Thank you to everyone who took a few minutes to respond to the recent Battles Survey. We now have over 1,000 responses and some excellent data, so it's time to share some of the findings.
For those who haven't seen it yet, the survey will be open for a few days longer to capture the opinion of people who don't visit the forums as regularly:
A quick reminder that this is meant as a fun and constructive exercise. Please don't use the results to undermine the efforts of the developers and bear in mind that every person who took this survey is entitled to the opinion they gave, regardless of how the numbers stack up.
For those who want to delve into the finer detail, here are two formats to view the results (click to download):
As it can be a bit of a slog interpreting these, here is a brief written report, drafted as impartially as possible, to help highlight the most obvious trends and stats which I think will be most interesting to everyone. Words are limited in how much they can convey, so I'd encourage checking out the Quick Report/spreadsheet for closer analysis.
I'm open to some discussion of the survey itself in this thread, but I would prefer the focus to be on the results, what they mean in terms of game design and how CA can either build on its successes or fix areas where it looks like people aren't as satisfied. Please keep it constructive!
Summary of Results
Who took the Survey?
[All numbers in brackets are percentages]
- Most results came from either these forums (34) or Reddit (53), with the rest coming from Steam, Twitch streams and various other sources.
- The majority of respondents are in the 21-30 age bracket (61). 16% of people are in the 0-20 bracket, while 23% responded as 31 years or over
- Medieval II and Rome II came in as the games most people had played (76 each). The first Shogun and Medieval games had the fewest players (26 and 33)
- When asked how dedicated we are as fans, we averaged 7.6 out of 10 for TW and 6.4 for WHFB.
- A full 83% said battles were to some degree too fast, while 15% said they were spot on and only 2% said too slow.
- On average, people voted for battles to be 34% slower. Those who wanted it faster (50 in total) averaged 2%.
- 76% of players said that the game would benefit from more tactical options against 1% who said it needs fewer.
- On average, people gave the battles a 6.6 out of 10, when asked how well "epic" describes them.
- The siege battles scored a slightly unfortunate 3.9 out of 10 when people were asked for their general feelings on them.
- There was no great desire for map size to be larger - a 6/10 showing a slight preference from some for larger maps and this is almost exactly the same story for unit sizes.
- There was a high standard deviation in results when people were asked how "Arcadey" they thought the game was. Overall, it got a 4.6/10 in terms of accuracy.
- A whopping 89% said they would like to see more depth giving features in future battle design - 68% either agreeing or strongly agreeing, 2% saying they disagreed.
- People are by and large quite happy with the size and variety of unit rosters, giving that category a 7.5/10, while the overall game score got a healthy 8.1/10.
- People rated battles an overall 7.9, but were a bit less happy with campaign strategy which came in at 6.9.
- The marketing team at CA can pat themselves on the back - a huge proportion of people gave their hype levels for Warhammer a perfect 10, with the overall hypometer at 8.6.
Hope you enjoy discussing the results and please share with anyone who hasn't seen it: https://kwiksurveys.com/s/SGbCa6sQ