Welcome

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.

Categories

Create your own Legendary Lord

2»

Comments

  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,591Registered Users

    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    @ChaosDragonBorn at least the Avater from Shogun 2 had some sensible limitations.

    Are you implying that this request is too much ?
    Yes, both in term of work and in terms that it would do more harm than good to this game.
    You know what's best for the game so who I'm I to question?
    Even having those things as an option for many of the races is an clear lore break and nonsense.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    Tayvar said:

    @ChaosDragonBorn at least the Avater from Shogun 2 had some sensible limitations.

    Are you implying that this request is too much ?
    Yes, both in term of work and in terms that it would do more harm than good to this game.
    You know what's best for the game so who I'm I to question?
    Even having those things as an option for many of the races is an clear lore break and nonsense.
    If creating your own lord as an option is nonsense then a randomly generated lord is nonsense too right? If you don't personally create a lord yourself it's still lore breaking regardless? Are you going to get mad if people are creating their characters and you are not because it's lore breaking in your personal game? I can't tell what's the nonsense here. Tayvar help me out.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,591Registered Users
    @ChaosDragonBorn the "randomly generated lord" are not so random, just as it should be. I am not going to be mad at players, I would be mad at having very lore-unfriendly option in the game.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    edited December 2016
    Fair enough. But renaming settlements and lords are in the same realm as creating them yourself, do you have a problem with that? Renaming settlements and lords?
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,591Registered Users
    edited December 2016
    @ChaosDragonBorn There is an reason why CA don't allow you to rename Legendary Lords, as it's also an huge lore break, even though allowing us to rename things is not actually require CA to work and waste their time on an lore breaking things. At this point CA didn't added even some totally lore-friendly options, like Female Empire Wizards, so why should they waste their time on lore-unfriendly options that would only hurt this game, it's make no sense, even for an mod, let alone for the official/main version of the game. Also renaming can be used for lore-friendly names(in case of settlements to give them orcy names), while the unlimited character creation is going to be used mainly for lore-unfriendly things, and required more unnecessary work from CA.
  • SquallsySquallsy Posts: 176Registered Users
    honestly? it should just be options on all lords, i had a thread about this a while ago
  • SnotfaceSnotface Member Posts: 752Registered Users
    Custom legendary lords, choice of army colours, and choice of Minor Faction name would be very cool.
    Wyvern's is good fer one thing, eatin' smashin' smellin' and flyin.'
  • SaurianDruidSaurianDruid Posts: 979Registered Users
    Creating your own lords isn't "lore-unfriendly". It's a cornerstone of Warhammer. GW purposefully sets up their worlds assuming players will want to make their own characters and stories around the armies they create. It's why there are missing Primarchs in 40K. GW wanted their players to be able to make entire custom Space Marine chapters from scratch and have them fit nicely in the fluff of the game.

    On the tabletop you can put together models and tweak existing models to look how you want, then paint them with the colors you want to create a sense of individuality with your soldiers. You can write a story about how your army came to be and what battles they have won and go head to head against similarly crafted armies of your friends.

    I see no reason why this shouldn't be a possibility in Total War. Customization breathes life into a game and adds more replayability. Perhaps I want to conquer the world as the Thervaresh the Bloody Fang, Ghoul King of Sylvannia and loyal minion of Vlad Von Carstein. Perhaps I'll even set some limits for myself and only recruit Vlad as a second Legendary Lord after I've sacked and razed Altdorf to reunite him with his ring. Makes a LOT more sense than doing the same as Kemmler or Mannfred and adds a story line to my campaign.

    Or maybe I'll create an Amber Wizard who defeated Gelt in combat and took the title of Supreme Patriarch and uses it to lead an army of horsemen and demigryph knights against the Beastmen of the Drakwald, and make it my duty to protect the wild lands of the Empire for the taint of Chaos.

    The entire point of Total War is to tell an alternate history of the land it's set in. A history where the Gauls take over Rome and create an empire that stretches from the British Isles to Egypt, or a history where the Dwarfs wipe out the Greenskins and re-take their Karaks, thus regaining the empire they long since lost. I see no reason why being able to add your own characters to this alternate telling of history shouldn't be allowed.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,591Registered Users
    @SaurianDruid it's lore-unfriendly if the lords don't fit with the culture of the faction.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    Tayvar said:

    @SaurianDruid it's lore-unfriendly if the lords don't fit with the culture of the faction.

    I don't think that's important in context with people's personal preferences, story telling, and lore understanding. Not needed to be said at this point, but it would sell very well and people would enjoy the feature. There is nothing lore purist can do about it in people's personal games. And there is nothing to complain about if it's optional.
  • SaurianDruidSaurianDruid Posts: 979Registered Users
    edited December 2016
    Tayvar said:

    it's lore-unfriendly if the lords don't fit with the culture of the faction.

    That has more to do with what options are available than whether or not options should be available at all. If something is impossible in the lore like say a female orc warboss or male damsel then obviously it shouldn't be an option.

    Though I'd argue that things that are merely very rare and unlikely should be available since part of what makes many legendary heroes interesting is that they are exceptional. Valkia the Bloody being an exceptional female Chaos Lord who rose to power sets a precedent that it's possible, as an example.

    As long as the AI doesn't have access to this feature it will be fine, as you won't suddenly see a thousand female Chaos Lords roaming the map. Only one, and only if you chose to create such a character to be the protagonist in your personal story.

    Something like Valdis the Plague Mother, a northern Empire woman who gave birth to a Chaos corrupted beast child. Though she knew she had to dispose of it she couldn't, but when the local officials found out they drowned it in a well. In her immense grief she called out for any who would aid her, and she heard the call of Nurgle who gave her the powerful magic needed to exact her revenge, plaguing the city and transforming many of the residents into Chaos Spawn and zombie-like virus carriers. Later she heard the call of Archaon and joined his forces, soon becoming a powerful general in her own right for her strong connection to the ruinous powers and knowledge of plagues.

    I'd play such a character. Though if possible I'd make her mutations so disgusting her original self would be pretty much unidentifiable.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 7,890Registered Users

    Creating your own lords isn't "lore-unfriendly". It's a cornerstone of Warhammer. GW purposefully sets up their worlds assuming players will want to make their own characters and stories around the armies they create. It's why there are missing Primarchs in 40K. GW wanted their players to be able to make entire custom Space Marine chapters from scratch and have them fit nicely in the fluff of the game.

    On the tabletop you can put together models and tweak existing models to look how you want, then paint them with the colors you want to create a sense of individuality with your soldiers. You can write a story about how your army came to be and what battles they have won and go head to head against similarly crafted armies of your friends.

    I see no reason why this shouldn't be a possibility in Total War. Customization breathes life into a game and adds more replayability. Perhaps I want to conquer the world as the Thervaresh the Bloody Fang, Ghoul King of Sylvannia and loyal minion of Vlad Von Carstein. Perhaps I'll even set some limits for myself and only recruit Vlad as a second Legendary Lord after I've sacked and razed Altdorf to reunite him with his ring. Makes a LOT more sense than doing the same as Kemmler or Mannfred and adds a story line to my campaign.

    Or maybe I'll create an Amber Wizard who defeated Gelt in combat and took the title of Supreme Patriarch and uses it to lead an army of horsemen and demigryph knights against the Beastmen of the Drakwald, and make it my duty to protect the wild lands of the Empire for the taint of Chaos.

    The entire point of Total War is to tell an alternate history of the land it's set in. A history where the Gauls take over Rome and create an empire that stretches from the British Isles to Egypt, or a history where the Dwarfs wipe out the Greenskins and re-take their Karaks, thus regaining the empire they long since lost. I see no reason why being able to add your own characters to this alternate telling of history shouldn't be allowed.

    this!

    the best part Warhammer the tt was making your own general and his army
    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,231Registered Users
    There are a lot of rules that constrain how making lords in tabletop prevent being unlore. This game would have to become much more like the tabletop to have the same effect. Of course, it's not only not much like the tabletop, but also never really meant to be. A comparison to the TT only gets you so far.

    CA might as well just create the lords for us. They got the resources, the connections and the expertise to make it work and keep it balanced. In any event they are much better position to do so, plus they wouldn't want to give us the tools to prevent making DLC, so...

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • SaurianDruidSaurianDruid Posts: 979Registered Users
    daelin4 said:

    There are a lot of rules that constrain how making lords in tabletop prevent being unlore. This game would have to become much more like the tabletop to have the same effect. Of course, it's not only not much like the tabletop, but also never really meant to be. A comparison to the TT only gets you so far.

    CA might as well just create the lords for us. They got the resources, the connections and the expertise to make it work and keep it balanced. In any event they are much better position to do so, plus they wouldn't want to give us the tools to prevent making DLC, so...

    The DLC lords would be far superior in terms of creating specific characters than what you could create in the lord creator, most likely. For example someone might take a male Glade Lord and make him look vaguely like Araloth (I imagine there'd only be a few face and armor choices per generic lord. I'm not expecting Skyrim level of customization or anything) but that Araloth would never be able to get his bird. So when CA comes out with an Araloth DLC with his bird as a special skill the player would be inclined to buy it so they can have a proper Araloth rather than a cheap imitation. This is doubly true for characters who have unique mounts like the Carmine Dragon, or models that are extremely different from the generic variant like Grom da PAUNCH.

    The main reason for this mechanic would be for original characters being used in the campaign. Limited visual customization, mostly colors and a few faces, and maybe some generic skills you can pick from to better represent your character's abilities.

    Basically you'd make something like Boris or the Red Duke, not Orion or Skarsnik.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,231Registered Users
    edited December 2016
    If I want a lord crafted to whatever I want iot to look like (and different abilities), I would either ask a modder to make it or make one myself. There are already mods that do this, and I use them myself. They work and are more fun, IMO. They're not even aesthetic mods either, they change the way Lords and Heroes work.

    There really isn't a point in making a mechanic to craft a (legendary) lord when workshop already does it to some extent, and CA has no commercial incentive to offer the options to us in a more streamlined and convenient manner.
    Not to mention, what OP lists are just cosmetic. The only real limitation right now is whether some modder out there is bothered to change the colour palettes of whatever we want changed.

    Creating your own lords is useless because it does nothing, and we already have the means for it. OP isn't asking for the ability, OP is asking for a convenient accessibility.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    I would much rather it be an actual part of the game. Mods are band-aids. They only add what we wish was part of the game to begin with. The modding tools we have right now are pretty limited compared to some previous TW games so getting your personal LL the way you want it is almost impossible. Also half the fun would be showing off your lord to other players in some sort of special MP mode but that's impossible if it's mod.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,591Registered Users
    Mods are also used for adding lore-breaking stuff/options, just like the ones that you suggest.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,231Registered Users

    I would much rather it be an actual part of the game. Mods are band-aids. They only add what we wish was part of the game to begin with. The modding tools we have right now are pretty limited compared to some previous TW games so getting your personal LL the way you want it is almost impossible. Also half the fun would be showing off your lord to other players in some sort of special MP mode but that's impossible if it's mod.

    According to what I'm seeing in the workship, mods do is provide game-relevant modifications, whereas this idea, and the way you want it, serves just to provide cosmetics....again to some extent mods can do. Mods may be bandaids but they work well enough.

    I also think that only a fraction of the player base would use this feature, and even less would consider it half the fun of playing a turn-based/ realtime strategy game.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • TayvarTayvar Posts: 10,591Registered Users
    @daelin4 true, and even in RPG things like that are very controversial, it's almost as bad as someone asking to being able to play with some custom dude in The Witcher 3 instead of Geralt of Rivia, non-custom characters tend to have more personality and depth, that's one of the reason that most Dawn of War 2 players prefer Gabriel Angelos over the Unnamed Force Commander. CA already decided to go with established characters as legendary lords, that's why we are not allowed to even change their names, so why should they go back on their reasonable decision now. Also when players are allowed to have bigger customization of characters, those characters tend to overshadow the established characters, because the player can choose the best skills for them, or in this case the best campaign starting bonus. And that on top of the fact that having too many customization options in Warhammer Fantasy is lore-breaking.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    I can't believe you used Geralt in this. The Witcher series is played entirely from the perspective of Geralt and HIS role in the story and HIS development as a character. In TWW you can play with any of the LL or just a generic lord. Warhammer TT even let you make your own generals. So the examples you used are just BAD. It's almost like you're trying to mislead us. Your persistence to shoot down this idea makes me think it's some sort of personal thing. I doubt CA would make these customisable characters the epitome of all lords. They can be balanced. If they become too powerful they can be nerfed.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,231Registered Users
    Neither Warhammer the TW game nor the tabletop are RPGs. Customization, especially of the cosmetic type, are unsurprisingly not going to be a priority. It would if it was all about controlling your own character in an open game world. But the only customization you would expect from a strategy game is micromanaging what you build in your settlements and armies, which the game does well enough.

    Just because the TT allowed for some deviations from the lore doesn't mean this game can. A guy that can eat peanuts can hardly mean another guy with peanut allergy can. Well, he CAN but the consequences will be very different.

    And again, looks like people are content with what mods already offer. What you want is not the option, but the interface.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    To the naysayers:

    "This is not an RPG"
    No, it's not. Thanks for letting us know. Please excuse the RPG elements of this game and all the other total wars...
    What I mean is---so what?

    "This is not a priority, resources resources blah blah blah"
    Ok please give me the inside info that you have because that would be great. We could all give CA better feedback and requests. I mean what is this argument!? So your ideas are priority? Your request fit the bill of resources? How do you have a projection of what people would like and not like with everyone here begging for this except two people :lol: ?

    "This would break the lore and immersion"
    Yeah tell that to the people having a good time. If you get owned by someone's LL, you get mad because his name was not Karl Franz or Grimgor, ....or because you lost? (This is a single player requested feature anyway. )

    "There is a reason why CA didn't let you customize LLs"
    This request stems from that problem! We want to customize LLs. At this point, a create and edit your own character feature would be great. We create our own story, and that elicits immersion.

    "Mods are the equivalent of customization"
    Last time I checked, mods are not the equivalent to what CA are capable of doing.
    Check the OP, .....mods can't do that. It a simple request. But mods can not do it.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,231Registered Users

    To the naysayers:

    "This is not an RPG"
    No, it's not. Thanks for letting us know. Please excuse the RPG elements of this game and all the other total wars...
    What I mean is---so what?

    I already explained that. But nice try quoting only one part of a paragraph. I've seen people try that before with success.


    "This is not a priority, resources resources blah blah blah"
    Ok please give me the inside info that you have because that would be great. We could all give CA better feedback and requests. I mean what is this argument!? So your ideas are priority? Your request fit the bill of resources? How do you have a projection of what people would like and not like with everyone here begging for this except two people :lol: ?

    There is no inside info and you should not try to insinuate that there is. General feeling is that people who buy RTS games are going to buy it for the RTS element, not the RPG elements.
    If you can prove with your own inside info that "we" really do want this feature, well show me.
    Just because I assume your idea is hardly top priority, doesn't imply that mine is. Your ideas can suck as much as mine. It can also be better, but clearly not going to be the end result.


    "This would break the lore and immersion"
    Yeah tell that to the people having a good time. If you get owned by someone's LL, you get mad because his name was not Karl Franz or Grimgor, ....or because you lost? (This is a single player requested feature anyway. )

    I'd say they got mad because their opponent made a custom LL that can own anything.
    Because what you suggest amounts to cheating in the game. If I can create a custom Lord that is totally superior to, say, the DLC Lords, then not only am I competing with CA's profit margin, but also ruining the intended game experience. At least mods are unofficial tweaking of the files.
    The campaign experience is meant to be immersive into the Lore. At least mods are unofficial. But if CA creates an interface that lets you destroy Archaeon with Spongebob and Elmo, that's probably a problem for GW.
    Even cheat codes aren't present as a toggled ability in most games.


    "There is a reason why CA didn't let you customize LLs"
    This request stems from that problem! We want to customize LLs. At this point, a create and edit your own character feature would be great. We create our own story, and that elicits immersion.

    I can't help but feel this isn' a problem for most people. Were there a great deal of online outrage on Twitch or YouTube over not having a cosmetic customizer? Even Dawn of War II didn't.


    "Mods are the equivalent of customization"
    Last time I checked, mods are not the equivalent to what CA are capable of doing.
    Check the OP, .....mods can't do that. It a simple request. But mods can not do it.

    No one said this, so naturally your response doesn't make any sense and is not in response to any criticism being pointed out. Next time quote the actual quote and don't assume your paraphrase is correct.

    Of course what you're saying is that it's all cosmetic and meaningless....then no one would bother using it. Just like a mod that tuns all the Grave Guard warriors into Hello Kitty figurines. Unless CA clearly gets indication that thousands of new people will buy this game because of the presence of a customizer, then they'll do it....but I'm sure the conclusion they made was that there isn't. Sit down for a while and think hard on whether you really would buy this game again if it had this feature. Still yes? Then imagine how many more people would be in your position. Still convinced? Then you still got to convince CA and SEGA to allocate the budget. Because this is quite a project that they can't just throw away six months of time and pay to do. They already have projects in the works for more DLC/ expandalones. Your best bet is that somehow someone managed to convince them during the planning process to include such a feature. But last time I checked, they've cut content before due to budget and time constraints.

    And one more thing: to create a new LL you need a basic template. What you're suggesting is like a dozen templates at the least because there are more than humans in this game.
    So mind you, even if they DID make a customizer, guess what would happen? Not a lot of customizable stuff to begin with.
    Cosmetics are also a problem because a dude with an axe is not a dude with a spear. At least Goblin Spearmen not being actual spearmen is reflected in their stats.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • ChaosDragonBornChaosDragonBorn Posts: 1,487Registered Users
    @daelin4
    "I already explained that. But nice try quoting only one part of a paragraph. I've seen people try that before with success."

    I'm not quoting you. It's the general idea of "It's not an RPG game, so don't request aspects of it". What I'm saying there is CA has implemented RPG elements in their games, so that line of argument is debunked with evidence of CA's own games. I have also seen and discussed with people who cut some of my ideas and thoughts to make their own opinion or argument. I don't do that, because it's a waste of both of our time.

    "There is no inside info and you should not try to insinuate that there is. General feeling is that people who buy RTS games are going to buy it for the RTS element, not the RPG elements.
    If you can prove with your own inside info that "we" really do want this feature, well show me.
    Just because I assume your idea is hardly top priority, doesn't imply that mine is. Your ideas can suck as much as mine. It can also be better, but clearly not going to be the end result."

    Yeah accuse me of misrepresenting you and then you do what you claim I did. Classic. I told you look at the op and the response of the thread. That's what I was referring too , obviously. You and Tayvar are the only ones here fighting this. Some people on this forum like to use the "CA's resources" and "priorities" as an excuse to shoot down certain requests and ideas. Like they have inside info. The facts. Re-read what I said, or not. Just don't try to twist it. As you say "nice try"...

    "I'd say they got mad because their opponent made a custom LL that can own anything.
    Because what you suggest amounts to cheating in the game. If I can create a custom Lord that is totally superior to, say, the DLC Lords, then not only am I competing with CA's profit margin, but also ruining the intended game experience. At least mods are unofficial tweaking of the files.
    The campaign experience is meant to be immersive into the Lore. At least mods are unofficial. But if CA creates an interface that lets you destroy Archaeon with Spongebob and Elmo, that's probably a problem for GW.
    Even cheat codes aren't present as a toggled ability in most games."

    CA would obviously balance their feature. What you said would suggest CA allowed our potentially created characters to be way superior. Like I said, mods can't make this happen. If CA lets us kill Archaon with spongbob and Elmo that would be in our own amusement, and GW would be fine lol. That was funny though. Like I said this is a single player feature request, because I have not played multiplayer yet. Going to wait until it gets more features oddly enough. I probably still won't care for it though.


    "I can't help but feel this isn' a problem for most people. Were there a great deal of online outrage on Twitch or YouTube over not having a cosmetic customizer? Even Dawn of War II didn't."

    If the lack of customizing LLs is a "problem" for "most people" or not is not something I know or care about. Though, I could make a thread in general and get some thoughts, and even get more people on board. I assume people would agree, that they wanted to customize LLs.

    "No one said this, so naturally your response doesn't make any sense and is not in response to any criticism being pointed out. Next time quote the actual quote and don't assume your paraphrase is correct.

    Of course what you're saying is that it's all cosmetic and meaningless....then no one would bother using it. Just like a mod that tuns all the Grave Guard warriors into Hello Kitty figurines. Unless CA clearly gets indication that thousands of new people will buy this game because of the presence of a customizer, then they'll do it....but I'm sure the conclusion they made was that there isn't. Sit down for a while and think hard on whether you really would buy this game again if it had this feature. Still yes? Then imagine how many more people would be in your position. Still convinced? Then you still got to convince CA and SEGA to allocate the budget. Because this is quite a project that they can't just throw away six months of time and pay to do. They already have projects in the works for more DLC/ expandalones. Your best bet is that somehow someone managed to convince them during the planning process to include such a feature. But last time I checked, they've cut content before due to budget and time constraints.

    And one more thing: to create a new LL you need a basic template. What you're suggesting is like a dozen templates at the least because there are more than humans in this game.
    So mind you, even if they DID make a customizer, guess what would happen? Not a lot of customizable stuff to begin with.
    Cosmetics are also a problem because a dude with an axe is not a dude with a spear. At least Goblin Spearmen not being actual spearmen is reflected in their stats."
    These statements happen to be you:
    "And again, looks like people are content with what mods already offer."

    "According to what I'm seeing in the workship, mods do is provide game-relevant modifications, whereas this idea, and the way you want it, serves just to provide cosmetics....again to some extent mods can do. Mods may be bandaids but they work well enough."

    'If I want a lord crafted to whatever I want iot to look like (and different abilities), I would either ask a modder to make it or make one myself. There are already mods that do this, and I use them myself."

    Why are you fighting this so hard? Please, feel free to give your way of doing it. Your telling us why CA shouldn't do it is not convincing. By the way, I believe I prefaced this thread with my doubts on CA doing this anyway. We can't have nice things! Especially on a forum where people will grab any argument stance they can against game requests. Your very last paragraph is the most valuable statements you have said since you entered this thread. That is something I was pondering after I made the post months ago(along with many other things people have not brought up yet). So can we start addressing those type of issues and stop telling people what CA is not going to do?
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,231Registered Users
    edited January 2017


    I'm not quoting you. It's the general idea of "It's not an RPG game, so don't request aspects of it". What I'm saying there is CA has implemented RPG elements in their games, so that line of argument is debunked with evidence of CA's own games. I have also seen and discussed with people who cut some of my ideas and thoughts to make their own opinion or argument. I don't do that, because it's a waste of both of our time.

    I know you are not quoting me, that is the real problem.
    I'm sure these people aren't saying it's an RPG game so don't ask for one, they are pointing out that these ideas won't work unless it becomes an RPG game, which they think isn't and shouldn't. Your idea is also only present in a select portion of RPG games; Diablo may not be RPG due to it's greater focus on item grinding, but it is a game where people play as a character and level them up.
    You don't really play as your faction leader when you play this game, particularly because you are commanding other characters and their armies as well. Naturally a mechanic that lets you customize a particular character while others cannot seems very weird to me; Legendary Lords aren't exactly terribly different than regular Lords, the biggest difference is you start with one, and they never die. They may have a few unique skills depending on whch one you choose, but that is it.


    CA would obviously balance their feature. What you said would suggest CA allowed our potentially created characters to be way superior.
    Like I said, mods can't make this happen.
    If CA lets us kill Archaon with spongbob and Elmo that would be in our own amusement, and GW would be fine lol. That was funny though. Like I said this is a single player feature request, because I have not played multiplayer yet. Going to wait until it gets more features oddly enough. I probably still won't care for it though.

    First, your idea is too vague to suggest whether CA would create measures to ensure balance. The reason being that the majority of your ideas are cosmetic features- changing hair colour or male/female characters. But then you have the idea of having them using different weapons. Would you want a feature that makes it look like you have a spear, but really the guy is a sword-armed character?
    Second, mods CAN make this happen, because I just found a mod that super-buffs my Lords when I recruit them. No it does not let them change hair colour or other cosmetics, but that is the purpose of the mod- they are vastly superior so I can cheat at the game. A game that lets you customize a character to do just that isn't so much more-unfriendly but goes against the point of creating obstacles in the game to simulate difficulty. Again, the confusion stems from whether these customizations are cosmetic only- you haven't really addressed that issue, you especially did not in the OP. No surprise people are taking it either way.


    If the lack of customizing LLs is a "problem" for "most people" or not is not something I know or care about. Though, I could make a thread in general and get some thoughts, and even get more people on board. I assume people would agree, that they wanted to customize LLs.

    If you don't know then don't say "we think this". You specifically mentioned a "we" and that this feature stems from a problem. You DO care about this, clearly more than I do. And was not this thread made for the purpose of finding whether people are or not?


    Why are you fighting this so hard? Please, feel free to give your way of doing it. Your telling us why CA shouldn't do it is not convincing.
    By the way, I believe I prefaced this thread with my doubts on CA doing this anyway.
    We can't have nice things! Especially on a forum where people will grab any argument stance they can against game requests.
    Your very last paragraph is the most valuable statements you have said since you entered this thread.
    That is something I was pondering after I made the post months ago(along with many other things people have not brought up yet).
    So can we start addressing those type of issues and stop telling people what CA is not going to do?

    I'm not fighting this idea. I just have no idea what this idea is really about since you're not being clear; mods do what I want out of it, that's why I said it. But a customizer to characters brings many questions to the game and the idea. What does this customize? What does it not? If you're unclear as why people oppose your idea, one of the bigger reasons is that they don't know what your idea is really about and what it really does. It's your job to clarify.
    That's why I think this is also a cheat, because you seem quite fine with the idea that this results in characters that greatly reduce difficulty levels in the game. Oh you beat Legendary Difficulty? Well you used a customized character that made it easier than Easy Mode with Grombrindal.
    As for priority, I can only speak for myself but I'd assume CA won't consider a purely cosmetic altering mechanism to be of particular importance to them. You want this to be some $20 DLC? That's going to ruffle some feathers, too. If I own CA, I wouldn't want to be "that guy" that tried to sell a cosmetic interface.
    People who are "fighting this" are just being practical realistic.

    If you're asking me how to do this idea, my answer is not to. I don't care much about cosmetics unless it's buggy. Grombrindal can look as ugly as much as CA wants but in the end, he's a very effective character for the Dwarfs and that's why he's so popular.
    And some people believe we already have a nice thing, and that this idea would ruin it. I don't see lack of customization as a problem, because it seemed clear to me that customization of particular characters isn't really something to expect out of a strategy game. Remember, your idea is creating your own LLs, not altering current ones.

    You said you doubt this will ever be implemented. I just explained why that might be the case. There's your opportunity to read and think about.

    Now, if they made a Total War Battles version of WFB, then this idea is TOTALLY the thing to go for, that game is all about creating your own world and your own story.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • ChipawapaChipawapa Posts: 149Registered Users
    edited January 2017
    Customization is not lore breaking. Warhammer thrives on customization. Lets take Helman Ghorst for example, he had no role in the end times, he was a nobody in the books, he made no impact on the end times, yet he can be picked as a legendary lord who fights under orders from Mannfred and you can finish the campaign with him. The same thing can be done with customized legendary lords, they could be fighting under orders from the actual LL's of that race.

    Also the campaign itself doesn't follow the lore, things don't happen in the campaign as they happened in the End Times lore. In one scenario Archaon might come from the north and lose to a random dwarf army lead by belegar ironhammer that's grown too powerful which then proceeds to take over the entire campaign map, are you gonna say that's not lore friendly because that's not really how the end times went? Belegar died against the skaven, yet here he is razing the chaos wastes with his 3 stack army. There is always room for player freedom in the warhammer lore.
    Post edited by Chipawapa on
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,231Registered Users
    edited January 2017
    Warhammer the tabletop game is all about customization, but not the lore, which is just a fluff storyline that drives the general direction. At least if you want the immersion. So this is a matter of whether TW:W being more of the former or the latter. What you can't deny however is just how lore-leaning this game is since it's meant to portray the End Times period and your commanding those characters. It is really just like the Storm of Chaos event they had before they retconned it out.

    In other words customization is at the heart of Warhammer...but it is also lore-breaking.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file