Bikers / poms / thief ReMod

[Cyrus]

tbh ive no idea why azzer keeps beating round the bush to fix biker / poms problem

IMO bikers and poms should be as follows

*Bikers firing before pom
*Bikers eta 4
*Increase Damage slightly
*Thieves steal a significant increase of land, maybe even steal seeds at the same time?

the reason for the thieves remodding is because firstly it was meant as a rushing route but as it stands i dont think its worth it, it needs some kind of big boost to make it a route to go

reducing poms power was silly, its a route that cant kill NOTHING, this route shouldnt be as weak as other routes, thats not even logical...

 

[f0xx]

reducing poms power was silly

Well, in my opinion PoMs got their power boosted, not reduced. The only problem is that now you need to have Hippy vans and louds too as well instead of just masses of poms.

While we are on the topic, bikers got a bit too much armor.

When you see 17m PA firing at pure bikers and killing less than 2.5m bikers then you know something is wrong.

 

[Cyrus]

boosted in the wrong way maybe... i still wouldnt consider the overall power change an increase of power...

and lol at the PA thing at least bikers are flak early on! WOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Davs]

looking at the suggestions I don't really agree with nay of them
thieves are pretty much fine as they are - they do what they're meant to in the right hands
bikers - I'd say they were powerful enough as they are atm, and they don't need to be faster in terms of INIT. It would be nice for them to be ETA 3 imo (makes the thief route more of the rushing route I thought it was meant to be...) As f0xx said, bikers could do with losing some armour, if that really is the ratio PAs now get on them, there is something very very wrong lol

 

[Cyrus]

the whole original issue with biker / poms was the rushing capability, yeah its lost that now as it is for the most part, but along came the pom change which id assume started from the biker problem, making bikers still fire even though they fire after poms.

polo's hybrid chestnuts are pretty poor reason for affecting pom, poms cant kill anything, to stop a pom you can use alsorts, even if its just to mruder the flak

theif route is hardly used so no its not good enough, if it was good enough then more people would use it, it would however give more tactics to alliance in alliance wars to make it useful to have a thief route in the alli

sounds to me like it was a rushed fix to the biker problem and in turn domino effected other routes

 

[timtadams]

When you see 17m PA firing at pure bikers and killing less than 2.5m bikers then you know something is wrong.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Just because one unit that does no armour damage cant kill units with some armour doesnt mean its too strong.

 

[Hobbezak]

the whole original issue with biker / poms was the rushing capability, yeah its lost that now as it is for the most part, but along came the pom change which id assume started from the biker problem, making bikers still fire even though they fire after poms.

polo's hybrid chestnuts are pretty poor reason for affecting pom, poms cant kill anything, to stop a pom you can use alsorts, even if its just to mruder the flak

theif route is hardly used so no its not good enough, if it was good enough then more people would use it, it would however give more tactics to alliance in alliance wars to make it useful to have a thief route in the alli

sounds to me like it was a rushed fix to the biker problem and in turn domino effected other routes

So what you basically want, is one unit (pom), that can hardly be killed (because hardly anything targets NLD directly), fires early (pom init is still really low), and can block a lot on its own, with no support whatsoever.
But in exchange, we switch the init of the biker to before pom. That should fix it!

From what I gather from what Azzer says, his view is that no route should be a "one unit"-route, but that every route would need multiple units to be succesful.

 

[pinpower]

From what I gather from what Azzer says, his view is that no route should be a "one unit"-route, but that every route would need multiple units to be succesful.

I agree.

I think that people should have to tailor their unit set-up depending on the task they want to accomplish. No route should just have 1 unit that when massed does "pretty well" against everything.

It means theres alot more strategy in it. If you want to just mass one thing you'll be vulnerable in alot of situations, if you want to be able to survive better then you might not be as strong offensively as you'll need to invest in LET flak etc etc

 

[f0xx]

When you see 17m PA firing at pure bikers and killing less than 2.5m bikers then you know something is wrong.
[/color][/size][/font]

Just because one unit that does no armour damage cant kill units with some armour doesnt mean its too strong.

Since when do PAs do no armor damage? Perhaps you should play a bit more rounds before starting to teach me hmmm?

 

[Changer]

When you see 17m PA firing at pure bikers and killing less than 2.5m bikers then you know something is wrong.

Just because one unit that does no armour damage cant kill units with some armour doesnt mean its too strong.

Since when do PAs do no armor damage? Perhaps you should play a bit more rounds before starting to teach me hmmm?

1* AD, theres at least 49 units that do more AD than PA. So maybe they do AD but they clearly are not designed to do loads.

 

[f0xx]

Changer, the point here is not whether PA do armor damage and how much exactly, but it is do bikers need a reduction in their armor? Thir 3* of armor rating must be quite high and close to 4* if you ask me, which makes that unit quite hard to kill.

I know the reason for the increase of armor in the bikers, but I seriously doubt that is the right way to balance the unit...

 

[Davs]

I'm with f0xx, bikers need to lose some armour.
And Cyrus, just because people haven't started using the thief route yet (since the changes) doesn't mean it isn't good enough. It simply means that people aren't adventurous enough to try it. Were I capable of more activity atm I'd definitely give it a go, it looks like a really fun route imo.

 

[Garrett]

no no the routes are great as is, don't you realize they tested the changes? clearly this is a 'tunnel vision' approach.

 

[Cyrus]

clearly it isnt working as there's how many complaints? stop looking for all my posts then posting a retarded reply because its getting boring :')

 

[tobapopalos]

Garrett was agreeing with you. Try reading posts rather than reading the name of the poster.

 

[Alcibiades]

Garrett was agreeing with you. Try reading posts rather than reading the name of the poster.

touche.

 

[Cyrus]

how was he agreeing? i am missing that in his post i believe. but hey along come the other musketeers

 

[Madmeater]

In before sh!tstorm

 

[tobapopalos]

how was he agreeing? i am missing that in his post i believe. but hey along come the other musketeers

Sigh. You can try and make everything about you if you want. I'm not going to argue. I was just pointing out that I don't think Garrett posted because this thread was made by you. He made it for the same reason he has been making all his other posts of late.

I think you need to stop reading to much into it. Just because Garrett happens to post in a thread that you have also posted in does not mean he is "stalking you" or any other paranoid, egotistical nonsense.

 

[Madmeater]

Some think some changes should be made, others agree
Everyone just pull up their pants and give actual reasons and back themselves up, rather than making this personal.
Take personal rants to the PMs and cut this **** out.

On topic: PoMs are no longer Rambo units and need someone else to strip for them to pwn, alot like SAs, I like this change as, frankly, they WERE too powerful.

Increasing the ETA of bikers would have been good enough to stop them rushing higher poms imo, but I dont mind the change, PoMs dont touch bikers, meaning that they still have a chance to fire