The REAL answer to the Infantry Problem

[Pulikesi25]

@DemiserofD

The obsession with massive changes is exactly why none of your suggestions will ever actually get implemented. A simple, elegant suggestion leaves only two choices; to do it, or not to do it. If you suggest something complicated and convoluted, they are going to come up with something on their own, not take your suggestion.

True that massive changes are not going to happen right away. But I’m saying those might be the minimum necessity to make these units good to use in earlier stages of the game given how its played today. The small incremental changes are not going to have enough impact for units like these. Small changes to battle elephants, or some unique infantry like Samurai or Jaguar in the past, presumed to be enough weren’t actually good enough for most situations.

@DemiserofD

Nonetheless, I will clarify. Assuming that my suggestion makes a small, yet notable difference, but not yet sufficient in order to make them viable, what would you suggest doing that would meet the following criteria;

A: buffs them enough at a high level to make them viable for tournament play.

B: makes no substantial difference in terms of balance to them at the average ELO.

Because, as Hera rightly points out, you cannot make wanton Buffs to Infantry without completely ruining the gameplay for the majority of players.

I feel the same too. I think you didn’t read rest of my comment about the changes I posted. Most of it were related to modifying tight builds and feudal gameplay used at higher elos. Bringing changes centered around dark age builds, towers and map scouting is extremely geared towards pro games. I didn’t recommend much of changes to the stats of maa itself. Like I never said they should get 10 attack, 70 hp, 2 p.armor or something like that.