Stick Page Forums Archive

Why is no one using fire start?

Started by: KhanScope | Replies: 25 | Views: 3,558

KhanScope

Posts: 2
Joined: Mar 2014
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 23, 2014 9:10 PM #1179293
So I was watching some elementals replays on the top 100 and I saw that
no one is using the fire start.

The fire start is deadly, This unit can kite and do burn damage to the enemy.
Also due to the new update they buffed the fire unit's damage so they can do
massive damage and finally they have 2 bars of health while archers only have 1
so. So why is anyone using the fire start? I want answers.
jerrytt
2

Posts: 1,258
Joined: Oct 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 23, 2014 10:04 PM #1179310
They arnt worth 450 gold. Getting one leaves you with no econ.
Nyarlathotep

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 23, 2014 10:14 PM #1179312
Quote from jerrytt
They arnt worth 450 gold. Getting one leaves you with no econ.


That's not actually true anymore. After the buff fires are well worth the cost. The mobility and power they hold is very very good.
jerrytt
2

Posts: 1,258
Joined: Oct 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 24, 2014 4:06 AM #1179395
Quote from IHATETHISNAME
That's not actually true anymore. After the buff fires are well worth the cost. The mobility and power they hold is very very good.


Oh my bad, I was just assuming that the buffed versions were not that good. But is it really viable to get them early game compared to etting more earths for better economy?
Nyarlathotep

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 24, 2014 4:15 AM #1179397
You can pull both reliably. But fires are still not good mid-late game. The only real way to win as elementals is tree tech unfortunately. But the fires are amazing as early game pressure, especially considering they can dodge castle archer fire quite easily.
WyzDM
2

Posts: 2,265
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 24, 2014 7:30 PM #1179571
Fires are wicked. Nuff said.

Really don't know what do to about a fire start on castle still.
fhtrg

Posts: 391
Joined: Dec 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 24, 2014 9:01 PM #1179596
I feel like fire start is a weaker version of sword+archer start.
eBeta
Banned

Posts: 72
Joined: Mar 2014
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 26, 2014 3:03 AM #1180045
._. lol if they use fire start . i would win with rushing
Nyarlathotep

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 26, 2014 1:28 PM #1180301
Just kite with the fire. lol
ShadowGeneralChaos
2

Posts: 2,141
Joined: Mar 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
Mar 26, 2014 4:53 PM #1180445
fire at the beginning isnt good, but its usefull mid game ^_^
spino

Posts: 1,045
Joined: Nov 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 4, 2014 2:20 PM #1183815
yes I'd rather go with air elemental start rather than fire because it give more advantage because they'd have to go archer or castle archer or dead or castle dead
PUMU
2

Posts: 2,278
Joined: Dec 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 4, 2014 3:00 PM #1183830
you speak blasphemy.
fires make more sense than air.
air strike timing is really slow and unreliable on long maps i get two archers and kill it pretty quickly whilst building eco. then you're behind unless you've put all your money into earth and transformed them and also managed to buy CE which'll matter not as the sword i produce will absorb it losing you the eco game by trying to prevent it
gam35
2

Posts: 40
Joined: Sep 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 4, 2014 3:44 PM #1183840
well personally i think the air start is better because its cheaper its flying and it can still be great at taking out the basic order starts, i would go for the fire start if they buffed its range as i noticed even though it is made to kite it actualy has the lowest range out of all....ranged units or at least the deads and archidons :P, i would DEFINATLY go for the start to since the buff but sadly as you can see they nerfed it and im not sure if its still stronger or even weaker compared to the original "setting." and on a side note i noticed they nerfed the scorplings twice which i think is pretty bull the 1st time they did it was by lowering their health but you could regain it by getting the scorpling upgrade which is basicaly where they placed the health, i was fine with that but now they did another nerf on their attack dmg and health again, so at this point their not worth it really.... i would say they need if you must keep this nerf to at least lower the pop of that tree by 2 as it costs 9 right now and i know its known as OP but 9 pop thats way 2 much considering the nerfs to the scorplings....
Nyarlathotep

Posts: 2,240
Joined: Jan 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 4, 2014 9:11 PM #1183914
The nerfs to scorplings are inconsequential. Trees are still OP.
spino

Posts: 1,045
Joined: Nov 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile
Apr 6, 2014 2:40 PM #1184492
well... fire costs more and yet it does less damage
Website Version: 1.0.4
© 2025 Max Games. All rights reserved.