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

Proving Grounds Beta

CA_JamesCA_James Registered Users, Moderators, Administrators, CA Staff Mods, CA Staff, Community Team Posts: 495

Campaign balance is something we’re always thinking about for WARHAMMER II, especially now with the amount of legendary lords, units, races and more in the game.

With that in mind, we’re introducing the Proving Grounds beta – an experimental version of the game for us to test things out. To find out more about it, including how to opt in and try it out for yourself, click here:
https://www.totalwar.com/blog/the-proving-grounds-beta/
«13456713

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,120
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • makar55makar55 Registered Users Posts: 2,617
    Chaos and Beastmen unit upkeep reduced


    Are not Warriors of Chaos already cheap enough? I think you literally may not get into upkeep troubles unless you're playing the game for the first time.

    Vampires now more aggressive


    Be blessed this day
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Registered Users Posts: 10,457
    I've been waiting for this for a long time. These news trump a lot of other stuff and when it comes to impact the rebalancing of the campaign could have just as much of a positive impact as the reduction in turn times if not even more. Sometimes new content isn't the most important thing, rather that the content there is functions well.

    Definitely pitching in here.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • AxiosXiphosAxiosXiphos Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,104
    Exciting and scary for such a big game! These are huge changes - I'd never of expected to see such a dramatic shift outside of a paradox game.

    Really interested to see how this pans out! My main hope is this makes low tier units relevant right into the end game (which it sounds like it might well do!)
    The wiki is not a grounds for arguing about lore - because ANYONE can edit it at any time.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 22,813
    Thank you so much CA!

    - Auto conversion removed
    - Supply lines removed
    - fixed Autoresolve for evil races

    That’s all I wanted!
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • Pr4vdaPr4vda Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,802
    HoneyBun said:

    I was ready to criticise this ... then I read it.

    It's as close to an attempt to fundamentally alter (and I hope improve) the campaign as you can realistically ever expect a big company to get.

    I take my hat off to CA and look forward to seeing what comes out of it.

    For me the weakness of 1 and 2 was always on the campaign side far more than the battle side and hopefully that will come out in the Beta

    Best of luck!

    Exactly my thoughts too. Battle side is awesome, but after playing ToB and 3K, Warhammer feels poor in terms of campaign gameplay. Even for the most recent races, diplomacy/trade/buildings constructions/recruitement feels less interesting.

    It seems CA is taking that into account and they really need to improve that either on basic gameplay (such as diplomacy) or racial gameplay specific to each race.

    Keep going CA :)
    Team Dawis

    Dawis shall purge all their fallen Karaks, with the blood of the Greeskins and the skavens !
  • Steph_F_DavidSteph_F_David Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,929
    edited March 2020
    That's sound all very interesting!! And actually some are ides I've planned to introduce to the next release of my mod, SWO-RD, planned for end of week.

    Is there a dedicated subforum to give feedback or make suggestion?

    About the "no auto convert", does it mean the building is simply deleted when capturing a settlement? Or does it need some manual conversion, like in Rome, for a cheaper cost than rebuilding it fully?
    I suppose it doesn't apply to settlement?

    Have you consider adding a growth requirement to other building than settlement for non horde factions?
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 22,813
    I also read that order races focus more on their home territory and Play more defensive. This is awesome!

    - Dwarfs and Humans won’t steal each other’s settlements anymore.

    - HE will focus more on defending Ulthuan instead of steamrolling Naggaroth and Norsca.

    CA literally listened to everything the community asked for the last few months.

    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Registered Users Posts: 10,457
    ArneSo said:


    CA literally listened to everything the community asked for the last few months.

    Hopefully Karak Azul get taken down a peg in settlements too. Although as they are non playable that might not matter too much if the Greenskins can get a hold of them.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • Steph_F_DavidSteph_F_David Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,929
    Is it possible to have the normal and this proving ground version installed at the same time, so we can easily swith from one to the other ?
    I wouldn't like to wait long download time when goinf from testing that to working on myd mod with the regular bversion?
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 22,813
    steph74 said:

    That's soon all very interesting!! And actually some are ides I've planned to introduce to the next release of my mod, SWO-RD, planned for end of week.

    Is there a dedicated subforum to give feedback or make suggestion?

    About the "no auto convert", does it mean the building is simply deleted when capturing a settlement? Or does it need some manual conversion, like in Rome, for a cheaper cost than rebuilding it fully?
    I suppose it doesn't apply to settlement?

    Have you consider adding a growth requirement to other building than settlement for non horde factions?

    I hope it will be like in Rome 2, spending money and resources to convert settlements makes expansion more meaningful.

    This should also come with settlements cha ging their skins.

    So when you convert a GS camp into a human settlement, it should also look like a human settlement. Don’t expect such a change before WH3, but it’s a step into the right direction.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • PLHenryPLHenry Registered Users Posts: 1,472
    "Reduced Greenskins’ over-aggressiveness"

    I see heresy is rife at CA HQ.
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 22,813
    RikRiorik said:

    ArneSo said:


    CA literally listened to everything the community asked for the last few months.

    Hopefully Karak Azul get taken down a peg in settlements too. Although as they are non playable that might not matter too much if the Greenskins can get a hold of them.
    I think such changes will come with the GS and hopefully Badlands rework.
    Karak Azul (playable or not) should only own 1-2 settlements.
    The Nightgoblins of Spite peak (not sure if I wrote it correctly) live in that region so they should obviously control Spite Peak and a few other settlements.

    I really hope we will get more subraces for the GS similar to Savage Orcs. A Nightgoblin subrace without any Orc units should definitely be a thing.

    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • SteppelordSteppelord Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,315
    RikRiorik said:

    ArneSo said:


    CA literally listened to everything the community asked for the last few months.

    Hopefully Karak Azul get taken down a peg in settlements too. Although as they are non playable that might not matter too much if the Greenskins can get a hold of them.
    haha, get a hold off them. Literally
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 11,288
    It's great to see more and more patches between DLCs.

  • Steph_F_DavidSteph_F_David Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,929
    ArneSo said:


    I hope it will be like in Rome 2, spending money and resources to convert settlements makes expansion more meaningful.

    This should also come with settlements cha ging their skins.

    So when you convert a GS camp into a human settlement, it should also look like a human settlement. Don’t expect such a change before WH3, but it’s a step into the right direction.

    At the moment, there is an option in the DB to set the "can convert" to false. I tried that for my mod, and the buildign is simply removed when you capture a settlement from another culture. And it doesn't work for settlement§?

    That's why I asked, to know if CA is just activating some parameters to beter tweak them, or if this also involve code changes with a different engine behaviour.

  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 22,813
    PaulH said:

    "Reduced Greenskins’ over-aggressiveness"

    I see heresy is rife at CA HQ.

    No GS really acted absolutely braindead.

    As Grombrindal I had to defend my one province against endless hordes of GS armies only focusing on me within the first 50 turns.

    So Grimgor sent everything on suicide mode against my well defended settlements, while Skaven and Last Defenders conquered all his undefended settlements.

    Grimgor was powerrank 1, but got wiped out within 20 turns because he only attacked me without defending his huge territory against other enemies.

    Such a behaviour is just stupid and it’s good that CA wants to fix it.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • ArneSoArneSo Hamburg, Germany Registered Users Posts: 22,813
    steph74 said:

    ArneSo said:


    I hope it will be like in Rome 2, spending money and resources to convert settlements makes expansion more meaningful.

    This should also come with settlements cha ging their skins.

    So when you convert a GS camp into a human settlement, it should also look like a human settlement. Don’t expect such a change before WH3, but it’s a step into the right direction.

    At the moment, there is an option in the DB to set the "can convert" to false. I tried that for my mod, and the buildign is simply removed when you capture a settlement from another culture. And it doesn't work for settlement§?

    That's why I asked, to know if CA is just activating some parameters to beter tweak them, or if this also involve code changes with a different engine behaviour.

    I don’t have any experience with modding, but from my knowledge, settlement skins are hardcoded for some reason, so it’s not possible to change them.

    That’s why there are no mods affecting settlements skins. Only that one that lays another skin over the old one. Something that looks pretty weird most of the time.
    Nurgle is love, Nurgle is life
  • Steph_F_DavidSteph_F_David Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,929
    I'm not talikign about changign skin, but about keeping the buildings in settlement and transofmring it to your own (transforming a DE baracks to an HE barracks for exemple), or simple remove it.
    That's what the "can vovnert" flag does at the moment. So i'm wondering if the proposed change it that, or something more drastic.
  • GoatforceGoatforce Registered Users Posts: 6,661
    Wow, very nice and very unexpected. With how it seems CA are trying to experiment by pretty significantly altering the campaign, I am looking forward even more to the changes that will be made in game 3!

    Cool stuff, can't wait to see what comes of this!
  • CharpCypressCharpCypress Registered Users Posts: 63
    Awesome anything to improve or better the campaign is an okay in my book. Can’t wait to test this new feature out. I’m glad CA is changing up the late game aspect since usually you become so powerful that you eventually steam role everybody. Not only that to but late game usually only have a few hand full of races left available for you to conquer, and it’s usually the “good” factions. I’m glad to see that being addressed. More variety of enemy opponents is always great in late game after chaos.
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 6,925
    Tomb Kings sound **** over as usual.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.
  • CrossilCrossil Registered Users Posts: 12,028
    Some of the things in this make me think that Evil-tide will be the problem in this beta.

    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT

  • ITA_Vae_VictisITA_Vae_Victis Senior Member ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 1,743
    A lot of ideas sound very interesting on paper to make the campaign more erratic and focused on field battles rather than on turtling in your territory and consolidating the economy until you can steamroll everything else. Really hope it also works out that way in practice.

    I don't know how much time I'll have to test the game out in the following weeks, but if I won't be able to leave any more detailed feedback know that as someone who even know loves the series and the WH games in particular, I wholeheartedly approve of experimenting in betas with wild and drastic changes to see if they can actually shake up the formula in a positive way.
  • TotalBorehammerTotalBorehammer Registered Users Posts: 1,024
    CA_James said:


    Campaign balance is something we’re always thinking about for WARHAMMER II, especially now with the amount of legendary lords, units, races and more in the game.

    With that in mind, we’re introducing the Proving Grounds beta – an experimental version of the game for us to test things out. To find out more about it, including how to opt in and try it out for yourself, click here:
    https://www.totalwar.com/blog/the-proving-grounds-beta/

    I think this is an amazing strategy. Ask the people who pay money for your games to be your Beta testers or much-needed improvements... saves you guys doing the work I guess! Genius!
    CA have a Facebook page... use the comments section of their posts and express your thoughts on ME poor quality/delays etc https://www.facebook.com/CreativeAssembly/ :)
  • Turgon86Turgon86 Registered Users Posts: 41
    Oh, that sounds perfect, I will try to use the beta now.
  • Tempus_fugitTempus_fugit Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,361
    Two quick clarification questions:

    1. What is meant by this?: "Avoid hard restrictions"

    Are you removing the hard cap on heroes, which is critically limited for Tomb Kings and Wood Elves? If yes, how do you avoid hero spam?

    2. "AI Lords get additional experience based on difficulty"

    What does this entail? More experience per battle for AI lords on higher difficulties? Or more experience per turn? Or both?

    A third question:

    3. With supply chain penalties to upkeep removed and recruitment costs increased, how will recruitment costs for low tier, expendable units that tend to have high casualties (esp in Autores) and/or trash units be managed? (Admittedly, this can be a simple cost adjustment balance, but can also affect campaign experiences.)

    I really do not want to have to pay a boat load to recruit a unit of peasants/zombies/goblins and then have them die and then have to pay again just to have a cannon fodder / tarpit unit in my armies.
    Ditto for Tomb Kings and Vampires units.
    There is no time but the present. – S:TW Hojo, R:TW Brutii/Germania/Alemanni(BI), Med2: Venice, S2: Oda, R2: Julia/Boii/Suebi/Lusitani, Attila: Geats/Garamantians, WH: All factions VH, Wood Elves on L. TWWH2: Lizardmen, Dark Elves, Skaven, Khalida, High Elves, Vampirates. ME: Khalida, Vampire Counts, Carcasonne, Wood Elves
  • MagicspookMagicspook Registered Users Posts: 778
    No supply lines would mean I could field 5 stacks of skaven slaves instead of 1 proper army.

    Hell yeah.
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 11,288

    CA_James said:


    Campaign balance is something we’re always thinking about for WARHAMMER II, especially now with the amount of legendary lords, units, races and more in the game.

    With that in mind, we’re introducing the Proving Grounds beta – an experimental version of the game for us to test things out. To find out more about it, including how to opt in and try it out for yourself, click here:
    https://www.totalwar.com/blog/the-proving-grounds-beta/

    I think this is an amazing strategy. Ask the people who pay money for your games to be your Beta testers or much-needed improvements... saves you guys doing the work I guess! Genius!
    Considering the issues I've seen going live I'm certain it's much better alternative than CA testing their own games.

  • ITA_Vae_VictisITA_Vae_Victis Senior Member ItalyRegistered Users Posts: 1,743

    CA_James said:


    Campaign balance is something we’re always thinking about for WARHAMMER II, especially now with the amount of legendary lords, units, races and more in the game.

    With that in mind, we’re introducing the Proving Grounds beta – an experimental version of the game for us to test things out. To find out more about it, including how to opt in and try it out for yourself, click here:
    https://www.totalwar.com/blog/the-proving-grounds-beta/

    I think this is an amazing strategy. Ask the people who pay money for your games to be your Beta testers or much-needed improvements... saves you guys doing the work I guess! Genius!
    A lot of people have been giving advice on how to rebalance campaign for years already, completely of their own volition. CA giving them a better tool to work on and with seems like a good idea for the game in the long run, for everybody.

    It's not even like CA said "here guys, these are the development tinkering tools for campaign balance, balance your own damn game and let us focus on the new content". They already implemented a whole new balance meta in the patch, and now they are asking for feedback on it.
Sign In or Register to comment.