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.
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.
I wonder if there is any other non-total war games out there to support that claim? 20 horse archers is a problem becoz of the potential of draw kiting in the current setting, and you should not be trying to tackle this problem with unit caps...Instead, I believe the newly implemented capturing point can deal with this effectively. You can pick 20 horse archers and shoot all day, the other player is just gonna camp in the capturing point and let you waste your ammo till your lose. This is a perfect example of a non-bandage approach to ultimately solve a problem, much like reinforcement.
Furthermore, the current unit cap system is biased by the amount of vocal people in the forum, which I think is never an objective approach AT ALL (esp there are so many lizardman fan boys out there)
Furthermore, the current unit cap system is biased by the amount of vocal people in the forum, which I think is never an objective approach AT ALL (esp there are so many lizardman fan boys out there)
Liz is a failed faction, a monster army that cap to 3, more stupidly even life and fire slann is count as one.
Quick battle whatever it is would be stupid of they divide players. What shouldve happen is domination is a fact. Its gonna happen, what they need is tweaks.
No more moronic full cav or boring kite army that does nothing for 15 mins. Most cancerous offenders r those 3 elven faction doing it
Would be nice if they can find a way to fix those $2000+ value waystalkers per match lol
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.
My point is just that I don't think that reinforcements will reduce the pushing of extreme builds which we assume is the reason for suggesting reinforcements. It will probably make getting to master matchups harder though, which is likely not the desired outcome even if veterans won't mind much. Ie I don't think reinforcements will achieve what they set out to achieve but it will alienate some players and make the learning curve steeper, so at the end of the day what will we achieve? Will it help or hurt mp? I find it highly questionable that it would make the game mode any better.
Capture points on the other hand has a lot of potential to improve the game and is a very welcome change to all game modes. It should definitely be added to existing qb. The only caveat is how it's implemented. If it dramatically changes the pace of competitive games (like forcing premature melee engagements or strongly favors late game mobility) then it can have a big negative impact in addition to the positive effects of removing camping of various kinds. That's what I mean by staying true to the core game, we don't need to change the pace of the game or the tactical flexibility we have today, we only have to punish nonparticipation. If it does more than that and push us into rushing or running around flag hunting, then it makes the game more arcade and will again drive people away. Maybe it would attract a different player base that is more rts focused, but again maybe not since the hardcore rts competition is fierce.
I just want the feel of the game to stay the same. To illustrate what I mean, I played through dragon age: origin as well as never winter nights 2 and absolutely loved the games. I preordered dragon age: inquisition but when it dropped they had decided to make it more arcade, increasing the game speed with more flashy animations. I didn't finish the tutorial even, it was horrible to play. Uninstalled never looked back. Same happened with Diablo 2 -> Diablo 3. Felt like super Mario, i hated it. So the pace and the feel of game play really matters. That's why I want this game to stay true to the pacing of game play we have now, not make the flags dominate game play, the focus should still be to kill the opposing army. I welcome flags as an alternative way to close a game where the opponent does not actively participate, but if the opponent is actively fighting be I want to end the game by one of us coming out on top, I would hate if I killed 80% of his army but he collected victory points faster than me and managed to flag kite the end game up to say 1000 points with his remaining 20%... And had the win condition been set to 1200 points I would have won easily. These kind of game mode can be competitive and very functional in arcade type rts but it would not feel warhammer at all to me. Being flag kited to a loss in late game would just annoy me tbh. I play the game to beat the opponents army, not to satisfy some arbitrary flag collection number.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
Except that you are totally missing the point...making the learning curve less steep is not gonna help new players, only a better rank matching system will do that. Personally I would want to see the matchups getting harder to master becoz it means the better player will always come out on top, and not the other way around. Many people here are saying a lot of bad things about reinforcement but EVERY single claims are purely SPECULATIVE - no one knows how it would work at all, so the only logical reasoning is that you are opposing the system simply becoz u don't FEEL like it... If it is totally trash at launch, fine, CA can always remove the system. But saying that it is bad before it is even launched is something I cannot comprehend? Feels more like it's just the vocal forum users are more reluctant to get out of their comfort zones
and PLZZZZZ stop sharing your feelings...You are making this unbearable for the rest of us who wants to have a rational discussion around here. The game is not built for your feelings alone, so would hugely appreciate if you can contribute more by having a healthy discussion...
Also, I don't think there is anything needed to say about lizardman being op and I think this is totally deviating from the original point of this post so I am not gonna further comment on that, but I think it has been universally acknowledged that lizardman is the most op faction right now and deserves a lot of nerfs. Period.
Except that you are totally missing the point...making the learning curve less steep is not gonna help new players, only a better rank matching system will do that. Personally I would want to see the matchups getting harder to master becoz it means the better player will always come out on top, and not the other way around. Many people here are saying a lot of bad things about reinforcement but EVERY single claims are purely SPECULATIVE - no one knows how it would work at all, so the only logical reasoning is that you are opposing the system simply becoz u don't FEEL like it... If it is totally trash at launch, fine, CA can always remove the system. But saying that it is bad before it is even launched is something I cannot comprehend? Feels more like it's just the vocal forum users are more reluctant to get out of their comfort zones
I am not, but you're not reading. Learning curve dictates how long it takes for a new player to get good at the game, it shouldn't help bad players beat good players. If you want to retain new players then there's a balance between complexity and new player experience in terms of not presenting an unsurmountable obstacle to get into the competitive side of the game. In any case, that wasn't the point anyways, the point is that I don't think reinforcements will achieve what they try to achieve, but it will alienate some players though who wants the army vs army battle experience.
The rest is raising concerns about the capture points system, and this is the time to do it. Coming afterwards and saying this turned out bad so I quit won't achieve anything except having people ask if they can have your stuff.... Hopefully CA listens to concerns now, and feedback as soon as we get glimpses of the beta versions.
And it's not about my feelings, a game has "a feel" to it. The gaming experience, and that really matters for how much players enjoy the game.
Post edited by BillyRuffian#6250 on
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
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.
I wonder if there is any other non-total war games out there to support that claim? 20 horse archers is a problem becoz of the potential of draw kiting in the current setting, and you should not be trying to tackle this problem with unit caps...Instead, I believe the newly implemented capturing point can deal with this effectively. You can pick 20 horse archers and shoot all day, the other player is just gonna camp in the capturing point and let you waste your ammo till your lose. This is a perfect example of a non-bandage approach to ultimately solve a problem, much like reinforcement.
every tabletop warhammer game in existence for decades relies on caps. onus is on you to find any valid counterexample
The entire experience will depend on implementation.
One huge advantage the current system has is simplicity and importance of simplicity can not be overstated.
What we have now isn't really simple, it is basic. Simple is IOS where it is complex software that feels easy, intuitive, and enjoyable to use despite that complexity.
Whereas QB is just basic, it lacks advancements in UI, doesn't integrate basic principles of game design that make games fun (in line with stuff like this https://theoryoffun.com which is a great book), and various other flaws.
The question is does this game want to be Total War Warhammer: Multiplayer, or does it want to be Warhammer Fantasy Battle TableTop Simulator.
EDIT: Although current deathmatch should be kept as a custom battle game type like FFA so people who want to play that style can still do so in setups like Enticity's ladder.
The entire experience will depend on implementation.
One huge advantage the current system has is simplicity and importance of simplicity can not be overstated.
What we have now isn't really simple, it is basic. Simple is IOS where it is complex software that feels easy, intuitive, and enjoyable to use despite that complexity.
Whereas QB is just basic, it lacks advancements in UI, doesn't integrate basic principles of game design that make games fun (in line with stuff like this https://theoryoffun.com which is a great book), and various other flaws.
The question is does this game want to be Total War Warhammer: Multiplayer, or does it want to be Warhammer Fantasy Battle TableTop Simulator.
EDIT: Although current deathmatch should be kept as a custom battle game type like FFA so people who want to play that style can still do so in setups like Enticity's ladder.
i mean you just turned his point on its head so you could present a false choice. Yes the current implementation is basic. It's not a tabletop simulator either. Everyone wants to improve it, but you can improve it while retaining simplicity with an elegant game design.
The reason i love Total War is the battles. Not really sure if i will even buy it. I am not liking much of what i am seeing.
I agree myself with this statement, i hope next patch for war 2 fixes a lot of issues so if war3 goes how its going i can stick to war 2 and be happy with it.
Game 2 ladder gonna look wild after 3 drops, half a dozen people playing kite builds and if you lose you need to get better at buidling armies or should've cleared your schedule so that you can use the full 20 minutes.
Game 2 ladder gonna look wild after 3 drops, half a dozen people playing kite builds and if you lose you need to get better at buidling armies or should've cleared your schedule so that you can use the full 20 minutes.
If you against 20min games you should suggest lowered timer instead of showing saltiness in this thread, also loosing is not always about having worse army its also about playing worse majority of the time.
Game 2 ladder gonna look wild after 3 drops, half a dozen people playing kite builds and if you lose you need to get better at buidling armies or should've cleared your schedule so that you can use the full 20 minutes.
If you against 20min games you should suggest lowered timer instead of showing saltiness in this thread, also loosing is not always about having worse army its also about playing worse majority of the time.
Why would I suggest that, capture points and reinforcements will be a far better solution and what is already coming.
This split could be a good thing anyway, all the noobs who don't know how to build good armies or what good gameplay is can move on to game 3 and all the pros who want to play TT simulator can stick to game 2. Everybody wins. 😜
depends on edition, it had point system for most part that only came into effect after battle was done.
Perhaps a system that keeps scores the final points gained/lost does matter by score difference at the end is worth exploring also so there is an incentive to get any points.
And quiting within 2min could give static point gain/loss but that need much more looking into than what i just described.
I think if you believe that they are going to put any work into improving the MP experience for WH2 when WH2 has only a few months left on the clock, or that the WH2 ladder will be a good place to find games after WH3 drops, you are kidding yourself. Jump onto the WH1 ladder now and see what state the MP experience is in.
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.
I wonder if there is any other non-total war games out there to support that claim? 20 horse archers is a problem becoz of the potential of draw kiting in the current setting, and you should not be trying to tackle this problem with unit caps...Instead, I believe the newly implemented capturing point can deal with this effectively. You can pick 20 horse archers and shoot all day, the other player is just gonna camp in the capturing point and let you waste your ammo till your lose. This is a perfect example of a non-bandage approach to ultimately solve a problem, much like reinforcement.
every tabletop warhammer game in existence for decades relies on caps. onus is on you to find any valid counterexample
Except all those table top games like Warhammer 40k, Age of Sigmar, and Warmachine all have OBJECTIVES to capture, take and hold, or destroy! Total War Campaign has these too, but Quick Battle does not. Every TT game, every RTS game, has this concept in terms of win-conditions.
I bet there are many players like me whose distaste for the structure of quick battle/meta has grown so large we just give up on the game. And after reading this thread, it's clear that Quick Battle's defenders are incapable of seeing their faulty premises.
It's little wonder - all forums suffer from the voluntary response bias - or self-selection. That is to say: those who post on the forums choose to do so, and likely choose that because they have strong opinions. The only people who want to engage with multiplayer for any length of time are those that actually like it.
I believe CA is wisely responding to legitimate and widespread player feedback about their multiplayer, and Domination Mode has been designed to supplant Quick Battle as the premier "ranked" mode to improve their multiplayer experience for more than a select few. I for one can't wait!
Great video showcasing how updating a game in response to feedback can lead to great player base growth. R6 Siege is widely regarded as one of the biggest "comebacks" (growth) of the decade for multiplayer gaming. Also bears similarities with Total War as a title that was previously focused on single player experience.
Great video showcasing how updating a game in response to feedback can lead to great player base growth. R6 Siege is widely regarded as one of the biggest "comebacks" (growth) of the decade for multiplayer gaming. Also bears similarities with Total War as a title that was previously focused on single player experience.
That was very interesting, thanks for posting.
Crazy to think Ubisoft managed to triple the player base from around 8 million players to 25 million players, with around 2 million playing daily.
FPS are more popular genre than RTS in general but still pretty wild that TWW probably has 3-5 million+ copies sold and maybe a few thousand people who regularly play the MP. Many more watch than play though which is quite a promising sign for potential growth if they get Domination mode right.
Looking at Starcraft 2 which is probably the closest comparable game, there are consistently over 100k games a day according to this site (https://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a) which would be mental numbers if TWW got to that level. And RTS MP games are having a bit of a renaissance so now is good time to make the attempt imo.
I think it’s fine just don’t get rid of the 1v1 format doesn’t have to be ranked it’s just a nice to have from a relatively fast way to enjoy multiplayer. I personally think if dominion replaces 1v1 entirely it will get stale eventually do to longer matches(reinforcements presumably will lengthen match times).
I assume you can still do 1v1 in multiplayer modes but than your playing against the same player and not necessarily experiencing change in skill lvl play styles like you would with QB.
Also still pushing for 2v2v2v2 in multiplayer modes.
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.
I wonder if there is any other non-total war games out there to support that claim? 20 horse archers is a problem becoz of the potential of draw kiting in the current setting, and you should not be trying to tackle this problem with unit caps...Instead, I believe the newly implemented capturing point can deal with this effectively. You can pick 20 horse archers and shoot all day, the other player is just gonna camp in the capturing point and let you waste your ammo till your lose. This is a perfect example of a non-bandage approach to ultimately solve a problem, much like reinforcement.
every tabletop warhammer game in existence for decades relies on caps. onus is on you to find any valid counterexample
Except all those table top games like Warhammer 40k, Age of Sigmar, and Warmachine all have OBJECTIVES to capture, take and hold, or destroy! Total War Campaign has these too, but Quick Battle does not. Every TT game, every RTS game, has this concept in terms of win-conditions.
I bet there are many players like me whose distaste for the structure of quick battle/meta has grown so large we just give up on the game. And after reading this thread, it's clear that Quick Battle's defenders are incapable of seeing their faulty premises.
It's little wonder - all forums suffer from the voluntary response bias - or self-selection. That is to say: those who post on the forums choose to do so, and likely choose that because they have strong opinions. The only people who want to engage with multiplayer for any length of time are those that actually like it.
I believe CA is wisely responding to legitimate and widespread player feedback about their multiplayer, and Domination Mode has been designed to supplant Quick Battle as the premier "ranked" mode to improve their multiplayer experience for more than a select few. I for one can't wait!
Fantasy table top in player vs player had no objectives just a point system for victory.
you might be correct that many dislike the QB format but im sure there are many that prefer it like it is also, i have nothing against other modes being introduced as long as it does not replace an existing one, got no issue with modes co exisiting alongside eachother but if the option is to force a different way of play by making the one that i enjoy unavailable than im strongly against it.
I dont understand rest of your post, basically it reads to me that your way must be the way or otherwise posting on the forum is unless or something like that?
Some people like change others dont, i enjoy current MP style of play as its relatively close to table top feel, but if you dont thats ok you're welcome to do so, CA can just release the domination mode alongside current mode and once people try it out and it settles down they can offer more support for the mode that is played more.
I dont understand why almost all people in favor of domiantion mode want QB mode to be scraped, its like they scared that only way people will play it is if there is no alternative.
Comments
- Report
1 · 6Disagree 1Agree- Report
0 · 7Disagree AgreeQuick battle whatever it is would be stupid of they divide players. What shouldve happen is domination is a fact. Its gonna happen, what they need is tweaks.
No more moronic full cav or boring kite army that does nothing for 15 mins. Most cancerous offenders r those 3 elven faction doing it
Would be nice if they can find a way to fix those $2000+ value waystalkers per match lol
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
2 · 6Disagree 2AgreeCapture points on the other hand has a lot of potential to improve the game and is a very welcome change to all game modes. It should definitely be added to existing qb. The only caveat is how it's implemented. If it dramatically changes the pace of competitive games (like forcing premature melee engagements or strongly favors late game mobility) then it can have a big negative impact in addition to the positive effects of removing camping of various kinds. That's what I mean by staying true to the core game, we don't need to change the pace of the game or the tactical flexibility we have today, we only have to punish nonparticipation. If it does more than that and push us into rushing or running around flag hunting, then it makes the game more arcade and will again drive people away. Maybe it would attract a different player base that is more rts focused, but again maybe not since the hardcore rts competition is fierce.
I just want the feel of the game to stay the same. To illustrate what I mean, I played through dragon age: origin as well as never winter nights 2 and absolutely loved the games. I preordered dragon age: inquisition but when it dropped they had decided to make it more arcade, increasing the game speed with more flashy animations. I didn't finish the tutorial even, it was horrible to play. Uninstalled never looked back. Same happened with Diablo 2 -> Diablo 3. Felt like super Mario, i hated it. So the pace and the feel of game play really matters. That's why I want this game to stay true to the pacing of game play we have now, not make the flags dominate game play, the focus should still be to kill the opposing army. I welcome flags as an alternative way to close a game where the opponent does not actively participate, but if the opponent is actively fighting be I want to end the game by one of us coming out on top, I would hate if I killed 80% of his army but he collected victory points faster than me and managed to flag kite the end game up to say 1000 points with his remaining 20%... And had the win condition been set to 1200 points I would have won easily. These kind of game mode can be competitive and very functional in arcade type rts but it would not feel warhammer at all to me. Being flag kited to a loss in late game would just annoy me tbh. I play the game to beat the opponents army, not to satisfy some arbitrary flag collection number.
- Report
6 · 1Disagree 6AgreeExcept that you are totally missing the point...making the learning curve less steep is not gonna help new players, only a better rank matching system will do that. Personally I would want to see the matchups getting harder to master becoz it means the better player will always come out on top, and not the other way around. Many people here are saying a lot of bad things about reinforcement but EVERY single claims are purely SPECULATIVE - no one knows how it would work at all, so the only logical reasoning is that you are opposing the system simply becoz u don't FEEL like it... If it is totally trash at launch, fine, CA can always remove the system. But saying that it is bad before it is even launched is something I cannot comprehend? Feels more like it's just the vocal forum users are more reluctant to get out of their comfort zones
- Report
4 · 9Disagree 4AgreeAlso, I don't think there is anything needed to say about lizardman being op and I think this is totally deviating from the original point of this post so I am not gonna further comment on that, but I think it has been universally acknowledged that lizardman is the most op faction right now and deserves a lot of nerfs. Period.
- Report
2 · 9Disagree 2AgreeThe rest is raising concerns about the capture points system, and this is the time to do it. Coming afterwards and saying this turned out bad so I quit won't achieve anything except having people ask if they can have your stuff....
And it's not about my feelings, a game has "a feel" to it. The gaming experience, and that really matters for how much players enjoy the game.
- Report
4 · 1Disagree 4Agree- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeOne huge advantage the current system has is simplicity and importance of simplicity can not be overstated.
- Report
9 · 2Disagree 9Agree- Report
0 · 3Disagree AgreeWhereas QB is just basic, it lacks advancements in UI, doesn't integrate basic principles of game design that make games fun (in line with stuff like this https://theoryoffun.com which is a great book), and various other flaws.
The question is does this game want to be Total War Warhammer: Multiplayer, or does it want to be Warhammer Fantasy Battle TableTop Simulator.
EDIT: Although current deathmatch should be kept as a custom battle game type like FFA so people who want to play that style can still do so in setups like Enticity's ladder.
- Report
0 · 6Disagree Agree- Report
6 · Disagree 6Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe reason i love Total War is the battles. Not really sure if i will even buy it. I am not liking much of what i am seeing.
- Report
3 · 2Disagree 3Agree- Report
3 · 2Disagree 3Agree- Report
1 · 4Disagree 1Agree- Report
3 · 3Disagree 3AgreeThis split could be a good thing anyway, all the noobs who don't know how to build good armies or what good gameplay is can move on to game 3 and all the pros who want to play TT simulator can stick to game 2. Everybody wins. 😜
- Report
0 · 3Disagree Agree- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2AgreePerhaps a system that keeps scores the final points gained/lost does matter by score difference at the end is worth exploring also so there is an incentive to get any points.
And quiting within 2min could give static point gain/loss but that need much more looking into than what i just described.
- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeGet on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping
- Report
11 · 1Disagree 11AgreeYou can only call them in a capture point.
At least at that point it wil not be that bad.
#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe solution is already there, if CA didnt implement it means they do not want it in the game.
Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
- Report
0 · 3Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree#givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI bet there are many players like me whose distaste for the structure of quick battle/meta has grown so large we just give up on the game. And after reading this thread, it's clear that Quick Battle's defenders are incapable of seeing their faulty premises.
It's little wonder - all forums suffer from the voluntary response bias - or self-selection. That is to say: those who post on the forums choose to do so, and likely choose that because they have strong opinions. The only people who want to engage with multiplayer for any length of time are those that actually like it.
I believe CA is wisely responding to legitimate and widespread player feedback about their multiplayer, and Domination Mode has been designed to supplant Quick Battle as the premier "ranked" mode to improve their multiplayer experience for more than a select few. I for one can't wait!
- Report
1 · 7Disagree 1AgreeGreat video showcasing how updating a game in response to feedback can lead to great player base growth. R6 Siege is widely regarded as one of the biggest "comebacks" (growth) of the decade for multiplayer gaming. Also bears similarities with Total War as a title that was previously focused on single player experience.
- Report
0 · 3Disagree AgreeCrazy to think Ubisoft managed to triple the player base from around 8 million players to 25 million players, with around 2 million playing daily.
FPS are more popular genre than RTS in general but still pretty wild that TWW probably has 3-5 million+ copies sold and maybe a few thousand people who regularly play the MP. Many more watch than play though which is quite a promising sign for potential growth if they get Domination mode right.
Looking at Starcraft 2 which is probably the closest comparable game, there are consistently over 100k games a day according to this site (https://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a) which would be mental numbers if TWW got to that level. And RTS MP games are having a bit of a renaissance so now is good time to make the attempt imo.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreeI assume you can still do 1v1 in multiplayer modes but than your playing against the same player and not necessarily experiencing change in skill lvl play styles like you would with QB.
Also still pushing for 2v2v2v2 in multiplayer modes.
No reason not to have 2 modes to queue.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agreeyou might be correct that many dislike the QB format but im sure there are many that prefer it like it is also, i have nothing against other modes being introduced as long as it does not replace an existing one, got no issue with modes co exisiting alongside eachother but if the option is to force a different way of play by making the one that i enjoy unavailable than im strongly against it.
I dont understand rest of your post, basically it reads to me that your way must be the way or otherwise posting on the forum is unless or something like that?
Some people like change others dont, i enjoy current MP style of play as its relatively close to table top feel, but if you dont thats ok you're welcome to do so, CA can just release the domination mode alongside current mode and once people try it out and it settles down they can offer more support for the mode that is played more.
I dont understand why almost all people in favor of domiantion mode want QB mode to be scraped, its like they scared that only way people will play it is if there is no alternative.
- Report
5 · 1Disagree 5Agree