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.
Properly designed RTS multiplayer games are hard. Having opponents being able to respond in match to what you bring can be tough to manage, not being able to spam skirmish units and avoid combat is tough as well. And then you can't even just endlessly shoot opponents and run out the clock? Very difficult style of play that requires adaptability, quick thinking and all sorts of strategic plays. Better to just stick to campaign.
I really think you need to give campaign a shot, it would be right up your alley. You can bring any build you like, AI loves to kite with skirmish units too, AI also loves to blob AND the AI doesn't know how to reinforce properly either and so you can recreate that wonderful WHFB TT experience.
Give campaign a go. You're going to love it.
You know what this has inspired me to update my signature to fight against the stigma preventing established kite players from making the move to campaign. Especially as now is the logical transition period when a real multiplayer mode is being added. I hope we can put aside our conceptual differences for this.
Yeah you totally get it. Everyone who doesn't like the idea of "adding reinforcements to chess" are kite noobs who can't handle properly designed RTS games and should play against the AI instead. I had to report your crappy attitude.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
Properly designed RTS multiplayer games are hard. Having opponents being able to respond in match to what you bring can be tough to manage, not being able to spam skirmish units and avoid combat is tough as well. And then you can't even just endlessly shoot opponents and run out the clock? Very difficult style of play that requires adaptability, quick thinking and all sorts of strategic plays. Better to just stick to campaign.
I really think you need to give campaign a shot, it would be right up your alley. You can bring any build you like, AI loves to kite with skirmish units too, AI also loves to blob AND the AI doesn't know how to reinforce properly either and so you can recreate that wonderful WHFB TT experience.
Give campaign a go. You're going to love it.
You know what this has inspired me to update my signature to fight against the stigma preventing established kite players from making the move to campaign. Especially as now is the logical transition period when a real multiplayer mode is being added. I hope we can put aside our conceptual differences for this.
Yeah you totally get it. Everyone who doesn't like the idea of "adding reinforcements to chess" are kite noobs who can't handle properly designed RTS games and should play against the AI instead. I had to report your crappy attitude.
I really do think it is worth considering. Let's look at the facts here:
1. The current QB game mode is a campaign land battle ripped warts and all from SP and put into MP. 2. The current QB game mode had a very hard time gaining a following from campaign players. Why is that? Probably because they play it and think "well I may as well just play campaign instead of single battles from a campaign mode". 3. Some of the game modes most dedicated players are very against the idea of adding in functionality unique to MP like reinforcements. They prefer the vanilla campaign experience.
So with all that in mind, it makes a lot of sense for these players to transition fully to playing campaign once Domination is released. Unfortunately, there is a bit of stigma amongst a certain section of the MP land battle community that enjoying campaign makes you a "low skill" or "non-strategic" player. But I think that is untrue, sometimes the AI is really hard to beat and that is why you see players stick to the "cheese" builds you see in campaign like kite/blob/camp. You need these types of well-crafted and high-skill builds in order to beat the AI and so why would I expect players to not bring such fromage in the MP land battle community? It would be unreasonable as cheese is all many campaign players know.
And now that the game mode is changing to a proper MP mode like Domination, I am a bit concerned about the quasi-campaign players who have made it in the "multiplayer mode" based on these builds. It is like when Boxers keep fighting for too long when they have aged out, they can end up badly hurt.
This is why I am trying to start the movement: #NoShameInPlayingCampaign. To teach the blob or kite or camp players out there that there is no stigma to transitioning to playing campaign. You will even be able to use the pause or slowdown button if managing all those pesky skirmishers gets to be a bit too much. It may seem a bit scary now, but you will catch on in no time. There is a popular Youtuber called "Legend Of Total War" who is very experienced at assisting low-skill high-click rate players in coming up with "campaign ready builds" to make the transition from kiting more easy than it might otherwise be.
It's like kicking a can down the street and having someone run out and shout exCUSE ME would you kick the MONA LISA?!?!!!!
Eh, no. It is just a way of saying that adding reinforcements to a strategy game that pits 16 vs 16 units against each other, in its mid life, is not necessarily an improvement nor a success, because it changes the identity of the game. There are successful games with reinforcements and there are successful games without reinforcements. It's design, not progress.
Objectives however can be introduced without completely changing the identity of the game, it rather dictates in what ways the game can end, then it may affect the core game to a larger or smaller extent, and that again comes down to design.
All we ask for is to have the option to play Objectives, without being forced to play with Reinforcements+Objectives. Asking for that option on equal terms, i.e. both being available in QB, makes mr orclads throw insults about kiting AI or go playing campaign... If you are truly confident that Reinforcements is suchs a great improvement to the game play then what do you have to worry about? Let "domination" and "conquest" co-exist as two game modes and let the players decide. What's the harm?
I think some people maybe have expectations that Domination will remove the impact of mobile ranged units from the game, but I think that expectation is not justified. The units are there, one way or the other they will be balanced to be cost efficient over the course of a match so kiting will be there regardless. Nobody should try to turn discussions about gameplay and game design into "do you like kiting, for or against?". It's not productive. I am not even kiting much, I just want a game design that appeals to me, and adding reinforcements to a game that is originally designed as one army facing off against another army changes the identity of the matches in a way I find very little attractive. Not because "I enjoy build roulette" or some other invented meme, but because I don't see reinforcements having any significant impact on player behavior to push the extremes with their builds to exploit the faction weaknesses of their opponent and try to win. Even if you completely removed army building and made all units being drafted during the match, people would still come up with high risk build orders to push the extremes as much as possible vs factions with weaknesses, and people would still complain about it.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
You were absolutely comparing it to chess Disposable. There's no need to repeat the same arguments again, I heard them before. The only point I was interested in making here is that chess truly is, as you put it, an "established competitive game", that's been iterated upon to a state of very fine balance as a purely 2-player game by a global community over centuries... and TW:WH QB is TW:WH QB. Really the TW:WH multiplayer experience hasn't made it out of what other games might consider alpha testing in the last five years.
I would 100% agree with you that it'd be good to keep both modes in ranked (and more modes besides) if the player base was big enough. With the numbers that currently play TW:WH MP, though, I'm not sure that a split ladder wouldn't suck the oxygen out of both modes in terms of making it just too difficult to find a match.
After a bit of thinking I have changed my mind and think that the current gamemode deserves another 5+ years of support and then it is bound to take off. Now, CA seem quite set on introducing the new Domination mode so I think we will have no choice but for a real show of support for the current design.
With that in mind I propose we march in protest on the offices of CA. I have come up with a few slogans we can chant once we are outside:
- "We like to kite and that's alright!" - "Choosing to camp doesn't make me a tramp!" - "Only a snob won't learn to blob!" - "No reason to fret about build roulette!"
Properly designed RTS multiplayer games are hard. Having opponents being able to respond in match to what you bring can be tough to manage, not being able to spam skirmish units and avoid combat is tough as well. And then you can't even just endlessly shoot opponents and run out the clock? Very difficult style of play that requires adaptability, quick thinking and all sorts of strategic plays. Better to just stick to campaign.
I really think you need to give campaign a shot, it would be right up your alley. You can bring any build you like, AI loves to kite with skirmish units too, AI also loves to blob AND the AI doesn't know how to reinforce properly either and so you can recreate that wonderful WHFB TT experience.
Give campaign a go. You're going to love it.
You know what this has inspired me to update my signature to fight against the stigma preventing established kite players from making the move to campaign. Especially as now is the logical transition period when a real multiplayer mode is being added. I hope we can put aside our conceptual differences for this.
Yeah you totally get it. Everyone who doesn't like the idea of "adding reinforcements to chess" are kite noobs who can't handle properly designed RTS games and should play against the AI instead. I had to report your crappy attitude.
I'm just kidding around a bit mate.
Because let's be real here, there is a fair bit of truth to what I am saying tongue-in-cheek. There is some serious wearing of rose-tinted googles going on about the appeal of current gameplay as well as a fair amount of burying heads in the sand about the current situation of TWW MP overall.
If you want to have a serious discussion then start being serious. Because if half of what you were saying was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. If you truly believe what you are saying about why people don't play the game now, go ask on reddit/youtube or even the general discussion section of the forum and see what players say. Do your research, don't just insist what you say must be true because you want to believe it.
You were absolutely comparing it to chess Disposable. There's no need to repeat the same arguments again, I heard them before. The only point I was interested in making here is that chess truly is, as you put it, an "established competitive game", that's been iterated upon to a state of very fine balance as a purely 2-player game by a global community over centuries... and TW:WH QB is TW:WH QB. Really the TW:WH multiplayer experience hasn't made it out of what other games might consider alpha testing in the last five years.
I would 100% agree with you that it'd be good to keep both modes in ranked (and more modes besides) if the player base was big enough. With the numbers that currently play TW:WH MP, though, I'm not sure that a split ladder wouldn't suck the oxygen out of both modes in terms of making it just too difficult to find a match.
Yes I compare it to chess in the sense that it's a strategy game between two "armies" where the gameplay revolves around making the most out of the finite number of pieces you possess. That's the spirit of the game. If we both agree that chess is a fine classic competitive game, then we also agree that a strategy game can be great without the need for adding forces during the course of a match. That's all. I am nowhere saying that QB is as successful as chess (why would I?), only that success is not a function of having reinforcements.
You can allow "Domination" and "Conquest" to co-exist simply by adding a tick box to the queue up system, if you tick both you queue up for both.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
That's where we disagree. The 'spirit' or identity of chess is very clear and easy to identify. That the 'spirit' of WH:TW is so similar is much less clear to me. It's certainly not how the game is sold; if you went over the Steam pages for all the hundreds of quid's worth of TW:WH stuff I don't know if you'd find a single paragraph selling it on those merits. The only reason to identify the half-finished, chronically under-maintained game mode we know as QB as the 'spirit' of WH:TW MP is that it's been all that's available for the last 5 years. But 'is' is not the same as 'ought'.
Of course, if you have a preference for one kind of game mode over another, that's fine, there's no objective right answer. But I think it's false to try to make out that somehow this is a game that is intrinsically meant to be that way. It is what it is; its identity is whatever the devs decide to make it.
The only real argument to be made here is retaining the MP community that's formed around the game we know. I think you could argue for a long time about whether it's the quality of the battle design or other facets of the game (including, obviously, affection for the setting) that's attracted and sustained the community, but I think two things that are hard to argue with are that (1) the MP community is small and hasn't experienced a huge amount of growth and (2) a huge amount of the time and love that the community has for the game has been spent trying to fix the current MP experience for themselves. So I am far from convinced that community affection is a strong argument for holding any aspect of the current design sacred.
Personally, my feeling is that what keeps me (and probably a decent number of others) coming back to the game is the units - their tactical variety and the quality of the models/sound/animations - and that any game mode that allows me to play around with that same huge toolbox of dinosaurs and daemons and skeletons is going to achieve a certain baseline level of fun not too far off what we have now. If anything, I feel like the more different modes I have to use that toolbox in, the fresher the MP experience will stay. I'd be fully in favour of CA developing as many types of maps and victory conditions as they can think of for people to play around with in lobbies... I just have what I feel is a realistic pessimism about the number of players available to support matchmaking in multiple modes.
As for the checkboxes - yes, that'd be better than having mutually exclusive modes. Even with AND as well as OR, though, you'd still be fragmenting the pool of people playing ranked. Would you and Lotus be playing with both boxes ticked? Will Feeder?
@Pippington we agree that QB is horribly under-developed and under-supported, and that competitive MP has been kind of successful despite this, not as a result of this. I think the franchise has attracted most of us to buy the game in the first place, but even the crappy MP game has in the end won us over despite all, and that's because there is something really nice about it. That's what I call the "spirit" of the game. Let me develop that a bit:
The core design of both TWWH multiplayer and Tabletop tournaments is that you deploy two armies on the battle field and they fight each other. The fundamental difference to many other games lies in the way that you prepare for a game. If you fight the battle with the units you have, then you need to carefully choose and optimize your army build, and I know that I and others enjoy this aspect of preparing for matchups, scenarios and opponents, and then executing your builds to get the most out of every unit to fulfill the role you selected them for. It's a very clean form of tactics that doesn't involve any economy, macro management or escalations. Only a carefully assembled force and a job to execute. This is what has won me over in the end.
The further you move into a reinforcement mechanics, the further you move away from this and into something more of a tug-of-war mechanics, adding more and more units to the board.
I don't mind this per se, I have enjoyed games that use such mechanics, notably Men of War 2 which was excellent. It's just that in TWWH I do appreciate the clean tactics of the army vs army format and the thought and execution that goes into it. That's my personal preference. I enjoy the format, and I would strongly dislike longer match length both for playing and for watching. I am not really entertained by 20-30 minute matches, I lack both the time and the patience...
Like you say, any change is a risk. In order to motivate a change I am asking the question: "which problem does this change solve"? When some then say reinforcements will reduce build roulette and make the game more enjoyable for new players I just disagree with these claims. I am yet to hear any suggestion of an implementation of reinforcements that actually achieves any of these goals. These are nice goals, I just don't think you achieve it this way, at least not with any efficiency.
The big flaws of the current QB that really needs to be changed is the lack of MP support. Lotus made a whole post about this: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/299858/what-needs-to-improve-for-mp . These are changes that will invariably help MP grow and thrive, and for all of these suggestions it's easy to see how adding support functions will fix current problems with the under-supported and under-developed game mode. I can't say the same for reinforcements, especially since it makes rather dramatic changes to the "spirit" of the current game mode, which is the clean tactical format of one army fighting another army on the field using the tools you decided to bring. That raises the stakes... you are removing one aspect of the game that is part of what it is (and hence part of what built the current competitive scene, despite QB being crap), in order to make it into something new, that may or may not be an improvement.
I see no problems trying out one or a few different game modes in parallel. I mean if you're confident that the addition of reinforcements will attract new players, then we should have no problem affording to allow players to queue up for one or the other or both game modes. If it turns out that one of these game modes are much less popular than the other and you run into problems finding matches because the players don't want to play it, then maybe that's the result you were looking for and you can take it from there.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
You are repeating there a lot of what you've said before, which I've understood and not disagreed with. The only thing I am trying to point out is, that while you can give your reasons for why you enjoy game mode X, it doesn't make game mode X the 'spirit' or design intention of the game. It's just what you enjoy about it. I enjoy many of the same things, but I don't feel that that means I've stumbled across the Platonic truth of what makes TW:WH TW:WH. I don't believe there is any 'core design' to QBs beyond, as Feeder has said, simply transplanting a campaign battle into a MP lobby. So the question is not whether CA is fixing something that isn't broken... they are building something where there was almost nothing there.
In terms of ways you could clean up and polish the current game mode, yes, I'd agree with plenty of Lotus' recommendations (if not all)... but I do think that if you're CA, looking at how to finally inject some life into your very small and stagnant MP scene, then the perspective of people like Lotus who seem to have not minded QB's serious flaws enough to stop them playing it is not the first one you go after. People like Lotus (and us) are not the audience CA has to convince.
You are repeating there a lot of what you've said before, which I've understood and not disagreed with. The only thing I am trying to point out is, that while you can give your reasons for why you enjoy game mode X, it doesn't make game mode X the 'spirit' or design intention of the game. It's just what you enjoy about it. I enjoy many of the same things, but I don't feel that that means I've stumbled across the Platonic truth of what makes TW:WH TW:WH. I don't believe there is any 'core design' to QBs beyond, as Feeder has said, simply transplanting a campaign battle into a MP lobby. So the question is not whether CA is fixing something that isn't broken... they are building something where there was almost nothing there.
In terms of ways you could clean up and polish the current game mode, yes, I'd agree with plenty of Lotus' recommendations (if not all)... but I do think that if you're CA, looking at how to finally inject some life into your very small and stagnant MP scene, then the perspective of people like Lotus who seem to have not minded QB's serious flaws enough to stop them playing it is not the first one you go after. People like Lotus (and us) are not the audience CA has to convince.
Sure it doesn't have to be the "spirit" of game design if that seems provocative, but I do consider it to be the "spirit" of what it is. Or maybe the "essence" or "core game" is a better word? To me introducing reinforcements is a change to the fundamentals, while for example adding objectives is more of a layer you add on top to enhance it without changing the core play. Objectives is also something that is easy to tweak as the game evolves, while reinforcements will be a integrated into the UI and something I fear we will be stuck with if there is no alternative game mode available that also benefits from the same improvements to objectives and other MP support, like a ranked ladder, in-game tournaments, seasons, events or whatever they might come up with.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
Or maybe the "essence" or "core game" is a better word?
I feel like if this is what you come back with then you're not hearing what I'm saying on any meaningful level. It's fine though, I've said it, it's there for others to read and understand if they care.
Or maybe the "essence" or "core game" is a better word?
I feel like if this is what you come back with then you're not hearing what I'm saying on any meaningful level. It's fine though, I've said it, it's there for others to read and understand if they care.
From what you wrote it sounded quite clear to me that you had issues with me implying that there is a core design, so I clarified that a game can have a core even if its not the result of any design. Just like even if you don't believe in divine design to have created the universe, particles still have charge and spin properties. The games basic properties is what I refer to the core/essence/spirit of the game, which specifically is one army fighting vs another army to win the battle. No reinforcements, no base building, no resource management, etc, only pure tactics. I am only saying that this is what it is, not sure what there is to disagree with.
It's the second time we almost make it, but ok let's make sure to part in disagreement. I am still not even sure exactly what you disagree with, has to be something you think I imply?
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
I've got a few more to sway CA to the smart decision:
- "Pick the queue that's right for you!" - "Let's split it, don't break the spirit!" - "The mode doesn't matter, gives us prizes for ladder!" - "The playerbase will get fat with end-game chat!"
having 2 parallel game-modes would probably be the fairest solution though. I don't think it'd split playerbase too much. You could que up for 2 game modes at the same time- why not, really? Maybe add even more different fun game modes in the future.
What you personally have come to appreciate about a game mode thrown together with no particular design goals is not an objective "essence", it is just what you personally appreciate. Even if we share an appreciation of many of those features, they still don't become an "essence". The choice of what features you prioritise as being important is entirely personal and subjective. After all, if you just want to frame it as being the game's 'basic properties', independent of your preference, then why shouldn't non-blind faction selection with infinite counterpicking also be part of the game's 'essence'? Draws at 20 mins? No matchmaking? These features are equally old and established.
For me, the 'essence' of the game will be preserved if I can load into a game, and field an army from a wide selection of weird and wonderful factions, that I can build from a wide selection of weird and wonderful units, against another player who can do the same. As long as I can do that, the exact framework of rules for the battle doesn't bother me overmuch (in fact, as I mentioned, I'd enjoy having lots of different frameworks to use my armies in). Your definition is more specific. But neither of us is talking about something objective, inherent to the game - a game isn't a fundamental particle, it's a toy, made by people, for people, and the only things about it that matter are the things people do with it. We are just talking about what we want. Let's be honest about that.
What you personally have come to appreciate about a game mode thrown together with no particular design goals is not an objective "essence", it is just what you personally appreciate. Even if we share an appreciation of many of those features, they still don't become an "essence". The choice of what features you prioritise as being important is entirely personal and subjective. After all, if you just want to frame it as being the game's 'basic properties', independent of your preference, then why shouldn't non-blind faction selection with infinite counterpicking also be part of the game's 'essence'? Draws at 20 mins? No matchmaking? These features are equally old and established.
For me, the 'essence' of the game will be preserved if I can load into a game, and field an army from a wide selection of weird and wonderful factions, that I can build from a wide selection of weird and wonderful units, against another player who can do the same. As long as I can do that, the exact framework of rules for the battle doesn't bother me overmuch (in fact, as I mentioned, I'd enjoy having lots of different frameworks to use my armies in). Your definition is more specific. But neither of us is talking about something objective, inherent to the game - a game isn't a fundamental particle, it's a toy, made by people, for people, and the only things about it that matter are the things people do with it. We are just talking about what we want. Let's be honest about that.
Ok, then I understand more clearly what you mean, and I can only answer both yes and no to that. What I mean is the second option you describe, the fundamental characteristics that the current game play has that defines it, regardless of whether I like it or not. Things that make it belong to an archetype of games so to say.
It's true that I didn't count lack of matchmaking as a core feature, but I think maybe neither do you? It's more of the result of a small player base than anything else, and you could easily add stricter matchmaking without that changing the over all archetype of the game. Same with match time, its not really archetype defining...
Objectives could be implemented in a way that is more or less interfering with the core game, but in the case of objectives the positive potential is very easy to appreciate. Basically all negative effects I can think of can be avoided if they implement it carefully, and it will be easy to tweak on the fly.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
Funny thing, AoE4 also added an area related win condition, the Sacred Site Victory, to prevent games from dragging on if one player decides to be a massive turtle.
The stall-enthusiasts really need to smell the coffee and acknowledge that gaming's moving on.
having 2 parallel game-modes would probably be the fairest solution though. I don't think it'd split playerbase too much. You could que up for 2 game modes at the same time- why not, really? Maybe add even more different fun game modes in the future.
I always supported that and im pretty sure all anti reinforcement people did also, its only the pro reinforcement ones that came out and dont want it...followed than by calling others bias to their play styles...how hypocritical can one get really.
It could even be done with how Leage of Legends did it in OCE and that is that certain que is open ony during peak hours. So you can have one que all the time and one with additional changes such as domiantion or normal que added during peak times.
Well I am never against it being an option that can be toggled on and off. In fact, I think with the limited knowledge we have on this mode the best thing we can do is to make everything an option rather than compulsory, and let the META sorts it out.
This is the most democratic way in my humble opinion, 'coz god knows how many players out there haven't even heard of the balancing section in this forum (and how the more vocal users are deciding things on their own). If you are unaware of, tournaments held by others have always been like this. They made up new rules to prevent draw kiting and corner camping, and a bunch of other stuff that makes their game a lot different than those on the Quick Battle setting.
What annoys me the most is that certain people are always on the lookout to criticize the reinforcement mode BEFORE this mode has even been out....I mean, what are you afraid of really, why are you trying to shut down a thing before it is even launched?? We don't know anything about the reinforcement mode, it could be good or could be bad who knows.
All I'm saying is, give reinforcement a shot. And if possible, allow simultaneously toggling off the old-school static unit cap system. This dynamic new game mode might well be the key to revive this game.
Well I am never against it being an option that can be toggled on and off. In fact, I think with the limited knowledge we have on this mode the best thing we can do is to make everything an option rather than compulsory, and let the META sorts it out.
This is the most democratic way in my humble opinion, 'coz god knows how many players out there haven't even heard of the balancing section in this forum (and how the more vocal users are deciding things on their own). If you are unaware of, tournaments held by others have always been like this. They made up new rules to prevent draw kiting and corner camping, and a bunch of other stuff that makes their game a lot different than those on the Quick Battle setting.
What annoys me the most is that certain people are always on the lookout to criticize the reinforcement mode BEFORE this mode has even been out....I mean, what are you afraid of really, why are you trying to shut down a thing before it is even launched?? We don't know anything about the reinforcement mode, it could be good or could be bad who knows.
All I'm saying is, give reinforcement a shot. And if possible, allow simultaneously toggling off the old-school static unit cap system. This dynamic new game mode might well be the key to revive this game.
Nobody is trying to shut anything down, because nobody can. CA has committed and domination with reinforcements will h happen. What we're arguing for is to have access to the good changes (objectives, new ladder, mp support) without being forced to play the unwanted change that will change how the game plays (reinforcements). If we get another game mode, say conquest, which is that, then nobody is against the existence is reinforcements. We just don't want to be forced to play with. Maybe they manage to come up with an unexpectedly good implementation, then we will play it, but it's a high risk change to force when it doesn't really address any problem with the game. The time to beg for this option is now when there is still time and the release date is still officially floating.
PS. most players posting here lately are competitive players.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
It's weird I never said anyone here are not competitive, just like I never said I am looking forward the reinforcement mode being the ONLY mode out there for us players...
What I want to stress, with nothing but good intentions, is that the forum has only a limited amount of players constantly voicing out their opinions, and in no way should represent the majority of all the players out there. The multiplayer base is much larger than what you think, there are famous players playing in their own tournaments like Felkon or Turin, did you see them here? While you are always advocating for the old system, do you know how many COMPETITIVE players out there were so fed-up with this system that they have to create a whole new set of rules for their tournaments?
You are also not taking into account of the language barrier in this forum. When you are so convinced that you know most of the competitive players out there do you know that there are a gazillion other discords out there, representing vibrant communities in Russia, in France and other parts of the world that don't use English??
The world is much bigger than you think. All I am saying is that when you are constantly bashing on a new concept, do you really know how the majority of the competitive players think? Who are we to decide a new system is not the better way to play this game??
One point to add, the limited and biased view of the forum is why I am against the current unit cap system. You know there is a problem when an entire system is relying on someone in this forum to cry "XXX SPAMMMM MUST NERF, REDUCE unit cap to 4 or 5", whose opinion may or may not represent what the majority thinks.
The unit cap system is never meant to be objective. It's arbitrary and requires players' constant feedback to tell CA what they should do, and when their only source of communication is this section of the forum, problems arise.
From WH1 to WH2, people are still not satisfied with the unit caps on some of the rosters and are still constantly crying for changes in this forum. I see an opportunity, in the form of reinforcement, to change all this by tackling a structural defect in the game design.
All comp players and casters basically avoid getting involved in discussions here on the forums because they have a reputation they might care about. If the forums had had a stricter moderation I am sure more reasonable people would engage in discussions here. It is a problem though that the official forums are in this state.
You should know though that "we" are part of many discords and communities too, and that CA_Duck is reading and sometimes discussing topics on discord too, interacting directly with the comp scene, so the forums are by no means the only open channel...
It's true that there is way more bickering here though, in the discords its a bit more homogeneous population and its actively moderated, so discussions are usually pretty civil even if disagreement happens there too. People are more respectful and careful there, here its wild west. 😉 I am happy a handful comp players can still be bothered to post here.
Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it!
What you personally have come to appreciate about a game mode thrown together with no particular design goals is not an objective "essence", it is just what you personally appreciate. Even if we share an appreciation of many of those features, they still don't become an "essence". The choice of what features you prioritise as being important is entirely personal and subjective. After all, if you just want to frame it as being the game's 'basic properties', independent of your preference, then why shouldn't non-blind faction selection with infinite counterpicking also be part of the game's 'essence'? Draws at 20 mins? No matchmaking? These features are equally old and established.
For me, the 'essence' of the game will be preserved if I can load into a game, and field an army from a wide selection of weird and wonderful factions, that I can build from a wide selection of weird and wonderful units, against another player who can do the same. As long as I can do that, the exact framework of rules for the battle doesn't bother me overmuch (in fact, as I mentioned, I'd enjoy having lots of different frameworks to use my armies in). Your definition is more specific. But neither of us is talking about something objective, inherent to the game - a game isn't a fundamental particle, it's a toy, made by people, for people, and the only things about it that matter are the things people do with it. We are just talking about what we want. Let's be honest about that.
Yes we're definitely just talking about what we want.
And I don't really know how flexible your preferences are that you're describing. I suspect that like you I'm not afraid of a handful of reinforcements fundamentally changing or ruining the game experience.
That said, there is an extreme where TW with in-game production would become something more similar to a star craft or AOE. And in that scenario I wouldn't agree that simply having access to a brilliant array of factions and units would be sufficient to not have the game be ruined. Because churning out units in real time based on an economy is something a lot of other games do and TW has a distinct user base I suspect because it is not like so many other games and in part because it is more similar to tabletop which was a game about army building and then execution with what you bring and a lot of people loved tabletop.
After going back and listening to the Q&A done at the time the Kislev V Khorne survival battle was released it sounds a little like domination mode might be a DOW2 style game mode. If so I do see how reinforcements is critical to how that works in DOW2. Going to be very interesting to see what they end up with.
After going back and listening to the Q&A done at the time the Kislev V Khorne survival battle was released it sounds a little like domination mode might be a DOW2 style game mode. If so I do see how reinforcements is critical to how that works in DOW2. Going to be very interesting to see what they end up with.
That would be my guess too. Have to be some differences due to the match larger unit counts/model counts in TWW but the core concept I could see being somewhat similar.
I think we have probably already seen everything that will be a part of Domination mode from the Survival battles. The ability to bring in reinforcements as well as the ability to tweak the unit stats like armour/WS/MA/etc.
The big unknowns imo are how are supplies generated, how do capture points function exactly, are capture points now the only win condition, can you also spend supplies from the survival battle like replenish vigour/healing/etc, where do reinforcements come in on the map.
Comments
- Report
1 · Disagree 1AgreeIt's like kicking a can down the street and having someone run out and shout exCUSE ME would you kick the MONA LISA?!?!!!!
Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2Agree1. The current QB game mode is a campaign land battle ripped warts and all from SP and put into MP.
2. The current QB game mode had a very hard time gaining a following from campaign players. Why is that? Probably because they play it and think "well I may as well just play campaign instead of single battles from a campaign mode".
3. Some of the game modes most dedicated players are very against the idea of adding in functionality unique to MP like reinforcements. They prefer the vanilla campaign experience.
So with all that in mind, it makes a lot of sense for these players to transition fully to playing campaign once Domination is released. Unfortunately, there is a bit of stigma amongst a certain section of the MP land battle community that enjoying campaign makes you a "low skill" or "non-strategic" player. But I think that is untrue, sometimes the AI is really hard to beat and that is why you see players stick to the "cheese" builds you see in campaign like kite/blob/camp. You need these types of well-crafted and high-skill builds in order to beat the AI and so why would I expect players to not bring such fromage in the MP land battle community? It would be unreasonable as cheese is all many campaign players know.
And now that the game mode is changing to a proper MP mode like Domination, I am a bit concerned about the quasi-campaign players who have made it in the "multiplayer mode" based on these builds. It is like when Boxers keep fighting for too long when they have aged out, they can end up badly hurt.
This is why I am trying to start the movement: #NoShameInPlayingCampaign. To teach the blob or kite or camp players out there that there is no stigma to transitioning to playing campaign. You will even be able to use the pause or slowdown button if managing all those pesky skirmishers gets to be a bit too much. It may seem a bit scary now, but you will catch on in no time. There is a popular Youtuber called "Legend Of Total War" who is very experienced at assisting low-skill high-click rate players in coming up with "campaign ready builds" to make the transition from kiting more easy than it might otherwise be.
- Report
0 · 3Disagree AgreeObjectives however can be introduced without completely changing the identity of the game, it rather dictates in what ways the game can end, then it may affect the core game to a larger or smaller extent, and that again comes down to design.
All we ask for is to have the option to play Objectives, without being forced to play with Reinforcements+Objectives. Asking for that option on equal terms, i.e. both being available in QB, makes mr orclads throw insults about kiting AI or go playing campaign... If you are truly confident that Reinforcements is suchs a great improvement to the game play then what do you have to worry about? Let "domination" and "conquest" co-exist as two game modes and let the players decide. What's the harm?
I think some people maybe have expectations that Domination will remove the impact of mobile ranged units from the game, but I think that expectation is not justified. The units are there, one way or the other they will be balanced to be cost efficient over the course of a match so kiting will be there regardless. Nobody should try to turn discussions about gameplay and game design into "do you like kiting, for or against?". It's not productive. I am not even kiting much, I just want a game design that appeals to me, and adding reinforcements to a game that is originally designed as one army facing off against another army changes the identity of the matches in a way I find very little attractive. Not because "I enjoy build roulette" or some other invented meme, but because I don't see reinforcements having any significant impact on player behavior to push the extremes with their builds to exploit the faction weaknesses of their opponent and try to win. Even if you completely removed army building and made all units being drafted during the match, people would still come up with high risk build orders to push the extremes as much as possible vs factions with weaknesses, and people would still complain about it.
- Report
3 · 4Disagree 3AgreeI would 100% agree with you that it'd be good to keep both modes in ranked (and more modes besides) if the player base was big enough. With the numbers that currently play TW:WH MP, though, I'm not sure that a split ladder wouldn't suck the oxygen out of both modes in terms of making it just too difficult to find a match.
Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping
- Report
4 · 1Disagree 4AgreeWith that in mind I propose we march in protest on the offices of CA. I have come up with a few slogans we can chant once we are outside:
- "We like to kite and that's alright!"
- "Choosing to camp doesn't make me a tramp!"
- "Only a snob won't learn to blob!"
- "No reason to fret about build roulette!"
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeBecause let's be real here, there is a fair bit of truth to what I am saying tongue-in-cheek. There is some serious wearing of rose-tinted googles going on about the appeal of current gameplay as well as a fair amount of burying heads in the sand about the current situation of TWW MP overall.
If you want to have a serious discussion then start being serious. Because if half of what you were saying was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. If you truly believe what you are saying about why people don't play the game now, go ask on reddit/youtube or even the general discussion section of the forum and see what players say. Do your research, don't just insist what you say must be true because you want to believe it.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeYou can allow "Domination" and "Conquest" to co-exist simply by adding a tick box to the queue up system, if you tick both you queue up for both.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeOf course, if you have a preference for one kind of game mode over another, that's fine, there's no objective right answer. But I think it's false to try to make out that somehow this is a game that is intrinsically meant to be that way. It is what it is; its identity is whatever the devs decide to make it.
The only real argument to be made here is retaining the MP community that's formed around the game we know. I think you could argue for a long time about whether it's the quality of the battle design or other facets of the game (including, obviously, affection for the setting) that's attracted and sustained the community, but I think two things that are hard to argue with are that (1) the MP community is small and hasn't experienced a huge amount of growth and (2) a huge amount of the time and love that the community has for the game has been spent trying to fix the current MP experience for themselves. So I am far from convinced that community affection is a strong argument for holding any aspect of the current design sacred.
Personally, my feeling is that what keeps me (and probably a decent number of others) coming back to the game is the units - their tactical variety and the quality of the models/sound/animations - and that any game mode that allows me to play around with that same huge toolbox of dinosaurs and daemons and skeletons is going to achieve a certain baseline level of fun not too far off what we have now. If anything, I feel like the more different modes I have to use that toolbox in, the fresher the MP experience will stay. I'd be fully in favour of CA developing as many types of maps and victory conditions as they can think of for people to play around with in lobbies... I just have what I feel is a realistic pessimism about the number of players available to support matchmaking in multiple modes.
As for the checkboxes - yes, that'd be better than having mutually exclusive modes. Even with AND as well as OR, though, you'd still be fragmenting the pool of people playing ranked. Would you and Lotus be playing with both boxes ticked? Will Feeder?
Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping
- Report
4 · 1Disagree 4AgreeThe core design of both TWWH multiplayer and Tabletop tournaments is that you deploy two armies on the battle field and they fight each other. The fundamental difference to many other games lies in the way that you prepare for a game. If you fight the battle with the units you have, then you need to carefully choose and optimize your army build, and I know that I and others enjoy this aspect of preparing for matchups, scenarios and opponents, and then executing your builds to get the most out of every unit to fulfill the role you selected them for. It's a very clean form of tactics that doesn't involve any economy, macro management or escalations. Only a carefully assembled force and a job to execute. This is what has won me over in the end.
The further you move into a reinforcement mechanics, the further you move away from this and into something more of a tug-of-war mechanics, adding more and more units to the board.
I don't mind this per se, I have enjoyed games that use such mechanics, notably Men of War 2 which was excellent. It's just that in TWWH I do appreciate the clean tactics of the army vs army format and the thought and execution that goes into it. That's my personal preference. I enjoy the format, and I would strongly dislike longer match length both for playing and for watching. I am not really entertained by 20-30 minute matches, I lack both the time and the patience...
Like you say, any change is a risk. In order to motivate a change I am asking the question: "which problem does this change solve"? When some then say reinforcements will reduce build roulette and make the game more enjoyable for new players I just disagree with these claims. I am yet to hear any suggestion of an implementation of reinforcements that actually achieves any of these goals. These are nice goals, I just don't think you achieve it this way, at least not with any efficiency.
The big flaws of the current QB that really needs to be changed is the lack of MP support. Lotus made a whole post about this: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/299858/what-needs-to-improve-for-mp . These are changes that will invariably help MP grow and thrive, and for all of these suggestions it's easy to see how adding support functions will fix current problems with the under-supported and under-developed game mode. I can't say the same for reinforcements, especially since it makes rather dramatic changes to the "spirit" of the current game mode, which is the clean tactical format of one army fighting another army on the field using the tools you decided to bring. That raises the stakes... you are removing one aspect of the game that is part of what it is (and hence part of what built the current competitive scene, despite QB being crap), in order to make it into something new, that may or may not be an improvement.
I see no problems trying out one or a few different game modes in parallel. I mean if you're confident that the addition of reinforcements will attract new players, then we should have no problem affording to allow players to queue up for one or the other or both game modes. If it turns out that one of these game modes are much less popular than the other and you run into problems finding matches because the players don't want to play it, then maybe that's the result you were looking for and you can take it from there.
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2AgreeIn terms of ways you could clean up and polish the current game mode, yes, I'd agree with plenty of Lotus' recommendations (if not all)... but I do think that if you're CA, looking at how to finally inject some life into your very small and stagnant MP scene, then the perspective of people like Lotus who seem to have not minded QB's serious flaws enough to stop them playing it is not the first one you go after. People like Lotus (and us) are not the audience CA has to convince.
Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping
- Report
3 · 1Disagree 3Agree- Report
3 · 1Disagree 3AgreeGet on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping
- Report
2 · 4Disagree 2AgreeIt's the second time we almost make it, but ok let's make sure to part in disagreement. I am still not even sure exactly what you disagree with, has to be something you think I imply?
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2Agree- "Pick the queue that's right for you!"
- "Let's split it, don't break the spirit!"
- "The mode doesn't matter, gives us prizes for ladder!"
- "The playerbase will get fat with end-game chat!"
- Report
0 · 4Disagree Agree- Report
2 · Disagree 2AgreeFor me, the 'essence' of the game will be preserved if I can load into a game, and field an army from a wide selection of weird and wonderful factions, that I can build from a wide selection of weird and wonderful units, against another player who can do the same. As long as I can do that, the exact framework of rules for the battle doesn't bother me overmuch (in fact, as I mentioned, I'd enjoy having lots of different frameworks to use my armies in). Your definition is more specific. But neither of us is talking about something objective, inherent to the game - a game isn't a fundamental particle, it's a toy, made by people, for people, and the only things about it that matter are the things people do with it. We are just talking about what we want. Let's be honest about that.
Get on, Kroq-Gar, we're going shopping
- Report
2 · 2Disagree 2Agree- Report
1 · 4Disagree 1AgreeIt's true that I didn't count lack of matchmaking as a core feature, but I think maybe neither do you? It's more of the result of a small player base than anything else, and you could easily add stricter matchmaking without that changing the over all archetype of the game. Same with match time, its not really archetype defining...
Objectives could be implemented in a way that is more or less interfering with the core game, but in the case of objectives the positive potential is very easy to appreciate. Basically all negative effects I can think of can be avoided if they implement it carefully, and it will be easy to tweak on the fly.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe stall-enthusiasts really need to smell the coffee and acknowledge that gaming's moving on.
- Report
3 · 2Disagree 3AgreeIt could even be done with how Leage of Legends did it in OCE and that is that certain que is open ony during peak hours. So you can have one que all the time and one with additional changes such as domiantion or normal que added during peak times.
- Report
2 · 4Disagree 2AgreeThis is the most democratic way in my humble opinion, 'coz god knows how many players out there haven't even heard of the balancing section in this forum (and how the more vocal users are deciding things on their own). If you are unaware of, tournaments held by others have always been like this. They made up new rules to prevent draw kiting and corner camping, and a bunch of other stuff that makes their game a lot different than those on the Quick Battle setting.
What annoys me the most is that certain people are always on the lookout to criticize the reinforcement mode BEFORE this mode has even been out....I mean, what are you afraid of really, why are you trying to shut down a thing before it is even launched?? We don't know anything about the reinforcement mode, it could be good or could be bad who knows.
All I'm saying is, give reinforcement a shot. And if possible, allow simultaneously toggling off the old-school static unit cap system. This dynamic new game mode might well be the key to revive this game.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreePS. most players posting here lately are competitive players.
- Report
2 · 1Disagree 2AgreeWhat I want to stress, with nothing but good intentions, is that the forum has only a limited amount of players constantly voicing out their opinions, and in no way should represent the majority of all the players out there. The multiplayer base is much larger than what you think, there are famous players playing in their own tournaments like Felkon or Turin, did you see them here? While you are always advocating for the old system, do you know how many COMPETITIVE players out there were so fed-up with this system that they have to create a whole new set of rules for their tournaments?
You are also not taking into account of the language barrier in this forum. When you are so convinced that you know most of the competitive players out there do you know that there are a gazillion other discords out there, representing vibrant communities in Russia, in France and other parts of the world that don't use English??
The world is much bigger than you think. All I am saying is that when you are constantly bashing on a new concept, do you really know how the majority of the competitive players think? Who are we to decide a new system is not the better way to play this game??
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeThe unit cap system is never meant to be objective. It's arbitrary and requires players' constant feedback to tell CA what they should do, and when their only source of communication is this section of the forum, problems arise.
From WH1 to WH2, people are still not satisfied with the unit caps on some of the rosters and are still constantly crying for changes in this forum. I see an opportunity, in the form of reinforcement, to change all this by tackling a structural defect in the game design.
- Report
1 · 1Disagree 1AgreeYou should know though that "we" are part of many discords and communities too, and that CA_Duck is reading and sometimes discussing topics on discord too, interacting directly with the comp scene, so the forums are by no means the only open channel...
It's true that there is way more bickering here though, in the discords its a bit more homogeneous population and its actively moderated, so discussions are usually pretty civil even if disagreement happens there too. People are more respectful and careful there, here its wild west. 😉 I am happy a handful comp players can still be bothered to post here.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAnd I don't really know how flexible your preferences are that you're describing. I suspect that like you I'm not afraid of a handful of reinforcements fundamentally changing or ruining the game experience.
That said, there is an extreme where TW with in-game production would become something more similar to a star craft or AOE. And in that scenario I wouldn't agree that simply having access to a brilliant array of factions and units would be sufficient to not have the game be ruined. Because churning out units in real time based on an economy is something a lot of other games do and TW has a distinct user base I suspect because it is not like so many other games and in part because it is more similar to tabletop which was a game about army building and then execution with what you bring and a lot of people loved tabletop.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIf so I do see how reinforcements is critical to how that works in DOW2.
Going to be very interesting to see what they end up with.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI think we have probably already seen everything that will be a part of Domination mode from the Survival battles. The ability to bring in reinforcements as well as the ability to tweak the unit stats like armour/WS/MA/etc.
The big unknowns imo are how are supplies generated, how do capture points function exactly, are capture points now the only win condition, can you also spend supplies from the survival battle like replenish vigour/healing/etc, where do reinforcements come in on the map.
- Report
0 · 2Disagree Agree- Report
1 · 4Disagree 1Agree