Strategy Changes

No, It's Not Overpowered: A Case for Monthly Strategy Changes

1. Introduction
There's been a lot of controversy about some strategies being weakened or strengthened without reason. So, I think it would be a good idea for the developers to update strategies monthly to ensure balance. Basically, any strategy that gets overused will be weakened, and any strategy that is underused gets strengthened.

(if you can't be bothered to read long blocks of text, here is where you stop)

2. The Plan
The game will automatically tally which strategies players use. Only premium players will be tallied, because there are certain strategies only premium players can use, and thus the data will be biased towards default strategies if players who are prohibited from using certain strategies are included in the data. At the end of each month, the game will automatically tally how many times each strategy was used, and the total strategies used (this number will exclude players playing with no strategy). Then it will calculate the percentage of total player-games with strategies that was played with a given strategy for each one.
Highly overused strategies (>20% plays) will then recommend itself to be weakened (nerfed, in atWar lingo), and highly underused strategies (<4% plays) will recommend itself to be strengthened (buffed, in atWar lingo). The developers will then make changes to these two strategies according to its recommendation. Then the admins will make a little forum post describing what was changed.
Then the data will reset and the count will begin anew for the new month, with updated strategies.

3. Theoretical Justification
Strategy games, such as atWar, are the most fun when there are several paths to victory, none of which is dominant over the others. This means that atWar will be the most fun when all of the strategies are more or less equally good. Because atWar games are too complex to draw a complete strategy-result matrix, it is difficult to find out through arguing and anecdotes (as you have done amply in the forums) which paths of victory are more powerful than the others. A simple way to do this is through collective intelligence. In any competitive game, including atWar, the goal is to develop a successful strategy to achieve victory. Thus, whichever paths of victory each player thinks is most likely to lead to victory will be adopted. In atWar, each player has to compete not only with the game, but with other players playing the game. Unsuccessful strategies will eventually lead to disastrous results and be abandoned, the player using it either developing an alternate strategy or adopting someone else's successful one. Successful strategies will bring victory to its users and, because each player wants to win, will continue to be used. Thus, in a progression similar to that of evolution though natural selection, successful strategies will become predominant. Therefore, over the long run, the most popular strategies are likely to be the most powerful ones. Through this method of collective intelligence, it is possible to determine what the strongest strategies are.

4. Potential Returns
By using collective intelligence to determine which strategies needs to be buffed or nerfed, players are able to divert many hours previously used to argue that certain strategies are too overpowered or underpowered into more productive tasks, such as playing games. If a player thinks that a certain strategy is too overpowered, then that player can make his case by actually playing the game. Hypothesis will be proven on the field of battle. This not only is more interesting than arguing, it is also more conclusive (see section 3). The administrators, too, will no longer have to parse through pages of forum arguments to determine strategy changes, as strategies will automatically recommend itself for strengthening or weakening. Thus, on all sides, time will be saved.

So what are we waiting for? Enact monthly strategy changes now!

Most premium players do not use there premium strategies that often

Just because a strategy is popular does not mean it is not very beatable

How much to buff/nerf would be hard to determine, and nerfs would boost some strategies more than others (lb nerf boosting IF)

More or less equally good will most likely never happen, since each can be good if played correctly, always going to be someone who cant play a strat well and will complain its not good

Also this post was way way too many words

Kirjoittanut dinoscout, 26.04.2015 at 05:11

Most premium players do not use there premium strategies that often

Pretty much evidence that the premium strategies need to be boosted, then.

Kirjoittanut dinoscout, 26.04.2015 at 05:11

Just because a strategy is popular does not mean it is not very beatable

I suggest you read section 3 one more time.

Kirjoittanut dinoscout, 26.04.2015 at 05:11

How much to buff/nerf would be hard to determine, and nerfs would boost some strategies more than others (lb nerf boosting IF)

Basically, the buffs/nerfs will be incremental (+1 to attack, -10 to cost, etc.), and will continue until the problem is corrected. As for strategy nerfs boosting some strategies more than others, current economic theory is that just leaving things alone and letting it settle is the fastest way of reaching an equilibrium.

Kirjoittanut dinoscout, 26.04.2015 at 05:11

More or less equally good will most likely never happen, since each can be good if played correctly, always going to be someone who cant play a strat well and will complain its not good

"More of less equally good" has a built-in assumption that the players playing those strategies are equally competent at the strategy which they are playing.

Kirjoittanut dinoscout, 26.04.2015 at 05:11

Also this post was way way too many words

Sorry. I'm not good at summarizing things. Besides, I wanted to get everything out of the way so I don't have to answer irritating questions.

If you boost premium strategies that just moves the game closer to pa-tp-win, there is a reason most of them are reletively bad

Kirjoittanut dinoscout, 26.04.2015 at 05:43

If you boost premium strategies that just moves the game closer to pa-tp-win, there is a reason most of them are reletively bad

Well, what's the point of having underpowered strategies around? Might as well get rid of them if they're not going to be up to par.

The point is, the game is most fun when all strategies, including premium ones, are similar in strength. That way, premium strategies increase the options available to the player while not making that player any more overpowered than he already was.

Also, is there any newspaper editors around in the atWar forums?

I really need someone to teach me this mysterious thing called "being concise."

Premiun strategies aren't bad, they just need certain conditions to work, lucky bastard beats anything in big battles, IF can beat anything in close battles, ds helis have 9 attack vs infantry and 8 vs militia, they just need to be played under the right circunstances,

P D: i used all these strats in my 3 days premiun, can't talk about the othe ones

I am sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Are there a few tweaks that could be plausible? Sure I guess so, but this sounds like a lot of (uneccessary) effort and for what? constantly changing strats? It would be a hastle for players to keep up with what all has been changed not to mention the difficulty of what you are suggesting. Though my biggest point would be yes there are some strats that are under played, but that doesn't mean their not viable and can't be done, it just means they are not popular or that most games take place in a scenario which wouldn't warrant a that strat and I would further argue that the game balance (before the recent changes to blitz I have read about) is pretty well balanced as far as the strats go. So in summation, let's not waste time trying to fix something that isn't broke.

Kirjoittanut Wildchild92, 26.04.2015 at 20:54

I am sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Are there a few tweaks that could be plausible? Sure I guess so, but this sounds like a lot of (uneccessary) effort and for what? constantly changing strats? It would be a hastle for players to keep up with what all has been changed not to mention the difficulty of what you are suggesting. Though my biggest point would be yes there are some strats that are under played, but that doesn't mean their not viable and can't be done, it just means they are not popular or that most games take place in a scenario which wouldn't warrant a that strat and I would further argue that the game balance (before the recent changes to blitz I have read about) is pretty well balanced as far as the strats go. So in summation, let's not waste time trying to fix something that isn't broke.

It is broke. What's the point of having all these strategies that hardly ever get used?

As I said, strategy games are the most fun when many paths to victory are equally viable. Players like winning, remember. If a strategy gets horribly underplayed, it can only mean that the strategy is so ineffective at delivering victories that even the element of surprise (players will be surprised, for example, if you play LB Ukraine) is not enough to incentives players to play that strategy.

Note also that this does not involve constantly changing strategies. It will simply recommend strategies for modification if and only if in a given month, that strategy is horribly overplayed or underplayed.

All the strategies are viable firstly, some more so then others given certain conditions but just because say, PD or blitz or NC are viable and I could gain victory with them doesn't mean I want to use that strat. Maybe I want a challenge and I will play IF or something, or maybe I simply like the gameplay of a certain strat. Just because there are unpopular and strats doesn't mean they're broken.

Kirjoittanut International, 27.04.2015 at 01:42

As I said, strategy games are the most fun when many paths to victory are equally viable. Players like winning, remember. If a strategy gets horribly underplayed, it can only mean that the strategy is so ineffective at delivering victories that even the element of surprise (players will be surprised, for example, if you play LB Ukraine) is not enough to incentives players to play that strategy.

Note also that this does not involve constantly changing strategies. It will simply recommend strategies for modification if and only if in a given month, that strategy is horribly overplayed or underplayed.

Kirjoittanut Wildchild92, 27.04.2015 at 08:26

All the strategies are viable firstly, some more so then others given certain conditions but just because say, PD or blitz or NC are viable and I could gain victory with them doesn't mean I want to use that strat. Maybe I want a challenge and I will play IF or something, or maybe I simply like the gameplay of a certain strat. Just because there are unpopular and strats doesn't mean they're broken.

Kirjoittanut Wildchild92, 27.04.2015 at 08:26

All the strategies are viable firstly, some more so then others given certain conditions but just because say, PD or blitz or NC are viable and I could gain victory with them doesn't mean I want to use that strat. Maybe I want a challenge and I will play IF or something, or maybe I simply like the gameplay of a certain strat. Just because there are unpopular and strats doesn't mean they're broken.

My first impression upon reading your suggestion was 'makes sense'. I agree with NortherStar that there are strategies that aren't broken, even if they aren't played. However, it does no harm to open these lesser used strats up to suggestion and making small tweaks to them. Right now it's not going to be a priority with developers, but the suggestion seems sound. Maybe re-suggest this when the new version is out and the dust settles.