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

17891012

Comments

  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    I think regiments of renown should all take turns to summon instead of coming instantly. We are supposed to give enemy surprises with strategic management, but with regiments of renown we gain a strategic advantage by airborn strength. There's no lore or logic that support this kind of summoning anyway. They are also normal troops, not daemons from a portal.
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 607
    Jackydai said:

    I'm for the opinion that removing supply line while adding recruitment cost is not a really good idea.
    The problem of all total war games has always been late game not early game. By doubling the recruitment cost we have an irritating start, and by removing supply line we have a very easy late game. Also removing supply line cause players to use lord swarm tactic.
    My suggestion is to reduce the percentage of supply line from 15% to 5%, where in late game having 10 armies we have 50% extra upkeep instead of 150%, which is much more acceptable. We can also give factions like Skaven or Vampire Counts more upkeep decreasing technology on their low tier units to encourage crowding strategy. For Tomb Kings, buildings will be cheaper to catch up with other factions.

    This idea is intriguing to me, I'd love to be able to play test it. Perhaps dying races like HE should have higher supply line costs than, say, humans?
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34

    Jackydai said:

    I'm for the opinion that removing supply line while adding recruitment cost is not a really good idea.
    The problem of all total war games has always been late game not early game. By doubling the recruitment cost we have an irritating start, and by removing supply line we have a very easy late game. Also removing supply line cause players to use lord swarm tactic.
    My suggestion is to reduce the percentage of supply line from 15% to 5%, where in late game having 10 armies we have 50% extra upkeep instead of 150%, which is much more acceptable. We can also give factions like Skaven or Vampire Counts more upkeep decreasing technology on their low tier units to encourage crowding strategy. For Tomb Kings, buildings will be cheaper to catch up with other factions.

    This idea is intriguing to me, I'd love to be able to play test it. Perhaps dying races like HE should have higher supply line costs than, say, humans?
    I think setting more suitable for dying races like high elves and dwarves is a lower growth rate, supply line reflects the supply difficulty when an empire expands, which applies to every race.
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 607
    Jackydai said:

    Jackydai said:

    I'm for the opinion that removing supply line while adding recruitment cost is not a really good idea.
    The problem of all total war games has always been late game not early game. By doubling the recruitment cost we have an irritating start, and by removing supply line we have a very easy late game. Also removing supply line cause players to use lord swarm tactic.
    My suggestion is to reduce the percentage of supply line from 15% to 5%, where in late game having 10 armies we have 50% extra upkeep instead of 150%, which is much more acceptable. We can also give factions like Skaven or Vampire Counts more upkeep decreasing technology on their low tier units to encourage crowding strategy. For Tomb Kings, buildings will be cheaper to catch up with other factions.

    This idea is intriguing to me, I'd love to be able to play test it. Perhaps dying races like HE should have higher supply line costs than, say, humans?
    I think setting more suitable for dying races like high elves and dwarves is a lower growth rate, supply line reflects the supply difficulty when an empire expands, which applies to every race.
    But they are supposed to have grander towns and fortifications which would be limited by low growth. High supply lines might reflect the poor ability to field many stacks and force them into playing more elite types while those who reproduce quickly can bring more armies of lesser units to the field
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34

    Jackydai said:

    Jackydai said:

    I'm for the opinion that removing supply line while adding recruitment cost is not a really good idea.
    The problem of all total war games has always been late game not early game. By doubling the recruitment cost we have an irritating start, and by removing supply line we have a very easy late game. Also removing supply line cause players to use lord swarm tactic.
    My suggestion is to reduce the percentage of supply line from 15% to 5%, where in late game having 10 armies we have 50% extra upkeep instead of 150%, which is much more acceptable. We can also give factions like Skaven or Vampire Counts more upkeep decreasing technology on their low tier units to encourage crowding strategy. For Tomb Kings, buildings will be cheaper to catch up with other factions.

    This idea is intriguing to me, I'd love to be able to play test it. Perhaps dying races like HE should have higher supply line costs than, say, humans?
    I think setting more suitable for dying races like high elves and dwarves is a lower growth rate, supply line reflects the supply difficulty when an empire expands, which applies to every race.
    But they are supposed to have grander towns and fortifications which would be limited by low growth. High supply lines might reflect the poor ability to field many stacks and force them into playing more elite types while those who reproduce quickly can bring more armies of lesser units to the field
    Hmm, that makes sense.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    The climate setting is a good one, however some factions are having wierd climate affiliation. Malekith feels great in both Chaos Wasteland and Ulthuan, yet feels uncomfortable in his hometown Naggaroth; Alith Anar as a high elf can't appreciate Ulthuan, etc. Maybe CA can adjust it a little bit.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,338
    Earlier today I was wishing the climate system would just be removed.

    The whole thing is a complete mess with rules that make absolutely no sense for anyone. Every species should have the same tolerances across all their factions. And temperate and temperate island are literally the same thing, and should frankly not be orange or red to anyone in the game except for MAYBE the tomb kings, and that being only because they should technically be bound to Nehekhara.

    If you want to the AI to be guided towards certain areas... you really need to use a better system than a wholly arbitrary and annoyance causing "habitability" system that ignores every lick of sense in the world.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    The AI buff on melee attack and melee defence (+8 each) in legendary level breaks the balance between melee and missile units in players' hand. Since it is harder to deal damage through hand to hand combat players are more drawn to use missile units to deal damage, which causes a lot of melee damage dealers to lose their function. I think it's better that the buff is not on melee attack or melee defence, but a damage reduction over all (function like ward saves, but does not stack with in-game ward saves)
    On the other hand, generally speaking missile units currently are much more cost-effective than melee units. For instance, Shades(greatsword) can defeat Greatswords of the Empire in melee while having really good missile damage, yet cost only 150 more than Greatswords. All the low tier archers and catapults have much higher potential compared to melee troops of the same cost etc. I think that should match most people's experience in single player. The reason missile troops in multiplayer is not op is: first, no +8 melee attack and melee defence AI bonus; second, it's not ultra unit size; third, humans know how to evade missile fire by changing formation and z running. The strength of missile troops can remain the same but I'd suggest the recruitment cost be readjusted which are not the same as multiplayer.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 29,053
    edited March 2020
    Itharus said:

    Why do 90% of threads wind up in people fighting either VanillaGorilla or Emphraim Dalton?

    I can't speak for the other half but personally I believe they're challenging my streak of never, ever, ever being wrong.
    Itharus said:

    Earlier today I was wishing the climate system would just be removed.

    The whole thing is a complete mess with rules that make absolutely no sense for anyone. Every species should have the same tolerances across all their factions. And temperate and temperate island are literally the same thing, and should frankly not be orange or red to anyone in the game except for MAYBE the tomb kings, and that being only because they should technically be bound to Nehekhara.

    If you want to the AI to be guided towards certain areas... you really need to use a better system than a wholly arbitrary and annoyance causing "habitability" system that ignores every lick of sense in the world.

    You could just program the AI to prefer certain areas while ignoring it for the player.

    It's really quite limiting for a campaign that's supposed to be a sandbox.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "Under construction" - Becky, daughter of Guanyin.

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name

  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 11,072
    Jackydai said:

    The AI buff on melee attack and melee defence (+8 each) in legendary level breaks the balance between melee and missile units in players' hand. Since it is harder to deal damage through hand to hand combat players are more drawn to use missile units to deal damage, which causes a lot of melee damage dealers to lose their function. I think it's better that the buff is not on melee attack or melee defence, but a damage reduction over all (function like ward saves, but does not stack with in-game ward saves)
    On the other hand, generally speaking missile units currently are much more cost-effective than melee units. For instance, Shades(greatsword) can defeat Greatswords of the Empire in melee while having really good missile damage, yet cost only 150 more than Greatswords. All the low tier archers and catapults have much higher potential compared to melee troops of the same cost etc. I think that should match most people's experience in single player. The reason missile troops in multiplayer is not op is: first, no +8 melee attack and melee defence AI bonus; second, it's not ultra unit size; third, humans know how to evade missile fire by changing formation and z running. The strength of missile troops can remain the same but I'd suggest the recruitment cost be readjusted which are not the same as multiplayer.

    Agreed
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • DaGangsterDaGangster Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,646
    Amonkhet said:

    Amonkhet said:

    The more I play PG, the more I'm convinced its entirely built to favour certain good-aligned factions, greenskins and skaven.

    You are just trolling now.
    ****. Every advantage tomb kings had, has been given now to most other races. Same for Vampire Coast. Only Vampire Counts benefits slightly through free skeleton warriors/zombies with no army limit.

    Go skaven, you'll field more units faster, more armies, with better gear and items, better 'coves' and far superior firepower and frontlines. You'll even have a better economy.

    The advantage playing as tomb kings was supposed to have (as much as playing as any faction's advantage) was meant to be free units and easier access to magic items. Other factions can now outnumber Tomb Kings and can produce their own cheaper, easier to access and just as good magic items.

    Until TK get a redesign to be in-line with other factions in PG and until Coast's economy is brought in line to be as good as other factions through their glaring flaw, then PG seems pointless.
    They mentioned a few times that they didn't touch Tomb Kings and wont be balance in Proving grounds. Obviously tweaking would be required, its just an across the board change.

    Team Vampire Counts

    "Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."

    - Soren Johnson
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,338
    edited March 2020
    Did they stealth remove Da Dropz?!?!?!?!?!

    I've sacked like 30 settlements today with da ladz (skarsnik playthru) and have not seen a single dropz or smelly troll face and frankly, I AM LIVID!

    Where have they gone?!?!?!

    >:(

    If this is a side effect of removing auto conversion of buildings, y'all need to fix it so that we get these wonderful buildings back, for without them - it's not worth it.
    Post edited by Itharus on
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,338
    Also, why do tier 1 norscan settlements have garrisons with a pair of marauder champions in PG? Seems excessive.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Issue with monster attack model: In current setting, mosters can knock down infantries, and those who get knocked done cannot attack for a while. With this mechanic, gathering many monsters together can create constant knock down, decreasing infantry units' damage very dramatically. As we know, one treeman (1500 gold) does not stand any chance against one unit of phoenix guards (1400 gold), no matter how we operate the treeman, because phoenix guards are anti-large. However, if we use 19 treemen against 19 units of phoenix guards, by simply grouping all the treemen we can win the fight with very minimal cost, since the treemen are constantly knocking down phoenix guards for each other and phoenix guards can barely make an attack during an interval of treemen's swipes.
    My suggestion is that knocked down infantries get up faster and decrease knock down animation effect range for monsters (this doesn't affect damage, if you do infantry lord vs monster lord duel you'll find that knocking down does not necessarily mean damage dealt, which is wierd btw). Right now they get up like waking up in the morning rather than in the middle of a battle.
    Furthermore, from my experience experimenting infantry lord vs monster lord duel, I'd guess that the infantry lord need about 2-3 seconds to find the dueling target again, (the robotic turning around) if my guess is true than this is also one of the main causes of the phenomenon described above, as well as why characters look kinda dull in dueling animation sometimes. Hope CA can improve on that.
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 2,247
    I mentioned this in another thread -no idea where. I really liked the proving ground changes particularly when playing Dwarfs but I agree that in the end game you still end up with the ability to easily field unrealistic doom stakes.

    I am a fan of unit caps but since CA want soft caps instead, I really believe that tying a supply line mechanic to Unit tier would create that valence. The higher tier the more you expend on sustaining them.

    Also the more of the same elite unit you recruit the bigger supply penalty. Low tier units like slave should have no supply cost.

    This could mean that you can recruit as many armies as you like if they are filled with low tier units but when you starat adding elites or creating doom stakes the supply cost gets rapidly worse.

    You can still play a doomstack but you won’t be able to afford lots of them.

    Summary
    Supply tied to units not armies and the more Elite the unit the more expensive the supply.

    Just a thought, probably not even original but I would love to see a Proving Grounds rest of it.
    Live your life and try to do no harm.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 2,247
    Oh man, reading that back I should give up commenting wehn using A phone.
    Live your life and try to do no harm.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,338
    Dwarfs are supposed to be able to field doomstacks, hell, so are the elves.

    The problem is... they're only supposed to be able to field a FEW OF THEM.

    IMO upkeep for the most badass units needs to just be severely increased. The problem here is that not all tiers are equal, so you have to do it PER RACE.

    Example: saurus warriors, t1 --- aaaaaaaahhahahahahahhahahahaaha no. Those things are fully equivalent to non-elite faction's tier 3 infantry for instance. Meanwhile, t4/5 units from those same factions are generally tier 3 units for elite factions such as Elves and Dwarfs. So the upkeep increases should not apply as severely for those units as they do for the truly powerful ones.

    Monsters should also have drastically more upkeep. Those are supposed to be centerpiece units, not whole armies...

    Supply Lines was a bad implementation of this idea, really. Upkeep just needs to be selectively made punitive on the most powerful units on a per-unit basis. There should be MORE mid-tier (and even low tier) armies floating around and few high tier ones.

    I'm not saying ELIMINATE doomstacks... I'm saying make them the rare and scary things they are supposed to be - that require a like doom stack, or several lesser armies to defeat. As currently implemented however, we just have equal numbers of doom stacks to numbers of non-elite faction's armies. And that's massively effed up.

    You could probably also accomplish the same effect by heavily cutting the upkeep of non-elites, this is actually doable with Skarsnik rn, but that has the side effect of keeping mass numbers of doom stacks and then making stupid high numbers of non-doom stacks to the point where most players will probably feel overwhelmed dealing with it. So upping upkeep for the super elites would make more sense.
  • Lion_75Lion_75 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 52
    @ CA_James

    When playing as Squeek Headtaker, i still have supply lines active.
    They were supose to be gone right?
    Veni Vidi Vici
  • IamNotArobotIamNotArobot Registered Users Posts: 4,422
    edited April 2020
    CA can you decrease just a bit the cost of high tier units when you release the patch ? alson when is the patch coming?
    *Justice and CONFEDERATION ENABLED for the Tomb Kings and Vampire Coast! feat mummies and Apophas.
    *Exclusive DLCs for Tomb Kings, Vampire Coast, BM, CW and WE! #DLCsAreRacesToo
    *Remaster all WH1 and WH2 faction icons for WH3!
    *Ogre Kingdoms core race or death!
  • NeodeinosNeodeinos Registered Users Posts: 11,863

    CA can you decrease just a bit the cost of high tier units when you release the patch ? alson when is the patch coming?

    Read @OP and you'll get an idea. Crazy how reading is helpful.
    #JusticeForTzeentch
    #JusticeForMonogods
  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,508
    Sorry if this had been answered half a dozen pages ago, but will mods work with this? I’m assuming not
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Currently the same spell casted by Teclis and a normal mage has no difference at all, which is wierd. It'd be a good setting if spell casters are divided into different levels, where higher level casters can do the same spell with more damage, duration or buffing. Casters can level up in their skill tree but max level for different factions can be different, while some characters start with a higher level than others, especially legendary lords. This setting would be both more loreful and also makes purely wizard lords more meaningful. Right now purely wizard lords' function can be easily replaced by wizard heroes or wizard-warrior lords, for example btween necromancers and vampire lords people would always choose to recruit vampire lords.

    Meanwhile I'd like the magic spells be more diverse. Right now a lot of spells are very simillar to each other, just a name change that's all. In the announcement trailer at the start of entering the game, Teclis casted a force field spell to protect the spearmen, which is really cool. Many interesting spells can be developed, like making enemies to lose their mind and kill each other, corrupting a weak unit and turn its allegiance, placing fire walls on the ground, getting rid of debuff, making missile troops unable to fire, teleporting a unit, cloning a unit, etc. A lot of depth and potential to be developed out of the lore. Although I understand this is much work to do and CA might not want to do it.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    I know I might sound too demanding by posting a lot of threads, but I don't expect CA to fix everything at once. I'm simply pointing out directions I think are good to go and I've got patience to wait. People who read my posts can discover that I give solutions to all the issues I raise, not just complaining around, and that is my attitude - to be constructive so the game can really get better. All the solutions I give are doable under current technical frames, and many of them don't require too much work, just some stat change. The spell diversity described in last thread should be work requiring, but that's like a wishlist not a fixlist. Just thought the game would be more fun that way. Hope the sincerity gets appreciated.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,338

    CA can you decrease just a bit the cost of high tier units when you release the patch ? alson when is the patch coming?

    By Sigmar, NO!

    Lower the costs of low tier units. High tier units should have punitive costs - less doomstacks.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,586
    For me the issue isn't that high tier units are overpowered. What is an issue is the 20 unit stack limit + lightning strike + other mechanics that push for doomstacking.

    A supply limit mechanic should be applied on a per unit type basis, not lord.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,338
    Yeah.... 20 stack and LS are questionable.

    As for supply limit... if you're meaning upkeep scaling, that's sort of a soft unit cap. Worth trying out. Prolly shoudn't apply to EVERY unit tho.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,586
    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 2,247

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    Live your life and try to do no harm.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,338
    Crajoh said:

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    Asymmetry is at the heart of ALL good strategy games.

    The sameyness of hard counter systems and their like that - let's be honest - is the core of modern competitive MP are PRECISELY what destroys otherwise good games.

    A good example is actually StarCraft. The original. GD it used to be SO fun back when everything was asymmetrical! Then over time, everything was made more and more hard-counter based, and suddenly it was nothing but build orders and rock paper scissors and even factions that were supposed to be different ultimately were really just the same with the only differences being in who's section of X unit type was stronger than the others.

    Strategy games need to be 'fuzzy' and soft-counter to have any sort of longevity or meaningfulness. It's what makes room for SKILL on anything more than a technical level. When everything is rigid and hard countered, all that differentiates players is hand-eye coordination and matching Pattern A to hard counter Pattern B. There's no MENTAL EXERCISE left in the game... just rote memorization and mechanical training.

    It's horrible.

    It's popular simply BECAUSE it's so simple to master and exploit... and most people simply like to "win", not really caring about the how. This whole thing has ruined almost every single game with any kind of competitive MP I've ever played because it results in devs endlessly balancing in an attempt to destroy the latest exploit or uber build until the whole game is just..... connect four levels of mediocrity.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Itharus said:

    Crajoh said:

    Ideally it would be done on a unit by unit basis, with different mechanics being applied to different units/factions/races

    Agree 100%. Asymmetry is essential for this game. More expensive supply for elites, low to no for trash.
    Asymmetry is at the heart of ALL good strategy games.

    The sameyness of hard counter systems and their like that - let's be honest - is the core of modern competitive MP are PRECISELY what destroys otherwise good games.

    A good example is actually StarCraft. The original. GD it used to be SO fun back when everything was asymmetrical! Then over time, everything was made more and more hard-counter based, and suddenly it was nothing but build orders and rock paper scissors and even factions that were supposed to be different ultimately were really just the same with the only differences being in who's section of X unit type was stronger than the others.

    Strategy games need to be 'fuzzy' and soft-counter to have any sort of longevity or meaningfulness. It's what makes room for SKILL on anything more than a technical level. When everything is rigid and hard countered, all that differentiates players is hand-eye coordination and matching Pattern A to hard counter Pattern B. There's no MENTAL EXERCISE left in the game... just rote memorization and mechanical training.

    It's horrible.

    It's popular simply BECAUSE it's so simple to master and exploit... and most people simply like to "win", not really caring about the how. This whole thing has ruined almost every single game with any kind of competitive MP I've ever played because it results in devs endlessly balancing in an attempt to destroy the latest exploit or uber build until the whole game is just..... connect four levels of mediocrity.
    Agreed. I've been a hardcore player of Heroes 3 of Might and Magic for years, and it's lasting appeal is just fascinating. I think Heroes 3 does really good in asymmetry. Warhammer is doing a lot better than other total war titles but still some way to go compared to some classical games. Btw, that's why I give up on three kingdoms after just one hour.
Sign In or Register to comment.