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

The Age Of High Mass Is Over - The Time of Infantry Has Begun

1234579

Comments

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 5,819

    Why is nobody calling this what this actually is? It's not a buff or a nerf or a balance overhaul: it's a bug fix. The fact that the game has been balanced around a bug that completely breaks the ability of foot lords to brace against charges for nearly 4 years is not something to defend. That this bug is finally being addressed and the mechanic will function as intended is a universally good thing. The fact that anybody is actually opposed to this fix honestly astounds me.

    Metas change. Find new strategies and deal with it.

    That's because nobody is against this fix. That's all good. The difference is that now they can put the finger up in the air and assign an appropriate knockdown probability that will actually be effective, and from what I have seen it was left unchanged at 85% for dwarf lords, effectively meaning that vulnerability goes from 95% to 15% towards their only hard counter in one big leap without affecting unit cost. As you say yourself the game is balanced around foot chars having this weakness and when they effectively remove it without any consideration to how this will affect neither game play nor balance that's pretty alarming to me.

    A Hierotitan costs 2000 gold, is slow and armored. Remove value for bound spells and a hit animation, say 1700 gold, or even 1600 gold to be nice, but then also add the benefit of a small hitbox and foot chars may be as much as 300-500 gold too cheap now. Low speed mini-titans will not be good picks vs every faction, at least they will not synergize with all builds, but still... This is potentially so big that some pre-emptive considerations would make sense. At least some care with testing before rolling it out raw.

    That's the balance aspect. I don't mind changing meta otherwise, adapting to new stuff is a big part of the fun of strategy games. The problem is if the meta shifts the gameplay dynamics in a direction that makes it less entertaining to play and watch. That's my big long term worry. Balance is easy to overcome. Use the op stuff, or find ways to deal with it fine. But if the game becomes tedious to play or boring to watch, then it's kind of dead. A bit of drama maybe, but it doesn't hurt to make these considerations before and not after things are rolled out in an experimental shape.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 7,084
    You’re way overreacting. This is a modest change and in most games will have a small impact.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,245

    Why is nobody calling this what this actually is? It's not a buff or a nerf or a balance overhaul: it's a bug fix. The fact that the game has been balanced around a bug that completely breaks the ability of foot lords to brace against charges for nearly 4 years is not something to defend. That this bug is finally being addressed and the mechanic will function as intended is a universally good thing. The fact that anybody is actually opposed to this fix honestly astounds me.

    Metas change. Find new strategies and deal with it.

    A lot of units got their mass upped (basically all dwarf) due to this bug so they can be valid, now because the bug got fixed it be correct to lower the unnecessary high mass of some units
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    Mass and knockdown resistance are separate values.

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,245

    Mass and knockdown resistance are separate values.

    That work together, you do know some units have knockback resistance also yeah
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161

    Mass and knockdown resistance are separate values.

    That work together, you do know some units have knockback resistance also yeah
    They influence different things.

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,245

    Mass and knockdown resistance are separate values.

    That work together, you do know some units have knockback resistance also yeah
    They influence different things.
    dwarfs got compensated with high mass to stop certain units abusing them, now that the bug got fixed so they would not have been abused by those units to start with but their high mass is still there, therefore it should be reverted to normal mass.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 1,387
    edited November 2020
    @Lotus_Moon If you watched the video you would know CA is going in the opposite direction.

    Post edited by Bastilean on
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 10,245
    Bastilean said:

    @Lotus_Moon If you watched the video you would know CA is going in the opposite direction.

    was it video made by CA? or just a streamer, if it was me workign at CA i would not nerf any units coz of this change until i get some proper data so potentially in the Hotfix
  • MitechMitech Registered Users Posts: 32

    Mass and knockdown resistance are separate values.

    That work together, you do know some units have knockback resistance also yeah
    They influence different things.
    dwarfs got compensated with high mass to stop certain units abusing them, now that the bug got fixed so they would not have been abused by those units to start with but their high mass is still there, therefore it should be reverted to normal mass.
    You are looking at this from the wrong perspective it's not just mass that can now be toned down IF everything works as intended even Wrath and ruin could finally be what it should be instead of a very much needed workaround fix against broken heavy mass units.

    All the foot chars with single target or aoe net/speed debuff all the magic nets every -40MD debuff foot chars needed to be ever able to do anything every rampage ability needs to be looked at now.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    Remember when certain people made the claim that knockdown was making foot lords stronger because of the i-frames?
    It's interesting to note that the very same people have now done a 180 and claim that the absence of those precious i-frames is making foot lords too strong.

  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 8,502

    That's because nobody is against this fix. That's all good. The difference is that now they can put the finger up in the air and assign an appropriate knockdown probability that will actually be effective, and from what I have seen it was left unchanged at 85% for dwarf lords, effectively meaning that vulnerability goes from 95% to 15% towards their only hard counter in one big leap without affecting unit cost. As you say yourself the game is balanced around foot chars having this weakness and when they effectively remove it without any consideration to how this will affect neither game play nor balance that's pretty alarming to me.

    A Hierotitan costs 2000 gold, is slow and armored. Remove value for bound spells and a hit animation, say 1700 gold, or even 1600 gold to be nice, but then also add the benefit of a small hitbox and foot chars may be as much as 300-500 gold too cheap now. Low speed mini-titans will not be good picks vs every faction, at least they will not synergize with all builds, but still... This is potentially so big that some pre-emptive considerations would make sense. At least some care with testing before rolling it out raw.

    That's the balance aspect. I don't mind changing meta otherwise, adapting to new stuff is a big part of the fun of strategy games. The problem is if the meta shifts the gameplay dynamics in a direction that makes it less entertaining to play and watch. That's my big long term worry. Balance is easy to overcome. Use the op stuff, or find ways to deal with it fine. But if the game becomes tedious to play or boring to watch, then it's kind of dead. A bit of drama maybe, but it doesn't hurt to make these considerations before and not after things are rolled out in an experimental shape.

    Yea nah thats just making up really funny and fail stories.

    Hard counter, what a frikking joke, any $800 underpriced white lions can deal with any dwf lords cost effectively and effortlessly. I think its prolly because ppl been abusing the mechanic hard, much like high elves specifically using nobles where u basically takes 0 dmg and remove a $1000-$2000 dwf lords prolly losing $200 in the process.

    Now that they fixed an age old bug, abusers simply cant comprehend playing without abusing the bug.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 8,502
    edited November 2020

    Remember when certain people made the claim that knockdown was making foot lords stronger because of the i-frames?
    It's interesting to note that the very same people have now done a 180 and claim that the absence of those precious i-frames is making foot lords too strong.

    Easily the best win of the thread.

    Omg foot lords gonna die without kissing the ground, footlords useless without immunity,
    Got rekt by balance,
    immediately changes their story, zomgfootlordop

    The inability sticking by any narrative that doesnt suit the agenda is exactly why it take years to fix this. CA gotten smart since, time and time again, patch after patch u can see them getting the picture clearer.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    edited November 2020
    The cracks are showing.

    Nobody here's denying that these arguments have been made, right?

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 20,994
    Keep personal remarks out of the conversation folks.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    edited November 2020
    What I would like to learn is why the people who made that argument about i-frames are now arguing the exact opposite.

    Are knockdown i-frames beneficial to a foot lord or not?

    My position has been consistent. They're bad because they're keeping melee lords from fighting back and they allow on the other hand mage lords on foot to be way too survivable.

    Removing those i-frames is a net improvement to the game.

  • glosskilosglosskilos Registered Users Posts: 1,236

    Bastilean said:

    @Lotus_Moon If you watched the video you would know CA is going in the opposite direction.

    was it video made by CA? or just a streamer, if it was me workign at CA i would not nerf any units coz of this change until i get some proper data so potentially in the Hotfix
    Or the everchosen tournament
  • glosskilosglosskilos Registered Users Posts: 1,236
    Morghur is probably going to be terrible now
  • AsamuAsamu Registered Users Posts: 807
    edited November 2020
    Minimum range on spells only applied to vortexes, explosions, and wind spells, so it's probably fine for MP.

    Vortexes were pretty much universally bad, and it mostly didn't matter for wind spells, because they could be cast towards the caster anyway. The main impact of this is to make spells that were never taken in MP viable/good in some circumstances. Yes, it could situationally make certain lord/hero choices a lot more powerful by protecting them from getting mobbed, but I don't think it'll be THAT bad.

    The main implication for this is running a tough hybrid lord like Archaon or Mazdamundi in, then dropping a vortex like flame storm/banishment. Other wizards can also sort of protect themselves by casting spells on themselves, but that's not as big of a deal.


    The main thing I'm sort of concerned about with these changes long term is the grace period for shooting through trees, because if it's a set 1.2s, there's a huge difference in the range that a unit can shoot through trees, depending on projectile speed/arc.


    The other changes, like the bracing and knockdown changes could have a huge effect on balance, and require some substantial buffs/nerfs to some units/characters, but I think they'll be good for the game overall, in the long term, and there will probably be a follow up patch 2 weeks - 1 month after the initial update (as usual) to help address any problems that come up.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161

    Morghur is probably going to be terrible now

    I would say adequately shielding such characters has now become important and since infantry now actually has a chance of keeping high mass units from just barreling through, screening with infantry is now an option.

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 5,819

    What I would like to learn is why the people who made that argument about i-frames are now arguing the exact opposite.

    Are knockdown i-frames beneficial to a foot lord or not?

    My position has been consistent. They're bad because they're keeping melee lords from fighting back and they allow on the other hand mage lords on foot to be way too survivable.

    Removing those i-frames is a net improvement to the game.

    Seems hard to reply to the probable attempt at personal call-out without having the reply deleted for personal remark lol.

    Let's try again,

    1. I never talked about iframes
    2. You missed the point
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    You missed actually making an argument.

  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 3,981

    Morghur is probably going to be terrible now

    I would say adequately shielding such characters has now become important and since infantry now actually has a chance of keeping high mass units from just barreling through, screening with infantry is now an option.
    But its now going to have to be factored into, cost-wise if the character is strong, ok, or weak...how much infantry need to spend to screen accurate so doesn't instantly die.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 5,819

    You missed actually making an argument.

    It has already been made, and your call out seems to indicate that you missed the point completely. Nobody has been opposed to fixing the mechanics, but there are well founded concerns about what will happen when you remove a hard counter to a unit category without really evaluating the consequences and doing it in one big fat 90% reduction without any adjustments to cost or md. Some competitive units got a huge free buff to the requirements to setup their wincon, and unfortunately that particular wincon is by many considered to be a big bore.

    This concern is not about right or wrong, it's about balance and gameplay. With some luck the videos are exaggerated to show off and get clicks. It's also not about my faction or your faction, the factions that will struggle are the ones with worse stats on chars and infantry.

    So no need to gloat, this is raising a flag nothing else.
  • blindjonnblindjonn Registered Users Posts: 870

    Morghur is probably going to be terrible now

    I would say adequately shielding such characters has now become important and since infantry now actually has a chance of keeping high mass units from just barreling through, screening with infantry is now an option.
    Morghur is difficult to shield due to the poor morale of most other Beastmen units, he consistently gets isolated and can currently weather the storm till he is reinforced. If he does suddenly start taking tons of damage after this patch, his Spawns still make him great value and he's got Foe-Seeker to put him in safer spots. More lord variety for Beastmen is a good thing, but I'd rather the other lords get buffed rather than Morghur nerfed. Fortunately, the Gorebull should be incredible now, I think it'll be a net gain.
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,577
    Well, if foot lords and infantry do indeed become too strong, then by all means - increase costs, reduce stats, tweak knockdown value, reduce armour, reduce HP and all other imaginable and unimaginable nerfs...

    Absolutely no problem, but this bug needed to be fixed.
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,480

    Well, if foot lords and infantry do indeed become too strong, then by all means - increase costs, reduce stats, tweak knockdown value, reduce armour, reduce HP and all other imaginable and unimaginable nerfs...

    Absolutely no problem, but this bug needed to be fixed.

    I would actually go even further than that, since apparently overhauls aren't out of the question. The following is highly speculative since we can't know exactly how things will change yet.

    Assuming charge defence is working now, I'd like to see charge defence coming in different percentages instead of how it is now. It should be tied with the tier of the unit, perhaps with the type of formation as well. The more expensive the unit, the better the charge defence. I just think this type of implementation is healthier and makes balancing easier. Full on negations of certain attributes regardless of the price of the unit that causes them is causing unnecessary difficulties imo. Same with armor and AP I'd say. I just prefer when I pick certain units it has more to do with helping me realize a battleplan I have, and less to do with countering a single attribute on some unit's card.

    I may have gone a little ot but there it is.
    Prettiest of the foot overlords.
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,577

    Well, if foot lords and infantry do indeed become too strong, then by all means - increase costs, reduce stats, tweak knockdown value, reduce armour, reduce HP and all other imaginable and unimaginable nerfs...

    Absolutely no problem, but this bug needed to be fixed.

    I would actually go even further than that, since apparently overhauls aren't out of the question. The following is highly speculative since we can't know exactly how things will change yet.

    Assuming charge defence is working now, I'd like to see charge defence coming in different percentages instead of how it is now. It should be tied with the tier of the unit, perhaps with the type of formation as well. The more expensive the unit, the better the charge defence. I just think this type of implementation is healthier and makes balancing easier. Full on negations of certain attributes regardless of the price of the unit that causes them is causing unnecessary difficulties imo. Same with armor and AP I'd say. I just prefer when I pick certain units it has more to do with helping me realize a battleplan I have, and less to do with countering a single attribute on some unit's card.

    I may have gone a little ot but there it is.
    Well, you could have ranges in which charge defence works. Like low tier AL infantry ignore 1/3 of charge, mid tier 2/3, elite AL, like Chosen Halberds, Phoenix Guard... ignore all charge damage.
    Speaking theoreticalyl of course, I have no idea if it is possible to code properly.

    On the other hand, a simpler solution that achieve similar results, but much more crudely of course, is to remove charge defense from lower tier AL infantry.

    There are certainly many options to fine tune it.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 2,759
    blindjonn said:

    Morghur is probably going to be terrible now

    I would say adequately shielding such characters has now become important and since infantry now actually has a chance of keeping high mass units from just barreling through, screening with infantry is now an option.
    Morghur is difficult to shield due to the poor morale of most other Beastmen units, he consistently gets isolated and can currently weather the storm till he is reinforced. If he does suddenly start taking tons of damage after this patch, his Spawns still make him great value and he's got Foe-Seeker to put him in safer spots. More lord variety for Beastmen is a good thing, but I'd rather the other lords get buffed rather than Morghur nerfed. Fortunately, the Gorebull should be incredible now, I think it'll be a net gain.
    tbf, one of the biggest bm weakness is big armored monsters so this should also be a meta buff for bm
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 3,981
    What they should have done for a change of this magnitude is a Beta Test of these changes in some testing grounds format; with everyone able to join in to see the effects.
Sign In or Register to comment.