Nerf PD by -2 defense

Imp>

Why do you want to make your own thread when this change is already being discussed?

How about posting your proposal in one of the already made threads?

-2, are you fucking serious?

-2 defense to what?

-2 to infantry will cripple PD as a viable strategy.

Napisano od International, 06.09.2015 at 18:27

-2 defense to what?

-2 to infantry will cripple PD as a viable strategy.

it won't, it will return it to its status quo

Napisano od Tundy, 06.09.2015 at 18:47

Napisano od International, 06.09.2015 at 18:27

-2 defense to what?

-2 to infantry will cripple PD as a viable strategy.

it won't, it will return it to its status quo

No or i spam ra tanks

Napisano od Htin, 06.09.2015 at 18:57

Napisano od Tundy, 06.09.2015 at 18:47

Napisano od International, 06.09.2015 at 18:27

-2 defense to what?

-2 to infantry will cripple PD as a viable strategy.

it won't, it will return it to its status quo

No or i spam ra tanks

Go ahead and spam them, idgaf

Napisano od Tundy, 06.09.2015 at 18:59

Napisano od Htin, 06.09.2015 at 18:57

Napisano od Tundy, 06.09.2015 at 18:47

Napisano od International, 06.09.2015 at 18:27

-2 defense to what?

-2 to infantry will cripple PD as a viable strategy.

it won't, it will return it to its status quo

No or i spam ra tanks

Go ahead and spam them, idgaf

i will say reduce it -1 defence in cities

Napisano od Tundy, 06.09.2015 at 18:47

Napisano od International, 06.09.2015 at 18:27

-2 defense to what?

-2 to infantry will cripple PD as a viable strategy.

it won't, it will return it to its status quo

Just read the topic on the "bug" being fixed. Yeah... you're right with that.

But Perfect Defence is... well... "Perfect Defence." Maybe -1 range and/or -1 attack would be a more interesting nerf. The PD player will thus get some massively overpowered units, but at the cost of absolutely terrible expansion.

Napisano od clovis1122, 06.09.2015 at 17:35

Why do you want to make your own thread when this change is already being discussed?

How about posting your proposal in one of the already made threads?

Sorry master clovis

Zzzzz absolutely no support. I should enemy you for posting this.

Touch it, I cut you.

Napisano od minusSeven, 07.09.2015 at 08:33

Zzzzz absolutely no support. I should enemy you for posting this.

The Age of Godlike Defence is upon us, it will be trench warfare without the need for trenches, just endless stacking...

All these competitive players act like they're alone in the world... have you ever heard of scenarios?

Napisano od Tundy, 06.09.2015 at 16:16

I suggest -1 defence instead of -2 because of blitz ukraine

When you play pd, you get an advantage only when defending. You can't expand like crazy, it is some kind of disadvantage at the same time. It is perfectly balanced now. Adjustments can be made to other strategies tho.
It takes lots of tactical ability to play pd, I guess that's why you dont like it.

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 05:18

All these competitive players act like they're alone in the world... have you ever heard of scenarios?

100s of scenarios, different units, different layouts, incomes, how on earth would we balance the strats bearing them all in mind? and why even would we when atwar was built around the default map and its units which has become the competitive standard? Not to mention that a mapmaker already has control over their units stats and can balance them and the income with the strats in mind. And of all the mapmakers on aw, a mere handful do that. No sorry, nobody on atwar is going to alter a strat because its not balanced on king of the hill.

Its funny that you make a thread about this yet have no idea what you are talking about lol.
I think clovis already said everything to be said.

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 06:50

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 05:18

All these competitive players act like they're alone in the world... have you ever heard of scenarios?

100s of scenarios, different units, different layouts, incomes, how on earth would we balance the strats bearing them all in mind? and why even would we when atwar was built around the default map and its units which has become the competitive standard? Not to mention that a mapmaker already has control over their units stats and can balance them and the income with the strats in mind. And of all the mapmakers on aw, a mere handful do that. No sorry, nobody on atwar is going to alter a strat because its not balanced on king of the hill.

Only a few certain scenarios are played, and they're based around using imp. Also atWar was originally about the default map but it has evolved past that. And about what you said about changing the stats, we don't have complete liberty of what the stats of a unit can be.

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 08:42

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 06:50

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 05:18

All these competitive players act like they're alone in the world... have you ever heard of scenarios?

100s of scenarios, different units, different layouts, incomes, how on earth would we balance the strats bearing them all in mind? and why even would we when atwar was built around the default map and its units which has become the competitive standard? Not to mention that a mapmaker already has control over their units stats and can balance them and the income with the strats in mind. And of all the mapmakers on aw, a mere handful do that. No sorry, nobody on atwar is going to alter a strat because its not balanced on king of the hill.

Only a few certain scenarios are played, and they're based around using imp. Also atWar was originally about the default map but it has evolved past that. And about what you said about changing the stats, we don't have complete liberty of what the stats of a unit can be.

then how do changes to strats other than lb imp if and blitz affect you? A mapmaker who opts for all "other" units only needs to consider these 4. AW has evolved, but the default map and its units are the foundation. And as of yet, there is no scenario on which players play competitively for elo or other such rewards. And even if there was, responsibility for the optimisation of the gameplay would fall on the mapmaker, not the admins.

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 08:51

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 08:42

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 06:50

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 05:18

All these competitive players act like they're alone in the world... have you ever heard of scenarios?

100s of scenarios, different units, different layouts, incomes, how on earth would we balance the strats bearing them all in mind? and why even would we when atwar was built around the default map and its units which has become the competitive standard? Not to mention that a mapmaker already has control over their units stats and can balance them and the income with the strats in mind. And of all the mapmakers on aw, a mere handful do that. No sorry, nobody on atwar is going to alter a strat because its not balanced on king of the hill.

Only a few certain scenarios are played, and they're based around using imp. Also atWar was originally about the default map but it has evolved past that. And about what you said about changing the stats, we don't have complete liberty of what the stats of a unit can be.

then how do changes to strats other than lb imp if and blitz affect you? A mapmaker who opts for all "other" units only needs to consider these 4. AW has evolved, but the default map and its units are the foundation. And as of yet, there is no scenario on which players play competitively for elo or other such rewards. And even if there was, responsibility for the optimisation of the gameplay would fall on the mapmaker, not the admins.

Because with the PD boost countries which normally were set for imp now are better with PD. A good example is Germany in The War to End All Wars. Normally it should be imp but now with this PD it will just stack trenches with tons of inantry and nothing will get through thus making the game impossible to win for Entete. Also generals are an important factor aswell and they don't boost Ground: Other units. Right now the most popular scenario map maker is Aetius, and his units have evolved way past the original atWar units. The game should be about having fun, not about collecting elo or whatever other ranking there is.

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 09:03

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 08:51

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 08:42

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 06:50

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 05:18

All these competitive players act like they're alone in the world... have you ever heard of scenarios?

100s of scenarios, different units, different layouts, incomes, how on earth would we balance the strats bearing them all in mind? and why even would we when atwar was built around the default map and its units which has become the competitive standard? Not to mention that a mapmaker already has control over their units stats and can balance them and the income with the strats in mind. And of all the mapmakers on aw, a mere handful do that. No sorry, nobody on atwar is going to alter a strat because its not balanced on king of the hill.

Only a few certain scenarios are played, and they're based around using imp. Also atWar was originally about the default map but it has evolved past that. And about what you said about changing the stats, we don't have complete liberty of what the stats of a unit can be.

then how do changes to strats other than lb imp if and blitz affect you? A mapmaker who opts for all "other" units only needs to consider these 4. AW has evolved, but the default map and its units are the foundation. And as of yet, there is no scenario on which players play competitively for elo or other such rewards. And even if there was, responsibility for the optimisation of the gameplay would fall on the mapmaker, not the admins.

Because with the PD boost countries which normally were set for imp now are better with PD. A good example is Germany in The War to End All Wars. Normally it should be imp but now with this PD it will just stack trenches with tons of inantry and nothing will get through thus making the game impossible to win for Entete. Also generals are an important factor aswell and they don't boost Ground: Other units. Right now the most popular scenario map maker is Aetius, and his units have evolved way past the original atWar units. The game should be about having fun, not about collecting elo or whatever other ranking there is.

All strategy games undergo balance changes based on competition at a higher level for balance and to keep the metagame from growing stale. I could name games like starcraft, dota etc as examples. AW is no different. The game itself is obviously fun(otherwise nobody would be playing it). People also have fun competing. Aetius is one of the few decent active mapmakers, if the balance of one of his maps is disturbed, he would fix it as is his responsibility.

Anyway these defensive changes will be reversed soon.

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 09:26

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 09:03

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 08:51

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 08:42

Napisano od Permamuted, 08.09.2015 at 06:50

Napisano od Zephyrusu, 08.09.2015 at 05:18

All these competitive players act like they're alone in the world... have you ever heard of scenarios?

100s of scenarios, different units, different layouts, incomes, how on earth would we balance the strats bearing them all in mind? and why even would we when atwar was built around the default map and its units which has become the competitive standard? Not to mention that a mapmaker already has control over their units stats and can balance them and the income with the strats in mind. And of all the mapmakers on aw, a mere handful do that. No sorry, nobody on atwar is going to alter a strat because its not balanced on king of the hill.

Only a few certain scenarios are played, and they're based around using imp. Also atWar was originally about the default map but it has evolved past that. And about what you said about changing the stats, we don't have complete liberty of what the stats of a unit can be.

then how do changes to strats other than lb imp if and blitz affect you? A mapmaker who opts for all "other" units only needs to consider these 4. AW has evolved, but the default map and its units are the foundation. And as of yet, there is no scenario on which players play competitively for elo or other such rewards. And even if there was, responsibility for the optimisation of the gameplay would fall on the mapmaker, not the admins.

Because with the PD boost countries which normally were set for imp now are better with PD. A good example is Germany in The War to End All Wars. Normally it should be imp but now with this PD it will just stack trenches with tons of inantry and nothing will get through thus making the game impossible to win for Entete. Also generals are an important factor aswell and they don't boost Ground: Other units. Right now the most popular scenario map maker is Aetius, and his units have evolved way past the original atWar units. The game should be about having fun, not about collecting elo or whatever other ranking there is.

All strategy games undergo balance changes based on competition at a higher level for balance and to keep the metagame from growing stale. I could name games like starcraft, dota etc as examples. AW is no different. The game itself is obviously fun(otherwise nobody would be playing it). People also have fun competing. Aetius is one of the few decent active mapmakers, if the balance of one of his maps is disturbed, he would fix it as is his responsibility.

Anyway these defensive changes will be reversed soon.

So then I found out that khaleesi was not in syndicate anymore and went to mk.... and he was like 'mk is my new home now. I mean it was prettty random that he left as if he was never a part of syndicate but then suddenly got out of our lives ;_;. Rip.

No argument, just the autistic thumbs up emoji

Touch my PD and I will go ballistic.

Napisano od Guest, 08.09.2015 at 10:22

No argument, just the autistic thumbs up emoji

I am not going to waste my time writing a proper argument, most of the people in the forum are retarded and would not change their minds even if i provided them with the best argument in the world.

Now for those who are not retarded: PD was already strong and now with +2 defense inside a city is even stronger, what i propose is a initial and temporal -2 defense nerf until we come up with a better way to balance ALL the strats.

Napisano od Tundy, 08.09.2015 at 12:36

Napisano od Guest, 08.09.2015 at 10:22

No argument, just the autistic thumbs up emoji

I am not going to waste my time writing a proper argument, most of the people in the forum are retarded and would not change their minds even if i provided them with the best argument in the world.

Now for those who are not retarded: PD was already strong and now with +2 defense inside a city is even stronger, what i propose is a initial and temporal -2 defense nerf until we come up with a better way to balance ALL the strats.

Yes, and if you bothered reading the forum instead of making a new post, you'd know that mods are asking amok to revert the recent
change.
btw pd has +1 compared to other strats, in cities.

Napisano od Guest, 08.09.2015 at 12:39

Napisano od Tundy, 08.09.2015 at 12:36

Napisano od Guest, 08.09.2015 at 10:22

No argument, just the autistic thumbs up emoji

I am not going to waste my time writing a proper argument, most of the people in the forum are retarded and would not change their minds even if i provided them with the best argument in the world.

Now for those who are not retarded: PD was already strong and now with +2 defense inside a city is even stronger, what i propose is a initial and temporal -2 defense nerf until we come up with a better way to balance ALL the strats.

Yes, and if you bothered reading the forum instead of making a new post, you'd know that mods are asking amok to revert the recent change.

You see, the difference between my proposal and lao's proposal is that i want the bug to remain fixed and start rebalancing strats again, while lao wants the "bug" to be re-implemented.