Lessons for Game 3

Sarmatianns#6760

I really wanted to talk about the lessons that need to be taken in to avoid some of the major downsides of current gameplay.

The biggest issue, head and shoulders above the rest, is Single Entity spam meta. The meta, both in MP and Campaign play devolves into spam of single entities. I do not think that is something that needs to be proven, watching higher difficulty Campaign videos or competitive multiplayer matches will quite unequivocally show it.

This isn't just about monsters. Single entities, even of small sized are simply superior by design, and the main reason is that they retain 100% of their effectiveness until they are killed or routed. Ranged single entity will fire missiles with 100% effectiveness, melee SE will fight with 100% effectiveness and magic user SE will cast spell with 100% effectiveness until killed or routed.

This leads to a fundamental flaw in the gameplay. Multi model units lose effectiveness as their health drops. So, if one is using multi model units to fight single entities, that person is at a disadvantage from the start. As health of a multi model unit drops, they start shedding models, making them less effective, which is not true for the single entities.

The entire meta currently revolves on pinning and killing single entities in as few decisive engagements as you can manage.

This obviously devolves strategy as most battles turn to disgusting blob fights, where players are forced to try and kill enemy SE as quickly as possible, because if they don't, the investment in that engagement has been mostly wasted.

Healing, while not a decisive part (as even non healing SE are an issue), makes it even more degenerate. Healing in some way, shape or form is available to quite a few factions at this point, and most of them can use it heal their single entities. Even Dark Elves, which don't have lore of life have ways of healing their main SE (Malekith, Morathi), Hydras have regeneration, Lokhir regens in melee and so on. This is not me having a go at Dark Elves balance, it is just to illustrate a point.

Then there is a fact the most spells don't really have any effect on Single Entities. No further proof is needed when Spirit Leech, one of the spells with worst WoM to HP ratio is among the most popular spells, simply because it can damage Single Entities reliably.

This is THE most important aspect of the game that needs to be fixed and I certainly hope we will not see it game 3. Game 1 had a different issue, where SE were too easy to kill. Hopefully we can strike some sort of balance for the final part of the trilogy.

Some solutions would be:

1) Make SE less effective as they lose health.
2) Make infantry units more effective against them (mostly considering AL infantry vs SEM)
3) For the love of God, do not go out of your way to add more Single Entities to the game (looking at last LM dlc - if there was a faction that didn't need more SE, it was Lizardmen)
4) Make healing less effective on SE.
5) Make SE vulnerable to a wider range of spells.

Same goes for campaign play - SE are even more superior there. They don't lose models, so they just auto heal between battles. Even if they are not at 100% health, they are still 100% effective.

Please, please, please CA, DO NOT allow this to creep its way in the next Warhammer game.

For conclusion, let's have a look at a screenshot from a recent popular youtuber's video of a campaign battle




There's no strategy in this. It is just mindless clicking.

Lotus_Moon#2452

Single enteties suffer more than untis from flank and rear penalties as their are way easier to surround as well as bigger effect from vigour loss though.

I disagree wih your assesment of the state of Signle Enteties fully.

I think there are some single entetis that are too strong and need nerfing but many others are balanced, likewise healign overall is quite balanced but some healing items (AKA star) could use a nerf even regrowth could use nerf, but its not healing itself its the spell tahts at fault.


I support nerfs to some single enteties in form of armour and MD can even be a rebalance by givign them more MA or CB, but overall they are fine like they are now and no need to change the game as its not needed, its warhammer fantasy afterall.


Armies led by a Single lord full of troops are more than capable of playing agaisnt single entetie based armies so i dont see any issue to begin with.

Shakaqi_G

I disagree. This game is about fantasy battles, and big monsters are perhaps the most defining aspect of this genre, along with magic spells. Gradual crumbling at low health for undead or risk of routing away from combat for a moment are factors that could in theory and do in practice reduce the binary nature of monster health as well. Single entities make for exciting and decisive gameplay moments. Despite perhaps going for a more grounded or "realistic" fantasy feel, in Game of Thrones the very rare dragons and giants in the world were the centerpieces of many battles. Monsters, wizards and lords should be powerful, since they are the most exciting and iconic elements of a fantasy army.

Yes, being able to fight until they die or are routed is an advantage of single entities. But that doesn't make them overpowered. Being able to engage the enemy from a distance is an advantage of ranged units, but does it make them fundamentally overpowered? No. Being faster than infantry is an advantage of mounted units, but does it mean they can't ever be balanced? Again, no. Being able to move over units or terrain is an advantage of flying units. Being able to tie up even stronger units is an advantage of defensive troops, being able to quickly resolve combats with weaker units is an advantage of offensive troops and so on. There are fundamental advantages and disadvantages to all types of units, but that doesn't mean they are fundamentally flawed and can never be balanced.

No comment on the campaign balance aspect. The limit on number of lords and single entities is a crucial factor in multiplayer, so I don't know why monsters are not limited in single player. In any case, it seems that campaign armies often have low diversity of troops, so it's not just a monster problem.

eumaies#1128

Good post, there’s no reason these mechanics need to stay the same in game three.

A separate topic I would add is the importance of cycle charging to unit effectiveness. Units should be designed to be encouraged to charge but then also to stick around a while to get max value from the charge. Like doom flayers for example - who actually engage with the units they fight.

Linking many units effectiveness to how quickly you can click is completely unnecessary. Charging should give bonuses but repeated moving in and out completely altering how useful a unit is is tedious and detracts from strategy.

AristodemosII

After arguing about this with @Lotus_Moon and @Sarmatians for quite a while, we came to the point that mass is a real part of the Single Entities issue. After all, the "ignore low cost units by pushing through" and "cycle charge forever and without punishment" are probably where Single Entity Monsters are the worst.

For this reason I want to suggest a mass nerf to most/all Single Entity Monsters of something between -25% and -50% mass.

Uagrim#4644

Mass is one thing.

Manouverability is another bigger monsters need to be less agile then the smaller ones.

The_real_FAUST#6885

Mass nerf to single entities or a mass gain to other units.

I don't really mind which but it needs to happen.

Abusive single entities are far too strong as a result and the gameplay it creates is boring and unpleasant.

Single entities don't lose effectiveness when they lose hp other units do through lost models, it's clear cut.

This is exacerbated by high mass cycle charging Single Entities.

Massive massive support to the reduction of mass to abusive single entities please introduce it CA

yst#1879

Guarantee there WILL BE MORE monsters.

Like come on, orge kingdoms and chaos deamons, nothing speaks more than those factions than brutal fat monsters smashing ranks and ranks of enemies

another505

Make bonus vs cav and bonus vs monster difference

most staples like spears and halberds can have the same value, but some like giant slayer or questing knight can be tuned to be more specialized one way or the other.

This is especially needed when ogre kingdom and daemons come in

another505

AristodemosII said:

After arguing about this with @Lotus_Moon and @Sarmatians for quite a while, we came to the point that mass is a real part of the Single Entities issue. After all, the "ignore low cost units by pushing through" and "cycle charge forever and without punishment" are probably where Single Entity Monsters are the worst.

For this reason I want to suggest a mass nerf to most/all Single Entity Monsters of something between -25% and -50% mass.

I would add animation especially wh2 monsters'
their attack push away inf and cav models which then they have slowly walk back only to be attacked again.

Witchblade

This seems like another 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' thread. The vast majority of single entities in this game are balanced and, as mentioned by someone earlier, this is a Fantasy game with monsters that should be in the spotlight. In fact, the majority is probably underpowered. Making all heroes and lords lose combat effectiveness with damage sustained without major rebalancing efforts will do far more damage to game balance than it will help.

I propose more gradual tweaks:

1. The leadership penalty for flying units without ground support should increase in rate by 20% and be cumulative rather than reset when touching the ground. This will prevent infinite cycle charging by fliers, which is currently indeed OP. Ground units are really not much of a problem anymore. Chariots, for example, are designed to cycle charge.

2. Braced units should have their mass and knockback resistance doubled as long as their charge defence is active. This will prevent single entities from pushing through as easily without taking much damage.

3. Nehek and Regrowth need to heal 20% less. They're simply OP. They are as egregious on Blood Knights and The Fireborn as they are on a noble or a wight king.

Sarmatianns#6760

While I certainly appreciate that this is a fantasy game, I'm having trouble with conclusions drawn from that fact. Namely:

1) I do not propose to take monsters out of the game.

2) Monsters come in all shapes and sizes. Skinwolves are monsters, Demigryphs are monsters, Fimirs are monsters... Monsters in this game are not limited to Single Entities, and at the same time, not all SE are monsters. We have godlike aliens who genetically engineered lizards to have them ride dinosaurs into battle while taking telepathic commands from giant toads. I think it is fair to say that monsters are not threatened in this game.

3) Finally, fantasy does not equal monster mash. If we're talking staple of fantasy, it is much more about humans or humanoids prevailing over monsters.


I could list more reasons, but even without a single one, gameplay should trump everything else. This is, first and foremost, a strategy game. I'm not proposing removing monsters, I'm proposing making their use more strategic.

Sure, significant nerfs to a significant number of monsters would certainly be preferable to what we have now, but the best long term solution would be to have SE lose efficiency as they lose health, like multi model units do.
That just removes unfair advantage SE currently have that allows them to dominate the meta to such an extent.

eumaies#1128

Sarmatians said:

While I certainly appreciate that this is a fantasy game, I'm having trouble with conclusions drawn from that fact. Namely:

1) I do not propose to take monsters out of the game.

2) Monsters come in all shapes and sizes. Skinwolves are monsters, Demigryphs are monsters, Fimirs are monsters... Monsters in this game are not limited to Single Entities, and at the same time, not all SE are monsters. We have godlike aliens who genetically engineered lizards to have them ride dinosaurs into battle while taking telepathic commands from giant toads. I think it is fair to say that monsters are not threatened in this game.

3) Finally, fantasy does not equal monster mash. If we're talking staple of fantasy, it is much more about humans or humanoids prevailing over monsters.


I could list more reasons, but even without a single one, gameplay should trump everything else. This is, first and foremost, a strategy game. I'm not proposing removing monsters, I'm proposing making their use more strategic.

Sure, significant nerfs to a significant number of monsters would certainly be preferable to what we have now, but the best long term solution would be to have SE lose efficiency as they lose health, like multi model units do.
That just removes unfair advantage SE currently have that allows them to dominate the meta to such an extent.

It's nice to see that in addition to all of us getting better at playing this game, some people like Sarmatian are now also experts at succinctly explaining what's wrong with it .

yst#1879

Not gonna work, itll make the game stupid, star dragon getting trapped by skinks. Frikking settra on chariots of gods getting stuck on a bunch of peasant archers.

Kholek with 15 shags is exactly what end game should be, unless ppl wanna argue about brining 15 rank 9 marauders to fight end game. Or lets play army decoration, put 1 chosen here, 1 mara there, 1 chariot here oh and leave that mara cav over there. A pinch of chaos warriors, a table spoon of dragon orges that kind of bs.

Fantasy is not monster mash is yet another one sided argument. It can be the exact opposite, ppl play this exactly for monster mash and not some funny spearman x 19 unite lets poke a dragon game.

Better off fixing dodge abuse its basically saying your counter r absolutely useles coz u know, skilldodgezlulzzzz

- mass on monster is a horrible, horrible idea
U want real solution? -50% monster turn speed
See if anyone wants to cycle charge abuse after that, they still can but not like before with some stupid instant 360

Disposable Hero

Tweaks absolutely, just no knee jerks please.

eumaies#1128

yst said:

Not gonna work, itll make the game stupid, star dragon getting trapped by skinks. Frikking settra on chariots of gods getting stuck on a bunch of peasant archers.

Kholek with 15 shags is exactly what end game should be, unless ppl wanna argue about brining 15 rank 9 marauders to fight end game. Or lets play army decoration, put 1 chosen here, 1 mara there, 1 chariot here oh and leave that mara cav over there. A pinch of chaos warriors, a table spoon of dragon orges that kind of bs.

Fantasy is not monster mash is yet another one sided argument. It can be the exact opposite, ppl play this exactly for monster mash and not some funny spearman x 19 unite lets poke a dragon game.

Better off fixing dodge abuse its basically saying your counter r absolutely useles coz u know, skilldodgezlulzzzz

- mass on monster is a horrible, horrible idea
U want real solution? -50% monster turn speed
See if anyone wants to cycle charge abuse after that, they still can but not like before with some stupid instant 360

while a bit acerbic, some great points. Turn speed and the ability to cycle charge too readily (rather than charges being a periodic thing that also include fighting for a period) might be more important than mass.

And agree the prevalence of dodging in this game is kind of silly. There may be no way to completely get rid of it, and I'm ok with a moving target being x% harder to hit than a stationary target, but straight up dodging is some stupid arcade game interfering with trying to play total war strategy game.

TheShiroOfDalton

yst said:

Not gonna work, itll make the game stupid, star dragon getting trapped by skinks. Frikking settra on chariots of gods getting stuck on a bunch of peasant archers.

The dragon could have suffered wounds, have broken bones and be bleeding internally from previous fights. Why shouldn't it in that case be more vulnerable to troops surrounding it?

I would love wound thresholds on SEMs that lower peformance and mass considerably with damage combined with a 75% resistance to healing.

It's long overdue.

Kayosiv#7489

yst said:

Better off fixing dodge abuse its basically saying your counter r absolutely useles coz u know, skilldodgezlulzzzz

- mass on monster is a horrible, horrible idea
U want real solution? -50% monster turn speed
See if anyone wants to cycle charge abuse after that, they still can but not like before with some stupid instant 360

This makes a lot of sense. Giant monsters easily disengaging for free before all the infantry models they knocked over even get to get back up, let alone attack them, is the real heart of many SE issues.

OrkLads

Good points throughout the thread, but I don't think SEM balance is as bad as that and many are balanced. Imo the most problematic SEMs are the ones that aren't designed around healing, but are able to be healed.

For example, Lokhir on Tempest has an item that gives regen when in combat and this works fine because there is risk and reward required to get his hp back. Whereas Malekith not only had a more powerful dragon (with 20% physical resist on top of 80 armour & 25% missile resist) but he is also able to regenerate his own hp using soul stealer.

Boris can take what is up there as the best regeneration item in the game, but he is statted with that item being factored in. Compared that to Kholek Franz who is a balanced lord until you start dropping Regrowth's on him.

Then look at Noble Chariot vs Master Chariot. One is far more abusive than the other as typically used, and which one is that? The one that can be healed with either Star or Regrowth.

Then of course Felix has his own issues, although here at least it is much more similar to regeneration in that it requires a much longer period of time in order to get the HP back, and the source of the healing can't just do a driveby heal from a 78 - 110 speed mount.

Luthor Harkon is another example of healing being a problem. His innate regen on the Gheist isn't really a big problem as it is factored in. A big problem with Luthor is you don't just have to contend with his innate regen, you need to factor in that if he gets in real trouble you can pop an invocation of nehek on him for a quick +1000hp boost.

Healing SEMs is just too powerful for the level of skill it requires compared to other magic. Most magic requires timing of your opponent, consideration of if they can dodge or block (in case of a spell), timing it so your opponent can't pull away from a buff etc. And while it is true that when you compare the numbers on buffs/debuffs/healing it doesn't look so favourable for healing. But this is only true when a unit is able to drop models, which SEs/SEMs can't. While it may make more sense to drop a Mindrazor on a unit of cav on the charge vs a regrowth, it will virtually NEVER make more sense to do the same to a Star Dragon/Karl Franz/Green Knight/Noble Chariot/etc, because the calculation isn't "how can I maximise the amount of damage output this unit does before it drops too many models to be effective" it is "as long as this unit has 1hp left I can generate enormous value on virtually anything I hit" (and of course the fact so many SEM's have terror only adds to their value).

Healing is a mostly fun and fair part of this game, and when it is built into an SEM it doesn't really cause problems from what I can tell (Hellpit, Hydra, Terrorghiest, Vargulf, Louen, Boris, Lokhir, Tyrion, Sigvald, etc). But when it is WoM healing/item healing on SEMs that weren't designed with it in mind, it becomes too strong.

Like seriously look at Overcast Regrowth 17 WoM for 2khp + full vigour on any SEM you want, vs Overcast Mindrazor for 18 WoM for +50% AP, + 50% non-ap, + magic attacks for 32 seconds. Why would you ever choose Mindrazor.

eumaies#1128

Brilliantly put all around. As I've said many times, healing lores used on glass cannon expensive SE's is just inherently a balance problem. Very hard to properly price a unit when single entity healing is so readily available. Also hard to properly price or balance healing which is fun and requires timing when used on multi-entity units.

They fixed spirit leech because it was too potent vs SEMs. they didn't do anything close for regrowth/start/invocation with respect to single entities in particular

Sarmatianns#6760

I'm glad the discussion has been both interesting and civil.

I just want to point out that I wasn't talking about "SEM balance", per se. We could let every faction have a powerful single entity unit and that would be "balanced", in the sense that they would counter each other. I'm not comparing SE to each other, or even ranking faction strength depending on which SE they have access to - I am talking about their influence on gameplay.

Sure, healing is important, but the underlying issue of being 100% effective until dead or routed is a major influence on gameplay, and is especially evident in late stages of battle, when morale is lower and multi model units have suffered losses, thus losing combat effectiveness and mass.

A multi model unit at 15% HP in late game has very little use. It can even be a liability, unless it is very elite, as it could potentially trigger chain rout. Comparing that to a 15% HP SE which is still 100% effective.

The_real_FAUST#6885

I agree with Sarm.

Healing is an aspect but not the answer.l and in that instance I feel it would not absolutely no harm to gameplay to half the healcap for everything right away.

The actual issue however is effectiveness with hp loss and mass (with maneuverability and speed) as I mentioned above and Sarm has gone into.

Lotus_Moon#2452

The_real_FAUST said:

I agree with Sarm.

Healing is an aspect but not the answer.l and in that instance I feel it would not absolutely no harm to gameplay to half the healcap for everything right away.

The actual issue however is effectiveness with hp loss and mass (with maneuverability and speed) as I mentioned above and Sarm has gone into.

It would greatly harm the game and require a great rebalance of spells and abilities, its not needed to begin with also.

The strongest factions in the game currently dont even have proper ways of healing or any at all.

Disposable Hero

Yeah, i think there's a few things left out here.

Firstly though, thematically I like the idea of wounded monsters limping and losing some speed primarily I think. They already get exhausted also.

The healing is exaggerated in some posts because you're comparing sem + 30 wom to a sem without 30 wom worth of support. It's true that some SE benefit greatly from healing, SE chariots is such an example and that is to a large extent due to the unit type. It's a value over time unit that benefits the most from extended lifetime. A dragon like malekith is the perfect target for a antiblob heal. A sem duelist would benefit greatly from a debuff and 3 ww or trollhammers benefit greatly from a net/slow. It's mostly about optimal support for unit type. It's not very unfair or unbalanced imo. If you give heavy nerfs to sems you need equally heavy nerfs to ranged ap because there is a terror balance in play.

I do support somewhat more unit play but it has to be done very carefully. The game has come such a long way since wh1 and it would be easy to make it worse by completely changing the terror balance between unit types.

Different matchups also play very differently, which is something I really like. It's true that since boil down to monster mash, which is a bit dull, but others boil down to infantry grind which is equally dull. Truth is though that I see competitive build that are everything from defensive boxes to fully mobile cav armies. Knee jerking too hard here will just end up screwing some factions over and making others unbeatable for some factions.

My message is that you can't really nerf mobility builds without also nerfing static builds.

Disposable Hero

OrkLads said:

Like seriously look at Overcast Regrowth 17 WoM for 2khp + full vigour on any SEM you want, vs Overcast Mindrazor for 18 WoM for +50% AP, + 50% non-ap, + magic attacks for 32 seconds. Why would you ever choose Mindrazor.

Regrowth is quite possibly a bit op spell and mindrazor is on the lower end (much better than before though). That said, the situation you'd want to cast it in is a blob fight you need to win. Regrowthing a dragon in a blob vs blob fight should be much less efficient than a mindrazor. It may or may not save the dragon but you lost the key engagement.

If we compared apotheosis with enfeebling foe healing would look horribly weak, so imo its all about spells and nothing about healing vs non-healing.

Theo91#7431

I have to disagree OP. When I play MP, and admittedly I’m not the best, I find going wide often works best for me.

When I play SP, I rarely spam SEMs either. Again I focus on either going wider and overwhelming the enemy or defensive formations with lots of archers.

Either way, SEMs rarely feel oppressive or broken when I play

NightOfTheDead#8509

Have to disagree. Enough of a nerf to SEM and they are not desirable at all. Not saying that they wont be useful after nerfs, but they will surely be less desirable, hence used less. And that is not, in my opinion, where the game should go.

Having said that, some SEM could use armor or slight mass nerf, but not the point where the likes of bret men-at-arms or clan rats or empire spearmen can make them uncomfortable or more complicated to use.

TheShiroOfDalton

NightOfTheDead said:

Have to disagree. Enough of a nerf to SEM and they are not desirable at all. Not saying that they wont be useful after nerfs, but they will surely be less desirable, hence used less. And that is not, in my opinion, where the game should go.

Having said that, some SEM could use armor or slight mass nerf, but not the point where the likes of bret men-at-arms or clan rats or empire spearmen can make them uncomfortable or more complicated to use.

Considering that they're absolutely overused, dictate the pace of the battle almost by their lonesome and bend the meta completely around themselves, they deserve nerfs more than any other unit type. Radical ones too.

Disposable Hero

The game is successful so radical changes are very risky. It's easy to make it worse right now. Not saying we should stop trying but we should be careful in what we wish for and how we go about improving the game..

TheShiroOfDalton

1. The game's three year old now, no more point worrying about how it sells today
2. I don't get any percentages from the game's sales anyway
3. I don't get paid by CA to worry about how successful the game is

So no, I don't give a damn about that. I give a damn about a broken meta that pushes SEMs into the limelight and dictates the usefulness of any new unit solely by how they fit into it. Why did we get Warpgrinders that have practically nothing to do with what they did on the TT but instead seem to be solely made to be monster-counters? I don't want any more content to just be monster-mash focused.

So SEMs need to be nerfed and nerfed hard.

Sarmatianns#6760

Well, as I said, I don't think balance is key point here.

It is the effect on gameplay and the fact that armies are generally designed to deal with SE first and foremost.

I can sure appreciate that Warhammer is the first Total War game that has single entities at all. But, it has been a long time since they appeared and CA should have an idea how to better incorporate them into gameplay.

I'm trying to find a solution that covers all, including ones that come in the future. DLC teams have proven their inability to control themselves when creating new shiny toys, and have consistently gone overboard with SE, leaving balance team to deal with the mess for weeks and months afterwards.

We can expect a lot more SE, that is for sure. We need a comprehensive solution instead of "tweak turn speed" or "remove 3 MD"...