Looking at the list of probable balance changes leaked by the devs and the general reaction from the community to them I feel like this post is necessary.
My concern is for the inca vill rush nerf in particular. I don't believe that it needed a nerf at all and certainly it wasn't so OP as to justify its removal from the game as a viable strategy. Despite this most people are happy about this change saying that the strategy was stupid, difficult to play against and anti-noob.
The question is what is more important? Having good balance with a variety of difference strategies available or not having to deal with certain 'cancer' strategies. We saw this before with the Celt Hoang rush as well. Just because Hoang is playing at a high level and succeeding with said strategy doesn't mean it's OP or that it deserves a nerf. Hoang didn't make it into any major tournaments using this strategy and while he definitely showed how strong an early castle all in can be, he also showed that with good play it can be beaten. The reason Celts were nerfed wasn't because their drush was OP. It was because it was annoying to deal with.
Similarly tower rushes have been nerfed as well. While towers probably needed a slight nerf it was overdone and imo they need a slight HP boost in Feudal. This buff has been needed for a while as it is the easiest way to deal with the walling meta but still the devs have been hesitant to adress this. Why? Towers are annoying to play against.
Drush FC is the most annoying strategy for me to play against. I hate it since it means I either have to mirror or be extremely defensive until Mid-Castle. However I know that it isn't OP since there are ways to deal with it and it can lose as often as it can win. I'm not a massive cheeser myself and am a meta player most of the time and am usually on the receiving end of these strategies. Sometimes I lose, sometimes I win. Sometimes I get frustrated but I have never felt like a Hoang rush, tower rush, inca rush or even a douche has ever been OP.
I don't think that the devs are trying to streamline the game towards knights and archers as some people seem to think but rather that they are nerfing strategies based on how frustrating they are to deal with than how strong they actually are. For an even more recent example look at the Burgundian Coustillier. Yes it was OP at launch but not very OP and only needed a slight nerf. The nerf they got means that they haven't been seen since.
Also annoying and cheesy strategies are actually good for the competitive scene since they allow underdogs to pull off upsets or at the very least give the viewers a show. Without them the stronger players are almost always going to dominate. A good example is Nicov vs Dracken in Kotd3 qualifiers. Watching Dracken coming so close to beating Nicov was extremely entertaining and watching Nicov show how he is the better player and how Dracken's cheese could be countered was even more so. If these sorts of strategies start getting nerfed to oblivion these sorts of situations won't be seen so much.
My concern is for the inca vill rush nerf in particular. I don't believe that it needed a nerf at all and certainly it wasn't so OP as to justify its removal from the game as a viable strategy. Despite this most people are happy about this change saying that the strategy was stupid, difficult to play against and anti-noob.
The question is what is more important? Having good balance with a variety of difference strategies available or not having to deal with certain 'cancer' strategies. We saw this before with the Celt Hoang rush as well. Just because Hoang is playing at a high level and succeeding with said strategy doesn't mean it's OP or that it deserves a nerf. Hoang didn't make it into any major tournaments using this strategy and while he definitely showed how strong an early castle all in can be, he also showed that with good play it can be beaten. The reason Celts were nerfed wasn't because their drush was OP. It was because it was annoying to deal with.
Similarly tower rushes have been nerfed as well. While towers probably needed a slight nerf it was overdone and imo they need a slight HP boost in Feudal. This buff has been needed for a while as it is the easiest way to deal with the walling meta but still the devs have been hesitant to adress this. Why? Towers are annoying to play against.
Drush FC is the most annoying strategy for me to play against. I hate it since it means I either have to mirror or be extremely defensive until Mid-Castle. However I know that it isn't OP since there are ways to deal with it and it can lose as often as it can win. I'm not a massive cheeser myself and am a meta player most of the time and am usually on the receiving end of these strategies. Sometimes I lose, sometimes I win. Sometimes I get frustrated but I have never felt like a Hoang rush, tower rush, inca rush or even a douche has ever been OP.
I don't think that the devs are trying to streamline the game towards knights and archers as some people seem to think but rather that they are nerfing strategies based on how frustrating they are to deal with than how strong they actually are. For an even more recent example look at the Burgundian Coustillier. Yes it was OP at launch but not very OP and only needed a slight nerf. The nerf they got means that they haven't been seen since.
Also annoying and cheesy strategies are actually good for the competitive scene since they allow underdogs to pull off upsets or at the very least give the viewers a show. Without them the stronger players are almost always going to dominate. A good example is Nicov vs Dracken in Kotd3 qualifiers. Watching Dracken coming so close to beating Nicov was extremely entertaining and watching Nicov show how he is the better player and how Dracken's cheese could be countered was even more so. If these sorts of strategies start getting nerfed to oblivion these sorts of situations won't be seen so much.