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

I want balanced armies!

1235»

Comments

  • foureyes85foureyes85 Registered Users Posts: 175
    edited December 2019
    Jman5 said:


    replenishment rate and attrition is uniform
    Yeah, this is not lore friendly at all. Elsewhere I have suggested that replenishment should vary between units. Skaven Slaves and Storm Vermin should not replenish at the same rate. If just this was changed it would still be possible to build elite armies but they would become less viable since the elite units would replenish slowly and the meat shields would replenish fast. (In the forthcoming 3K Mandate of Heaven expansion the elite Imperial units have low replenishment).
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,162
    edited December 2019
    Nyumus said:

    Crossil said:

    I don't care for balanced armies. Most fun I had was ruining a friendship by spamming mammoths.

    That's fun for maybe one playthrough. Or not at all for many who actually care a damn about the setting.

    It must go away.
    Why? Because you don't like It? If It is Fun for some of us (most, actually) why remove It?
    Stop trying to gut the game, don't take things out, add more.
    Like I said, give additional option is Fine, and Will make everyone happy, but changing the game as It is now Will only make a Lot of people upset.
    Is It hard to get It?
    So fun, average campaign completion rates rank somewhere between 5-10%. Sorry, the numbers say otherwise. It's definitely not fun.

    Also still waiting for someone to explain why it's a good thing rosters get thinned out so quickly.
    Post edited by ShiroAmakusa75 on

  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,204
    Now we're just being absurd.

    "Shields block arrows" isn't some horribly complicated idea that no one could possibly grasp. That it's entirely unrealistic and the barding on the horse is what protects it from arrows, not the shield, isn't real important.

    If someone can't intuit that, since all shield carrying units get missile block, a cavalry unit with a shield also gets missile block, they're too **** to actually play the game. That it's not complicated enough to be realistic is a plus for immediately grasping such things. Looking closely to see if the horse is barded or mailed is a lot less practical.
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,787
    I remember now because LegendOfTotalwar talked about them in his top 5 strongest factions video a year ago, they're the Spet Xyon Archers. Their staying power comes from being faster than any other cavalry unit in the game and the fact their shields somehow manage to protect both rider and horse from arrows. I had misremembered and the missile block chance is 75%. The unit model itself shows no barding, they are classed as light missile cavalry.



    Are we supposed to just guess at the designer's intentions when there are no consistent rules? If I have to pretend that shield + barding is an explanation, then I can ask why this unit has a separate armour value and why that stat functions the same as for everyone else. All the missile-block is justified by the shield, but it's just absurd that a man carrying a shield can block 70% of missiles for his apparently non-barded horse where other horsemen who actually have barded horses can't.

    What is the scenario you are imagining where this would make sense at all in real-life? It's not complicated at all, though you're trying to complicate it.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,595

    I maintain that the ideal design intent for units it to base them on intuitive real-world army-based roles that comprised a military force. Magical-thinking has infected Total War and caused it to go downhill.

    In Attila, there's a White Hun cavalry unit which has a 35% chance to block missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. A horseman with a shield can protect himself, but how does it work for the horse?

    Stuff like that needs to go, permanently.

    You say it’s bad, others disagree. If you’d been around on the release of Atilla you’d know how popular the White Huns campaign was.

    The ability for some units to take missiles better adds to a players options. Let’s not dumb the game down.
    What I described is already dumbed-down. What that unit can do is magical and arbitrary, yet it's in a 'historical' TW title.

    Things like this make it impossible for a player to intuit what their options are. It's pointless having options when they aren't clear and players have to stumble through trial and error to guess what the developers design-intent was. It's got to the point where the stat-card matters more than anything, yet it's still bereft of important information. The accuracy stat is no longer shown for example because it's mostly irrelevent with the current borked design of the shooting mechanics.

    The lack of intuitive design and overwhelming surplus of arbitrary design makes most games since Shogun 2 just not at all fun for me.
    No, it adds complexity, how can that dumb things down? A 35% block chance is magical? If you’d take the time to think rather than focus on this ‘know it all attitude’ you’d realise that arrows do not fly through the air like bullets. A man, who has fought his entire life firing arrows and defending against arrows.. do you think it’s possible that he can react to a volley? E.g. cover his vital areas behind the shield? The fact most people can see the flight of a single art or as it approaches?

    The mechanics that come after Shogun 2 (the fact you think this is the dog’s balls of strategy tells me a lot about you), are taken from feed back from the players who play this game properly, who understand the core mechanics. I remember you arguing for features that had been removed years earlier because they totally unbalanced the game.

    When you say intuitive I think you actually simple and based around a limited knowledge of warfare.

    Trust me, if you had any say on mechanics.. the game would go down hill.
  • humility925humility925 Registered Users Posts: 83
    arrow wouldn't work on undead sketele horse, arrow are often deadly on living, but not so much on undead or walking tree or monster with armors.

    As for doomstack, it's very tired to see a.i always use top tier all the time in end game (50 turn or 200 turn at least)
    I would like to see a.i use lower tier army common, not rare or never.

    Easy mode should had full of tier 1 and 2 with rare often tier 3 to 5.
    normal Mode should had most tier 1 to 3 with very few rare tier 3 to 5
    Hard mode should had very few tier 1 to 3 with mostly tier 3 to 5
    while legendary should full of tier 4 to 5 top of units doomstack, so this way, everyone much happy with gameplay of choice, rather than forced to fighting bored doomstack tier 3 to 5 all time and rare see tier 1.
  • ReeksReeks Registered Users Posts: 3,878
    Enjoy your mod then, i will continue enjoying playing without(not counting TK and stupid Dread Saurian cap) any pesky caps..

    Caps are cancer.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,162
    Reeks said:

    Enjoy your mod then, i will continue enjoying playing without(not counting TK and stupid Dread Saurian cap) any pesky caps..

    Caps are cancer.

    False, doomstacks are.

    <10% campaign completion rate. Numbers don't lie.

  • foureyes85foureyes85 Registered Users Posts: 175
    edited December 2019
    I am not so sure that doomstacks are to blame for this




    At some point campaigns tend to turn into a slog.
  • ReeksReeks Registered Users Posts: 3,878

    I am not so sure that doomstacks are to blame for this

    At some point campaigns tend to turn into a slog.

    WAITWHATNOWAYBRO!?

    That do not support the narrative that is "CapsIsTheSolutionToEverything"

    "DO NOT COMPUTE"


    Ps: Caps would be the second worst thing happening to this game.......The first one would of course be CA releasing Estalian Angels and roaming flocks of Unicorns and Fairy Dragons.
  • ComandentonComandenton Registered Users Posts: 22

    Reeks said:

    Enjoy your mod then, i will continue enjoying playing without(not counting TK and stupid Dread Saurian cap) any pesky caps..

    Caps are cancer.

    False, doomstacks are.

    <10% campaign completion rate. Numbers don't lie. </p>
    No connection here. Same for any game except The Witcher 3 or something very popular.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 833
    One should be careful using achievement metrics when they were added late in the game's life or are only accessible via DLC.

    For example only 0.3% of people are listed as having completed the Bretonnia campaign. It's low because Bretonnia is tied behind DLC or warhammer 1, but also because the achievement was only added last patch.

    A more accurate approach would be to use the most common achievement for a specific faction as the baseline and then compare with completion rate. (And hope that the achievements were added at the same time, or are not bugged)

    A good comparison is Vampire Coast and Tomb King as they are both DLC factions for WH2 and were added in the same year.

    The highest Vampirate achievement is the infamy one at 25.3%. While only 4.5% completed a game. This means that in effect, about 18% of people who played Vampire Coast actually finished a game.

    For Tomb Kings, 28.4% crafted a magical item, while only 7.3% finished a game. This means that in effect about 26% of people who played Tomb King finished a game.

    Are the soft caps of the Tomb Kings leading to a higher completion rate? I have no idea. However it does seem to dispute the notion that caps lead to fewer people playing it all the way through.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,034
    Jman5 said:

    One should be careful using achievement metrics when they were added late in the game's life or are only accessible via DLC.

    For example only 0.3% of people are listed as having completed the Bretonnia campaign. It's low because Bretonnia is tied behind DLC or warhammer 1, but also because the achievement was only added last patch.

    A more accurate approach would be to use the most common achievement for a specific faction as the baseline and then compare with completion rate. (And hope that the achievements were added at the same time, or are not bugged)

    A good comparison is Vampire Coast and Tomb King as they are both DLC factions for WH2 and were added in the same year.

    The highest Vampirate achievement is the infamy one at 25.3%. While only 4.5% completed a game. This means that in effect, about 18% of people who played Vampire Coast actually finished a game.

    For Tomb Kings, 28.4% crafted a magical item, while only 7.3% finished a game. This means that in effect about 26% of people who played Tomb King finished a game.

    Are the soft caps of the Tomb Kings leading to a higher completion rate? I have no idea. However it does seem to dispute the notion that caps lead to fewer people playing it all the way through.

    Do we even have to discuss the absurdity of this usage of statistics? I'm not particularly good at that field but knowing all the things we didn't actually know and shouldn't think we knew was a big thing back in my college days. My teachers really hated Erasmus Montanus-level reasoning and false positives, I guess.

    Tomb Kings has caps and that doesn't make the campaign particularly more enjoyable, but it does make that particular faction more unique. Are people enjoying TK, and are they enjoying them because of those caps? Who can tell? Personally I like them well enough but I'm not sure I've ever won a TK campaign. Of course, I only play ME and I don't rush, and often I'll simply feel like doing something else after 150 turns instead of grinding out the end.
  • GaryBuseysGrinGaryBuseysGrin Registered Users Posts: 1,787

    I maintain that the ideal design intent for units it to base them on intuitive real-world army-based roles that comprised a military force. Magical-thinking has infected Total War and caused it to go downhill.

    In Attila, there's a White Hun cavalry unit which has a 35% chance to block missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. A horseman with a shield can protect himself, but how does it work for the horse?

    Stuff like that needs to go, permanently.

    You say it’s bad, others disagree. If you’d been around on the release of Atilla you’d know how popular the White Huns campaign was.

    The ability for some units to take missiles better adds to a players options. Let’s not dumb the game down.
    What I described is already dumbed-down. What that unit can do is magical and arbitrary, yet it's in a 'historical' TW title.

    Things like this make it impossible for a player to intuit what their options are. It's pointless having options when they aren't clear and players have to stumble through trial and error to guess what the developers design-intent was. It's got to the point where the stat-card matters more than anything, yet it's still bereft of important information. The accuracy stat is no longer shown for example because it's mostly irrelevent with the current borked design of the shooting mechanics.

    The lack of intuitive design and overwhelming surplus of arbitrary design makes most games since Shogun 2 just not at all fun for me.
    No, it adds complexity, how can that dumb things down? A 35% block chance is magical? If you’d take the time to think rather than focus on this ‘know it all attitude’ you’d realise that arrows do not fly through the air like bullets. A man, who has fought his entire life firing arrows and defending against arrows.. do you think it’s possible that he can react to a volley? E.g. cover his vital areas behind the shield? The fact most people can see the flight of a single art or as it approaches?

    The mechanics that come after Shogun 2 (the fact you think this is the dog’s balls of strategy tells me a lot about you), are taken from feed back from the players who play this game properly, who understand the core mechanics. I remember you arguing for features that had been removed years earlier because they totally unbalanced the game.

    When you say intuitive I think you actually simple and based around a limited knowledge of warfare.

    Trust me, if you had any say on mechanics.. the game would go down hill.
    I don't have any 'know it all' attitude, you're projecting. I've described what is wrong with this unit feature which I had misremembered and under-estimated, it is in fact a 70% missile-block chance which is magical because it also protects the horse. There isn't a realistic scenario where that's even possible.

    I have my own opinions regarding Shogun 2 and other things, I don't need you misrepresenting them just to make yourself feel better.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,204
    "Tomb Kings has caps" doesn't make you not fight 500 stacks of all tier 5 troops.

    It just means you don't fight them when you're killing Tomb Kings.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 833

    Jman5 said:

    One should be careful using achievement metrics when they were added late in the game's life or are only accessible via DLC.

    For example only 0.3% of people are listed as having completed the Bretonnia campaign. It's low because Bretonnia is tied behind DLC or warhammer 1, but also because the achievement was only added last patch.

    A more accurate approach would be to use the most common achievement for a specific faction as the baseline and then compare with completion rate. (And hope that the achievements were added at the same time, or are not bugged)

    A good comparison is Vampire Coast and Tomb King as they are both DLC factions for WH2 and were added in the same year.

    The highest Vampirate achievement is the infamy one at 25.3%. While only 4.5% completed a game. This means that in effect, about 18% of people who played Vampire Coast actually finished a game.

    For Tomb Kings, 28.4% crafted a magical item, while only 7.3% finished a game. This means that in effect about 26% of people who played Tomb King finished a game.

    Are the soft caps of the Tomb Kings leading to a higher completion rate? I have no idea. However it does seem to dispute the notion that caps lead to fewer people playing it all the way through.

    Do we even have to discuss the absurdity of this usage of statistics? I'm not particularly good at that field but knowing all the things we didn't actually know and shouldn't think we knew was a big thing back in my college days. My teachers really hated Erasmus Montanus-level reasoning and false positives, I guess.

    Tomb Kings has caps and that doesn't make the campaign particularly more enjoyable, but it does make that particular faction more unique. Are people enjoying TK, and are they enjoying them because of those caps? Who can tell? Personally I like them well enough but I'm not sure I've ever won a TK campaign. Of course, I only play ME and I don't rush, and often I'll simply feel like doing something else after 150 turns instead of grinding out the end.
    What we can glean from global achievements statistics is certainly limited, but I don't think anything I wrote represents an absurd use of statistics. The only conclusion I came to was that if unit caps were a deal breaker to many people, then you would expect people to be turned off from playing Tomb Kings all the way to to victory. From what we see in the data this does not seem to be case.

    If anything it hints the opposite could be true. However I want to emphasize that the data is not good enough to make that conclusion. Thus, I said I don't know.

    As an aside, something I have always wondered about you guys. Regiments of Renown have a very hard unit cap of 1, but I never hear you guys complain about it. Are you fine with being unit capped to 1? Isn't this limiting player choice?
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 27,162
    edited December 2019
    TK caps are too generous and you can have TK doomstacks way too easily and conveniently and at no cost.

    Another argument for more restrictions.

    Doomstacks need to go away, they destroy variety in a game that live and breaths it. Campaign completion rates being awful shows that the lategame is NOT fun, period. Forgotten that people argue for doomstacks on the whole reason that they're "fun"?

  • foureyes85foureyes85 Registered Users Posts: 175
    I do not blame doomstacks for the poor campaign completion rates. I attach a screenshot from a campaign that I have paused and will probably not complete - taking two more cities is not hard but at this stage the campaign is not fun anymore. I think many players can relate.

  • kasunrathnatungakasunrathnatunga Registered Users Posts: 7,334
    Ok this just need to balanced, this is a another reason i prefer mp over campaign.

    There should be much better recruitment system to the current one allowing a player to fully utilize the roster just like in mp.

    Right now just run until you get your best units increase ECONOMY and auto resolve battles.
    This is just plain boring. On the other hand i really want the ai to use vanguard tactics.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • kasunrathnatungakasunrathnatunga Registered Users Posts: 7,334
    The solution is clear there need to be either arny caps or have more resources for recruitment and better recruitment system.

    And the ai should be able to have viable army builds.

    I pointed out this few times but there are ton of players in mp. Ca can use that data to enhance its ai. Unlike previous tw games.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • kasunrathnatungakasunrathnatunga Registered Users Posts: 7,334

    kitekaze said:

    Itharus said:

    I am 100% great with unit caps being an option.

    Wasn't downloading mod an option? Who want capping, just downloading mod, who don't want to, ignore it.

    Why trying to bother C.A to make it in-game option? They will have to test it for every patch coming out, and tons of bugs will be ensured. DLC won't come in 4-5 months cycles but will take 6-8 months, that's even worse.

    By allowing modder to handle this "option", not only C.A free themselves from the matter, but also bug fix arrive faster.
    For ten billionth time, because modders are not required to keep updating their mods. Got it now? This must be part of the basegame.
    I never use mods, just don't like them. There should be a button or check box like in mp you can click and then i could get balanced armies. Finally sacrifice my peasents to the blood gods...etc.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • kasunrathnatungakasunrathnatunga Registered Users Posts: 7,334
    psychoak said:

    Now we're just being absurd.

    "Shields block arrows" isn't some horribly complicated idea that no one could possibly grasp. That it's entirely unrealistic and the barding on the horse is what protects it from arrows, not the shield, isn't real important.

    If someone can't intuit that, since all shield carrying units get missile block, a cavalry unit with a shield also gets missile block, they're too **** to actually play the game. That it's not complicated enough to be realistic is a plus for immediately grasping such things. Looking closely to see if the horse is barded or mailed is a lot less practical.

    Thats not how sheilds work they protect the rider but not the horse. I am at the point of ignoring the fact that guy on horse is better than dino on adino because even the human is better the horse is not.

    Sheilds are the same a bronze sheild on horse should have much less misslie block chance than a sheild on foot. Becuse it coveres more of the unit.
    And horse armour types dictate how much damage a horse takes.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,595

    I maintain that the ideal design intent for units it to base them on intuitive real-world army-based roles that comprised a military force. Magical-thinking has infected Total War and caused it to go downhill.

    In Attila, there's a White Hun cavalry unit which has a 35% chance to block missiles. This makes absolutely no sense. A horseman with a shield can protect himself, but how does it work for the horse?

    Stuff like that needs to go, permanently.

    You say it’s bad, others disagree. If you’d been around on the release of Atilla you’d know how popular the White Huns campaign was.

    The ability for some units to take missiles better adds to a players options. Let’s not dumb the game down.
    What I described is already dumbed-down. What that unit can do is magical and arbitrary, yet it's in a 'historical' TW title.

    Things like this make it impossible for a player to intuit what their options are. It's pointless having options when they aren't clear and players have to stumble through trial and error to guess what the developers design-intent was. It's got to the point where the stat-card matters more than anything, yet it's still bereft of important information. The accuracy stat is no longer shown for example because it's mostly irrelevent with the current borked design of the shooting mechanics.

    The lack of intuitive design and overwhelming surplus of arbitrary design makes most games since Shogun 2 just not at all fun for me.
    No, it adds complexity, how can that dumb things down? A 35% block chance is magical? If you’d take the time to think rather than focus on this ‘know it all attitude’ you’d realise that arrows do not fly through the air like bullets. A man, who has fought his entire life firing arrows and defending against arrows.. do you think it’s possible that he can react to a volley? E.g. cover his vital areas behind the shield? The fact most people can see the flight of a single art or as it approaches?

    The mechanics that come after Shogun 2 (the fact you think this is the dog’s balls of strategy tells me a lot about you), are taken from feed back from the players who play this game properly, who understand the core mechanics. I remember you arguing for features that had been removed years earlier because they totally unbalanced the game.

    When you say intuitive I think you actually simple and based around a limited knowledge of warfare.

    Trust me, if you had any say on mechanics.. the game would go down hill.
    I don't have any 'know it all' attitude, you're projecting. I've described what is wrong with this unit feature which I had misremembered and under-estimated, it is in fact a 70% missile-block chance which is magical because it also protects the horse. There isn't a realistic scenario where that's even possible.

    I have my own opinions regarding Shogun 2 and other things, I don't need you misrepresenting them just to make yourself feel better.
    You’ve described what’s wrong with this feature? And what you say is objective fact? Or it’s something that you believe ruins the game and pretty much only you? You do realise there were lots of things that don’t make sense in the real world within TW games right? Even before Shogun 2.

    Are you sure block chance isn’t a simplified version of a units ability to avoid being hit? Through use of shield, manoeuvring, tactics? Or do you accept that if arrows are fired into the air they take a long time to arrive? They’re not bullets after all. You also realise that stats can never reflect real life? Do you think early games used realistic stats? Behaviour? Tactics? If you do, I have to say you’re easily impressed.

    This idea of imposing reality on a game - like for like is painfully naive.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,034
    edited December 2019
    I've just skimmed this topic a little bit, so my apologies if I'm overlooking something, but it does appear to be yet another "give me super-arbitrary hard caps that make no rational sense whatsoever and don't solve any actual problems" topic wherein the usual pro-cappers argue for a change that would appear to do nothing other than change the optimal army stack to something that involves a marginally different composition of units.

    Wow. So impressive. Has the problem been properly defined and analysed? Not really. Is it doomstacks or elite spam, is it AI behavior or player behavior?

    As always, I'm not a fan of the hard caps approach. The "solution" is boring, clumsy, and doesn't really fix issues too well. Caps are boring, unfun, and don't make much sense. Granted, if you want "balanced" armies then maybe caps are sensible but why on earth would armies be balanced in the context of a total war? By definition, a total war is a war without restraint.

    Elite spam, is that supposed to be a problem? If the AI can afford to throw that much my way then why shouldn't it do so? As long as I have a shot at fighting back, why exactly is there a problem in the AI trying to recruit as strong armies as it can with the economy it has? Yes, that does give me an incentive to recruit strong armies too. Or turn down the difficulty. What is the problem?

    If the AI recruited stacks of nothing but one or two tier 5 units, that would be a problem. That used to happen but not very often anymore. So not a problem.

    If the problem is how certain compositions are just overall superior and will roll over just about anything, then there are ways to change that. Particular compositions are superior because the only things stacks do is combat. Combat is all about dealing damage without taking much in return. And all units have a a fixed combat ability no matter where and when they are fighting. So the most obvious idea, change this up. Give units effects outside of combat. Make strategic climate affect combat ability. Make combat more complex than just damage dealing and damage mitigation. After that, we could then work in soft caps on top, such as manipulating recruitment time and replenishment rate.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 1,034
    Jman5 said:

    Jman5 said:

    One should be careful using achievement metrics when they were added late in the game's life or are only accessible via DLC.

    For example only 0.3% of people are listed as having completed the Bretonnia campaign. It's low because Bretonnia is tied behind DLC or warhammer 1, but also because the achievement was only added last patch.

    A more accurate approach would be to use the most common achievement for a specific faction as the baseline and then compare with completion rate. (And hope that the achievements were added at the same time, or are not bugged)

    A good comparison is Vampire Coast and Tomb King as they are both DLC factions for WH2 and were added in the same year.

    The highest Vampirate achievement is the infamy one at 25.3%. While only 4.5% completed a game. This means that in effect, about 18% of people who played Vampire Coast actually finished a game.

    For Tomb Kings, 28.4% crafted a magical item, while only 7.3% finished a game. This means that in effect about 26% of people who played Tomb King finished a game.

    Are the soft caps of the Tomb Kings leading to a higher completion rate? I have no idea. However it does seem to dispute the notion that caps lead to fewer people playing it all the way through.

    Do we even have to discuss the absurdity of this usage of statistics? I'm not particularly good at that field but knowing all the things we didn't actually know and shouldn't think we knew was a big thing back in my college days. My teachers really hated Erasmus Montanus-level reasoning and false positives, I guess.

    Tomb Kings has caps and that doesn't make the campaign particularly more enjoyable, but it does make that particular faction more unique. Are people enjoying TK, and are they enjoying them because of those caps? Who can tell? Personally I like them well enough but I'm not sure I've ever won a TK campaign. Of course, I only play ME and I don't rush, and often I'll simply feel like doing something else after 150 turns instead of grinding out the end.
    What we can glean from global achievements statistics is certainly limited, but I don't think anything I wrote represents an absurd use of statistics. The only conclusion I came to was that if unit caps were a deal breaker to many people, then you would expect people to be turned off from playing Tomb Kings all the way to to victory. From what we see in the data this does not seem to be case.

    If anything it hints the opposite could be true. However I want to emphasize that the data is not good enough to make that conclusion. Thus, I said I don't know.

    As an aside, something I have always wondered about you guys. Regiments of Renown have a very hard unit cap of 1, but I never hear you guys complain about it. Are you fine with being unit capped to 1? Isn't this limiting player choice?
    Tomb kings are unique and not simply a faction with unit caps, so trying to evaluate unit caps off TK popularity, which in turn is guessed at through achievement stats, is obviously not going to lead to a trustworthy conclusion. What's the point, then?

    No, having unit caps in combination with a very peculiar zero upkeep and zero recruitment cost mechanic is not the same as having unit caps on everything. And are we talking TK unit caps? Is that the thing you feel will fix all the doomstack-whining? TK caps still allow you to build stacks of sphinxes, bone giants, and hierotitans.

    And as for your aside, regiments of renown are unique. I am fine with unique units being capped to 1, because that makes sense. But generic units are not unique and unless there's a particular reason to justify it, the cap suggestions simply don't make sense and they're not very fun either. It works for TK because the TK play out very differently and because the caps aren't too punishing.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 833
    edited January 2

    Jman5 said:

    Jman5 said:

    One should be careful using achievement metrics when they were added late in the game's life or are only accessible via DLC.

    For example only 0.3% of people are listed as having completed the Bretonnia campaign. It's low because Bretonnia is tied behind DLC or warhammer 1, but also because the achievement was only added last patch.

    A more accurate approach would be to use the most common achievement for a specific faction as the baseline and then compare with completion rate. (And hope that the achievements were added at the same time, or are not bugged)

    A good comparison is Vampire Coast and Tomb King as they are both DLC factions for WH2 and were added in the same year.

    The highest Vampirate achievement is the infamy one at 25.3%. While only 4.5% completed a game. This means that in effect, about 18% of people who played Vampire Coast actually finished a game.

    For Tomb Kings, 28.4% crafted a magical item, while only 7.3% finished a game. This means that in effect about 26% of people who played Tomb King finished a game.

    Are the soft caps of the Tomb Kings leading to a higher completion rate? I have no idea. However it does seem to dispute the notion that caps lead to fewer people playing it all the way through.

    Do we even have to discuss the absurdity of this usage of statistics? I'm not particularly good at that field but knowing all the things we didn't actually know and shouldn't think we knew was a big thing back in my college days. My teachers really hated Erasmus Montanus-level reasoning and false positives, I guess.

    Tomb Kings has caps and that doesn't make the campaign particularly more enjoyable, but it does make that particular faction more unique. Are people enjoying TK, and are they enjoying them because of those caps? Who can tell? Personally I like them well enough but I'm not sure I've ever won a TK campaign. Of course, I only play ME and I don't rush, and often I'll simply feel like doing something else after 150 turns instead of grinding out the end.
    What we can glean from global achievements statistics is certainly limited, but I don't think anything I wrote represents an absurd use of statistics. The only conclusion I came to was that if unit caps were a deal breaker to many people, then you would expect people to be turned off from playing Tomb Kings all the way to to victory. From what we see in the data this does not seem to be case.

    If anything it hints the opposite could be true. However I want to emphasize that the data is not good enough to make that conclusion. Thus, I said I don't know.

    As an aside, something I have always wondered about you guys. Regiments of Renown have a very hard unit cap of 1, but I never hear you guys complain about it. Are you fine with being unit capped to 1? Isn't this limiting player choice?
    Tomb kings are unique and not simply a faction with unit caps, so trying to evaluate unit caps off TK popularity, which in turn is guessed at through achievement stats, is obviously not going to lead to a trustworthy conclusion. What's the point, then?

    No, having unit caps in combination with a very peculiar zero upkeep and zero recruitment cost mechanic is not the same as having unit caps on everything. And are we talking TK unit caps? Is that the thing you feel will fix all the doomstack-whining? TK caps still allow you to build stacks of sphinxes, bone giants, and hierotitans.

    And as for your aside, regiments of renown are unique. I am fine with unique units being capped to 1, because that makes sense. But generic units are not unique and unless there's a particular reason to justify it, the cap suggestions simply don't make sense and they're not very fun either. It works for TK because the TK play out very differently and because the caps aren't too punishing.
    Ah, I missed your reply. I wish this forum did a better job of notifying.

    The point of the tomb king information was to clarify how better to read the achievements data. The information we have also undercuts the arguments that some have made above that unit caps are a deal breaker for most players. I am aware there are plenty of variables for the Tomb Kings which is why I was very careful not to say that the higher completion rates were conclusive toward my pro-unit cap argument.

    For the record I am in favor of any of the common cap suggestions that have been brought up (money cap, TT caps, etc). I have my own ideal preference (Dynamic battle value), but I'll take anything that is an improvement on the status quo. That includes the TK soft cap model. No system is perfect and will "fix" the game, but they would all improve things in their own way.

    Regarding RoR:
    So in principle you are perfectly fine with every faction constraining player choice with unit caps as long as it makes sense. In this case you think constraining player choice to only being able to recruit one RoR type makes sense because they are unique units.

    How is that any different than the people who point out that certain unit types are quite rare in the world, so entire armies of them makes no sense? These are both quantity arguments. You are perfectly happy to make that argument in the case of RoR, but then immediately dismiss it when it's inconvenient.
Sign In or Register to comment.