Warhammer 3 and Quick Battles

Lotus_Moon#2452

Let me start with saying this is NOT in any way aimed at diminishing the new multiplayer mode that has been talked about in war3 interviews (domination) but rather a way to demonstrate why quick battles are important for the franchise and why they also deserve attention ALONG side the new mode.

Quick battles: The current ranked system used for multiplayer since beginning of game 1 to now, which includes match making in 20min 1 v 1 pvp style game with 12400 founds on large unit size

What i find the most attractive aspect of quick battles currently is how well they represent the transition from table top feel of 1 v 1 games to the PC where you made a pre made army without your opponent knowing what it was and played with it, this for me is actually the only reason i got into total war warhammer, i wanted a system that reassembles the table top feel as close as it could and i feel Creative assembly gas done a superb job with this.

Now lets talk about some negatives mixed with positives that came from those from game 1 to where we are now; When we got quick battles in game 1 they felts more a brush off addition that was added with almost no backing for it over the length of game 1 we as a community raised up and grew a player base that while was small still had a voice, this lead to one of the first and very significant addition of unit caps which aimed at more balanced army companions (this was total war version of table top rules of army limits), from there we got more balanced patches aimed foremost at game balance in MP that ofcourse impacted single player and furthermore as the interest in Multiplayer (MP) rose a reasonable spectator mode was added...

...NOW we are at the crossroads of game 3 and i hear the talk of new mode taking over as the main mode for multiplayer and this scares me, not the fact that its a new mode that is aimed at improving the game, but at the fact a mode is being pushed that is changing what i wrote above and the grow done to this point...to start the aim of this post ... WHAT i think should be the aim of this new mode (domination) is a "bridge" that provides a semi competitive environment with a very causal feel that is great for those trying out multiplayer without necessary looking for the very competitive aspect and allows Quick Battle to stay as the ranked play mode and most true to table top feel.

What i mean by the above is to focus domination on being competitive but improve and focus on quick battle as the mode for competitive play, to achieve this i feel the following improvements are needed for Quick Battle;

1 - Post Game Chat - to allow players to discuss their games and strategies post game and hopefully add as friends (this is my number one as this should be added to any mode outside of custom games where its already possible)

2 - Capture Points - now i know domination is getting this and this is the aspect i do enjoy that was mentioned about domination, i do think QB need to have a way to prevent the 1% of people who leave a bad taste about them and stop draw kitting, i do think its very hard to implement balanced capture points system but i also this any cap system is better than none and we as a community can provide feedback on how to improve it in the future

3 - Better maps - I think we need about 20 maps + 10 seasonal maps on rotation that should be used in quick battles, make them symmetrical with wide range of terrain that offer wide range of strategies but not ones that prevent strategies also.

4 - Off steam ladder - ladder system that CA has full control of to the point that can ban and suspend players from it if found of foul play as well as reset at any time they like or edit it in any way they feel is needed

5 - Rating Match Making and Scoring - Match making that matches players closer to their skill/rank even if it means longer wait times

6 - Pre que with a faction OR a best of 3 system with picks and bans with penalties for leaving lobby - a big issue now is counter picking to get favourable match up, i hope the above can change this but hopefully the map is something that players can choose so for example 3 maps are shown and each player bans 1, i would also like to see connection to eachother shown and if its say lower than 50% you both can choose to leave the game with no penalty of any sort.

7 - Change of name from Quick Battle to Ranked Games

8 - Improved Cap system - the current caps are nice but still could use improvements if even to eliminate the inconsistencies at the very least.

Now the most important point to take from above is that it keeps ranked battles true to how they been since game 1 with only improvements aimed for fairer game play, the above does NOT change how the game is played like is the case in Domination.

My vision is to have a Quick Battle System for Domination which can be expended to ladder games also IF there is interest for it after few months from release but it should remain the "bridge" between fully competitive gaming and causal side, BUT at launch have Ranked Battles as the main focus of the ladder, i do think domination should have a que system for it aswell just be unranked for time being.

I think this is beneficial for multiplayer, it will allow the system close to table top and what we known for 6 years now to grow but also allow new system that is aimed more at the casual player to be integrated into the competitive aspect of the game with both groups of players being able to merge with eachother.

I will add that reinforcements MUST stay away from the ranked battles described above and should be a domination/custom battle only feature.


To summarise it; CA please add domination BUT improve Quick Battle also dont leave QB behind, MP scene needs QB to grow further and ofcourse if Domination proves super popular few months after it launches it should get the main focus but with 6 years of history until that happens quick battle should ramain the main focus of PVP MP aspect of the game and pre release should get the improvements it deserves.

Let both mods co exist just improve QB also and dont shift all your focus into the new mode like it seems from interviews.

EDIT: To be clear i want domination to have a que system which is not ranked at the beginning (if proven popular be ranked) and Rnaked games always be ranked - yes it does mean two que systems but i think with existence of both modes the MP will grow rapidly alongside the improvements stated above.

Energyzed#6772

Has there been any post where they said that the main quick battle game mode will be domination?

saweendra#3399

Energyzed said:

Has there been any post where they said that the main quick battle game mode will be domination?

yeah it was in the interview with turin and Los and may be in one of those magazine ones as well

Lotus_Moon#2452

Energyzed said:

Has there been any post where they said that the main quick battle game mode will be domination?

Yeah it was in intervies...hence my worry, i like the idea of domination just dont want QB to be neglected due to it as it should be improved.

Energyzed#6772

Lotus_Moon said:

Yeah it was in intervies...hence my worry, i like the idea of domination just dont want QB to be neglected due to it as it should be improved.

Then it clearly seems like a terribly bad move from CA... It is great that there will be another multyplayer game mode, but the main multyplayer system should remain quick battles as we know them, with some improvements ofc.

Reym#7442

I don't know why they aren't using the balance of power to avoid draw kites.

First I never saw someone draw kiting with the balance of power on his side (obvious enough I know).

So a draw kiter will be behind on the balance of power bar and even if this thing is sometimes a very little bit inaccurate it's still show the trend well enough.


So yeah if someones starts to draw kite, at the end of the 20 minutes the game looks at the balance of power and declares a winner.

Of course this doesn't solve corner camping but this is a problem you have to solve with a map pool that makes corner camping difficult or impossible imo.

Disposable Hero

Putting all eggs in one basket and having that basket completely change the way the game plays competitively sounds incredibly risky. Get it wrong and rip...

Like I wrote in the other discussion, I really hope ca manages to stay true to the core game and just improve it without dramatically changing it. Don't be greedy and try to make it arcade esports because the established loyal player base came here for another experience, which does not include reinforcements, resource hunting or flag racing. Objectives are welcome as a means to punish nonparticipation but otherwise shouldn't shape games imo. Reinforcements I see no upside with tbh, just drop it dead afaic.

Disposable Hero

Reym said:

I don't know why they aren't using the balance of power to avoid draw kites.

First I never saw someone draw kiting with the balance of power on his side (obvious enough I know).

So a draw kiter will be behind on the balance of power bar and even if this thing is sometimes a very little bit inaccurate it's still show the trend well enough.


So yeah if someones starts to draw kite, at the end of the 20 minutes the game looks at the balance of power and declares a winner.

Of course this doesn't solve corner camping but this is a problem you have to solve with a map pool that makes corner camping difficult or impossible imo.

That could be abused for win kiting instead of draw kiting though....

Loupi#8512

Agree with all 8 points except capture points given the implementations in past total war games, but if was well designed then maybe.

Reinforcements I am especially against becoming part of the main QB system. I think it would take out much of the pre-battle strategic and army building decisions. It should only be a fun alternative non-competitive mode like FFA.

BjornNorlinder#2423

tidy up the race selection menu and add a tier system like many games have (silver -> gold -> platinum for example). Make it chaos themed to add immersion.

Guacc_

It would be a real shame to abandon a fully functioning and beloved gamemode that is in need of a few rather simple improvements in favor of a quite radically different one. Considering MP games usually benefit from having multiple playable/balanced gamemodes especially. Personally I am hopeful about domination being a good gamemode, but there is no world where I would like to see it replace the classic.

The_real_FAUST#6885

It is not zero sum and I hope CA know that.

Creating domination should not come at the cost of normal Deathmatch QB.

It is perfectly fine to have the new mode but not by throwing out the old or not bothering to update it

As has been said Deathmatch with some tweaks would be perfectly fine.


The addition of capture points even if they appear after 20 mins would make a huge difference to normal QB deathmatch

yst#1879

Doesnt matter what they do, if it split up the players then it should only be one mode

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604

yst said:

Doesnt matter what they do, if it split up the players then it should only be one mode

Agreed, I would prefer domination (or a mode with reinforcements and capture points) to be the primary mode but splitting the playerbase would be the worst of both worlds.

yst#1879

Ppl want draw kite, corner camp solved.

Here it is, dont be an elf

Whatever mode they go with, play or quit.

Domination or reinforcements will prove popular due to the fact is a clone off campaign, thereby allowing a huge population of the carebears to join in, and get owned obviously

Lotus_Moon#2452

DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:

yst said:

Doesnt matter what they do, if it split up the players then it should only be one mode

Agreed, I would prefer domination (or a mode with reinforcements and capture points) to be the primary mode but splitting the playerbase would be the worst of both worlds.

I would not, if i had choice of only one than i would pick the one without reinforcements for sure.
I do think splitting is fine though so long as they offer different ways to play the game.

hanen

Domination mode as in dominate the battlefield sounds good. Capture points can only make the game better, if well implemented.

I dont understand the point of reinforcements as we already have limits in place to limit the abuse. To me it would only benefit the more experienced player as they have a deeper understanding of what are needed to win the match.

WarpDriver#9169

Great suggestions all round in many ways. Splitting the player base is an issue, although growing, it doesn't seem currently that big. To give the new mode a chance to shine, i.e. get it out there and up to speed so that a more reasonable comparison can then be made in a shot time frame, I can see the game mode being prioritised over the QB. Since it seems like vastly more people play campaign, there may be quite a big cross over, at least at the start, will be interesting to see how many realise the beauty and challenge of competitive games, and how many then start to wonder or decide that the current QB is better! Remember that this new mode is being tested, and the reinforcement side is only a small addition in the game, afaik.

Work_Safety_Officer

I think the current QB is flawed in many ways and that unit cap is a stupid bandage that only works sometimes. Like, who gets to decide these unit cap in an objective manner anyways? Why should some factions be limited by these caps while some factions like Lizardman can SPAM SOLAR ENGINES and CHAMELEONS and TERRADONS all day? Something is intrinsically flawed in the unit cap system and I think the reinforcement option is a great way to make things right. Ideally, there should be no unit cap implemented in a truly balanced game, where when you try to abuse by overinvesting in a certain unit you would only get hard countered by a strategy that the other player has in his pockets... It could be a unit that can efficiently deal with that unit (although i must say...many units in the lizardmen roster don't have hard counter at the moment lol) or maybe a spell that can effectively counter that unit type. It is just so annoying to see that lizardmen often bring OP units and get away with them whereas other factions are limited by the unit cap to unleash their true potential...

You can certainly prepared for it in the preselection screen by selecting the "safe unit", but that is exactly why the generalists is often picked over the specialist and resulted in the boring meta we have right now.

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604

hanen said:

Domination mode as in dominate the battlefield sounds good. Capture points can only make the game better, if well implemented.

I dont understand the point of reinforcements as we already have limits in place to limit the abuse. To me it would only benefit the more experienced player as they have a deeper understanding of what are needed to win the match.

Reinforcements aren't intended to level the playing field between a lesser skilled and more skilled player. Nothing can solve that except improvements to matchmaking and ladder (which we are hopefully getting) .

Reinforcements potentially combined with shared unit caps between pick screen and in-game, reduce the ability to play styles centred around "eliminate the counters and profit" like you often see with kite builds/SEM builds/Foot blob builds/flying shooter builds/etc.

Take a matchup like GS VS Dwarfs. This is heavily skewed due to the potential for 5 gyro spam from Dwarfs. Assuming shared unit caps (so you can't spec into 6/7/8/9 gyros etc) if a match starts and Dwarfs have gone 5 gyros GS can bring out doomdivers/more archers/whatever without needing to cripple their build at pick screen. This is how reinforcements would reduce the build roulette portion of this game which is quite poor atm. At least that is my guess at the concept behind it.

It basically allows for less hard restrictions in the form of unit caps and more dynamic play in battle to react based on circumstances. Rewards more strategic thinking and overall planning and execution rather than hyper-practicing a specific build or playstyle. Good matchups based on roster becomes less good, bad matchups based on roster become less bad.

Disposable Hero

No offense but that appears a bit naive to me. The thing that prevents extreme builds is mainly the unit caps.

I totally agree with hanen, the biggest change will be that it will be harder to learn each matchup because you will need to in addition the initial builds now also learn the escalations to go with it. Reinforcements will not really limit extreme builds, it just turns it into a two-stage rocket.

You would never pick 5 gyros first, you'd pick three with the option reinforce to 5, and rather spend the spare gold on stuff that counters the counters to gyros to keep that extreme path open in full force but at a less risky initial investment. And even if this was not the case, if you imagine that you brought a rushyish build vs 5 gyros, how would you reinforce? Likely I would say go even more extreme in your rush rather than half measured counter to gyros that won't do the job alone vs 5 gyros plus whatever the opponent reinforces with to protect his gyros.

From the other perspective, it will be safer to aim for some extreme builds like heavy artillery builds. Pick 2 and you're not at too high risk vs a rush, and if it looks good you can reinforce with 2 more.

It might take the edge in some case but if so only because you hit the total unit cap and can't reinforce with any other unit that empowers your extreme direction. I don't see any big upside tbh.

On the down side, if you like to sometimes bring an off meta unit that the opponent has access to a hard counter to, then you can never bring it at least in the first round because you know you will be 100% hard countered by reinforcements. There are many such weird situations that can arise and little gain for it....

eumaies#1128

DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:

hanen said:

Domination mode as in dominate the battlefield sounds good. Capture points can only make the game better, if well implemented.

I dont understand the point of reinforcements as we already have limits in place to limit the abuse. To me it would only benefit the more experienced player as they have a deeper understanding of what are needed to win the match.

Reinforcements aren't intended to level the playing field between a lesser skilled and more skilled player. Nothing can solve that except improvements to matchmaking and ladder (which we are hopefully getting) .

Reinforcements potentially combined with shared unit caps between pick screen and in-game, reduce the ability to play styles centred around "eliminate the counters and profit" like you often see with kite builds/SEM builds/Foot blob builds/flying shooter builds/etc.

Take a matchup like GS VS Dwarfs. This is heavily skewed due to the potential for 5 gyro spam from Dwarfs. Assuming shared unit caps (so you can't spec into 6/7/8/9 gyros etc) if a match starts and Dwarfs have gone 5 gyros GS can bring out doomdivers/more archers/whatever without needing to cripple their build at pick screen. This is how reinforcements would reduce the build roulette portion of this game which is quite poor atm. At least that is my guess at the concept behind it.

It basically allows for less hard restrictions in the form of unit caps and more dynamic play in battle to react based on circumstances. Rewards more strategic thinking and overall planning and execution rather than hyper-practicing a specific build or playstyle. Good matchups based on roster becomes less good, bad matchups based on roster become less bad.

To the extent that’s even an issue it would be solved by a four gyro cap.

The reinforcement effect will be quite small because it comes late so I can already have killed some of your counters and I can also take counters to your counters to some extent. The better prepared build design will still win in the end.

Work_Safety_Officer

SO....in a nutshell, some of you guys are suggesting that the ultimate solution to any sort of abuse is that: when you see someone abuse unit A and is gaining popularity, advise CA to cap unit A. Then, when you see someone else abusing unit B, advise CA to cap unit B... CAN'T U SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS SYSTEM IS?

This phenomenon proves that while unit cap might be working is some scenarios but is far from perfect...more examples can be found when you compared the BANNER rules and the current quick battle unit caps. It is flawed right in the roots, much like how SEM is flawed even after mass change. And I believe a reinforcement option can solve it all.

Work_Safety_Officer

Unit caps should not exist in a truly balanced game, PERIOD.


The existence of unit caps implies some units are intrinsically OP and there are not efficient hard counter to them.

Energyzed#6772

We really dont know how reinforments will be implemented. But they seem like a win-more mechanic. If you are on advantage, reinforcements will make you push that advantage even further and the only way you loose the lead is by actively messing it up.

Work_Safety_Officer

Energyzed said:

We really dont know how reinforments will be implemented. But they seem like a win-more mechanic. If you are on advantage, reinforcements will make you push that advantage even further and the only way you loose the lead is by actively messing it up.

AHA! That's right we reli don't know how any of it will work, so who are we to speculate that it will be bad for quick battle as well? In fact, most of the comments I read all think reinforcement will not help BLABLABLA reinforcement is only benefiting the more experienced player (which should be a gd thing btw? lol) reinforcement takes away the precious meta build that you have saved and are reluctant to change becoz you are leaving your comfort zone...etc

Bottom line, I think reinforcement is a great thing and should be implemented in the current quick match as well. Alternatively, you can have a toggle to toggle back to the old system with unit caps and match with others who like to play it that way as well, but I think the majority will want to play quick match with reinforcement.

eumaies#1128

urmumsastr said:

Unit caps should not exist in a truly balanced game, PERIOD.


The existence of unit caps implies some units are intrinsically OP and there are not efficient hard counter to them.

No you're making a logical error. Any game with pre-selected armies requires caps to avoid build roullette. 20 horse archers say hello. It's not about units being OP, it's about builds needing some constraints (like they did in tabletop) to make it not about extreme guessing.

eumaies#1128

urmumsastr said:

Energyzed said:

We really dont know how reinforments will be implemented. But they seem like a win-more mechanic. If you are on advantage, reinforcements will make you push that advantage even further and the only way you loose the lead is by actively messing it up.

AHA! That's right we reli don't know how any of it will work, so who are we to speculate that it will be bad for quick battle as well? In fact, most of the comments I read all think reinforcement will not help BLABLABLA reinforcement is only benefiting the more experienced player (which should be a gd thing btw? lol) reinforcement takes away the precious meta build that you have saved and are reluctant to change becoz you are leaving your comfort zone...etc

Bottom line, I think reinforcement is a great thing and should be implemented in the current quick match as well. Alternatively, you can have a toggle to toggle back to the old system with unit caps and match with others who like to play it that way as well, but I think the majority will want to play quick match with reinforcement.

we don't know if they will do a good job with it and who knows could be fun.

but it won't accomplish what people are thinking it will with respect to making army selection less important. unless they just make the game about income, which would completely suck.

Pippington#5795

QBs have gone 5 years with basically 1 meaningful improvement over how they were at WH1 launch, and the fundamentally unfinished gaps in their implementation never addressed. I don't know whether all the changes that Domination mode will bring will be ones that I like, but I do think that if there's a MP game mode that CA are prepared to actually do some work to support then that's the one I want to play.

I think the fact that you can still find people to play QBs with speaks more to the quality of the game that they're part of than the quality of QBs. The whole QB structure is a tyre fire, from matchmaking to faction picking to victory conditions to the leaderboard. There is no baby to chuck out with this bathwater.

Bastilean#7242

Pippington said:

I think the fact that you can still find people to play QBs with speaks more to the quality of the game that they're part of than the quality of QBs. The whole QB structure is a tyre fire, from matchmaking to faction picking to victory conditions to the leaderboard. There is no baby to chuck out with this bathwater.

"Quick battles is allowed to use custom battle items as an after thought. And custom battle items looks like an after thought for campaign items." - Bast

So I am going through the data base tables and the custom battle items are abilities from campaign items. Quick battles is allowed to use custom battle items as an after thought. That's why there are no whole items. The way items are priced for custom battles and by default quick battles, is the abilities CP melee and CP missiles as added together and an equation is applied based on how many upgrades you are purchasing (price reduces as you buy in bulk onto a single hero/lord). That's it. That doesn't quite explain why the ability is the only thing that transfers into quick battle, but I think part of it has to do with visibility. Your enemy can hover the unit card, visually identify the tiny ability icon and even read the ability from the ability icon which gets added to the unit card. Item base stats get added to the character stats in the card and are not described in the ability icons, so maybe CA wanted to throw that part out as well as reduce munchkening on characters. It also explains why the only constant items are passives like book of grudges, banner of leon and brass clever. Caveat: this is all conjecture since this hasn't been addressed by CA that I know of."

On the other hand, the mount situation is rampant. You get a mount, you get a mount. Everyone in Warhammer 2 gets a mount! Not that bad, but you get the point.

I am not trying to be disrespectful, but the Quick Battle items and table usage look like an after thought. I am looking into creating a custom battle items mod (surprisingly I didn't find one on steam workshop. Not even modders care...), because many Vanilla Lords are lacking especially from game 1 and the prices of items has never been relatively meaningful which overall isn't that big of a deal, but when you add in the fact that regular items aren't even supported and that the custom battle items are just abilities AND costs pulled from campaign stats it starts to look relatively unexplored, undigested and unsupported.

Also, in general it's interesting to see that CP does not change based on base stat modifiers in campaign. That's just an asside. If everyone techs moderately evenly I suppose it balances for the most part.

With that said, QB has received minimum maintenance since many of the balance changes are direct reflections of this forum and competitive play. I just think it's important to recognize what we have and how we got here.

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604

Pippington said:

QBs have gone 5 years with basically 1 meaningful improvement over how they were at WH1 launch, and the fundamentally unfinished gaps in their implementation never addressed. I don't know whether all the changes that Domination mode will bring will be ones that I like, but I do think that if there's a MP game mode that CA are prepared to actually do some work to support then that's the one I want to play.

I think the fact that you can still find people to play QBs with speaks more to the quality of the game that they're part of than the quality of QBs. The whole QB structure is a tyre fire, from matchmaking to faction picking to victory conditions to the leaderboard. There is no baby to chuck out with this bathwater.

Definitely. From a business perspective if CA are persuaded to be keep a variation on the QB we have now after having spent a lot of time and money developing an alternative experience, that will be a very very bad sign for future investment or support for MP.

@Disposable Hero We will have to disagree then, I think that is quite a poor war-gaming of the gameplay incentives a combination of capture points and reinforcements would provide. Until we know exact amount of reinforcements, capture times, fund release times, spawn times etc it is hard to be more precise, but I highly doubt it will play out like that. Whether or not it becomes harder to learn each matchup is irrelevant, reinforcements are an added layer of strategic play that will be relevant between two equally skilled/knowledgeable players. They aren't intended as a means of making a less skilled player do better vs a more skilled player. That is resolved via matchmaking/ladder changes exclusively.