Lets talk about game balance

PotatoMeister#4071

I understand that a big balance update won't generate as much revenue as another dlc pack but this game is desperately in need of a huge balance overhaul both for campaign and multiplayer. With every update I make new mods just to be able to actually enjoy the game and that is a big issue, I shouldn't have to do that. Obviously I can't address all the issues here but I'll mention a few and perhaps the community can fill in more gaps and suggestion below.

Undead (VC & TK):
First of all lets talk about undead deterioration. Undead, particularly vampire counts but also to some extent tomb kings are being harshly punished for being unbreakable. They already have some of the worst stats in the game and their **** poor leadership makes them crumble in no time against enemy infantry. They are a swarm faction. It is fair that their units mostly consist of cannon fodder but when the entire army crumbles in a dragged out fight it just defeats their whole purpose. Attrition should be their strength not their weakness. In one of my many mods I compensated this by giving VC and TK units a +5 leadership through out their entire roster and it makes them feel much more balanced. They will still lose in most engagements without support from monsters but at least now they can hold the line long enough to let their lords and monsters go to town. In an alternative attempt I also tried to give them perfect vigour but it turned out to be too powerful so I do not recommend this. With the +5 leadership a normal skeleton warriors with swords will just barely win against the Empires cheapest unit which is a spear unit not meant for infantry fights.

Bretonnia:
Bretonnia has fallen behind pretty badly in wh2, mainly because of their awful infantry. There's many ways you could go about rebalancing this faction. One simple way would be to boost grail reliquae aura size and introduce the footknight and the merry men however I'm not really going to go into the balance issues of this particular faction instead I'm going to give some suggestions on what I would think would be some lore friendly changes that would make Bretonnia a much more interesting pick in matchups. Bretonnia is mostly famous for their all powerful grail knights and I think it's about time we get a buff for all grail units when fighting against chaos and undead. This technically already exist in the campaign techtree but I think this should be a trait. It would make people favour Bretonnia in multiplayer when fighting against evil which is what they're all about.

Louen should also gain all the grail buffs such as perfect vigour and I think he deserves a small buff as well now that they're so many powerful lords and monstrous mounts is a standard thing. Either by making the lionshield permanent or giving him a boost to melee and defence stats on Beaquis. He's suppose to be one of if not THE the most powerful hero in the old world (that is still technically alive that is).

I also think that the grail vow mechanic needs an overhaul. There's really just one mission per tier that is reasonable so you might as well remove them all and make them happen automatically, it is very annoying in campaign when you have like 5-8 lords and 10-13 heroes and you have to constantly check their vows to make sure you don't forget about them. It's not for, it's just unnecessarily complicated and time consuming.

Magic:
Instead of making stupid decisions like giving all mages monstrous mounts turning them into melee lords how about just rebalancing all the spells make them comparable to eachother in both cost and performance and improve the overall magic pool regeneration. It really upsets me that you turned Teclis into a better melee fighter than Tyrion by giving him a made up mount. There's soo many issues with magic balance I just can't list them all and I know that because I already fixed this through modding. A lot of people don't realize how useless some high tier spells really are and how overpowered some really cheap ones are for no particular reason. The stats and performance here is completely random.

Woodelves:
As many people has already mentioned before me the amber system is broken, woodelves needs a better way of gaining more amber to be able to expand, build armies and achieve the campaign goals. I think it's a fun idea and I don't want to see it removed but just fixed so we can once again enjoy our little green friends. They should also be able to build slightly better outposts now that the world is full of dangerous foes that are even more powerful than themselves. The world is too big to expect the player to defend its border with lords alone. I don't think it should be easy as woodelves but neither should it be impossible.

Beastmen:
Apart from an obvious roster buff the Beastmen needs their campaign performance tweaked. They have too slow movement speed on the campaign map now that the world is as big as it is and their economy is beyond terrible. Atleast chaos gets a boost to sacking and battle loot, I think Beastmen should have that as well. I also see no reason to why Beastment chaos spawn should be weaker than regular spawn. They should have the same stats but with the poison applied and just add a 100 gold cost, done. Now they're balanced and there would be a reason for us to build them in addition to minotaurs. For the most part I think the Beastment units hold up they just lack good variety. Their lore however is beyond broken, Most of their spells like devolve will barely hit anything. This needs to be fixed. Bray shamans should also be a lord variant, they are in lore.

Obviously there's more things worth mentioning for every faction but I don't want to turn this into a full on novel. Please share your opinions and thoughts below and we can discuss other potential balance tweaks.

Witchblade

Faction wide buffs to undead, massive buff to Louen... is this for multiplayer?

PotatoMeister#4071

Witchblade said:

Faction wide buffs to undead, massive buff to Louen... is this for multiplayer?

Both multiplayer and campaign. The campaign is what needs more attention though as it can't be balanced with just a simple price tweak. Because of this our input on campaign balance is more valuable for devs as it requires a lot more attention and with the ever expanding rosters and factions it will only get harder.

If you have any suggestions of your own please feel free to share them. Even if you're not certain about your idea I think it would be good if we discuss it and perhaps some developers will draw some inspiration from this.

Cadia101

I proposed a while back, that necromancer lord give an map wide leadership boost has an ability, because that make sense a necromancer would maintained undead troopes better than vampire and that would give them a buff in game, because right now they just have nothing for them except clow cost in mp, and considering how important VC lords are essential for them, that's not really all that great.

outrage4

All the other faction suffer from not being undead not the other way around. In general i think these suggestions are irrelevant to multiplayer.

Emrysor#2890

It is perfectly fine locking monstrous mounts behind high level. I do agree with magic, some spells does not just feel good in campaign. Lore of high, metal, beast feels very bad. With HE and Empire except lore of high magic they have access to all lores and metal and beast feels very bad in the later stages of the game.

Vampire counts do feel a little weak in campaign, during my last Isabella campaign wind of death carried everything. I do not find it fair comparing the empire swordsmen with skeletons since you can get free skeletons very early in the game and that is very very powerful. It would. Be nice if the city growth were a little faster to get higher tier units. Feels like the best tactic is go full economy, get free skeletons, many lords then get high tier units from battlesites. Idk how I feel about that. It feels better when you actually recruit them from buildings. TK however I disagree they are very underpowered and do not suffer the same way as the VC at least I do not feel like that in the campaign.

TheShiroOfDalton

LoL, crumbling is UP at the moment actually, they increased the average health of units, but did not adjust the crumbling rate, so undead actually got a sizable boost to suvivability between games.

It needs to be MORE punishing than it currently is, not less.

PotatoMeister#4071

Cadia101 said:

I proposed a while back, that necromancer lord give an map wide leadership boost has an ability, because that make sense a necromancer would maintained undead troopes better than vampire and that would give them a buff in game, because right now they just have nothing for them except clow cost in mp, and considering how important VC lords are essential for them, that's not really all that great.

I like this idea, I might steal it for a mod in the meantime. It would both solve early mass crumbling and give the necromancer purpose. VC are not the only ones suffering from this dilemma though, tomb kings has the same issue with their infantry. They have cheap and powerful constructs but they'll crumble quickly if you just pick off their infantry which is currently way too easy.

outrage4 said:

All the other faction suffer from not being undead not the other way around. In general i think these suggestions are irrelevant to multiplayer.

My suggestions were not specifically directed towards multiplayer, as I said above you can always balance multiplayer with cost tweaks, stats in there are practically irrelevant and so are mechanics. Trait changes and unit variations adds flavour though and opens up tactical options. An overhaul of spells would dramatically affect mp though as not all factions has the same lore available. Here's a little example and it's not even the worst one;
Spirit leech can do up to 1000 damage on a single target and has a 50% chance of hitting (per tick). It costs 6 winds of magic and it has only 32 secounds cooldown.

Meanwhile you have a high tier spell like Soul stealer that suppose to be used the same way except it can only do potentially 870 damage and will most likely not even do that much as it requires your target is far away from allies or the damage will be shared between them, it has also 50% success chance per tick, it costs 18 winds of magic (instead of 6) and has a 57 secounds cooldown (almost twice as long). Granted it does do a little bit of self healing as well but it doesn't change the fact that soulstealer is a waste of your magic points. And this is an end tier spell.

There's also some spells like devolve that has only 18% hit chance per tick which means it can only potentially deal 11,8 damage per target which adds up to potentially 212 damage in total if you hit all 18 targets every single tick (which will never happen). And this spell costs 11 winds of magic, 20 if you overcast.

As for being "undead" it used to be a strength in twwh1 when crumbling was still not a thing, of course that was too powerful. Their current stats are outdated and can not compete with other factions. Any unit with below 30 leadership will instantly route from a charge, that includes undead. When your cannon fodder has stats like 7 melee defence and 5 melee attack it's kind of ridiculous they should suffer from instant crumbling on top of that. VC and TK's infantry has literally just one purpose and that is to distract the enemy, they need to be able to do that.

Skaven slaves and clanrats are twice as good, cheaper, and does not crumble. They will not hold the line but they will distract the enemy all the same which is what they're for.

Wtfah114

Let’s be honest here, your ideas makes zero sense for multiplayer and therefore should not be implemented. As for campaign balance, technology/lord/hero skill is what mattered there not unit stats.

Emrysor#2890

Wtfah114 said:

Let’s be honest here, your ideas makes zero sense for multiplayer and therefore should not be implemented. As for campaign balance, technology/lord/hero skill is what mattered there not unit stats.

I disagree with this statement,purely because whenever a unit is nerfed statwise for multiplayer reasons, there is not added a tech in whatever form to restore that stat buff. Since CA apparantly wants campaign and MP covered in a balance DECISION. I find it fair that the value of a particular unit to be nerfed or buffed with both point of views in consideration.

Wtfah114

Emrysor said:

Wtfah114 said:

Let’s be honest here, your ideas makes zero sense for multiplayer and therefore should not be implemented. As for campaign balance, technology/lord/hero skill is what mattered there not unit stats.

I disagree with this statement,purely because whenever a unit is nerfed statwise for multiplayer reasons, there is not added a tech in whatever form to restore that stat buff. Since CA apparantly wants campaign and MP covered in a balance DECISION. I find it fair that the value of a particular unit to be nerfed or buffed with both point of views in consideration.

Between groms goblins markus huntsmen he’s dirt cheap star dragon doom stack and ward save stacking I find it hard to believe that campaign balance ever existed

TheShiroOfDalton

Emrysor said:

Wtfah114 said:

Let’s be honest here, your ideas makes zero sense for multiplayer and therefore should not be implemented. As for campaign balance, technology/lord/hero skill is what mattered there not unit stats.

I disagree with this statement,purely because whenever a unit is nerfed statwise for multiplayer reasons, there is not added a tech in whatever form to restore that stat buff. Since CA apparantly wants campaign and MP covered in a balance DECISION. I find it fair that the value of a particular unit to be nerfed or buffed with both point of views in consideration.

LOLOLOL! In SP you can stack so many buffs on units that they end up with 200-300% of their starting values. Nerfs for MP mean NADA for SP.

Noob_for_Life#5674

@PotetoChippu You need to give more consideration to multiplayer because a lot of your suggested changes would break it.

Louen is already borderline OP. Has a regen ability, Shield that gives 44% magic and missile resist, and Sword of Couronne a stong AOE debuff. All that on a flying monster with good stats and your suggestion is to make him invulnerable to magic and missiles by making the shield permanent. That's ridiculous.

Crumbling is better than routing if you can't see that need to play some MP.

An Spell like Soul Stealer is already powerful. It's a AoE spirit leach that heals the caster and can hit as many units as you can corral into the spell. If you don't see the power in such a spell then i can't stress enough that you need to get some MP experience.

Also gotta think you can Mod the campaign to be whatever you like MP players can't and are stuck with base game.

littlenuke#9412

yeah sure go ahead and mess up all MP balance and make tournaments require undead nerfing mods

Noob_for_Life#5674

Emrysor said:

Wtfah114 said:

Let’s be honest here, your ideas makes zero sense for multiplayer and therefore should not be implemented. As for campaign balance, technology/lord/hero skill is what mattered there not unit stats.

I disagree with this statement,purely because whenever a unit is nerfed statwise for multiplayer reasons, there is not added a tech in whatever form to restore that stat buff. Since CA apparantly wants campaign and MP covered in a balance DECISION. I find it fair that the value of a particular unit to be nerfed or buffed with both point of views in consideration.

If something is over-performing on the MP side then it is definitely over performing in campaign where it can receive crazy buffs. If you want to play the game and be crazy OP the whole time just use mods. But don't act like having balanced units is hurting campaign balance which is darn near non-existent already.

PotatoMeister#4071

For all the people that worry about stat changes affecting multiplayer just don't be. Multiplayer is cost based. You could give karl franz a 200+ ap and still easily make him balanced with a simple cost increase. This is why multiplayer should not be the focus.

If you don't agree with an idea please elaborate to why. I don't give much for the "you're wrong" attitude or "play more multiplayer" nonsense. Your statements are only worth as much as your substance.

Also the things I mentioned in the original post were just suggestions on balance changes, feel free to add your own. What changes would you like to see in the campaign? What can improve the existing gameplay? What factions do you consider broken or overpowered and why? Is clan Skryre for example too powerful? Should it be harder to gain warp stone? Or perhaps you think that the food economy is broken and want more or better ways to increase it?

Are you tired of vampire coast only spamming Necrofex Colossus forcing you to do the same? Is it okey with monster spams? Or should there be a cap per army to make sure for more balanced, fun battles?


Should the green knight have a skill tree like the "damned paladin", and why?

Anything goes really.

littlenuke#9412

Green0 said:

PotatoMeister said:

For all the people that worry about stat changes affecting multiplayer just don't be. Multiplayer is cost based. You could give karl franz a 200+ ap and still easily make him balanced with a simple cost increase. This is why multiplayer should not be the focus.

this is not how Multiplayer works, for example you could give Karl Franz the same stats as a Dread Saurian and make him cost ~4000g. But then, the versatility of the rest of the build would be far smaller than the builds that accompany current KF, so rebalancing him around ~4000g would make people pick him less even if power level stays the same.

and make people lose interest in the game because who wants to watch a flying dread saurian tank the whole enemy army?

dge1

Posts removed. Keep the derogatory remarks about each other out of the conversation.

innerp

well with the people who seem personally insulted by the idea of SP changes aside, i do agree with OP somewhat about VC units in particular feeling a bit weak. they have a lot of meh units and not much unique about their best units aside from the mortis engine. i like that they are more character focused in campaign being their greatest strength, but they feel like they crutch on magic too hard to carry them/make them interesting sometimes. units like crypt ghouls/horrors and varghulfs could use a little extra to up the roster a bit.

littlenuke#9412

innerp said:

well with the people who seem personally insulted by the idea of SP changes aside, i do agree with OP somewhat about VC units in particular feeling a bit weak. they have a lot of meh units and not much unique about their best units aside from the mortis engine. i like that they are more character focused in campaign being their greatest strength, but they feel like they crutch on magic too hard to carry them/make them interesting sometimes. units like crypt ghouls/horrors and varghulfs could use a little extra to up the roster a bit.

Cool add a skill, but please dont tinker with MP balance FOR SP on the subject of undead, they are already in a precarious position and any changes without MP in mind can completely screw the entire games balance if changing undead.

innerp

littlenuke said:

innerp said:

well with the people who seem personally insulted by the idea of SP changes aside, i do agree with OP somewhat about VC units in particular feeling a bit weak. they have a lot of meh units and not much unique about their best units aside from the mortis engine. i like that they are more character focused in campaign being their greatest strength, but they feel like they crutch on magic too hard to carry them/make them interesting sometimes. units like crypt ghouls/horrors and varghulfs could use a little extra to up the roster a bit.

Cool add a skill, but please dont tinker with MP balance FOR SP on the subject of undead, they are already in a precarious position and any changes without MP in mind can completely screw the entire games balance if changing undead.

i've never advocated for breaking MP, quite the opposite. i think MP and SP need to be balanced separately.

Wyvern2

Hate to say it OP, but it's hard to take your balancing suggestions seriously when its clear you lack understanding of certain game mechanics, and many of your suggestions are not only stupidly harmful to MP, but pointless in SP too.

1)Undead LD/crumbling. Crumbling has been in game since game 1, it has a practically irrelevant effect on chaff due to its high innate hp, and only really affects a handful of low hp/low leadership units like wraiths and direwolves. Honestly, if it were to get any chance it should be percentage based so it actually damages chaff and isnt as crippling to low hp low LD units. If you are struggling with LD in campaign then quite frankly you just need to improve your own gameplay. With easy methods of shutting down backlines and enoguh width to deny flanks, you should only really have to deal with LD debuffs coming from losing combat, so your units shouldnt be crumbling quickly at all, and if they are dying quickly, its probably to their crap stats rather than the crumbling.

2)A handful of good suggestions here in regards to the campaign, but the louen buffs are pure ludicrous, except he could get perfect vigour on horse/pegasus/foot. While perhaps lore friendly, situational stat buffs vs "evil" factions is just a recipe for balancing disaster in MP, since you either end up with units that are overpriced in general and well priced vs bad races, or well priced in general and underpriced vs evil. Just a horrid approach in general and best left to campaign at most.

3)Yeah, some spells are better than others, probably in MP spells should all cost the same since theyre balanced by WOM cost in battle. That said, you clearly lack understanding about how spells work. Soulstealer does NOT divide its damage among units hit, it hits EVERYthing in its its AOE for 870+Healing the caster and every time you fail that 50% roll on a multi-entity, you try again on another model in said unit and so on, which is why such effects are stupid good vs units like cav. A spell like devolve has 18% chance to hit, which yeah, will fail often vs a unit like a lord, but is stupidly powerful vs multi entity units, where you get to roll again and again every time you fail. Vs a unit with 90-120 models you can expect to hit all 18 targets every tic

In campaign some spells will just never be "powerful" without having their unique flavor/perks gutted. Powerful AOE's are the name of the game due to the blobfest campaign tends to be, and so targeted and small area spells fall off in usefulness. Turning every spell into wind of death to overcome that isnt a solution.

4)Wood Elves are already easy mode. CA said they'll rework amber, but if youre struggling with woodies in campaign, then its once again a player issue. They're dull as dirt OP.

5)Already dismantled the devolve issue, but the beastmen spawn has poison in exchange for WS to differentiate it from its chaos equivalent. Giving it more WS is not going to make it campaign viable compared to minotaurs, because minotaurs are just a far superior unit in every relevant way. Otherwise yeah, beastmen need a total campaign overhaul, but thats also on the list for cA.

yst#1879

innerp said:

i've never advocated for breaking MP, quite the opposite. i think MP and SP need to be balanced separately.

Nah both is the same thing.

Theres 0 balance on campaign

Have ppl even seen the charge amount of savorks boars? a $550 cav destroying demis, so thats that

TheShiroOfDalton

innerp said:

littlenuke said:

innerp said:

well with the people who seem personally insulted by the idea of SP changes aside, i do agree with OP somewhat about VC units in particular feeling a bit weak. they have a lot of meh units and not much unique about their best units aside from the mortis engine. i like that they are more character focused in campaign being their greatest strength, but they feel like they crutch on magic too hard to carry them/make them interesting sometimes. units like crypt ghouls/horrors and varghulfs could use a little extra to up the roster a bit.

Cool add a skill, but please dont tinker with MP balance FOR SP on the subject of undead, they are already in a precarious position and any changes without MP in mind can completely screw the entire games balance if changing undead.

i've never advocated for breaking MP, quite the opposite. i think MP and SP need to be balanced separately.

No. They don't need to be balanced separately. SP needs to be balanced, PERIOD. Currently SP isn't balanced at all, it's just turbo-everything. Turbo levelling, turbo research, turbo expansion and turbo buffstacking.

Pocman#6295

Wyvern2 said:

Hate to say it OP, but it's hard to take your balancing suggestions seriously when its clear you lack understanding of certain game mechanics, and many of your suggestions are not only stupidly harmful to MP, but pointless in SP too.

1)Undead LD/crumbling. Crumbling has been in game since game 1, it has a practically irrelevant effect on chaff due to its high innate hp, and only really affects a handful of low hp/low leadership units like wraiths and direwolves. Honestly, if it were to get any chance it should be percentage based so it actually damages chaff and isnt as crippling to low hp low LD units. If you are struggling with LD in campaign then quite frankly you just need to improve your own gameplay. With easy methods of shutting down backlines and enoguh width to deny flanks, you should only really have to deal with LD debuffs coming from losing combat, so your units shouldnt be crumbling quickly at all, and if they are dying quickly, its probably to their crap stats rather than the crumbling.

2)A handful of good suggestions here in regards to the campaign, but the louen buffs are pure ludicrous, except he could get perfect vigour on horse/pegasus/foot. While perhaps lore friendly, situational stat buffs vs "evil" factions is just a recipe for balancing disaster in MP, since you either end up with units that are overpriced in general and well priced vs bad races, or well priced in general and underpriced vs evil. Just a horrid approach in general and best left to campaign at most.

3)Yeah, some spells are better than others, probably in MP spells should all cost the same since theyre balanced by WOM cost in battle. That said, you clearly lack understanding about how spells work. Soulstealer does NOT divide its damage among units hit, it hits EVERYthing in its its AOE for 870+Healing the caster and every time you fail that 50% roll on a multi-entity, you try again on another model in said unit and so on, which is why such effects are stupid good vs units like cav. A spell like devolve has 18% chance to hit, which yeah, will fail often vs a unit like a lord, but is stupidly powerful vs multi entity units, where you get to roll again and again every time you fail. Vs a unit with 90-120 models you can expect to hit all 18 targets every tic

In campaign some spells will just never be "powerful" without having their unique flavor/perks gutted. Powerful AOE's are the name of the game due to the blobfest campaign tends to be, and so targeted and small area spells fall off in usefulness. Turning every spell into wind of death to overcome that isnt a solution.

4)Wood Elves are already easy mode. CA said they'll rework amber, but if youre struggling with woodies in campaign, then its once again a player issue. They're dull as dirt OP.

5)Already dismantled the devolve issue, but the beastmen spawn has poison in exchange for WS to differentiate it from its chaos equivalent. Giving it more WS is not going to make it campaign viable compared to minotaurs, because minotaurs are just a far superior unit in every relevant way. Otherwise yeah, beastmen need a total campaign overhaul, but thats also on the list for cA.

Basically, you have summarized everything i wanted to say.


I would only say that WEs in campaign are only absurdly OP in the late game, and only if you play them in an abusive way. If you go for a more traditional style, they are very hard to play.

I wouldn't have a probleem with it... if the "supposed way to play them" wasn't so boring.

Cukie251

These are bad changes for the reasons listed above, but to paraphrase.

• Crumbling is objectively better than routing in the vast majority of situations already.
  

• Grail Louen (at least on Beaky) would be hilariously OP. And making the argument "you can balance by cost" isn't taking the whole picture into account. If bret is paying 4k for Louen because his stats are bonkers, you massively cut down on faction options
  
  
• Other bret stuff - yeah a grail paladin would be nice, you could also probably justify horse Louen with perfect vigor for a small base cost increase.
  
  
• Magic - Everyone can name a dozen spells that need rebalancing, you need to be more specific
  

innerp

yst said:

innerp said:

i've never advocated for breaking MP, quite the opposite. i think MP and SP need to be balanced separately.

Nah both is the same thing.

Theres 0 balance on campaign

Have ppl even seen the charge amount of savorks boars? a $550 cav destroying demis, so thats that

MP is pay to win, which is worse than being unbalanced imo.

Ephraim_Dalton said:

innerp said:

littlenuke said:

innerp said:

well with the people who seem personally insulted by the idea of SP changes aside, i do agree with OP somewhat about VC units in particular feeling a bit weak. they have a lot of meh units and not much unique about their best units aside from the mortis engine. i like that they are more character focused in campaign being their greatest strength, but they feel like they crutch on magic too hard to carry them/make them interesting sometimes. units like crypt ghouls/horrors and varghulfs could use a little extra to up the roster a bit.

Cool add a skill, but please dont tinker with MP balance FOR SP on the subject of undead, they are already in a precarious position and any changes without MP in mind can completely screw the entire games balance if changing undead.

i've never advocated for breaking MP, quite the opposite. i think MP and SP need to be balanced separately.

No. They don't need to be balanced separately. SP needs to be balanced, PERIOD. Currently SP isn't balanced at all, it's just turbo-everything. Turbo levelling, turbo research, turbo expansion and turbo buffstacking.

i agree on campaign needing to be slowed down, and certain factions being too OTT, but alot of the suggestions i have seen from you would simply make the game worse.

Hanzo11

I understand why allot of people feel that crumbling is a net advantage the undead have over other factions and when viewed by itself I would agree. Undead also have accross the board worse base stats on nearly all units when compared to other factions. The vampire counts have had several changes over the course of the series that have reduced the effectiveness of their factions strengths. Healing caps and timed summons disproportionately hurt VC more than other factions in my opinion. I can understand why in multi-player this was seen as necessary, but in my opinion VC never received overall unit buffs to compensate for many of their strengths being reduced. I don't play multi-player, but from what I have read and seen, VC can still be competitive in the right hands. In single player they feel underpowered or at least weaker compared to other factions.

Ninaran#8122

MP folk complaining about proposed changes ruining their precious "eSport" is dripping enough irony to drown an entire Karak.