Mass route/unit balancing/make-more-interesting-ing

[Tombi]

I used the word "suck" on purpose, while they don't suck, they are not well balanced, and experienced and skilled players can clearly see this. It is not just me Tombi (as you can see Polo in his original suggestion scrapped the two routes).

I very much enjoy your "go" at me, but what I want to do is not "make it easier for myself to win by 'balancing the game'". I want to make the routes actually worth being picked in FTW alliances, so that the people who actually enjoy them, and want to play in such alliances, can be given the opportunity to play them.

Yes i see your point F0xx it would be worthwhile having equally balanced routes so FTW alliances could tactically outplay other alliances but, and a very big but not everyone plays FTW and the routes that aren't so good is the reason why some people play. The game isn't exclusively FTW mainly for enjoyment and at the moment people are getting enjoyment out of playing routes that might not be perfectly balanced. a group of FTW players want the game balanced to there liking but you have too look at the bigger picture, most of the community play for fun then ftw not ftw then for fun so i think taking out the fantasy route(s) however unbalanced and not liked they are would be a big mistake in trying to keep the playerbase up

 

[Polo]

I hope everyone can stick to the topic and not go off on rants about how people only want to balance the game to benefit themselves (honestly - nobody is going to do that unless they want to play the same route for the rest of their bush-life) or how they don't want something changed/removed purely because they like the idea/concept of the name of the unit.

The whole "I like the Vampires/Dragons so I want to keep those routes" arguement is utterly retarded. How the game plays is far more important than the names used. We can rename any route/units to satisfy the playerbase. Hell, I'd still play a route even if the units were called "Unit 1", "Unit 2", etc. So long as the routes/units are balanced. How about renaming all the Protestor route (once these changes have been inplemented) as it reuses a lot of the Fantasy concepts/units and political crap might put some people off the game?

As to whether routes are good, the link in my first post leads to a discussion about how good the routes are, please use that thread for feedback about that and this thread for feedback about the actual changes I suggested or any of your own suggestions.

As an aside, the basic why I rate routes is by asking myself "would I play [route] in an ally, as a solo, or not at all?" I'm not trying to say that my opinion is the best or should be taken as fact, it's just the opinion of an experienced/good player that these changes should be implemented.

 

[Tombi]

I hope everyone can stick to the topic and not go off on rants about how people only want to balance the game to benefit themselves (honestly - nobody is going to do that unless they want to play the same route for the rest of their bush-life) or how they don't want something changed/removed purely because they like the idea/concept of the name of the unit.

The whole "I like the Vampires/Dragons so I want to keep those routes" arguement is utterly retarded. How the game plays is far more important than the names used. We can rename any route/units to satisfy the playerbase. Hell, I'd still play a route even if the units were called "Unit 1", "Unit 2", etc. So long as the routes/units are balanced. How about renaming all the Protestor route (once these changes have been inplemented) as it reuses a lot of the Fantasy concepts/units and political crap might put some people off the game?

As to whether routes are good, the link in my first post leads to a discussion about how good the routes are, please use that thread for feedback about that and this thread for feedback about the actual changes I suggested or any of your own suggestions.

As an aside, the basic why I rate routes is by asking myself "would I play [route] in an ally, as a solo, or not at all?" I'm not trying to say that my opinion is the best or should be taken as fact, it's just the opinion of an experienced/good player that these changes should be implemented.

Id disagree playing routes becuase you like the name is perfectly fine its a game after all for FUN but yes in the interest of 'balancing the game' would it not be better to drop the get rid of such and such routes because i don't like them and replace it with; lets try and balance such and such a route so that everyone who wants to play them can still play them and it will make the game better for everyone else also?

 

[Polo]

I hope everyone can stick to the topic and not go off on rants about how people only want to balance the game to benefit themselves (honestly - nobody is going to do that unless they want to play the same route for the rest of their bush-life) or how they don't want something changed/removed purely because they like the idea/concept of the name of the unit.

The whole "I like the Vampires/Dragons so I want to keep those routes" arguement is utterly retarded. How the game plays is far more important than the names used. We can rename any route/units to satisfy the playerbase. Hell, I'd still play a route even if the units were called "Unit 1", "Unit 2", etc. So long as the routes/units are balanced. How about renaming all the Protestor route (once these changes have been inplemented) as it reuses a lot of the Fantasy concepts/units and political crap might put some people off the game?

As to whether routes are good, the link in my first post leads to a discussion about how good the routes are, please use that thread for feedback about that and this thread for feedback about the actual changes I suggested or any of your own suggestions.

As an aside, the basic why I rate routes is by asking myself "would I play [route] in an ally, as a solo, or not at all?" I'm not trying to say that my opinion is the best or should be taken as fact, it's just the opinion of an experienced/good player that these changes should be implemented.

Id disagree playing routes becuase you like the name is perfectly fine its a game after all for FUN but yes in the interest of 'balancing the game' would it not be better to drop the get rid of such and such routes because i don't like them and replace it with; lets try and balance such and such a route so that everyone who wants to play them can still play them and it will make the game better for everyone else also?

As I said, units can be renamed to satisfy the playerbase. And by me not liking a route, I meant I don't like the stats/style/etc of the route, not the names. I don't give a crap what you call anything in the game so long as it's balanced and interesting.

The way to make the game better, imo, IS to remove the fantasy route and reuse a few of the units, as suggested. This isn't because I dislike Vampires or whatever, it's because the units don't fit into the game well. They don't provide anything really unique and they make the game as a whole hard to balance. If it was up to me, I'd have addressed some of the routes (like Extremist, VD, Thief, Dogs - as done in my suggestion) way before I even thought of implementing another route (fantasy).

 

[Silence]

I used the word "suck" on purpose, while they don't suck, they are not well balanced, and experienced and skilled players can clearly see this. It is not just me Tombi (as you can see Polo in his original suggestion scrapped the two routes).

I very much enjoy your "go" at me, but what I want to do is not "make it easier for myself to win by 'balancing the game'". I want to make the routes actually worth being picked in FTW alliances, so that the people who actually enjoy them, and want to play in such alliances, can be given the opportunity to play them.

Yes i see your point F0xx it would be worthwhile having equally balanced routes so FTW alliances could tactically outplay other alliances but, and a very big but not everyone plays FTW and the routes that aren't so good is the reason why some people play. The game isn't exclusively FTW mainly for enjoyment and at the moment people are getting enjoyment out of playing routes that might not be perfectly balanced. a group of FTW players want the game balanced to there liking but you have too look at the bigger picture, most of the community play for fun then ftw not ftw then for fun so i think taking out the fantasy route(s) however unbalanced and not liked they are would be a big mistake in trying to keep the playerbase up

[22:19] <@Silence> XxX, finally got to tombi's post,,,
[22:19] <@XxX> he's a moron >.<
[22:19] <@Silence> It was *****
[22:19] <@Silence> Ya =P
[22:19] <@Silence> His justification is awful =P
[22:19] <@Silence> The flow, awful
[22:19] <@Silence> And wtf is he arguing =P
[22:19] <@XxX> lol
[22:21] <@Silence> And he mis spelt because =P
[22:21] <@Silence> ffs its too difficult to read his posts, thats his brilliance
[22:21] <@XxX> rofl
[22:24] <@ZzZ>
[22:24] <@ZzZ> hmm
[22:24] <@ZzZ> i might start replying now..
[22:24] <@Silence> You cant
[22:24] <@ZzZ> ? :s
[22:24] <@Silence> Theres no way to understand tombi
[22:24] <@ZzZ> i meant to polo's post
[22:25] <@Silence> Oh
[22:25] <@Silence> =P
[22:25] <@ZzZ> im basically just gonna ignore his
[22:25] <@Silence> rofl
[22:25] <@ZzZ> they are useless anyway
[22:25] <@Silence> Ya
[22:26] <@XxX> lol
[22:26] <@Silence> Im tempted to quote one of tombi's posts and just c+p this IRC convo

Unapproved by DA - Spam & Flamey.

 

[Ahead]

Id disagree playing routes becuase you like the name is perfectly fine its a game after all for FUN but yes in the interest of 'balancing the game' would it not be better to drop the get rid of such and such routes because i don't like them and replace it with; lets try and balance such and such a route so that everyone who wants to play them can still play them and it will make the game better for everyone else also?

[22:19] <@Silence> XxX, finally got to tombi's post,,,
[22:19] <@XxX> he's a moron >.<
[22:19] <@Silence> It was *****
[22:19] <@Silence> Ya =P
[22:19] <@Silence> His justification is awful =P
[22:19] <@Silence> The flow, awful
[22:19] <@Silence> And wtf is he arguing =P
[22:19] <@XxX> lol
[22:21] <@Silence> And he mis spelt because =P
[22:21] <@Silence> ffs its too difficult to read his posts, thats his brilliance
[22:21] <@XxX> rofl
[22:24] <@ZzZ>
[22:24] <@ZzZ> hmm
[22:24] <@ZzZ> i might start replying now..
[22:24] <@Silence> You cant
[22:24] <@ZzZ> ?
[22:24] <@Silence> Theres no way to understand tombi
[22:24] <@ZzZ> i meant to polo's post
[22:25] <@Silence> Oh
[22:25] <@Silence> =P
[22:25] <@ZzZ> im basically just gonna ignore his
[22:25] <@Silence> rofl
[22:25] <@ZzZ> they are useless anyway
[22:25] <@Silence> Ya
[22:26] <@XxX> lol
[22:26] <@Silence> Im tempted to quote one of tombi's posts and just c+p this IRC convo

I have opinions on several points in Polo's post and I will edit this post shortly to detail them, however for now I think this ends the Tombi "you doez this shizz 2 mek j00 win teh game! i dont needz to rebalance things to my advantage when i can noooooblock j00 out of teh game" argument. Also you will never win the DA award for "best sportsman in a nooblock with DA" with this attitude!


Moderated by Pinpower
Reason: Flame/Spam/Reposting removed content.
Infraction given: 1 Points

 

[CFalcon]

Agree completely with what you said you're trying to do. Here's my thoughts on the specific changes.

Packet Analysing - Idea's been floating around for a while now and would add alot to early game play, should defs be done, although make it scramble id's as has been said. Don't scramble eta's though, that would make it not really worth the delay on spies.

Fantasy Removal - tbh I think vampire route has kind of found a place in the game. Perhaps change the mummy unit to make that place solid. But gargs have a definite place in early/mid play, vamps could maybe use a tweak but have a place as an SA type unit that can also be used offensively against other SAs. Sorcs can go though. Some nice ideas on sorc route, but as has been said, if you can do ok with sorcs you'll do much better with anything else.

---- Extremists - Makes it worthwhile. Only worry is over the price of dragons, considering their high init and how you've taken their armour down.
---- VDs - All looks nice. Sorcs with new init, higher health and damage look like they could be very strong though. Whether overpowered would depend on whether those stars are high or low end.
---- POM - Better balanced, makes landing on a PoM more realistic, although maybe a star of health added to gurus if they are going to become the main INN stopper, which for alliances will mean taking repeated hits from ALL targeters? Wouldn't want to detract from PoMs land blocking ability too much.

SO - Stealth Gardeners are a brilliant idea.
---- Bunker change will make them more attackable, but it would still look to be preferable to flak rather than kill. Perhaps change Bunkers to target ALL/LET to make flakking less attractive and making attacking with LETs not quite as dangerous?
---- Puppet changes look sensible. Just change the name of steel walls!

Thugs - Biker change is sensible. TL cost change, er, if you want. Means you can buy 16m instead of 15m. Arsonist change very much needed, yours looks as good as any and links in well with the eta 3 land run theme. Like the use of NLT, as a class it's underused. Dogs and Nutters changes make sense.

Mil - Private change looks awesome, one of my favourite suggestions here. But tbh, officer change looks kinda poor, purely because of the immobile part. I'd rather have officers really.
---- Apache change; I'd want to see a price cut if my apaches aren't going to kill as many LETs. I don't think tractor flakking is a big enough issue to justify that cut in LET killing. Striker shouldn't *just* be about armour killing.
---- Paratrooper change leaves me with a 'meh' feeling. Probably just me not understanding well enough where it would fit in. Harriers defs need a boost, I'd like to see harrier heavy become a reasonable option. Don't be so timid about boosting their health a little!

Robotics, agreed, pretty much fine as they are. Just give me cyborg soldiers back

 

[harriergirl]

grrr. I didn't say I liked it because of the name. Although i can understand why you think that. I like the theme...

Nor did I claim it's perfect or doesn't need tweaking. I think it's unfair to scrap it because a few math crunching players dislike it. As far as play, again, I've found vampires to be very flexible

What do they offer that is unique? Converting. I believe we had a whole conversation in another thread about the difference between the two. Zombies are self replicating, no other unit until nanobots did this. Vampires convert into a lesser vampire ( we won't argue that unit's merits atm) but this is a theme. Whether you play necromancy/undead in Video Games, Card games, MMorpg or Bushtarion. The theme is the same, self replicating- low hp units- en mass. And whether you think the route is balanced within Bushtarion or not ( and again, I agree it could use tweaking) what Azzer has provided does a very good job imho of capturing the spirit of that theme.

It would be utterly retarded - as polo so delicately put it- to scrap routes so traditional and beloved by gaming society.

 

[Polo]

The fantasy units that got re-integrated would have to be renamed. You can't have a "dragon" in a route themed as "protestors".

I think some of the units would work in some routes. If not, we can come up with weird "fantasy" names for units that people would enjoy but would fit in with a specific route.

I also think that given the volume of players that enjoy playing the various fantasy branches, it seems a shame to just scrap it altogether because you don't "like" it - if they can't be given a specific theme (we seem to be lacking a "self-generating" army route, bribing a different army doesn't count... and I can't see any route themed hugely towards "anti-health/living units, rubbish against armour/vehicles" particularly... gaps?), then either invent a theme or keep them as a "generalised" route, and find a way to remove the bonuses without removing their purpose/functionality/strengths

I'll address this in a bit once I've finished quoting other people.

It seems you're adding in a lot of NLT units, but nothing to counteract them. Overall I agree with removing the fantasy routes as they really don't do anything that other routes have already done.

I don't think I've added that many NLT units? Only the military and thug ones and thugs have NLT anyway. However, based on feedback I'm thinking the Military Barricades unit may not fit into the route too well but would still keep the Military Police unit. Also non-lets are slightly more vulnerable with some of the changes.

I don't like the removal of INN targeting on POMs though. With the addition of so many other NLT units that fire before Gurus and target them, POMs would get run out of the game.

Well Serfs would be removed so it's only "Arsonists" that would fire before gurus/poms instead of Bikers - pretty much the same as now. But this idea was more of a "I wonder what people will think of this, dunno how it'll work out" idea and isn't too important in the grand scheme of things.

Packet Analysing - Idea's been floating around for a while now and would add alot to early game play, should defs be done, although make it scramble id's as has been said. Don't scramble eta's though, that would make it not really worth the delay on spies.

Agreed pretty much. I would reduce the cost I suggested for each scan use though as they're very expensive atm.

Fantasy Removal - tbh I think vampire route has kind of found a place in the game. Perhaps change the mummy unit to make that place solid. But gargs have a definite place in early/mid play, vamps could maybe use a tweak but have a place as an SA type unit that can also be used offensively against other SAs. Sorcs can go though. Some nice ideas on sorc route, but as has been said, if you can do ok with sorcs you'll do much better with anything else.

Out of the 2 Fantasy branches, Vamps are definitely the more useful and do sort of have a place in the game but I think there's only a couple of units in the route that are decent, the rest seem to be there just to fill up the quota. But as I said in reply to Azzer's post, I'll address this a bit further down.

---- Extremists - Makes it worthwhile. Only worry is over the price of dragons, considering their high init and how you've taken their armour down.
---- VDs - All looks nice. Sorcs with new init, higher health and damage look like they could be very strong though. Whether overpowered would depend on whether those stars are high or low end.
---- POM - Better balanced, makes landing on a PoM more realistic, although maybe a star of health added to gurus if they are going to become the main INN stopper, which for alliances will mean taking repeated hits from ALL targeters? Wouldn't want to detract from PoMs land blocking ability too much.

Stats and prices are there more as a general guideline, not as fact. As you say, it depends how low or high the stars are.

Robotics, agreed, pretty much fine as they are. Just give me cyborg soldiers back

This is one of the things I was going to say when I bothered to write something for Robotics. I'd definitely add in CSs as an alternative to Nanobots (gives players slightly more customization in their route like Spec Ops has).

So, onto the whole Vamp/Fantasy thing as I said...

I'm still sure that the Sorc sub route should be removed. It has no "identity" and is just a rehash of Thug imo. It's also very rarely played, almost as rarely as VD, last-tick prot, dogs and thief are. But its units, with alterations, do fit in nicely with the whole Prot/Thug hybrid routes so can be reused there. I also see nothing wrong with having a "Magic/Fantasy" side of Protestors. Maybe change the names a bit to make them more mage-like so they sort of cast magic or mind control or something instead of using guns and stuff. I dunno, I'm not a fantasy guy.

As for Vamps, I do like that one unit in the route but not the route as a whole, hence trying to reuse it on the Bunker sub-route. However, instead Bunkers could be left as they are (well, with a reduction in cost and firepower for Bunkers and Sentries) and a 4th sub-route of Special Ops introduced (as I feel Spec Ops is the most appropriate route for Vampires).

We could have something like:

SGT
[Choice of 3]
Ninja
Werewolves?
Zombies
Vampires

Unit names can be changed to maybe be slightly more Spec Ops-y but still Fantasy like. Can keep them as they are though. *Shrug*

To Azzer's post earlier: this can be a strong against health, rubbish against armour, self-generating route. Obviously the first 3 units are just generic Spec Ops but then we get the first Fantasy type unit. This can be whatever really, maybe with a low conversion rate. Then we have Zombies in the normal place of Cloners. This is because Zombies have a high conversion rate (could up this even more along with price?) so do a similar job to Cloners but stick to the self-generating principle. Then we finally get Vampires with their Lesser Vampire generation (maybe up the conversion rate and price too?).

Overall, this should fill the niche that Azzer mentioned.

---

However, if people/Azzer are really adamant that they don't want to alter Fantasy - I still want to push the changes to last-tick prot, thug, military and briber just to balance things overall and introduce a few new concepts for us experienced/bored players.

 

[Antinoobkiller]

I dont like this. Its TOO much changes. If some of them were to happen I hope they dont come all togheter at same time.

And let fantasy route stay but give them something more. I dont know what but something. OK

OK ITS MY OPINIOIN.

Plz dont do this. I would get so frustrated to rework all my tactics -,,-

 

[Ahead]

I agree with fantasy, neither routes really add anything to the game, and having played both for a full round in W1 I can agree that you can play other routes a lot better than them.

Love the idea of Packet Analysis, not sure whether I agree with other people's opinions about whether IDs should be scrambled though, as it would allow for more earlier wars if they weren't.

Last tick prot suggestions look good and would improve the route significantly on how it is atm. Possibly increase the cost of extremists to around 57k with those stats, and reduce dragon to maybe 80k but apart from that I like those changes.

Great ideas for the VD sub-route, particularly good that VDs can strip PoMs. Possibly increase sorcs' init though as with those stats and firing that early, they look a tad too powerful.

Nice change to PoMs, nothing more to add.

Personally I would make stealth gardeners only plant around 500 seeds each, 1000 for a 10k eta 2 revealing stealth unit is a bit high imo. Where would you put them in the route though? As an alternative to stealth harvs?

I do really like the idea of moving vamps into the bunker route. They are more of a defensive unit and I agree with your other reasoning. Possibly just remove sentries and replace them with vamps I'm thinking - with the removal of PS, it means you can become allied in the round and makes the route more useful.

Personally I would scrap the arsonist unit and replace it with an INN bribing unit (as I've suggested before on IRC), because as the route is supposed to be specialised for stealing and keeping hold of land, another layer to kill flak (and bribe it so that it can be used on your attacks instead) makes sense to me. I would have it firing between terrors and TLs, and be around 40k, but not getting great ratios on flak (1:2-3 maybe).
Either that or, keeping with your suggestion for them, reduce their damage and make them stun, so that they can be used effectively with bikers to prevent a PoM from firing - and then kill.

I agree with swapping attack dogs with nutters, that is definitely needed. If that means they come out too early then you could increase the dev eta by around 10% and reduce the nutter dev by a similar amount.

I'm not entirely sure about the priv/officer alternatives tbh. The first one is ok - a weak self-sweeping disabler but I'd be inclined to change the second one to a serf type unit that can stop NLTs/sweepers early game, and then maybe swap the two units round so the serf-type unit comes out first.

I'll post my views on striker and harrier changes later, I want to think about them a bit more first But I do really like most of the changes - personally I don't see the reason for keeping un-used routes, and think it would be more beneficial to the game if they were changed to make them more useful in more situations. Good suggestions Polo!

 

[MattM]

I'm only posting to add my voice to the 'against the changes' group. It's just too much. Whilst I can see that some of these suggestions would be beneficial- giving the extremist route more surviviability makes sense, and switching attack dogs/nutters also would be a positive change- I just do not see the point in many of the others. I agree with what Azzer/HG said- this game isn't just baout the number-crunchers and catering for balance. Screw balance. These routes have worked for as long as I have played it, and I disagree that the fantasy route is pointless, I have found it extremely fun to play.

When it comes down to it, I think this is the key- the routes have to be fun to play and they are. Nobody likes getting beaten by another route and finding a lot of zeroes lurking around; but it happens to everyone. I don't think we should spoil the fun of the game for the benefit of the 'elite' few who want perfect balance.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the time you've put into this suggestion, Polo, and I think some of the changes need to be considered. As I have said, buffing the prot-fanatic branch is a good move, and I feel that scrapping the EMP in favour of a slightly changed paratrooper is also for the benefit of the route. On the other hand, some of the other changes I really couldn't disagree more with- PoM change, no just no; adding of an anti-flak early military unit- no, one of the drawbacks to going a military route is the early round flak weakness, you accept this when you decide to play the route.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

 

[f0xx]

I'm only posting to add my voice to the 'against the changes' group. It's just too much. Whilst I can see that some of these suggestions would be beneficial- giving the extremist route more surviviability makes sense, and switching attack dogs/nutters also would be a positive change- I just do not see the point in many of the others. I agree with what Azzer/HG said- this game isn't just baout the number-crunchers and catering for balance. Screw balance. These routes have worked for as long as I have played it, and I disagree that the fantasy route is pointless, I have found it extremely fun to play.

When it comes down to it, I think this is the key- the routes have to be fun to play and they are. Nobody likes getting beaten by another route and finding a lot of zeroes lurking around; but it happens to everyone. I don't think we should spoil the fun of the game for the benefit of the 'elite' few who want perfect balance.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the time you've put into this suggestion, Polo, and I think some of the changes need to be considered. As I have said, buffing the prot-fanatic branch is a good move, and I feel that scrapping the EMP in favour of a slightly changed paratrooper is also for the benefit of the route. On the other hand, some of the other changes I really couldn't disagree more with- PoM change, no just no; adding of an anti-flak early military unit- no, one of the drawbacks to going a military route is the early round flak weakness, you accept this when you decide to play the route.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

Did you just say... "screw balance"?

I can't really take a post which contains this phrase in it seriously...

 

[MattM]

And that is why the majority of people don't take you seriously, f0xx.

 

[Ahead]

Sorry MattM but I don't see how balancing routes can be bad for the game :? It's not just for the "hardcore number-crunchers", surely it will benefit everyone? Having a route like extremists that a noob might decide to go because he is interested in is surely highly detrimental to the game and the playerbase. Do you think this player is likely to continue playing after he's played this highly specialised, imbalanced route?

Also, I'd like to ask WHY you enjoyed playing fantasy? Yeh sure I enjoyed it to an extent when I played it but I definitely would have had more fun with another route that round. If you enjoy playing a weaker route for a "challenge" then there are plenty of other "challenges" to be found, without forcing the game to keep a route purely because it ISN'T as good as some others. If you found the concept of the units fun then you won't be losing out with Polo's suggestion as he has implemented the 3 main units from the route (Dragons, Sorcs, Sirens) into other routes, so you won't lose this fun mechanics aspect.

How many people do you think played thug thief or extremists in the whole of the playerbase last round? I would be surprised if it reached double figures for extermists tbh.

I really don't see how you can argue against changing things. These aren't "too many changes", they are changes that are needed tbh, and any changes that are needed should be heavily considered, regardless of the number of them and whether it is "oh noes way tooooooooo hard for my little brain to take in in one go ".

 

[Ahead]

Sorry MattM but I don't see how balancing routes can be bad for the game :? It's not just for the "hardcore number-crunchers", surely it will benefit everyone? Having a route like extremists that a noob might decide to go because he is interested in politics and extremism is surely highly detrimental to the game and the playerbase. Do you think this player is likely to continue playing after he's played this highly specialised, imbalanced route?

Also, I'd like to ask WHY you enjoyed playing fantasy? Yeh sure I enjoyed it to an extent when I played it but I definitely would have had more fun with another route that round. If you enjoy playing a weaker route for a "challenge" then there are plenty of other "challenges" to be found, without forcing the game to keep a route purely because it ISN'T as good as some others. If you found the concept of the units fun then you won't be losing out with Polo's suggestion as he has implemented the 3 main units from the route (Dragons, Sorcs, Sirens) into other routes, so you won't lose this fun mechanics aspect.

How many people do you think played thug thief or extremists in the whole of the playerbase last round? I would be surprised if it reached double figures for extermists tbh.

I really don't see how you can argue against changing things. These aren't "too many changes", they are changes that are needed tbh, and any changes that are needed should be heavily considered, regardless of the number of them and whether it is "oh noes way tooooooooo hard for my little brain to take in in one go ".

 

[Dark_Angel]

Its whether strengthening extremists should come at the cost of abolishing a route that, like it or not, people play and like.

Polo to be fair mate you've got a lot of material there, but you've gone about it all wrong IMO (at least the presentation of your proposal). You should have just created fresh units for the extremist/thief route rather than suggesting fantasy should be abolished and its units transferred to underused routes.

Keep fantasy. And keep your proposal, just don't put it across as if in order for these changes to work fantasy has to dissapear. You've got solutions for these underused routes that can standalone without the need to get rid of fantasy. You're going to have a much harder time getting this implemented if you insist this proposal can only go ahead if you fantasy is killed off. Because people do play and like fantasy.

Your suggestions for strengthening/making underused routes more workable are good. Take fantasy out of the equation and you'll have a more appealing suggestion IMO.

 

[MattM]

Firstly, I disagree that most of these changes are needed. I have already said that I approve of the extremist/nutter route additions and I think these would have a positive effect on the game. Particularly for the reason you state- I think currently if a beginner were to take on the extremist/nutter route first up he/she would have serious issues.

However, I think, for example, that the suggest to change Political Masterminds is a shocking idea- there is absolutely nothing wrong with that route as it is; and similarly for the other routes (except puppets, I can see an argument for some slight changes there).

My objection to the changes from an average player point of view, is that it's just chopping and changing everything- everything we've become used to in this game too much. I am of the belief that the majority of the playerbase is in a similar position- not always challenging to be the top, not always on at ridiculous o'clock to be rank 1 etc. but plays the game to have fun. I currently think that the game's route set-up works, and I don't think that any problems with the route set-up are the reason that this game is sadly in decline. I won't get into the reasons I do here, it's not the right place.

As far as the fantasy route goes- I played vamp last round, and I found every minute of it enjoyable. Vamp is an excellent niche is the top anti-SO route, with the ability to give thugs, mili RPG/Harrier and sorcs a run for their money. Also, with the right set-up it also isn't overly weak vs robots, though of course there will always be a disadvantage there. Further, I like the convert element of the zombie/vampire, it allows people to go 'bribing' as it were, without having to suffer the drawbacks of the puppet route, or having to go PoM to get hypnos (i.e. no LET back-up, people like killing!). I've played sorc twice, and I found the route versatile, and with the right tactics able to give many other routes a fair battle. I like the lastability of dragons, and the stunning option adds another great element to the route; something no other route can give.

I think that is the biggest accolade of the fantasy route- it is versatile. They're almost there to cover the possibility that you don't want to go a route with an outstanding weakness- if I think about it, sure there is a robo weakness, but a robo looks elsewhere first, and sure there is a striker weakness, but a striker looks elsewhere first. I would wager that these routes were used just as much as most of the other routes in the last few rounds (with the possible exceptions of robo PA, mili striker & PoM). I think scrapping these routes is a detriment to the game- and I think fobbing this argument off with 'oh, we'll ship them into other routes' doesn't work. It ruins the other routes.

 

[CFalcon]

My objection to the changes from an average player point of view, is that it's just chopping and changing everything- everything we've become used to in this game too much. I am of the belief that the majority of the playerbase is in a similar position- not always challenging to be the top, not always on at ridiculous o'clock to be rank 1 etc. but plays the game to have fun. I currently think that the game's route set-up works, and I don't think that any problems with the route set-up are the reason that this game is sadly in decline. I won't get into the reasons I do here, it's not the right place.

I couldn't disagree more. We've had fantasy now for 3 years, and the other sub-routes for 5 years now. Change is definitely needed to keep up interest, and if in the process better balance is achieved, then so much the better. I'm not quite sure where the idea that "balance is just to benefit the number crunchers" came from. Really, the hardcore players benefit a lot more from in-balance, as they know how to exploit it.

Can you remember how much excitement there was when fantasy was introduced? Or how much excitement there was when the new sub-routes came out? This game could really use a boost like that right now.

I think though that it's becoming clear now that there's too much opposition to the removal of fantasy for that to happen. Perhaps work could be done on mummies and witches (the two least used units from each route), to make fantasy more relevant?

 

[MattM]

If people want new routes, I'd rather have a completely new route than see the current set-up changed.