the power creep that would come from Hold the Line for example may even kill the game, hence why more effort needs to be put into this department of thought. But nonetheless; We can't do shit until we can start editing and testing strategies in the test server. It would be really damn nice if we could edit strategies on maps/the live server on the test night so we can simulate and document our findings to make a valid case for buffs/nerfs to these strategies in a confined environment.

The 2nd part of that post tiers them. I believe it to be pretty accurate. If i were to tier them as youre suggesting all the competitive strats would be tier 1, mos and blitz tier 2, ra and hw tier 3.

I think we've hit a wall with new strats in regards the default units. Maybe someone can still come up with something innovative but i havent seen it in recent years. I think a new unit or dimension is needed for new strats. The buildings addition would be interesting but that requires coding according to ivan. I don't think hold the line would function with how the game works. I agree it could be gamebreaking. Scorched earth can never be competitive. Myself and a few other mods have it unlocked. It literally wastes neutrals of their income and spawn as you expand. It just doesnt work. Fun to troll with though.

Yeah, SE is broken in its current form hence why I made that thread last month to try and make it something else, I was thinking it to be an analogue to Desert Storm if Blitzkrieg is compared to Sky Menace, if you get what I mean. Anyhow: With the comp strats, surely LB and IMP are objectively better than the rest of the list, no? What I mean by a tier-list is taking what you did, and ordering each strategy objectively- even if the benefits are only very minuscule- based on benefits. It would make balancing far more easy, and allow all players to keep up with things better. Your list as it is already does a good job of accomplishing this, I'm just saying we should take it a step further.

Custom Strategies.