Is the current patch the best ever for viable build diversity?

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604

Interested in getting some opinions on this. It seems to me from the tournies/replays/etc that I have seen that build diversity this patch seems to be very high compared to previous patches on average. There seem to be large numbers of builds where cavalry are the main damage dealers, infantry/monstrous infantry are the main damage dealers, the lord/hero selection is spread across foot and mounts, lots of chariots to be seen, even plenty of monsters etc.

In general the vast majority of units on most rosters feel like they can perform so long as they are given the appropriate support/built around. No unit class seems to be excluded from the meta entirely from what I can tell which is quite a change from the meta of many past patches which has seen huge number of units be extremely rare picks. Builds feel like they have been pushed towards being more balanced (in terms of broader unit type selection in the same build) while also allowing the player to choose which type of units they will bring as elites or which type of units they will bring as filler.

Making builds now feels like you can almost start with any unit, add 2 of them to the build, and then so long as you structure the rest of your build to take advantage of that units strengths it will be viable. Even some units traditionally seen as "also-ran" or deemed to be struggling in the meta like Treekin/Pump Wagons/Grail Knights/Stormvermin/etc I have seen being used very effectively so long as built correctly around.

Thought it might be interesting to discuss as there is something of a narrative of being in an "Infantry meta" and while that is true or not depends a lot on the definitions, but at least empirically to me it seems like viable build diversity as well as viable units has never been higher even at the higher level of play (bugs etc aside).

It also seems relevant to any changes that may occur between unit interactions. If interactions are "fixed" and this leads to an on average decline in the variety of units picked as well as overall build diversity, would this be perceived as a positive outcome? Especially with game 3 coming and a seemingly strong push to give MP a bit of proper support, maximising viable build diversity for all players and especially newer ones seems like a very strong positive that should be pursued.

Kebab_man

there could be some truth to this but the fact is the main way this came about was because some chariots were turned into calvary killing and kills elite heavy infantry in prolonged melee

Totentanz777#2915

Hard disagree. Certain units on each roster dominate matchups to a huge extent. For example, Fay + double paladin is probably the best build versus almost every other faction. Other units are complete jokes such as the mid tier corpse cart or the grail relique. Skirmish cavalry is good in every single faction, so if you are trying to win you will almost always spam it. Not taking skirmish cavalry on factions that have it is almost always a sub optimal choice. Certain heroes are also much better than others. Dwarf engineer for example is far better than a Thane. In each lore certain spells are usually much better than other spells. I'd say about ~30% of all the units in this game are almost never a good idea to take.

Just because some youtuber casts a game where a unit pays for itself does not mean that unit is overall a good unit. If you play against people who are new to the game then yea, you can probably make almost any unit or lord or hero in the game look good. But veteran plays will likely know the weaknesses of units that have glaring issues. Cavalry still have massive problems getting stuck and getting countercharged. Certain lores like lore of life are leagues better than other lores. I think it is really funny that many people who cast games need to preface every cavalry interaction with "I know some people say cavalry is bad 100% of the time, but see they actually can value in this one scenario".

That's not even mentioning all the bugged and broken units like Malekith chariot, Skink Oracles, certain chariots(some OP af and some bugged to where they suck), AOE spells, etc. If you really are looking to optimize then certain units and abilities are just flat out better almost always.

Loupi#8512

Totentanz777 said:

I think it is really funny that many people who cast games need to preface every cavalry interaction with "I know some people say cavalry is bad 100% of the time, but see they actually can value in this one scenario".

yeah lol been hearing them say this in half the replays these days

ShevaTsar#8662

Faction diversity by itself is'nt even good. Just play a bingo, take a random tournament replay and go to a random spot of the videos. Chances are you'll get to a LZM game or a GS one.
That's all there is, LZM, GS, WE then the occasional SKV, TK, Bret, Chaos, Emp.
Going from there how do you want to argue for build diversity?

The best thing that can happen to this game is for it to end and WH3 to finally introduce novelty because balance and diversity is a fail in its current state on top of all the broken stuff.

Disposable Hero

To me it seems just a bit broken/random/unsettled right now with different rules every time to restrict broken stuff. If we would keep playing the game in the current state with one set of rules I am sure a new meta would be established rather quickly.

mightygloin#2446

Loupi_ said:

Totentanz777 said:

I think it is really funny that many people who cast games need to preface every cavalry interaction with "I know some people say cavalry is bad 100% of the time, but see they actually can value in this one scenario".

yeah lol been hearing them say this in half the replays these days

Because many people have started thinking that cav is useless especially after certain videos, as if diving headlong into full HP GW infantry was their only use. Yes people are people as usual.

Lotus_Moon#2452

Have not been my experience from wathcing or playing, seems one of the lowest diveristies out there, you constantly see similar armies of 2 types pretty much game in game out:

20 stack AND
Balanced approach with cav mixed as support and support ranged

I think you are simply confusing diversity with spread of troops in armies and likley the fact that a lot of amries are taking mixed troop picks you consider this diversity which it really is not.

I have seen all cav armies be fully non existant, heavy skirmish also dont recall seeing once other than with LZM

I think diversity is worst its ever been by a big margin.

Also hard disagree on what you wrote about unit building it feels more to me like "you start with 4infantry GW prefferably and add units to it" rather than start with 2 untis of anykind.


So to sumamrise it i think the diversity in armies used its worse that its ever been by a massive margin and simply the fact a lot of round armies are used its making it seems like its diversity where in fact its not, its pretty much infantry core as dominant aspect with ranged and cav being 2ndary unit choices, with sometimes a bit more focus on ranged and its those armies playing eachother over and over, worst diversity i seen since game 2 though not the worst type of armie, i think the armies used make for reasable games both to and against just sucks its 99% of the time that its what is being used

Ohh one part i do totally agree on is the foot/mount spread, i think that has been good for charecters only non broken charitos suffer here and to a degree dragons but meh who cares.

And totally think youtubers are goign way out of their way to show cav not sucking, which is not even the case cav does not suck its just worse than before in the aspect of mutual charges, its fine in other aspects, it does mean it cannot be used as effectively as before but youtubers are going way out of their way to show cav perfroming.

TheShiroOfDalton

Lotus_Moon said:

Have not been my experience from wathcing or playing, seems one of the lowest diveristies out there, you constantly see similar armies of 2 types pretty much game in game out:

20 stack AND
Balanced approach with cav mixed as support and support ranged

I think you are simply confusing diversity with spread of troops in armies and likley the fact that a lot of amries are taking mixed troop picks you consider this diversity which it really is not.

I have seen all cav armies be fully non existant, heavy skirmish also dont recall seeing once other than with LZM

I think diversity is worst its ever been by a big margin.

Also hard disagree on what you wrote about unit building it feels more to me like "you start with 4infantry GW prefferably and add units to it" rather than start with 2 untis of anykind.


So to sumamrise it i think the diversity in armies used its worse that its ever been by a massive margin and simply the fact a lot of round armies are used its making it seems like its diversity where in fact its not, its pretty much infantry core as dominant aspect with ranged and cav being 2ndary unit choices, with sometimes a bit more focus on ranged and its those armies playing eachother over and over, worst diversity i seen since game 2 though not the worst type of armie, i think the armies used make for reasable games both to and against just sucks its 99% of the time that its what is being used

Ohh one part i do totally agree on is the foot/mount spread, i think that has been good for charecters only non broken charitos suffer here and to a degree dragons but meh who cares.

If army building leans towards mixing troops rather than spamming a single type, that's indeed an indicator of increased variety because it means every unit has well-defined strengths and weaknesses rather than one type countering more types than counter it.

Lotus_Moon#2452

ShiroAmakusa75 said:

Lotus_Moon said:

Have not been my experience from wathcing or playing, seems one of the lowest diveristies out there, you constantly see similar armies of 2 types pretty much game in game out:

20 stack AND
Balanced approach with cav mixed as support and support ranged

I think you are simply confusing diversity with spread of troops in armies and likley the fact that a lot of amries are taking mixed troop picks you consider this diversity which it really is not.

I have seen all cav armies be fully non existant, heavy skirmish also dont recall seeing once other than with LZM

I think diversity is worst its ever been by a big margin.

Also hard disagree on what you wrote about unit building it feels more to me like "you start with 4infantry GW prefferably and add units to it" rather than start with 2 untis of anykind.


So to sumamrise it i think the diversity in armies used its worse that its ever been by a massive margin and simply the fact a lot of round armies are used its making it seems like its diversity where in fact its not, its pretty much infantry core as dominant aspect with ranged and cav being 2ndary unit choices, with sometimes a bit more focus on ranged and its those armies playing eachother over and over, worst diversity i seen since game 2 though not the worst type of armie, i think the armies used make for reasable games both to and against just sucks its 99% of the time that its what is being used

Ohh one part i do totally agree on is the foot/mount spread, i think that has been good for charecters only non broken charitos suffer here and to a degree dragons but meh who cares.

If army building leans towards mixing troops rather than spamming a single type, that's indeed an indicator of increased variety because it means every unit has well-defined strengths and weaknesses rather than one type countering more types than counter it.

Not if it means one is more viable than other, im all for balanced approach being very viable like it it is now, at same time i thin other approaches should be just as viable and i think the all cav is not at present.

Not sure why one cannot have defined strenght and weakness with one unit type army but can with a mixed army?

You are forgetting there are different catagories within one type, i DO NOT think all demi halberd army should coutner all, but demi halberd mixed with other cav is still an army that brings different type of untis from the same catagory and ofcourse they should have their strength and weknesses also which they do, im a strong believer all type of approaches should be equally viable within reason and i am happy the mixed arms is very viable now, i just think heavy skrimish or heavy cav one should also, in same way as is currently heavy ranged and heavy infantry just as viable as mixed apraoch.

So i feel curretly viable ones are

Mixed
Heavy static ranged
Heavy infantry focues

and non viable is

Heavy cav
Monster heavy

Semi viable is

Kite and thats largely due to LZM, without LZM less so

ThisIsREM

I cannot believe that we are really having this thread. The balance is the worst in recent memory as not only the DLC factions are OP (which is standard...) but also there are so many new things broken across factions that in theory weren't even touched, e.g. soulstealer massively benefiting from the AOE bug.

I have seen a significant drop in tournament quality with a lot less experienced players, and the few that are still playing are memeing and half trolling because playing serious (play to win) on this patch would require abusing broken crap that most players dont find fun.

Literally seen players with negative W/L on Enticity's ladder pre patch actually winning tournaments, which would be impossible back when top players took this game seriously.

If that wasn't enough, most tournaments have gimmicky rules, e.g. HW banned skink oracle, ALL AOE spells, and ALL missile spells due to bugs. People instead try to enjoy themselves with double Frost Wrym builds and you seriously consider this "diversity"?

Lotus_Moon#2452

ThisIsREM said:

I cannot believe that we are really having this thread. The balance is the worst in recent memory as not only the DLC factions are OP (which is standard...) but also there are so many new things broken across factions that in theory weren't even touched, e.g. soulstealer massively benefiting from the AOE bug.

I have seen a significant drop in tournament quality with a lot less experienced players, and the few that are still playing are memeing and half trolling because playing serious (play to win) on this patch would require abusing broken crap that most players dont find fun.

Literally seen players with negative W/L on Enticity's ladder pre patch actually winning tournaments, which would be impossible back when top players took this game seriously.

If that wasn't enough, most tournaments have gimmicky rules, e.g. HW banned skink oracle, ALL AOE spells, and ALL missile spells due to bugs. People instead try to enjoy themselves with double Frost Wrym builds and you seriously consider this "diversity"?

in before someone idiotic argument form somone about "different skills in this patch" lmao.

Diversity is worst its ever been it just suits the OP idea of how to enjoy the game so must be "best ever"

Totentanz777#2915

Yea there's a big difference between having fun by taking fun builds, which has always been possible, and having the most diverse competitive possibilities. Of course everyone should play this game to have fun, but don't get that confused with every unit being viable. This game is in the roughest spot in terms of viability I have ever seen and at this point I fear that trend will continue into the next game.

DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604

Sounds like not a lot of agreement then.

I wonder which way QB stats point in terms of pick rates, as that is the place bugs etc are most likely to be abused.

Lotus_Moon#2452

DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:

Sounds like not a lot of agreement then.

I wonder which way QB stats point in terms of pick rates, as that is the place bugs etc are most likely to be abused.

Cannot speak for others but for me its been

70% of people try to pick BM...i ask if they will use chariots they reply yes...i tell them if they mind not using BM as the chariots are broken OP than they usually are kind enough to swap to something else, some refuse or dont reply so they get WE all Air army that is the only viable way to not auto loose vs BM but is still hard to win with...sometimes he doesnt take chariots and i feel horrid...but than i remember if he just responded it all could be avoided.

See a lot of AOE magic that try to abuse the bugs also, from flock to final transmutation and soulsteeler armies, way more than previously

ThibixMagnus#8300

DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:

Sounds like not a lot of agreement then.

yeah I think it is really a matter of definition of diversity and creativity. I kind of agree that most units can be viable, but as lotus said, maybe less build types are viable. Maybe it is precisely the standardization of build types that enables all individual units to be viable, because the game is more predictable and offers less viable army types. Picking 1 wild, original unit is only a slight alteration that can always fit in, as long as the rest of the roster follows the rules. So in a way it can be seen as a good thing, but in my perspective not that much (though standardization can also mean less "army selection" wins). It boils down to subjective preference I guess between unit diversity and larger, overall playstyle diversity.

The clearest example for me is that, sure you can use grail knights instead of knights of the realm, but always as support to mass infantry and mass archers. If you want to role play for once with a bret army that is actually mostly knights, you need the grail knights to be able to charge the enemy frontline, as you lack the usual grinding power (fay blob + peasants + archers). If grail knights can't do that, and are contained to the role of flankers/counter-initiators like the rest of the cav, then you are forced into boring mass infantry and range and fey grind in most of the MUs. Small alterations are always possible with any single wild pick, but never a glorious Bret mass cav build.

edit: to be fair I remember icepower doing a full cav build with soulstealers dark elves vs coast recently so maybe we just need more time to know, and bugfixes (dunno at what level of competitiveness that was though)

griffithx#1314

DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:

Interested in getting some opinions on this. It seems to me from the tournies/replays/etc that I have seen that build diversity this patch seems to be very high compared to previous patches on average. There seem to be large numbers of builds where cavalry are the main damage dealers, infantry/monstrous infantry are the main damage dealers, the lord/hero selection is spread across foot and mounts, lots of chariots to be seen, even plenty of monsters etc.

In general the vast majority of units on most rosters feel like they can perform so long as they are given the appropriate support/built around. No unit class seems to be excluded from the meta entirely from what I can tell which is quite a change from the meta of many past patches which has seen huge number of units be extremely rare picks. Builds feel like they have been pushed towards being more balanced (in terms of broader unit type selection in the same build) while also allowing the player to choose which type of units they will bring as elites or which type of units they will bring as filler.

Making builds now feels like you can almost start with any unit, add 2 of them to the build, and then so long as you structure the rest of your build to take advantage of that units strengths it will be viable. Even some units traditionally seen as "also-ran" or deemed to be struggling in the meta like Treekin/Pump Wagons/Grail Knights/Stormvermin/etc I have seen being used very effectively so long as built correctly around.

Thought it might be interesting to discuss as there is something of a narrative of being in an "Infantry meta" and while that is true or not depends a lot on the definitions, but at least empirically to me it seems like viable build diversity as well as viable units has never been higher even at the higher level of play (bugs etc aside).

It also seems relevant to any changes that may occur between unit interactions. If interactions are "fixed" and this leads to an on average decline in the variety of units picked as well as overall build diversity, would this be perceived as a positive outcome? Especially with game 3 coming and a seemingly strong push to give MP a bit of proper support, maximising viable build diversity for all players and especially newer ones seems like a very strong positive that should be pursued.

Its funny I was just thinking the same thing earlier watching tournaments and then the cast of Khalida vs Imrik.
I think it is but this is sort of a trigger for anyone who is unhappy with any part of the game to see a post like this.
Imagine your fav unit got nerfs last patch or you are really frustrated with a bug or broken unit then the instant reaction is to say hell no it isn't.
At the same time if that same person had to in turn identify the patch that had the best build diversity so far it would probably be really hard to do that I think.

It could also be Lord diversity that is better than it has been in the past right now that is giving me that impression tho. Or it could also be that the recent previous patches all had more dominant top dog factions/strategy and it feels like while that might still be the case it isn't nearly as clear as it was during Greenskin reign, skaven reign wood elf reign and vamp coast reign.

ShevaTsar#8662

griffithxi said:

DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:

Interested in getting some opinions on this. It seems to me from the tournies/replays/etc that I have seen that build diversity this patch seems to be very high compared to previous patches on average. There seem to be large numbers of builds where cavalry are the main damage dealers, infantry/monstrous infantry are the main damage dealers, the lord/hero selection is spread across foot and mounts, lots of chariots to be seen, even plenty of monsters etc.

In general the vast majority of units on most rosters feel like they can perform so long as they are given the appropriate support/built around. No unit class seems to be excluded from the meta entirely from what I can tell which is quite a change from the meta of many past patches which has seen huge number of units be extremely rare picks. Builds feel like they have been pushed towards being more balanced (in terms of broader unit type selection in the same build) while also allowing the player to choose which type of units they will bring as elites or which type of units they will bring as filler.

Making builds now feels like you can almost start with any unit, add 2 of them to the build, and then so long as you structure the rest of your build to take advantage of that units strengths it will be viable. Even some units traditionally seen as "also-ran" or deemed to be struggling in the meta like Treekin/Pump Wagons/Grail Knights/Stormvermin/etc I have seen being used very effectively so long as built correctly around.

Thought it might be interesting to discuss as there is something of a narrative of being in an "Infantry meta" and while that is true or not depends a lot on the definitions, but at least empirically to me it seems like viable build diversity as well as viable units has never been higher even at the higher level of play (bugs etc aside).

It also seems relevant to any changes that may occur between unit interactions. If interactions are "fixed" and this leads to an on average decline in the variety of units picked as well as overall build diversity, would this be perceived as a positive outcome? Especially with game 3 coming and a seemingly strong push to give MP a bit of proper support, maximising viable build diversity for all players and especially newer ones seems like a very strong positive that should be pursued.

Its funny I was just thinking the same thing earlier watching tournaments and then the cast of Khalida vs Imrik.
I think it is but this is sort of a trigger for anyone who is unhappy with any part of the game to see a post like this.
Imagine your fav unit got nerfs last patch or you are really frustrated with a bug or broken unit then the instant reaction is to say hell no it isn't.
At the same time if that same person had to in turn identify the patch that had the best build diversity so far it would probably be really hard to do that I think.

It could also be Lord diversity that is better than it has been in the past right now that is giving me that impression tho. Or it could also be that the recent previous patches all had more dominant top dog factions/strategy and it feels like while that might still be the case it isn't nearly as clear as it was during Greenskin reign, skaven reign wood elf reign and vamp coast reign.

There are objectives criteras that this patch is the worst for as long as memory serves right : the disgusting amount of game breaking bugs.
Playstyle flavour doesn't even intervene here.

BovineKing

One of the most recent examples of cavalry not being useless was one of Turins videos.

But I would point out it was 4 knights of blazing sun vs a mostly dryad build so it comes across as rather niche use on top of being very one sided.

Lotus_Moon#2452

BovineKing said:

One of the most recent examples of cavalry not being useless was one of Turins videos.

But I would point out it was 4 knights of blazing sun vs a mostly dryad build so it comes across as rather niche use on top of being very one sided.

Ahh a 1200g cav unit with magic resit and faming attakcs vs 550g non ap infantry, with magical attacks and weak to fire....gosh i hope dryads dont win this one or it be beyond horrid state of the game.

Loupi#8512

BovineKing said:

One of the most recent examples of cavalry not being useless was one of Turins videos.

But I would point out it was 4 knights of blazing sun vs a mostly dryad build so it comes across as rather niche use on top of being very one sided.

I hope this is clever sarcasm

AfghanMamba

We're all working on anecdotal evidence but from what I've seen there isn't much build diversity. Majority of the armies I come across are cheap and wide 18-20 stacks. The armies themselves have a fairly diverse array of units but I wouldn't consider that a diverse meta since a variety of builds and playstyles within and across factions is what I'd use as a measure of the overall meta's diversity. And I'm seeing hardly any diversity.

AfghanMamba

Totentanz777 said:

I think it is really funny that many people who cast games need to preface every cavalry interaction with "I know some people say cavalry is bad 100% of the time, but see they actually can value in this one scenario".

Yeah it's been pretty funny seeing this. Then again youtube comments can be pretty stupid so I'm guessing they're seeing people be legitimately hyperbolic about the state of cavalry so that could be motivating them.

BovineKing

Loupi_ said:

I hope this is clever sarcasm

I mean I thought it was obvious.

Loupi#8512

BovineKing said:

Loupi_ said:

I hope this is clever sarcasm

I mean I thought it was obvious.

thank sigmar, you never know

Zeblasky

Lotus_Moon said:

DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:

Sounds like not a lot of agreement then.

I wonder which way QB stats point in terms of pick rates, as that is the place bugs etc are most likely to be abused.

Cannot speak for others but for me its been

70% of people try to pick BM...i ask if they will use chariots they reply yes...i tell them if they mind not using BM as the chariots are broken OP than they usually are kind enough to swap to something else, some refuse or dont reply so they get WE all Air army that is the only viable way to not auto loose vs BM but is still hard to win with...sometimes he doesnt take chariots and i feel horrid...but than i remember if he just responded it all could be avoided.

See a lot of AOE magic that try to abuse the bugs also, from flock to final transmutation and soulsteeler armies, way more than previously

By the way, try almost full on cav army with 4 glade Riders, 1 SotT and Sisters on a dragon. Was almost an auto win prepatch, still kinda is (it's harder now, but still feels like 70/30), BM have no real counters to this kind of kite thanks to Sisters solo countering Cygors and chariots.

Zeblasky

ThibixMagnus said:

edit: to be fair I remember icepower doing a full cav build with soulstealers dark elves vs coast recently so maybe we just need more time to know, and bugfixes (dunno at what level of competitiveness that was though)

I remember that build, it's simply quite an old one, and I'm not sure it worked well even back then.

eumaies#1128

WE have some of the strongest army spam right now. But in the last faction war Turin just cast dacder pulled off a stream of wins with small elite builds and even including wild riders a lot.

Largely I find elite cav is more of a supporting reactive force now, similar to how elite inf has to be used quite cautiously. The balance may be off but there’s still a role for it.

Lotus_Moon#2452

Zeblasky said:

Lotus_Moon said:

DaBoyzAreBackInTown said:

Sounds like not a lot of agreement then.

I wonder which way QB stats point in terms of pick rates, as that is the place bugs etc are most likely to be abused.

Cannot speak for others but for me its been

70% of people try to pick BM...i ask if they will use chariots they reply yes...i tell them if they mind not using BM as the chariots are broken OP than they usually are kind enough to swap to something else, some refuse or dont reply so they get WE all Air army that is the only viable way to not auto loose vs BM but is still hard to win with...sometimes he doesnt take chariots and i feel horrid...but than i remember if he just responded it all could be avoided.

See a lot of AOE magic that try to abuse the bugs also, from flock to final transmutation and soulsteeler armies, way more than previously

By the way, try almost full on cav army with 4 glade Riders, 1 SotT and Sisters on a dragon. Was almost an auto win prepatch, still kinda is (it's harder now, but still feels like 70/30), BM have no real counters to this kind of kite thanks to Sisters solo countering Cygors and chariots.

Sorry but thats not the case, i played vs that build with my Anti WE BM build and was always very solid vs some top WE players. It was only an auto win vs people who are not familiar with how WE must play this match up.

The match up is quite even now and was fine before, if you exclude the broken chariots, with btoken chariots its near auto win, all you do is take dogs and harpies to make unit stuck in combat while chariots come and clean it up.