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.
2 ·
Comments
- Report
1 · Disagree 1AgreeJust 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.
- Report
5 · 2Disagree 5Agree- Report
9 · Disagree 9AgreeThat'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.
- Report
0 · 4Disagree Agree- Report
4 · Disagree 4Agree- Report
6 · 5Disagree 6Agree20 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.
- Report
6 · 4Disagree 6Agree- Report
1 · 5Disagree 1AgreeNot 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
- Report
0 · 2Disagree AgreeI 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"?
- Report
12 · Disagree 12AgreeDiversity is worst its ever been it just suits the OP idea of how to enjoy the game so must be "best ever"
- Report
4 · 1Disagree 4Agree- Report
4 · 1Disagree 4AgreeI wonder which way QB stats point in terms of pick rates, as that is the place bugs etc are most likely to be abused.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree70% 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
- Report
5 · 1Disagree 5AgreeThe 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
soulstealersdark elves vs coast recently so maybe we just need more time to know, and bugfixes (dunno at what level of competitiveness that was though)- Report
4 · Disagree 4AgreeI 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.
- Report
0 · 1Disagree AgreePlaystyle flavour doesn't even intervene here.
- Report
1 · 2Disagree 1AgreeBut 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.
- Report
1 · 3Disagree 1Agree- Report
9 · 1Disagree 9Agree- Report
8 · 1Disagree 8Agree- Report
4 · 1Disagree 4Agree- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree- Report
2 · Disagree 2Agree- Report
3 · Disagree 3Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeLargely 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.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe 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.
- Report
1 · Disagree 1Agree