LB Nerf

Guys just saying...

instead of continuing to nerf strats can we buff others to match them?
at the rate we're going every strat will be nostrat soon enough

Personally I don't think it needs a change to its critical chance because we need to think about this strat on a bigger picture other than just how it works on EU+

If we are going based solely off luck then we NEED to keep the critical change because that's exactly what makes the strategy unique hence it's name 'Lucky Bastard'.
Taking away the one thing that makes it unique will place it right next to strategies that are now obsolete. (RA, HW, and in some cases SM only because MOS does it so much better)

I say there should be a +20 or even +30 cost to all units considering the rolls it gives makes up for the lack in units you will be able to produce.

Someone quote me and let me know what you think.

Increase unit cost leave crit same as it is
without its luck it aint fun, we cant spam IF in world 50k RP games

Escrito por 4nic, 18.05.2018 at 02:38

Increase unit cost leave crit same as it is
without its luck it aint fun, we cant spam IF in world 50k RP games

i said to quote me if you agree smh

Escrito por PleaseMe, 18.05.2018 at 01:13

Personally I don't think it needs a change to its critical chance because we need to think about this strat on a bigger picture other than just how it works on EU+

If we are going based solely off luck then we NEED to keep the critical change because that's exactly what makes the strategy unique hence it's name 'Lucky Bastard'.
Taking away the one thing that makes it unique will place it right next to strategies that are now obsolete. (RA, HW, and in some cases SM only because MOS does it so much better)

I say there should be a +20 or even +30 cost to all units considering the rolls it gives makes up for the lack in units you will be able to produce.

Someone quote me and let me know what you think.

support

Escrito por LukeTan, 18.05.2018 at 00:51

Guys just saying...

instead of continuing to nerf strats can we buff others to match them?
at the rate we're going every strat will be nostrat soon enough

LB was already boosted, this is a 2nd degree tweak to that boost

in that case, we would have to boost every strat strongly and gw and ds slightly as well so we can get them to LB's strength...

Escrito por PleaseMe, 18.05.2018 at 01:13

Personally I don't think it needs a change to its critical chance because we need to think about this strat on a bigger picture other than just how it works on EU+

If we are going based solely off luck then we NEED to keep the critical change because that's exactly what makes the strategy unique hence it's name 'Lucky Bastard'.
Taking away the one thing that makes it unique will place it right next to strategies that are now obsolete. (RA, HW, and in some cases SM only because MOS does it so much better)

I say there should be a +20 or even +30 cost to all units considering the rolls it gives makes up for the lack in units you will be able to produce.

Someone quote me and let me know what you think.

it isn't going to take away the luck factor, but it will make the rolls more reasonable. Although increasing the cost will have the same effect for games with cost-restrictions.

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

the things that makes LB stand out even from GW and DS are

1. it doesn't require specific knowledge of the game or a certain amount of skill other than money-management (which all strats need anyway) unlike GW and DS which makes them possible to counter and to play on their weaknesses, and because of this
2. it can be played almost anywhere because it's a general strat

for a non-niche strat, it's quite op. it's like the reverse of imp but more boosted - and imp is already was of the strongest strats in the game

Escrito por Permamuted, 17.05.2018 at 21:54

Escrito por boywind2, 17.05.2018 at 21:46

I've beaten countless LB UK with my PD Germ. It's not OP. You guys need to stop whining.

agree i've beaten your ds ukr with my turk. Ds ukr is not op. You should stop whining.

What do you mean? DS isn't OP dude. LMAO.

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 05:06

it isn't going to take away the luck factor, but it will make the rolls more reasonable. Although increasing the cost will have the same effect for games with cost-restrictions.

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

the things that makes LB stand out even from GW and DS are

1. it doesn't require specific knowledge of the game or a certain amount of skill other than money-management (which all strats need anyway) unlike GW and DS which makes them possible to counter and to play on their weaknesses, and because of this
2. it can be played almost anywhere because it's a general strat

for a non-niche strat, it's quite op. it's like the reverse of imp but more boosted - and imp is already was of the strongest strats in the game

1. I think I have to disagree with you here my friend! LB requires understanding of TB, good rush tactics and quick thinking. In fact, I would say it is much more easier to play GW and DS because of how easily they can overexpand without having major consequences. With LB Ukraine it's very difficult to keep expanding while protecting your cities with infantries. GW you can just spam militia which are very cost effective and are pretty much equivalent to infantries. DS you can expand so fast with it's infantry/militia shredding potential that money never becomes a real issue.

2. You can argue the same thing with imp, GW, PD and etc. As a matter of fact, GW and imp are more versatile than LB. Have you seen anyone play LB in 3k or 5k? Nope, because anyone who would actually use this strat in such a low income setting is an idiot. It's not a general strat. It's a strat that you to pick a country with access to good income or a country that starts with a large sum of money.

I think LB is a niche strat. A strat that is suited for high income countries with lots of luck factor involved. Besides, imp isn't one of the strongest strategy in the game.

Escrito por PleaseMe, 18.05.2018 at 01:13

Personally I don't think it needs a change to its critical chance because we need to think about this strat on a bigger picture other than just how it works on EU+

If we are going based solely off luck then we NEED to keep the critical change because that's exactly what makes the strategy unique hence it's name 'Lucky Bastard'.
Taking away the one thing that makes it unique will place it right next to strategies that are now obsolete. (RA, HW, and in some cases SM only because MOS does it so much better)

I say there should be a +20 or even +30 cost to all units considering the rolls it gives makes up for the lack in units you will be able to produce.

Someone quote me and let me know what you think.

HW isn't obsolete. SM is still better than MOS because of the AT cost. Stealth don't get boost. Adding 20 or 30 cost to LB will literally make the strat obsolete. 90/100 cost infantry is ridiculous and insane.

Escrito por 1GodofWar1, 17.05.2018 at 22:36

Bad idea
the only strat that needs nerf is DS

DS isn't OP. Learn to play against it lmao.

Escrito por Froyer, 18.05.2018 at 00:39

Escrito por 1GodofWar1, 17.05.2018 at 22:36

Bad idea
the only strat that needs nerf is DS

Xaxaxa nice lie ds can be countered because shitty defence unit but lb op in attack and in defence with op crit lb tank can kill 2-3inf ez like ds heli and in defence lb inf rape inf and tank .

If you can show me a SS where LB 1 tank kills 3 infantry, I will agree with you. However, it is something that never happens unless stack bonus is applied. So don't derail the thread with misinformation.

Escrito por boywind2, 18.05.2018 at 06:10

Escrito por Froyer, 18.05.2018 at 00:39

Escrito por 1GodofWar1, 17.05.2018 at 22:36

Stop spamming, make a single message or i report for message farm !

Escrito por boywind2, 18.05.2018 at 06:01

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 05:06

1. I think I have to disagree with you here my friend! LB requires understanding of TB, good rush tactics and quick thinking. In fact, I would say it is much more easier to play GW and DS because of how easily they can overexpand without having major consequences. With LB Ukraine it's very difficult to keep expanding while protecting your cities with infantries. GW you can just spam militia which are very cost effective and are pretty much equivalent to infantries. DS you can expand so fast with it's infantry/militia shredding potential that money never becomes a real issue.

2. You can argue the same thing with imp, GW, PD and etc. As a matter of fact, GW and imp are more versatile than LB. Have you seen anyone play LB in 3k or 5k? Nope, because anyone who would actually use this strat in such a low income setting is an idiot. It's not a general strat. It's a strat that you to pick a country with access to good income or a country that starts with a large sum of money.

I think LB is a niche strat. A strat that is suited for high income countries with lots of luck factor involved. Besides, imp isn't one of the strongest strategy in the game.

1. an understanding of TBs, "good rush tactics", and quick thinking is literally what you need for any strat - I sense a troll. Also, you're using one very specific example of ukr in 3v3, but even then, if you overexpand with gw or ds then anybody who knows anything will rush you, so there are definitely major consequences for overexpansion (with any strat really). GW militia don't have inf range, which is why it needs a further dimension of understanding of micromanagement (keeping in mind your transports are nerfed as well). Also, your claim for DS only holds true if DS ukr is mindlessly rushing (and yes, unfortunately most ds ukr players do this, but still) if you're slowrolling money is very much an issue.

also slowrolling tactics > "good rush tactics", so your point just shows how much easier LB is to play than most other strats.

2. Yes, yes I have. LB rushes in 5k? LB west in 5k? GW is definitely not at all more versatile than LB, GW is the epitome of a niche strat. You can't play GW in spacious areas, and in rich settings other strats have the potential to pressure it hard early game. So really, if you look at the world map, you can only play GW in Africa, central Asia, Balkans, and South America. LB on the other hand? On all continents and in almost all regions. Even if you take the narrower example of 3v3, out of the 6/7 standard picks GW is only effective in 2 (Germ, Ukr) while LB in more. It's as much a general strat as imp is, just as it's reversed version - and stronger. Have you ever seen someone play imp in 15/25/50k? No, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say IMP is a niche strat only to be played in low fund settings. If you claim LB or imp to be niche strats then all the other strats are niche as well...

imp is one of the strongest strats in the competitive scene and the game overall, no doubt about that. Other strats may beat it in specific situations, but overall, not many can claim its usefulness in a multitude of settings so naturally. Ask anyone who has a high understanding of the game, they won't say imp OP, but they'll say it's definitely strong - one of the strongest in the game.

Escrito por boywind2, 18.05.2018 at 06:04

HW isn't obsolete. SM is still better than MOS because of the AT cost. Stealth don't get boost. Adding 20 or 30 cost to LB will literally make the strat obsolete. 90/100 cost infantry is ridiculous and insane.

Nobody can claim SM is better than MoS, they each have their own circumstances of use. Even in the EU context, SM ukr may be stronger, but trying playing my or Don's MoS ukr, you'll find out that it's not such a weak strat as you think : )

and yes, 90/100 cost inf is too much, but 80 cost inf and 40 (or even 35) cost militia is reasonable

Dat moment when sf stops to care and others starts to cry about same shits and receives support by half community

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 06:32

Have you ever seen someone play imp in 15/25/50k? No, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say IMP is a niche strat only to be played in low fund settings. If you claim LB or imp to be niche strats then all the other strats are niche as well...

imp in 50k is the best for india + learn to say nice in english please

Escrito por SyrianDevil, 18.05.2018 at 06:41

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 06:32

Have you ever seen someone play imp in 15/25/50k? No, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say IMP is a niche strat only to be played in low fund settings. If you claim LB or imp to be niche strats then all the other strats are niche as well...

imp in 50k is the best for india + learn to say nice in english please

Yeah true India is an exception because it's India xa

@Darth

Escrito por SyrianDevil, 18.05.2018 at 06:34

Dat moment when sf stops to care and others starts to cry about same shits and receives support by half community

Want to nerf LB without slightly removing the damn reason why LB existed?...

+10 cost..... there....

Dont underestimate a +10 cost though... that alone is enough to make a difference.... and probably one good solution to this "problem"

Remove all other strats and just leave pd

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 06:32

1. I think you read what I wrote wrong. Because in no way I talked about a specific example of Ukraine in 3v3. I also never said you should overexpand with GW either. What I said was that DS is able to overexpand incredibly fast while you can stack Kiev with any nearby militia you can find because of the Helicopters which can carry land units while shredding any infantry or militia with little to no effort. There is no such thing as micromanaging with GW. Anyone who has half a brain knows how to play and abuse GW. It is literally defend with militia and start spamming marines that are only 70 cost. Why do you say that slow rolling is more difficult than rushing? You think slow rolling with GW takes skill?

2. Ok, so you believe GW would lose to LB in 5k? 3k? LB west with 5k? What are you going to pick Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands or Portugal? GW can just go serbia or poland and still win because LB requires too much cash to expand faster than GW does. LB is more versatile than GW? Seriously? You play LB on SA? GME? I wasn't even talking about 3v3, but if you put it that way I can also say how many countries is LB effective with in eu 3k compared to GW? Yes, I do claim all the other strats are niche strats and I don't see the problem of saying that either. If you think imp is strong, then what is a balanced strat?

3. MoS is weak as Ukr. I don't care who yours or Don's MoS have beaten. It just doesn't have its place in EU...

Escrito por boywind2, 18.05.2018 at 07:43

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 06:32

3. MoS is weak as Ukr. I don't care who yours or Don's MoS have beaten. It just doesn't have its place in EU...

it doesn't when you actually know how to use navy transports in the north and utilize cheap fast submarines correctly limiting your investments for the first turn expansions into one AT only and still getting everything

Suck my dick

Escrito por boywind2, 18.05.2018 at 07:43

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 06:32

1. I think you read what I wrote wrong. Because in no way I talked about a specific example of Ukraine in 3v3. I also never said you should overexpand with GW either. What I said was that DS is able to overexpand incredibly fast while you can stack Kiev with any nearby militia you can find because of the Helicopters which can carry land units while shredding any infantry or militia with little to no effort. There is no such thing as micromanaging with GW. Anyone who has half a brain knows how to play and abuse GW. It is literally defend with militia and start spamming marines that are only 70 cost. Why do you say that slow rolling is more difficult than rushing? You think slow rolling with GW takes skill?

2. Ok, so you believe GW would lose to LB in 5k? 3k? LB west with 5k? What are you going to pick Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands or Portugal? GW can just go serbia or poland and still win because LB requires too much cash to expand faster than GW does. LB is more versatile than GW? Seriously? You play LB on SA? GME? I wasn't even talking about 3v3, but if you put it that way I can also say how many countries is LB effective with in eu 3k compared to GW? Yes, I do claim all the other strats are niche strats and I don't see the problem of saying that either. If you think imp is strong, then what is a balanced strat?

3. MoS is weak as Ukr. I don't care who yours or Don's MoS have beaten. It just doesn't have its place in EU...

1. You made a statement and gave the example of LB Ukr. My point is your example holds true only in specific situations such as that of Ukr. You can play like that with DS only with Ukr in 10k (and maybe Poland) because it starts with a lot of money, but with LB you can use it with random rushing and stacking in many more situations.

There is no micromanagement in GW? Lol... I really don't know what to say... It's all micromanagement. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, but with GW militia movement is key and anticipatory marine movement as well. If you don't constantly move your militia and marines then you die. And yes, of course, slowrolling with GW takes skill. Marines are strong and cheap and GW is OP, yes, but if you go up against anyone with half a brain, as you said, you will get pushed hard to the point where you can't take advantage of those cheap units. The best way to beat GW is to not let it unlock its potential; it's a lategame strat and a slowroll strat, and whoever understands that understands how to beat it.

Yes, GW and DS are OP, but less so than LB, as LB can be utilized in many more situations.

2. You're thinking 1v1... not everything is 1v1 you know, in 5k team games east is usually gw/imp and west is an expensive strat, one being so does not nullify the other...

You're missing the point here. GW is obviously more effective in high density low income areas, but LB can be used in more places simply because high density low income areas are only in specific places of the map. Furthermore, comparing 3k to 3v3 is futile because 3v3 is the standard, if you list all the countries GW is strong in in 3k then I'll just list all the countries LB is strong in in 10k, 15k, 25, 50k, etc.

Also, this is the google definition of niche:

adjective
adjective: niche

1.
denoting or relating to products, services, or interests that appeal to a small, specialized section of the population.
"other companies in this space had to adapt to being niche players"

All strategies cannot, by definition, be niche strats because then you'd be neglecting a large portion of the playerbase. In no way is imp a niche strat, that's just so wrong to say I don't know where to begin... I mean, if it can be used in most areas in most gamemodes then it certainly isn't Niche? Same goes for LB.

3. That's because you take a narrow perspective. Unit wise, it's like a GC with inf weaker by one defense and more expensive by 10, stronger main attacking units with extra range but more expensive, not to mention long range powerful air units when you have money (not even mentioning subs). In reality, it's just a more offensive and slightly more expensive version of GC with invisible attacking units. The fact that some people can actually play it shows that it does have a place in Europe, albeit not as prominently as SM or DS or GC ukr.

Also, I said imp is strong, and one of the strongest, but I never said it's not balanced. People don't complain about imp because it's reliable and not skewing to one portion of the playerbases' favor. Tbh strats are converging to a more balanced point now, it's only LB DS GW that stand out, LB being the most prominent, which is why we're discussing a nerf here. If LB is nerfed slightly, then strategies are at a stable state, for now.

edit: oh and yes, slowrolling requires more skill than rushing. True skill is knowing when to slowroll and when to rush, and not just always having one as default. If you compare, however, you will see that slowrolling requires an added dimension of thought.

Escrito por Your Laki, 18.05.2018 at 07:31

Remove all other strats and just leave pd

I disagree. People play less of strategy like SM because they seem weak next to LB and DS.

PD is op most of the time indeed but if it is going to be removed you will have the rebalance the whole map over again because lot of changes were made to fit atwar into it and for many countries it take pd to beat other countries.

Escrito por opi, 18.05.2018 at 08:48

Suck my dick

Lemme see...

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 08:52

Escrito por boywind2, 18.05.2018 at 07:43

Escrito por The Tactician, 18.05.2018 at 06:32

1. I think you read what I wrote wrong. Because in no way I talked about a specific example of Ukraine in 3v3. I also never said you should overexpand with GW either. What I said was that DS is able to overexpand incredibly fast while you can stack Kiev with any nearby militia you can find because of the Helicopters which can carry land units while shredding any infantry or militia with little to no effort. There is no such thing as micromanaging with GW. Anyone who has half a brain knows how to play and abuse GW. It is literally defend with militia and start spamming marines that are only 70 cost. Why do you say that slow rolling is more difficult than rushing? You think slow rolling with GW takes skill?

2. Ok, so you believe GW would lose to LB in 5k? 3k? LB west with 5k? What are you going to pick Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands or Portugal? GW can just go serbia or poland and still win because LB requires too much cash to expand faster than GW does. LB is more versatile than GW? Seriously? You play LB on SA? GME? I wasn't even talking about 3v3, but if you put it that way I can also say how many countries is LB effective with in eu 3k compared to GW? Yes, I do claim all the other strats are niche strats and I don't see the problem of saying that either. If you think imp is strong, then what is a balanced strat?

3. MoS is weak as Ukr. I don't care who yours or Don's MoS have beaten. It just doesn't have its place in EU...

1. You made a statement and gave the example of LB Ukr. My point is your example holds true only in specific situations such as that of Ukr. You can play like that with DS only with Ukr in 10k (and maybe Poland) because it starts with a lot of money, but with LB you can use it with random rushing and stacking in many more situations.

There is no micromanagement in GW? Lol... I really don't know what to say... It's all micromanagement. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, but with GW militia movement is key and anticipatory marine movement as well. If you don't constantly move your militia and marines then you die. And yes, of course, slowrolling with GW takes skill. Marines are strong and cheap and GW is OP, yes, but if you go up against anyone with half a brain, as you said, you will get pushed hard to the point where you can't take advantage of those cheap units. The best way to beat GW is to not let it unlock its potential; it's a lategame strat and a slowroll strat, and whoever understands that understands how to beat it.

Yes, GW and DS are OP, but less so than LB, as LB can be utilized in many more situations.

2. You're thinking 1v1... not everything is 1v1 you know, in 5k team games east is usually gw/imp and west is an expensive strat, one being so does not nullify the other...

You're missing the point here. GW is obviously more effective in high density low income areas, but LB can be used in more places simply because high density low income areas are only in specific places of the map. Furthermore, comparing 3k to 3v3 is futile because 3v3 is the standard, if you list all the countries GW is strong in in 3k then I'll just list all the countries LB is strong in in 10k, 15k, 25, 50k, etc.

Also, this is the google definition of niche:

adjective
adjective: niche

1.
denoting or relating to products, services, or interests that appeal to a small, specialized section of the population.
"other companies in this space had to adapt to being niche players"

All strategies cannot, by definition, be niche strats because then you'd be neglecting a large portion of the playerbase. In no way is imp a niche strat, that's just so wrong to say I don't know where to begin... I mean, if it can be used in most areas in most gamemodes then it certainly isn't Niche? Same goes for LB.

3. That's because you take a narrow perspective. Unit wise, it's like a GC with inf weaker by one defense and more expensive by 10, stronger main attacking units with extra range but more expensive, not to mention long range powerful air units when you have money (not even mentioning subs). In reality, it's just a more offensive and slightly more expensive version of GC with invisible attacking units. The fact that some people can actually play it shows that it does have a place in Europe, albeit not as prominently as SM or DS or GC ukr.

Also, I said imp is strong, and one of the strongest, but I never said it's not balanced. People don't complain about imp because it's reliable and not skewing to one portion of the playerbases' favor. Tbh strats are converging to a more balanced point now, it's only LB DS GW that stand out, LB being the most prominent, which is why we're discussing a nerf here. If LB is nerfed slightly, then strategies are at a stable state, for now.

edit: oh and yes, slowrolling requires more skill than rushing. True skill is knowing when to slowroll and when to rush, and not just always having one as default. If you compare, however, you will see that slowrolling requires an added dimension of thought.

Stop whining LB isn't OP. Maybe learn to stack if Ukraine LB rushes you hmmm?

Escrito por Leo, 17.05.2018 at 18:17

This strat makes GC and IF completely useless, and even starts rivaling pd yet it has very little weaknesses. i just don't get why the nerf to inf and mil cost got reverted. that was the only thing preventing this strat from being obnoxiously strong on countries it shouldn't normally be that viable in.

all in for a nerf, i think we've all gotten fed up by getting t1/3 rushed by lb everygame. this strat can dominate on every country minus turkey. there's absolutely no reason not to pick it everywhere, and that's not a v good sign.

and while we're at it, i think some other strats (blitz, ra, if) that basically disappeared from the game deserve some buffs.

I'll create a topic dedicated to the bad rolls i had with LB and ask for a buff !

Escrito por LukeTan, 18.05.2018 at 00:51

Guys just saying...

instead of continuing to nerf strats can we buff others to match them?
at the rate we're going every strat will be nostrat soon enough

I died a little inside reading this post. Even if this is meant to be hyperbolic it suggests you haven't been paying attention at all. 90% of the strat changes over the past few years have been buffs. Like small tweaks could ever create such a scenario anyway. And this got 3 upvotes. Sometimes i despair reading through these threads.

Escrito por PleaseMe, 18.05.2018 at 01:13

Personally I don't think it needs a change to its critical chance because we need to think about this strat on a bigger picture other than just how it works on EU+

If we are going based solely off luck then we NEED to keep the critical change because that's exactly what makes the strategy unique hence it's name 'Lucky Bastard'.
Taking away the one thing that makes it unique will place it right next to strategies that are now obsolete. (RA, HW, and in some cases SM only because MOS does it so much better)

I say there should be a +20 or even +30 cost to all units considering the rolls it gives makes up for the lack in units you will be able to produce.

Someone quote me and let me know what you think.

Another person who hasn't been paying attention. Read my reply to JF. We already had +10 cost on inf/militia on lb and it was bad. Your suggestion renders the strat entirely obsolete even on 50k. And you actually made this suggestion after opening your post with "lets look at the bigger picture outside eu". You're supposed to be a good player. Use your brain and make it show in your posts thanks.

Escrito por Your Laki, 18.05.2018 at 07:31

Remove all other strats and just leave pd

nice 2013 meme. Pd hasnt been a dominant strat in years. If you're still playing pd everywhere then you havent adapted to the current meta. LB ds and gw are the kings at the moment. And yes this is even on eu+.

Nope, nope and... nope