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

1568101113

Comments

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,143
    By slow it basically means everything costs way more... anything past "standard" is eyebrow raising to me in pricing. I don't think the prices in standard actually work for everyone. It seems that everyone got basically a 100% cost increase and possibly a 25% upkeep reduction, just from eyeballing it (standard).

    Problem is that's not universally palatable. Really nasty for "cheap" army races such as GS, Skaven, Beasties, etc; and VERY nasty for anyone that needs to use global recruitment a lot (RIP Wood Elves).

    Also just nasty for any weak economy race. Races with good econs (Elves, Dwarfs especially) are more or less fine.

    That's why I was saying earlier that a blanket approach won't necessarily work... it just extends the status quo.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,574
    Itharus said:

    By slow it basically means everything costs way more... anything past "standard" is eyebrow raising to me in pricing. I don't think the prices in standard actually work for everyone. It seems that everyone got basically a 100% cost increase and possibly a 25% upkeep reduction, just from eyeballing it (standard).

    Problem is that's not universally palatable. Really nasty for "cheap" army races such as GS, Skaven, Beasties, etc; and VERY nasty for anyone that needs to use global recruitment a lot (RIP Wood Elves).

    Also just nasty for any weak economy race. Races with good econs (Elves, Dwarfs especially) are more or less fine.

    That's why I was saying earlier that a blanket approach won't necessarily work... it just extends the status quo.

    That's absolutely appropriate for WE. They represent such a tiny fraction of the Warhammer world, having trouble to project power should be a major weakness of them.

  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 6,891
    A blanket approach absolutely does not work.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.
  • DessadDessad Registered Users Posts: 69
    Amonkhet said:

    A blanket approach absolutely does not work.

    As a starting point, of course it does.
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 590
    I do think that there needs to be individualized cost adjustment race by race (or even unit by unit) but the broader idea of making troops and buildings more expensive but cheaper to maintain has my approval. You shouldn't be able to max build 50 territories and have 7 doom stacks but turn 100 for every race on hard/hard but it seemed to be that way before PG.

    I hope some modder will take make a PG mod if CA cant implement it in the standard build. I know CAs got to appeal to the broadest base but I love PG so far
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,143

    Itharus said:

    By slow it basically means everything costs way more... anything past "standard" is eyebrow raising to me in pricing. I don't think the prices in standard actually work for everyone. It seems that everyone got basically a 100% cost increase and possibly a 25% upkeep reduction, just from eyeballing it (standard).

    Problem is that's not universally palatable. Really nasty for "cheap" army races such as GS, Skaven, Beasties, etc; and VERY nasty for anyone that needs to use global recruitment a lot (RIP Wood Elves).

    Also just nasty for any weak economy race. Races with good econs (Elves, Dwarfs especially) are more or less fine.

    That's why I was saying earlier that a blanket approach won't necessarily work... it just extends the status quo.

    That's absolutely appropriate for WE. They represent such a tiny fraction of the Warhammer world, having trouble to project power should be a major weakness of them.
    They already have that tho. Holding things is nearly impossible and they already suffer elite costs and high upkeep.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,574
    Itharus said:

    Itharus said:

    By slow it basically means everything costs way more... anything past "standard" is eyebrow raising to me in pricing. I don't think the prices in standard actually work for everyone. It seems that everyone got basically a 100% cost increase and possibly a 25% upkeep reduction, just from eyeballing it (standard).

    Problem is that's not universally palatable. Really nasty for "cheap" army races such as GS, Skaven, Beasties, etc; and VERY nasty for anyone that needs to use global recruitment a lot (RIP Wood Elves).

    Also just nasty for any weak economy race. Races with good econs (Elves, Dwarfs especially) are more or less fine.

    That's why I was saying earlier that a blanket approach won't necessarily work... it just extends the status quo.

    That's absolutely appropriate for WE. They represent such a tiny fraction of the Warhammer world, having trouble to project power should be a major weakness of them.
    They already have that tho. Holding things is nearly impossible and they already suffer elite costs and high upkeep.
    Not enough. Their outposts make them incredibly OP since so many of those bonuses are global.

    I think a nerf is exactly in order.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,143
    Not like that. They just need a revamp. Bad choices for game economy solve nothing.
  • BierTempelierBierTempelier Registered Users Posts: 285

    WILL CA ALSO INVEST IN A "PROVING GROUNDS" LIKE BETA FOR BATTLE ADJUSTMENTS ?

    Would be great to have a flexible / adjustable system allowing for battles as well in addition to Campaigns. Similar to the "Laboratory" but useable in custom & multiplayer battles with settings to be decided by the "host", and with options that can prolongue battle time.
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,748
    edited March 2020
    I think all these changes are a step in the right direction. Units costing pennies and upkeep being all that mattered isn't nearly as good as both values being more balanced.

    So far I've played 2 campaigns on Legendary, normal battle. Both on Mortal Empires.

    Nakai - I wanted to play a horde campaign.
    After losing 2 times by trying to venture out with a minimal army because I couldn't afford more troops, I disbanded my army and for 25 turns just built up money and infrastructure. It was boring but effective, so I think that horde factions or factions in general might need more starting funds to get the ball rolling, but then still care a lot about money after the first 10-20 turns as their initial stores run out.
    Other than that, the campaign has been very fun and I've enjoyed the increased cost of things forcing me to make real decisions and making losses actually matter instead of being instantly being replaced by my infinite money. It's fun having to make decisions and having to worry about money, as well as being excited when I get a lot of it because it opens new possibilities.

    Grimgor Ironhide - I hadn't played a greenskin campaign since warhammer 1 and wanted to see how this affected a "poor economy faction."
    The first thing I noticed is that buildings were still dirt cheap. Unlike with Nakai, I didn't even feel the pathetic price of their infrastructure, most of the lower tier buildings were still cheaper than a unit of orc boys. Unlike Nakai, I was able to build whatever I wanted instantly and have a large army immediately. I actually lost this campaign (stealth dwarves got me, darn underway) pretty early, but my initial impression was that as orcs, at least Grimgore with his starting gold mine, I didn't even feel the changes. I was not able to get into the expensive high tier units, but early game the doubling of cost wasn't even noticeable.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • SchepelSchepel Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,545
    I really like what I am reading.

    I do hope this is going to be implemented.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,143
    Thus far the growth nerfs are wholly useless against AI... AI still have a bunch of t4/t5 settlements with t3 minors everywhere by turn 40. Ordertide is still also a thing by turn 40. I have literally noticed no change whatsoever in growth and alliances. In fact I saw wood elves unified by turn 30 -- I didn't know that was even possible.

    I did notice somewhat less elite army spam though, and that's very nice; although the overall number of armies could do with going up a little bit. Ideally we'd have a considerable number of mid tier armies and a few elite armies. That'd be perfect.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,574
    Itharus said:

    Thus far the growth nerfs are wholly useless against AI... AI still have a bunch of t4/t5 settlements with t3 minors everywhere by turn 40. Ordertide is still also a thing by turn 40. I have literally noticed no change whatsoever in growth and alliances. In fact I saw wood elves unified by turn 30 -- I didn't know that was even possible.

    I did notice somewhat less elite army spam though, and that's very nice; although the overall number of armies could do with going up a little bit. Ideally we'd have a considerable number of mid tier armies and a few elite armies. That'd be perfect.

    Not my experience. The AI does not reach high tier settlements as fast as it did in my campaigns.

  • damiancampdamiancamp Registered Users Posts: 5
    I don't like a lot of these changes. I do like the no supply lines to an extent but feel like it is too busted and breaks the game with all else that must be implemented to make it work.
    Maybe an overall lowering the cost of supply lines and having it vary in cost between different races would add another level of difference.
    So far playing the beta I hope most of these changes never see the light of day. Killing the public order penalty on Legendary feels a lot worse to me.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,958
    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    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.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,958
    edited March 2020
    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    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.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,958
    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    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.
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 590
    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Well that is how previous TW games were ruined. By CA constantly balancing and tweaking to suit the MP community and the mindset of 'MOBA players'.

    That is how everyone got onagers in Attila.

    I am just voicing the view of the SP/grand strategy crowd. The fact that as soon as I do I get some very rude replies kind of highlights how important it is that someone speaks up for the 95%.
    I second this opinion. People working hard to abuse the game should not be the standard for balancing. Getting free buildings and demolishing them for $$$ takes a long time and a lot more effort than just properly playing the game and beating the developers originally intended challenges
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,574

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Well that is how previous TW games were ruined. By CA constantly balancing and tweaking to suit the MP community and the mindset of 'MOBA players'.

    That is how everyone got onagers in Attila.

    I am just voicing the view of the SP/grand strategy crowd. The fact that as soon as I do I get some very rude replies kind of highlights how important it is that someone speaks up for the 95%.
    I second this opinion. People working hard to abuse the game should not be the standard for balancing. Getting free buildings and demolishing them for $$$ takes a long time and a lot more effort than just properly playing the game and beating the developers originally intended challenges
    Wrong, vanilla requires no such effort. In vanilla cheesing is easier than playing normally.

  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 590

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Well that is how previous TW games were ruined. By CA constantly balancing and tweaking to suit the MP community and the mindset of 'MOBA players'.

    That is how everyone got onagers in Attila.

    I am just voicing the view of the SP/grand strategy crowd. The fact that as soon as I do I get some very rude replies kind of highlights how important it is that someone speaks up for the 95%.
    I second this opinion. People working hard to abuse the game should not be the standard for balancing. Getting free buildings and demolishing them for $$$ takes a long time and a lot more effort than just properly playing the game and beating the developers originally intended challenges
    Wrong, vanilla requires no such effort. In vanilla cheesing is easier than playing normally.
    It's great how you put words in people's mouths then cackle about how wrong those words are. I said that that poster is working too hard to cheese and seconded HoneyBuns opinion his complaints dont apply to the vast majority of players. Not that all cheese ever is way to complicated and shouldn't be addressed. Please take the time to read before responding, thank you.
  • BlacksphemyBlacksphemy Registered Users Posts: 590

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,337
    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    The main issue with caps is that they might create more noob traps in the game, but a buildings that having 0 cost and and a human horde that eat nothing each day is odd, eating nothing is mostly makes sense for a undead horde. A 90% damage reduction might be OP, but the one-man army is quite a common trope in fantasy works, so it's not as bad as a buildings having 0 cost cheese.

    https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneManArmy
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,574

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Well that is how previous TW games were ruined. By CA constantly balancing and tweaking to suit the MP community and the mindset of 'MOBA players'.

    That is how everyone got onagers in Attila.

    I am just voicing the view of the SP/grand strategy crowd. The fact that as soon as I do I get some very rude replies kind of highlights how important it is that someone speaks up for the 95%.
    I second this opinion. People working hard to abuse the game should not be the standard for balancing. Getting free buildings and demolishing them for $$$ takes a long time and a lot more effort than just properly playing the game and beating the developers originally intended challenges
    Wrong, vanilla requires no such effort. In vanilla cheesing is easier than playing normally.
    It's great how you put words in people's mouths then cackle about how wrong those words are. I said that that poster is working too hard to cheese and seconded HoneyBuns opinion his complaints dont apply to the vast majority of players. Not that all cheese ever is way to complicated and shouldn't be addressed. Please take the time to read before responding, thank you.
    Because you were wrong, it requires no effort. That's the problem. Please make yourself familiar with the game's myriad issues before declaring them invalid, thank you.

  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,958
    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Well that is how previous TW games were ruined. By CA constantly balancing and tweaking to suit the MP community and the mindset of 'MOBA players'.

    That is how everyone got onagers in Attila.

    I am just voicing the view of the SP/grand strategy crowd. The fact that as soon as I do I get some very rude replies kind of highlights how important it is that someone speaks up for the 95%.
    You think you speak for 95%?

    Lol
    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.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,958
    edited March 2020

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    Few things are more loreful than one elite warrior who can stop an army by himself. Its not the way I play, but its not exactly un-sigmarish
    It is completely unloreful that Tyrion solos Arachaon, Kholek, Sigvald and 4 armies of chosen, dragons ogres, chaos knights and aspiring champions.

    Even Aenarion could only duel such enemies.
    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.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,958
    edited March 2020

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    HoneyBun said:

    Jackydai said:

    OK let me put a long thread here. Hopefully CA sees this. I've been playing total war since Medieval 2 and for thousands of hours. I'm going to list my suggestions one by one.

    The root of the problem with all stats related game mechanic is that we lack caps, which allows stack-up traits go insane, including the controversial supply lines. When we talk about balancing, it should be a good thing to look at what MOBA games are doing. Take LOL for example, we have a 40% cap for cooldown - imagine if there's no such cap and we can stack up to 100% cooldown. That is the key problem of current total war game mechanic in stats. Now let's go through them in specific.

    a. The supply line. If CA wants to keep it, we can go +15% for the second army, 12% for the third, 10% for the fourth etc and set a cap of 100% in total. After reaching 100% extra upkeep no matter how many more arimies the player recruit it remains there. If CA decides not to keep it, maybe we can move this mechanic to recruitment cost rather than applying a direct 200% recruitment fee at any time. On the other hand, we should also set a base cap that does not allow upkeep goes under say like 60%, otherwise we are gonna see Norscan hordes that eat nothing each day.

    b. The building cost. There is no base cap for building cost currently, which means when playing high elves I can stack mages with reduce building cost traits in one province to build anything for 0, and demolish them to get money out of nowhere. That is certainly not what we want to see. The building cost should never become less than the demolishing earnings, which as I remember is 30%. A proper base cap though I think would be 60%.

    c. Ward saves. Currently there is a cap, but is a very high one, 90%. Again if we look at MOBA games we see that they do everything to flatten the cost-effect curve, making it linear rather than exponential. The case with ward saves here is quite exponential. When a character has no ward saves yet, an extra 10% would be equivalent to 11.1% extra health, yet when a character reaches 80% ward saves, an extra 10% would be equivalent to DOUBLING his health. That is way too much. This has lead to many wierd tactics like battle priest band of the Empire, as well as Archaeon/Malekith/Tyrion slaughtering legions alone. What people do is simply stack up the ward saves on one lord, then throw it to the enemy and go have a cup of coffee. Any battle can be won once you got a 90% ward saves guy. I admit that this is fun in some cases but damaging the game's core in the long run. My advice is to set the cap at 40%-60%, and nerf some ward save related traits/items/spells. We still enjoy powerful lords that way, just not so brainlessly. By the way, there are also rare cases in the unit roster like Star Dragon vs Dragon Princes where the Dragon can do only minimum damage to Dragon Princes due to fire& ward saves. Dragon Princes can be a bane for fire damage units but not this op.

    All in all, if we want a game balanced we should avoid extreme and unrealistic stats. With 0 cost to build a building or 90% damage reduction you can never get things balanced. CA please think about what extreme stats you are having in the game and set caps for them. If this post gets good responses I'll share more of my views, including problem with siege battles, missile ammunition, winds of magic etc. Thanks for reading.

    This one gets it. Pay attention CA
    I don't feel he does. He has an MP approach so he focuses on the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign.

    CA are rightly focusing on making the SP campaign fun for most players. I think that is the right approach and everything he raises just is not relevant to that ...

    (Grand strategy is not a MOBA, don't treat it like one if you want to keep players).
    What are you talking about? All his examples were sp stuff. Literally all of it. Dont you know there are no supply lines in mp battles?? Or buildings? Solo 4 stacks with a 90 ward save lord? Demolish free buildings for endless cash by stacking traits?

    Stuff that break any difficulty settings isnt fun. If i chose very hard i want a very hard campaign.

    You have misunderstood what I wrote.

    He gives 3 examples. PG already deals with (a) and does it well.

    (b) and (c) are both examples of what I meant by "the absolute extremes of cheesing that no SP gamer would ever actually do in a campaign". I don't think it should be CA's focus and, in my experience, the type of people who play like that are MP people - who again, should not be the focus.

    PG is a great start, I don't understand the need to be rude to me when I have acknowledged that. I think CA should focus on tweeking PG (maybe by making T5 units even more expensive and thus rare or by implementing actual in stack limits).

    But I feel that posters examples were not the way I personally would want PG to go - because I am a strategy gamer, not a MOBA player.

    His examples were awesome. CA needs to listen. Your response was lacking in basic knowledge of the game imo
    Well that is how previous TW games were ruined. By CA constantly balancing and tweaking to suit the MP community and the mindset of 'MOBA players'.

    That is how everyone got onagers in Attila.

    I am just voicing the view of the SP/grand strategy crowd. The fact that as soon as I do I get some very rude replies kind of highlights how important it is that someone speaks up for the 95%.
    I second this opinion. People working hard to abuse the game should not be the standard for balancing. Getting free buildings and demolishing them for $$$ takes a long time and a lot more effort than just properly playing the game and beating the developers originally intended challenges
    Wrong, vanilla requires no such effort. In vanilla cheesing is easier than playing normally.
    Upgrading your lord is intended gameplay.

    Using hero traits is intended gameplay.

    Problem is it breaks the game.
    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.
  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 13,143
    Just delete every reference to MOBA out of that comment and it's not bad... it's just... you say MOBA and you give them some really terrible ideas.

    Caps were not invented by MOBA. WHFB itself makes heavy use of various caps, and previous Total Wars suffered far less from these problems.

  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Itharus said:

    Just delete every reference to MOBA out of that comment and it's not bad... it's just... you say MOBA and you give them some really terrible ideas.

    Caps were not invented by MOBA. WHFB itself makes heavy use of various caps, and previous Total Wars suffered far less from these problems.

    Yeah I was referring to MOBA because LOL is well known and it's easy to understand, but somehow some people then think that I'm refering to multiplayer. I'm like what????? If only they read the whole thing they would easily know that I'm talking exactly about singleplayer. The reference of MOBA is just to point out the importance of stat caps.
  • JackydaiJackydai Registered Users Posts: 34
    Now that my first thread has triggered some good conversation, I shall carry on with other problems. Just to clarify again, everything is refering to SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN. The reference of MOBA was just to point out the importance of stat caps, cause people are familiar with LOL. Be sure to understand my points before stating I'm talking about MP battles. OK let's go.

    a. Siege battles. For old players, it should be a very familliar tactic to first destroy a fort tower, then just stay outside the castle and shoot all the ammunition and damage spells before climbing the walls. This gains huge advantage for the attackers, but siege battles are supposed to be in favor of the defenders. The key problem is that the defending AI would NEVER come out of the wall no matter how, so even when they are under missile fire they just bear with it. A lot of battles that could never been won at field can be easily won at siege. I can use an army of 19 catapults destroy thousands of swordmasters with no effort at all, cause I know they are not coming out of the wall. What makes matters worse is that if I don't have enough ammunition, but the army still have enough moving points on the campaign map, I can wait until draw in the battle, then actively withdraw on the campaign map, then move in to attack again on the same turn (Never tried this? That's how you take Eight Peaks straight fast as Grimgor). That way no matter how strong the defending army is I can eat bit by bit with no cost until I win.
    My solution is: first, adjust the AI's logic to the same as field battle where they can choose to come out and meet the attacker; second, change fort towers' coverage area because there are too many dead angles in many maps, especially the one with a mountain on the left side and the one with square walls and four towers in front; third, give defending army some deployable area in front of the wall at the deployment stage - I mean, why can't they? They surely have time for that. In real warfare there are also many cases that the defenders intercept in front of the wall, Troy for example; fourth, fort towers have a default 0.5 garrison army instead of 0, which means they fire automatically without needing a friendly troop nearby until captured by the enemy. I feel much more confident doing a siege battle than a field battle, but this phenomenon is really not healthy. Btw, Attila/Rome 2 all have this issue.
    Another little problem is when the player is defender, sometimes fleeing enemy troops would recover and come back to the victory point and start capturing, which is quite annoying. Imagine you are a soldier in the attacking army, would you think of fleeing in that direction? I think anyone would choose to flee to the outside of the wall rather than further inside the city. Btw, why make killing fleeing men so hard, CA? Can't we just do it the same speed like Medieval 2?

    b. Ammunition. It's kinda related to the first problem. You get the ammo refilled after every battle, as well as wind of magic. In some cases, we can have the same "shoot for free" tactic like in siege battle. For instance, when it's AI's turn and I'm attacked by a stronger army, if my army have longer range or higher mobility, I can shoot until no ammo then actively withdraw. If AI pursue, then I suddenly get ammo filled up again and have a much better chance to win. It's the same with the spells, both damage spells and healing spells. Damage spells work the same like ammunition. What about healing spells? For example, if I have an army of monsters and a healing mage, I would deliberately leave a slow enemy troop after wining a battle, then pursue. In this second battle I will use the healing mage to heal up all the half-healthed monsters before crushing that one enemy troop, so I get a full health army again. Wierd isn't it? You get a stronger army after a battle.
    My solution is: ammunition and wind of magic(as well as item bounded spells) should be replenished when the army is being replenished, or if that's hard to be done, make it replenished on each turn rather than after each battle. This also makes more sense because in history we see a lot of cases when an army is traped and run out of ammo. If they can get magical ammo refill for every conflict, history would be rewritten. That is also why supply line was so important in real warfare. As for wind of magic, I think the logic works as well, because you've already drained the winds in the area and it needs time to gather again.
    It would be better if vigor will also inherit. It makes more sense for an army to tire after each battle and recover the next turn, rather than becoming refreshed again after each battle. Just put a one turn little debuff there and it's done. (except for the orcs. Waaaaagh!)
Sign In or Register to comment.