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

CA's comments on the lopsided quality of LP's

SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
Q: The last few DLC's have been very lopsided in terms of quality, one side is way better than the other. Are you aware of this? do you make one faction first or give one priority? and is this something you plan on rectifying with future updates?

A:


This has been eating away at me ever since I read it and before we discuss this I just wanna say: love the game, love CA, really appreciate their hard work and I hope everyone is staying safe and not overworking themselves during these troubled times.

So its with all the goodwill in the world that I say this response is either untrue or just half the story.


The reason for the Quality difference


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that CA don't get alot of downtime to experiment with new concepts and game mechanics, they need to do it on the fly...while making DLC. So every new faction they make is obviously them experimenting with new ideas on the fly.

This response from Mitch only drives home the obvious truth that Nakai and many of the other weaker halves of the Lord Packs were an experiment gone wrong. They've been playing around with different campaign mechanics: Nakai's campaign is ridiculously short (experiment) Ikits is ridiculously easy (experiment), Malus has 2 start positions (Experiment), Wilfhart is on an expedition (experiment)

good or bad, this is obviously what's going on and if they strike gold, they go with it, if they don't, they hit the ground running (They literally used Nakai as an excuse to play around with ways to make horde factions better, so this is an example where playtesting was implemented into the content we then bought).

Which leads into my next point.



"We're catering to different audiences"


I genuinely hope he was lying here because if this is what CA believe internally and if this is how they totally justify the quality difference between their Lords then that really frightens me, because its easier for us to call bulls*t on a lie and push for better than it is for us to break through a delusion and make them see the reality.

Nakai's campaign was insanely short. It barely lasts 100 turns and this is because he doesn't really have a quest or larger goal outside of "Kill the hunters and then do the final battle". This seems alot less like 'catering to people who want short campaigns' and more like CA ran out of time and resources for Nakai after going hog wild with Wulfhart and so they couldn't actually develop him anymore.

Similarly, Tehenhauin and Ikit aren't anywhere close to the same level of quality so you cant write it off as "one is easy mode, one is hard mode". The difficulty of Tehenhauin's campaign isn't the issue (in fact, most people dislike Ikit for being too easy rather than Tehenhauin for being too hard) it's the quality difference which is staggering. Ikit would be worth £7 on his own! Tehenhauin is worth £3 at best. That's the level of difference we're talking about.



"We have no bias and develop them at the same time"


This is provably false. Ikit has an entire workshop with unique UI that actually changes how his units look, unique RoR's, nukes and all his units were top-notch, while Tehenhauin had a sacrifice skill tree that simply moves some numbers around to give you x public order or damage and unlocks the basic RoR's you got with his LP.

Markus Wulfhart had 4 unique Legendary Heroes (something CA said in the past was a waste of resources and not something they want to do) an expedition, a few unique units like Gyrocopters for the Empire, a whole new mechanics with the jungle agitation and imperial supplies...meanwhile Nakai was a collection of ideas on how to fix hordes cobbled together and added on the end of Wulfhart.

now, maybe they don't mean to show favouritism but the fact of the matter is that they objectively do in practice. There are always 1 or 2 units that are just kitbashed into existence to save time/money (Razordons for example) and there's always one faction that gets the short end of the stick. CA as yet to produce a LP that was equally balanced aside from the Queen and the Crone but both their campaigns had basically no mechanics to compensate for the good units and everyone is still annoyed by both their models.


This has been eating away at me because its either dishonest or misguided and both are concerning. If the current time/money/staff numbers aren't sufficient to produce an equally balanced Lord Pack then they should raise the price, delay the packs or add more staff to their teams because, regardless of the cause, this is becoming a serious problem.

They're only creating more work for themselves that they'll have to clean up later, in future updates.

What do you guys think though?
«1

Comments

  • kitekaze#9211kitekaze#9211 Registered Users Posts: 318
    I think that you overthought CA's words. They tried to be transparent, there was no reason they have to excuse for another cause like shortage of staffs.

    CA tried to target different audiences, that's what they do. The thing that they either forgot, or were unexpected, was that many people bought the lord pack just to play only one side. And if that side does not satisfy them, they will complain.

    There are still two more LPs for CA to reflect on this matter.

    P/S: The three last LPs are still way better than previous LPs. I only hope CA to review the Grim and the Grave... It's way beyond outdated and terrible right now.
  • Maedrethnir#1968Maedrethnir#1968 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 17,194
    I think that CA should increase the price and give us two great sides every time they release LP.

    It takes a lot from hype and fun when you need to worry 'who will get short end of the stick this time?'.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
    kitekaze said:

    I think that you overthought CA's words. They tried to be transparent, there was no reason they have to excuse for another cause like shortage of staffs.

    CA tried to target different audiences, that's what they do. The thing that they either forgot, or were unexpected, was that many people bought the lord pack just to play only one side. And if that side does not satisfy them, they will complain.

    There are still two more LPs for CA to reflect on this matter.

    P/S: The three last LPs are still way better than previous LPs. I only hope CA to review the Grim and the Grave... It's way beyond outdated and terrible right now.

    I strongly disagree with that, catering to different audiences is not "what they do" you are putting way too much faith in their words and not looking at the bigger picture here.

    Strategy games are a massive niche and I don't know about you but I like long and short, easy and hard campaigns. They aren't catering to different audiences, they are attempting to add more variety for the audience they already have. No one is gonna be like 'ohh! i like short campaigns so I'm just gonna play Nakai for all eternity now because its my only option" that's not how it works and if that was the intent then that's stupid because they'd be cultivating different audiences for different reasons and then constantly letting them all down because nothing they do can please all of them.

    Lord Packs come with 2 halves. Both halves should be up to standard or else they might as well sell each half for £3.50 each. Its a complete non-argument to say "some people wanted malus more and got butthurt" I have my own biases but still I want both, I like Both.

    I love Ikit, even though I've never properly played him or any skaven for that matter. I buy the DLC's to support the game and keep the quality on the up and up. I may be more excited about one side than the other but that's not an argument against advocating for more consistent quality. If they **** off all the Tehenhauin fans but appease all the Ikit fans, the concerns of one group is still valid, regardless of whether or not they like Ikit.
  • WaaaghCheif#7753WaaaghCheif#7753 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,379
    Its a self contradicting reply.

    "No there is no bias(...)"

    "One gets more work and one dosen't"

    Essentially. But he admitted to agree on it, on the first sentence.

    But then again, Malus and Nakai was omitted throughout the whole reply.

    (Also the Ikit being intentionally easy seems weird as they put his starting challenge to be Hard.)
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,082
    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast

    "There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Disciple of the Drybrush

  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 6,927
    "We're catering to different audiences"




    So what if some people like X-race, but hated the way it's implemented, but hate Y-Race, but wanted that the way X-Race is implemented?
  • kitekaze#9211kitekaze#9211 Registered Users Posts: 318

    "We're catering to different audiences"




    So what if some people like X-race, but hated the way it's implemented, but hate Y-Race, but wanted that the way X-Race is implemented?

    Don't purchase the LP then?

    I dislike both Lizardmen and Rat, and didn't buy it right away. But I still bought the pack when it was on sale to support developers.
  • hhhmmmhhhmmm Registered Users Posts: 175
    Experiments and variation is great. Makes the campaigns feel fresh. Expecting every new feature to be perfect for everyone is just not realistic.

    I really don't get the complaint here.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
    edited April 2020

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
  • Neodeinos#5871Neodeinos#5871 Registered Users Posts: 15,828

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
    hhhmmm said:

    Experiments and variation is great. Makes the campaigns feel fresh. Expecting every new feature to be perfect for everyone is just not realistic.

    I really don't get the complaint here.

    No one is saying experimentation is a bad thing, the problem is that they are essentially throwing Sh*t at the wall to see what sticks. Because they have no research and dev team for the games and instead have to learn by doing, they have to experiment on the fly which means running with whatever idea you fancy.

    The problem is that when some ideas come to fruition they turn out bad or they build up one idea at great expense to the other, thus resulting in some campaigns ending up completely trash or hollow, especially when compared to their counterparts.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,082
    neodeinos said:

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
    What objective measure are you using?
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast

    "There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Disciple of the Drybrush

  • WaaaghCheif#7753WaaaghCheif#7753 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,379
    Tehen I could forgive. But Nakai and Malus both getting a short end and basically no replay value to their opposing side, consecutively, just shows a pattern.

    "Some ideas dont work out quite as good (Tehen) , we are not going back to the drawing board" is logically and reasonable. Tehen could be fixed with some tweaks.

    Also no sign of even LOOKING into Malus, Tehen or Nakai (IIRC Nakai might at least be on their radar) confirms my suspicion that they are not going to work (not wholly rework from the ground up) on rectify these Lords in LPs.

    But this answer is quite in contradicton given the reason as to why DLCs are so far and beyond in timespace. (as Rich said nearly two years ago, more depth and quality assurance)
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
    @neodeinos

    I don't think its intentional either, its either due to budget/time/staff constraints or due to the fact they don't have any kind of research and development team.
  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
    edited April 2020

    neodeinos said:

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
    What objective measure are you using?
    How many unique RoR's did Tehenhauin have? how many unit upgrades did he have?

    how substantial was Nakai's campaign? did he get any unique heroes or mechanics beyond his vassal?

    Is Tehenhauin's rites mechanic equal in depth, complexity and quality to Ikits workshop?

    Did Ikit require an update after the DLC came out to tweak his sacrifice mechanics because it was so half done?

    does Malus have equivalent mechanics to Snikch?

    are red-crested skins, Ripperdons, Engine of the Gods, Salamander hunting packs and an ancient salamander (which is just a large salamander) equivalent to doom Fayers, Jezzails, Rattling guns and such? (bearing in mind that most of Tehenhauin's units reused models, rigs and animations left, right and centre, even though the Engine of the Gods had a unique dino)

    we're talking about the objective differences between how much was put into the two halves, the overall quality and replayability of each half, etc.

    If you don't care that's fine but this is not a matter of opinion. If you genuinely think our critiques are invalid then you have to prove it with counterpoints.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,082

    neodeinos said:

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
    What objective measure are you using?
    How many unique RoR's did Tehenhauin have? how many unit upgrades did he have?

    how substantial was Nakai's campaign? did he get any unique heroes or mechanics beyond his vassal?

    Is Tehenhauin's rites mechanic equal in depth, complexity and quality to Ikits workshop?

    Did Ikit require an update after the DLC came out to tweak his sacrifice mechanics because it was so half done?

    does Malus have equivalent mechanics to Snikch?

    are red-crested skins, Ripperdons, Engine of the Gods, Salamander hunting packs and an ancient salamander (which is just a large salamander) equivalent to doom Fayers, Jezzails, Rattling guns and such? (bearing in mind that most of Tehenhauin's units reused models, rigs and animations left, right and centre, even though the Engine of the Gods had a unique dino)

    we're talking about the objective differences between how much was put into the two halves, the overall quality and replayability of each half, etc.

    If you don't care that's fine but this is not a matter of opinion. If you genuinely think our critiques are invalid then you have to prove it with counterpoints.
    So your objective measure is your opinion of how much went into each and the quality of each.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast

    "There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Disciple of the Drybrush

  • Bogdanov89#9316Bogdanov89#9316 Registered Users Posts: 1,154
    There is a definite objective difference in quality between those factions.

    I think that CA folks were simply more inspired and interested in working with Ikit and Wulfhart.
    So they had better ideas, implemented them better, tested them more and polished them more.

    On the other hand the were probably not all that thrilled about tenehwhatever and nakai so it was all half-arsed.
    Ideas they had were lame/uninspired, implementation was even worse, testing was short and polish wasn't even done.


    So Ikit and Wulfhart got the good 2/3 of developer attention, work and testing while the nakai/teneh got whatever was left - which was not much.
    Honestly Tiktakto is a much better designed and implemented lord than both teneh and nakai put together...
    Check out the Community Bug Fix Mod on the Steam Workshop.
  • UberReptilianUberReptilian The Crystal LabyrinthRegistered Users Posts: 5,487

    neodeinos said:

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
    What objective measure are you using?
    How many unique RoR's did Tehenhauin have? how many unit upgrades did he have?

    how substantial was Nakai's campaign? did he get any unique heroes or mechanics beyond his vassal?

    Is Tehenhauin's rites mechanic equal in depth, complexity and quality to Ikits workshop?

    Did Ikit require an update after the DLC came out to tweak his sacrifice mechanics because it was so half done?

    does Malus have equivalent mechanics to Snikch?

    are red-crested skins, Ripperdons, Engine of the Gods, Salamander hunting packs and an ancient salamander (which is just a large salamander) equivalent to doom Fayers, Jezzails, Rattling guns and such? (bearing in mind that most of Tehenhauin's units reused models, rigs and animations left, right and centre, even though the Engine of the Gods had a unique dino)

    we're talking about the objective differences between how much was put into the two halves, the overall quality and replayability of each half, etc.

    If you don't care that's fine but this is not a matter of opinion. If you genuinely think our critiques are invalid then you have to prove it with counterpoints.
    So your objective measure is your opinion of how much went into each and the quality of each.
    Ikit getting unique ROR is not an opinion. The fact that Nakai's ROR is earned normally like all other factions for Tehenhauin while having an arbitrary limitation for his shows it hasn't been though out properly.

    Ikit's buffs are also far more substantional. Trying to run a full skink army is a chore with his pitiful buffs that he has to work for as oppossed to an actual upgrade system for Ikit.

    Salamanders/Razordons have their roles almost reversed from what they should be and it is beyond my comprehension how this happened.

  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
    @Vanilla_Gorilla

    Do you really wanna get into a discussion about objective reality?

    Technically everything could be argued to be subjective but that's also a terrible way to approach things, some consistency and objectivity has to be applied to reality, otherwise there would be no way to create a cohesive society, identity or morality, among other things.

    In this case, we aren't discussing what we personally feel about the DLC's. The things we bring up as issues are observable and quantifiable. we are attempting to evaluate and then demonstrate the value of the DLC factions in relation to one another.

    We can objectively point to observable pieces of evidence that bolster our case for the DLC's having lopsided quality.

    And many, many other people in the community are able to see the same issues and agree, even staff members who made the games openly admit that there is an observable difference in quality.

    One of the best ways to tell if something is more in the objective category is if it can be quantifiable outside of your personal feelings, if it can be observed by multiple individuals and if the case for that lack of quality can be argued effectively.

    In this case it can. You are trying to bring your personal feelings into the matter and then dismiss the whole discussion as a feels based one when it isn't.

    Objective doesn't mean you have to agree, but it does mean you cant say its wrong based on your feelings being different. You have to either make quantifiable claims to counteract your opposition's claims or you have to just accept that you don't care about the objective discussion and just wanna like what you like.

    Regardless of your conclusion or participation in this, it will continue with or without you. You don't have to participate but you can't diminish it due to your feelings either.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,082

    neodeinos said:

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
    What objective measure are you using?
    How many unique RoR's did Tehenhauin have? how many unit upgrades did he have?

    how substantial was Nakai's campaign? did he get any unique heroes or mechanics beyond his vassal?

    Is Tehenhauin's rites mechanic equal in depth, complexity and quality to Ikits workshop?

    Did Ikit require an update after the DLC came out to tweak his sacrifice mechanics because it was so half done?

    does Malus have equivalent mechanics to Snikch?

    are red-crested skins, Ripperdons, Engine of the Gods, Salamander hunting packs and an ancient salamander (which is just a large salamander) equivalent to doom Fayers, Jezzails, Rattling guns and such? (bearing in mind that most of Tehenhauin's units reused models, rigs and animations left, right and centre, even though the Engine of the Gods had a unique dino)

    we're talking about the objective differences between how much was put into the two halves, the overall quality and replayability of each half, etc.

    If you don't care that's fine but this is not a matter of opinion. If you genuinely think our critiques are invalid then you have to prove it with counterpoints.
    So your objective measure is your opinion of how much went into each and the quality of each.
    Ikit getting unique ROR is not an opinion. The fact that Nakai's ROR is earned normally like all other factions for Tehenhauin while having an arbitrary limitation for his shows it hasn't been though out properly.

    Ikit's buffs are also far more substantional. Trying to run a full skink army is a chore with his pitiful buffs that he has to work for as oppossed to an actual upgrade system for Ikit.

    Salamanders/Razordons have their roles almost reversed from what they should be and it is beyond my comprehension how this happened.

    Being different is not the same as objectively worse. Neither is size of buffs. I could do a mod doubling the stats of all your units, it wouldn't represent a huge amount of work.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast

    "There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Disciple of the Drybrush

  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
    edited November 2020
    @Vanilla_Gorilla

    No one is saying being different = worse.
    Post edited by SeanJeanquoi on
  • UberReptilianUberReptilian The Crystal LabyrinthRegistered Users Posts: 5,487

    neodeinos said:

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
    What objective measure are you using?
    How many unique RoR's did Tehenhauin have? how many unit upgrades did he have?

    how substantial was Nakai's campaign? did he get any unique heroes or mechanics beyond his vassal?

    Is Tehenhauin's rites mechanic equal in depth, complexity and quality to Ikits workshop?

    Did Ikit require an update after the DLC came out to tweak his sacrifice mechanics because it was so half done?

    does Malus have equivalent mechanics to Snikch?

    are red-crested skins, Ripperdons, Engine of the Gods, Salamander hunting packs and an ancient salamander (which is just a large salamander) equivalent to doom Fayers, Jezzails, Rattling guns and such? (bearing in mind that most of Tehenhauin's units reused models, rigs and animations left, right and centre, even though the Engine of the Gods had a unique dino)

    we're talking about the objective differences between how much was put into the two halves, the overall quality and replayability of each half, etc.

    If you don't care that's fine but this is not a matter of opinion. If you genuinely think our critiques are invalid then you have to prove it with counterpoints.
    So your objective measure is your opinion of how much went into each and the quality of each.
    Ikit getting unique ROR is not an opinion. The fact that Nakai's ROR is earned normally like all other factions for Tehenhauin while having an arbitrary limitation for his shows it hasn't been though out properly.

    Ikit's buffs are also far more substantional. Trying to run a full skink army is a chore with his pitiful buffs that he has to work for as oppossed to an actual upgrade system for Ikit.

    Salamanders/Razordons have their roles almost reversed from what they should be and it is beyond my comprehension how this happened.

    Being different is not the same as objectively worse. Neither is size of buffs. I could do a mod doubling the stats of all your units, it wouldn't represent a huge amount of work.
    That's not the point. The point is Tehenhauin has clear issues that need addressing and adding the P&W ROR's to his Sacrifices is lazy unlike creating Unique Skryre ROR on top of the other ones.

    Also as for buffing, when you sell a character for their ability to run unique armies, like Skarsnik for Goblins or Ikit Claw for Skryre and the Skink can barely run a Skink army, that's kinda a big deal.

    I don't see the issue with accepting Tehenhauin needs help. His mechanics are almost Great, they just need refining. This semantics game is pointless. Take the word "OBJECTIVE" away and his issues don't dissapear. I can't understand why you think helping the characters who got shafted is a bad thing, if that's what your point is. Improving poor campaigns is good for ALL players of the game. We should want all Characters on par with Wulfhart or Sniktch, not the poor Lizardmen DLC characters.
  • GreenColouredGreenColoured Registered Users Posts: 6,927

    Tehen I could forgive. But Nakai and Malus both getting a short end and basically no replay value to their opposing side, consecutively, just shows a pattern.

    On the other hand, they definitely got the better units.


    While the Razordons were disappointing, they also got Sacred Kroxigors and Dreadsaurians, the Empire got 2 variations of archers and 3 variations of War Wagon.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,129

    neodeinos said:

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
    What objective measure are you using?
    Did you enjoy getting 50 sacrifices per battle and having to grind out loads and loads and loads of battles just to complete the sacrificial pyramid? Personally I found that rather tedious. And then there's the difference in number of ROR units. Ikit just has more, since he has normal unlocks and then workshop unlocks on top, where Tehen only has those from sacrifices. Blessed spawns makes up for it somewhat, but you can't control your blessed spawn quests.

    Expansion is another question as well. Ikit really isn't having problems with confederating the other Skaven factions, because they're all rather far away and if they don't want to confed then oh well, no big deal. T is boxed in with a whole lot of Lizardmen around him and if they decide to not want to confederate then you get into a weird situation. It makes very little sense that they don't, since T is chosen by their deity, but there's no faction mechanic to help it along and WH2 diplomacy is what it is.

    And of course there's the general level of usefulness of the lord-specific units. Ikit's units are generally extremely useful. They serve a strong purpose. Arguably even too strong, but at least there's some point to having them.

    The units added with Tehen? Hunting packs are okay early game, but they're very mediocre due to rubbish pathfinding and short range. By the time they're done with their tippy-tappy shuffle-in-place dance routine, the target melee unit has closed ground. Red skinks? Decent'ish early game melee infantry, but you just can't buff them enough that they're even half-decent for mid-game and they are horrendous on VH and legendary. AI bonuses combined with the red skinks having no defense to begin with is just brutal.

    When one campaign is hell on wheels and everything just works and there appears to be a meaning in everything and the other feels like a disjointed mess that wasn't playtested much at all and the added stuff appears to be random bits and pieces that are held together with shoe-strings and duct tape, I personally would not reach the conclusion that similar levels of effort were put into the campaigns.

    That all being said, I do think that T's campaign is now fairly decent. Once you start playing the follower lootbox game and get your building costs down to flat zero, you start to go places. I just wish I didn't have to start fighting other lizardmen factions to expand. It feels so damn wrong potentially having to murder Gor-Rok and Mazda.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,082

    neodeinos said:

    I loved Tehens LP and disliked Ikit.

    It's that simple, some folk will like one side and others will like the other.

    I like Tehenhauin too and I just said I've never gotten into Ikit's campaign but this is not a matter of opinion its a matter of quality and consistency.
    Exactly, objectively there is a disparity in the quality of the content. It's most likely not intentional though.
    What objective measure are you using?
    How many unique RoR's did Tehenhauin have? how many unit upgrades did he have?

    how substantial was Nakai's campaign? did he get any unique heroes or mechanics beyond his vassal?

    Is Tehenhauin's rites mechanic equal in depth, complexity and quality to Ikits workshop?

    Did Ikit require an update after the DLC came out to tweak his sacrifice mechanics because it was so half done?

    does Malus have equivalent mechanics to Snikch?

    are red-crested skins, Ripperdons, Engine of the Gods, Salamander hunting packs and an ancient salamander (which is just a large salamander) equivalent to doom Fayers, Jezzails, Rattling guns and such? (bearing in mind that most of Tehenhauin's units reused models, rigs and animations left, right and centre, even though the Engine of the Gods had a unique dino)

    we're talking about the objective differences between how much was put into the two halves, the overall quality and replayability of each half, etc.

    If you don't care that's fine but this is not a matter of opinion. If you genuinely think our critiques are invalid then you have to prove it with counterpoints.
    So your objective measure is your opinion of how much went into each and the quality of each.
    Ikit getting unique ROR is not an opinion. The fact that Nakai's ROR is earned normally like all other factions for Tehenhauin while having an arbitrary limitation for his shows it hasn't been though out properly.

    Ikit's buffs are also far more substantional. Trying to run a full skink army is a chore with his pitiful buffs that he has to work for as oppossed to an actual upgrade system for Ikit.

    Salamanders/Razordons have their roles almost reversed from what they should be and it is beyond my comprehension how this happened.

    Being different is not the same as objectively worse. Neither is size of buffs. I could do a mod doubling the stats of all your units, it wouldn't represent a huge amount of work.
    That's not the point. The point is Tehenhauin has clear issues that need addressing and adding the P&W ROR's to his Sacrifices is lazy unlike creating Unique Skryre ROR on top of the other ones.

    Also as for buffing, when you sell a character for their ability to run unique armies, like Skarsnik for Goblins or Ikit Claw for Skryre and the Skink can barely run a Skink army, that's kinda a big deal.

    I don't see the issue with accepting Tehenhauin needs help. His mechanics are almost Great, they just need refining. This semantics game is pointless. Take the word "OBJECTIVE" away and his issues don't dissapear. I can't understand why you think helping the characters who got shafted is a bad thing, if that's what your point is. Improving poor campaigns is good for ALL players of the game. We should want all Characters on par with Wulfhart or Sniktch, not the poor Lizardmen DLC characters.
    I've no issue with improving Tehen. I simply don't follow the narrative that he's "objectively" worse or bad. The use of the word "objective" is my criticism of OP. Starting a discussion assuming he's terrible is false. He might be to some but not all. Sure his sacrifices could be significantly improved, but I just don't buy the "he's terrible" story.

    In hard Tehen on a Skink and Dino army no problemo. It'd be even easier now.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast

    "There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Disciple of the Drybrush

  • SeanJeanquoiSeanJeanquoi Registered Users Posts: 3,416
    edited November 2020
    @Vanilla_Gorilla

    I already addressed this to you directly.
    Post edited by SeanJeanquoi on
  • Lord_DistamorfinLord_Distamorfin Registered Users Posts: 1,333
    Mitch's answer really lowered my hopes about future DLC and basically dashed any hope of past DLCs being revisited. He admitted that there is quality difference, which I'm very glad about; recognition of such a thing is an important step to fixing it. What I gathered from his response was that new faction development basically boils down to:
    1. initial design and ideas
    2. mechanic development
    3. in-house testing
    4. release

    The major problem I see here is that there's apparently no revision stage to the process. They come up with some good ideas and try to development them as best they can, but if something doesn't work there's no time or budget built in to the design process for revisions. This seems to be the case most strongly for Nakai and Malus: on their face the new horde mechanics and Possession are good mechanics, but there was clearly no effort to go back to the drawing board when it became clear that they just didn't work out quite right. If there was some kind of revision stage, Nakai and Malus' mechanics likely would have been rethought from the ground up assuming that the flaws were apparent early enough in development.

    Tehenhauin's problem is less fundamental. The sacrifice mechanic is perfectly serviceable and could very easily be made into something really useful (if not deep) by just changing most of the sacrifice effects. The more pressing problem about it to me is the complete lack of unique RoR units from the sacrifices. It honestly seems like the dev team got so engrossed in working on Ikit's Workshop that they just blew through all the time and budget before they got to Tehenhauin.

    Looking to future DLC, this answer gives me a strong sense that the same kind of disparity is going to keep happening. Not because of any inherent bias, but a fundamental flaw in the design process. You can't just come up with ideas at the beginning, decide that they don't quite work, but then try to push them out anyway. There has to be room to throw out bad ideas and go back to the drawing board.

    Looking at past DLC, there's probably a less than 1% chance that they'll revisit these lord packs and fix the problems. Nothing in that answer hinted that at fixing the flaws in Nakai's campaign, or taking a second look at the Sacrifice pyramid and RoRs. Which is extremely disheartening because it shows that bad content is going to stay bad, and if your favorite lord happens to be on the bad side of a lord pack you'll just have to live with it.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,082

    @Vanilla_Gorilla

    No one is saying being different + worse.

    That was my impression.

    Furthermore the argument that "Ikit is powerful therefore he's good" is thrown around plenty. I see his power as a detriment, it makes him too easy. It's certainly not indicative of effort.
    "It's no fun fighting people weaker than you." - The Beast

    "There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Disciple of the Drybrush

  • #28957#28957 Registered Users Posts: 2,666
    LMAO CA saying that Cult of Sotek campaign is "hard". Have they actually launched the Tehen campaign at least once outside of the testing dev build?
    Now I am known as "numbers".
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 11,387
    I don't see a problem with the "different campaigns for different preferences" thing. Sometimes, you want to run a relatively quick campaign of under a hundred turns rather than a 300+ turn marathon. Nakai's campaign being "short", therefore, is not something I consider to be inherently a bad thing.

    The thing with allies freely declaring war on your vassal... yeah, that's a broken diplomacy mechanic and needs to be fixed.

    Regarding the bias...

    There's a degree of cynicism here, but I have to say that my response to that was one of "well, of course they're going to say that". It's not as if they were going to say "Hahah, yeah, you got us - we absolutely do have our preferences like everyone else, and naturally the races we like more are going to get more care and attention, we're only human after all. If your favourite race is one that's not so popular at the office... well, sucks to be you, I guess?"

    Particularly since any bias is likely to be something that happens unconsciously rather than deliberately.

    If they really want to persuade people, actions speak louder than words. Recognise which races have got the short end of the stick, whether it's because of biases or other reasons, and bring them up to par.
Sign In or Register to comment.