Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
**Sigh** still perplexed why someone enjoys the game/series in a different way-- In many of the same cases the same way.
Try to read other posts that don't agree with you, without picking apart words. (Not hostile it's hard to do if someone doesn't understand)
***I think when people like me and others say they want battles longer, does not necessarily mean they want the game designed in the way that you think,( add some stats somewhere).
At least for me, saying: battle pace and longer battles -that are still susceptble to many tactics and friendly to various strategies(including their consequences) -- Is just simplifying my message to CA what I want from my TWW and TW series experience.
**Also mod subs aren't a "good figure" is up for debate, but between the top five mods dealing with "longer battles" breaks 100k..SOOo Surprise!! - I myself do not subscribe to mods because they more or less, superficially fix it for me, and I want to avoid the heartbreak when they are no longer updated
So out of almost 900,000 people who own TWW, about 12k are subscribed to the Proper Combat mod. There are always going to be people who want a certain aspect of the game to be different in some way, but in this particular case, I don't see nearly enough demand to justify the amount of work it would take to implement multiple battle speeds.
I think the complexity of adding an adjustable slider is being vastly underestimated by anyone suggesting it. Can anyone name a single RTS that runs at variable speeds? I don't play very many of them, but I've never seen one that did that.
I missed this first time round, but think it's worth addressing. 12k subs is a huge number for a single mod. Also, to assume that all demand for variable battle speeds is accounted for in that one statistic is completely misguided.
Think for a second about people who fit into these other categories, who would also benefit from speed options:
- People who found battles too hectic and dropped the game altogether - People who found battles too fast but made do with constant slow-mo and pause - People weren't happy with slow-mo or pause but didn't have the time or initiative to look for a mod to solve the problem, or simply didn't think that such a mod might exist - People who did have these things but found a solution elsewhere, such as in Radious also highly subbed mod - People who weren't happy with the various other changes these mods brought so stayed with vanilla - People who weren't happy with existing mods so just made the changes they wanted themselves.
If you take into account all these people and you just look at how often the issue of battle speed crops up on the forum, it's clearly something worth looking at for CA. They have introduced changes to the game on the back of considerably less feedback than this in the past.
The issue of dev resource cost still has a massive question mark over it. They have been balancing RTS games since 1999. They will have some highly sophisticated tools and extremely well-qualified staff making this a very efficient process... and this is discounting the fact that games testers are some of the lowest paid bods in the profession.
If an actual slider is too much work, then at the very least a single "Epic Mode" setting you imagine would not be too hard to achieve, particularly as its not at all likely they'd have to duplicate the work required to balance the default setting.
More mystifying than anything else is why the community guys never comment on this, let alone do the obvious thing, which is to ask a dev to give a very brief explanation of whether it's something they've looked at and what were the technical obstacles that prevented them from taking it further. I dunno, maybe @Joey CA or @Grace CA can help us out here?
Sadly I suspect a slider would be unfeasible. It would require every permutation of pace to play tested and balanced and I can't think of how it would work in multi player at all (who would control it). I love the idea but I imagine the reality is out of reach. A couple of "pace" settings that introduced more combat variables to play with and a slower pace to accommodate them might be a bit more feasible but is probably still wishful thinking. It would require a testing and balancing effort that CA have no real imperative to engage in. Again, I thing that's a shame but I'm a realist.
In all honesty, my contributions to this thread aren't really meant as a cry to CA to change the game. If I wanted to that I'd be posting in the feedback section. Rather, there's a discussion on whether the pace is too quick and, in my opinion, it is so I contributed and tried to explain why. It may have a bearing on the future of the series, which would be nice, but I don't have a particular expectation either way. CA produce what they produce and I choose to buy it or not. I'm rather disappointed that the debate descended into a discussion about whether or not that's what CA should be spending their efforts on because that, to me, reads as a deliberate attempt to miss the point and obfuscate the issue.
I do crave a more nuanced combat experience, though, and regret that my late campaign battles all get auto resolved. I'm simply not interested in trying to out twitch a computer. When it comes to operations per cycle I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose that race. I would rather try and out think one and, while the only strategic option is a game of flank the blob, that's a limited experience at best.
^ Yes, well said. I hold out very little hope that anything will change in the course of this game's development, but it's something I would dearly love the guys currently working in the History team to be looking at very closely.
As you say, the issue extends way beyond merely battle time or kill speed etc. It touches on the fundamental issue of whether you can out-twitch a computer (which will always be a false victory) or you can outsmart it with some interesting and adaptive tactics - ultimately, a much more enjoyable and mentally challenging form of entertainment.
I also agree that all this discussion of resource allocation is a massive red herring and regret getting embroiled in it. It's something you can shoot down pretty much any piece of feedback with and when it gets to the point of speculating about potential obstacles with no technical knowledge to back them up is well into the territory of pointless rationalisation.
Talking about resource allocation is kind of pointless since it's fair to assume no one here works for CA. Im glad it was brought up even if it's driven by speculation. At least it addressed the misconception that the people wanting a change or an additional feature, are just a handful of people. Lol you're not alone!
I would keep hope at a reserve, but it's not hopeless..like @Fredrin said they have made changes with less. I suspect we have heard nothing, perhaps due to the want/need of waiting if patches and updates solve "the issue". Chiming in might make it seem like the game is broken-although I don't think it would--but I can see why a Corp. would want to take it slow on the response.
If the topic stays "hot" I'm hopeful (reserved) that it will be addressed at some level and degree. I wouldn't even classify as "crying" to CA, it's simple, give feedback or how you generally feel about the game-and if there's enough and it's plausible they will address it. Speculate all you want about resource allocation but in doing its building an argument out of irrationalities.
Add a speed slider to multiplayer, but leave it on the battle screen and let both players manipulate it throughout the battle
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
@boyfights I'm not sure if that was serious, but I do like the spirit! Any alternate setting I'm assuming would have to be locked in before the start of a match (or creating one) and maybe in the graphic setting-maybe you couldn't switch it in the middle of playing campaign but like the difficulty it's not locked and you can change at your leisure (before enter game). I am looking forward to the next patch/update along with their notes to see what community issues are being addressed. It's a lot of work, but CAs community team and developers imo, are quite capable and good at their jobs.
No I meant like battles with changing speed, so if the other guy is busy controlling his units I can crank it up to fast fast forward after I give all my orders, like a time wizard
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
We're going there aren't we? The series has always had pacing options built-in: being able to choose the unit size and being able to pick unit compositions which hasten a battle resolution, on top of the battle time limit menu option. These though were for people who wanted shorter battles; does CA have to test every permeation of them as some have suggested would have to be the case for options which lengthen battles? Why one way and not the other?
We're going there aren't we? The series has always had pacing options built-in: being able to choose the unit size and being able to pick unit compositions which hasten a battle resolution, on top of the battle time limit menu option. These though were for people who wanted shorter battles; does CA have to test every permeation of them as some have suggested would have to be the case for options which lengthen battles? Why one way and not the other?
The argument has no legs.
Yes, they do, unless you want longer battles to be utterly dominated by heavy infantry, just as they are in R2 which was ruined by the longer battles.
Yes, they do, unless you want longer battles to be utterly dominated by heavy infantry, just as they are in R2 which was ruined by the longer battles.
A lot of people - the majority, I would say - have quite a different opinion to the lengthening of battles with Imperator Augustus patch. They would argue it considerably improved the vanilla experience.
Add a speed slider to multiplayer, but leave it on the battle screen and let both players manipulate it throughout the battle
Hehe, would make for quite an amusing mini-game
I guess the logical thing would be to have a drop-down menu in the game creation screen that has the different speed options (as you do for unit size etc) and then flag this up in the lobby so people can choose what speed game they want. Perhaps ranked games all have to be played at the default setting or they could have a separate leaderboard for games played in a different mode.
The system currently in place allows people to speed up/ slow down the game, but only when all players have that speed setting selected. That's another alternative, I suppose, but probably not as good as the ones above.
We're going there aren't we? The series has always had pacing options built-in: being able to choose the unit size and being able to pick unit compositions which hasten a battle resolution, on top of the battle time limit menu option. These though were for people who wanted shorter battles; does CA have to test every permeation of them as some have suggested would have to be the case for options which lengthen battles? Why one way and not the other?
The argument has no legs.
Yes, they do, unless you want longer battles to be utterly dominated by heavy infantry, just as they are in R2 which was ruined by the longer battles.
We're not going to agree on whether longer battles have ever ruined anything; it's entirely subjective. The point I can agree with is how making battles longer make heavy infantry more useful, as it's already the case that changing the unit size drastically affects the utility of missile units. But why is this a bad thing? Being able to change unit sizes has never broke the game and there's no reason to suppose a different means of pace-changing would either.
A lot of people - the majority, I would say - have quite a different opinion to the lengthening of battles with Imperator Augustus patch. They would argue it considerably improved the vanilla experience.
And you think it's a majority, based on what exactly? You say mod subs don't matter, but I say that if you take Hendo's calculation that the combination of all the mods that address battle speed have about 100k subs, then 800k people are playing the game with vanilla battle speed and are probably satisfied with it (yes, some of those 800k may not currently be playing, but we can only assume a roughly equal proportion of the mod subscribers are also not currently playing). Trying to guess that more people who were unsatisfied with battle speed quit playing for that precise reason is an exercise in utter speculation that proves nothing at all. I won't comment on Rome because I played it too sporadically to really note the difference in battle speed.
Second, I don't think people are really considering all the ramifications of adjusting this. Damage done in battles is directly linked to the actual animations. For example, lowering hit rate nerfs low-unit-count, hard-hitting troops like monsters. Adjustments would have to be made to account for that, such as raising these units' attack speed or damage. Or do you just want units to move slower? If you do that, ranged units become a lot more powerful. In either case, you have a situation where an "adjustable" speed requires testing and asymmetric adjustments across the board to provide balance. And that's before even considering magic. So yes, every separate available speed will multiplicatively increase the amount of balancing required.
Another option would be to simply have much larger armies, allowing the troops to be split up or held in reserve. Here though we have the problem of the AI not being up to the task of effectively deploying units in such a way. This could be alleviated by set-piece battles, like the quest battles, but how exactly do you accomplish that with normal campaign battles? Also consider that it would require higher-end computers to run the game.
Look, I appreciate the desire for a deeper, more tactical battle. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that. But I think it's incorrect to assume that the majority of players want battles that take significantly more time than they currently do. And I also think that having multiple playable speeds is a far, far more complex task than you guys are giving it credit for. Personally, as far as what I'd like to see CA work on improving, this is way way down the list. The number one way to improve battles IMO would be to have the AI field more well-composed armies with high tier units; other campaign AI changes would be huge as well (e.g., due to its "Benny Hill" tendencies, AI stacks virtually always get caught in forced march which leaves their troops tired at the start of battle).
A lot of people - the majority, I would say - have quite a different opinion to the lengthening of battles with Imperator Augustus patch. They would argue it considerably improved the vanilla experience.
Look at the MP battles of Rome2 played right now, it's all about spamming cost-effective heavy infantry at the expense of all other units types. Cavalry is also nearly useless because every other unit can chuck precursor javelins now, another change implemented because of a bunch of whiners on the forum.
Where are the improvements? That picking factions and units has become easier because the choice has been made so obvious?
A lot of people - the majority, I would say - have quite a different opinion to the lengthening of battles with Imperator Augustus patch. They would argue it considerably improved the vanilla experience.
And you think it's a majority, based on what exactly? You say mod subs don't matter, but I say that if you take Hendo's calculation that the combination of all the mods that address battle speed have about 100k subs, then 800k people are playing the game with vanilla battle speed and are probably satisfied with it (yes, some of those 800k may not currently be playing, but we can only assume a roughly equal proportion of the mod subscribers are also not currently playing). Trying to guess that more people who were unsatisfied with battle speed quit playing for that precise reason is an exercise in utter speculation that proves nothing at all. I won't comment on Rome because I played it too sporadically to really note the difference in battle speed.
Second, I don't think people are really considering all the ramifications of adjusting this. Damage done in battles is directly linked to the actual animations. For example, lowering hit rate nerfs low-unit-count, hard-hitting troops like monsters. Adjustments would have to be made to account for that, such as raising these units' attack speed or damage. Or do you just want units to move slower? If you do that, ranged units become a lot more powerful. In either case, you have a situation where an "adjustable" speed requires testing and asymmetric adjustments across the board to provide balance. And that's before even considering magic. So yes, every separate available speed will multiplicatively increase the amount of balancing required.
Another option would be to simply have much larger armies, allowing the troops to be split up or held in reserve. Here though we have the problem of the AI not being up to the task of effectively deploying units in such a way. This could be alleviated by set-piece battles, like the quest battles, but how exactly do you accomplish that with normal campaign battles? Also consider that it would require higher-end computers to run the game.
Look, I appreciate the desire for a deeper, more tactical battle. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that. But I think it's incorrect to assume that the majority of players want battles that take significantly more time than they currently do. And I also think that having multiple playable speeds is a far, far more complex task than you guys are giving it credit for. Personally, as far as what I'd like to see CA work on improving, this is way way down the list. The number one way to improve battles IMO would be to have the AI field more well-composed armies with high tier units; other campaign AI changes would be huge as well (e.g., due to its "Benny Hill" tendencies, AI stacks virtually always get caught in forced march which leaves their troops tired at the start of battle).
Good post, though I think we're talking to cross-purposes on some things.
First, I'm not assuming that a majority of players want battles to take considerably more time than they currently do. Anecdotally, I've heard more players say they were happy when Rome II's battles got slowed a bit, but that's a separate issue.
Also, trying to actually enumerate the number of people who would like an alternative speed setting from the number of people subbed to certain mods or through pretty much any other means is a hopeless task due to the amount of speculation involved. Let's just leave it that it's a topic that is constantly raised as feedback, which a sizeable segment of players would like very much to see introduced and that puts it in the same bracket of many other features that CA have implemented as a result of such.
Obviously, there are balancing considerations that accompany different speed settings. I personally don't imagine it to be beyond CA to develop a tool that balances certain values in different settings in proportion to the kind of dynamics you mention in your second para. Ie - if battle pace is lengthened, kill rate of heavy infantry is reduced proportionally more than other units, for the reasons outlined by Ephraim.
It may be that developing such a tool is too complex or costly, the extra settings would have to be balanced individually by testers. If so, perhaps just have one setting which as close an approximation as possible to the one which people calling for longer battles would prefer. I'm still not convinced it would require exactly the same amount of man hours to balance this tweak to the default speed as the default required to balance in the first place. I would love CA to step in and end the speculation on this point.
Ultimately, it's entirely in CA's hands whether or not it's something they would consider implementing. Any contribution we have regarding how many people value a certain feature or how costly it would be for CA is so riddled with speculation it's not worth the discussion. But as long as it's an issue that continues to affect people's gameplay to the extent it does (not for you, perhaps) then it's worth talking about, in the same way people talk about a million other things they'd like to see in the game. That's how feedback works and is pretty much the central aim of CA hosting these forums in the first place
CA if you waste time workign on this before you make the minor factions i will become a salt golem
boyfights you are always here to confirmate every spark of originality or reason burns or acid bruises anyone, stop your gladiator love for agressions.
So don't do anything ? because people in MP will make cheesy army compositions? No one can prevent that outside of players making rules, that will always happen otherwise. And my figure only included the top 2 technically and then 3 other random ones, exceeds 10% of total buyers. (10% in stats is ALOT)
But I agree it's not a good figure because I WOULD like this issue addressed and I'm not currently subscribed to any mods-There's others like me who prefer to rely on the game CA puts out rather than mods that need to be updated.
No one is going to convince anyone their play style or preference is pointless and not fun, intense or challenging.
battle pace being addressed would open up a lot of possibilities, geez most people here voice they would rather an alternate setting over a compromise so they don't ruin rush players fun. SOOo jump on board!
These forums are for feedback and suggestions and although we haven't heard anything directly-CA hears us and will do what's right for company and fans
So it's official: multiplayer has ruined Total War.
There are existing mechanics in the TW series which affect pacing(mainly shortening battle length) so those who want battles to be over quickly have been well-catered to from the start without the game ever being broken by them. There is nothing to indicate that providing options for those who want longer battles would be worse.
Just a short reminder. MP and SP are integral parts of the same game. They allow a large number of individuals to indulge themselves in a selected form of 'entertainment'.
While there may be some cross-over effect from changes and updates which affect the play of one or the other, you have to keep in mind this game (Warhammer) is very far from being complete. There are two more complete sections to be brought out.
Short term the changes can and are very irritating. That said, let's keep in mind that insulting or denigrating "the other side' is not the right thing to do. It does not help your cause, nor does it give Creative Assembly information they can use to put in place a complete package.
"The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.
Good points; it would indeed be great to have some insight from CA as to the reasoning behind this particular design issue.
To those blaming fast battles on MP: I personally play only SP and wouldn't want battles to be terribly much longer than they are. Better? Sure. But not longer than well-balanced battles are currently.
There are no well-balanced battles currently: the only viable tactic in TW battles are variations of flanking in the recent games. Countering flanking with something other than better flanking makes up a large proportion of advances in ground warfare, what I refer to as force conservation or conservative tactics. Removing toggles, deployables and set formations in the latest iteration follows this trend in removing options for the player and it has only been for the worse. It's now not about having better ideas, using things learned and being a general, but how quickly you can click and re-assign tasks. That's not being a general but more like a senior grunt.
It neatly also hides faults with the AI, which can do this faster than a human can. In many ways, TW:WH has not actually improved the AI at all but simply re-designed the game mechanics around what an AI is already good at: lots of very simple, mindless and repetitive tasks.
It neatly also hides faults with the AI, which can do this faster than a human can. In many ways, TW:WH has not actually improved the AI at all but simply re-designed the game mechanics around what an AI is already good at: lots of very simple, mindless and repetitive tasks.
As im say before-CA make 2 option pls!Fast battle and long battle.Should be easy for profesionnal team.Per example-speed battle leave like now,but in long battle add extra 50% HP and morale.Dont need do anything more.This choice make happy all TW players.I know some people like fast click battle-im respect this.But many people-like me love watch for fight between units.Pls find one video on YT where ANY ONE make zoom for fight units longer than 5 sec on vanilia.Its impossible.Make zoom for 6 sec and lose battle in next 30 sec.Time battle its averg 6/8 min.But fight between units its max 6 sec.All the rest time its shot artilery,shoters etc and charge/catch runing units. So pls AGAIN CA-make two option and make all TW fans happy. Gretings
Per example-speed battle leave like now,but in long battle add extra 50% HP and morale.Dont need do anything more.
If all you want is 50% more health and leadership that is very easily modded. Of course, that will render damage-dealing magic useless, among other imbalances I won't attempt to predict.
@RowYerboat you just described why mods just don't feel right. I wish I was more technically sound to describe what I want, but it can sound too contradictory to some..
*Keep the the feel of the intesity and fearsness of units, keep adding units and abilities that can be used in new and intriguing ways, leaving openings for decisive outcome. BUT ***Also allow the overall strategy and various tactics/units and abilities to be carried out/used -absence of the restricting style of current pace (I know it's great for others--I am referring to the whole point of this thread).
I like to command from all angles and heights and attempt more drawn out stages within my overall strategies. Birds view & constant clicking has proved to be fun and convienant @ times --but far from preference and desired pace. @Fredrin@DerpCat@FunkyDexter describe it better than myself !! It's such a beautiful game graphically and filled with interesting models and w/ the lore behind them.
In many ways, TW:WH has not actually improved the AI at all but simply re-designed the game mechanics around what an AI is already good at: lots of very simple, mindless and repetitive tasks.
You mean Attila's food, sanitation and public order system?
In many ways, TW:WH has not actually improved the AI at all but simply re-designed the game mechanics around what an AI is already good at: lots of very simple, mindless and repetitive tasks.
You mean Attila's food, sanitation and public order system?
A system wich had you plan your citys for the first 5 hours before it become boring and repetetive, was replaced by a system wich had you plan your citys for the first 5 minutes before it become boring and repetetive... So yeah even compared to attilas system, warhammer is worse ^^
Comments
**Sigh**
still perplexed why someone enjoys the game/series in a different way--
In many of the same cases the same way.
Try to read other posts that don't agree with you, without picking apart words. (Not hostile it's hard to do if someone doesn't understand)
***I think when people like me and others say they want battles longer, does not necessarily mean they want the game designed in the way that you think,( add some stats somewhere).
At least for me, saying: battle pace and longer battles -that are still susceptble to many tactics and friendly to various strategies(including their consequences) --
Is just simplifying my message to CA what I want from my TWW and TW series experience.
**Also mod subs aren't a "good figure" is up for debate, but between the top five mods dealing with "longer battles" breaks 100k..SOOo
Surprise!!
I myself do not subscribe to mods because they more or less, superficially fix it for me, and I want to avoid the heartbreak when they are no longer updated
Pace of battle*** please attend & add/fix/adjust
- Report
2 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThink for a second about people who fit into these other categories, who would also benefit from speed options:
- People who found battles too hectic and dropped the game altogether
- People who found battles too fast but made do with constant slow-mo and pause
- People weren't happy with slow-mo or pause but didn't have the time or initiative to look for a mod to solve the problem, or simply didn't think that such a mod might exist
- People who did have these things but found a solution elsewhere, such as in Radious also highly subbed mod
- People who weren't happy with the various other changes these mods brought so stayed with vanilla
- People who weren't happy with existing mods so just made the changes they wanted themselves.
If you take into account all these people and you just look at how often the issue of battle speed crops up on the forum, it's clearly something worth looking at for CA. They have introduced changes to the game on the back of considerably less feedback than this in the past.
The issue of dev resource cost still has a massive question mark over it. They have been balancing RTS games since 1999. They will have some highly sophisticated tools and extremely well-qualified staff making this a very efficient process... and this is discounting the fact that games testers are some of the lowest paid bods in the profession.
If an actual slider is too much work, then at the very least a single "Epic Mode" setting you imagine would not be too hard to achieve, particularly as its not at all likely they'd have to duplicate the work required to balance the default setting.
More mystifying than anything else is why the community guys never comment on this, let alone do the obvious thing, which is to ask a dev to give a very brief explanation of whether it's something they've looked at and what were the technical obstacles that prevented them from taking it further. I dunno, maybe @Joey CA or @Grace CA can help us out here?
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIn all honesty, my contributions to this thread aren't really meant as a cry to CA to change the game. If I wanted to that I'd be posting in the feedback section. Rather, there's a discussion on whether the pace is too quick and, in my opinion, it is so I contributed and tried to explain why. It may have a bearing on the future of the series, which would be nice, but I don't have a particular expectation either way. CA produce what they produce and I choose to buy it or not. I'm rather disappointed that the debate descended into a discussion about whether or not that's what CA should be spending their efforts on because that, to me, reads as a deliberate attempt to miss the point and obfuscate the issue.
I do crave a more nuanced combat experience, though, and regret that my late campaign battles all get auto resolved. I'm simply not interested in trying to out twitch a computer. When it comes to operations per cycle I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose that race. I would rather try and out think one and, while the only strategic option is a game of flank the blob, that's a limited experience at best.
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeAs you say, the issue extends way beyond merely battle time or kill speed etc. It touches on the fundamental issue of whether you can out-twitch a computer (which will always be a false victory) or you can outsmart it with some interesting and adaptive tactics - ultimately, a much more enjoyable and mentally challenging form of entertainment.
I also agree that all this discussion of resource allocation is a massive red herring and regret getting embroiled in it. It's something you can shoot down pretty much any piece of feedback with and when it gets to the point of speculating about potential obstacles with no technical knowledge to back them up is well into the territory of pointless rationalisation.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIm glad it was brought up even if it's driven by speculation. At least it addressed the misconception that the people wanting a change or an additional feature, are just a handful of people. Lol you're not alone!
I would keep hope at a reserve, but it's not hopeless..like @Fredrin said they have made changes with less. I suspect we have heard nothing, perhaps due to the want/need of waiting if patches and updates solve "the issue". Chiming in might make it seem like the game is broken-although I don't think it would--but I can see why a Corp. would want to take it slow on the response.
If the topic stays "hot" I'm hopeful (reserved) that it will be addressed at some level and degree.
I wouldn't even classify as "crying" to CA, it's simple, give feedback or how you generally feel about the game-and if there's enough and it's plausible they will address it.
Speculate all you want about resource allocation but in doing its building an argument out of irrationalities.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agreeor reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeAny alternate setting I'm assuming would have to be locked in before the start of a match (or creating one) and maybe in the graphic setting-maybe you couldn't switch it in the middle of playing campaign but like the difficulty it's not locked and you can change at your leisure (before enter game).
I am looking forward to the next patch/update along with their notes to see what community issues are being addressed. It's a lot of work, but CAs community team and developers imo, are quite capable and good at their jobs.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agreeor reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe argument has no legs.
- Report
1 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeI guess the logical thing would be to have a drop-down menu in the game creation screen that has the different speed options (as you do for unit size etc) and then flag this up in the lobby so people can choose what speed game they want. Perhaps ranked games all have to be played at the default setting or they could have a separate leaderboard for games played in a different mode.
The system currently in place allows people to speed up/ slow down the game, but only when all players have that speed setting selected. That's another alternative, I suppose, but probably not as good as the ones above.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeSecond, I don't think people are really considering all the ramifications of adjusting this. Damage done in battles is directly linked to the actual animations. For example, lowering hit rate nerfs low-unit-count, hard-hitting troops like monsters. Adjustments would have to be made to account for that, such as raising these units' attack speed or damage. Or do you just want units to move slower? If you do that, ranged units become a lot more powerful. In either case, you have a situation where an "adjustable" speed requires testing and asymmetric adjustments across the board to provide balance. And that's before even considering magic. So yes, every separate available speed will multiplicatively increase the amount of balancing required.
Another option would be to simply have much larger armies, allowing the troops to be split up or held in reserve. Here though we have the problem of the AI not being up to the task of effectively deploying units in such a way. This could be alleviated by set-piece battles, like the quest battles, but how exactly do you accomplish that with normal campaign battles? Also consider that it would require higher-end computers to run the game.
Look, I appreciate the desire for a deeper, more tactical battle. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that. But I think it's incorrect to assume that the majority of players want battles that take significantly more time than they currently do. And I also think that having multiple playable speeds is a far, far more complex task than you guys are giving it credit for. Personally, as far as what I'd like to see CA work on improving, this is way way down the list. The number one way to improve battles IMO would be to have the AI field more well-composed armies with high tier units; other campaign AI changes would be huge as well (e.g., due to its "Benny Hill" tendencies, AI stacks virtually always get caught in forced march which leaves their troops tired at the start of battle).
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeLook at the MP battles of Rome2 played right now, it's all about spamming cost-effective heavy infantry at the expense of all other units types. Cavalry is also nearly useless because every other unit can chuck precursor javelins now, another change implemented because of a bunch of whiners on the forum.
Where are the improvements? That picking factions and units has become easier because the choice has been made so obvious?
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeFirst, I'm not assuming that a majority of players want battles to take considerably more time than they currently do. Anecdotally, I've heard more players say they were happy when Rome II's battles got slowed a bit, but that's a separate issue.
Also, trying to actually enumerate the number of people who would like an alternative speed setting from the number of people subbed to certain mods or through pretty much any other means is a hopeless task due to the amount of speculation involved. Let's just leave it that it's a topic that is constantly raised as feedback, which a sizeable segment of players would like very much to see introduced and that puts it in the same bracket of many other features that CA have implemented as a result of such.
Obviously, there are balancing considerations that accompany different speed settings. I personally don't imagine it to be beyond CA to develop a tool that balances certain values in different settings in proportion to the kind of dynamics you mention in your second para. Ie - if battle pace is lengthened, kill rate of heavy infantry is reduced proportionally more than other units, for the reasons outlined by Ephraim.
It may be that developing such a tool is too complex or costly, the extra settings would have to be balanced individually by testers. If so, perhaps just have one setting which as close an approximation as possible to the one which people calling for longer battles would prefer. I'm still not convinced it would require exactly the same amount of man hours to balance this tweak to the default speed as the default required to balance in the first place. I would love CA to step in and end the speculation on this point.
Ultimately, it's entirely in CA's hands whether or not it's something they would consider implementing. Any contribution we have regarding how many people value a certain feature or how costly it would be for CA is so riddled with speculation it's not worth the discussion. But as long as it's an issue that continues to affect people's gameplay to the extent it does (not for you, perhaps) then it's worth talking about, in the same way people talk about a million other things they'd like to see in the game. That's how feedback works and is pretty much the central aim of CA hosting these forums in the first place
- Report
0 · Disagree Agreeor reason burns or acid bruises anyone,
stop your gladiator love for agressions.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnd my figure only included the top 2 technically and then 3 other random ones, exceeds 10% of total buyers. (10% in stats is ALOT)
But I agree it's not a good figure because I WOULD like this issue addressed and I'm not currently subscribed to any mods-There's others like me who prefer to rely on the game CA puts out rather than mods that need to be updated.
No one is going to convince anyone their play style or preference is pointless and not fun, intense or challenging.
battle pace being addressed would open up a lot of possibilities, geez most people here voice they would rather an alternate setting over a compromise so they don't ruin rush players fun. SOOo jump on board!
These forums are for feedback and suggestions and although we haven't heard anything directly-CA hears us and will do what's right for company and fans
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeThere are existing mechanics in the TW series which affect pacing(mainly shortening battle length) so those who want battles to be over quickly have been well-catered to from the start without the game ever being broken by them. There is nothing to indicate that providing options for those who want longer battles would be worse.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeWhile there may be some cross-over effect from changes and updates which affect the play of one or the other, you have to keep in mind this game (Warhammer) is very far from being complete. There are two more complete sections to be brought out.
Short term the changes can and are very irritating. That said, let's keep in mind that insulting or denigrating "the other side' is not the right thing to do. It does not help your cause, nor does it give Creative Assembly information they can use to put in place a complete package.
- Report
2 · Disagree AgreeGood points; it would indeed be great to have some insight from CA as to the reasoning behind this particular design issue.
To those blaming fast battles on MP: I personally play only SP and wouldn't want battles to be terribly much longer than they are. Better? Sure. But not longer than well-balanced battles are currently.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIt neatly also hides faults with the AI, which can do this faster than a human can. In many ways, TW:WH has not actually improved the AI at all but simply re-designed the game mechanics around what an AI is already good at: lots of very simple, mindless and repetitive tasks.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeSo pls AGAIN CA-make two option and make all TW fans happy.
Gretings
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAll though....it could be useful....bringing a nice added flavor towards future meals.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree*Keep the the feel of the intesity and fearsness of units, keep adding units and abilities that can be used in new and intriguing ways, leaving openings for decisive outcome.
BUT
***Also allow the overall strategy and various tactics/units and abilities to be carried out/used -absence of the restricting style of current pace (I know it's great for others--I am referring to the whole point of this thread).
I like to command from all angles and heights and attempt more drawn out stages within my overall strategies. Birds view & constant clicking has proved to be fun and convienant @ times --but far from preference and desired pace. @Fredrin @DerpCat @FunkyDexter describe it better than myself !!
It's such a beautiful game graphically and filled with interesting models and w/ the lore behind them.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree